P.People v. Super. Ct. CA1/1

Filed 6/16/15 P.P. 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 CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

P. P., Petitioner, v. A144603 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Nos. JD13-3223, JD13- Respondent; 3223A) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 The two children of petitioner P.P. (Mother), M.P., then seven years old, and J.P., four years old, were the subject of dependency petitions, filed August 19, 2013. The petitions alleged Mother was unable to protect or supervise the children, had an extensive history of substance abuse, and was not capable of meeting the children’s special needs. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 300, subds. (a), (b).) The children were found to be dependents of the court, and reunification services were granted to Mother and the presumed father. Following a combined 12- and 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court entered an

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.

order terminating reunification services and finding that return of the children to the parents would create a substantial risk of detriment. A hearing pursuant to section 366.26 was scheduled for July 8, 2015. On April 27, 2015, Mother filed a petition for an extraordinary writ in this court, seeking an order directing the juvenile court to return the children to her or, alternatively, vacate its order terminating reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends the juvenile court’s finding that return of the children presents a substantial risk of detriment to them was not supported by substantial evidence. The factual circumstances underlying Mother’s claims of error are known to the parties and are summarized in Mother’s petition. Substantial Risk of Detriment At an 18-month hearing, “[a]fter considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) “A substantial risk of detriment means that ‘returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child’s physical or emotional well- being.’ ” (In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960, 965.) In determining detriment, the juvenile court “can consider, among other things: . . . properly supported psychological evaluations which indicate return to a parent would be detrimental to a minor [citations]; whether the natural parent maintains relationships with persons whose presence will be detrimental to the ward [citation]; instability in terms of management of a home [citation]; . . . limited awareness by a parent of the emotional and physical needs of a child [citation]; failure of a minor to have lived with the natural parent for long periods of time [citation]; and the manner in which the parent has conducted himself or herself in relation to a minor in the past.” (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704–705.) We review a juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence. (In re B.S. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 246, 252.)