In re J.C., A119044 (Cal. App. 10/28/2008)

• Decision Date: 28 October 2008
• Docket Number: A119044
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent, v. C.J. AND J.C., Appellants.

Page 1

In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent, v. C.J. AND J.C., Appellants.

A119044

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two

October 28, 2008

Not to be Published

Appeal from the San Francisco County, Super. Ct. No. JD00-3399.

RICHMAN, J.

In 2001, the Juvenile Court of San Francisco made C.J. the guardian of J.C., who was the subject of a dependency that was terminated the following year. Five years later, the court reinstated J.C.'s dependency by sustaining the allegations of a supplemental petition filed by respondent San Francisco Department of Human Services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387.¹ The court also denied a motion by C.J. to be declared J.C.'s presumed mother. C.J.'s guardianship was terminated, and J.C. was placed with a relative of his father.

Both J.C. and C.J. have appealed from the dispositional order. Their primary contentions are that the juvenile court erred in denying C.J.'s motion and in terminating the guardianship. They also make a barrage of procedural and policy arguments directed against various other rulings of the juvenile court. We conclude that none of the arguments has merit, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case has a fairly lengthy history, but it can be reduced in the retelling to the events that are relevant to the issues raised on these appeals.

In May 2001, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of an amended petition by respondent to the effect that J.C.'s mother was unable to care for him due to long-standing substance abuse problems. J.C. was declared a dependent child, and he was placed in the custody of C.J., a relative.²

At the six-month review hearing held in November 2001, the court accepted the social worker's recommendation to commence proceedings to terminate the parental rights of both his mother and father. J.C. was doing well in his placement with C.J., who was interested in adopting him. C.J. was appointed J.C.'s temporary legal guardian.

The termination hearing was held on April 2002. The court declined to terminate the parents' rights on the ground it "would be detrimental to the child because [¶] . . . [¶] The child is living with a relative . . . who is unable or unwilling to adopt because of exceptional circumstances, but is willing and able to provide the child with a stable and permanent home, and removal would be detrimental to the child." C.J. was appointed J.C.'s legal guardian. The court then terminated the dependency.

On October 3, 2006, respondent filed petitions pursuant to sections 387 and 388. The petitions were based on field reports and an investigation done by respondent in late September. One report, dated September 28, advised respondent that J.C. was "living in a drug house, and has been wearing the same filthy clothes for the last 4 days. He's outside all hours of the day and night, he's almost been hit by a car, he's underweight" The following day J.C. was found "roaming around the streets in front of Bret Harte Elementary School. He reported he . . . was told by the LG [legal guardian, i.e., C.J.] to walk to the bus by himself. Then he walked back home by himself, and was told by the LG to go back to the bus and wait . . . ." When respondent sent an investigator to check out these reports, one of the neighbors stated "it was about time CPS did something. We were all worried about the kids. She [C.J.] is on drugs and not caring for the kids."

The gist of respondent's petitions was that several field reports had led respondent to conclude that C.J. "has a substance abuse problem that requires treatment, and interferes with her ability to care for the child, including not meeting the dental, emotional, and educational needs of the child," and therefore J.C.'s dependency should be reinstated. C.J.'s whereabouts were unknown, and "all attempts to make contact . . . have failed."

C.J. did not appear at the detention hearing held on October 6. After finding that her absence was willful, the juvenile court ordered J.C. detained.³

The matter essentially trailed for a number of months. During that period, C.J. was receiving reunification services as part of the dependency of her own child. (See fn. 3, ante.) Most information we have detailing what occurred in that period comes from the reports of the social worker. The first report, in November 2006, advised that C.J. had been in Las Vegas when J.C. was detained, "could not explain why she had not contacted the Agency in the 18 days since her children were removed," had failed to show up for an appointment on October 24, "nor has she had any contact . . . since." Moreover, "[C.J.] . . . has made no effort to visit with the minor."

