Court Opinion

ID: 9914181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 19:02:21.48618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:28.217416
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/29/23 N.P. v. Superior Court CA5

                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    N.P.,
                                                                                             F086941
             Petitioner,
                                                                             (Super. Ct. Nos. 22JP-00098-A,
                    v.                                                        22JP-00098-B, 22JP-00098-C)

    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED
    COUNTY,                                                                               OPINION
             Respondent;

    MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
    AGENCY,

             Real Party in Interest.

                                                   THE COURT*
            ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; extraordinary writ. Donald J. Proietti, Judge.
            N.P., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
            No appearance for Respondent.
            Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel,
for Real Party in Interest.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*           Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
       N.P. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.452)1 from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month
review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f))2 terminating her reunification
services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for January 18, 2024, as to her children R.S.
(born January 2015), A.S. (born January 2016), and G.S. (born February 2017)
(collectively the children). Mother seeks a writ directing the juvenile court to return the
children to her custody or provide reunification services and visitation. We conclude
mother’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452
regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition.
                    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Initial Removal
       In August 2022, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) received a
referral alleging general neglect and physical abuse of the children by mother. An
agency social worker responded to mother’s home and spoke with law enforcement. The
children were found alone at the home by law enforcement after there were reports of
domestic violence between mother and their stepmother, E.P. (stepmother). The social
worker observed physical marks, scratches, or bruises on each of the children’s bodies,
and R.S. had circular marks on his back that were layered and patterned. The children
disclosed witnessing domestic violence between mother and stepmother, and they also
described how mother and stepmother inflicted physical abuse on a regular basis with
belts. Mother denied that the children were ever physically disciplined, and she provided
no explanation for the visible injuries to R.S.
       The children were placed into protective custody by law enforcement on
August 17, 2022. On August 18, 2022, the agency filed an original petition alleging the

1      All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2      All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                              2.
children were described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (g). The petition
alleged the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm inflicted
nonaccidentally by mother. The petition further alleged that mother failed to adequately
protect the children from ongoing domestic violence in the home between mother and
stepmother. The whereabouts of the children’s presumed father, C.S. (father), were
unknown. On August 22, 2022, the juvenile court conducted a continued detention
hearing where it ordered the children detained, and it set a jurisdiction and disposition
hearing for September 29, 2022.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
       The agency’s report on jurisdiction and disposition recommended that the
allegations in the petition be found true and family reunification services be provided to
mother and father. The children were placed together in a resource family home, and
they confirmed their previous reports of physical abuse and domestic violence in the
home by mother and stepmother. Mother admitted to spanking the children with her
hand or belt for discipline, but she claimed that she never intended to hurt the children.
She continued to deny that there was any domestic violence in the home between her and
stepmother. Father was located by the agency, and he was currently homeless.
       A continued jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on October 20, 2022,
with mother and father present and represented by counsel. Stepmother was also present,
and mother’s oral request to elevate stepmother to a presumed parent was denied. All
parties submitted on the agency’s recommendation. The juvenile court found the
allegations in the petition true and ordered family reunification services for both parents.
As part of her case plan, mother was ordered to participate in domestic violence
counseling, parenting classes, and an anger management program. Supervised visitation
was ordered between mother and the children at no less than once per month, and a
six-month review hearing was set for April 6, 2023.

                                             3.
Family Reunification Period
        In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the
juvenile court continue family reunification services for mother and father. Mother was
in compliance with the objectives of her case plan. She completed a 14-week domestic
violence support group in February 2023 and a domestic violence/anger management
program in March 2023. Mother was also participating in a parenting class with the
stepmother. She reported that there would no longer be arguing or yelling between her
and the stepmother, and they both had respect for each other now. In March 2023,
mother’s supervised visitation increased to weekly, and she engaged in activities with the
children during her visits. At the review hearing held on April 6, 2023, the juvenile court
continued family reunification services and set the 12-month review hearing for
August 3, 2023.
        The agency’s report for the 12-month review hearing recommended termination of
mother and father’s family reunification services. On March 27, 2023, mother indicated
that her and stepmother were back together after a brief separation. Mother began
participating in individual domestic violence counseling on March 28, 2023, and the
appointments occurred over the phone. In April 2023, mother intended to move in with
her father because of “issues” in her relationship with stepmother. She informed the
social worker that their current separation was due to stepmother trying to physically
fight her whenever mother tried to discuss the stepmother’s spending at a casino. Mother
stopped participating in her services in May 2023 because she was trying to locate a new
home.
        On July 9, 2023, law enforcement received reports that mother and stepmother
were engaging in domestic violence. The report alleged that mother was physically
aggressive and vandalized the door of the residence. An additional report was made to
the agency on July 19, 2023, which alleged constant fighting and abuse between mother
and stepmother. Mother was dropped from her domestic violence counseling, and she

