Filed 4/22/15 C.K. v. Super. Ct. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

C.K.,
Petitioner,

v.

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent;

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest. 2d Civ. No. B261407 (Super. Ct. No. JV51905) (San Luis Obispo County)

C.K. (mother) challenges an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a permanen t plan hearing regarding her minor child C.V. (minor). (Welf. & Inst. C ode, §§ 366.26, subd. (c), 388.) 1 We deny her petition for extraordinary writ.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Detention When minor was two months old, th e San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS or the Departme nt) filed a dependency petition alleging her parents failed to protect her due to s ubstance abuse problems and ongoing domestic violence between them. (§ 300, subd. (b ).) The detention report stated that approximately two weeks before the petition, while mother was holding minor, mother and T.V. (father) engaged in a physical altercation that resulted in his arrest. An
imminent risk team decision- making meeting was held. The parents signed a safety plan agreeing to refrain from furthe r substance abuse and domestic violence. Father agreed not to have contact with minor unless supervis ed by the paternal grandmother. Later that day father used methamphetamine. With minor in their care, mother and father spent the
weekend in a motel in Atascadero where th ey used methamphetamine and reportedly argued. Mother reportedly drank alcohol. Both parents failed to show up for drug testing. The juvenile court ordered minor's detention and placement in a suitable home.
Jurisdictional and Di spositional Hearing At the combined jurisdictional and di spositional hearing, mother and father
submitted on DSS's recommendation of six months of reunifica tion services. There were reports that they continued to fight on a regu lar basis. Mother denied having an alcohol problem but could not explain why she continued to dri nk knowing that it violated the terms and conditions of her prob ation or parole. Father ad mitted having a drug problem and continuing to use drugs and claimed to be looking for a residential treatment center. Mother's minimization of and lack of insigh t into her substance abuse was "[o]f great
concern" to DSS. It was also concerned w ith mother's stated un willingness to separate from father despite her awareness of his con tinued drug use and the continued verbal and physical altercations between them. The ju venile court found that minor's parents had minimally complied with the ca se plan and ordered six mont hs of reunification services with supervised visits for each parent.3 Three months later, DSS reported that mother had been testing negative for alcohol and drugs. Mother denied having a problem. She did not enter residential recovery services as recommended by DSS because they "have too many rules" and "really mess people up." She contacted RI SE for domestic violence treatment services and was directed to a weekly support group in Paso Robles and individual counseling in Atascadero. Mother often showed up late to supervised visits w ith minor and brought along other adults. She seemed more interest ed in talking with th ese other adults than attending her child. Father was in residen tial treatment for drug and alcohol abuse at Victory Outreach in Vallejo after being arrested for an altercation with mother. Although both parents had recently and "with some resistance and re luctance" engaged in services, DSS concluded that their denial of problems with substance abuse and domestic violence was "the single greatest barrier to their pr ogress in reunifying w ith their child." Six-Month Review Hearing
At the time of the six-month review he aring, mother resided in Paso Robles at Gryphon House, a sober living home. She was participating in drug and alcohol services (DAS) and had tested clean for se ven weeks. She had not begun domestic violence counseling with RISE but had addr essed setting appropriate boundaries in intimate relationships in her substance abuse counseling. She was having regular visits
with minor and had enrolled in family treatment court and the perinatal outpatient extended group (POEG) program. She was a llowed to have unsupe rvised visits with minor during the week. DSS reported that mother's care of her daughter during these visits had "gradually improved" and it was "cautiously optimistic" that mother could reunify with minor if she continued to progress in services and obtained a stable source of income and appropriate housing. Father was in jail for a probation violation. Prior to that, he was in Gryphon House in Atascadero. DSS concluded that he had "much work to do to stabilize his own life in light of his me ntal health, criminal and substance abuse issues before he will be in the pos ition to parent a young child." The juvenile court found that mother had substantially complied with the case plan and there was a substantial probability that minor might be returned to her.4 Pursuant to DSS's recommendation, the court ordered six more months of reunification
services and set a date for a 12-month review hearing. The court ordered mother to comply with the case pl an, including participation in ment al health counseling regarding domestic violence, adherence to the recommended DAS treatment plan, and submission to random drug testing. In addition, the court prohibited the parents from visiting minor together without specific DSS approval. The 30-Day Visit
