N.M. v. Superior Court CA1/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/26/23 N.M. v. Superior Court CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE
N.M.,
Petitioner,
A167370
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE (San Francisco County
OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND Super. Ct. Nos. JD21-3273,
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, JD21-3273A, JD21-3273B)
Respondent;
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES AGENCY et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
In this juvenile writ proceeding, N.M. seeks extraordinary relief from
the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services with respect to
her three young children—Za.M.J. (born October 2018), Zo.M.J. (born June
2020), and V.J. (born April 2021) (collectively, the children or the minors)—
and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 of the
1
Welfare and Institutions Code.1 N.M. argues that the juvenile court erred in
failing to extend her reunification services for three additional months to the
18-month mark because she had been compliant with her reunification plan.
We deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2021, the San Francisco Human Services Agency
(Agency) received a referral from a mandated reporter stating that V.J., Jr.
(father) committed two separate incidents of domestic violence against N.M.
(mother) within the last month.2 Mother confirmed that she and father had
argued and that he hit her on the head twice in the presence of V.J. Mother
additionally disclosed that, two weeks previously, father had thrown her to
the ground, stomped on her, and given her a concussion. On November 2,
2021, mother reported that she was at a hotel with the children and had
ended her relationship with father. She accepted referrals for a peer parent
and domestic violence services from the social worker the next day. Mother
claimed she had no contact information for father, who was homeless.
The social worker spoke with father on November 24, 2021. He denied
any domestic violence and revealed that he had spent the week of November
15 at a hotel with mother and the children. He described mother as
paranoid, stated she was incapable of caring for the children, and reported
that they were now no longer in a relationship. Mother denied she had been
with father.
1All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise specified.
2Father’s status was elevated to presumed father at a hearing on
January 25, 2022. However, as he is not involved in these writ proceedings,
we focus our factual recitation on information relevant to mother’s claims.
2
The social worker spoke with the paternal grandmother on November
29, 2021. The paternal grandmother had witnessed father yelling at mother,
and, when the family was recently staying at a San Francisco shelter, she
heard mother and father hitting each other when she was on the phone with
them. She could hear her grandchildren crying in the background. The
paternal grandmother further disclosed that both parents drank alcohol and
previously had problems with cocaine. The social worker verified that mother
and the minors were at a domestic violence shelter on November 29, 2021.
However, when the social worker called the shelter on December 1 to arrange
a visit, staff reported that mother had left the program the previous day and
that her whereabouts were unknown.
On December 3, 2021, the Agency detained Za.M.J., Zo.M.J., and V.J.
at the home of the paternal grandmother where mother had left them. A
juvenile dependency petition was filed on December 7, 2021, which alleged,
among other things, that the minors were described by subdivisions (b) and
(c) of section 300 due to repeated domestic violence between mother and
father and both parents’ possible substance abuse. The minors were formally
detained at the detention hearing on December 8, 2021.3
In advance of the jurisdictional hearing, mother denied any substance
abuse problem, admitting only past use of marijuana. She expressed interest
in domestic violence education for herself and her children. Mother was
working and able to meet her basic needs but did not have stable housing.
3 Jo.J. (born November 2012) and Ja.J. (born October 2011) are
maternal cousins of the minors herein. Mother is their legal guardian.
Reunification services based on their removal were provided to mother in
separate proceedings. Mother also has an older son (born August 2007) who
lives with his father and is not involved in this case. Father has two older
children (born August 2007 and August 2013) who are not involved in the
case.
3
Both parents were visiting regularly with the children. Mother was reported
to be affectionate but was challenged when trying to manage the minors’
active behavior. She successfully completed a 12-week parenting class in
March 2022. However, during this timeframe, the social worker received a
call from relatives stating that the parents were arguing, and others needed
to intervene. Mother denied the incident, and father stated it was a simple
argument.
The children were placed together with the paternal grandmother on
February 9, 2022. At the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing
on April 4, 2022, the parents submitted to amended allegations, and the
juvenile court sustained the amended petition, finding the minors to be
persons described by subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 300. The juvenile
court declared the minors to be juvenile court dependents and ordered
reunification services for both parents.
Mother completed a substance abuse assessment in April 2022 and did
not qualify for substance abuse treatment. She was encouraged to continue
working with her other providers. Mother completed an eight-week domestic
violence support group in May 2022. The provider recommended that she
continue to address domestic violence issues with her individual therapist.
By the time of the six-month review, initially set for October 2022, mother
was residing in a three-bedroom apartment, was working part time as peer
support in a substance abuse program, had connected to numerous
supportive services, and had created a support network. She was working
with a family support specialist on creating a schedule and age-appropriate
activities for the children, which she was implementing during visits.
