APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. J515681E)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Aaron, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Holly A. appeals an order of the juvenile court denying reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code*fn1 section 366.26. She contends that the court erred by not ordering reunification services for her under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), because the evidence showed that she had made reasonable efforts to address the problems that led to removal of her three older children, and that reunification was in Daniel's best interests. We affirm the court's order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2010 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a petition on behalf of seven-month-old Daniel. The petition alleged that Daniel's parents had exposed him to domestic violence in the family home. During one incident, Holly struck Daniel's father, Daniel Sr.,*fn2 injuring his face. During another altercation, Father acted as the aggressor when he pushed Holly to the ground.
The Agency filed a detention report in April 2010. The report summarized Holly's history with child welfare services. In January 2005 the Agency removed Holly's three eldest children, Lorena O., Alicia A., and Vanessa A., from Holly's care due to exposure to domestic violence and Holly's ongoing substance abuse.*fn3 Holly received more than a year of services to attempt to reunify with these three children. However, she failed to make substantive progress with her case plan, and services were terminated. The children were freed for adoption.
In January 2009 the Agency filed a petition on behalf of Adrian A., a fourth half sibling of Daniel. The petition in Adrian's case alleged that Adrian had been exposed to domestic violence in the home, between Holly and Father. Father pushed Holly and hit her in the head. He then broke a car window with a rock while Adrian was in the car.
The Agency social worker reported that Holly received many services during the prior dependency proceedings involving her three eldest children. Specifically, Holly received 18 months of services in the dependencies of Lorena, Alicia and Vanessa, another 14 months of services in Adrian's case, and at the time of Daniel's detention hearing, she was still receiving services for Adrian. Holly had applied for temporary restraining orders against Father, but did not enforce them. Holly also continued to have contact with the father of her other children.
Concerning the instant case, the Agency reported that Holly engaged in two domestic violence altercations between February and April 2010. In February 2010 Holly threw a beer can at Father and punched him in the face. Law enforcement officers arrested Holly in that incident. In March 2010 Father and Holly got into a fight during which Father pushed Holly to the ground. The social worker believed that these incidents demonstrated that Holly was not benefitting from services, and that more intervention was needed.
On April 6, 2010, the court held a detention hearing and detained Daniel in out-of-home care. The court issued a mutual restraining order and ordered that visits with Daniel be supervised.
The Agency submitted a jurisdiction and disposition report in April 2010. The social worker recommended that Daniel be declared a dependent and placed in relative care. The social worker further recommended that the court deny reunification services to Holly. In support of this recommendation, the social worker cited Holly's lengthy history with child welfare services and the fact that she had participated in more than a year of services. Despite having participated in these services, Holly continued to engage in violent altercations. Further, she continued to be untruthful regarding her relationship with Father, and she did not have insight into how her lifestyle choices would be detrimental to Daniel. The social worker did not believe ...