Tiffany F. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 9/12/16 Tiffany F. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TIFFANY F., F073854 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. Nos. 517233, 517234, v. 517235, 517232)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Parties in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. TIFFANY F., in pro. per. for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, county Counsel, and Maria E. Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

Tiffany F. (mother) in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing as to her four minor children. She contends the court relied on misinformation in ruling and must therefore return the children to her custody or reinstate reunification services. We deny the petition.2 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In March 2015, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took mother’s then 10- and seven-year-old sons and eight-year-old twin daughters into protective custody after mother refused to separate herself and the children from her then- boyfriend Marcos B. For three years prior to taking this step, the agency had received reports that mother and Marcos used drugs and that Marcos hit and verbally abused the children and engaged in domestic violence with mother. One of the daughters stated that mother had not eaten or slept in several days out of fear that Marcos would hurt them during the night. In June 2015, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered them removed from parental custody. The court denied the children’s father reunification services and ordered mother to participate in parenting instruction and mental health, domestic violence and substance abuse services. The court also ordered that the children were not to have any contact with Marcos. The agency placed the children together in foster care. Mother did not participate in reunification services and continued to engage in domestic violence with Marcos, who drank excessively and used drugs. In February