Opinion
A155761
09-13-2019
In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUSTINE S., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J17-01299)
Appellant Justine S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services with her daughter, J.F. (minor). Mother contends Contra Costa County Children and Family Services (CFS) failed to provide reasonable reunification services during the sixth-month review period. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Detention
Mother came to the attention of CFS when she brought minor, then nine years old, to the emergency room after she was bitten by a pit bull. While minor was at the hospital, mother became verbally combative and did not allow hospital staff to treat her wounds. Mother called hospital staff explicit names, used a lot of profanity, and was heard yelling at minor: " 'Why the fuck can't you be tough! . . . This is all your fault!' " Mother would not cooperate with the hospital social worker, telling her she did not need to speak with her. Mother admitted she was angry that the hospital staff could not care for her daughter and had to take her to surgery. After mother left the hospital to go to the store, hospital staff refused to allow her back in to see her daughter. Minor was in the pediatric intensive care unit, "awake and screaming for her mother." It took four hospital staff members 30 minutes to calm her down.
A hospital receiving center staff member reported that minor told her she was scared of mother because mother had a "stalker." Minor then changed the subject and started talking about sleeping in the same room as her mother. Minor showed the staff member bruises on her arm that she said were caused by mother, and told the staff member mother " 'hears voices' " and then believes minor is the voices. She said she does not tell mother she is not the " 'voices' " because mother will punish her.
The next day, minor told a social worker her mother's stalker is her former boss from three years ago. Minor also said mother believes her stalker is " 'making everyone sick and cough,' " and when mother heard people coughing in the hospital, she thought it was the stalker. Asked if she believed the former boss was stalking them, minor stated, " 'I don't believe my mom has a stalker.' " Minor told the social worker her mother " 'doesn't let me have my peace and quiet' " and stated, " 'my mom calls me a robot and she always kicks me in the morning.' " Asked if she feels safe with mother, minor said she " 'sometimes feels safe.' " Minor said she feels unsafe because mother " 'has something in her, when her brain is like that,' " and said she feels safe with mother " 'when I stay away from her.' " Minor also told the social worker that when she gets in trouble, mother " 'hits [her] with a belt, shoes, wooden stick or her hand.' " She showed the social worker two bruises on her thighs and one bruise on each arm. Minor told the social worker she is scared of mother " 'when she hits me' " and said it " 'makes [her] cry out loud and my mom tells me not to cry out loud, because the neighbors would hear, but I can't help it.' "
Mother's father (grandfather) spoke with a social worker about mother. He described her as having unstable housing, erratic behavior, frequent mood swings, and said she can get verbally aggressive and is easily agitated. He believed she may have schizophrenia or another mental illness, but he did not have concerns about her ability to care for minor. Grandfather asked for placement of minor.
A social worker also spoke with mother by phone. Mother reported she planned to move from her current home in Pittsburg to stay with grandfather in Walnut Creek after the dog bite incident. Mother reported she was very upset that her daughter was taken from her care "for no reason," and said it was not fair. Mother refused to provide any information about minor's father. When interviewed by a different social worker later that day, mother denied having any mental health or substance abuse issues. Mother also denied having any past involvement with CFS, though there had been 19 prior referrals alleging abuse of minor by mother, eight of which were investigated and one of which was currently open. Minor had also been previously removed from mother's care due to substance abuse and criminal activity. Mother laughed at the social worker's questions about a stalker and said she uses the term jokingly on the phone with her sister. Later that day, when the social worker was parking her car at grandfather's house to interview him, she noted mother had followed her after she left mother's home. The worker believed mother followed her to find out where minor was staying. Mother did not approach the social worker, but followed her inside grandfather's apartment.
CFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging mother physically abused minor by having repeatedly kicked, hit, and used objects to strike her, resulting in injury. The petition also alleged mother has a chronic mental health problem that inhibits her ability to safely parent the child, mother berates the child in public and becomes emotionally dysregulated, and minor was at risk of suffering serious emotional damage due to mother's actions.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At the detention hearing on December 13, 2017, the juvenile court found a substantial danger to the physical and emotional health of the child. The court expressed concern about "mom and her ability to control herself and behave appropriately in the presence of this child." For mother, the court ordered "a minimum of one hour, one time per week" of visitation, but ordered "it must be supervised by [CFS] or a professional designee." The court allowed visitation with father to be supervised initially by CFS, and ordered neither parent may discuss the case with minor or disparage one another in front of the child or the visits would be suspended until the next court hearing. B. Jurisdiction
Counsel for father appeared at the detention hearing and requested contact on behalf of father with his daughter as soon as possible.
