Emma E. v. Superior Court CA2/5

Filed 3/14/16 Emma E. v. Superior Court CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

EMMA E., No. B269103

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. CK86615)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

PETITION from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Petition denied. Charles Aghoian and Marisa Ezeolu for Petitioner. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Emma E., the mother, has filed a California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 mandate petition challenging an order setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26. The juvenile court expressly stated that the permanent plan to be considered was a guardianship arrangement not adoption. The mother raises two issues in her writ petition. First, she argues the there was an insufficient showing of substantial detriment. Second, she argues insufficient reunification services were provided. First, the juvenile court found there was a substantial risk of detriment to the well- being of the child, Christopher R., if he were returned to the mother’s custody. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(1), (3); Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704-705.) The mother challenges this finding. We review the juvenile court’s substantial detriment findings for substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763; In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s substantial detriment finding. The child was removed from the mother’s custody because of her involuntary hospitalization due to her failure to take her psychotropic medication. In the past, the mother had displayed a history of self-mutilation, suicidal and homicidal ideation. The mother was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder with psychosis and post- traumatic stress syndrome. During the reunification period, the mother was prescribed antipsychotic drugs. At the time of the hearing where the substantial detriment finding was returned, the mother had just enrolled in mental health services. Further, the mother had, in the past, threatened to kill the child and herself. The mother’s psychologist, Dr. Maher M. Selim, wrote, “Needles[s] to say, that this patient needs long-term psychotherapy.” Additionally, there was evidence the child became upset while with the mother. For example, on June 11, 2015, while they were riding together on their bicycles to the grocery store, the child became angry. The child then began peddling faster and rode into the street. The child explained what happened: “I rode onto the street and got in