Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP017233, Douglas Hatchimonji, Judge.
Juvenile Defenders and Susan Do for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency.
Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Mari Duque for Minor.
OPINION
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
C.V. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services and scheduling a hearing to decide on a permanent placement plan for her son Justice. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s order, but we disagree and deny her petition.
FACTS
On the evening of July 8, 2008, mother tucked Justice into bed and then left him alone in their apartment while she went over to a neighbor’s place to drink and play cards. Justice, who was five years old at the time, got up in the middle of the night and, unable to find his mother, wandered out to the patio and began crying for help. The police responded and took him into custody. Several hours later, mother arrived at the police station. While admitting she had been out drinking that evening, she said she had checked up on Justice throughout the night, while he was sleeping. However, the police arrested her for child endangerment, and dependency proceedings were commenced.
Justice was placed with his maternal grandmother. He was determined to be speech-delayed and in need of extensive dental work. When interviewed by the social worker, mother said she was sexually abused as a child and first started using drugs and alcohol when she was nine years old. She underwent drug treatment in 2002, but since then she has suffered multiple convictions for driving under the influence and other drug-related crimes. Mother told the social worker that Justice’s father has never been involved in his life, and therefore she has had to raise Justice by herself. She said that while this has not been easy, she loves Justice very much and would do anything to get him back.
In August 2008, mother pleaded nolo contendre to allegations she failed to protect Justice, and the court approved a reunification plan that included monitored visitation. Under the plan, mother was required to attend counseling, complete a parenting program, submit to random drug testing and otherwise demonstrate her ability and willingness to regain custody of her son.
Mother promptly enrolled in a perinatal program, which offered her counseling, parent education training and relapse prevention. She also enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), was assigned a parent mentor and began drug testing. She visited Justice regularly and appeared motivated to reunify with him. However, at the six-month review hearing in February 2009, she stipulated she needed to make further progress on the case plan before Justice could be returned to her. She also stipulated she was receiving reasonable reunification services. The court accepted these stipulations and ordered six more months of services.
During this period, Justice remained with his grandmother and continued to do well in her care. Mother continued in the perinatal program, but she also fell off the wagon a few times. In March, she submitted a diluted specimen for drug testing, which counts as a positive test, and in April, she had a shot of vodka. Two weeks later, she “took a sip” of alcohol at a Cinco de Mayo party. Then in June, she came home very late one evening with a group of friends. Her roommate reported that mother was drunk that night, but he later recanted that statement.
Despite these lapses, mother’s therapist at the perinatal program remained optimistic about her prospects. Describing mother as motivated and stable, she did not believe her sobriety was an issue. In forming this opinion, the therapist relied on the fact mother was attending AA meetings, even though they were not required under the case plan. However, when the social worker asked mother to name any of the 12 steps involved in AA, she was unable to do so.
Mother finished the perinatal program on June 18 and started the aftercare phase of the program soon thereafter. In the following weeks, she missed one drug test and submitted a diluted specimen on another. This was right around the time the 12-month review hearing was scheduled to occur, in July 2009. At that point in the case, the social worker was in favor of maintaining reunification services. But as it turned out, the hearing was continued several times and did not take place until November.
Over the course of that four-month period, mother’s behavior declined precipitously. Although she visited Justice regularly, she told him she never wanted to see him again after he disobeyed her during one of the visits. This upset Justice tremendously, but mother was indifferent to his feelings and refused his repeated attempts to apologize. During another visit, mother belittled Justice’s desire to join the Boy Scouts, calling the organization “gay,” and told him he should play sports instead.
On September 6, mother went on an all-night bender with some people she met at a bar. At one point late in the evening, they went to the liquor store where mother worked and got a bottle of booze. They then returned to mother’s apartment complex and went for a noisy 3 a.m. skinny dip in the pool. When a security guard asked them to leave, they were loud and belligerent, but eventually retreated to mother’s apartment unit. The next morning, mother was found passed out in the unit, next to an empty bottle of vodka. The oven was on, and there was a tray of tater-tots sitting on the stove.
Some merchandise was damaged in the process, and mother ended up getting fired because of the incident.
In the wake of this incident, mother was remorseful and admitted she needed further help. She was referred to the Roque Center, an inpatient drug treatment program, and was accepted into the program in late September. A month later, on the eve of the 12-month review hearing, she told the social worker she was doing well in the program. She said she was working in the kitchen, attending AA meetings, participating in a “feelings” group, taking an employment class and working on family issues. While mother was hopeful about her prospects, she admitted she needed “more sobriety and time” to get back on her feet. Her plan was to finish the program by the end of the year and then move into the Roque Center’s sober living apartments.
However, that didn’t happen. On November 8, the day before the 12-month review hearing began, mother was terminated from the program for fraternizing with a male patient. In testifying about the incident at the review hearing, mother tried to downplay its significance and emphasize her overall progress in the program. She said her goal was to return to the Roque Center one day, because that is where she finally came to understand the extent of her problems and begin her road to recovery. Asked about her earlier participation in the perinatal program, she said the program was not that helpful to her because she was simply going through the motions in order to get her son back. Indeed, she admitted she just used the program “to the bare minimum to get by” and would have gotten a lot more out of it had she “used it to its maximum.”
Mother did say she benefited from talking to her therapist at the perinatal program. She said they discussed her personal issues and various strategies for overcoming her drinking problem. But mother also admitted she wasn’t always honest with her therapist, and that during the time she was in the perinatal program, she wasn’t ready to deal with her problems in a forthright manner. She said it wasn’t until she entered the Roque Center program that she finally learned to be honest with herself and appreciate the help of others.
