Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. DP001575
Mihara, J.
Dale I. challenges, by writ petition, the juvenile court’s decision to set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing regarding his son B. He contends: (1) the juvenile court erred when it determined that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to B. if he were returned to petitioner’s custody; (2) the juvenile court erred when it determined that petitioner was offered reasonable reunification services; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it reduced petitioner’s visitation. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. Statement of Facts
Petitioner and Sonja L. are the parents of B., who was born in September 2004. On August 28, 2006, the social worker began looking for Ms. L. to let her know that her 15-year-old daughter Sarah had been placed into protective custody. The social worker was also investigating B.’s welfare, because he had received a report that Ms. L. and petitioner were using methamphetamine. When he eventually found them, they were living in their truck. Ms. L. stated that she did not use any drugs, and petitioner asserted that he had not used methamphetamines for five years. They eventually agreed to submit to drug testing, and they both tested positive for methamphetamines. The social worker placed B. into protective custody based on these test results and the lack of food in the parents’ truck.
Ms. L. is not a party to the present appeal.
Petitioner is not Sarah’s father.
On August 30, 2006, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (g) [no provision for support]. The Department alleged that the parents suffered from chronic substance abuse that impaired their ability to provide care for B., had lengthy criminal histories, and failed to provide B. with basic necessities. The petition also alleged that their present whereabouts were unknown and they had left no provision for B.’s support. Following a hearing, the juvenile court detained B. and ordered supervised visitation for the parents. It also set the matter for a jurisdictional hearing in September 2006.
The Department is referred to as the Human Resources Agency in documents filed through 2007. It was changed to its current designation in early 2008 by the County Board of Supervisors.
In the report prepared for the jurisdictional hearing, the Department recommended that B. be declared a dependent of the court and that reunification services be offered to the parents. Both parents had extensive criminal histories and suffered from substance abuse. The Department prepared a service plan for petitioner in which he would complete a parenting education program, obtain housing, complete a drug and alcohol assessment, engage in the services recommended by the assessor, and submit to alcohol and drug testing. The Department also recommended supervised visitation twice a week.
On October 25, 2006, the Department filed an amended petition. In addition to the previous allegations, the petition alleged: petitioner was violent with Ms. L. as often as two to three times a week, leaving bruises on her face and pulling out her hair; petitioner and Ms. L. remained together despite the existence of a restraining order; and petitioner provided methamphetamine to B.’s older sister Sarah so that she would complete her chores. The Department then filed an addendum report, which added a requirement that petitioner participate in a domestic violence assessment and follow all of the assessor’s recommendations for treatment.
On November 30, 2006, the jurisdictional hearing was held. The juvenile court declared B. a dependent of the court, adopted the Department’s service plan for petitioner, and ordered family reunification services.
In the report prepared for the six-month review hearing, the Department recommended that B. remain a dependent of the court and that family reunification services continue to be offered to petitioner for an additional six months. When the social worker was able to contact petitioner in February 2007, petitioner had secured housing and had begun participating in some aspects of his case plan. Since petitioner was working full-time, “it was decided [that he would] focus on recovery related items and completing the domestic violence/anger management assessment and recommendations first.” The drug and alcohol assessor recommended that petitioner enter residential treatment. Since funding was unavailable, the assessor recommended that petitioner submit to drug and alcohol testing twice a week and attend four 12-step meetings a week. However, petitioner attended three meetings, and stated that he attended “‘whenever I can.’” Petitioner had 20 negative substance abuse tests, one positive test for alcohol, and six no-shows. Petitioner had not yet obtained a domestic violence assessment. Petitioner visited B. regularly.
On June 1, 2007, the juvenile court continued the six-month review hearing. On June 22, 2007, the matter was set for mediation. On July 20, 2007, the Department filed a petition to terminate services. The addendum report stated that petitioner was not fully participating in substance abuse services and had not begun domestic violence services. Moreover, both parents had given conflicting information about the status of their relationship and their living arrangements.
Following a contested hearing on August 29, 2007, the juvenile court found that petitioner’s efforts in completing his service plan were “poor,” and terminated reunification services for petitioner.
On September 26, 2007, petitioner filed a section 388 petition in which he requested family reunification services and weekly visitation with B. Petitioner stated that he had begun attending parenting classes and AA/NA meetings, and he was actively seeking anger management/domestic violence classes. He also stated that his drug and alcohol tests were negative, and he had stable housing and employment.