On January 3, 2018, mother appeared in court represented by counsel. Mother's counsel denied the allegations of the section 300 petition and asked the court to set a contested jurisdiction hearing. Later that day, the court suspended visitation for mother "pending next hearing." According to the detention/jurisdiction report, mother had a visit after detention where she "acted in an unusually emotional manner, creating an unsafe situation for the child and causing the visit to be terminated. [M]other acted in an openly hostile manner and spoke in an irrational manner to staff with manifestations of psychotic features and paranoid/delusional thinking."
Though mother's counsel filed a second request to augment the record with the reporter's transcript from that hearing, we denied the request as not critical to the appeal, especially in light of the time sensitivity of appeals in dependency proceedings.
At the contested jurisdiction hearing on January 22, 2018, mother and two social workers testified. Social Worker Jonathan Chapman said minor, visitation staff, and a security guard all reported to him about the unsuccessful visit between mother and minor following detention. Minor told him that "mom was out of control"—that she was "very emotional, overly so, hugging and gripping the child and refusing to let go and weeping in a hysterical manner." Though CFS staff warned her multiple times to calm down or they would terminate the visit, mother refused and became agitated. Security was called and the visit was terminated. Chapman also testified he met with minor about five or six times. Minor told him she felt afraid of mother, mother habitually hits her, kicks her, and yells at her, and she did not want to go back to mom. Chapman said minor told him, "I've been terrified of mom, but since you people . . . have been keeping me safe I feel better." Another social worker, Ms. Resendez, testified to the contents of the detention/jurisdiction report.
When mother testified, she denied using a belt, shoes, or a wooden stick to hit her daughter. She said she usually disciplines her daughter by making her stand in a corner or sit in a chair for 10 minutes or takes her tablet away. Asked about minor's bruises, she testified minor had a scar from ringworm, a cat scratch she kept picking at, and suggested she could have gotten the bruises at school or from riding her bike. She denied yelling at minor at the hospital, denied she had a stalker, denied having ever had a substance abuse problem, and denied having had a prior child protective services case in Alameda County.
The court sustained several of the amended petition allegations, finding minor to be a child described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). The court ruled: "It's clear to me that mother's behavior in terms of berating, belittling the child in public, her explosive behavior and disregulation [sic] has caused this child serious and emotional damage based on the child's own inability to navigate various settings in light of mother's disregulation [sic], that mother shows no insight to her behavior, does not acknowledge any issue whatsoever, thus there is a substantial risk of this child suffering serious emotional damage at the hands of her mother." The court further noted mother's reaction to much of the testimony was "smirking, smiling and almost giggling to herself," which was "truly alarming to the Court." The court set a disposition hearing date and continued its order suspending mother's visitation with minor, finding "any contact with mother under these circumstances and the lack of her insight to be highly detrimental to the well-being of this child." Though mother's attorney requested therapeutic visitation, the court denied the request, observing that "until mom gets into her own mental health services and demonstrates an insight and ability to regulate her emotions, I don't think it's appropriate to even order therapeutic visits with this child. Mom needs to stabilize first before I think visits would be appropriate and healthy." C. Disposition
In February 2018, minor's counsel's section 317, subdivision (e) report noted minor was doing well in her foster home and wanted to participate in therapy. Minor's counsel believed she would benefit from therapy because she had so much anxiety and anger, presented as "parentified," and had "difficulty managing her own aggressive behaviors." Minor enjoyed visits with her father, but did not want to live with him yet. Since the last court hearing, minor's counsel learned grandfather would not be a good option for placement due to concerns he would not keep safe boundaries with mother. CFS staff were concerned grandfather tried to influence minor in conversation and served as a pipeline to mother.
CFS's February 2018 disposition report provided an assessment of minor's mental and emotional status. The report noted minor "manifests many signs and symptoms of emotional upset and trauma symptoms." Minor learned "grossly inappropriate" behavior from mother "and utilizes that behavior as if it were normal because to her, it is." The report noted minor can become violent and aggressive, physically attacking the social worker when detained and threatening to do so on other occasions. She had pushed other children and a foster parent in foster homes, and teased and "tormented" dogs at the homes where she was placed. The report noted such behavior was "a strong indicator of emotional disturbance and also of trauma." Observing minor's aggressive traits might also be, to some degree, learned behavior, the report also noted minor has "real strengths" and expressed CFS's belief her mental health problems can be addressed with success.
