Disregard below rant -- didn't mean to bore your with below, but ( i save this p

or mi momento).

Hello Mr. Bradfield,

How are you, hope you enjoy ur time to ... Finally, got the heart to read ... --
the mess i made/said/did in my insanity!
I was just so angry madness -- now feel bad -- i read cort scripts and see how (
my h usband often said that you ... really did try to def... ) i just so disappi
nted and shocked -- so much faith in the system and our legal sys -- and arrogan
ce lent me just enough self-proclaimed knowledge that in my fear of ... this unk
nown cps ..., -- offguard -- cant get out my head the look om baby face when ...
that day. I was so naive and unawarest or un..., shocked could happen in ameri
ca, especially to me , -- always have been able to ... my self out of ... the wo
rst possible ...
"They say something good comes from ... :
= realized i was very exhausted:

- Geo said I wanted to do everything myself -- did really trust her

with anyone -- with dad for little time -- but was afraid to leave her with any
one, even good trusted reliable friend -- who too had kids -- just fear some wo
uld hapeen to her -- sometime so exhausted -- go over firend's house -- please j
ust watch her i go and sleep in your other room for couple hours. support systm
e was lost when left dallas, "my Doula" when preg with her would pay her $20 fo
r couple hours 3 or 4 times whle geo at work to just sit in with her/ feed her .
.. -- just let me sleep or do ... - take a shower ... But, even tho trusted Lad
y my friend -- didn't think she had attention span for my baby or would...

I forgot what going to tell you, oh well. I DID HOWEVER FIND OUT ==
CALLED SDCOUNTY GD JURY DOWNTOWN AT ... BROADWAY ST. -- FOUND OUT THEY JUST OP
ENED UP AN INVESTIGATION (AN ACTUAL) ON CPS SYSTEM re many 10 or so years report
s/studies thereof and complaints in 100000 from parents -- lost and forsaken --
by a system ... of control -- over- ... caught in a web of ...
O by the way did you kno that Hon. Yvonne Campos handled w/Reno the Waco dea
l and ... child abuse case. what an interesting ...
YB the way not stalk Mr. Manchianne, fache -- a mere google of his name and
that "fache" yo to can get a bio with his publicly ... picture, -- merely coin
cident that ran into him onday downtown pacific hhs vital statistivces -- birth
certificate and marriagle license tax records building just across parking lot w
here he park, saw his pic on internet -- just happento be ... to my car in same
parking lot when saw this very handsome-likeness -- i mr.. manchionne!? it was
closing time -- he was just leaving his office for day.
And atty u are -- learned from attrys's workded for always research opposit
ion and the judge in a case to ... leanings, pro and con ...
Added to my ... mistakenly found more than n, like everybody paid by same ..
. county of sandiego.. cps system, the judges paidoff/fratinizing with co-worke
rs, peers/superiors etc.
I should have known better, forgot 13 1/2 years at City of dallas city Hall
in ... 6 different departments -- like one big family -- o the polictics -- bap
tized in 'fire i was. forgot left gov't wnet work for Texas Insturments corp.
 law departemnt - mergers, acuqisitions, trademarkes -- patent law my expertise
-- sounds boring but best comapny and time $54,000 in just 7 years on stock alon
e during bubble 2000 hitech days, TI actually had an ethics department, everyo
ne had to actually be nice, nerdy nor friendly -- a far throuw from "silly-Hall"
govt ...

Back to the cps ... in response to your coments prayers of ... like-Moses, "dear
god please dont ... them they just dont ... " july 31, ct.p114 "... there has t
o be something more that can be done ... situation ... with respect to her case.
.. and for that reason ... argue that the services... haven't been reasonalbe."
Thank you, for seeing something in me that ...
What at the time i couldn't express or say was how got into this... in complete
shock and O not my innocent baby!!! -- voluntarily agree to see a psychiatriset
evaluation -- tired -- had been up late -- and mostly hungry -- cause disoriente
d remember tellin matt rogers psw who came ... on that day -- got in car with ??
