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

Filed 9/3/15 P.C. 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 CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA A145275 COUNTY, (Alameda County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. OJ13021302) ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Mother seeks writ relief directing the trial court to reverse its order terminating child reunification services, or alternatively, staying the trial court’s permanency planning hearing. We deny the writ, as substantial evidence shows return of the child would present a substantial risk of detriment. BACKGROUND In July 2013, mother phoned police to complain she could no longer care for her children D.C. (born 2010) and N.C. (born 2013). When her initial call resulted in little action, she called again, threatening to leave her children in a hallway and stating her son D.C. was bleeding. This was at least the seventh time since 2011 mother had asked police to step in and detain her children. Because of the threat, the police obliged. They also arrested mother for child endangerment.

1

The Alameda County Social Services Agency filed a dependency petition on behalf of N.C. N.C. was detained and began living with foster parents. A 2011 dependency petition on behalf of D.C. had already been filed; it eventually resulted in dismissal with D.C.’s father taking custody. Only N.C.’s status is at issue on appeal. Mother, a single parent who has never married, struggles with mental health issues, namely anxiety and depression. She also suffers from impaired “cognitive functioning” that compromises her ability to understand the consequences of her actions, an impairment also described in agency reports as “mild mental retardation.” She is easily overwhelmed by the demands of ordinary life. Psychotropic medications were recommended to her near the outset of the dependency proceeding, but she refused them. Until mother made progress addressing her mental health issues, visits with N.C. would go forward but would remain supervised at a facility called The Gathering Place. A year after N.C.’s detention, mother gave birth to a third child, T.C., in August 2014 with a third father. In response to an unsubstantiated report of abuse or neglect of T.C., mother began receiving informal family maintenance services for T.C. After the pregnancy, mother cancelled numerous supervised visits with N.C. at The Gathering Place facility in Pleasanton during August and September. Once because she was not feeling well, twice because she did not have diapers for T.C., and twice for a family emergency. She had visits scheduled three days a week, but she decided she no longer wished to travel to The Gathering Place on Wednesdays because it was too hard to make the trip on public transit with her infant. Ultimately, mother wanted visits closer to her home. She was also upset people in her life were not providing her with the support and respite she needed. In October 2014, mother admitted to using, as a babysitter, a woman she recently met who she knew had previous history with Child Protective Services.