Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. N.K. (In re P.K.)

In re P.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.K., Defendant and Appellant.

E071355

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

February 15, 2019

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SWJ1700319)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith C. Clark, Judge. Affirmed.

Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

N.K. (Mother) has a history of abusing controlled substances and a history with child protective services that led the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) to remove her daughters from her care and custody. After Mother was unable to reunify with her daughters, the juvenile court terminated parental rights and found it likely the children would be adopted. On appeal, Mother argues (1) the juvenile court failed to timely assess and consider the maternal grandparents for placement under Welfare and Institutions Code¹ section 361.3; and (2) there was insufficient evidence the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The family came to the attention of DPSS on May 19, 2017, after it was reported that then 13-year-old P.K. was asking for food because she had not eaten in several days. P.K. also stated that Mother was assaulted by her boyfriend. The children had witnessed Mother being physically assaulted by her boyfriend on several occasions. It was further reported that the family home was uninhabitable due to an electrical fire and it had lacked running water for the past six months. There were also times when Mother would haveP.K. stay home from school to babysit then one-year-old N.K. It was reported that Mother and her boyfriend abused methamphetamines and sold methamphetamines from the home. Mother also sold her food in exchange for cash to purchase drugs and allowed transients to stay in the home. A search of the family's prior child welfare history revealed eight previous referral investigations regarding mother.

On May 19, 2017, the social worker interviewed P.K. at her middle school. P.K. did not know who her biological father was but considered A.S. to be her father.² A.S. was the biological father to Mother's other child, C.S., who resided with A.S. P.K. corroborated the allegations in the referral, and added that she had been showering at hotels when they received vouchers for rooms and that Mother smoked marijuana in front of the children. P.K. also noted that she had found a methamphetamine pipe in Mother's belongings and that she had witnessed Mother's boyfriend physically assault Mother on multiple instances. P.K. further stated that she would rather be in the foster care system than go home, but worried about being separated from her sister as she wanted to take care of her. C.S. corroborated the allegations in the referral, and added that A.S. generally brought food to P.K. and N.K. when they were hungry or had not eaten in days.

The social worker also interviewed Mother on May 19, 2017. Mother denied the allegations in the referral and initially refused to allow the social worker to conduct a home evaluation. Mother claimed that she did not have a drug problem or usemethamphetamine. However, Mother appeared to be under the influence and refused to submit to an on-demand drug test. Mother acknowledged that she had been a victim of domestic violence and stated the children had witnessed it on two occasions. The home evaluation revealed the home was in an unsafe, filthy, and uninhabitable condition, with a strong urine odor, no running water, and large quantity of dog feces in a back room. During the evaluation, a man emerged from a back bedroom, and the deputy accompanying the social worker recognized him as a probationer with an extensive criminal history. P.K. stated she did not feel safe in the home. Due to exigent circumstances, P.K. and N.K. were taken into protective custody. The social worker asked Mother if she had relatives to consider for the children's placement. Mother provided the name and phone number of the maternal grandmother.

On May 22, 2017, the social worker spoke with the maternal grandmother and provided her with an assessment application for placement of the children in her care. The maternal grandmother provided all necessary information, but noted that she resided in Fresno, California, and would not be able to transport the children for visits. She also stated that while she would like to be assessed by DPSS, both she and her husband had a criminal history that may or may not allow them to be approved.

On May 23, 2017, a petition was filed on behalf of P.K. and N.K. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). A first amended petition was filed on June 15, 2017, to add information relating to N.K.'s alleged fathers.

The detention hearing was held on May 24, 2017. The juvenile court formally detained the children from parental custody. The court provided Mother with visitation two times per week, and found the fathers to be alleged.

P.K. and N.K. were initially placed in separate foster homes. However, on May 30, 2017, N.K. was placed in the same foster home as her sister, P.K. As of June 2017, the maternal grandmother had not returned the placement application to be assessed for placement. Mother reported that she was raised in a one parent household by the maternal grandmother who was addicted to methamphetamine. Mother also noted that the maternal grandmother went to prison when she was 15 years old and that she was left to raise herself. Mother further stated that the maternal grandmother stopped using methamphetamine and was an ordained minister. P.K. reported that she would ultimately want to live with her mother if Mother changed her life and became stable.

The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on June 15, 2017. At that time, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the first amended petition and declared the children dependents of the court. The court provided Mother with reunifications services and ordered Mother to participate in her case plan. The court denied the fathers reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1).

By the six-month review hearing, DPSS recommended that Mother's reunification services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. Mother continued to abuse drugs as evidenced by her multiple positive drug tests. She also continued to be involved in an abusive relationship. Mother was observed to have a black eye on September 1,2017. In addition, Mother failed to complete her case plan and did not consistently visit her children.

In November 2017, P.K. was diagnosed with anxiety, dysthymia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a purging disorder. Her doctor prescribed Prozac to treat her conditions. P.K. met all age-appropriate developmental milestones and was doing well in school. However, she presented as depressed and upset most of the time, and was seeing a therapist once a week. She reported being upset with everyone, including the social worker, her mother, and "'everything.'" P.K. did not like her placement because the family was "too 'warm' and 'affectionate' and that she [was] not used to this type of familial interaction." P.K. wanted to move to a different placement in which the caregiver did not have their own biological children. P.K. expressed suicidal ideations in September 2017, after her caregiver confiscated her cell phone for having unauthorized contact with her mother. P.K. was described as being verbally and physically abusive toward N.K. N.K. was developmentally on target and was described as a friendly, happy child who got along well with everyone.

At a hearing on December 18, 2017, Mother requested that the six-month hearing be set contested. The maternal grandmother was present at that hearing. Mother's counsel informed the court that the maternal grandmother was still being assessed for placement of the children, and that maternal grandmother wanted to have visits with the children. The court authorized visits between the children and the maternal grandmother, and continued the six-month review hearing.

On January 18, 2018, DPSS reported that the maternal grandmother was unable to visit with the children during the holidays due to the maternal grandmother's distance and she had not completed a DPSS background check. DPSS also noted that the maternal grandmother was "currently undergoing the Resource Family Approval Process so that she [could] be considered for placement of the children."

At the January 18, 2018 contested six-month review hearing, Mother requested that her services not be terminated and that the maternal grandmother continue to be assessed for the children's placement. Minor's counsel informed the court that P.K. was unhappy in her current foster home and that P.K. desired to be moved to a new placement even if she was separated from N.K. Following further argument, the juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered DPSS to locate a placement for P.K. that would not result in her having to change schools, and ordered sibling visits with N.K. twice a month if P.K. was separated from N.K. The court also stated, "And hopefully [DP...