R.F. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 1/28/16 R.F. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

R.F., Petitioner, v. A146187 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. 3632-DEP, 3633-DEP, Respondent; 3634-DEP, 4628-DEP) SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Real Party in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 The four children of petitioner R.F. (Mother), A.G., 13 years old, G.G., 11 years old, A.F., four years old, and K.G., 17 months old, were the subjects of amended dependency petitions, filed August 31, 2015. The petitions alleged Mother was unable to protect or supervise the children, was involved in substance abuse, had failed to meet the children’s basic needs, and had exposed them to serious domestic violence. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 300, subd. (b).) Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the children were found to be dependents of the court, and reunification services to Mother were

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.

denied under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) (hereafter section 361.5(b)(13)).3 A permanency planning hearing under section 366.26 was scheduled for January 7, 2016. On October 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 denying reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that she was involved in substance abuse, the court’s dispositional order removing the children, and its denial of reunification services were not supported by substantial evidence. She also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in concluding the denial of reunification services was in the children’s best interests. By order of November 24, 2015, we stayed the permanency planning hearing pending ruling in this matter. The factual circumstances underlying Mother’s claims of error are known to the parties and are summarized in the “Opposition and Response to Mother’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ,” filed by the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Agency). Mother’s Substance Abuse Initially, we note that Mother’s petition does not present a cognizable challenge to the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction. She challenges only the jurisdictional findings concerning her substance abuse, while conceding the evidentiary support for the allegations of a filthy home and exposure to domestic violence. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in asserting jurisdiction. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491–1492 [jurisdiction established so long as one ground for jurisdiction is supported by substantial evidence].) We nonetheless exercise our discretion to address Mother’s challenge to the court’s finding of substance abuse because it is relevant to the court’s denial of reunification services and its dispositional order. (See In re M.W. (2015)