Filed 6/6/16 R.R. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

R.R.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS 

COUNTY,

Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F073414

(Super. Ct. No. 517308)

OPINION

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. 

Ameral, Judge.

Thomas P. White, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Robin Gozzo, Deputy County Counsel, for 

Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
2

R.R. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s orders issued 

at a six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))1terminating her 

reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her 10-month-old 

daughter C.R. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification 

services. We deny the petition. 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Mother has a long history of methamphetamine use and child neglect. At the time 

of these proceedings, she had five older children, then ranging in age from five to 

seventeen years of age, who were not in her custody. Mother also has a history of 

aggressive and assaultive behavior. In May 2000, she was convicted of willful cruelty to 

a child after she smacked her then two-year-old son in the small of his back, causing 

severe redness. In March 2012, mother choked her then eight‐year-old daughter and 

pulled her hair. During the intervening years, the Stanislaus County Community Services 

Agency (agency) received many reports of mother’s drug use, homelessness and neglect. 

These dependency proceedings were initiated in July 2015 when mother gave birth 

prematurely to C.R., who tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of delivery. 

The agency took C.R. into protective custody at the hospital and placed her in foster care 

upon her release. C.R.’s alleged father stated he did not have stable housing and could 

not care for her. 

In August 2015, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction, removed 

C.R. from mother’s custody, and approved a plan of reunification that required mother to 

participate in mental health, parenting and substance abuse services and weekly 

supervised visitation. The court set the six-month review hearing for February 2016. 

In September 2015, the agency filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile 

court to suspend mother’s visits because mother assaulted C.R. during a visit on 

 

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

September 18. Mother fell asleep during the visit multiple times, with C.R. cradled in her 

arm. When the social worker woke her up and told her she would have to end the visit, 

mother became enraged and rose from the couch, causing C.R. to flip violently to the 

other side of her body. Mother harshly flipped C.R. into her other arm, stating loudly, 

“Fuck you, this is my baby. You can’t end my visit. This is my fucking newborn. I get 

my two hours.” Mother ranted for approximately two minutes, all the while attempting to 

forcefully shove C.R. into her car seat. However, because there were items in the car 

seat, mother yanked C.R. toward her chest and over to her left arm and threw the items in 

the car seat onto the floor. C.R.’s head was flopping around as she did this. The social 

worker was unable to remove C.R. from mother without endangering C.R. further. 

Mother placed C.R. in the car seat after multiple requests and coaching by the staff. Four

days later, C.R.’s foster parents took her to the doctor because she was sleeping 

excessively and not tracking well. The doctor ordered a computerized tomography scan 

to assess her for shaken baby syndrome.

The juvenile court suspended mother’s visits and admonished her for her poor 

progress. In December 2015, mother began to participate in her services in earnest. She 

entered the Redwood Family Center, a clean and sober living program, and was 

reportedly doing well in her substance abuse and parenting services. She had also met 

with a therapist who recommended she participate in a psychological evaluation. 

In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the 

juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services. The agency reported that mother 

had made very little progress in her case plan and had only begun to engage very late in 

the process. In addition, mother was essentially a stranger to C.R. since C.R. had not 

seen mother since the incident in September 2015. 

In January 2016, prior to the hearing, mother’s attorney filed a section 388 petition 

asking the juvenile court to reinstate visits. Her attorney represented that mother took 

responsibility for her actions and was working on her court-ordered services. He stated 
4

that her state of mind had significantly changed and C.R. would no longer be at risk if 

visitation resumed. 

In March 2016, the juvenile court conducted a contested combined hearing on the 

six-month review and the section 388 petition. Mother testified she began parenting 

classes and drug treatment in early January 2016, and would begin individual counseling 

four days after the hearing. She explained that she was “coming down off 

methamphetamine” and had an emotional outburst when she mishandled C.R. during that 

last visit in September. She did not believe she was a danger to C.R. any longer because 

she was in her “right mind.” 

The juvenile court questioned mother about her drug use. Mother stated she began 

using methamphetamine at the age of 15 or 16 and she was currently 37 years old. 

During that time, she abstained a couple of times for a year or a little longer, and 

completed two other substance abuse treatment programs. 

