Filed 1/29/16 A.T. v. Superior Court CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

A.T.,

Petitioner,

 v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

MONTEREY

Respondent;

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT 

SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

 No. H042934

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. J48004)

A.T. (hereinafter “mother”) has filed a petition for a writ of mandate in this court,

challenging the juvenile court’s October 26, 2015 order terminating her family 

reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code1section 366.26 hearing 

with respect to her daughter C.T., who has previously been declared a dependent of the 

court. 

Mother claims that the court erred in denying her additional reunification 

services. 

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

On August 5, 2014, the Monterey County Department of Social and Employment 

Services (hereinafter “DSS” or “Department”) filed a section 300 petition on 10-monthold C.T., under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for 

support). Since 2010, the Department had received seven referrals for the family, 

alleging neglect of the children, substance abuse issues with the mother, and physical and 

emotional abuse of the children. 

At the August 6, 2014 detention hearing, the court found that C.T. was a person 

described in section 300, found that continued care by the parents would be detrimental, 

committed the child to the custody of the DSS, ordered drug testing for mother; and 

scheduled a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing for September 23, 2014. 

At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adopted the 

recommendations of the Department and ordered that C.T. be adjudged a dependent child 

of the juvenile court; that C.T. be removed from the parents; that the mother be offered 

reunification services; that the father be denied reunification services pursuant to 

section 361.5 subdivisions (b)(10) and b)(11); and that the matter be set for three- and 

six-month review hearings. 

In preparation for the six-month review hearing, a status report was filed on 

March 13, 2015, recommending that the court maintain the dependency of C.T.; continue 

family reunification services to the mother; and set the matter for a twelve-month 

permanency review hearing on September 22, 2015.

At the time of the hearing, mother had recently been incarcerated for three weeks 

from January 2015 through February 11, 2015 for violating her probation. She had tested 

positive for alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamines. Mother had entered Door to 

Hope on February 11, 2015, and had been actively been participating in therapeutic 

groups, individual counseling, and parenting classes. Mother had recently completed 
3

Parent Education Group (PEG) and was currently participating in the Parents as Teachers 

(PAT) program. 

Mother was currently attending three to six NA/AA meetings a week, 

acknowledged that she did have a substance abuse problem, and was currently on Step 1. 

However, she had been residing with her friend, Terry M., who had a substance free 

home but who had been enabling her to continue to use substances while she resided with 

him, and had also began using drugs with a man on the street. The social worker 

recommended that mother also participate in a Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous 

(SLAA) program which would assist her in moving forward with safe relationships and 

being able to identify red flags in relationships. The Department recommended the 

mother continue to receive family reunification services. 

In preparation for the 12-month review hearing, a status report was filed 

August 27, 2015, recommending that the court maintain the dependency of C.T.; continue 

C.T. in out-of-home care; terminate family reunification services to mother; and set the 

matter for a selection and implementation hearing on January 19, 2016. 

The report noted that mother graduated from Door to Hope, a residential drug 

treatment program, on June 8, 2015; was currently residing at a sober living environment; 

and was currently employed as a full-time receptionist in Carmel Valley. The report also

noted mother was currently on probation. 

On August 11, 2015, mother left a message for the social worker that she had 

relapsed over the weekend and the previous week. At a family team meeting on 

August 13, 2015, mother stated she had relapsed, and that she had been driving while 

under the influence. Mother reported she had relapsed over the weekend and during a 

previous week, and stated she had been only working on her issues at a “surface level.” 

The report recommended family reunification services be terminated as to mother 

as there was not a substantial probability that C.T. could be returned to the mother within 
4

18 months. The report stated that mother had not made consistent or significant progress 

during this review period, C.T.’s need for permanency outweighed mother’s need for 

more time to participate in her case plan, and that mother had still not made substantial 

progress in her addiction issues.

At the contested hearing on October 26, 2015, the Department submitted on the 

reports previously filed by the Department, asked that the reports be admitted into 

evidence, and reaffirmed its recommendation that reunification services to the mother be 

terminated. 

Mother called Allison Doss, her A.A. sponsor to testify. She testified she had seen 

a change in mother since her most recent relapse and she believed that mother had finally 

hit bottom. She testified that they were working the steps together, and mother was on 

Step 3. 

Mother also called Marachelle Jackson, a woman who had given mother referrals 

to her various treatment programs, housing, and classes for the past six or seven years. 

She testified that in all the years, she had never seen the mother so committed as after her 

recent relapse. 

Mother testified on her own behalf that since her recent relapse, she was taking the 

suggestions and dealing with her recovery head-on. She noted that she had 75 days 

sober. 

In its decision, the Court noted that this case began in June 2014 after the mother 

was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with her three children in the car. 

