Maria S. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1

Filed 1/14/15 Maria S. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MARIA S., Petitioner, v. A143380 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. 4227-DEP, 4228-DEP Respondent; & 4229-DEP) SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Real Party in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 The three children of petitioner Maria S. (Mother), J.F., then four years old, R.F., 10 years old, and L.F., 14 years old, were the subject of amended dependency petitions, filed July 19, 2013. The petitions alleged Mother failed to provide the children with adequate care, supervision, and a safe living environment as a result of marijuana and methamphetamine use in the home, maintenance of a filthy home with little or no food, Mother’s own drug use, and exposure to domestic violence between Mother and the presumed father of the two younger children. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 300, subd. (b).)

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(1), (3). 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

All three children were found to be dependents of the court, and Mother was granted reunification services.3 Following a contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court entered orders finding that reasonable services had been provided, terminating reunification services to Mother, and finding no substantial probability the children would be returned to Mother within the remaining two months of the 18-month services period if reunification services were continued. The court found the oldest child, L.F., not to be a proper subject for adoption and ordered a permanent plan of long-term foster care. As to the two younger children, the court scheduled a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26. On December 2, 2014, Mother filed a petition for an extraordinary writ in this court, seeking an order directing the juvenile court to vacate its order terminating reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing and to provide her further reunification services. Mother contends the juvenile court’s findings that the reunification services provided to her were adequate and there was no substantial probability the children would have been returned to her during the 18-month services period are not supported by substantial evidence. The factual circumstances underlying Mother’s claims of error are known to the parties and are summarized in “Sonoma County Human Services Department’s Opposition to Mother’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ and Objection to Request for Stay,” filed in this matter on December 17, 2014. A. Motion to Dismiss The Sonoma County Human Services Department (Agency) has filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s petition with respect to the oldest child, L.F. As noted above, the juvenile court scheduled a permanency planning hearing for the two younger children, but it declined to conduct a permanency planning hearing for L.F. and adopted a permanent plan of a long-term foster care.