1

Filed 10/28/13 In re C.S. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

In re C.S., A Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

ROSE W.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA 

COSTA COUNTY,

Petitioner;

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICE BUREAU,

Real Party in Interest.

 A139384

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. J13-00509)

By this petition for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) 

petitioner Rose W., the mother of C.S., seeks to vacate the order of respondent Superior 

Court of Contra Costa County setting a hearing to terminate her parental rights in 

accordance with Welfare and Institutions code section 366.26. Petitioner‟s sole 

contention is that the court‟s determination that reunification services would not be 

provided to her is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude this contention is 

without merit, and deny the petition on its merits.

BACKGROUND

The record, viewed in conformity with In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, shows 

the following:
2

C.S. was the subject of a petition filed by Real Party in Interest Contra Costa 

County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) in which petitioner was alleged to 

have “a serious and chronic substance abuse problem that impairs her ability to 

adequately care for and supervise the child,” which problem had already led to the 

dependency of another child. (The same allegations were made against the presumed 

father, who is not a party to this proceeding.) C.S. was less than a year old when she was 

removed from petitioner‟s custody and detained. She was placed in foster care with her 

siblings, who had already been adjudged dependent children. 

Two weeks later, at the jurisdictional hearing conducted on May 13, 2013, 

petitioner submitted on the petition. After taking judicial notice of the files of C.S.‟s 

siblings, the court sustained all allegations of the petition. 

The dispositional hearing was held on July 18 and 23, 2013, simultaneously with 

the 18-month review of the siblings‟ dependencies. The court received in evidence the 

disposition report prepared by the Bureau‟s caseworker. In that report, the caseworker 

advised the court that C.S.‟s parents “began using substances at an early age so 

consequently they have a long history of methamphetamine and other substance abuse, 

both individually and together and have engaged in domestic violence . . . when they 

were using.” In April (when C.S. was detained), the parents “relapsed after eighteen 

months of [reunification] services” and tested positive for methamphetamine use.

The caseworker described petitioner as “a loving mother” who has “insight” into 

her substance abuse problem However, petitioner had already completed three residential 

treatment programs, was “unable to maintain sobriety,” and had “not sufficiently 

addressed [her] serious and chronic substance abuse that places [her] children at risk.” 

Although the parents “have been provided services for this problem since December 29, 

2011, they have failed to reunify with [C.S.‟s] siblings and continue to use illicit drugs.” 

For this reason, the caseworker recommended that “Family Reunification Services be 

denied to the parents . . . pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 361.5(b)(10) so that a 

permanent plan can be made for the child[ren].” 
3

The court heard testimony from the parents and the caseworker. Much of that 

testimony is not germane to the sole issue here, and thus need not be summarized. What 

is relevant to that issue is that petitioner testified that a week earlier she began another 

residential treatment program. Petitioner admitted that after she sent a letter to the court 

in June asking for “more time . . . to prove to you that I‟m worthy of my beautiful 

children,” she continued using drugs. The caseworker testified that petitioner was 

“non-compliant” with the case plan to reunify with C.S.‟s siblings. 

After hearing argument, and setting termination hearings for the siblings, the court 

stated its decision as follows: “With respect to [C.S], I am also going to follow the 

recommendation in this case, given what the siblings have been through and how long 

they have waited and the fact that the parents, quite frankly in the Court‟s mind, are right 

back to where they began, they‟ve made absolutely no progress along the way here . . . 

absolutely no progress whatsoever. I find that it would be clearly detrimental to make 

[C.S.] wait as her siblings waited. [¶] Rather, I think it most appropriate to set her matter 

for a .26 hearing, to bypass services so that she too may find permanence in her life.”