At that time, the police contacted the Department for its help because this was not the 

first driving under the influence matter for mother. The police learned then that mother 

frequently drinks and drives under the influence which resulted in the likelihood of 

mother facing legal charges, and in fact she did face legal charges in this matter. Mother 

had a criminal history impairing her ability to care for C.T.; convictions for a controlled 
5

substance in 2011; public intoxication and causing great bodily harm to a child; and 

possession of a dangerous weapon in 2012. The court noted mother had participated in 

numerous drug and alcohol programs, including five residential programs starting about 

2006, which she had testified to in court. 

The court concluded that, despite the reunification services offered to mother, she 

had not made the necessary progress. The court also noted that although mother had 

made some progress, that progress had really only happened since August 2015. 

The court found that based on mother’s lack of consistent sobriety, there was not a 

substantial probability for the safe return of C.T. to mother’s care within 18 months even 

if additional services were offered to her. The court adopted the Department’s findings; 

terminated reunification services to mother; continued the child as a dependent of the 

court; and set a Selection and Implementation hearing for February 23, 2016. 

DISCUSSION

In her petition, mother challenges the order made on October 26, 2015 (at the 12–

month hearing) on the basis that she does not agree with the court’s finding. Specifically, 

mother states as a factual basis for her petition: “I don’t agree on the fact of me being in 

treatment outpatient 3x a week through Community Human Services. I’ve complete 29 

out of the 36. I’ve been sober since August 9th 2015. Please consider continuing 

services.” 

The writ procedure outlined in section 366.26, subdivision (l) and implemented in 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 enables a party to obtain expeditious review of the 

findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a section 366.26 hearing. (See Steve J. 

v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811.) Trial counsel is not required to file a 

writ petition if trial counsel believes a petition has no arguable merit, and the filing of any 

such petition would breach the attorney’s professional obligation and would be frivolous. 

(Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583-584.) Although mother was 
6

represented by appointed counsel, she has filed the instant writ petition in propria 

persona. Nevertheless, she must still follow the correct rules of procedure. (See Nwosu 

v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)

A party seeking extraordinary writ relief is obliged to submit a petition that 

“ ‘substantively addresses the specific issues to be challenged and is supported by an 

adequate record.’ ” (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 582.) “The 

petition must be accompanied by a memorandum.” (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.452(a)(2).) The memorandum “must provide a summary of the significant facts,” 

and it must “support each point by argument and citation of authority.” (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.452(b)(1), (b)(2).)

Here, mother’s petition does not follow the procedural requirements of California 

Rules of Court, rule 8.252. Mother does not summarize the significant facts of the case, 

she does not include citations to the record, and she does not include the required 

memorandum with citations to legal authorities. 

Where the petition is defective, it may be summarily denied. (Anthony D. v.

Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157 [under former but identical rule of court]; 

Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947, 955-956 [same].)

Despite the deficiencies of the petition in this case, however, we will consider

mother’s petition on the merits. “The interest at stake in [such] petitions is of extreme 

importance, as the termination of reunification services in most instances ensures the 

subsequent termination of parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing.” (Glen C. v. 

Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 580.) Moreover, the statute encourages 

reviewing courts to consider such petitions on their merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4)(B); 

Steve J. v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 807.)

We review a court’s dispositional order for abuse of discretion. (In re Ronny P.

(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1207.) We review the factual findings that the court made 
7

in support of its decision under the substantial evidence test. (In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 

Cal.App.4th 377, 382.) Specifically, we view the record in the light most favorable to the 

court’s order, indulging in all reasonable inferences, and uphold the court’s findings 

when supported by substantial evidence. (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 

694.)

In her petition, mother challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her 

reunification services on the ground that she had been sober since August 9, 2015, and 

she disagreed with the court’s decision. However, the fact that mother had been sober 

since August 9, 2015 was before the court at the contested hearing. Moreover, mother 

made the same request of the juvenile court that she is making here, specifically, that 

reunification services be continued because of her recent commitment to sobriety. 

Mother’s request that we “consider continuing services,” is not a ground upon which we 

can grant relief. 

This record provides substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that while 

mother had made some progress with her sobriety, that she had not done enough to 

ensure her ability to safely parent C.T. Mother’s recent relapse in August 2015 was 

evidence to support the court’s finding that mother had not been committed to being 

sober up until that time, and that she had not sufficiently participated in the reunification 

services offered to her the past 12 months. 

We find that the court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, and 

that the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating reunification services under 

section 366.21, subdivision (e). Based on the facts presented in the report, as well as 

during the contested hearing, the court properly concluded that there was not a substantial 

likelihood that C.T. could be safely returned to mother within the 18-month period. 

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary relief is denied.
8

______________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

PREMO, J.

____________________________________

MÁRQUEZ, J.