 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tammy G. v. Superior Court of Del Norte County3/11/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Tammy G. (A096559) and Bobby B. (A096560) each petition this court for extraordinary writ relief, challenging the decision of the Del Norte County Juvenile Court to terminate reunification services for each of them and their minor child Tara B. and its order setting a date for a permanency and planning hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Tammy sought a stay of the permanency and planning hearing then set for January 11, 2002, which we issued on December 27, 2001.
Tammy contends that respondent court had reason to know that the child might be an Indian child, but failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and California Rules of Court. Tammy further contends that the court failed to make the requisite finding under section 366.21, subdivision (e) that the return of the child to either parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection or physical and emotional well-being of the child, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the return of the child to either parent would be detrimental to the child's physical or emotional well-being. Tammy also contends that the court abused its discretion in finding that real party in interest Del Norte County Department of Health and Social Services (Department) provided her with reasonable reunification services. Tammy seeks a writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders terminating reunification services, to order continuation of those services, and to release Tara to her care.
Bobby contends that reasonable reunification services were not provided to him. Bobby seeks a writ of mandate from this court directing the juvenile court to vacate its order terminating reunification services to him, and directing respondent court to provide him with a minimum of six months' additional reunification services.
I. BACKGROUND
Tara B. was born in July 2000 to Tammy. Tammy identified Bobby as the father. Tara went to live with her mother. At age seven months Tara was placed in protective custody because her parents were unable to provide for her care. The minor's mother was incarcerated in the Del Norte County jail on a probation revocation charge, and her father Bobby was incarcerated in Avenal State Prison for terrorist threats and unlawful sex with a victim under age 18.
Shortly thereafter, on February 27, 2001, a petition was filed on behalf of Tara B. under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The petition alleged that Tammy was unable to provide regular care for the minor because Tammy had a significant substance abuse problem and that Tammy failed to adequately supervise or protect Tara.
Specifically, the petition alleged that the minor's mother had been taken to the hospital on February 17 for a heroin overdose, and that she was again under the influence of heroin and oxycodon at the time the child was taken into protective custody on or about February 23. The petition also alleged that Tammy and the minor child lived with Tammy's parents, Eugenia and John. Eugenia had recently violated her parole for drug use. The petition further alleged that Tammy lacked impulse control and the ability to control her anger; and that Tammy had put the child at risk during an incident of domestic violence bet
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|