REVIEW

“Typically, when a dependent child is removed from his or her parent‟s custody, 

the juvenile court orders that services be provided to the family in order to facilitate its 

reunification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (a); In re Baby Boy H. (1998)

63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478.) However, reunification services need not be offered under 

certain circumstances specified by statute. (Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 

735, 739.) Reunification services need not be provided to a parent if the juvenile court 

finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) a juvenile court ordered termination of 

reunification services for a sibling; (2) termination was ordered because that parent failed 

to reunify with the sibling; (3) the sibling had been removed from that parent‟s custody 

pursuant to section 361; and (4) that parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort 

to treat the problems that led to sibling‟s removal from that parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10).)” (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 194.)
4

“ „The exception at issue here, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), recognizes the 

problem of recidivism by the parent despite reunification efforts. Before this subdivision 

applies, the parent must have had at least one chance to reunify with a different child 

through the aid of governmental resources and fail to do so. Experience has shown that 

with certain parents, as is the case here, the risk of recidivism is a very real concern. 

Therefore, when another child of that same parent is adjudged a dependent child, it is not 

unreasonable to assume reunification efforts will be unsuccessful. Further, the court may 

still order reunification services be provided if the court finds, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that reunification is in the best interests of the child. (§ 361.5, subd. (c).)‟ ” 

(Renee J. v. Superior Court, supra, 26 Cal.4th 735, 744-745, quoting In re Baby Boy H., 

supra, 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478.)

The trial court‟s determination can be overturned only if it is not supported by 

substantial evidence. (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 839.) “The issue 

of the sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the same rules that 

apply to all appeals. If, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the 

findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. [Citation.] We do not pass on 

the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the 

weight of the evidence. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the 

findings, view the record most favorably to the juvenile court‟s order, and affirm the 

order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. [Citation.] The appellant 

has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial evidence. 

[Citation.]” (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251.)

Petitioner‟s argument is based on her testimony at the hearing, and an earlier 

report by the caseworker. Petitioner asserts: “In the instant case, it is uncontroverted that 

the mother made significant efforts to address the problem that led to removal of the two 

older siblings . . . . Specifically, in a report signed by the caseworker, Simone Brooks, on 

February 22, 2013, and entered into evidence, Ms. Brooks states that the mother has 

successfully completed her ninety-day program, and is attending the Ujima Central 

Mother‟s Outpatient Program five (5) days a week, as well as attending twelve-step 
5

meetings. Ms. Brooks states that the mother has been testing clean/negative on a random 

basis, is compliant with her case plan, and demonstrates a commitment to leading a sober 

life.”

This reasoning is misplaced because Ms. Brooks had clearly changed her mind by 

the time of the hearing five months after she wrote the cited report, when she testified 

that petitioner was not in compliance with her case plan. Her recommendation to bypass 

services and proceed to the termination hearing is entirely incompatible with a belief that 

petitioner was making progress in conquering her substance abuse problem. That 

recommendation was in the disposition report, which was admitted in evidence and thus 

by itself constitutes substantial evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, subd. (b), 706; 

In re T. C. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 837, 848.) What occurred in the five months after 

February, most obviously the initiation of C.S.‟s dependency, furnished the court a 

completely different opinion of petitioner‟s efforts, or lack thereof. Just one instance was 

petitioner admitting that she was still using drugs in June. A parent‟s drug consumption 

“cannot be considered a simple relapse; rather, it was a resumption of drug use 

demonstrating resistance to treatment.” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 

1230.) As for petitioner‟s credibility, the court clearly did not rate it highly, and that 

estimation cannot be challenged here. (In re Megan S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 

251.)

After reviewing the record, we conclude there is more than ample substantial 

evidence to support the court‟s determinations that petitioner had not made reasonable 

efforts to treat the problems that led to her children‟s removal (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)), that further reunification services would be just as unsuccessful 

as the 18 months of services already provided, and that reunification was no longer in 

C.S.‟s best interest. (Renee J. v. Superior Court, supra, 26 Cal.4th 735, 744-745.)

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied on the merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(h)(1).) This 

decision is final as to this court forthwith. (Id., rule 8.490(b)(1).) 
6

_________________________

Richman, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Kline, P.J.

_________________________

Brick, J.*

 

*

Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.