In re H.P. CA1/4

Filed 3/16/21 In re H.P. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re H.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159184 v. (Contra Costa County A.W., Super. Ct. No. J17-00914) Defendant and Appellant.

Mother appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services as to her now 16-year-old son (H.P.) and selecting a permanent plan of foster care. This is mother’s third appearance before this court in related dependency proceedings and as with her prior submissions, her appellate briefing largely fails to comply with the rules of court. More importantly, mother fails to address the relevant order in her opening brief and asserts her grounds for reversal for the first time only in her reply brief. While the matter could be disposed of on these grounds, because of the significant interests of the family in these proceedings, we have attempted to respond to mother’s concerns insofar as we are able to understand them.

1

Background In August 2017, H.P. and his two siblings were removed from his mother’s care and a petition filed by Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the bureau) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), and (j).1 In March 2018, the court sustained the allegations of the petition. The dependency petition involving the older brother was dismissed after the jurisdictional hearing. (In re K.P. (A155450, Jan. 21, 2020) [nonpub. opn.].) At the dispositional hearing, H.P.’s placement in foster care was continued. The court ordered that visitation between mother and H.P. occur in a therapeutic setting and directed the bureau to provide mother with reunification services. Shortly after entry of the dispositional order, the bureau filed a section 388 petition requesting that the court terminate visitation between mother and H.P. The bureau reported that H.P. did not want to see his mother and that he was experiencing severe anxiety as a result of the proposed visitation. On October 5, 2018, the court granted the bureau’s motion to deny visitation. The six-month review hearing was commenced in September 2019 for both H.P. and his younger sister.2 In advance of the hearing, the social worker submitted a status-review report recommending termination of reunification services and adoption of a permanent plan of foster care for H.P. According to the report, mother’s case plan included four components, none of which had been completed: parenting class, psychological assessment, individual counseling, and anger management, all with approved providers.