K.L. v. Super. Ct. CA2/6

Filed 11/12/26 K.L. v. Super. Ct. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX K.L., et al., 2d Juv. No. B356295 (Super. Ct. Nos. 25JD-00177- Petitioners, 001, 25JD-00177-002 ) (San Luis Obispo County) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, Respondent; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. K.L. (father) and C.L. (mother) seek extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s orders terminating family reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing as to their two children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 We deny the petitions. Factual and Procedural Background In June 2025, San Luis Obispo County Probation officers performed an unannounced home visit and found father (who was on probation) actively under the influence while the children were present in the home. Father had fresh “track marks” on his arms. Mother admitted using methamphetamine earlier that day and officers located a bag of methamphetamine in parents’ bedroom. The children, W.L (born July 2017) and T.L (born October 2018) were subsequently detained. The San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)) due to parents’ substance abuse. The petition further alleged parents had a prior dependency case from November 2019 to May 2021 after T.L. tested positive for opiates and amphetamines. Father was currently on formal probation for willful harm/injury to a child likely to cause great bodily injury stemming from his substance abuse. In its detention report, the department reported that parents had numerous prior child welfare referrals involving substance abuse and other issues. Mother reported that father had been up for the last seven days playing video games and it was “getting bad meaning not safe,” so she took the children to maternal grandmother’s home. Maternal grandmother reported that father had overdosed twice in 2025. The children reported being fearful of father and parents’ fighting. The children said 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 they like maternal grandmother’s house and “stay there often” because parents fight a lot. Mother reported that she had just finished at Drug and Alcohol Services (DAS) and had not used substances for two prior weeks. She described her recent use as “a little relapse” and she has those “little relapses” every once in a while. Both parents had substance-related criminal histories and pending charges. The parents were willing to engage in services and had done so in the past. In July 2025, at the conclusion of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition, ordered the children removed from parents’ custody, and granted reunification services and visitation as recommended by the department. In January 2026, the department prepared a status report for the six month review hearing. The department recommended parents continue to receive reunification services but expressed concerns regarding parents sleeping during unsupervised visits, arguing in front of the children, and mother’s transporting the children without a valid driver’s license. Mother admitted drinking alcohol in December 2025 but minimized her relapse because it “wasn’t ‘meth’ that she relapsed with.” Parents reported they were no longer in a relationship and had begun visiting the children separately. Father moved into sober living after testing positive for codeine. He engaged in treatment services with DAS and was described as a “model client.” In December 2025, father moved back into the family home. The court appointed special advocate (CASA) agreed with the department’s recommendation and expressed similar 3 concerns. CASA reported that the children were doing “great” in their current placement with maternal grandmother but wished to be reunited with mother. T.L. also described father as “the best person in the world.” At the conclusion of the six month status review hearing, the juvenile court continued reunification services, set the 12- month review hearing, and an interim hearing to address visitation. In April 2026, the department prepared an interim review report. Parents reported filing for divorce in February 2026. Father completed DAS treatment in January and was no longer receiving any individual therapeutic services. Mother was incarcerated from January 29, 2026, to February 24, 2026, due to her criminal charges. As of late March 2026, she had completed her DAS program, was living in a sober living facility, and was receiving mental health therapy. Visitation was increased to one overnight per week. In May 2026, the department filed a JV-180 requesting the juvenile court modify parents’ visitation to two supervised visits per week after both parents relapsed. The juvenile court subsequently reinstated supervised visitation and set the matter for a 12-month contested review hearing. In anticipation of the 12-month review hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate services for both parents and set a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The department reported that mother relapsed on alcohol in late February 2026, the day after she graduated from DAS. She also drank during a visit with the children in early March 2026. She drank again on April 14, 2026. She used methamphetamine and drank alcohol on either April 21 4 or April 22, 2026 and used/consumed substances again three to four days later to help the withdrawal symptoms she was experiencing. Mother was removed from her sober living home due to her relapse. She chose not to return because she did not want to have a roommate and believed the “only way” father could stay sober was if she was residing in the family home. Mother drank again on May 18, 2026. Father reported that he “slipped” and used methamphetamine in early May 2026. Mother recorded a video of father in which he appeared to be under the influence. Mother sent the video to the social worker and to maternal grandmother. The children inadvertently saw the video. The department asked father to participate in emergency drug testing and reengage in DAS services. Father did not report to DAS or drug test on any of the dates requested by the department. Father also declined the department’s request to reengage in individual therapeutic services. Father’s probation officer shared that father was not in compliance with probation due to his substance use and lack of engagement. The children knew about parents’ relapses and made statements such as, “ ‘[O]ur parents don’t love us enough to stay sober,’ ” and, if my parents aren’t sober “when I turn 12, . . . I’m committing suicide.” Maternal grandmother reported that the children seem “madder” and “sadder.” At the 12-month review hearing, the social worker testified that father had a long history with substance abuse and had participated in treatment programs in the past. Father was resistant or hesitant to participate in mental health therapy. He reportedly had so much of it, he felt like he had learned everything there was to learn. Father was also hesitant to 5 reengage in drug treatment because, similar to therapy, he felt that he knew enough from his participation in prior programs. Father began drug testing on July 14, 2026, and was testing negative. Visits with the children were consistent and fine so long as father was sober. The social worker testified that mother had an issue with substance abuse since at least 2018. Mother admitted consuming substances five times since graduating DAS in late February 2026. Mother was currently compliant with her case plan and had been sober since approximately early June 2026. Visits with the children were fine so