1

Filed 11/24/14 C.P. v. Superior Court CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

C.P.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO 

COUNTY,

Respondent;

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH &

HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

 A142999

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. Nos. J40436 & J41019)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Petitioner C.P. (“mother”) seeks extraordinary relief from orders of the juvenile 

court terminating reunification services with her two daughters, B.A.P. and B.P. (jointly 

“minors”), and scheduling a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 

Because we conclude the record amply supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate 

 

1

 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of 

Judicial Administration, sections 8.1(1), (3). (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., §§ 8.1(1), (3).)

2

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code 

unless otherwise specified.
2

services and set a section 366.26 hearing, we shall deny the petition for extraordinary 

relief on the merits.3

On May 17, 2013, Solano County Health and Social Services Department 

(“Department”) filed a section 300 dependency petition on behalf of mother’s three 

daughters B.K. (then 15 years old), B.A.P. (then seven years old), and B.P. (then two 

years old). In the petition, the Department alleged mother and the children’s fathers 

failed to protect them (§ 300, subd. (b)) on account of parents’ untreated substance abuse 

and unsanitary and unsafe conditions in the home. On May 20, 2013, the juvenile court 

ruled parents had found an acceptable alternative placement for 15-year-old B.K. and 

detained B.A.P. and B.P. 

At a hearing on the section 300 petition in August 2013, parents submitted to 

jurisdiction under the subdivision (b) allegations noted above. The court adjudged the 

minors dependents of the court, continued their out-of-home placement as appropriate, 

ordered reunification services to parents, and scheduled the six-month review hearing on 

January 30, 2014.

4

 The status report submitted by the Department in connection with the 

six-month review hearing showed that, during the initial phase of these dependency 

proceedings spanning May to December 2013, mother was in denial regarding the 

problems leading to the minors’ removal and failed to engage in the services offered to 

 

3

 Because the factual circumstances underlying mother’s claims of error, including those 

relating to the current proceeding as well as her prior history of involvement with the 

Department, are known to the parties and summarized in detail in the “Statement of 

Facts” set forth in the Department’s “Response to Petition for Extraordinary Writ” filed 

in this matter on October 30, 2014, we describe only the background necessary to frame 

our subsequent discussion. 

4

 The six-month review hearing must be held six months after the initial dispositional 

hearing but no later than 12 months after the minor entered foster care (§ 366.21, subd. 

(e)); “. . . a child shall be deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of 

the jurisdictional hearing held pursuant to Section 356 or the date that is 60 days after the 

date on which the child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her 

parent or guardian” (§ 361.49).)
3

address the problems. Indeed, at the six-month stage, the Department recommended 

termination of services because mother had continued to abuse drugs, failed to address 

her mental health needs, and had “yet to participate in a parenting program and continues 

to struggle managing her own resources and needs.” Mother continued to use drugs into 

2014 and tested positive for both marijuana and methamphetamine on January 31 and 

March 4, 2014. 

However, the contested six-month review hearing was not held until June 17, 

2014.5 After initially denying mother’s counsel’s request for a further continuance of the 

hearing,6the juvenile court received evidence that mother attended group sessions at 

Healthy Partnerships’s outpatient substance abuse treatment program during January and 

February 2014; resided at Laurel Creek, a crisis residential treatment center for mental 

health, from February 28 to March 17, 2014; and upon discharge from Laurel Creek 

entered Shamia House Recovery Center (Shamia House), a six-month residential drugtreatment program. 

After presentation of evidence, the court stated mother would not have received 

additional services had the six-month review hearing been held when initially scheduled 

in January because she was “still in denial” and “not in compliance.” However, based on 

mother’s recent efforts, the court observed mother “appears to be fairly serious in 

treatment,” and whereas “it would be premature to give the kids back to her now, . . . it 

looks like we shouldn’t disrupt the process and give her additional time for services.” 

Accordingly, the court concluded: “it would be appropriate to extend additional services . 

