In re D.G. CA1/5

Filed 6/30/16 In re D.G. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re D.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A147242 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. Nos. J14-00975 Plaintiff and Respondent, J14-00976, J14-00977)

v.

A.G.,

Defendant and Appellant. _____________________________________/

The juvenile court held a combined Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,1 and permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26, .26 hearing). The court denied A.G.’s (mother) section 388 petitions and ordered guardianship for three of mother’s children, D.G., D.L., Jr., and R.H. (collectively, children). Mother appeals, contending the court erred by denying the section 388 petitions. We disagree and affirm.

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide a brief outline of the factual and procedural background and incorporate by reference our opinion denying mother’s petition for writ relief (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4)(B)). (A.G. v. Superior Court (Oct. 2, 2015, A145817).) Detention, Jurisdiction, Disposition, and Six-Month Review D.G. was born in 1999. D.L., Jr. was born in 2004. R.H. was born in 2013. In September 2014, the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed petitions alleging the children came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) because: (1) they witnessed mother being slapped and strangled by various male companions; and (2) R.H. missed numerous “well child checks” and was “not current on his immunizations.” Mother had a lengthy criminal history — including arrests for selling and transporting narcotics — and 23 prior child welfare referrals from 1998 to 2014. The court detained the children and ordered supervised visitation for mother. Mother submitted to the allegations the children witnessed domestic violence, placing them at risk of harm. (§ 300, subds. (b), (j)). At the conclusion of a contested dispositional hearing, the court determined the children came within section 300, removed them from mother’s custody, and ordered reunification services. Among other things, the court ordered mother to submit to drug and alcohol testing and to complete an outpatient substance abuse treatment program upon a positive drug test. At the conclusion of the six-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services and set a .26 hearing for November 2015. The court noted mother “engaged in no services” except visitation and “was actively engaged in drug use and abuse.” This court denied mother’s petition for writ relief. (A.G. v. Superior Court (Oct. 2, 2015, A145817).) Combined Section 388 and .26 Hearing In October 2015 — almost one year after the children were removed — mother filed three identical section 388 petitions (form JV-180) seeking additional reunification services and “expanded visits” so the children could “be returned to mother’s care.”