Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re B. S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A. S

April 19, 2011

IN RE B. S., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
A. S., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. JD227622)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, Acting P. J.

In re B.S. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals following a dispositional hearing at which she was denied reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 § 395.) Appellant claims the juvenile court erred by denying her services. Finding no merit to this claim, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The minor was first the subject of a dependency petition in June 2008, shortly after her birth, due to appellant's history of methamphetamine abuse, which had led to the termination of her parental rights to three other children in December 2007. In the minor's first dependency case, appellant completed intensive outpatient treatment and consistently tested negative for controlled substances. In January 2009, the minor's dependency status was terminated.

In June 2010, a new dependency petition was filed concerning the minor, now two years old, alleging that appellant began using methamphetamine again on a daily basis approximately six months earlier, until she was arrested in May 2010. According to appellant, she cut her use to two or three times per week when she discovered she was pregnant. Appellant did not feel she had a substance abuse problem and denied that her drug use affected her parenting. Although she was cooperative during a drug assessment, she did not appear to have much insight into why she had relapsed.

Appellant claimed to have a strong bond with the minor. However, the maternal grandmother, with whom appellant lived, reported that she was the minor's primary caregiver and that appellant left each day to go out with friends. The minor "cried uncontrollably" at the end of visits with the grandmother, whereas there was no similar report regarding the minor's reaction to separation from appellant.

Based on appellant's failure to reunify with her other children and her "passive[] resist[ance]" to substance abuse treatment, the social worker recommended against offering her reunification services.

The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing took place in August 2010. Appellant had reported to the social worker that she was participating in outpatient treatment, as well as individual counseling, a parenting class, and an anger management class. According to the social worker, appellant was appropriate and interactive with the minor during visits, and the minor enjoyed the visits. However, the social worker continued to recommend that services not be provided to appellant because she had participated in services in two previous dependency proceedings but continued to abuse controlled substances and did not show adequate insight regarding her substance abuse.

The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition and declined to order services for appellant. The court found that appellant had a chronic substance abuse problem, had been resistant to prior court-ordered treatment during the three years preceding the filing of the current petition (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13)), that her reunification services and parental rights had been terminated with regard to her other children, and she had not subsequently made reasonable efforts to treat the problem leading to their removal. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (11)). The matter was continued six months because the whereabouts of the minor's father were unknown. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.