In re M.A. CA1/3

Filed 5/27/15 In re M.A. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re M.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, A143370 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JD13-3310) CHERRY N., Defendant and Appellant.

Mother appeals the termination of reunification services at the six-month review hearing regarding her then two-year-old daughter. She asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that there was no substantial probability that child may be returned to her within the time remaining in the statutory reunification period. We affirm. Factual and Procedural History On November 18, 2013, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the agency) filed a petition alleging, among other things, the daughter was at risk of harm under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (b), due to her mother and father abusing drugs. The petition alleged further that mother had mental health problems, was homeless and unable to provide for her daughter.

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

1

At the November 19, 2013 detention hearing, the daughter was detained and placed with a relative, who also has custody of mother’s six-year-old daughter. At the February 21, 2014 contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother and father submitted to jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b). The court sustained the allegations regarding the parents’ substance abuse, mother’s mental health problems, her homelessness and inability to provide for her daughter. Mother and father were granted reunification services. Mother was ordered to participate in counseling, parenting education and complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations for treatment and was granted supervised visits. On August 1, 2014, the agency filed a status report in advance of the six-month review hearing recommending termination of services. The agency reported that mother remained homeless and had not used the housing service referrals offered to her by the agency. She had scheduled a number of therapy appointments but had failed to attend the appointments. Mother did not attend parenting classes arranged by the agency, or complete a substance abuse assessment. Mother also failed to maintain regular contact with the child. The social worker had been unable to observe mother with the child because mother had not set up any visits at the visitation center. Mother had visited with her daughter just twice in the five and half months since disposition—both times supervised by the relative caregiver in the relative’s home. A contested six-month review hearing was held on September 29, 2014. The social worker testified mother had not begun counseling or completed a substance abuse assessment. Mother had informed her that she started a parenting program a week before the hearing but the social worker had no evidence to support mother’s claim. Mother began visiting her daughter after the status report was issued and had regularly visited the child twice a week for three hours each visit. Mother acknowledged that she did not apply herself with respect to completing her case plan, although she made numerous attempts to start various programs. She explained that she struggled with homelessness which made it difficult for her to comply with