?with my dog too??? impounded by agency cost me $200.
... my baby without really understanding what??? -- wisked into another room by
this matt rogers, (see his resume -- his training as i demanded wherewith his ..
. -- without idenfiecation gullible me ... next thing i know in a hsptital with
drug overdose medically addminsitered by a real docoter at CMS -- woe?! happened
to piss-off -- As i was filling out admission ... laughing and jesting with the
two very cordial firendly SD Policre escorts about ..., -- one of the Officers,
young and new to force had just said to me, -- hey, your pretty quick! -- nurs
e was taking myt vitals ... in walks an older man "i mumble to one of the office
r's hey he looks like one of hte patients (ha ha)" -- well it was the doctor --
he sits down across from me -- looks at me for a second then, turns to his "nurs
e" -- and says, why is she here??? -- amused i calmly responded with a calm matt
er-of-fact sarcasim --"if you don't know why im here then you cant give me the c
orrect diagnosis nor the correct treatment" -- he Slams! Down his fist on the de
sk!!!, "5150!!!" -- at time didnt even kno what uqickly understood to be -- as 6
guys walked into room (something i knew said don't even ...) wihtout a word --
gave me a shot in each arm (later found out ativan (sleeper) and zyprxa ithink--
I looked at the two officers-also in awe -knowing immediately -- even tho nver
having had a shot in arm of any-- but in the movies i knew this meant going to f
aint any minute now, doctor now gone out office -- i plead officers to use the p
hone to call patient advocacy, one of the officers actually offered to look on h
is computer who to call. I said no! here's the nujmber right here on the just s
igned admission, HIIPA disclosures. I need to use that phone to call! before i
faint Officers said no we can't let yu use this phone? why? It's a medical pho
ne for hospital -- so! same technology -- sorry I can't, i know they felt bad fo
r. "Well before I faint here's my medical insurance card, I have private insura
nce -- please dont' leave me here! please have me transferred to a private hospi
tal,, please! please! im going to fall out i know any minute. Two days later I
woke up in an Alvarado Hospital bedroom, a guy was sitting in a chair next to my
bed gently peering over me, he was saying something?--"... I need to ask you so
me questions...," (how long had he been sittihng there), he started asking me qu
esiotns-i cant remember waht?", I do remember telling him that I was really too
groggy-druggedup to answer any questions, but he jsut insistented that he just h
ad a few more questions to ask me. August 4, 2008, days later, found out that h
is name was, MarK Hood, from same place, child protective services same Officeth
at I seen Mayanni, my babY! and my dog (Sashquash) CPS Worker, furious I called
him and demanded what was he doing him my hospital room, to a call to from ...
cant remember
how long this ... had been sitting in a chair next to my bed with seem like a pa
per-clipboard in his lap gentlly lookoing over me. "... can't remember what or
who he said he was -- stilled drugged-up from drugs shot in arm at CMS -- i reme
mber this guy "... my name is ... I going to ask you some questions"? (Mark hoo
d, CPSM, QASM) over?-dose ho ooking at me sleeping at Alvarado Hosptal sitting
in a chair next to my bed was a guy Mark Hood, a CPSW and in my room sitting a
cross from my bed wak-- who promised that this volutary - not under arrest -- ca
n leave at any time of own free will -- the offciers Rojas and Officer___ had ju
st told matt rogers and other agency ees that I was being escorted voluntarily a
nd that if i decided to leave I was free to -- of drugs amazement standing ther
e -- how dare!-- all within matter of 5 minutes -- he slam

i finally have the ... to read to transcriptis, etc from case. Mayanni is doing
so good. She is so funny, just surprisess me with what she comes up with -- ho
pe she uses her gift of gab as i once --. I called her one day -- she sees call
erid # -- Hi! mommy! I love you! -- my mother said oneday in garden, Mayanni wa
lks up, nonchalantly, a stick in stick in her hand -- lightly tapping it on the
ground she w/o ado, say's grandma, I miss my mommoy and daddy - wow soo sweet.
