Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. V.R. (In re J.R.)

• Decision Date: 02 December 2016
• Docket Number: E066395
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re J.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.R. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

In re J.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.R. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

E066395

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

December 2, 2016

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super.Ct.No. RIJ1500745)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed.

Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant V.R.

Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.R. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendants and Appellants V.R. (Mother) and M.R. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights as to their five children. On appeal, Mother argues (1) the juvenile court erred in finding the children were adoptable; and (2) the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial exception to adoption applied.¹ On appeal, Father argues (1) the juvenile court erred when it denied the request to continue the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26² hearing to allow the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) to prepare the statutorily required adoption assessment report; (2) the juvenile court's findings of specific and general adoptability are not supported by substantial evidence; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jurisdictional and dispositional findings as to Father; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's dispositional order removing the children from Father's custody. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Father are the parents of nine-year-old J.R.; four-year-old M.R.; three-year-old A.R.; two-year-old G.R.; and one-year-old I.R. Mother met Father as a teenager, and they married in 2006 when she was 17 years old and he was 16 years old. Mother did not work, and Father was a welder and repaired trucks.

The family came to the attention of DPSS after Mother and her youngest child (I.R.) tested positive for amphetamine at the child's birth in July 2015. Mother was stunned at the positive test result, and reported she received prenatal care in Tijuana, Mexico. I.R. presented with normal APGAR scores and did not display any symptoms of drug withdrawal at birth. His vitals were normal, he was feeding well, and he was not crying or jittery. Mother appeared to be appropriately caring for the child and bonding with I.R.

When interviewed by DPSS, Mother denied any drug use and was surprised by the positive drug test. She initially denied a substance abuse history but later reported using marijuana and methamphetamine from the ages of 16 to 18 before the children were born. She agreed to submit to another drug test, and again tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.

Mother reported that the children were healthy and happy and that she and Father had a good relationship. She denied any criminal history, incidents of domestic violence, or having mental health issues. She reported that she suffered from headaches and hadobtained medication in pill form from Mexico. She, however, was unable to provide the name of the medication or her treating doctor's name. Mother was resistant to having DPSS conduct a walkthrough of her home as well as seeing the children. She eventually broke down, gave her consent, and claimed DPSS would not approve the home because the family resided in the maternal grandparents' garage.

Father was also interviewed. He claimed the child abuse referral was the result of the delivery doctor maliciously retaliating against him and Mother. He denied Mother used drugs, believing the positive drug test was from the medication Mother received from Mexico, and indicated the children were healthy and received good care. He admitted using marijuana and being arrested previously for burglary, shoplifting, driving without registration, and failing to appear in court. He denied any domestic violence with Mother and any medical or mental health issues.

DPSS visited the maternal grandparents' home and found it clean and organized. There were toys and some children's clothing, although not enough clothes for five children. There also were no beds or cribs for the children and no diapers or formula in the home. J.R. was in the home at the time and appeared healthy. Father was also home, and became very upset at the social worker. Father and the maternal grandmother declined to provide DPSS access to the children's provisions and belongings, as well as the garage where the family resided. He also refused to drug test, and reported the other children were at the paternal grandmother's home.

DPSS visited the paternal grandmother's home and found it also to be clean and organized. The three other children appeared healthy and free from any marks or bruises. The paternal grandmother and aunt reported no concerns about the parents' care of the children; they never saw the children abused or neglected by the parents. They stated the family lived at the maternal grandparents' home, but the children were staying with the paternal grandmother while Mother was in the hospital giving birth. DPSS attempted to take all three children into protective custody. However, Father and the relatives were uncooperative.

On July 15, 2015, DPSS filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the children pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), based on Mother's positive drug test, Father's abuse of marijuana and caring for the children while under the influence, the parents' inability to provide for five young children, and the parents' failure to make their home available for assessment.³

The children were formally detained at the July 20, 2015 detention hearing, and the parents were provided with visitation and services. Mother was ordered to drug test and provide a hair follicle test, and DPSS was ordered to assess relatives for placement.

DPSS interviewed Mother and Father separately on July 28, 2015. Mother again stated that the positive drug test was false and stated that Father did not smoke marijuana around her or their children. Mother, however, admitted that they had unstable housingand that they resided in her parents' garage. Mother was unemployed and denied receiving any government assistance. Father also stated the positive drug tests were false and denied smoking marijuana or being under the influence around the children. Father reported he and Mother provided everything the children needed, and admitted they were experiencing a tough time financially and were working on getting to a better place for the children. Father was employed as a welder, and claimed he earned too much money to qualify for government assistance.

A walkthrough of the maternal grandparents' garage revealed that the garage was detached from the main house. There was a big bed and no other sleeping items for the children, such as beds, cribs, or basinets. There was a swamp cooler to maintain appropriate temperature, a make-shift closet, dressers that contained the parents' and children's clothing, and family pictures on the wall. The parents maintained that the children slept in the grandparents' home; however, there were inadequate beds or cribs for five children in the home.

On July 16, 2015, DPSS completed a referral to Family Preservation Court (FPC) on behalf of Mother. On July 28, 2015, Mother reported that she had completed an initial assessment at FPC and was informed she did not qualify for the program. FPC informed DPSS that Mother did not qualify for the program because Mother claimed she had not used illicit drugs in eight years; that the positive drug test result was due to medication she took from Mexico; and because she was not honest during the assessment. On August 4, 2015, DPSS discussed the case plan with Mother and her need to participate ina substance abuse treatment program. DPSS also referred Mother to several substance abuse programs; however, Mother was not receptive to the information provided and stated she did not need to participate in substance abuse treatment. Mother also failed to drug test and provide a hair follicle test, claiming she did not have identification to complete DPSS's request. Father also failed to drug test, claiming he needed two days' notice as per his employer; and when DPSS provided Father with two days' notice, he stated that DPSS needed to send his employer a letter.

The children were initially placed in two separate foster homes—the oldest three children were placed together, and the youngest two children were placed in a separate home. A few days after the detention hearing, G.R. was moved to the same foster home as her older siblings. I.R., however, remained in a separate foster home because his siblings' foster home was not approved for infants. The children appeared healthy and happy in foster care, and were all developmentally on track for their respective ages. J.R. reported his foster mother was " 'good' " and that she made him feel safe. He also stated that Father told him DPSS wanted the family to be apart and that he wanted Lego's and to return home. Father also told J.R. that they would be home by August 11, 2015. While the social worker was interviewing M.R., J.R. expressed his protective nature over his younger sister and yelled out that M.R. did not know anything. The parents reported that J.R. wanted to return home and he...