S.M. v. Superior Court CA1/4

Filed 5/21/13 S.M. v. Superior Court CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

S. M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A138008 FRANCISCO COUNTY, (San Francisco County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JD11-3183A) SAN FRANCISO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

S. M., the father of I. M., age 4, and M. P. II, age 3, (collectively, the children) petitions this court to set aside the juvenile court‟s order setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26. He contends that the court erred in terminating reunification services. We deny the petition. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 16, 2011, the children were referred to the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) after a domestic violence incident at parents‟ home. During the incident, parents engaged in a verbal and physical altercation which was witnessed by the children and during which mother punched M.P. II three or four times with a closed fist. Father called the police, who arrested mother.

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

1

On June 16, 2011, a section 300 petition was filed alleging that the children were at risk of serious physical harm as a result of the domestic violence incident and as a result of the failure or inability of parents to protect them given parents‟ history of recent and severe domestic violence. The petition further alleged that mother had a substance abuse history which included alcohol, methamphetamines, and crack cocaine, and a criminal history which included drug sales and possession and an anger management problem. The petition also alleged that father had an anger management problem and a criminal history including drug sales and possession. On June 20, 2011, the children were detained and placed with father. The court also issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against mother prohibiting her from contacting father or the children except as required for court-ordered visitation. On July 22, 2011, the court entered another TRO against mother prohibiting her from contact with the children and father because the prior TRO had been withdrawn based on mother‟s representation that a criminal order was in place. The criminal order, however, had not been produced to counsel. On August 4, 2011, the court entered a one- year restraining order against mother. The order allowed mother to have supervised visitation with the children. The court set the matter for a settlement conference to be held on August 31, 2011. The Agency‟s report, filed on August 4, 2011, noted that parents intended to separate and were living apart. Father continued to live with the children. Mother was currently on probation for drug possession; her term of probation had been extended to four years following the domestic violence incident. Mother was required to participate in a treatment program to address substance abuse and domestic violence issues as a condition of probation. The Agency reported that father was caring for the children and had agreed to participate in parenting and counseling services. He also continued to be employed. The Agency noted that father had a criminal record and was on probation for three years as a result of a conviction for a drug offense. The Agency recommended that father be given family maintenance services and that supportive services be offered to mother.