long as mother was sober. The social worker did not believe the children could be safely returned to either parent given their recent relapses. Even if services were continued, the social worker did not believe there was enough time for parents to demonstrate sustained change. Father testified that he believed he was in compliance with probation but anticipated serving some jail time for his criminal case and the probation violation. Father reported a sobriety date of May 5, 2026. Since his relapse, he moved out of the family home and into a sober living home. He was participating in services there and testing negative through DAS. Father was also engaged in groups two times per week, attended self-help meetings four times per week, and was waiting for an assessment through DAS. Father testified that he previously completed several drug programs, including drug court in 2013, an intensive outpatient treatment program in 2021, and had recently graduated from an “extensive” 10-month AB-109 program on January 30, 2026. He also completed “Moral Recognition Therapy,” which he described as a “very extensive step-working” 6 program for incarcerated individuals to “come out and break some of those habits and take accountability.” Father testified that his recent relapse happened “very quick” and was “brief.” He believed he “need[ed] to dig deeper and find the actual reason why . . . this is happening.” He also believed it was in the children’s best interest to continue services. Mother testified that she and father were in separate homes and were “filing for divorce.” She has had multiple periods of sobriety in the past, between nine months and two and a half years. She completed at least “a dozen” treatment programs throughout her life. Mother said she graduated from DAS in March 2026, and “had a drink the day of [her] graduation.” She drank a few more times after that, then “drank a little too much,” which led to her relapse on methamphetamine. Mother’s biggest trigger is “chronic lower back pain and nerve damage.” She was prescribed Gabapentin for her pain and was on that medication when she relapsed. She also began taking Suboxone. When asked if Suboxone helped with her cravings, mother answered, “Sure. I would not - - I would not describe alcohol as a craving, but rather, an outlet or desire I have if I’m in pain.” Her sobriety date is May 14, 2026. She has since reengaged in DAS, is testing negative, attending 12-step meetings, and seeing a therapist. After listening to testimony and hearing argument, the juvenile court continued the hearing to the following day so that it could “full[y] consider[]” the issues before ruling. In a detailed and thorough ruling, the juvenile court found there would be a substantial risk of detriment to the children if they were returned to either parent. The juvenile court believed that both parents still “have work to do.” It stated, “[t]he parents themselves testified to their failure to participate and complete 7 and make substantive progress in treatment.” It further stated, “each of these parents are playing to their own needs more than the needs of their children.” Based on the evidence presented, the juvenile court could not find “a probability” that the children could be returned to either parent if services were continued. Accordingly, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Discussion “At the conclusion of the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court shall continue the case for up to six months if there is a ‘substantial probability’ the child will be returned to a parent's custody. [Citation.] A ‘substantial probability’ of reunification requires the court to find that the parent: regularly contacted and visited the child; ‘made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home’; and ‘demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of [the] treatment plan and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.’ [Citation.] We uphold the court's findings if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] We resolve all conflicts in favor of the court's determinations, and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold its findings. [Citation.]” (J.H. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535 (J.H.); § 366.21, subd. (g)(1) (A)-C).) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that parents have not made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the children’s removal or demonstrated their capacity to complete the objectives of their case plans to provide for the children’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well- being, and special needs. The children were detained due to 8 parents’ substance abuse. Mother relapsed immediately after completing her substance abuse program and multiple times thereafter leading up to the 12-month review hearing. Father admitted relapsing in May 2026, just two months before the hearing. Around that same time, he displayed symptoms of being under the influence, and the children thought he was “unhealthy.” A warrant was issued for father’s arrest due to his noncompliance with probation related to his substance use. Significantly, parents’ behaviors occurred after they completed drug treatment programs and just months before the 12-month review hearing. In her petition, mother acknowledges that her relapse was serious but contends the record contains evidence of her continuing efforts to address her substance abuse, including taking accountability for her relapse, reengaging in services, and maintaining a strong relationship with her children. Mother contends the department’s concern about sustained sobriety is precisely why additional services are appropriate. Father contends “the pace and durability of his engagement since May 2026” reflects his “significant progress and demonstrated capacity” required to continue services. Although parents cite evidence that could support a ruling in their favor, that evidence does not negate the substantial evidence that supports the juvenile court’s order terminating services. Both parents have a lengthy history of substance abuse. They have completed multiple treatment programs, achieved periods of sobriety, followed by repeated substance use. This pattern, which continued throughout this case, has had a detrimental effect on the children. Indeed, the juvenile court did not believe it was in the children’s best interest to continue this 9 process. As the juvenile court stated, parents’ “issues are still persisting.” They are “playing to their own needs more than the needs of their children, and that has a great continuing impact on them.” In light of this evidence, the juvenile court properly terminated services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (See J.H., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 535- 536.)2 Disposition The petitions for extraordinary writ relief are denied. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. YEGAN, J. We concur: CODY, P. J. BALTODANO, J. 2 Father’s petition includes additional evidence that is not part of the record and was not considered by the juvenile court. Accordingly, we do not consider it. (See In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405; In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300, 304.) 10  Matthew G. Guerrero and Linda Hurst, Judges Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo _____________________________ K.L., in propria persona, for Petitioner (father). C.L., in propria persona, for Petitioner (mother). No appearance for Respondent. Jon Ansolabehere, County Counsel, Vincent M. Uberti, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.