She said ant crawling on floor a friend -- she kills it later -- i said thought
youir friend -- she said O he'll come back.

Cant get over how close yet so far she / I feel on phone (havent seen her since
April 2009 when icpc to texas with ...
So gracious and just could go on and on about her. God is love! She sings to
me on the phone and I her, sometime's watching or preoccupied with ... when I ca
ll her -- she says Hi! Mommy/Daddy! Then she says after few words ... I try get
off phone -- just wanted to say hello, babe! -- She usually say no! don't go! bu
t puts phone receiver down and turns-on speaker phone, just to hear or that i or
geo can be there while she goes on about her business -- like watching cartoons
or eating -- as if just to hear me or daddy breath. She has such a presence an
d developed an unbelievely telephone-llike closeness, as if she can see me. I g
uess all she knows now. someitmes i ask my m9other, Mom? what does she look lik
e? often my friends say, O i saw Mayanni this weekend with your mom dad at ...
I'm sure is the ... footprints in the sand ... that has comforted me in this way
. She use to say I want to to come here (where she lives) -- at a loss of words
-- I we tell her mommy is working right now so get to see you soon. I LOVE HER
SO MUCH - she is so loving -- always says either i miss you so much mommy -- i d
on't think she really knows what i look like -- but shee appears although really
curious and yearning to see she has good sense of ... idea from photos in house
. She asks, mommy what are you doing -- o just watch t.v. -- waiting to -- as h
er daddy says can't wait to smell you, see you, big big hug, the most beautiful-
girl in the world. Said to her one day, Mayanni Dad said that you-are-so-beaut
iful she said, ?DID DAD SAY THAT??!! i REMEMBER DAY WALKED IN CPS VISATATION roo
m -- Mayanni hollered did Daddy do your hair?? -- because it was in differnet st
yle. Geo used to blowdryer comb her hair every morning -- she would holler/cry
/scream if i touch her hair, but would go get comb.. and chair --- loved her Dad
dy to do her hair -- she felt so pretty -- they'd then go for walk everyday arou
nd block.
One more thing, oneday she told daddy no, no, let me sing now and then sang, .
.. and they took me away from you so I could be safe ...
One more thing, I remember the first time Geo/daddy went to his visit with Mayan
ni at cps, -- I can't belive it - nor could the hispanic Security Guard there a
t the cps office who heard -- she said DADDY I WANT A BURRITO! i frequently joke
with him re ... beans , beans rice ... -- he said okay! me thinking aint no ..
. burritos around this neighborhood! -- but he actually within 10 minutes came b
ack with a burrito from somewhere nearby. -- didn't know she would kno wat a bur
rito let alone remember something like that -- i guess she remembered he did mos
t of the cooking -- he loves to eat/feed everybody -- she removed when only 2 1/
2 years old -- one day i mentionin sumthing about Jehovah -- she said to me quot
e, "id like to see him?" -- i blew in her face -- i said did you see that? -- sh
e said no -- i said but you felt it didn't you? she said yes -- explained god's
up in clouds can't see but there and he will protect you -- After ... I don't re
ally mention his name anymore now my spriit has faded sometime paralyzed with a
nger/sadness can't move. "don't call me Naomi! call me Ma'ra" (Bible Ruth 2), .
