D.A. v. The Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. (In re S.I.)

1

In re S.I. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

D.A., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Parties in Interest.

B337439

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

July 30, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Super Ct. Nos. 20CCJP00204, 20CCJP00204I Mary E. Kelly, Judge. The petition for extraordinary relief is denied. The jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Emily Berger, Domnika Anna Campbell, Steven Lory for Petitioner.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Children's Law Center, Kristin Hallak, Meredith Alexander for Minor.

COLLINS, J.

Mother D.A. filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief after the juvenile court denied reunification services with her child S., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)^[1] and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26. Mother contends the court's finding that she did not make a "reasonable effort" to remediate the problems that led to the termination of services for S.'s older siblings was not supported by substantial evidence. She further contends that the court erred in finding she was a current abuser of marijuana and cocaine and in removing S. from her care. We deny the petition for extraordinary writ relief and affirm the jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court.

BACKGROUND

I. The Family

Mother and father, G.I., are parents to nine children. Their six eldest children, I., D., J., Em., V., and Ay., were born between 2012 and 2018. Es., their seventh child, was born in June 2020. Am., their eighth child, was born in November 2021. And S their ninth child and subject of mother's petition, was born in January 2024.

II. Previous Juvenile Court Proceedings

A. Inconclusive Referrals

In April 2015, a few days after J. was born, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report alleging that mother had tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine during a prenatal visit in February 2015. Mother denied using drugs, and she and J. both tested negative for all substances. Mother attributed the positive test to an "isolated incident" in which a friend offered her what appeared to be a cigarette at a party; mother said she inhaled a single time. DCFS closed the referral as inconclusive, noting there were no safety concerns or other risk factors present at the time.

In September 2015, DCFS received a report of a domestic violence incident during which father allegedly pushed mother down and choked her while she was trying to put D. to bed. The referrer reported that father was arrested after the incident; subsequent investigation revealed that father had been arrested on a previous DUI warrant, not for the domestic violence incident. Father reported that he drank "moderate levels of alcohol," but DCFS found no "concerning behaviors indicative of excessive alcohol use" or any evidence that father's ability to care for the children was impaired. During a follow-up visit, apparently after Em. was born in April 2016, DCFS found rats and cockroaches in the home. DCFS noted that none of the children appeared to have been bitten or become ill due to the infestations, to which "parents appear to be responding appropriately." DCFS also noted that despite experiencing "numerous stressors," including financial strain and cancer treatment for I., the family had strong support from relatives and parents were "fulfilling the children's medical and educational needs" and "the children's minimum level of care." DCFS closed the referral as inconclusive but provided the family with a referral for supportive services.

B. Sustained Petitions

In November 2019, DCFS received a report alleging that parents engaged in a domestic violence incident while they were intoxicated after a party. The reporter stated that the children were not present. According to the referrer, mother and father argued because father believed another man at the party gave mother a drink. Father kicked mother in the buttocks, mother pushed him in response, and father then grabbed mother by the collar and punched her in the face. Mother sustained bruising, swelling, red marks, and a bloody nose. Father was arrested, but mother declined an emergency protective order.

DCFS subsequently detained all six eldest children and filed a petition seeking jurisdiction over them in January 2020. When DCFS was placing the children in a foster home on January 10, 2020, a social worker observed "about 20" bruises on Em.'s legs. Em., who was three, told the social worker "it was from mommy" and "made a slappingmotion [sic] on her leg to demonstrate." I., who was seven, told the social worker that parents did not hit Em.; she "bumped into things." However, I. and J. both reported during their medical examinations being hit "a long time ago" by mother, father, and maternal grandfather. No concerns were noted during the examinations of D., V., and Ay. DCFS deemed the referral stemming from the alleged physical abuse of Em. inconclusive, noting that the children were no longer residing in the family home. It nevertheless included allegations of physical abuse in the section 300 petition it filed on January 14, 2020.

The juvenile court sustained several allegations from the petition on March 10, 2020, after both parents entered no-contest pleas: a subdivision (b) allegation that the children were at risk due to parents' domestic violence and mother's failure to protect them; a subdivision (b) allegation that the children were at risk due to the "filthy, unsanitary and hazardous" conditions of the family's home, which included cockroach and rat infestations; and a subdivision (b) and (j) allegation that the children were at risk because mother and father struck the five eldest children with objects including hangers, belts, sandals, and toys, and maternal grandfather struck the four eldest children with objects including hangers, belts, sandals, and a wooden stick.^[2] The children were declared dependents and suitably placed. The court ordered reunification services. The children were returned to parents' home on March 9, 2021, but remained under the jurisdiction of the court.

On April 23, 2021, DCFS filed a subsequent petition concerning the six eldest children under section 342 and a new section 300 petition concerning Es., who had been born in June 2020, after allegations from the previous section 300 petition were sustained. In the section 342 petition, DCFS alleged in count b-1 that mother tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine on April 5, 2021, and that her use of these drugs interfered with her supervision of the six eldest children and placed them at risk. Count b-2 contained similar allegations regarding father, who tested positive for the same substances on March 31, 2021. DCFS included the same allegations, numbered b-3 and b-4, respectively, in the section 300 petition concerning Es. It further alleged that Es. was a child described under section 300, subdivision (j) due to parents' domestic violence (count j-1) and parents' and maternal grandfather's striking of the elder siblings (count j-2). Notably, the domestic violence count in the petition concerning Es. alleged that mother had been holding Ay. at the time of the post-party domestic violence incident; this detail was absent from the section 300 petition concerning the elder six siblings.

The juvenile court sustained the above allegations in the section 342 and section 300 petitions on June 18, 2021. It ordered all seven children suitably placed and ordered family reunification services. The court continued family reunification services at the six-month review hearing on December 16, 2021. According to the CSW who handled the case, mother was ordered to participate in a six-month full drug/alcohol program with aftercare, submit to random or on demand drug/alcohol testing, attend a support group for victims of domestic violence, attend individual counseling, and attend conjoint counseling with father.

The CSW reported that mother completed a six-month outpatient drug program and provided a certificate of completion from her domestic violence group. Mother "did not show for any of the DCFS random or on demand drug testing." The CSW was not able to verify mother's completion of the drug program or her attendance at individual counseling. Mother was inconsistent with her visitation.

Parents' eighth child, Am., was born in November 2021. He and mother tested positive for amphetamine at the time of his birth. DCFS filed a section 300 petition concerning Am. on December 15, 2021. The juvenile court sustained several allegations from that petition on March 11, 2022, including a subdivision (b) allegation that Am. was born suffering the detrimental condition of a positive amphetamine test; a subdivision (b) and (j) allegation concerning mother's substance use; a subdivision (b) and (j) allegation concerning father's substance use; and subdivision (j) allegations concerning parents' domestic violence in the presence of Ay. and physical abuse of the elder siblings. The court declared Am. a dependent and ordered him suitably placed. Family reunification services were ordered.

On August 11, 2022, the juvenile court terminated parents' family reunification services for the seven eldest children I., D., J., Em., V., Ay., and Es. The court terminated parents' family reunification services for Am. on February...