As for her progress at the Roque Center, her supervisors and counselor testified she was doing well in the program until her dismissal. They said she eagerly participated in her classes and appeared to be highly motivated to get her life back on track. Portraying her as honest, hard-working and caring, they were uniformly optimistic about her chances for recovery. However, they also recognized that when mother left the Roque Center, she was only on the first step of AA’s 12-step program, and she was not eligible to return to the Roque Center until February 2010.
Given these circumstances, and in light of mother’s overall behavior during the case plan, the social worker did not believe mother had made sufficient progress to warrant an extension of reunification services. Although the social worker had been in favor of extending services back in July 2009, when the 12-month review hearing was initially scheduled to take place, she felt mother’s behavior since that time dictated that her services be terminated.
The trial judge agreed. While he praised mother’s progress at the Roque Center and noted she appeared to be on the road to recovery, he felt it took her too long to get on that road. The judge observed that, by her own admission, mother did not begin to gain any real insight into her drinking problem until she entered the Roque Center in late September, which was nearly 15 months into the case. Given that the 18-month review date was in January 2010, and mother wasn’t eligible to reenter the Roque Center until after that date, the judge did not believe there was a substantial probability she would be able to reunify with Justice by the 18-month date. Therefore, he terminated her reunification services and set a permanent placement hearing for March 24.
I
Mother argues there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s decision, but we disagree.
“When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal... [we] must determine if there is any substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value — to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. [Citations.]” (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) In so doing, we “do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the weight of the evidence. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record most favorably to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. [Citation.]” (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251.)
As mother recognizes, the trial court may only extend reunification services beyond 12 months if there is a substantial probability the child will be returned to his or her parent during the period services are extended. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) A substantial probability of return exists if the parent has: (1) consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, (2) made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal, and (3) demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s needs. (Ibid.)
There is no question mother consistently and regularly contacted and visited with Justice throughout the case. While her behavior was sorely lacking during a few of the visits, respondent does not dispute the first requirement was met.
However, the remaining requirements were clearly not. The primary problem leading to Justice’s removal was mother’s drinking. She has struggled with alcohol from an early age and those struggles persisted throughout the case. Although she never actually tested positive for alcohol, she did submit two diluted specimen samples and missed one test altogether. She also drank on at least two occasions in the summer of 2009. By mother’s account, these episodes were relatively insignificant, but there can be no doubt her all-night drinking spree in September constituted a major relapse. The incident not only demonstrated mother’s inability to refrain from drinking, it also was a vivid reminder of how irresponsible she can become when she does drink.
In the wake of this incident, mother did take a step in the right direction by enrolling in the Roque Center’s treatment program. But at the time she got kicked out of that program, she was merely beginning her long road to recovery. There is no indication she had made significant progress in overcoming her alcohol addiction at the time she left the program.
That brings us to the issue of mother’s ability to overcome her drinking habit and provide for Justice’s needs. In speaking to this issue, the trial court found it troubling that mother could not even abide by the Roque Center’s basic rule against fraternization. The court told her, “[I]f you don’t have what it takes to follow the rules of the program, you probably don’t yet have what it takes to deal with the power of alcohol and drugs over your life.”
While recognizing mother’s participation in the program was otherwise positive, the trial court viewed the rules violation as a telling sign of mother’s immaturity and lack of self-control. Indeed, coming on the eve of the 12-month review hearing, the violation shows mother’s inability to stay on track when it matters the most for her. The violation also left mother in a lurch with respect to timing, considering there were only about two months before the 18-month review date, and she wasn’t even eligible to reenroll in the Roque Center program until a month after that. Given all of these circumstances, it readily appears there was not a substantial probability of return by the 18-month date. There is overwhelming evidence to support the trial court’s finding in this regard.
II
Mother also contends she was not provided reasonable reunification services. Again, we disagree.
“[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our 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.) In making this determination, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge in all reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) We also must remember that “[t]he standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances....” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)
Here, they were. In fact, at the six-month review hearing, mother stipulated she was receiving reasonable reunification services. That leaves her with no way to complain about the services she received up until then. (In re Cody W. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 221, 231.)
In any event, mother was provided an array of services in her perinatal program soon after the case began. Those included individual and group counseling, parent education training and relapse prevention. She also attended AA classes and was assigned a parent mentor. Mother admitted in her testimony that the perinatal program gave her the opportunity to explore her personal issues and treat her drinking problem. She also conceded she squandered that opportunity by failing to take advantage of the program. By her own admission, she was simply coasting through the program in the hope of getting her son back. But without truly committing to the program, there was no real chance of that happening.
Mother takes issue with the social worker’s failure to refer her to more parenting classes after she graduated from the perinatal program. However, mother’s parenting skills, in and of themselves, were not the impetus for the court’s decision to terminate her reunification services. Rather, the court properly focused on mother’s drinking problem as the central issue in the case. And based on our review of the record, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination mother was afforded reasonable services to deal with that issue. Mother simply did not embrace those services in a meaningful and sustained fashion.
Mother’s own lack of honesty was also an impediment to her progress. The record makes clear that up until the end of the case, she wasn’t being honest with herself or the people who were trying to help her overcome her addiction. That being the case, it is rather disingenuous for her to cast blame on the case plan and the social worker for her failings. As the trial court aptly recognized, the problem in this case was not the lack of reasonable services but mother’s own inability to avail herself of the services she was provided. Therefore, there is no reason to disturb the court’s decision to terminate reunification services and set a hearing to decide on a permanent placement plan for Justice.
DISPOSITION
Although it is not our practice to do so, we feel compelled to comment on the inordinate amount of spelling and other errors in appellant’s brief. While no one’s writing is immune from the occasional misspelled or omitted word, it concerns us when a party’s poor proofreading approaches the point of undermining confidence in the content of the brief.
WE CONCUR: IKOLA, J., FYBEL, J.