In re Ts.M. CA2/8

Filed 10/21/15 In re Ts.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re Ts.M. et al., Persons Coming Under B259927 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK90911)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******

Mother C.M. appeals from the court’s order denying her petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388.1 Mother requested that the court return the children to her home, or in the alternative, that the court reinstate her reunification services. After she filed her notice of appeal, we took judicial notice of a minute order showing the court had granted a second section 388 petition by mother. The court has reinstated mother’s reunification services, increased her visitation, and given Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) discretion to place the children with mother. She nevertheless contends the court erred when it did not return the children to her when she filed the first section 388 petition. We disagree and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Mother gave birth to Ts.M. and Ta.M. in September 2013. She did not identify their father. She had eight older children, all with open dependency cases. Mother had not reunified with these children and had monitored visitation with them at the time of Ts.M. and Ta.M.’s birth. These eight other children are not the subjects of this appeal. In November 2012, mother enrolled in an in-patient drug treatment program as part of her reunification efforts in the siblings’ cases. She was unable to stay clean and began testing “dirty” in January 2013, after which the program expelled her. She found out she was pregnant in March 2013 and admitted using while she was pregnant. She used through April 2013 until she asked the program to readmit her in May 2013. After testing clean on all of her May tests, the program readmitted her in June 2013. Between June 25 and October 3, 2013, mother tested negative for drugs on all but one of her tests, including when she was tested at Ts.M. and Ta.M.’s birth in September. She tested positive for codeine once because a doctor prescribed her Tylenol with codeine. The court sustained a petition under section 300, subdivision (b) alleging mother had a history of illicit drug use, had used while pregnant with Ts.M. and Ta.M., and had eight other children who had received permanent placement services due to her illicit