The social worker reported that J.C. had been placed with another relative—this time a paternal relative—and was improving. So was his situation at school: "According to the school, J.C. was on the verge of being asked to leave school because he was behind on his immunizations and his caregiver [i.e., C.J.] had never provided the appropriate medical paperwork required to remain in public school. The school reports that J.C.'s attendance and hygiene have improved significantly since he was removed from his guardian, although he has also had some escalation in his behaviors in recent weeks as well." The short term goal was "to modify the permanent plan from legal guardianship to long-term placement" because neither of J.C.'s parents were in a position to care for him and "[C.J.] is no longer able to offer the minor a suitable home."⁴

Things had improved somewhat by the time the social worker filed an addendum report in January 2007. She reported that she was meeting with C.J. on a regular basis. C.J. "is currently attending the BAART methadone maintenance program, where she receives a daily methadone dose, . . . checks in on a weekly basis with a counselor," and "attends daily NA meetings." On the other hand, C.J. "has been very reluctant to complete a substance abuse evaluation, as requested," and the BAART program "does not include a more clinical treatment component. This is somewhat concerning in addressing the crucial issue of long-term sobriety as they relate to substance abuse when considering reunifying children."

The social worker also reported C.J. had been having weekly supervised visits without incident for more than a month. However, C.J. "has struggled financially in recent years," and "does not currently have stable housing of her own but is living with her mother in Sunnydale." Ominously, "The case file indicates that there were concerns for several months that the guardianship may have been overwhelming for [C.J.], as she repeatedly was out of compliance with ensuring J.C. received appropriate medical and dental care, and she did not enroll him in school in a timely fashion . . . . [C.J.] also previously entered (but did not complete) residential treatment while J.C. was in her care, then relapsed again, leading to a situation that was unsafe for the children, requiring their removal."

The social worker concluded: "While the Agency is hopeful that [C.J.] will be able to reunify with her biological daughter, and will continue to support her in reaching that goal, the Agency cannot recommend providing reunification services for the minor J.C.. Given that J.C. first became involved in the child welfare system as an infant, it appears that what is most important at this time is identifying the most permanent, stable environment for him. At this time, the Agency continues to recommend that the guardianship be dissolved, and that the permanent plan for J.C. be amended to long-term foster care with his paternal relatives (this will likely be amended to guardianship in the future), who have stated their commitment to caring for J.C. permanently."

On January 18, 2007, counsel for C.J. advised the court that "We will be contesting the request to have the guardianship set aside," and requested the court appoint an expert to complete "a bonding study" between J.C. and C.J. "which will inform the Court as to the best interest of [J.C.]." The court approved the request.

The social worker submitted another report in April 2007. She noted that J.C.'s father had been paroled from prison, and wished to develop a relationship with his son. The father "also expressed . . . that he is very grateful that [C.J.] took care of his son for several years, and he indicated that he hopes they will continue to have a close relationship. He is very much in support of continued and ongoing visitation between J.C. and [C.J.]."

The social worker further noted that C.J. "continues to test clean," had completed a parenting class, enrolled in a treatment program, and was scheduled to begin individual therapy. She also had maintained her visits with J.C., albeit on a sporadic basis. "[C.J.] recently indicated . . . that she has been thinking a lot about her current circumstances and what is best for her, her daughter, as well as J.C., whom she clearly loves very much. [C.J.] . . . also admitted that this is something that she struggles with, now that J.C. is placed with paternal relatives, because she has always wanted for him to be able to be close to his biological family. [C.J.] made it clear that, even if the guardianship is dissolved, she will continue to love J.C. and wants to be a significant part of his life. To this worker's knowledge, all parties involved, including the Agency, and J.C.'s father and other paternal relatives, are very much in support of [C.J.] continuing to have significant contact with J.C., so long as she is sober and stable." The social worker was "hopeful that this case may be resolved in a mediation."

On April 4, 2007, the court ordered J.C.'s case sent to mediation. The mediation was not successful, and on May 24 the parties agreed to "set the matter for contested hearing." One week later, respondent...