H.M. v. Superior Court CA6

Filed 8/31/21 H.M. v. Superior Court CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Juvenile court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits juvenile courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

H.M., H049136 (Monterey County Super. Ct. Petitioner, Nos. 19JD000121; 19JD000122)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

Respondent; __________________________________ MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT1

H.M. (Mother) is the mother of A.V.M. and J.P.M. The Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) on October 11, 2019, alleging that the children were in danger based on the failure of Mother to protect them from sexual abuse perpetrated by J.P.M.’s father (Father).2 At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mother and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing on September 14, 2021. (§ 366.26.)

1 Before Greenwood, P.J., Grover, J. and Danner, J. 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Mother petitions this court for an extraordinary writ, arguing that the juvenile court erred by refusing to extend reunification services for six months. Mother also requests a stay of the section 366.26 hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition and the request for stay. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 Fourteen-year-old A.V.M. and eleven-year-old J.P.M were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court in November 2019 following a report that A.V.M., who was developmentally delayed, was being sexually abused by Father. The abuse allegations dated back to 2018. When A.V.M. reported the abuse to Mother, Mother did not believe A.V.M. Mother continued to deny the allegations of abuse even after the Department filed the section 300 petition and the juvenile court detained the children. Following the juvenile court’s order, Mother began to participate in reunification services. Mother completed a mental health assessment and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. During the assessment, Mother denied responsibility for the removal of her children and blamed her eldest daughter for making allegations of sexual abuse. Mother started her parent education course in January 2020 but would not tell the social worker what she had learned from the course and did not provide a certificate of completion for the course. Mother also joined the parent education group in 2020; however, her participation was minimal, and she often complained about the Department removing her children. Mother maintained contact with the Department; however, she was often angry and confrontational. Mother refused to take any responsibility for her children’s removal. Mother requested a change of social worker and threatened to sue the Department many times.