Regarding minor's educational history, the disposition report stated minor was not in school when detained. Mother refused to provide the social worker information about minor's schooling, saying, " 'You don't need to know that.' " The social worker learned minor had unexcused absences at school from October 21, 2017 through January 2, 2018, while in mother's care.
Minor had recently asked for visits with mother. CFS's and minor's counsel's reports recommended any visits with mother be therapeutic only, because mother was still displaying concerning behaviors that placed minor at risk of harm. CFS was "not optimistic" about mother's chances for reunification "unless [mother] has a major shift and realizes she is, in fact, experiencing severe mental health problems." The disposition report noted mother "has had not one contact with [CFS], not one visit nor one interaction on the phone that has been appropriate." Mother was unwilling to receive services or talk about her history or needs. Specifically, the report noted mother "steadfastly refuses to reveal anything about herself," and "[a]ny inquiry about her history or life is met with open hostility and attack." Mother would engage briefly, but would deny needing any help and deny known facts about her life, decompensating and becoming enraged when confronted with facts to the contrary.
At the disposition hearing, the court asked mother to participate in a drug test at court, but she refused. The juvenile court heard testimony from Social Worker Chapman. Chapman confirmed that minor told him the day before that she wanted to begin visits with mother because mother is "calmer." Regarding his communications with mother, Chapman testified if he calls her, mother "will immediately dismiss [him] off the phone." He stated mother "is very non[-]communicative with me. She will not answer direct questions." Chapman also said he had offered mother therapy and/or a psychiatric assessment and/or a psychological evaluation, but mother was not receptive to those services because she said, "I don't have a problem." Chapman told mother parenting and anger management classes with substance abuse recovery programming and drug testing would be appropriate. He stated mother attended two brief seminars on parenting and anger management, but they were insufficient in terms of program depth and time for CFS. Chapman confirmed that although mother was asking for family maintenance services, she had not even told Chapman where she lives.
It appears the parenting class was an 8-hour program and the anger management class was a 16-hour program.
The juvenile court removed minor from mother's custody and ordered family reunification services for both parents. Mother was ordered to participate in individual counseling, family counseling, minor's mental health treatment as appropriate, a psychological evaluation, random drug and alcohol testing, and any recommended substance abuse treatment if she tested positive or failed to test. After confirming mother and minor were already on a waiting list for therapeutic visitation, the court granted mother one hour of therapeutic visitation once a week. The court ordered, however, that if "at any point, mother is disregulated [sic] or these visits are destabilizing for the child then those visits shall be suspended. In other words, they occur only pursuant to the holdings of In Re Danielle W., Chantal S. and Julie M."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court expressed its concerns about mother: "I don't know if mother's issues stem from chronic substance abuse or an untreated mental health condition or perhaps a combination of both given her history. In my view, I'm very concerned as she is in a complete state of denial. Her behavior is alarming and erratic and violent in its nature. The reports of school officials and watching the mother berate the child, watching the mother berate the teacher are heartbreaking. And for a child to try to make sense of that world is very difficult for a child. [¶] And unfortunately, when people suffer from untreated mental health conditions, oftentimes they don't understand that they have that issue and therefore don't seek appropriate medical care and treatment. If mother were to participate in these services I'm hopeful that we could address some of these issues and allow for more time and contact between mother and [minor]. But until mother gets herself in a place where she's willing to accept help and support, I'm afraid that mom is not going to be very successful in reunification. But I believe mother poses a significant risk to her child and that reunification is the only appropriate way of proceeding given the background and history here." The court apprised mother of her appellate rights. D. Six-month Review
Mother appealed the disposition order. We dismissed the appeal on May 31, 2018, after her appointed counsel filed a no issues statement under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952.
In the status review report prepared in anticipation of the six-month review, CFS recommended minor be placed with her father with family maintenance services. It recommended services be continued to mother for another six months and the case be transferred to San Francisco County, where father resides.