In the report prepared for the 12-month review hearing the social worker stated that petitioner was visiting B. twice a week for one hour. Petitioner was requesting one visit for two hours per week. The social worker also reported that petitioner visited regularly and the quality of the visits was strong.
On November 6, 2007, the juvenile court held a combined 12-month review and section 388 hearing. The juvenile court granted petitioner’s section 388 petition and ordered reunification services for him. The juvenile court also ordered that petitioner have one supervised visit per week for a minimum of two hours, and the social worker had the discretion to increase the frequency and duration of the visits. In addition, the juvenile court ordered petitioner to participate in a domestic violence/anger management assessment and compliance with any recommendations for treatment.
On December 7, 2007, the case plan review for petitioner was received by the juvenile court. The case plan included: (1) participation in a domestic violence assessment and compliance with any recommendations for treatment; (2) participation in individual counseling; (3) completion of a parenting education class; (4) participation in a substance abuse assessment and compliance with any recommendations for treatment; and (5) participation in drug and alcohol testing.
In the report prepared for the 18-month review hearing to be held on February 28, 2008, the Department recommended the termination of family reunification services for the parents and that the matter be set for a section 366.26 hearing. According to the social worker, petitioner’s participation in his case plan was minimal.
The 18-month review report stated that petitioner failed to participate in individual therapy. He also failed to complete a domestic violence program. Petitioner was referred to Simply Your Best, a domestic violence program, in February 2007 and on November 14, 2007. After petitioner attended an assessment on January 8, 2008, the assessor recommended that petitioner attend a 26-week domestic violence intervention course and a 52-week prevention of abusive parenting course. However, petitioner did not take the classes at Simply Your Best, and received a referral for services in Salinas. On February 13, 2008, petitioner reported that he would begin the classes the following day at Men’s Alternative to Violence. The social worker did not receive proof of enrollment.
The social worker also noted that B.’s therapist, who was supervising a visit on December 20, 2007, contacted the social worker to report that petitioner had suddenly become angry at the end of this visit with B.
In November or December 2007, petitioner attended a drug and alcohol reassessment. The assessor reported that she was unable to perform the assessment, because petitioner spent the entire time “venting.” According to the assessor, since petitioner “reported that he was attending 12-step meetings and willing to drug test, that was the continued plan.” On January 2, 2008, petitioner told his social worker that “he actually ha[d] not started working the steps but that he was going to start that week.” Petitioner repeatedly told the social worker that he would fax his 12-step meeting slips to her, but he failed to do so. Petitioner was also required to submit to drug and alcohol testing twice a week. However, between November 14, 2007 and December 10, 2007, he tested once. Petitioner failed to test at all between December 10, 2007 and mid-January 2008. He tested negative on January 17, 23, 25, 28, 30, and February 1, 2008. He provided a dilute test on January 25, 2008.
On February 28, 2008, the matter was set for a settlement conference on March 11, 2008. When the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the 18-month review hearing was held on April 21, 2008.
George Young, petitioner’s AA sponsor, testified at the 18-month review hearing that he usually spoke with petitioner every other day. Young was “impressed” with petitioner’s efforts in recovery.
Briana Kahoano, a licensed marriage and family therapist, testified as an expert in alcohol and drug assessment. Petitioner was “in a lot of pain and heartsick about the situation” with B., and her “assessment was that he needed to talk about that.” She did not perform a drug and alcohol assessment. She had previously received information about petitioner, and she recommended that he continue to work with his sponsor, attend 12-step meetings, and build “a sober support.”
Miguel Soriano, who supervised visits between petitioner and B., testified that petitioner never exhibited any aggressive behavior during visits with B. According to Soriano, petitioner “was always caring about [B.], was looking for his needs and playing with him, being appropriate taking care of a three-year-old kid.”
Amanda Edwards, the current social worker on B.’s case, testified that she had had the case for two months. Edwards had no information that petitioner had begun either a domestic violence program or individual counseling. She explained that she had been unable to contact him, and he had not contacted her. She had received a positive evaluation from the parenting education program at the Parents Center. Petitioner’s drug and alcohol tests had been negative since February 28, 2008. He had not provided her with AA/NA sign-in sheets.
Petitioner testified that he began attending Men’s Alternative to Violence in Salinas on February 14, 2008. During this 26-week program, he was learning “how to deal with anger or the warning signs or portions of.” Petitioner explained that he had gotten angry at the end of the December visit with B., because B. was calling his foster mother “mom.” However, petitioner walked halfway through the parking lot before he said anything, because he did not want B. to “see things like that.”