. . up to the twelve-month period” and scheduled the 12-month review for July 24, 2014. 

 

5

 On October 30, 2014, the Department filed a request for judicial notice of the 

Reporter’s Transcript of the contested six-month review hearing held on June 17 and 18, 

2014, which is included in the record in related appeal no. A142679. The request for 

judicial notice is granted.

6

 The court stated: “I’m very, very reluctant to continue this matter. . . . [¶] . . . [I]t’s 

due for a twelve-month review now, and we haven’t even gotten the six-month review 

done, so that’s an incredible extension, it seems to me.” 
4

After further continuances, the 12-month review hearing was held on September 3 

and 4, 2014. At the hearing, mother testified she had been in the residential drugtreatment program at Shamia House for over five months and was due to graduate from 

the six-month program in two weeks time, on September 17, 2014. While staying at 

Shamia House, mother was subject to random drug testing and had been drug-free since 

March 2014. Also, at Shamia House, mother completed classes in early recovery skills; 

recovery issues; relapse prevention; parenting; helping women recover; and beyond 

trauma. In addition, mother attends Narcotics/Alcoholics Anonymous five times per 

week. Mother is on probation and requested it be made a condition of her probation that 

she remain at Shamia House. After graduating from Shamia House, mother planned to 

live with her mother “to get stabilized” before looking for other housing. 

Following presentation of evidence, mother’s counsel stated mother “is not asking 

for the immediate return of her children” because “she’s obviously not in a position to 

take care of them right now.” Rather, counsel requested mother receive an extension of 

reunification services. The juvenile court noted mother, “by her own admission isn’t 

ready to have the kids back,” and found by a preponderance of the evidence that returning 

the minors to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to the minors’ safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being. In addition, the juvenile court found the 

Department provided reasonable services to address the problems leading to removal of 

the minors. Last, the juvenile court found there was no substantial probability the minors 

could be returned to mother because, after graduating from Shamia House, she would 

“have to be stabilized in the community for quite a bit longer” than the short time before

the 18-month point defined under section 366.21.7 Thereafter, the juvenile court 

terminated reunification services and scheduled a permanency planning hearing pursuant 

 

7

 The minors were taken into custody on May 15, 2013; thus the latest date for the 18-

month permanency review hearing was on or about November 15, 2014. (See § 366.21, 

subd. (g)(1).)
5

to section 366.26 on December 18, 2014. On October 14, 2014, mother filed a petition 

for an extraordinary writ in this court, seeking an order directing the juvenile court to 

vacate its order terminating reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 

hearing and to provide her further reunification services as to the minors. We issued an 

Order to Show Cause and the Department filed a response to mother’s petition on 

October 30, 2014. 

DISCUSSION

When a dependent child is not returned to parental custody at the 12-month review 

hearing, the court may continue reunification services and set a permanency review 

hearing within 18 months from the date a child was removed from parental custody. 

(§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) However, the court may continue the case “only if it finds that 

there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of 

his or her parent . . . and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of 

time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent . . . .” (§ 366.21, 

subd. (g)(1).)

In order to find a substantial probability of return, the court is required to find the 

parent has consistently visited the child (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)); the parent has made 

substantial progress in resolving the problems that lead to removing the child (§ 366.21, 

subd. (g)(1)(B)); and “[t]he parent . . . has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to 

complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, 

protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.” (§ 366.21, subd. 

(g)(1)(C).)

Mother contends the juvenile court’s finding there was no substantial probability 

of returning her children to her by the 18-month date is arbitrary, capricious, and lacking 

in substantial evidence. We disagree.

On a challenge to a finding there is no substantial probability that the child will be 

returned to the physical custody of his or her parent and safely maintained in the home by 
6

the 18-month review hearing, our review is limited to whether the finding is supported by 

substantial evidence. We view the record in the light most favorable to the finding and 

decide if the evidence supporting it is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (See In re 

Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52–53.)

