In re H.P. CA1/4

Filed 8/13/21 In re H.P. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A161414 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J17-00914) A.W., Defendant and Appellant.

A.W. (mother), appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order denying her special motion under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, to strike the request for a restraining order filed by the social worker in the underlying dependency action. We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that a request for a restraining order under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 213.5 is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. Accordingly, we shall affirm the order denying her motion.

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code 1

unless otherwise noted.

1

Background Mother has appeared before this court numerous times in these dependency proceedings. As with her prior submissions, her appellate briefing fails to comply with the rules of court. Her opening brief fails to fairly address the merits of the court’s decision and instead rehashes arguments previously rejected by this court, cites to facts outside the appellate record and makes unfocused arguments regarding her First Amendment rights. While the matter could be disposed of on these grounds, we have attempted to respond to mother’s concerns insofar as we are able to understand them. Although the proceedings involving mother’s three children are not directly relevant to the order now before us, we provide the following summary for context. In August 2017, mother’s three children were removed from her care and a petition was filed by Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the bureau) pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), and (j). In March 2018, the court sustained the allegations of the petition. The petition involving the oldest sibling was dismissed after the jurisdictional hearing. In January 2020, this court affirmed the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the other two children. (In re K.P. (Jan. 21, 2020, A155450) [nonpub. opn.].) In February 2020, this court affirmed the order terminating reunification services as to mother’s then nine-year-old daughter and setting a section 366.26 hearing. (A.W. v. Superior Court (Feb. 13, 2020, A159048) [nonpub. opn.].) Most recently, in March 2021, this court affirmed the order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services as to mother’s then 16-year-old son and selecting a permanent plan of foster care. (In re H.P. (Mar. 16, 2021, A159184) [nonpub. opn.].) In October 2019, the social worker assigned to mother’s dependency cases filed an application for a restraining order which alleged that since