In re Bella L. CA2/6

Filed 5/13/24 In re Bella L. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Bella L., A Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B331973 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 22JV00363) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.L.,

Objector and Appellant.

T.L. (mother) appeals from the orders of the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing and terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

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

Facts and Procedural Background We incorporate by reference our prior nonpublished opinion, which denied mother’s petition for extraordinary writ challenging the juvenile court’s order bypassing reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26. (T.L. v. Superior Court (Aug. 14, 2023, B326173) [nonpub. opn.].) We summarize only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal. In November 2022, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) secured a protective custody warrant and detained newborn baby Bella and her four-year-old sister, S.H., after Bella tested positive for amphetamine at birth.2 CWS filed a dependency petition alleging, among other things: (1) Bella’s positive test for amphetamine, (2) mother’s positive test for methamphetamine during a prenatal visit in August 2022, (3) mother’s admission to using methamphetamine during her pregnancy, (4) mother’s “substantial” child welfare history, including the removal and subsequent adoptions of Bella’s half siblings, J.L. and M.L. in 2012 and 2018, respectively, and (5) mother’s criminal history. CWS’s amended jurisdiction and disposition report recommended mother be bypassed for family reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(11), and (b)(13). CWS cited mother’s chronic, long-standing substance abuse, the prior loss of custody of J.L. and M.L., and mother’s failure to comply with the court-ordered substance abuse treatment services in J.L.’s case and mother’s 2015 criminal court case.