In re K.E. & A.P. CA1/2

BACKGROUND

In May 2012, respondent Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) filed separate petitions in which it was alleged that by reason of her “propensity for substance abuse,” Sonia E. was unable to protect and provide for K.E. and A.P., thus bringing them within the scope of section 300, subdivision (b). The same conclusion was alleged with respect to A.P. because of Jose P.’s “substance abuse problem.” The children were promptly detained. The combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held in September 2012. The Department initially recommended that neither Sonia E. nor Jose P. receive reunification services, but it was sufficiently impressed with the progress made by the pregnant Sonia E. that it changed its recommendation. The reasons for this change were explained by the case worker as follows: “Ms. E[.] has greatly surprised this writer by her expansive embrace of recovery principles, not only as verbalized but also as maintained in her behavior. She appears to have had a true ‘awakening’ as described in the AA Big Book, and to have acted upon it. The Big Book also refers to a complete reorganization of an individual’s personality, such as is…