.. for Jehovah has made be bitter, ... I left with ... but return empty .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rbenson1963@hotmail.com
To: michael.bradfield@cox.net
Subject: RE: In Mayanni Rojas, This is ms rojas, Hello, just checking see if yo
giv correc or i mem'd corr email addrss for you
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:54:47 -0800
Hello Mr. Bradfield, thank you for your prompt response of the update, however b
-4 i sent you that email i did not know that my .... were terminated on ... , bu
t i left you message on telephonemachine -- again, i still intend to fax for "my
file" and/or enter as exhibit in court a copy of the Release from Lew Sterrett
/ that what they call the "Plantation" here in dallas.(smile)
-- not as bad as one would imagine -- three course meals-- bologne sandwich for
Breakfast -- bologne sandwich for lunch, and guess what ... for dinner! Free r
ooom and shelter! you should visit sometime when you retire this december.
Thank yyou for your help, under the circumstances (the system is - the Juvenile
Court and Judicial particiapants are self-admitted foul-play and a disgrace to t
he justice for all in America and ...) i apologize for not giving you the deserv
ed credit for your efforts in a system that bounds the hands of client' court ap
ppppppinted counsel to the point of ner' y none representation. We plan to resi
de here in Dallas, Mayanni was by the way-- born here at the fabulous Baylor Hos
pital "has the best babies" on April 24, 2006.
I do thank u and want to appeal for all purposes and intents that hopefully i ca
n assist my new appelllate attorney with some legal case authority and precedent
(spelling?) now that I am no long a mother (of sorts).
Salute'

Ms. Rojas

PS: did you notice about the case that i sent you was:
iNRE ...PRESIDING JUDGE "Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Reversed"
for similarly and consistent practices of unjust and unjustifiable disregard for
the American in which we sit for? or we sat? fo
> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:36:27 -0500
> From: michael.bradfield@cox.net
> To: rbenson1963@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: In Mayanni Rojas, This is ms rojas, Hello, just checking see if y
o giv correc or i mem'd corr email addrss for you
>
> Hello Mrs. Rojas. Yes you have my correct email address. Did you receive my le
tter? Sent one to your residential motel address and copy to you in care of your
mother (just in case you moved from Motel address). Parental rights were termin
ated on 12-21-09. I filed your appeal to the order. If there are any changes to
your address or telephone number, please let meknow. When the appellate attorney
is assigned, he/she will need that info to consult with you.
>
> The address for Appellate Defenders (the organization that assigns counsel and
oversees appeals is 555 W. Beech Street, Ste. 300, San Diego, CA 92101.
>
> I was automatically relieved as your attorney upon the filing of the appeal. T
hank you,
> --
> Mike Bradfield
>
> ---- rb Benson <rbenson1963@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is the html version of the file http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/ar
chive/D052204.DOC.
> > Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the we
b.
> >
> > Filed 7/28/08 (pub. order 8/14/08; see end of opn.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
> >
> > DIVISION ONE
> >
> > STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In re YVONNE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
> >
> >
> >
> > SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
> >
> > Plaintiff and Respondent,
> >
> >
> > v.
> >
> >
> > CELESTE W.,
> >
> >
> > Defendant and Appellant.
> >
> > D052204
> >
> >
> > (Super. Ct. No. J516252)
> >
> >
> > APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Ca
mpos, Judge. Reversed.
> >
> >
> > Celeste W., mother of dependent minor Yvonne W., appeals a juvenile court or
der, made at an 18-month review hearing, continuing Yvonne's placement in foster
care and ordering Yvonne's permanent plan to be another permanent planned livin
g arrangement (APPLA). Celeste challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sup
port the court's finding that it would be detrimental to Yvonne to return her to
Celeste's custody under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.22, subdivis
ion (a). Celeste also contends that she was not offered or provided reasonable s
ervices. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's f
inding that returning Yvonne to Celeste's custody would create a substantial ris
k of detriment to Yvonne. Accordingly, we reverse the order.
> >
> > I
> > FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
> > In July 2006, 11-year-old Yvonne became a dependent of the juvenile court an
d was removed from parental custody based on findings that Celeste used marijuan
a and was arrested on drug charges in Yvonne's presence. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Accor
ding to reports filed by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (
Agency), Celeste's boyfriend, Stephan C., was selling crack cocaine from the fam
ily home, where the police found cocaine base and marijuana. The police also fou
nd drug paraphernalia in Celeste's purse. Celeste admitted that she smoked marij
uana, but denied knowing that Stephan used drugs or that he sold them from their
home. Yvonne was aware of Stephan's drug activities and said that Celeste smoke
d "pot" and drank alcohol.