The juvenile court found that the agency provided mother reasonable reunification 

services but that she failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress. The 

court stated:

“You have 89 days clean, and that’s certainly to be commended, but I don’t 

find that it’s really participating regularly and making substantive progress 

because at this point, I don’t believe that there is any way that [C.R.] could 

be returned to you on or before August 20, 2016.... And given the 

significant history that you have with regard to substance abuse, and the 

fact that we don’t even have a psychological evaluation, and, unfortunately, 

you haven’t even been able to visit with your daughter because of the real 

serious danger that you put her in, I am not in a position to be able to 

continue your reunification services for an additional period of time.” 

The juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services, denied her section 

388 petition, and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
5

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in not making a finding as 

to whether there was a substantial probability C.R. could be returned to her custody by 

the 12-month review hearing. She argues section 366.21, subdivision (e) and California 

Rules of Court, rule 5.710(c) require it. She further contends the juvenile court’s error 

was not harmless because she could have reunified with C.R. before the 12-month review 

hearing. We find no error.

Section 366.21, subdivision (e) governs the proceedings at the six-month review 

hearing. Subdivision (e)(3) of section 366.21 (“the statute”) addresses mother’s issue. It 

provides in relevant part: 

“If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, 

... and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent 

failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a courtordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to 

Section 366.26.... If, however, the court finds 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, the court 

shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.”

2

The statute thus informs us, as pertinent to mother’s issue, that the juvenile court 

must continue reunification services to the 12-month review hearing when the child was 

under the age of three years old when initially removed, as occurred here, and there is a 

substantial probability of return within six months. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) 

California Rules of Court, rule 5.710(c)(1)(D) (hereafter “the rule”) incorporates 

the language of the statute and authorizes the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 

hearing if the statute applies. It also sets forth a three-factor test the court should 

 

2 Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s findings that she was provided 

reasonable reunification services and that she failed to participate regularly and make 

substantive progress. Consequently, we focus our analysis on the juvenile court’s 

probability of return finding.
6

consider in assessing the probability of return, i.e.: (1) whether the parent consistently 

and regularly contacted and visited the child; (2) whether the parent made significant 

progress in resolving the problems that led to the removal of the child; and (3) whether 

the parent demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the 

treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, and physical and 

emotional well-being. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.710(c)(1)(D)(i)(a)-(c).) 

As a preliminary matter, we dispense with mother’s contention that the statute and 

the rule require the juvenile court to make an express finding as to the probability of 

return. There is no such requirement. Even if such a requirement existed, we can infer a 

required finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Corienna G. (1989) 

213 Cal.App.3d 73, 83.) Further, the juvenile court is not confined to the three-factor test 

of California Rules of Court, rule 5.710(c)(1)(D)(i)(a)-(c) in assessing the probability of 

return. Rather, the court can consider any relevant evidence. (M.V. v. Superior Court

(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 183.) 

To clarify, the juvenile court must continue reunification services if it finds there 

is a probability the child will be returned to parental custody by the 12-month review 

hearing. However, if the court finds there is not a probability of return, the court is not 

required to terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court 

may terminate services, but it can also exercise its discretion and continue services to the 

12-month review hearing.

We review the juvenile court’s finding there is not a substantial probability of 

return for substantial evidence. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 

688-689.) Whether the juvenile court made the correct decision upon its findings of fact 

is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Brequia Y. (1997) 

57 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1068.) 

We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding 

there was not a substantial probability C.R. could be returned to mother’s custody by 
7

August 2016, the month in which the 12-month review hearing would have been 

scheduled. As evidenced by the record, mother’s drug use and violent disposition are so 

deeply entrenched that it is hard to imagine when C.R. could be safely returned to her 

custody. Indeed, the record reflects that mother’s assault of C.R. is very reminiscent of 

her assault on her son in 2000. According to the police report in that case, the maternal 

grandmother saw mother hitting the child excessively hard and tried to intervene. 

Mother, who was “coming down off drugs,” told the grandmother the “kid” was hers and 

“she could do to him what she wanted to.” It seems nothing had changed in the ensuing 

15 years leading up to C.R.’s birth when mother, again “coming down off 

methamphetamine” and asserting her perceived right to handle her children however she 

wanted, yanked her around like a rag doll. 

We further conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating 

mother’s reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for the reasons 

discussed above.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to 

this court.