In re B.R. CA1/4

Filed 6/20/13 In re B.R. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re B.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

N.R. et al., Petitioners, v. A138510 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. J11-01702 & J11-01703) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Real Party in Interest.

I. INTRODUCTION In this child dependency proceeding regarding two children, B.R., born in 2008, and M.R., born in 2011, the superior court terminated reunification services and set a hearing for July 9, 2013, to determine a permanent plan for the minors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 K.C. (hereafter Mother) and N.R. (hereafter Father) have filed separate petitions for extraordinary writ. They each argue that they substantially complied with their reunification plans, and that the court erred in failing to extend reunification services

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

1

beyond the 12-month review hearing so that they could successfully reunify with their children. As substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings and orders, we deny the petitions. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This family has been involved with the Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and Family Services (the Bureau) since shortly after M.R.’s birth in November 2011. The family came to the Bureau’s attention because of Mother’s chronic and serious alcohol dependence, multiple domestic violence altercations, and Father’s inability to protect his children when their mother was intoxicated. Originally, the children were removed from Mother’s custody alone, and the court sustained a petition declaring them dependent children under section 300, subdivision (b), based on findings of drug abuse and domestic violence. Father and children moved in with the children’s paternal great-grandmother. However, in violation of a court order, Father allowed Mother to care for M.R. while he went to work. Mother became intoxicated to the point of needing emergency medical attention while two-month-old M.R. was in her care. Mother’s blood-alcohol level tested at .36 percent. By agreement, an allegation was then sustained against Father based on failure to protect. The children were placed with paternal relatives, where they have remained throughout these proceedings. Reunification services were extended to both parents at the 6-month review hearing despite very minimum progress on the referrals that were offered to both parents since November 2011. Mother was referred to an inpatient substance abuse treatment program. After initial hesitation, Mother went to a program in February 2, 2012. She was discharged from the program because she tested positive for alcohol after a weekend pass. Mother then lived with Father for approximately six weeks before entering into another program. She completed the 90-day program and requested a 30-day extension. On September 26, 2012, she was discharged from the program because she tested positive for alcohol. The next day, she was arrested for stealing from Walmart. She went