> >
> > During the first six months of reunification, Celeste enrolled in a resident
ial drug treatment program (KIVA), completed a parenting class, participated in
individual therapy and submitted to a psychological evaluation. According to her
therapist, Celeste was knowledgeable about positive parenting techniques, took
responsibility for her bad choices and showed empathy for Yvonne. Celeste enroll
ed in the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) program, submitted
to random drug testing, and appeared strongly motivated in her substance abuse r
ecovery. She and Yvonne were having regular unsupervised visits and Yvonne looke
d forward to seeing Celeste. The visits went well and progressed to overnight an
d weekend visits. Yvonne was placed in a group home until a suitable foster care
placement could be found.
> >
> > In January 2007, Celeste gave birth to a baby boy, who remained in her care.
Several months later, Celeste was discharged from KIVA because she had a disagr
eement with the program director. Nevertheless, Celeste was making progress in t
herapy, had maintained her sobriety, and was in compliance with SARMS. She was h
aving difficulty finding affordable housing and temporarily moved in with relati
ves. Celeste requested assistance with locating appropriate housing so that Yvon
ne could be placed with her. The social worker gave Celeste a referral for housi
ng and employment.
> >
> > Yvonne remained in her group home, where she was having behavioral and emoti
onal problems. She was receiving individual therapy to address these issues. Yvo
nne wanted to live with her mother and baby brother. According to a psychologica
l evaluation, Yvonne loved Celeste and felt emotionally connected to her, but al
so felt a great deal of rage toward her. The evaluator recommended that Yvonne c
ontinue in therapy, participate in conjoint therapy with Celeste, and receive a
referral for an individual education plan (IEP).
> >
> > At a 12-month hearing, the court found that Celeste had made substantive pro
gress with the provisions of her case plan, but that returning Yvonne to Celeste
's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to Yvonne. The court ord
ered six more months of reunification services for Celeste.
> >
> > In a report prepared for the 18-month hearing, the social worker stated that
Celeste had found "appropriate housing" at St. Vincent de Paul Village shelter,
where she could stay for two years. Celeste was in compliance with her services
, and was able to provide a safe environment for her six-month-old son. She had
completed 15 sessions of individual therapy, and was committed to maintaining he
r sobriety and reunifying with Yvonne. Celeste was active in the processes of ha
ving Yvonne assessed for medication, an IEP, and Regional Center services. Celes
te was also participating in services to obtain housing and employment through H
ome Start. Celeste's therapist recommended that she continue in therapy until sh
e achieved all of her treatment goals and progressed to conjoint therapy with Yv
onne.
> >
> > Yvonne had been placed in a foster home that was capable of providing superv
ision and emotional support for her. She was doing well in that placement and ha
d attained emotional stability. Yvonne was having unsupervised weekend visits wi
th Celeste at the shelter, where Yvonne had a bed and space for her personal bel
ongings. However, Yvonne complained that she sometimes felt uncomfortable visiti
ng Celeste at the shelter and that she often felt sick after visits. Celeste rep
orted that Yvonne sometimes had a negative attitude toward people at the shelter
and appeared to "look down" on them. Yvonne expressed her fear of being homeles
s. She was addressing these and other concerns in therapy.
> >
> > In the social worker's opinion, there was a risk to Yvonne if she were retur
ned to Celeste's care too soon. The social worker stated that Celeste still need
ed to: (1) obtain stable permanent housing; (2) participate in conjoint therapy
with Yvonne; (3) develop a supervision plan for Yvonne; and (4) become an active
participant in Yvonne's academics, therapy and other services. Additionally, th
e social worker recommended that Yvonne's assessment for an IEP be completed bef
ore her placement changed.
