T.C. v. Superior Court CA1/5

Filed 9/14/21 T.C. v. Superior Court CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

T.C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A162951 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. J2000558) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Real Party in Interest.

In this writ proceeding, petitioner T.C. (“Father”) requests that this court vacate the juvenile court’s June 24, 2021 order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 permanency planning hearing on October 14. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) He contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s finding he failed to make “substantive progress” in his case plan, as required to support setting the 366.26 hearing under

All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code.

1

section 366.21, subdivision (e)(3). Father has not shown the juvenile court erred. The underlying juvenile dependency proceeding was initiated by an October 2020 petition (“Petition”) filed by the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the “Bureau”) alleging that Father’s daughter R.C. (“Minor”), born April 2019, was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300. The Petition alleged Minor was at risk of serious harm and neglect because of her parents’ substance abuse. The Bureau’s detention/jurisdiction report explained that the Petition followed the discovery of pieces of foil containing heroin residue strewn about the Minor’s home, a spoon in the master bedroom containing heroin, and heroin paraphernalia accessible to Minor and her half-siblings. In November 2020, Father pled no contest to an allegation he had a serious substance abuse problem that placed Minor at risk of serious harm and neglect. Father’s court-ordered case plan required him to complete counseling, parenting education, and an inpatient substance abuse treatment program, as well as to refrain from drug use and to participate in random testing. In the Bureau’s report for the six-month review hearing, the Bureau reported that Father claimed to be participating in therapy, parenting education, and outpatient substance abuse services. However, the Bureau’s social worker was largely unable to verify Father’s participation in those services or the extent of participation because Father failed to provide sufficient contact information or the identified service providers failed to respond to the worker’s inquiries. Furthermore, Father was not in an inpatient treatment program, and Father had missed 24 drug tests. The Bureau recommended termination of reunification services to both parents and the setting of a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.