The status review report noted mother indicated during the reporting period that she is no longer residing in Contra Costa County. Mother did not provide information about her current residence, but stated she had moved to Modoc County. As to mother's compliance with her case plan, the report noted she "remained inconsistent with case plan compliance" and "refused to work with [the social worker] on case plan services during a majority of the reporting period."
On April 5, 2018, mother met with the social worker to review her case plan and services. At the meeting, mother refused to accept a copy of her case plan or resources to assist her with case plan compliance. She informed the social worker "she was going to be getting her daughter back regardless and was not going to participate in case plan services nor did she want to talk about her case plan." The social worker attempted to set up face-to-face meetings with mother after the initial meeting, but was told by mother that she would not be discussing her case plan with the worker and would file a lawsuit if the worker discussed her case plan with her again.
The social worker also provided drug testing information to mother. Mother refused to participate in drug testing, and continued to refuse as of the writing of the report. The report states: "[Mother's] hostility towards complying with case plan objectives has been of concern to [CFS] as she has not shown any progress with addressing concerns leading to [CFS] intervention. [Mother] continues to deny current and/or historical substance use or mental health concerns as well as continues to engage in hostile interactions with the [social worker] including hanging up prematurely during telephone conversations as well as berating and insulting the worker."
On August 8, 2018, less than a month before the scheduled six-month review hearing, mother informed the social worker she was residing in Modoc County and was willing to pursue mental health services at Modoc County Department of Health Services with therapist Dolores Turner. However, on August 16, 2018, Ms. Turner informed the social worker that mother became hostile during assessment follow-up and was unable to complete her mental health screening assessment. Turner indicated mother also became angry and upset, and accused her of not returning her calls right away.
Regarding visitation, the status review report stated mother had "been unable to participate in weekly visitation with [minor] during this reporting period as she was previously ordered to only participate in therapeutic visitation services (TVS) and based upon her lack of progress addressing mental health/substance use[] concerns she was subsequently denied TVS by Alternative Family Services." The report further stated the social worker attempted to arrange family therapy with minor's therapist, but the therapist said family therapy could not begin until the end of August. The social worker noted although visitation had been "unable to occur," the social worker "facilitated the exchange of pictures to [mother] as well as written letters by [minor] during the reporting period."
In offering CFS's assessment regarding mother, the status review report expressed concern that mother "holds no accountability for her own contribution in the issues that have brought the current matter to the attention" of the juvenile court, evidenced by her "lack of consistent participation in recommended case plan services as well as her continued hostility when working with service providers as well as [CFS]." The report noted mother had voiced that "she does not believe she has done anything to her daughter that would warrant child welfare intervention and believes that this matter will resolve itself with no effort on her part." CFS expressed hope that mother would be able to participate in mental health services in Modoc County, begin the process of understanding the impact of her own trauma on her ability to safely parent, and begin therapeutic visitation with minor, if safe and recommended by the therapist to do so, in the next reporting period.
At the August 29, 2018 review hearing, the juvenile court indicated it was not inclined to follow CFS's recommendation to continue services to mother and instead would be "much more highly inclined . . . to terminate services to mother." The court noted mother had "not participated in any services at all" and had "at times exhibited the same behaviors which led to the filing of the petitions, which is being incredibly verbally assaultive and erratic and confrontational." When mother's counsel requested therapeutic visitation, the court referred to the status review report's statement that Alternative Family Services denied her services because of her lack of progress on her own mental health issues. The court set the matter for a contested hearing, and ordered no contact between minor and mother pending the hearing.
After appointing a guardian ad litem for mother, the court held a contested six-month review hearing on October 18, 2018. At the hearing, CFS changed its earlier position in support of therapeutic visits and argued it would not be in minor's interest to have visits with mother until mother begins to address her own mental health issues.
Supervisor Cheryl Sanderson testified for CFS. When asked about services mother was offered while she had been a resident in Modoc County, Sanderson testified mother was offered "myriad" services, but "was hostile, argumentative and would not engage with Modoc Behavioral Health[,] so they sent a letter saying they absolutely could not serve her under those circumstances." Mother's counsel introduced a letter signed by Dolores Turner dated August 16, 2018, stating that Modoc County Behavioral Health had determined mother's "mental health condition does not meet the medical necessity criteria to be eligible for specialty mental health services." When the court questioned Sanderson further about her testimony, she confirmed it was her understanding that Modoc County Behavioral Health could not determine whether mother qualified for mental health intervention because she would not engage, and when she did engage, she was hostile.