> >
> > At a contested 18-month hearing, the court received in evidence Agency's rep
orts and heard argument of counsel. The court recognized that although Celeste h
ad complied with services and maintained her sobriety, the evidence showed that
Yvonne still needed time to heal, that she was receiving structure and disciplin
e in her current placement, and that she was in the middle of an IEP assessment.
The court then found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning Yvonne
to Celeste's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to Yvonne's p
hysical and emotional well-being because Yvonne had expressed fear, anxiety and
unhappiness with Celeste's living arrangement. The court selected APPLA as Yvonn
e's permanent plan, ordered further services for Celeste under section 366.3, an
d set a review hearing.
> >
> > II
> > DISCUSSION
> > A
> > The Evidence Was Insufficient to Support the Court's Finding That Yvonne Cou
ld Not Safely Be Returned to Celeste's Custody
> >
> > Celeste challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's fi
nding, made at the 18-month review hearing, that returning Yvonne to her custody
would "create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or phy
sical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) Celeste assert
s that neither her housing nor Yvonne's incomplete IEP constitutes evidence of a
substantial risk of detriment to Yvonne. We agree.
> >
> > B
> > Agency Has the Burden of Showing Substantial Risk of Detriment
> > The dependency scheme is based on the law's strong preference for maintainin
g family relationships whenever possible. (David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 768, 788; Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 495, 507
.) When a child is removed from parental custody, certain legal safeguards are a
pplied to prevent unwarranted or arbitrary continuation of out-of-home placement
. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 420; David B. v. Superior Court, supra,
at p. 789.) Until reunification services are terminated, there is a statutory p
resumption that a dependent child will be returned to parental custody. (In re M
arilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 308.) As relevant here, section 366.22, subdivis
ion (a) requires the juvenile court at the 18-month review hearing to return the
child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that return of the child would create a substantial risk of detrim
ent to the child's physical or emotional well-being.
> >
> > The social worker has the burden of establishing detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (
a); Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1345.) The standa
rd for showing detriment is "a fairly high one. It cannot mean merely that the p
arent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the reunification ser
vices as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable than an available fo
ster parent or other family member." (David B. v. Superior Court, supra, 123 Cal
.App.4th at p. 789.) Rather, the risk of detriment must be substantial, such tha
t returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child's ph
ysical or emotional well-being. (Id. at p. 788; Rita L. v. Superior Court, supra
, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 505.)
> >
> > In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider the extent to whic
h the parent participated in reunification services. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); Blanca
P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748.) The court must also cons
ider the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditio
ns that led to the child's out-of-home placement. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); In re Dust
in R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141-1142.)
> >
> > This court views the record to determine whether substantial evidence suppor
ts the court's finding that Yvonne would be at substantial risk of detriment if
returned to Celeste's custody. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4t
h 758, 763-764.) In so doing, we consider the evidence favorably to the prevaili
ng party and resolve all conflicts in support of the trial court's order. (In re
David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828.) "Substantial evidence" means evidenc
e that is reasonable, credible and of solid value; it must actually be substanti
al proof of the essentials that the law requires in a particular case. (In re N.
S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172.) In the absence of substantial evidence show
ing such detriment, the court is required to return the minor to parental custod
y. (Rita L. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 505.)
> >
> > C
> > Celeste's Living Arrangement Does Not Create a Substantial Risk of Detriment
to Yvonne
> > The uncontroverted evidence showed that Celeste completed her case plan and
that she has been sober for more than a year. The social worker reported that Ce
leste is committed to her sobriety, that she appears to have benefitted from the
 services provided, and that she has made changes in her life that are in her ch
ildren's best interests. Celeste has acquired knowledge of positive parenting an
d is able to show empathy. Celeste has stable and "appropriate" housing at a lon
g-term shelter where she is safely parenting her son. In essence, Celeste did ev
erything Agency asked of her, including eliminating the conditions that led to Y
vonne's out-of-home placement. Further, Yvonne's behavior improved as a result o
f regular visits with Celeste.