Mother was also participating in weekly phone therapy, which she
found helpful. She denied using illegal substances and had created a safety
4
plan to address any urge to use substances in a way that would keep her
children and herself safe. Mother reported she was not involved with father
and had a safety plan in place should she encounter him. She tested negative
four times in random testing but missed eight tests. Mother had advanced to
unsupervised visits twice per week. She attended 85 percent of the visits,
which were going well. The Agency wanted to see mother continue to
demonstrate emotional stability, sobriety, and the ability to protect her
children from domestic violence as she transitioned to overnight visits but
opined that reunification with mother in the next six months was likely.
Thereafter, however, the Agency received a report that, on September
30, 2022, mother took the children to meet with father at an undisclosed
hotel during her unsupervised overnight visitation. Both parents were
intoxicated, and mother was threatening to leave the hotel and drive with the
children. The reporting party could hear the parents yelling at each other
and Zo.M.J. crying uncontrollably. Ja.J. and Jo.J. reported being left home in
the care of mother’s 15-year-old son during this visit. According to Ja.J.,
father came to mother’s home during visits, and the two adults sometimes
argued in front of them. The minor stated: “[N]othing has changed with
their situation.”
Mother subsequently admitted these allegations, although she denied
being drunk or threatening to drive with the children. She stated she and
father were “ ‘figuring things out, whether they would like to be a couple or
not.’ ” Mother had tested positive for cocaine twice (once on September 29,
the day before the hotel visit) and missed eight other testing dates in this
timeframe. She admitted she might need more help with her substance
abuse issues, and the social worker referred her for another assessment. The
social worker also referred both parents for couples counseling.
5
Visits were changed back to supervised, and mother cancelled the first
visit on November 8. She missed the scheduled substance abuse assessment
on November 9. The paternal grandmother reported that the parents had
been visiting the children together during father’s supervised visitation and
were together as a couple. The social worker hoped mother could get “back
on track” and be honest. She opined that reunification might still be likely
with additional reunification services. The juvenile court extended
reunification services to the 12-month mark (February 2023) at the six-
month hearing on November 11, 2022.
Prior to the 12-month hearing, the Agency recommended termination of
reunification services. On November 14, father disclosed that mother cut him
on the face using a box cutter. Several days later, he texted the social worker
stating it was his fault for getting hurt because “he put his hands on her.”
Neither parent wanted to talk about the incident, and both reported they
were discussing ways to “keep themselves safe from each other when they
have a disagreement.” Mother participated in weekly individual therapy
through December 2022, although she was “a bit guarded” with information
leading to slow progress. According to mother’s therapist, they did not
address intimate partner violence in their sessions because mother never told
the therapist about her relationship issues.
On November 21, 2022, the parenting support specialist closed
mother’s case due to missed appointments. Between November 2022 and
January 6, 2023, mother missed 11 of 12 drug tests and, in her only
completed test, tested positive for marijuana. Between January 6 and
February 8, 2023, mother missed eight more tests. She entered outpatient
substance abuse treatment on December 15, 2022 and then transferred from
detox to a 90-day residential program on February 17, 2023 because she
6
continued to use cocaine. The social worker recommended termination of
reunification efforts because the parents had “not mitigated the safety
threats that led to the children’s removal. They [were] inconsistent in
engaging with their respective services and not demonstrating prolonged
significant behavioral changes to keep the children safe.” While she
commended them for their recent efforts, the parents would need time to
complete their treatment goals and there was no guarantee they would be
successful.
The juvenile court agreed. After a contested hearing on March 7, 2023,
the court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a
permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 so that permanent
out-of-home plans could be established for the children. The court opined
that the parents were not demonstrating at that time a capacity to achieve
the goals of their case plans if the matter was continued to 18 months and
found by clear and convincing evidence there was not a substantial
probability the children could be returned within the maximum time allowed.
Mother’s timely petition followed.
DISCUSSION
When a dependent child is removed from parental custody, the juvenile
court ordinarily must order child welfare services for the minor and the
parent for the purpose of facilitating reunification of the family. (§ 361.5,
subd. (a).) For a child under three years of age at the time of removal—or
who is part of a sibling group where at least one member was under three
years old at the time of removal, as was the case here—reunification services
are presumptively limited to six months. (Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007)
42 Cal.4th 836, 843 (Tonya M.).) This is because the “ ‘ “unique
developmental needs of infants and toddlers” ’ [citation] justifies a greater
7
emphasis on establishing permanency and stability earlier in the dependency
process.” (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 175.)
