M.M. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 4/10/15 M.M. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

M.M., Petitioner, A144263 v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY (San Francisco City & County AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Super. Ct. No. JD1330443A) Respondent; SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

M.M. (mother) petitions for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 regarding her son, Y.M. Mother argues the juvenile court erred by finding that the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) provided her with reasonable reunification services. Specifically, she contends the Agency did not do enough to facilitate her ability to visit Y.M. during a three-month period earlier in the proceedings. We deny the petition. BACKGROUND In February 2013, the Agency filed a petition alleging that Y.M. (age 9), his older brother, J.M. (age 16), and three of his younger siblings were subject to the juvenile

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

court’s jurisdiction under section 300. The petition alleged that mother failed to protect J.M. against physical abuse by father, who, after accusing J.M. of stealing money, threw a knife at him, slammed his head against a wall, and further assaulted him. The petition also alleged that Y.M. and his younger siblings were at risk of physical and emotional harm due to J.M.’s abuse. A detention report filed by the Agency later that month noted that the family had been involved in 19 previous referrals and 11 prior dependency cases and that two older daughters refused to return home in 2010 and 2011 upon the closure of their cases. At the detention hearing, the court ordered all five children to be detained in out-of-home placements pending a further hearing. In a May addendum report to its March 2013 jurisdiction/disposition report, the Agency stated it had discovered mother coached Y.M. to fabricate a story to cover up the assault. Although the Agency did not believe continued out-of-home placement was warranted for Y.M. and his younger siblings, it recommended the parents complete their reunification requirements to “give them the skill set . . . to better deal with their children’s quest for independence” and prevent “the use of physical force to discipline . . . their . . . children as they enter their teenage years.” Under the reunification requirements specified in the jurisdiction/disposition report, the parents were ordered to successfully complete anger management therapy to help them understand how their conduct led to Agency involvement and removal of their children; complete parenting education focusing on reasonable expectations of a teenager and parenting without use of physical discipline; and undergo a psychological evaluation and accept recommended treatment to address their ability to adequately protect and parent the children. They were also ordered to meet the case plan service objectives such as interacting with the children without physical abuse or harm and demonstrating an ability to consistently, appropriately, and adequately parent the children. The juvenile court adopted the Agency’s recommendations at the May 2013 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. The court sustained jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) as to all the children, continued J.M.’s placement in