> >
> > The court recognized Celeste's progress and expressly commended her for main
taining her sobriety and obtaining long-term housing at the shelter. Nevertheles
s, the court found detriment based on Celeste's housing situation, citing Yvonne
's expressed fear, anxiety and unhappiness about living in the shelter. However,
nothing in the record shows that conditions at the shelter pose a risk of harm
to Yvonne in any identifiable way. Indeed, Celeste is successfully raising her y
oung son in that environment and is able to provide for his safety, health and w
ell-being. Yvonne was having unsupervised weekend visits at the shelter with no
reported problems other than her dislike of the shelter and its residents. A chi
ld's dislike of a parent's living arrangement, without more, does not constitute
a substantial risk of detriment within the meaning of section 366.22, subdivisi
on (a). Proving substantial detriment cannot mean merely proving that a parent's
living arrangement is less than ideal. (David B. v. Superior Court, supra, 123
Cal.App.4th at p. 789 [court could not properly consider that parent was too poo
r to afford housing to support its detriment finding].) Celeste's limited financ
ial resources, which require her to live in a shelter until she can obtain alter
native housing, is not a legitimate ground for finding detriment. (In re G.S.R.
(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1213 [agency cannot "bootstrap" the fact that paren
t was too poor to afford housing to support a detriment finding].) "We cannot se
parate parents and their children merely because they are poor." (David B. v. Su
perior Court, supra, at p. 792.)
> >
> > Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that Celeste was informed that hav
ing Yvonne returned to her custody was contingent on Celeste finding alternative
housing. Rather, the social worker reported that Celeste had found "appropriate
" housing at St. Vincent de Paul Village shelter. In this regard, Agency "failed
to focus on the one issue housing that is arguably determinative in this case." (Da
vid B. v. Superior Court, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.)
> >
> > Despite Yvonne's concerns about the shelter and the prospect of becoming hom
eless, she "very much" wants to reunify with Celeste.2 Nothing in the record ind
icates that Celeste is incapable of adequately parenting Yvonne. Agency presente
d no specific and objective evidence to show that Yvonne would suffer detriment,
including serious psychological or emotional injury, if she were placed with Ce
leste at the shelter. (See Blanca P. v. Superior Court, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1750.)
> >
> > D
> > Agency's Concerns Regarding Yvonne's Best Interests Do Not Constitute Detrim
ent
> > In recommending against returning Yvonne to Celeste's custody, Agency argued
: (1) Yvonne and Celeste need to participate in conjoint therapy; (2) Celeste ne
eds to develop a supervision plan for Yvonne and become organized enough to acti
vely participate in Yvonne's life; (3) Yvonne's placement should not be changed
until her IEP assessment is completed; and (4) Yvonne needs more time to reunify
with Celeste as part of a transition plan.
> >
> > Although the factors that Agency cites address Yvonne's best interests and A
gency's preference for allowing a smooth transition for Yvonne, they do not over
come the presumption in favor of reunification by proving that returning Yvonne
to Celeste's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to Yvonne's ph
ysical or emotional well-being. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) Whether conjoint therapy fo
r Yvonne and Celeste would benefit the parent-child relationship is not a proper
inquiry at the 18-month hearing, where the court's analysis necessarily focuses
on detriment. (David B. v. Superior Court, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 788 [mi
nor's purported lack of significant bond with parent was not relevant inquiry at
18-month hearing]; Rita L. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 507
[court erred by considering quality of minor's relationship with de facto parent
at hearing under § 366.22, subd. (a)].) Nothing in the record supports a finding
that without conjoint therapy, Yvonne will be at substantial risk of detriment i
n Celeste's care.