Sanderson said mother was given another mental health referral for another agency, but she did not know whether mother had engaged with that referral. She said the social worker provided mother with "many, many referrals in Modoc," including "a letter with a whole list of referrals in Modoc County that was sent to mother." Sanderson also referenced case notes by the social worker which stated mother was directed to call Modoc County Behavioral Health and alcohol and drug services. She also said mother did not give CFS her mailing address in Modoc County until August 20, and prior to that they sent reimbursement checks to her at general delivery.
Sanderson testified she had "tried to communicate" with mother on several occasions. She met with mother on October 4, but it was difficult to communicate and at one point, mother threatened to reach over the table and grab Sanderson. On October 10, Sanderson tried to call mother but her phones were disconnected. When she called grandfather to try to obtain a new number for mother, mother got on the phone and said, "Is this the person I talked to a few days ago at the office?" When Sanderson replied, "Yes, it is," mother hung up.
Sanderson testified CFS was no longer recommending therapeutic visitation based on mother's failure to address her mental health issues. She said: "The therapeutic visitation was denied due to mother's severe mental health issues at this time. They could be resubmitted of course if mother was engaging." Sanderson said she did not know whether CFS had an official diagnosis of mother's mental health issues.
Mother made a statement to the court about the challenges she has experienced and stated she disagreed with "anybody's decision or statements" about her services. When the court asked why her child was a dependent of the court, mother stated: "Because I took her to the hospital for a dog bite; and also, because the retaliating company has been retaliating against me, using my daughter as to hurt me the worse." After counsel made their closing arguments, mother asked to be allowed to testify. Both mother's counsel and the guardian ad litem agreed it would be against mother's legal interest to testify. The court ruled mother could not testify, but allowed her to address the court. Mother offered a lengthy statement, denying minor was removed from her home and asking that minor be placed with her.
The court ruled mother suffers from "rather significant mental health issues," and noted the child welfare history was tragic. The court found visitation with mother would be "highly detrimental" to the child, and found mother "ha[d] not made any progress whatsoever in participation in services and mitigating the issues that brought this child before the Court in the first place. That mother places this child at significant risk of harm." The court found no point in ordering continued services to mother given her lack of "accountability and responsibility for causing this case and placing her child at substantial risk of harm." The court adopted the amended recommendations of CFS and terminated services to mother. Mother timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother's sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in finding CFS had provided reasonable services because CFS provided no therapeutic visitation. For reasons we will explain, we disagree.
We review the juvenile court's finding of reasonableness of offered services under the substantial evidence test, bearing in mind the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971 (Alvin R.).) "[O]ur sole task on review is to determine 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 (Angela S.).) Construing the evidence in favor of the judgment, we determine whether there is " 'evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value' " to support the juvenile court's finding. (Alvin R., at p. 971.)
The " 'adequacy of reunification plans and reasonableness of the [Agency's] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.' [Citation.] To support a finding reasonable services were offered or provided, 'the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . .' " (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426 (Tracy J.).) "In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547; see Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 972 ["Reunification services need not be perfect."].)
Mother argues CFS failed to provide her with the court-ordered visitation services, but she does not deny CFS identified the problems leading to loss of custody and offered services designed to remedy those problems. In fact, the record reflects mother consistently failed to participate in any effort by CFS to address the problems that led to the dependency and made communication with her exceptionally difficult. At the disposition hearing, mother refused to participate in drug testing. The social worker testified she also refused therapy, a psychiatric assessment or a psychological evaluation because she denied having a problem, and she would not tell CFS where she lived.
During the six-month review period, mother continued her pattern of failing to engage with CFS to address the problems that led to the dependency. At the disposition hearing, the court ordered, among other things, that mother complete a psychological evaluation and participate in drug and alcohol testing. Those requirements were incorporated in mother's case plan. When mother met with the social worker on April 5, 2018, she refused to accept a copy of her case plan or resources to help with case plan compliance. She told the social worker she was going to get her daughter back without participating in case plan services and did not want to talk about her case plan. When the social worker attempted to set up further meetings after the initial meeting, mother refused to discuss her case and told the social worker she would sue if the social worker tried to talk to her about her case plan again. Although mother told CFS she had moved to Modoc County, she refused to give her address until August 20, nine days before the scheduled six-month review hearing. CFS also provided mother with drug testing information, but she consistently failed to drug test.