Six weeks before the 12-month review hearing, mother requested approval of a 30-day visit with minor. Minor's careta kers and attorney opposed the visit. The caretakers requested de facto parent status. They observed that wh en mother came to pick up her daughter, minor "[al]most al ways runs away from her" and leaves "unwillingly and in tears." On more than one occasion while holding minor, who was crying, mother became "verbally aggressive and physically intimidating" towards the caretakers. Her boyfriend at the time, G.V ., had "an extensive . . . history of alcohol
abuse and domestic violence." The caretaker s felt that mother was not developing a bond
with her child and was refusi ng opportunities to spend time with minor and them outside of the scheduled visits. They believed she had "consistently had a difficult time putting [minor's] needs above her wants. " One day when mother had to appear in court, she left minor in the care of a fellow resident at Gryp hon House rather than, as the social worker recommended, the familiar environment of day ca re. The next day the caretakers noticed
minor had a bite mark a nd scrape on her back.
Based on the social worker's recomme ndation, DSS notified the court that it intended to seek family mainte nance services for mother. D SS reported that mother had "made remarkable progress" and it anticipated she would begin a 30-day visit with minor around the time of the 12-month hearing if she continued to achieve her treatment goals. Mother continued to participat e in substance abuse treatmen t. She was still living at Gryphon House and participating in fam ily treatment court and POEG. She was attending 12-step meetings and had foun d an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor. In addition, she reported securing employment at Walmart in Paso Robl es and applying for5 low-income housing with a plan to apply for housing in Upham Apartments when she exited Gryphon House. She claimed to be pa rticipating in domestic violence counseling with the RISE progra m in Paso Robles. DSS could not corroborate the caretakers' concerns about G.V. and mother's spendi ng her visitation time with minor in his company. Although in genera l mother was "cooperative with taking parenting direction and [was] observed showing appropriate care of [minor]," a social worker expressed concern that mother did not respond to minor 's cues during a doctor's visit. A week before the 12-month hearing, the parties r eached a mediated agre ement that mother would take minor for a 30-day visit begi nning the week after the hearing. Twelve-Month Permanency Hearing At the 12-month hearing, DSS re commended that the court continue jurisdiction over minor and order six more mont hs of reunification services. It reported that "although [mother] has follo wed the letter of the Case Plan , she still lags behind with the insight needed to keep [minor] safe in her care." DSS cited recent incidents in which mother stated that she planned to continue her relationship with G.V. in spite of children's services' concerns about him, failed to report minor's unexplained injury in a timely manner, and left minor in the care of a Gryp hon House resident rather than the licensed day care provider who was available to her. It cited two remaining barriers to mother's safe reunification with minor. First, minor wa s "not adjusting well to her mother's care" as evidenced by minor's aggressive behavior and dysregulation. DSS noted that this concern was "hard to substantiate" and may simp ly reflect the difficulty of transitions for most children of minor's age. The second conc ern was mother's "lack of insight in regard to her child's safety and well-being." Beca use mother had "made great strides in her insight" and had "established an honest rapport with her current Domestic Violence counselor to allow this persona l growth to continue," DSS an ticipated that minor could be
returned to mother's car e if mother continued to follow the case plan. The juvenile court found that moth er had made substantial progress and there was a substantial probability that minor would be returned to her. The court set6 dates for an 18-month permanency hearing and, in the interim, a progress hearing in one
month at the end of the 30-day visit. Termination of Reun ification Services In preparation for the progress heari ng, DSS expressed concern that mother and father "appear to be reconciling their rela tionship" yet father "does not appear to be participating in his case plan activities that would provide safety and stability for his daughter." It noted that mother had receive d a "three day notice" at Gryphon House for not completing her chores satisfa ctorily, but that the notice had been rescinded. Mother wanted to move out of her sober living reside nce and her treatment t eam agreed that she was ready but it had not yet approved a new residence. DSS recommended that minor
remain on an extended visitati on with mother and that another interim review hearing be scheduled in 30 days with the expecta tion that it would be recommending family
maintenance at that time. One week after the progress hearing, DSS, joined by minor's counsel and county counsel, requested that the juvenile court terminate reunification services. It asserted that mother had "failed to adequa tely demonstrate she can protect [minor] from additional exposure to aggre ssive behaviors and individuals from whom she has been
ordered to have no contact with." DSS recei ved a report of child abuse because mother was allowing both G.V. and father to be in the residence with minor. It cited an incident
the week before where both me n were at the residence toge ther, "had a verbal argument and postured to fight." Mother 's case plan specifically iden tified G.V. as an individual who may not be around minor due to his "vio lent criminal background." In addition, mother was not approved to supervise vis its between father and minor because "his sobriety has not yet been confirmed." Mo ther admitted that sh e had spent time with father and minor that day, but stated that it was a onetime occurrence. Minor was not at home during the altercation between father an d G.V. because she was on a visit with her
