In re E v. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal

In re E v. CA4/2

DecidedJanuary 25, 2016

DocketE064088

StatusUnpublished

This text of In re E v. CA4/2 (In re E v. CA4/2) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re E v. CA4/2, (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 1/25/16 In re E.V. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re E.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E064088

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J258637 & J258638)

v. OPINION

A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.

Pace, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 A.M. (mother) is the mother of two young children, E.V. and A.V., the subjects of

this dependency proceeding. Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying

her petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388. For the reasons set forth

below, we shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) was notified that

mother left her two children, E.V. (age seven), and A.V. (age two) with the paternal

grandparents before Christmas, and as of January 15, 2015, neither mother nor C.V.2

(father) had returned to check on the children or pick them up. Prior to this time, mother

and the children were homeless; father was incarcerated.

Initially, E.V. told the social worker that she wanted to return to mother. E.V.

stated that mother and father (collectively, “parents”) argued. She reported that she had

seen father hold a knife to mother’s throat. She did not know the whereabouts of mother.

Before E.V. lived with the paternal grandparents, she lived in various motels and

hotels. She witnessed parents using drugs and watched her mother roll joints. Although

E.V. denied being abused, she reported that she was scared sometimes when parents

fought. She stated that she attended school but could not remember her teacher’s name or

the name of her school.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

2 C.V. is the presumed father of the children.

2 The paternal grandfather (PGF) told the social worker that mother asked him to

pick up the children after school on December 22, 2014, and keep them for three days.

Mother was homeless and wanted to look for an apartment. PGF reported that parents

called once to speak with the children, and another time to curse PGF for keeping the

children away from them. PGF gave the social worker mother’s telephone number and

last known address in Victorville.

A social worker contacted mother. They scheduled an appointment in CFS’s

Victorville office. On the morning of the appointment, mother cancelled claiming illness.

Despite the social worker’s attempts to reschedule the appointment, mother failed to

respond.

On January 7, 2015, a police officer interviewed E.V. She told the officer that she

witnessed alcohol use and domestic violence. E.V. also witnessed mother having sex in

the home with father and other men. E.V. stated that mother “drinks” a lot and would

leave beer around the house. E.V. did not drink the beer because she did not like the

taste. She also told the police officer that she had not been to school for about a month

but would like to return.

On February 4, 2015, CFS filed section 300 petitions on behalf of each child. The

petitions alleged failure to protect, no provision for support, and abuse of sibling. (§ 300,

subds. (b), (g) & (j).)

In the detention report, the social worker stated that mother, who was 35 years old

at the time of the report, had a child welfare history. She had lost two older children to

adoption through the dependency system in 2004. E.V. also had a previous dependency

3 case initiated January 27, 2010, through August 20, 2010: On January 23, 2010, mother

tested positive for marijuana after giving birth to a baby; the baby was adopted through a

private adoption agency. Parents received family maintenance services at that time.

Mother also had two other children placed under a legal guardianship with maternal

grandmother. Mother voluntarily gave legal guardianship to maternal grandmother since

mother knew she could not care for the two children due to her substance abuse problem.

At A.V.’s birth, mother tested positive for methamphetamine. From August 17,

2012, through September 6, 2013, both E.V. and A.V. were found to be dependents of the

court. Mother received reunification services during that time. In addition to the three

dependency cases prior to the current case, mother also had 15 other referrals between

1999 and 2013 for general neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and severe neglect.

At the detention hearing on February 5, 2015, mother failed to appear. The court

detained the children and ordered supervised visitation with parents once a week for two

hours. Parents were to confirm their visits 24 hours in advance. PGF had no contact

information regarding the parents, except for the fact that they lived in Victorville.

In the jurisdiction/disposition report dated February 26, 2015, CFS recommended

that the juvenile court sustain the petitions and that the children be placed in out-of-home

care with no family reunification services for mother or father. Mother met with the

social worker to discuss the allegations; mother denied them. The social worker advised

mother of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing and mother agreed to attend. Mother could

not provide an address because she was homeless; she did provide her current phone

number.

4 PGF told the social worker that he intervened in the past because of parents’

substance abuse and domestic violence. PGF did not know parents’ whereabouts. He

was concerned about the safety and well-being of the children since they needed a stable

environment. PGF was also concerned with E.V.’s inappropriate language and comments

about sex and drugs.

E.V. wanted to remain with her grandparents. She felt safe since no one was

fighting and/or doing drugs. E.V. was also excited to return to school. She did not attend

school when she lived with parents because they moved frequently.

Mother called the social worker to schedule an appointment. She denied drug use

and agreed to an on-demand drug test. Mother, however, failed to attend the

appointment. The phone number that she had provided to the social worker was

disconnected.

Mother’s criminal substance abuse history dated back to 2001. She had multiple

arrests. Mother’s abuse of drugs caused her children to be removed from her. On

December 26, 2014, mother was arrested; she had a loaded syringe in her vehicle and

additional paraphernalia, which tested positive for methamphetamine, was discovered.

Mother had a hidden baggie of methamphetamine in her bra and a glass pipe in her

underwear underneath the waistband.

CFS recommended the setting of a selection and implementation hearing since the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI