In re L.M. CA6

Filed 5/11/16 In re L.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re L.M., a Person Coming Under the H042693 & H042570 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 112-JD21049)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.M. is the mother of L.M., who is five years old. This case consists of two consolidated appeals. In each appeal, Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred in summarily denying her two Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 petitions to expand her visitation with L.M. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE L.M. has been the subject of two separate dependency cases. The first occurred in February 2012, when L.M. was one-year old. Mother was referred to the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) after she brought 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

L.M. to a drug dealer’s house to use drugs. The Department’s investigation revealed that Mother had a significant drug abuse history that involved cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamines and heroin. As of February 2012, there had already been 10 prior referrals to the Department regarding Mother. As a result of voluntary services offered by the Department, Mother had already participated in two inpatient drug treatment programs. On March 7, 2012, L.M. was adjudged a dependent of the court and Mother was ordered to participate in family maintenance services that included substance abuse and mental health treatment as well as a domestic violence women’s support group. At the section 364 review hearing on June 12, 2013, the Department recommended that the case be dismissed. Mother had completed her case plan services. The court dismissed the dependency action, and awarded full legal and physical custody of L.M. to Mother. The second dependency petition was filed on July 24, 2014, alleging that Mother had relapsed and was again using methamphetamines. The petition also alleged that there was domestic violence between Mother and her new husband, and that L.M. had been exposed to it. On September 17, 2014, the court sustained the petition, and ordered family reunification services for both parents. Mother’s plan included counseling, drug testing and substance abuse treatment. Mother was to have unsupervised visitation with L.M. a minimum of one day a week. Mother relapsed and began using drugs prior to her October 7, 2014 visit with L.M. After a number of positive drug tests, the Department filed a section 388 petition to change Mother’s visitation to supervised. The Department’s report prepared in support of the section 388 petition stated that although L.M. enjoyed visits with her Mother, the visits left L.M. emotionally drained and exhausted.