In re Antonio G., A117990 (Cal. App. 3/13/2008), A117990
| Decision Date | 13 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | A117990 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re ANTONIO G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. NAPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VIRGINIA M., Defendant and Appellant. |
Appeal from the Napa County, Super. Ct. Nos. JV14986, JV14987, JV14988.
Appellant seeks to reverse an order that denied her reunification services in this dependency proceeding. We conclude that the juvenile court was justified in denying reunification services to appellant pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b), (10) and (11), and affirm the order.1
Appellant has an extensive and regrettable history with respondent Napa County Department of Health and Human Services (Department).2 In the 22 years since February of 1985, appellant and the fathers of her eight children have been through 43 separate referrals to the Department, along with multiple dependency proceedings that have culminated in termination of reunification services and parental rights, denial of reunification services, foster care placements, and adoptions.3
Appellant's child Harvey, a half-sibling to the minors in the present case, was born in August of 1985. He was the subject of a dependency action initiated in July of 1994. When Harvey was an infant he had allegedly been physically and sexually abused by his father. Harvey, in turn, admitted that he sexually molested his four-year-old sister Vicky in 1994. Reunification services to appellant were ultimately terminated, and foster care for Harvey was ordered. By 2003, after repeated delinquent behavior by Harvey, the dependency case was closed when a determination was made to treat him as a "602 ward rather than a dependent."
The minors' half-sibling Armando was placed into protective custody with the Department in May of 1999, when he was born exposed to opiates and diagnosed with Hemophilia. Reunification services to appellant and the father Rosendo were terminated by July of 2000. Parental rights were terminated thereafter, Armando was adopted, and the dependency case was dismissed in February of 2003.
Another half-sibling of the minors, Kayla, born in September of 2001, was placed in protective custody in June of 2003, after the Department learned that with appellant's permission she had been taken by 15-year-old half-sister Judy, who was then on juvenile probation, to Oklahoma by Greyhound bus. Judy also asserted that appellant and her father Armando smoked marijuana and used cocaine with friends in the presence of Kayla. The parental rights of appellant and Armando were terminated in September 2004, and Kayla was adopted in October 2005.
A dependency proceeding for appellant's daughter Judy, born in January of 1987, was commenced in July of 2003, after she reported that she had been repeatedly raped by her father during a recent trip to Oklahoma, as had occurred regularly during summer visitation in past years, or when her father visited Napa. Appellant waived her right to reunification services, and the case was dismissed in July of 2004, due to the impending emancipation of Judy.
Appellant's three youngest children, Rosendo, Antonio, and Jose, were born in November of 2002, October of 2003, and August of 2006, respectively. Their biological and presumed father Armando was married to appellant, but separated from her before this dependency proceeding was initiated. The precipitating events for the proceeding occurred on the afternoon of November 12, 2006, with a report to the Napa Police Department from a "concerned citizen" that Antonio, then age three, had been observed walking around Fuller Park in Napa without an attending parent or adult.4 When Napa police officers responded, appellant was present with Antonio. She was warned of the dangers of leaving the child unattended. About two hours later another report was received that Antonio was again left without adult supervision in the park after dark for at least 45 minutes. When officers arrived and found appellant elsewhere in the park, she was intoxicated and acknowledged that she did not know "where her child was." Antonio's half-sibling Judy was called to the scene. Judy reported that she, along with a maternal aunt of the minors and a family friend, had been recently caring for the minors due to appellant's continuing homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse problems. Antonio was taken into protective custody by one of the officers. Rosendo and Jose, who were staying with a family friend, were also taken into custody by Child Protective Services. Appellant was arrested for felony child endangerment.
The present dependency petition, filed on November 14, 2006, alleged that appellant failed to protect or provide support for Antonio, and had been incarcerated for child endangerment (§ 300, subds. (b), (g)). The petition further alleged that Rosendo and Jose were at serious risk of harm or illness due to appellant's neglect of their sibling, her substance abuse, and inability provide care for them (§ 300, subd. (j)).
Following a hearing the juvenile court found a factual basis for detention of the minors within the meaning of section 300. The minors were removed from appellant's custody and detained. At the scheduled jurisdictional hearing on January 11, 2007, appellant and the father Armando waived their rights and submitted the matter on the jurisdictional report. The allegations of the petition were found true, and the minors were declared dependents of the juvenile court, with placement out of the home of the parents. Reunification services were ordered for the father, and he was granted visitation with the minors. Appellant was also granted visitation with the minors. In light of the Department's recommendation for denial of reunification services to appellant, she requested a contested dispositional hearing.
The dispositional report recited appellant's history of substance abuse, including her ingestion of alcohol during pregnancy with at least three of her children. The report also mentioned appellant's prior repeated referrals, failures to comply with reunification plans, inability to care for herself or her children, and continued use of alcohol, methamphetamines, and marijuana. Appellant had twice previously been "convicted of being under the influence and completed a diversion program for both convictions," but was still currently "unable to remain clean and sober." She also suffered a conviction for petty theft in 1991, and pled guilty to felony willful cruelty to a child (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) on February 7, 2007.
Following the detention of the minors, appellant failed to regularly contact the social worker, although she appeared "for the majority of her visits" with the minors, and displayed "appropriate affection and empathy for them." Appellant remained homeless, living under bridges; several times she was beaten and robbed. She also failed to report to her probation officer as ordered following her conviction of inflicting cruelty on a child. In addition to her substance abuse, appellant also suffers from depression, which she treats only sporadically with medication.
Appellant enrolled in an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment facility, the Women's Recovery Program, but participated irregularly and ineffectively. The report noted that she had not "followed through" with any of her intervention programs. She tested positive for drug use, and acknowledged her difficulty in refraining from drug or alcohol use. The Women's Recovery Program suggested that appellant needed a "higher level of care" in a residential treatment center for an extended period. The dispositional report recommended denial of reunification services to appellant.
Appellant testified at the dispositional hearing held on May 7, 2007.5 She admitted her addiction to alcohol and methamphetamines. Appellant testified that she entered the Project 90 residential treatment program (Project 90) in Napa two months before, and was scheduled to graduate in June. Appellant expressed that she wished her enrollment in Project 90 had occurred earlier, but was not aware of the program. She also attended parenting classes and had a sponsor through AA. She was able to maintain visitation with the minors at the Project 90 facility. Appellant asserted that for the first time she admitted her addiction. She professed to have increased self-esteem and devotion to the program. She intended to accept an offer from the Project 90 program to act as "a mentor" for the other residents at the facility after she graduated. Appellant believed that she would be able to succeed with her rehabilitation.
Appellant's daughter Judy testified that she noticed a change in appellant as a result of her participation in the Project 90 program. Appellant is happier, healthier, cleaner, and is "trying to be there for her kids." Judy hoped that the minors would "have a chance to go back" with appellant.
The juvenile court found that appellant failed to make "enough" effort to treat her problems, and "that reunification services would not be in the best interest of the children." Reunification services to appellant were therefore denied under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). Continued visitation with the minors was granted to appellant. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the juvenile court erred by denying her reunification services "pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b), subsections (10) and (11)." She claims "there was no substantial evidence to support" the court's finding that she "failed to make a reasonable effort to treat the problems" that resulted in detention of the minors, as required by the statutory provisions to deny her reunification services. She further maintains that denial of reunification services to her is not "in...
To continue reading
Request your trial