1

Filed 10/18/23 R.S. v. Superior Court CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 FIVE

R.S.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

MARIN COUNTY,

Respondent;

MARIN COUNTY HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

 A168434

 (Marin County

 Super. Ct. No. JV 26726A)

In this writ proceeding, petitioner R.S. (Mother) requests that this 

court vacate the juvenile court’s July 13, 2023, order setting a Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.261 permanency planning hearing, and requests 

a stay of that hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition

and the request for a stay.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
2

BACKGROUND

Prior Dependency Proceeding

In October 2018, Marin County Health and Human Services (the 

Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Mother’s then twomonth-old daughter (Minor). The petition alleged Mother “has a 

longstanding history of alcohol abuse and has been unable to maintain 

sobriety for more than a very short period when outside of a residential 

treatment program.”2 The Department stated Mother was “charming, smart, 

capable and a very good mother when she is sober,” but there had already 

been multiple incidents of Mother drinking to excess while caring for Minor. 

Mother had been to treatment about five times in her life. 

Mother submitted to jurisdiction and the juvenile court ordered 

reunification services. Mother received 15 months of reunification services, 

during which time she relapsed three times. In February 2020, Mother had 

been sober for six months and Minor was returned to her care. Mother 

received an additional five months of family maintenance services before 

dependency was dismissed in July 2020 with custody to Mother. 

Current Dependency Proceeding

In October 2022, the Department filed the underlying dependency 

petition, alleging Mother had relapsed multiple times since the termination 

of the prior proceeding. 

The Department reported Mother first relapsed in the fall of 2020, 

while living in New York. In December 2020, a New York court granted 

temporary custody of Minor to the paternal grandmother. Mother entered 

treatment, and in the fall of 2021, Minor was returned to Mother’s care. In 

2 We omit background facts regarding Minor’s father (Father), who is 

now deceased. 
3

June 2022, Mother relapsed again. In September, Mother left Minor with the 

maternal grandmother in Marin County and entered a treatment program in 

Pennsylvania. After the maternal grandmother left Minor with the maternal 

grandfather, who was in recovery and relapsed while caring for Minor, the 

juvenile court ordered Minor detained and placed in foster care. 

In late November 2022, the juvenile court sustained the petition and 

ordered reunification services to Mother, including substance abuse and 

mental health services. That month, Mother began drinking daily while 

residing in a Marin County sober living home, but initially was able to 

conceal the relapse. In December, she was discharged from the sober living 

home after staff searched her room and found empty wine bottles and 

numerous empty nitrous oxide cannisters. In early January 2023, Mother 

told the Department she was staying with her boyfriend in New York. While 

out of state, Mother did not engage in services and did not test, despite 

multiple testing appointments arranged by the Department. She later told 

the Department she was drinking heavily throughout this period, and also 

drove drunk and used cocaine. 

In late February 2023, Mother returned to Marin County and entered 

residential treatment. Since that time, Mother has consistently engaged in 

treatment, testing, and therapy. Visitations with Minor during this time 

have been consistent and positive. 

In May 2023, shortly before the six-month review hearing, the 

Department filed a section 388 petition requesting the court terminate 

reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The Department 

explained, “If [Minor] were returned to her mother’s care at this time, the 

Department believes that the ongoing cycle of relapses would recur, given the 

patterns displayed over the last six months and the years prior to the case. 
4

During the review period, [Mother] has not demonstrated the sobriety and 

consistency needed for the Department to recommend that [Minor] be 

returned to her care.” The Department continued, “[Minor] has not had a 

consistent caregiver in her short four years of life due to [Mother’s] substance 

abuse issues. . . . Although the Department hopes that [Mother] continues to 

maintain sobriety and focus on herself, [Minor] needs consistent care and 

stability that [Mother] has demonstrated that she cannot provide for [Minor] 

over a long period of time.” 

At the contested hearing on the Department’s section 388 petition, the 

primary visitation supervisor for Mother’s visits with Minor and the 

Department social worker testified. Mother did not testify but submitted 

documentary evidence including letters from service providers and her 

AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) sponsor. At the conclusion of the contested 

hearing, Minor’s counsel argued in favor of continuing reunification services. 

In a written report, Minor’s CASA (court appointed special advocate) 

volunteer also urged the court to continue reunification services. 