                                            4.
failed to contact the service provider to restart counseling. She denied the reports of
recent domestic violence between her and stepmother, and she failed to provide specific
answers about her last contact with stepmother.
       Mother was scheduled to begin a new parenting class in July 2023, but she chose
to enroll in a parenting class that was scheduled to begin in January 2024 due to her work
schedule. The report also noted concerns that mother was unable to redirect the
children’s unsafe behaviors during visitation. Mother cancelled five visits from
March 2023 through August 2023 due to conflicts with her work schedule and living
arrangements. On August 17, 2023, mother claimed she was living in San Jose for the
past month, but she would not provide an address to the social worker. Mother reported
that stepmother was arrested after two domestic violence incidents in May 2023. She
also claimed that she obtained multiple restraining orders against stepmother, but law
enforcement was unable to locate any such restraining orders.
       A contested 12-month review hearing was held on September 26, 2023. Mother
was present and testified that she was no longer in a relationship with stepmother, and she
filed for a divorce. Mother explained that she was unable to attend services because she
moved to another county and the classes conflicted with her work schedule. She testified
that she was attending a parenting class via video once per week, recently started a class
on discipline, and previously completed a few other parenting classes. Mother intended
to remain in Santa Clara County, and she believed the children could be safely returned to
her with an additional six months of reunification services.3
       On cross-examination, mother testified that she had been stable and free from
domestic violence for the past six months. Mother was unsure if there was an active
restraining order, and she claimed the police report from July 9, 2023, was false. She

3      The agency initially filed a motion to transfer the proceedings to Santa Clara
County on June 23, 2023. However, the motion was eventually withdrawn on the date of
the contested hearing.

                                             5.
also testified that she last saw stepmother in April 2023, but she eventually acknowledged
there were two other incidents where stepmother showed up at mother’s work in
June 2023 Mother described how the children sometimes hit each other, and she
admitted that exposure to domestic violence was partly to blame. She believed there was
“so much” for her to learn, and she was “at the beginning” of working through the
trauma.
        In closing argument, counsel for the agency and children argued that there was no
substantial probability that the children would be returned to mother’s care by the end of
the 18-month period on February 17, 2024. Mother’s counsel argued that mother’s
testimony provided sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find that there was a
substantial probability of return. After hearing argument from counsel, the court
followed the agency’s recommendation to terminate reunification services. It did not
believe that mother demonstrated a substantial probability that the children would be
returned by the next review period. A section 366.26 hearing was set for January 18,
2024.
                                       DISCUSSION
Relevant Legal Principles and Standard of Review
        At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must order the return of the
child to the physical custody of his or her parent unless it finds the return would create a
substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being
of the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) If the court does not return the child, it may
continue the case for up to six months if there is a substantial probability the child will be
returned to parental custody within 18 months from the time the child was initially
removed. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) To find a substantial probability of return, the court
must find the parent regularly visited the child, made significant progress in resolving the
problems prompting the child’s removal, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to
complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, and

                                              6.
well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)–(C).) Otherwise, the court must terminate
reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan for
the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(4).) Before the court may terminate services and set a
section 366.26 hearing, however, there must be clear and convincing evidence the agency
provided reasonable services to the parent. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a), 366.21, subd. (g)(4).)
       We review the juvenile court’s findings and orders for substantial evidence,
resolving all conflicts in favor of the court, and indulging in all legitimate inferences to
uphold the court’s ruling. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378−1379.)
Under this well-established standard, “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.’ ” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676,
688−689.)
       Mother bears the burden on appeal of establishing that the evidence was
insufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings. (In re A.G. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th
994, 1001.) And the juvenile court’s order, “like any other judgment or order of a lower
court, is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to
support the order on matters as to which the record is silent.” (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc.
(2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 88.)
       On the issue of whether the court erred by failing to find a substantial probability
of return existed, the question on appeal “becomes whether the appellant’s evidence was
(1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a character and weight as to leave
no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.’ ” (In re
I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528, disapproved on other grounds by
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1003, fn. 4.) “Put another way, the issue
is ‘whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of [mother] as a matter of law.’ ”

