1

Filed 5/27/15 In re M.A. CA1/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

In re M.A., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

CHERRY N., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A143370 

 (City & County of San Francisco 

 Super. Ct. No. JD13-3310) 

 Mother appeals the termination of reunification services at the six-month review 

hearing regarding her then two-year-old daughter. She asserts there was insufficient 

evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that there was no substantial probability 

that child may be returned to her within the time remaining in the statutory reunification 

period. We affirm. 

Factual and Procedural History 

 On November 18, 2013, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the agency) 

filed a petition alleging, among other things, the daughter was at risk of harm under 

Welfare and Institutions Code1

 section 300, subdivisions (b), due to her mother and father 

abusing drugs. The petition alleged further that mother had mental health problems, was 

homeless and unable to provide for her daughter. 

 

1

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

 At the November 19, 2013 detention hearing, the daughter was detained and 

placed with a relative, who also has custody of mother’s six-year-old daughter. 

 At the February 21, 2014 contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother and 

father submitted to jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b). The court sustained 

the allegations regarding the parents’ substance abuse, mother’s mental health problems, 

her homelessness and inability to provide for her daughter. Mother and father were 

granted reunification services. Mother was ordered to participate in counseling, parenting 

education and complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations 

for treatment and was granted supervised visits. 

 On August 1, 2014, the agency filed a status report in advance of the six-month 

review hearing recommending termination of services. The agency reported that mother 

remained homeless and had not used the housing service referrals offered to her by the 

agency. She had scheduled a number of therapy appointments but had failed to attend the 

appointments. Mother did not attend parenting classes arranged by the agency, or 

complete a substance abuse assessment. Mother also failed to maintain regular contact 

with the child. The social worker had been unable to observe mother with the child 

because mother had not set up any visits at the visitation center. Mother had visited with 

her daughter just twice in the five and half months since disposition—both times 

supervised by the relative caregiver in the relative’s home. 

 A contested six-month review hearing was held on September 29, 2014. The social 

worker testified mother had not begun counseling or completed a substance abuse 

assessment. Mother had informed her that she started a parenting program a week before 

the hearing but the social worker had no evidence to support mother’s claim. Mother 

began visiting her daughter after the status report was issued and had regularly visited the 

child twice a week for three hours each visit. 

 Mother acknowledged that she did not apply herself with respect to completing her 

case plan, although she made numerous attempts to start various programs. She explained 

that she struggled with homelessness which made it difficult for her to comply with 
3

services. She found stable housing two weeks prior to the hearing and had started seeking 

help to comply with services through The Homeless Prenatal Program. 

 The court expressed its “continuing concerns about mother’s substance abuse 

issues and challenges, and mental health challenges that remain in need of assessment 

and treatment” and observed that the extent of progress made by mother towards 

alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement has been minimal. The court 

found by clear and convincing evidence that mother failed to participate regularly in her 

case plan and that there was not a substantial probability that the child could be returned 

to mother in the next six months. The court terminated mother’s reunification services 

and ordered that her visits remain supervised. Father’s reunification services were 

extended an additional 12 months. 

 On October 22, 2014, mother filed her notice of appeal. 

Discussion 

 “The status of every dependent child in foster care shall be reviewed periodically 

as determined by the court but no less frequently than once every six months. . . .” (§ 366, 

subd. (a)(1).) “The third paragraph of section 366.21, subdivision (e), requires a 

specialized inquiry at the six-month review for children . . . who are ‘under the age of 

three years on the date of the initial removal’ and are not being returned to the custody of 

their parents at that time. For such dependent children, if ‘the court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive 

progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to 

[s]ection 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial 

probability that the child . . . may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within 

six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue 

the case to the 12–month permanency hearing.’ (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)” (M.V. v. Superior 

Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 175, italics omitted.) In M.V. the court explained that 

a finding of a “substantial probability the child may be returned” requires a determination 

of “whether there is a strong likelihood of a possibility of return (not simply a strong 

likelihood the return will in fact occur).” (Id. at p. 181.) The court may consider the three 
4

factors set forth in section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1) (maintaining consistent and regular 

contact with the child, making progress in addressing the issues that led to dependency, 

and demonstrating the potential to be a good parent) “along with any other relevant 

evidence (such as extenuating circumstances excusing noncompliance with the three 

factors) in considering whether there is substantial evidence of a possible return to the 

mother by the 12–month hearing.” (M.V., p. 181.) 

 An order terminating services is reviewed for substantial evidence. (Kevin R v. 

Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688.) “In making this determination, we 

review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw all 

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 findings of the trial court.’ ” (Id. at 

pp. 688-689.) 

 Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings that return of the child to her 

custody would be detrimental, or that she failed to participate regularly and make 

substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan. She asserts, however, that the 

evidence showed a substantial possibility that her daughter might be returned to her 

within the five months remaining until the 12-month review hearing. She argues that 

despite being only 21 years old and struggling with homelessness and mental health 

issues, she had maintained consistent visits in the two months prior to the hearing and had 

begun arranging for services. Mother also notes that “[d]enying reunification services did 

not serve to expedite the implementation of a permanent plan for [her daughter]” because 

the court granted additional reunification services to the father. 

 In this case, given mother’s complete lack of participation in the services provided 

and apparently untreated drug abuse and mental health issues, we find that the record 

amply supports the court’s termination of services. Contrary to mother’s argument, her 

recent interest in visitation is not enough to establish a strong likelihood that the daughter 

may be returned to her care within the time allotted. While mother’s youth and 

homelessness undoubtedly contributed to her lack of participation in services, they are 
5

not “extenuating circumstances excusing noncompliance.” (M.V. v. Superior Court, 

supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 181.) Her homelessness is likely a byproduct of her 

untreated substance abuse and mental health issues for which she has not begun 

treatment. Likewise, while the court was free to consider the fact that services were 

extended for father in deciding whether to terminate services for mother, it was not 

required to extend services for both parents. (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 

60 [at six-month review hearing involving child under the age of three, court is not 

required to continue services for one parent when reunification efforts continue for the 

other parent and court does not set a section 366.26 hearing].) The court reasonably 

rejected mother’s argument that there would be no harm in extending her services along 

with father’s extension of services. The court explained that mother still has access to 

services in the community but that the burden was on her to avail herself of those services 

and convince the court to reconsider its ruling. Accordingly, we shall affirm the order 

terminating services. 

Disposition

 The order terminating reunification services is affirmed. 

 _________________________ 

 Pollak, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

McGuiness, P. J. 

_________________________ 

Jenkins, J.