As our high court has explained, for the parent of a child under three at
the time of removal (or of a qualifying sibling group), the statutory scheme for
providing reunification services establishes “three distinct periods and three
corresponding distinct escalating standards.” (Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at
p. 845.) In the first period—a phase from the jurisdictional hearing to the
six-month review hearing where services are “presumed”—“services are
afforded essentially as a matter of right.” (Ibid.) In the second period—a
phase from the six-month review hearing to the 12-month review hearing
where services are “possible”—“a heightened showing is required to continue
services.” (Ibid.) Specifically, a juvenile court must continue the case to the
12-month hearing only if it finds that “there is a substantial probability that
the child . . . may be returned to his or her parent . . . within six months or
that reasonable services have not been provided.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3).) In
the third period—a phase from the 12-month review hearing to the 18-month
review hearing where services are “disfavored”—services can be continued
only under limited circumstances and only if the juvenile court is able to
make a number of very specific findings presaging reunification or if it finds
that reasonable services have not been provided. (Tonya M., at p. 845; see
§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).)
Specifically, in order to extend services to 18 months (assuming
reasonable services have been provided) the juvenile court must find that
“there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the
physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in
the home within the extended period of time.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
Moreover, in order to find such a substantial probability, the court is required
8
to find: (1) “[t]hat the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly
contacted and visited with the child”; (2) “[t]hat the parent or legal guardian
has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s
removal from the home”; and (3) that “[t]he parent or legal guardian has
demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their
treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and
emotional well-being, and special needs.” (§ 361.21, subd. (g)(1)(A-C).) The
18-month period is calculated from the date the child was initially taken from
the physical custody of the parent. (Id., subd. (g)(1).) “The statute explains if
these three factors are present, then there was ‘a compelling reason for
determining [a permanency hearing] is not in the best interests of the child.’
[Citation.] It recognizes a parent who still poses a risk of detriment at the
12-month hearing could with additional time successfully rehabilitate and
reunify. Nevertheless, the Legislature has set a very high hurdle for
continuing the case beyond 12 months.” (A.H. v. Superior Court (2010) 182
Cal.App.4th 1050, 1059-1060.)
We uphold a juvenile court’s findings supporting termination of
reunification services if supported by substantial evidence. (J.H. v. Superior
Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535.) “When determining whether
substantial evidence is present, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence,
pass on the credibility of witnesses, or determine where the preponderance of
the evidence lies. [Citation.] We merely determine if there is any substantial
evidence, contradicted or not, which will support the conclusion of the trier of
fact. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is ‘reasonable, credible evidence of
solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could make the findings
challenged . . . .’ [Citation.] The appellant must show the evidence is
9
insufficient to support the trial court’s findings.” (Adoption of Myah M.
(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1539.)
N.M. asserts in her writ petition that the juvenile court erred in
refusing to extend her reunification services to the 18-month mark because
she made significant progress in her case plan, engaging in numerous
services. In making this argument, however, mother avoids the facts that do
not support her position, effectively ignoring our substantial evidence
standard of review. Moreover, even if mother’s progress on her case plan
could be characterized as “significant,” all three findings described above
must be made in order for a juvenile court to continue services at the 12-
month review hearing. Here, the juvenile court found that mother had not
demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of her
treatment plan in the three months remaining until and 18-month review,
and substantial evidence supports this determination.4
Mother did not simply have a relapse and then immediately get back
on track with her case plan. Rather, her conduct at the end of 2022
uncovered a significant substance abuse problem that she had previously
failed to disclose, and which appears to have been worsening for some months
as she missed numerous drug tests and denied two positive tests for cocaine.
And while she may have gained some insight regarding domestic violence
during the reunification period, when the Agency decreased its supervision,
she was unable to use the tools she had acquired to keep herself and her
children out of unsafe situations. Father reported that mother personally
committed a serious act of domestic violence against him when they were
4 Because we uphold the juvenile court’s termination of mother’s
reunification services based on this factor, we do not consider whether
termination of services might also have been appropriate under the other two
findings that must be made to extend services to an 18-month hearing.
10
engaged in yet another altercation. Given the parents’ recent decision to
remain a couple, additional domestic violence services, and related services
such as couples counseling, would clearly be needed before reunification could
be contemplated and the children safely returned to their parents’ care.
There is no doubt that the record also discloses many efforts by mother
to work on the entrenched issues which led to juvenile court intervention in
this case. We, like the Agency, applaud mother for what she has done (and
hopefully continues to do) to improve her own life and work toward providing
a safe and stable home for herself and her children.5 However, the juvenile
court’s conclusion that mother was not demonstrating the capacity to
complete her plan and reunify with her children in the next three months is
overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied on the merits. (See § 366.26, subd.
(l)(1)(C), 4(B).) Because the permanency planning hearing in this matter is
set for July 12, 2023, this opinion is final as to this court immediately. N.M.’s
request for a stay of the permanency planning hearing is denied as moot.
5The juvenile court similarly expressed hope that the parents would continue
their recent efforts in treatment “for the sake of these three children.”
11
BOWEN, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUMES, P. J.
MARGULIES, J.
A167370
Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
12