In re E.M. CA1/5

Filed 12/15/20 In re E.M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

C.H. A161081

Petitioner, v. (Contra Costa County THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Super. Ct. No. J20-00332) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Real Party in Interest.

After testing positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines at birth, E.M. (the child) was removed from C.H. (mother). Mother challenges the juvenile court’s order denying her family reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b); id., § 366.26.)1 Because we conclude mother’s challenge lacks merit, we deny her writ petition.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code. 1

BACKGROUND A. Generally, when a child is removed from a parent’s custody, the juvenile court must order the provision of services to facilitate family reunification. (See § 361.5, subd. (a)(1); D.F. v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 664, 669 (D.F.).) However, in certain circumstances, family reunification services may be fruitless. (See § 361.5, subd. (b); D.F., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 669.) As relevant here, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), provides that reunification services need not be provided if, in the case of a sibling, the court previously terminated reunification services because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling, and the court finds that the parent “has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling.” Under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11), reunification services need not be provided if the parental rights of the parent with respect to a sibling have been terminated, and the court finds that “this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling.” Finally, reunification services are unnecessary under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), if the court finds that “the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court’s attention, or has failed or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol treatment described in the case plan . . . on at least two prior occasions, even though the programs identified were available and accessible.” To conclude that any of these exceptions are