The record also shows CFS made efforts toward establishing therapeutic visitation. CFS referred mother for therapeutic visitation services through Alternative Family Services, but the agency denied therapeutic visitation because mother had failed to make any effort to address her own mental health and substance abuse issues. CFS contacted minor's therapist about family therapy but she stated therapy could not begin until the end of August. In the meantime, CFS facilitated the exchange of pictures and letters from minor to mother.
It was not until a few weeks before the scheduled six-month review that mother informed CFS she was willing to pursue mental health services in Modoc County. Nonetheless, the social worker testified mother was unable to complete the mental health evaluation because she became hostile.
Although CFS must assist a parent in complying with the reunification plan, it cannot force a parent to take advantage of offered services. (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233.) "The requirement that reunification services be made available to help a parent overcome those problems which led to the dependency of his or her minor children is not a requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions. A parent whose children have been adjudged dependents of the juvenile court is on notice of the conduct requiring such state intervention. If such a parent in no way seeks to correct his or her own behavior or waits until the impetus of an impending court hearing to attempt to do so, the legislative purpose of providing safe and stable environments for children is not served by forcing the juvenile court to go 'on hold' while the parent makes another stab at compliance." (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.)
In this case, there is substantial evidence mother actively refused to comply with any aspect of her case plan until a few weeks before the scheduled six-month review. Though CFS made reasonable efforts to communicate with mother and set up meetings to discuss her case plan, mother consistently refused to talk to CFS staff and threatened and avoided them. Moreover, mother refused to do any drug or alcohol testing as ordered by the court. Under these circumstances, we find reasonable services were offered.
Mother's reliance on In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323 (K.C.) and Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397 (Patricia W.) is misplaced. In K.C., the father had undergone a psychological evaluation that identified certain health issues, and the evaluator recommended a further examination to determine the efficacy of psychotropic medication. (Id. at p. 329.) The social services agency referred the father to a mental health clinic, but when the clinic determined he did not meet their treatment criteria, the agency made no other attempts to secure the evaluation. (Ibid.) The court concluded the failure to arrange a medication evaluation was unreasonable because the agency had effectively delegated the burden of seeking treatment to the father, who was ill equipped to find it in light of the mental health issues the treatment was designed to remediate. (Id. at pp. 330, 334.)
The efforts of CFS in this case stand in marked contrast to the inaction of the agency in K.C. Here, CFS met with mother at the beginning of the review period to review her case plan and services, and attempted to set up further meetings after that, but mother consistently refused to talk to the social worker. CFS also made efforts to initiate therapeutic visitation, but mother's refusal to address her own mental health and substance abuse issues precluded visits. It may be that mother's mental health issues contributed to her lack of cooperation, but this did not excuse her from failing to participate in the plan and did not render the services offered unreasonable. (See Angela S., supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 763 [parent's "real problem was not a lack of services available but a lack of initiative to consistently take advantage of the services that were offered"]; In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 417-418 [parent's resistance to participating in services supported conclusion agency made good faith effort to provide services under the circumstances].)
Patricia W. is also readily distinguished from this case. In Patricia W., the court held reasonable services had not been provided since there was no evidence of any effort to diagnose a parent's mental health and medication needs, when the problem that led to removal of the minor was the parent's failure to take her psychotropic medication. (Patricia W., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 401.) There, the mother's mental illness was the sole basis for removing her toddler from the home—here, concerns about mother's drug and alcohol abuse were also a basis for removal. Though mother's case plan addressed the problems that led to the dependency, including her possible drug and alcohol abuse, she failed to engage with CFS to obtain the offered services or even discuss her case plan. Moreover, in Patricia W., unlike here, the parent did not leave the county and refuse to provide her contact information. In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, is more closely related to the facts of this case. There, the parent had not cooperated with the department by providing accurate contact information, and the department only belatedly learned he had been incarcerated. (Id. at p. 698.) In considering whether the department had offered reasonable services, the court found by the time the parent wrote his social worker a letter, it was "simply too late." (Id. at p. 699.) Similarly, mother's belated and incomplete efforts to engage in her case plan services until a few weeks before the six-month review hearing were too late.
