In re L.P. CA1/5

Filed 3/19/13 In re L.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL A135810 SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County Super. Ct. v. Nos. J177157, J177158, KRISTA S., and OJ10015185) Defendant and Appellant. ________________________________________/

S. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order limiting her right to make educational decisions with respect to her three children. She contends the court abused its discretion and violated her due process rights by limiting her ―educational rights.‖ We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide only the factual and procedural details that are germane to mother‘s specific claims. Mother has three children: L.P. (born in 1996), A.P. (born in 1999), and A.S. (born in 2001). In July 2010, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) filed a petition alleging the children came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,

1

subdivision (b), specifically that: (1) mother‘s anger management problem and drinking and drug use prevented her from adequately parenting the children, (2) mother ―physically abused all of the [children] with brooms, belts or her hand,‖ and (3) ―mother [did] not have sufficient food in the home at all times because she uses the money to buy alcohol and drugs.‖1 The court detained the children, found jurisdiction, and ordered reunification services for mother. In July 2011, the court returned the children to mother‘s care under the supervision of the Agency. In December 2011, the court issued a bench warrant for mother and a protective custody warrant as to the children because the minors had not been seen in several weeks. The Section 387 Petition and Restraining Order Application In January 2012, the Agency filed a section 387 petition stating: (1) the children had been detained; (2) mother had failed to adhere to her case plan; and (3) mother refused to inform the court about her children‘s whereabouts and was ―hiding‖ them from the Agency and the court. The court detained the children and authorized the Agency to facilitate supervised phone contact between the children and mother. The court later authorized the Agency to facilitate supervised visits between the children and mother. In early April 2012, counsel for the children requested the court modify the current visitation and contact order ―to more appropriately meet the children‘s needs and avoid further detrimental contact.‖ On April 12, the Agency filed an interim review report describing the children‘s various behavioral problems and reporting that, among other things, A.P. had been involuntarily hospitalized after writing in a school journal that he wanted to kill people at school. According to the Agency, the children ―want a healthy mother who does not hit them, beat them or berate them. . . . [M]other sees nothing wrong in her behavior which is why it is difficult for her to consider changing her