Filed 1/29/16 A. T . v. S uperior Court CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ;

M ONTEREY 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 f amily
reunifica tion services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.26 h earing with respect to her daughter C.T., who has previously been declared a dependent of the

court.
Mo ther claims that the court erred in denying her additional reunification
services

.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 S TATEMENT OF THE F ACTS AND C ASE On August 5, 2014, the Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services (hereinafter “DSS” or “Department”) filed a section 300 petition on 10

- month

old C. T., under s ection 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 issue s with the mother, and physical and
emotional abuse of the chil dren. At the August 6, 2014 detention hearing, the court found that C. T. was a person
described in s ection 300, found that continued care by the parents would be detrimental,
committed the ch ild to the custody of the D SS, ordered drug testing for mother; and scheduled a jurisdictional/dispositional hea ring for September 23, 2014.
At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adopted the recommendations of the Departme nt and ordered that C.T. be adjudged a dependent child
of th e juvenile court; that C.T. be removed from the parents; that the mother be offered
reunification serv ices; 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

- an d
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 main tain the dependency of C.T.; continu e 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 posit i ve for alcohol, marijuana, and methamphet amines. M other had entered Door to Hope on February 11, 2015, and had been actively been participating in therapeutic groups, individual counse ling, and pare nting classes. M other had recently completed3

Parent Education Group (PEG) and was currently participating in the Parent s as Teachers (PAT) program.
M other was currently attending three to six NA/AA meetings a week, acknowledged that she did have a subst ance 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 soc ial 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 fa mily reunification services. In preparation for the 12

- month review hearing, a status report was f iled August 27, 2015, recommending that the court main tain the dependency of C.T.; continue
C.T. in out

- of

- home care; terminate famil y reunification services to mo ther; and set the
matter for a selection and i mplementation h earing on January 19, 2016. The report note d 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

note d 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 mee ting on August 13, 2015, mother stated she had relapsed , and that she had been driving while
under the influence. M other reported she had relapsed over the we ekend and during a previous week, and stated she had been only working on her issues at a “surface level.” The report recommended family reunification s ervices be terminated as to mother
as there was not a substa ntial probability that C.T. could be retu rned to the mother withi n4

18 months

. The report stated that mother had not made consistent or significant progress during th is review period, C.T.’s need for permanency outweighed mother’s n eed for more time to participate in her case plan , and that mothe r had still not made su bstantial 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 reaffirme d its recommendation that reunification services to the mother be
terminated.
M other called Allison Doss , her A.A. sponsor to testif y

. She testif

ied she had seen a change in mothe r since her most recent relapse and she believed that mother had finally
h it bottom. She testified that they were work ing the steps together, and mother was on Step 3.
Mother also called Marachelle Ja ckson, a woman who had given mother referrals to her various treatment programs, housing, and classes for the past six or seve n years. She testified that in all the years, she had never seen the mother so committed as after her

re cent relap se. Mother testified on her own behalf that since her recent relapse, she was taking the suggestions and dealing with her r ecovery head

- on. She noted tha t she had 75 days
sober. In its decision, t he Court noted that this case began in June 2014 after the mother was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with he r three children in the car.
At that time , the police co ntacted th e Department for its help because this was not the first driving und er the influence matter for mother. The police learned then t hat mother frequently drinks and drives under the influence which re sulted in the likelihood of mother facing legal charges, a nd in fact she did face l egal charges in this matter. M other had a criminal history impairing h er ability to care for C.T. ; convictions for a controlled5

substance in 2011; public intoxication and causing great bodily harm to a child; and possession of a d angerous weapon in 2012. The court noted mother had participated in numerous drug and alcohol programs, including five residential programs starting about 2006, which sh e had testified to in court. The court concluded that, despite the reuni fication se rvices offered to mother, she
had not made the necessary progress. The court also noted that a lthough mother had made some p rogress, that progress had really only happened since August 2015.
The court found that based on mother’s lack of consistent sob riety, there was not a substantial probability for the safe return of C.T. to mother’s care within 18 months even
if additional s ervices were offered to her. The court adopted the Department’s findings;
terminated reunific ation services to mother; continu ed the child as a dependent of the court; and set a Selection and Implementation he aring for February 23, 2016.
D ISCUSSION In her petition, mother challenges the order made on October 26, 2015 (at the 12

– month hearing) on the basis that she does not agre e 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 secti on 366.26, subdivision ( l ) and implemented in California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 enables a party t o obtain expeditious review of the findings and orders of t he juvenile cou rt in setting a section 366.26 hearing. (See Steve J. v. Superior Court (1 995) 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 mer it, and the filing of an y such petition would breach the attorney’s professional obligation and w ould be frivolous. ( Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583

- 584.) Although mother was6

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

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 addre sses the speci fic 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 m emorandum.” ( Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.452(a)(2).) The memorandum “must provi de a summary of the significant fac ts,” and it must “support each point by argument and citation of authority.” ( Cal. Rules of Court, r ule 8.452(b)(1), (b)(2).) Here, mother’s petition does not follow the procedural requirements of California
Rules of Co urt, r ule 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 , how ever, we will consider mother’s petition on the merits. “The interest at s take in [such] petitions is of extreme importance, as the termination of reunification services in most instances ensures the subsequent termina tion 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 enco urages reviewing courts to consider such petitions on their merit s. (§ 366.26, subd. ( l )(4)(B); Steve J. v. Superior Court, supra , 35 Cal.App.4th 79 8, 807.)
W e review a court’s di spositional order for abuse of disc retion. ( In re Ronny P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1204 , 1207.) We review the factual findings that the court made7

in sup port of its decision under the substantial evidence test. ( In re Broo ke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 382.) Specifically, we view the record in t he light most favorable to the court’s order, indulging in all reasona ble inferences, and uphold the court’s findings when supported by substanti al evidence. ( In re Isayah C. ( 2 004) 118 Cal.App.4th 6 84,
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 fac t 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 her e, specifically, that
reunification services be continued because of her re cent commitment to sobriety. Mother’ s request that we “consider continuing services,” is not a groun d upon which we can grant relief

. This record provides substantial e vidence to support the court’s finding that while
mother had made some progress wi th 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 offer ed to her the past 12 months.
W e find that the court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating reunific ation 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 mothe r within the 18

- month period.
D ISPOSITION The petition for extraordinary relief is denied.8 ______________________________________

RUSHING , P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

PREMO, J

.

________________ ____________________

MÁRQUEZ, J.