(San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SJ12183A-C)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: McINTYRE, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
PROCEEDINGS for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Petition denied.
Maria C. seeks writ review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services regarding her daughters, Mariana C., M.C. and Arianna C., and setting a hearing under section 366.26. (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) She contends she did not receive reasonable reunification services, and the court erred by not ordering services extended to the 18-month date. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 15 2009, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (d), on behalf of seven-year-old Mariana and five-year-old Arianna, alleging they were at substantial risk because Maria's friend, Omar, had sexually abused them on several occasions by touching their vaginas and buttocks with his hands and mouth and by rubbing his penis on their vaginas. The Agency also petitioned on behalf of six-year-old M.C. under section 300, subdivision (j), alleging she was at risk because of the abuse of her sisters. M.C. is developmentally disabled, nonverbal, non-ambulatory and requires complete assistance.
Mariana was too shy to talk about the abuse, but Arianna told the social worker it had happened "a lot of times." Arianna said Maria told her if she said anything about the abuse, she would cut off her tongue. Maria said Omar had spent the night with the family about five times, and she had only recently learned that he had sexually abused the children. She denied threatening Arianna.
The social worker reported the Agency had investigated a sexual abuse case involving Mariana and M.C. in 2006. The Agency had provided voluntary services to Maria in 2003-2004, 2005 and 2006-2007 based on referrals involving neglect of the children.
Maria's case plan included attending sexual abuse group therapy for nonprotecting parents, therapy, parenting education, family preservation services and visitation with the children. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on July 7, 2009, Maria submitted to the court's jurisdiction. The court ordered the children placed in foster care and ordered Maria to comply with the provisions of her case plan.
In January 2010 the social worker reported the children had been placed in foster care and Maria had enrolled in a sexual abuse treatment group. The group's facilitator reported that after 18 sessions Maria still did not accept responsibility for not protecting the children and she minimized the abuse. Also, the social worker was concerned she had not found stable housing. At the six-month review hearing, the court continued the children's foster care placements and continued services.
In July 2010 the social worker reported Maria had attended 44 sexual abuse group therapy sessions and was beginning to take responsibility for not protecting her daughters. However, the social worker noted she had brought someone the girls did not know to a visit, and she still did not have stable housing. In August Maria said she had applied to live in a shelter. The facilitator for the sexual abuse ...