Here, the record reflects that on September 25, 2012, the juvenile court terminated 

jurisdiction in mother’s prior dependency proceeding, which also involved problems of 

substance abuse and domestic violence. Mother was offered substance abuse treatment in 

that proceeding and by the termination date had stopped using methamphetamines and 

marijuana. Only eight months later, the Department initiated the current dependency 

proceedings following mother’s relapse into her prior habits of substance abuse. Yet 

mother did not engage in services at all for the first seven or eight months of these

dependency proceedings; rather, she was in denial and continued to use drugs. Mother 

only began to sustain any progress in addressing her problems after entering the 

residential treatment program at Shamia House. But by the time of the 12-month review 

hearing in September 2014, mother still had two weeks of the six-month program at 

Shamia House to complete, was uncertain about where she would be staying after leaving 

Shamia House, had not demonstrated an ability to stay drug-free in the community 

outside of a structured residential program, and the 18-month date was looming. Thus, 

while mother’s efforts at Shamia House are to be commended, at the 12-month review 

hearing mother failed to persuasively demonstrate her capacity and ability to provide for 

the minors’ safety, protection, physical/emotional well-being, and special needs, as 

required to continue services to the 18-month hearing under section 366.21, subdivision 

(g)(1). (See M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 177–178.) In sum, the 

court’s finding there was no substantial probability the minors could be returned to 

mother within the short period of time before the 18-month date is supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. 
7

Mother also contends the Department failed to provide reasonable services to 

address the sexualized behavior exhibited by her daughter B.A.P.8Specifically, mother 

asserts the Department should have referred her to participate in counseling with B.A.P. 

“The ‘adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the 

[Department’s] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.’ 

[Citation.] To support a finding reasonable services were offered or provided, ‘the record 

should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of 

custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable 

contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable 

efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . .’ [Citation.] 

‘The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided 

in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.’ 

[Citation.]” (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426, italics 

omitted.) We review the juvenile court’s finding of reasonableness under the substantial 

evidence test. (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1346.)

Here, the principal problems leading to the loss of custody were mother’s 

inadequate parenting skills, chronic substance abuse, and attendant mental health issues. 

The Department provided services designed to remedy those problems. Mother received 

mental health counseling and participated in medication management with Dr. Lawrence 

Tunnis, a mental health clinician with Forensic Assessment Community Treatment. She 

availed herself of substance abuse services by participating in an outpatient program at 

Healthy Partnerships followed by the residential treatment program at Shamia House. At 

 

8

 This behavior was noted in the Department’s six-month status report. B.A.P.’s 

caregivers stated she “touch[es] herself” and found her naked in her room “with her hand 

in her crouch [sic].” Also, a medical exam in November 2013 revealed the minor had 

“anal sphincter relaxation as well as a thin clitoris,” which were abnormal for a child her 

age and the doctor could not rule out sexual abuse. The report stated B.A.P. participates 

in individual counseling; the counselor has concerns about sexual abuse by father, 

“although the minor has not made any disclosures.” 
8

Shamia House, mother engaged in counseling to address parenting, and participated in 

the Nurturing Parenting Program as well as the courses noted above. Also, the social 

worker tried to introduce mother to the problem of her daughter’s sexualized behavior by 

providing short articles on sexual abuse and an accompanying questionnaire; however, 

mother did not want to discuss the readings in further detail with the social worker 

because she found them distressing. In any case, B.A.P.’s sexualized behavior, which the 

Department addressed by providing her with intensive counseling, was not the reason the 

minor was removed from mother’s custody; rather, mother’s inadequate parenting skills 

and chronic substance abuse led to the minor’s removal, and the record demonstrates the 

Department provided reasonable services to address those problems.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (See Cal. Const., art. 

VI, § 14; Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 894; Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior 

Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1012, 1024.) The decision is final in this court immediately. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

_________________________

Dondero, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Humes, P.J.

_________________________

Banke, J.