Following the contested hearing, the juvenile court issued a lengthy 

written order granting the Department’s petition. After reviewing the 

history of the prior and current proceedings, the juvenile court considered 

whether Mother had regularly participated in services or made substantial 

progress. The court explained, “If this was a new case, and the court had 

only to review the last six months, the decision would be easy. Some parents 

are slow to get a start just as Mother was here. . . . [¶] That is not the case 

here. Mother has already had almost two years of services, then suffered a 

relapse within three months of return. She suffered another prolonged 

relapse, then entered treatment only to continue using and have additional 

‘relapses’ in 2023. She did not eagerly engage in services to establish a
5

prolonged period of sobriety. Her bona fide efforts (treatment, testing, 

education) have come very late—and her sobriety is nascent. Short periods of 

sobriety do not represent significant progress for this Mother. Rather it is a 

pattern that this court has witnessed since [Minor] was born. We have been 

here before. [¶] It is also hard to find that Mother has participated—until just 

recently. A burst of engagement just before a review hearing might be 

earnest ‘participation’ in a parent who is new to the system. That is not the 

case here. This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that although 

Mother has made progress in the last two and a half months to alleviate the 

problems that led to [Minor’s] second removal, on balance her progress was 

minimal.” Turning to Minor’s best interests, the juvenile court noted the 

multiple times Minor had been removed from Mother’s care and found, 

“[Minor’s] placement history and reports reveal that she is adversely affected 

by this frequent change in caregivers and the instability and lack of care she 

has experienced in her life so far.[3] [Minor’s] best interest[s] are met by a 

stable, safe and affectionate home. Those interest[s] are essential for 

[Minor’s] wellbeing and cannot be met by Mother.” The court terminated 

reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. 

DISCUSSION

Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that 

she failed to participate regularly and make progress in her court-ordered 

plan. We reject the challenge.

“Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1), provides that where a detained child 

is three years of age or older, 12 months of reunification services ‘shall be 

3 Minor’s therapist told the Department that the uncertainty around 

Minor’s permanent placement had exacerbated Minor’s emotional 

dysregulation. 
6

provided’ to the parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Subdivision (a)(2) provides 

the framework for terminating services prior to the end of the 12–month 

period. It states in relevant part: ‘Any motion to terminate court-ordered 

reunification services prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (f) of 

Section 366.21 [the permanency hearing, which is to be held no later than 12 

months after the child enters foster care] for a child described by 

subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) [a child three years of age or older] . . . 

shall be made pursuant to the requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of 

Section 388.’ (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2).)” (M.C. v. Superior Court (2016) 

3 Cal.App.5th 838, 842–843.) As relevant here, section 388, subdivision (c)

authorizes a juvenile court to terminate reunification services early if it finds 

by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he action or inaction of the parent or 

guardian creates a substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur, 

including . . . the failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly 

and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan.” (§ 388, 

subd. (c)(1)(B) & (c)(3).)4 

We review the juvenile court’s ruling for abuse of discretion and thus 

“we may not reverse unless the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason.” 

(In re D.B. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1088–1089.) “ ‘[W]hen reviewing a 

finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the 

question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains 

substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it 

highly probable that the fact was true. Consistent with well-established 

principles governing review for sufficiency of the evidence, in making this 

4 The juvenile court must also find reasonable services have been 

provided. (§ 388, subd. (c)(3).) Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s 

finding on this issue. 
7

assessment the appellate court must view the record in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the 

trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts 

in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.’ ” (In re 

V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 155.)

Mother argues that she made substantial progress in her court-ordered 

services, pointing to evidence of her engagement in services beginning in late 

February 2023. Mother complains the juvenile court “focused on the history 

of the case, particularly Mother’s relapses, rather than the progress in the 

six-month period of reunification services.” But Mother does not contend the 

juvenile court was precluded from considering Mother’s progress in the 

context of the entire dependency history, much less cite authority supporting 

such a proposition. We see no basis to so limit a juvenile court’s 

consideration. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding, in 

light of the entire dependency history, there was a substantial likelihood 

reunification would not occur due to Mother’s significant relapse and failure 

to engage in services for much of the first three months following disposition.

Mother argues termination of services is not in Minor’s best interests, 

citing evidence of a positive relationship between Mother and Minor and 

Mother’s willingness to engage in services. The juvenile court considered this 

evidence but nonetheless found Minor’s best interests would be served by 

terminating reunification services. We find no abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

The writ petition is denied on the merits. The request for a stay is also 

denied. Because the section 366.26 hearing is set for November 7, 2023, our 

decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 

8.452(i) & 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
8

SIMONS, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BURNS, J.

CHOU, J.

A168434

R.S. v. Superior Court