Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Diego County Super. Ct. No. J516461A/B.
McDONALD, J.
Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Carol Isackson, Judge. Petition denied. Request for stay denied.
Christopher C. petitions for writ review of juvenile court orders terminating his reunification services regarding his children, Jesse W. and J.W., and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. He contends the court erred because he was not provided with reasonable services, and he made substantive progress in court-ordered treatment. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Christopher states in his petition that he is also claiming the court erred by terminating visitation, but his petition contains no argument on this issue. We thus consider it abandoned.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of two-year-old Jesse and eight-month-old J.W. under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging they were at substantial risk because of domestic violence between their mother, S.W., and Christopher. Two weeks earlier, S.W. had stabbed Christopher with a knife and was arrested. It was the second time she had stabbed him in two months. Christopher obtained a restraining order against S.W., and the court detained the children with him on the condition S.W. not reside in the home.
The family's prior child welfare history included past allegations of domestic violence. Christopher had a history of criminal activity. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings on December 12, 2006, the court found the allegations of the petitions as amended were true, ordered the children placed with Christopher and ordered him to attend a domestic violence program, counseling and parenting classes.
Christopher reported that in March 2007, S.W. assaulted him at his home after he told her to leave. The police and S.W.'s probation officer were notified and an arrest warrant was issued for S.W. In May the social worker went to Christopher's home and found S.W. there. S.W. fled through a back window, and an investigation showed she likely lived in the home; Christopher denied she lived with him. The Agency filed a supplemental petition under section 387, alleging placement with Christopher was no longer appropriate. The court ordered the children detained, and they were subsequently moved to the care of the paternal grandmother and then to the care of the maternal stepgrandmother.
The social worker reported Christopher and S.W. had made no progress with their service plans, had not maintained contact with the Agency and had not visited the children since they were removed from Christopher's care. She recommended terminating S.W.'s services. On June 18, 2007, the court sustained the allegations of the section 387 petition and placed the children in relative care. It continued services for Christopher and terminated S.W.'s services. This court affirmed the order terminating S.W.'s services in a nonpublished opinion. (In re Jesse W. et al. (Nov. 21, 2007, D051108).)
Subsequently, the social worker reported Christopher had been terminated from a domestic violence program for nonattendance and had stopped attending parenting classes, but in September 2007, he reenrolled in domestic violence and parenting classes and enrolled in individual therapy. He continued to say he had done nothing wrong, that S.W. was not living in his home in May 2007 and the Agency should not have removed the children.
At the review hearing on February 5 and 11, 2008, the former social worker testified that by the time she transferred the case to another social worker in November 2007, it was her understanding that Christopher had completed five parenting classes, six domestic violence classes and six therapy sessions. The social worker said the caregivers were not comfortable providing supervision for visits because of Christopher's argumentative and hostile attitude, but she had observed him to be appropriate with the children during visits. She testified that Christopher continued to deny that his actions had affected the children, and she expressed concern that he did not have stable housing.
The current social worker testified that when she began working on the case, she received no information about Christopher's participation in domestic violence, parenting or therapy programs. The social worker had not followed up to see if he was attending these programs, and he did not tell her about completing any classes. She said in December, Christopher's therapist told her he had not heard from Christopher, and she said Christopher missed four visits with the children that month. The social worker stated that Christopher had not accepted responsibility for exposing the children to domestic violence or for missing visits since she had taken over the case, and she had received reports he was continuing to see S.W.
Christopher testified after the children were removed from his custody in May 2007, he was discouraged and stopped attending services, but he started again in September. He said since his last court appearance in December, he had been to eight domestic violence classes, 12 parenting classes and eight therapy sessions. He testified he had learned about abusive relationships, parenting, and abusing drugs and alcohol. He had graduated from a parenting class one month earlier, and said a copy of the certificate of completion had been faxed to the social worker. He said he was living with a friend, but would move when he reunited with his children. He believed the social workers were biased against him. He said he had visited S.W. when she was in jail in August 2007, but denied she was living with him in May 2007 when the children were removed.
The children's maternal stepgrandmother testified she had cared for the children for almost five months. The grandmother said S.W. and others had indicated during the past six months that Christopher and S.W. had been together at various times.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found reasonable services had been provided, but Christopher had not participated regularly, made significant progress or shown the ability to complete his case plan objectives. The court found that returning the children to him would cause a substantial risk of detriment, terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Christopher contends the court erred by terminating his reunification services. He argues the Agency did not provide reasonable services, and he participated regularly in services and made substantive progress toward reunification.
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '. . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 337, 340.) In determining the sufficiency of reunification services the role of the appellate court is to decide "whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) The standard is not that the best possible services were provided, but that reasonable services were provided under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that Christopher received reasonable services. The Agency offered him a domestic violence prevention program, parenting education and counseling, and provided referrals for counseling and passes for transportation.
Christopher has not shown the court erred by finding he had not participated regularly or made substantial progress in his case plan. His participation in services was not continuous. The evidence showed a serious domestic violence problem. Christopher enrolled in a domestic violence program as required by his case plan, but was terminated from the program because he did not attend regularly. He later reenrolled, but his testimony was that by the time of the review hearing, he had attended only 16 of 52 sessions of the domestic violence program during the year the children were dependents of the juvenile court. Importantly, the evidence shows that although Christopher blamed S.W. for the domestic violence in their relationship, he had contact with her in May and again in August 2007, and their contact may have continued after that time. The former social worker reported seeing S.W. at Christopher's home on May 3, 2007, when the children were in his care. She also reported some of S.W.'s belongings were found there, and the apartment manager said S.W. was often in the home. Christopher admitted he violated a restraining order by visiting her in prison in August 2007 and saw her again in November, and the grandmother testified she had heard about them being together recently. The evidence concerning this issue was unclear, but, as the court pointed out during the hearing, Christopher did not contest or respond to suggestions that he and S.W. continued to have contact.
The progress report from Christopher's domestic violence class stated he sometimes demonstrated insight and sometimes accepted responsibility. However, during the hearing he appeared not to accept responsibility for the domestic violence, blaming it on S.W. A short time before the hearing, Christopher had remarked to his therapist he did not see why he had to "go through all of this" and why he could not have the children. The therapist reported Christopher was just "beginning to identify the red flags of abusive behavior." Although, as the court acknowledged, the current social worker's attitude and follow up on Christopher's progress was troubling, Christopher has not shown the court erred by finding reasonable services were provided and that he did not make substantive progress in his case plan or show he was capable of completing his case plan objectives.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for stay is denied.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J., AARON, J.