                                              7.
(Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees’ Assn. (2012) 205
Cal.App.4th 960, 966.)
The Extraordinary Writ Petition
          As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct.
(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) A parent seeking review of the
juvenile court’s orders from the setting hearing must, as mother did here, file an
extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV–825 to initiate writ
proceedings. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a
substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s findings and orders issued at
the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4).)
          Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition.
It requires the petitioner to set forth legal arguments with citation to the appellate record.
(Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), we liberally construe
writ petitions in favor of their adequacy recognizing that a parent representing him or
herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least articulate a
claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the
petition inadequate in its content and we are not required to independently review the
record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
          Here, mother’s petition is inadequate in presenting a claim of error. She indicated
on page 2 of the preprinted “Petition for Extraordinary Writ” form (JV-825) that the
juvenile court’s order was erroneous on the grounds that she was in compliance with her
case plan, all family reunification services were not provided, and reports were biased
due to conflicts of interest. Under the summary of factual basis for the petition, mother
states:

                 “When asking social worker if [I] can reschedule visits no
          accommodations were made and visits were just cancelled. Request to
          transfer case to [S]anta [C]lara was not covered fully in court prior to
          12 month hearing. Conflic[t]s of interest between [s]ocial [w]orkers [a]nd

                                               8.
       [a]ttorneys and petitioner. [U]nprofessionalism. Social worker would
       often hang up on me. Not all services were offered.”
       Mother did not provide any context from which this court could construe an
alleged error by citing to relevant facts in the appellate record or any legal authority.
Nowhere in the petition does mother assert that the juvenile court erred in finding it
would be detrimental to return the children to her custody. Nor does she challenge the
findings underlying the court’s order terminating reunification services. She does not, for
example, contend the reunification services offered by the agency were not reasonable.
Nor does she argue the court should have continued reunification services because there
was a substantial probability the children could be returned to her custody after another
period of reunification efforts.
       A party’s “conclusory presentation, without pertinent argument or an attempt to
apply the law to the circumstances of this case, is inadequate,” and the contention will be
found by the appellate court to have been abandoned. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles
(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) Without citation to authority or to the record, or any
discussion supporting her conclusory statements, any challenge to the juvenile court’s
findings that return of the children would be detrimental, reasonable services were
provided by the agency, and there was not a substantial probability of return by the
18-month review hearing must be deemed abandoned. (See Dills v. Redwoods
Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 [appellate court has no obligation
to “develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) Consequently, she failed to raise a
claim of reversible error. Therefore, her petition does not comply with rules 8.450
through 8.452 and is inadequate for appellate review.
       At oral argument, mother made several complaints regarding her social worker
and alleged conflicts of interests. Mother also claimed statements in the social worker’s
reports were inaccurate, and she reiterated the comments in her petition. However, she
still failed to support these claims of error with legal argument or citation to the record as

                                              9.
required. Although we are not required to do so, we have reviewed the record and find
sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision to terminate mother’s family
reunification services. Accordingly, we would find no error in this case were we to
review the merits of the court’s rulings.
       The services set forth in mother’s case plan were domestic violence counseling,
parenting classes, and anger management. Mother completed domestic violence group
counseling and anger management through the agency’s referrals. However, mother did
not complete the parenting program offered by the agency because of alleged conflicts
with her work schedule, and she was scheduled to begin another program in
January 2024. Mother also stopped attending her over the phone individual counseling
for domestic violence without a valid excuse.
       Reunification is a collaborative effort and a parent is presumed capable of
complying with a reasonable case plan. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404,
415.) The parent is responsible for communicating with the agency and participating in
the reunification process. (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441.) If mother
felt during the reunification period that her services or visitation were inadequate, she
“had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a
better plan.” (Christina L., at p. 416.)
       The agency provided mother with an opportunity to reunify with the children by
providing mother with several referrals for services in domestic violence, parenting, and
anger management to address the domestic violence and physical abuse in the home. The
fact that mother and stepmother continued to engage in domestic violence after her
completion of group counseling and a separate program for domestic violence and anger
management is reflective of mother’s lack of reasonable effort as opposed to the
agency’s. Furthermore, the only visits missed were cancelled at mother’s request, and the
record does not indicate that make-up visits were either requested or necessary under the

                                             10.
circumstances. Thus, mother has failed to show the agency’s implementation of her case
plan and efforts to assist her in complying with it were unreasonable.
       Based upon the record before us, we would conclude substantial evidence supports
the juvenile court’s findings and order. However, we dismiss mother’s writ petition
because it fails to comport with rule 8.452.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final
forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).

                                               11.