In re Mia G. CA2/6

Filed 1/29/15 In re Mia G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In the Matter of MIA G., A Minor. 2d Civil No. B259434 ___________________________________ (Super. Ct. No. 1435738) (Santa Barbara County) ALICIA T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

Alicia T., the biological mother of Mia G. (age 11), seeks extraordinary writ relief from an October 9, 2014 order terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanent placement hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 We deny the writ petition because mother failed to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Factual and Procedural History In 2013 Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) placed Mia and her half-sister Kylie H. in protective custody after mother severely beat Mia. On June 18, 2013, dependency petitions were filed for serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (a)), failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)), serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd. (c)), no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)), and sibling abuse (§ 300, subd (j)). Mia’s biological father, Cark K, lived in Hawaii. Before the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Mia's stepfather Kyle H., filed a Statement Regarding Parentage (JV-505) alleging that he lived with Mia and held her out as his daughter. The biological father, Carl, filed a Statement Regarding Paternity for presumed father status based on a 2004 Hawaii paternity judgment and declaration that he had held Mia out as his daughter, received her into his home, and supported Mia before she moved to California. The trial court sustained the petitions, determined that the Hawaii judgment of paternity rebutted any statutory presumption of paternity claimed by stepfather, and found that Carl W. was Mia's presumed father.2 Although CWS recommended that services be bypassed for mother (§ 361.5), the trial court ordered reunification services and placed Mia with her maternal aunt. Mother's case plan included a psychological evaluation, counseling on domestic violence and single parenting issues, parenting classes, substance abuse services with random drug testing, and therapeutic visits at CALM Home Services. The family therapist reported that family sessions between Mia and mother was detrimental to Mia’s mental health. This was confirmed by CASA Worker Geraldine