Petitioner attended parenting classes in which he learned about health and diet issues, anger, and acting out. He intended to pursue individual counseling upon completion of the parenting classes.
Petitioner is the secretary for the Alano Club at 6:45 a.m. six days a week. As the secretary, he is the facilitator or group leader for the meeting. He also attends other meetings. Petitioner participates in AA, “[b]ecause it works and it’s never lied to me and the miracles started happening. I breathe easier. I’ve got a good life started. And it’s -- if I came in because of the courts, maybe that was God’s will, but I stayed, because it absolutely has an infinite amount of power and I’m going for that serenity that I see in the people that have 20 years and 30 years.” Petitioner submitted slips indicating that he had attended AA meetings.
Petitioner explained that he missed some drug and alcohol testing, because he was very busy at the Alano Club. He denied, however, that he had used alcohol or drugs during this period. Petitioner believed that he would be able to care for B., because he had a “clean lifestyle [and] living environment.” Petitioner was employed as an in-home caregiver for a terminally ill patient. His partner would provide childcare while he was working. Petitioner also described his visits with B. in positive terms.
James McKnew testified that he met petitioner at the Alano Club about seven or eight months ago. They attend the same meetings, and they have been housemates since December 2007.
The juvenile court found that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to B. if he were returned to his parents’ custody, and that reasonable services were provided to the parents. The juvenile court terminated family reunification services for both parents and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing on August 19, 2008. The juvenile court also ordered supervised visitation three times a month.
II. Discussion
A. Substantial Risk of Detriment
Petitioner argues that the juvenile court erred when it determined that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to B. if he were returned to petitioner’s custody.
At the 18-month dependency review hearing “[t]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his . . . parent . . . unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his . . . parent . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. . . .” (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) An appellate court reviews the juvenile court’s finding of detriment under the substantial evidence standard. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 619, 625.)
Here, petitioner failed to adequately address the issues of domestic violence and substance abuse, which had created a substantial risk of detriment to B.’s welfare. Though petitioner was required to take a 26-week domestic violence intervention course and a 52-week prevention of abusive parenting course, he did not begin a domestic violence course until February 14, 2008, which was only two weeks before the end of the 18-month review period. Petitioner also acted inappropriately following a visit with B. Petitioner did not participate at all in individual counseling. Though he was required to submit to drug and alcohol testing twice a week, he tested only once between November 14 and December 10, 2007. He then failed to take any tests between December 10, 2007 and mid-January 2008. Thus, there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to B. if he were returned to petitioner’s custody.
B. Reunification Services
Petitioner next contends that the juvenile court erred when it determined that he was offered reasonable reunification services, because the Department did not increase his visitation during the last reporting period.
When the juvenile court orders a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, there must be clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).) The juvenile court must order a reunification plan that is tailored to fit the specific circumstances of each family and must be designed to eliminate those problems that led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.) This court reviews the reasonableness of the reunification services for substantial evidence. (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.)
Here, in November 2007, the juvenile court ordered supervised visitation once a week for two hours, and gave the social worker discretion to increase the frequency and duration of the visits. Though petitioner’s visits with B. went well, his participation in other aspects of his case plan was minimal, which justified the social worker’s decision not to increase visitation. As previously discussed, petitioner did not participate in individual therapy, began a domestic violence class only two weeks before the end of the 18-month review period, and began submitting regularly to drug and alcohol testing in mid-January 2008. Moreover, petitioner acted inappropriately at the end of a visit in December 2007. Thus, there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were offered to petitioner.
C. Visitation
Petitioner also argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it reduced his visitation prior to the section 366.26 hearing.
The juvenile court is authorized to determine the length and frequency of visitation. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) When the juvenile court terminates reunification services, its focus shifts to the child’s need for stability and permanency. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) An appellate court reviews the juvenile court’s visitation order under the abuse of discretion standard. (Id. at p. 318.)
Here, the juvenile court reduced petitioner’s visits with B. to a minimum of three visits per month after it terminated reunification services for petitioner. Since the focus of this case has shifted to finding a permanent plan other than the return of B. to petitioner, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in reducing visitation to three, rather than four, visits per month.
III. Disposition
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: Elia, Acting P.J., McAdams, J.