> >
> > Similarly, Celeste's lack of a supervision plan, her lack of organizational
skills and Yvonne's incomplete IEP assessment do not pose any particular danger
to Yvonne within the meaning of section 366.22, subdivision (a). Thus, continuin
g Yvonne in out-of-home care based on these facts is unwarranted. (In re Jasmon
O., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 420.) The Agency's desire for more time beyond the 18
-month review hearing, to ensure a smooth transition for Yvonne's return to Cele
ste's custody, is contrary to the legislative presumption that a minor will be r
eturned to parental custody no later than the 18-month date, absent a showing of
substantial detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 285, 311; In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1787.)
> >
> > Even if the success of Yvonne's transition to Celeste's care were contingent
on addressing the deficiencies the Agency cites, there are less drastic means b
y which this could be accomplished. The court has the authority to return a mino
r to parental custody at an 18-month hearing and, at the same time, order family
maintenance services under court supervision. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court, su
pra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 311-312.) An order returning Yvonne to Celeste's cus
tody and directing that family maintenance services be provided would achieve th
e legislative goal of family preservation, and would ameliorate any remaining co
ncerns that Agency has about Yvonne's best interests.
> >
> > E
> > We Decline to Dismiss the Appeal as Moot
> > While the appeal was pending, Agency filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as
moot because the juvenile court has since returned Yvonne to Celeste's custody.
Agency argues the propriety of the court's order continuing Yvonne's placement
in foster care and ordering APPLA as her permanent plan is no longer at issue. C
eleste filed an opposition to the motion, arguing the issues are not moot, and e
ven if they are, this court should exercise its inherent authority to decide the
merits of the controversy.3
> >
> > An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurre
nce of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appel
lant effective relief. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.)
However, a reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an i
ssue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of cont
inuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading re
view. (Laurie S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195, 199; In re Raymond
G. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 964, 967.) We decide on a case-by-case basis whether s
ubsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether ou
r decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding. (In re Dani R. (
2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-405; In re Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769
.)
> >
> > Here, the issues raised in this appeal are of continuing public importance b
ecause they challenge the court's finding that a parent's housing, previously de
emed by Agency to be adequate, creates a substantial risk of detriment to a mino
r when there are no other protective issues to warrant continued out-of-home pla
cement. (See In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1548 [refusing to addre
ss errors on appeal by declaring the case moot has the undesirable result of ins
ulating erroneous rulings from review].) Further, because the court continued it
s jurisdiction of Yvonne, the basis for the court's detriment finding at the 18-
month hearing could continue to adversely affect Celeste should Yvonne again be
removed from Celeste's care. Thus, we have exercised our inherent discretion to
resolve the issue of Yvonne's return despite subsequent events. Agency's motion
to dismiss the appeal as moot is denied.
> >
> > F
> > Conclusion
> > Because there is no substantial evidence to support a finding of detriment,
the court was required to return Yvonne to Celeste's custody at the 18-month hea
ring. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) Continuing Yvonne's placement in foster care with APP
LA as her permanent plan was error.4
> >
> > DISPOSITION
> > The order is reversed.
> >
> >
> >
> > AARON, J.
> >
> > WE CONCUR:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BENKE, Acting P. J.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > NARES, J.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
> >
> > DIVISION ONE
> >
> > STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In re YVONNE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
> >
> >
> >
> > SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
> >
> > Plaintiff and Respondent,
> >
> >
> > v.
> >
> >
> > CELESTE W.,
> >
> >
> > Defendant and Appellant.
> >
> > D052204
> >
> >
> > (Super. Ct. No. J516252)
> >
> >
> >
> > ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION
> >
> >
> > THE COURT:
> >
> > The opinion filed July 28, 2008, is ordered certified for publication.
> >
> > The attorneys of record are:
> >
> > Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and A
ppellant Celeste W.
> >
> > John J. Sansone, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counse
l, and Erica B. Gardner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
> >
> > Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________