B.S. v. Super. Ct. CA5 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/18/13 B.S. v. Super. Ct. CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    B.S.,
    F068130
    Petitioner,
    (Super. Ct. No. 13CEJ30095)
    v.
    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO                                                             OPINION
    COUNTY,
    Respondent;
    FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    SOCIAL SERVICES,
    Real Party in Interest.
    THE COURT*
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Mary Dolas,
    Commissioner.
    Heather Ann Von Hagen, for Petitioner.
    No appearance for Respondent.
    Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for
    Real Party in Interest.
    -ooOoo-
    *        Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.
    B.S. (father) seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-
    8.452) from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders denying him reunification services
    under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13)1 and setting a
    section 366.26 hearing as to his four-year-old son, Brandon. We deny the petition.
    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
    In April 2013, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department)
    removed then three-year-old Brandon from the custody of his mother after she was
    arrested on various charges, including possession of a controlled substance and child
    endangerment. Brandon was placed in foster care.
    Father, then incarcerated, was identified as Brandon’s alleged father. Father was
    facing charges for a postrelease community supervision violation stemming from an
    arrest for possession of marijuana, driving under the influence and being under the
    influence of a controlled substance.
    The juvenile court adjudged Brandon a dependent child and set the dispositional
    hearing for June 2013. The department recommended the juvenile court deny mother
    reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) because of her chronic
    substance abuse and father because, as an alleged father, he was not entitled to them.
    (§ 361.5, subd. (a).)
    In June 2013, father appeared in custody at the dispositional hearing and asked the
    juvenile court to order paternity testing for him and to place Brandon with relatives. The
    juvenile court granted his request for paternity testing and continued the hearing. At the
    continued hearing, the juvenile court elevated father’s paternity status to presumed father,
    ordered the department to assess him for placement and continued the matter.
    In an addendum report, the department recommended the juvenile court deny
    father reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) based on his drug-
    1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
    otherwise indicated
    2
    related arrests and convictions. Specifically, the department cited a 2003 conviction for
    possession of a controlled substance. Father was ordered, as a condition of his probation,
    to participate in a drug treatment program. According to father’s probation officer, he
    was referred to Tower Recovery Center in December 2003, but did not complete the
    program because he was arrested in late January 2004 for violating probation. In
    addition, father was convicted of felony possession of controlled substances in 2011, and
    sentenced to two years in prison. In January 2013, he was arrested for possession of
    marijuana for sale, being under the influence of a controlled substance and driving under
    the influence, and was facing a possible three-year prison sentence if convicted.
    In August 2013, the juvenile court set a contested dispositional hearing and
    ordered father and mother to appear.
    In October 2013, the juvenile court convened the contested dispositional hearing.
    Neither father nor mother appeared. Father’s attorney told the juvenile court father
    refused to be transported from the county jail. Counsel presented their cases by
    argument, after which the juvenile court denied father and mother reunification services
    as recommended and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.2
    DISCUSSION
    The juvenile court can deny a parent reunification services under section 361.5,
    subdivision (b)(13) (the statute) if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the
    parent “has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has
    resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period
    immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court’s
    attention ....”
    We review the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services under the statute for
    substantial evidence. (Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 
    91 Cal.App.4th 586
    , 600.)
    2      Mother did not file a writ petition.
    3
    That is, we determine whether there is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value such
    that a reasonable trier of fact could have made the challenged finding. (In re Brian M.
    (2000) 
    82 Cal.App.4th 1398
    , 1401.) Under this standard, we view the evidence in a light
    most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling, indulging all legitimate and reasonable
    inferences in its favor. (See In re Misako R. (1991) 
    2 Cal.App.4th 538
    , 545.)
    Father contends the statute does not apply to him because there is no direct
    evidence he used drugs and his drug-related arrests are insufficient to prove drug use. He
    further contends there is no evidence he resisted treatment.
    We conclude the juvenile court could reasonably infer from the evidence father’s
    drug use was extensive and chronic and that he resisted treatment within the meaning of
    the statute. Father was convicted in 2003, for felony possession of a controlled substance
    and required to complete court-ordered drug treatment as a result. From that, the juvenile
    court could infer that father was using drugs in 2003. The juvenile court could also infer
    that his drug use was extensive and chronic because eight years later in 2011, he was
    convicted of possessing a controlled substance and in 2013 he was arrested for being
    under the influence.
    Moreover, the juvenile court could reasonably infer father resisted drug treatment.
    Resistance to treatment can be manifest in a variety of ways, including undergoing or
    enrolling in drug treatment and then resuming drug use within three years prior to the
    filing of the petition. (Laura B. v. Superior Court (1998) 
    68 Cal.App.4th 776
    , 780.)
    Father argues there is no evidence he actually entered a drug treatment program in
    2003. We disagree. The department reported the circumstances of father’s drug
    treatment referral in specific terms. He was referred to Tower Recovery Center in
    December 2003, but did not “complete” it because he was arrested in late January 2004.
    From that the juvenile court could reasonably infer that father was participating in
    treatment when he was arrested.
    4
    Based on the foregoing, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile
    court’s order denying father reunification services under the statute.
    DISPOSITION
    The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to
    this court.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F068130

Filed Date: 12/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014