Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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 H.G. and J.G., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. Superior Court of California

November 15, 2011


(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J34634)

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

In re H.G.


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

R.S. (Mother), mother of 13-year-old H.G. and 7-year-old J.G., petitions this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to set aside the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (section 366.26 hearing).*fn1 She contends: (1) there was no substantial evidence supporting the finding that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to the minors if they were placed in her care; and (2) the juvenile court should have provided her with additional reunification services based on a finding of "extraordinary circumstances." We reject the contentions and affirm the order.


Earlier this year, we resolved Mother's two appeals in unpublished opinions (April 29, 2011, A128565; May 4, 2011, A129655). To obtain context, maintain consistency and conserve judicial resources, we take judicial notice of our prior opinions. (Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a); see In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 674, fn. 3.) The essential facts from the proceedings underlying the two appeals are as follows.*fn2

The first appeal

"H.G. and J.G. are autistic, nonverbal children who require constant attention. The Solano County Health & Social Services Department (the Department) filed an original petition on behalf of then-five-year-old H.G. on April 12, 2004, after Mother left him unsupervised for at least two hours while she slept. An original petition was filed on behalf of then-five-month-old J.G. on February 10, 2005. The juvenile court dismissed both petitions after the Department developed a plan for services for Mother and a substance abuse assessment showed she had ' "no signs or symptoms of active addiction." ' "

"A second petition was filed on July 15, 2008, after J.G. was found wandering outside in only a diaper, the home was filthy with safety hazards everywhere, and Mother appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. The children were dirty and were eating dog food and other food off the floor. H.G. was 'combative' with a police officer and J.G. tried to bite another officer. Mother was aggressive towards the social worker who responded to the home. She did not submit to random drug tests and did not participate in mental health and substance abuse evaluations. On one occasion, she pushed a security guard and the Department expressed concern with 'the stability of [Mother's] emotional state as she [regularly] goes into rages which range from aggressive (mostly verbal), to yelling, irrational thoughts and then to crying within a matter of minutes.' The juvenile court dismissed the second petition on May 5, 2009, after Mother agreed to participate in services."

"The third and current petition was filed on January 22, 2010, after H.G. was found outside the home naked and J.G. was found walking up and down the street alone, naked and covered in feces. The home was filthy, the children had lice, and H.G. was diagnosed with scabies. Mother appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. . . . [¶] On January 22, 2010, H.G. was placed in the same foster home in which he had been placed during the second dependency action." "Mother appealed from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders and also challenged [a restraining order that had been issued against her], asserting the restraining order was overbroad and created a conflict of interest and that the Department had not complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act." We affirmed the orders.

The second appeal

"On July 29, 2010, Mother filed a motion requesting that H.G. be placed in a different foster home or that a hearing be conducted 'to determine whether removing [H.G.] from his placement would be in his best interest.' She declared she had 'observed on several different occasions that [H.G. had] bruises of various size and coloration, and on varying places on his body, as well as other injuries.' She had not 'consistently received explanations for how these injuries occur[red].' " "Social worker Alexandra Fernandez declared that H.G. was a 'very active child' who engaged in 'self-injurious behaviors, including banging his head against the wall and hitting himself on the head with his hands.' At every visit Fernandez supervised, Mother inspected H.G.'s body by lifting his clothes and partially pulling his pants down. She 'also on occasion asserted that [H.G.] need[ed] to use the restroom, . . . [then] inspected his unclothed body as part of the trip to the restroom.' On at least one occasion when Fernandez attempted to redirect Mother and encourage her to spend her time visiting with her children, Mother challenged Fernandez, stating, " 'go ahead and report me.' " . . . There were times Fernandez 'actually noticed bruising on [H.G.],' and at other times, she was 'unable to see what [Mother was] referring to.' " "Social worker Samantha Hamilton declared . . . [she] had seen H.G. hit his head with his hands and throw himself on the ground. On one occasion, security was called when H.G. yelled, dropped to the floor, and 'dug his fingernails into the visit supervisor's skin' when the supervisor tried to stop him from banging his head on the wall. On another occasion, H.G. threw a tantrum, hit his head and scratched and banged his head on the ground. . . . Hamilton had visited H.G.'s ...

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.