caretaker. DSS subsequently reported that moth er continued to spend time with G.V. despite claiming that she was not pursuing a relationship with him and was seeking a7 protective order to keep him away from her. In addition, mother moved to a residence that DSS did not approve and that was not suitable for minor because there were "ongoing reports of domestic violence and drug use of the a dults and juveniles in the
residence." Father's mother found him semiconscious with a needle in his arm and brought him to a residential "d etox" program, which he left shortly thereafter. He was
"exited" from DAS for continued failure to show up for drug screens and was twice "exited" from Gryphon House. Minor was place d back with her caretakers. She showed
fear of both father and mother at supervised visitations. The juvenile court found that, base d on this new evidence, reunification services were no longer in the best interest s of minor. The court granted the section 388 petition, terminated reunification services fo r both parents, and se t a section 366.26 hearing on May 6, 2015. The case plan goal for minor is now adoption.
DISCUSSION
Mother seeks to vacate the juvenile court's order terminating reunification
services and to have them reinstated. She contends that there was no change in circumstances or new evidence to support DS S's section 388 petition and that substantial evidence does not support the j uvenile court's finding that minor cannot be safely placed
with mother at the 18-month date. "'At the hearing on the petition pursuant to section 388, the juvenile court's task was to determine whether the Departme nt had demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that ther e was new evidence or a change of circumstances demonstrating that it was in [the child's] best interests that the previous . . . order, [which provided for reunification services for mother], be changed, modified or set aside. [Citations.] . . . The petition is addressed to the sound discretion of the juven ile court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" ( Sheila S. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872, 877-878.) "We review an order terminating reunifi cation services to determine if it is supported by substantial eviden ce. [Citation.] In making this determination, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's de terminations and draw all8 reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. [Citation.] 'We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the fi ndings of the trial cour t.' [Citation.]" ( Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688-689.) Here, the juvenile court explained that this was a case in which there were
two "tiers" of issues that moth er needed to address. Alt hough the court recognized the "amazing things" she had done in terms of addressing her substance abuse problems, it
found that she had not crossed the "interrelati onships" tier. It found that after more than a year of reunification services mother had fa iled to address her domestic violence issues by staying away from inappropriat e men. The court further fo und that with less than two months before the 18-month hearing, mother wo uld not be in a positi on to safely reunify
at that time. New and substantial ev idence supports these conclusions. At the 12-month permanency heari ng, the extension of reunification
services was conditioned on mother's adhere nce to the case plan, which prohibited her from "engaging in a relationship or having si gnificant contact with individuals with a history of domestic violence." In particula r, mother was told by the social worker and reminded at the 12-month hearing that she is not authorized to supervise visits between minor and father. The next day, father a nd G.V. were at her residence and became embroiled in a verbal and nearly physical ar gument. Three days later when the social worker showed up at mother's residence unannounced, mo ther's roommate reported that
mother and father were out on a walk. The roommate had observed mother with father on two occasions that week, duri ng one of which they were in the apartment with minor. According to the caretaker, fath er stayed at mother's home af ter the incident with G.V. and once, with minor present, threw down his backpack and threatened to "beat this guy's
ass."
Mother also continued to see G.V. despite claiming to be working on getting a protective order to keep him away from her. A month after the 12-month hearing she was seen walking with him along the Paso Robles winter parade route and, later, coming out his front door from inside hi s residence and standing on his front porch.9 Even if, as mother claimed, she was walking with and vi siting a different friend, her decision to place herself in such close proximity to G.V. sup ports the trial court's finding
that her choices were not in minor's best interests. Substantial evidence supports the juve nile court's finding that minor could not be safely returned to mo ther. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the section 388 petition termin ating reunification services.
DISPOSITION The petition for extraord inary writ is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.10 Linda D. Hurst, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

________________ ______________

Mary Ann Foster for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Rita L. Neal, County Co unsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.