In re C.R. CA2/6

Filed 5/13/13 In re C.R. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re C.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B245355 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. J1395601, J1395602) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.W., the mother of C.R. and M.A., appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating her visitation rights with her children after the juvenile court terminated her family reunification services. The Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a juvenile dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) on October 11, 2011.1 We conclude, among other things, that the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating visitation. We affirm. FACTS On October 6, 2011, a motorist saw M.A., A.W.'s two-year-old son, on a sidewalk wearing only a diaper "near a busy traffic road." A.W. had left him in the care of

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

C.R., her 10-year-old daughter, at a motel. After A.W. left the children unattended, C.R. fell asleep and M.A. left the motel and went outside near traffic. A law enforcement officer contacted A.W. and asked her to "return to the motel." A.W. responded she "could not return immediately." She "did not appear to be concerned and did not seem to think there was a problem with the arrangements she made for the children." The conditions in the motel room where the children had been living were "deplorable." A 30-gallon "bag of garbage" was near one of the beds, the children were "unkempt" and had "no clean clothes." The clothes they had were "moist" and contained "mold." C.R., a fifth grader, had not attended school regularly and had been "discharged from the school due to absences . . . ." A.W. had not taken C.R. or M.A. to any medical examinations since they arrived in Santa Barbara County. When asked if the children "are up to date on their immunizations," A.W. responded that she "cannot remember." CWS determined that "[a]lthough transitional housing has been available and offered to the family, the mother's lack of cooperation and unwillingness to follow [the] shelters' rules has led to the termination of services." CWS placed the children in a "confidential licensed shelter home." The juvenile court found that the children were persons who came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and "[c]ontinuance in" A.W.'s home was "contrary" to the children's welfare. On November 17, 2011, CWS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report stating that the children should be declared "dependents" of the court, and A.W. should be offered family reunification services. It prepared a case plan requiring A.W. to, among other things: 1) "obtain and maintain the resources necessary to provide her children with a safe and stable living environment," 2) demonstrate her ability to "adequately parent her children," and 3) "address her mental health needs" and attend therapy sessions. After a jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of child neglect by A.W. as alleged in the dependency petition were true. It declared the children to be dependents of the court, and it found CWS had prepared a reasonable case plan. It ordered CWS to provide family reunification services to A.W.