We recognize, as mother emphasizes, that "[v]isitation is an essential component of any reunification plan" (Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 972), and "[v]isitation shall be as frequent as possible consistent with the well-being of the child" (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A)). However, mother fails to acknowledge the nature of the court's order allowing therapeutic visitation. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court stated it did not know whether mother's issues arose from "chronic substance abuse or an untreated mental health condition or perhaps a combination of both given her history." The court expressed concern about mother's "complete state of denial" and her "alarming," "erratic," and "violent" behavior, ordered visits be suspended if mother was dysregulated or visits were destabilizing for the child, and ordered the visits "occur only pursuant to the holdings of In Re Danielle W., Chantal S. and Julie M." The cases cited by the juvenile court authorize visitation orders that provide " 'broad "guidelines as to the prequisites of visitation or any limitations or required circumstances." ' " (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 51; In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1227, 1237 [recognizing the difficulty juvenile courts face "responding to the rapidly changing and complex family situations which arise in dependency proceedings," and acknowledging "the interests of judicial economy require the delegation of some quasi-adjudicatory powers to a member of the executive branch dedicated to the dependent child's welfare"]; In re Chantal S.(1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 213-214 [approving order allowing therapeutic visitation when satisfactory progress had been made by parent].) Given the juvenile court's expressed concerns about mother's behavior, state of denial, her need to engage in mental health and substance abuse services, and the court's express condition that visits not occur if mother is dysregulated, the denial of therapeutic visitation services by CFS's service provider based on mother's lack of progress addressing her mental health and substance abuse issues does not show the absence of a good faith effort to provide reasonable services.
Mother also relies on Tracy J., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th 1415 and In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530 to argue CFS may not limit visitation in the absence of evidence showing the parent's behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the child's safety. In Tracy J., the parents had very loving, protective, and nurturing interactions with their child, fully cooperated with the agency, and made substantial progress with their court-ordered case plans. (Tracy J., at pp. 1426-1427.) The only evidence the parents had placed the child's safety at risk involved an incident when the child was learning to walk, fell, and bumped his head. The record showed the father picked his son up, wiped his tears, and put ice on his head. (Id. at p. 1426.) In In re Jamie M., the mother had a chronic schizophrenic illness that was effectively controlled by drug therapy, had never mistreated the children physically, and was under psychiatric care and drug therapy. (Jamie M., at p. 537.)
Here, by contrast, the disposition and status review reports, as well as testimony of the social workers, referenced multiple specific examples of mother's erratic, abusive, and hostile behavior that had harmed minor physically and emotionally. Minor had described mother's violent behavior to social workers, including mother regularly hitting and kicking her, yelling at her, and berating her. The incident that led to the dependency was mother's abusive verbal attack of minor at the hospital. During mother's first visit after detention, she was "out of control[,] . . . . [overly] emotional, . . . hugging and gripping the child and refusing to let go and weeping in a hysterical manner." When asked to calm down, she became agitated and security had to be called. CFS staff experienced mother being angry, hostile, and threatening in their interactions during the six-month review period. Further, unlike the parents in the cases cited by mother, mother did not have a documented mental health diagnosis because the record shows she refused to engage in case plan services until she belatedly agreed to seek mental health services in August 2018, at which time she became hostile and unable to complete the mental health assessment. On this record, there was ample evidence showing mother's behavior, if unaddressed, threatened the safety and emotional well-being of minor.
Much of mother's argument focuses on the absence of additional evidence supporting the trial court's ruling. For example, mother argues there is no documentation from Alternative Family Services supporting the social worker's statement that they denied services because of mother's lack of progress in addressing her mental health and substance abuse issues. Mother also contends there is no record of whether the inability to begin family therapy with minor's therapist had to do with the mental health needs of minor or the availability of one particular therapist. And mother asserts Modoc County Behavioral Health's letter fails to support the social worker's testimony about the reason mother was denied mental health services in Modoc County. On substantial evidence review, however, we do not reweigh or look for conflicts in the evidence. (See Angela S., supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 762 [cautioning that fact-specific arguments which ignore the substantial evidence standard of review are not appropriate].) Based on the substantial evidence of CFS's efforts to engage mother in case plan services and her consistent and adamant refusal to participate until the last minute, mother has failed to show the trial court's ruling was in error.
In sum, we conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding mother was provided with reasonable services.
III. DISPOSITION
The order terminating services to mother is affirmed.
/s/_________
Margulies, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P. J. /s/_________
Sanchez, J.