Opinion
F087412
03-11-2024
D.M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Susan M. Gill, Judge. Godinez Law and Diane E. Godinez for Petitioner. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Carissa A. Edwards, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; No. JD144760-00 petition for extraordinary writ review.
Susan M. Gill, Judge. Godinez Law and Diane E. Godinez for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Carissa A. Edwards, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
THE COURT *
Petitioner, D.M. (mother), seeks an extraordinary writ (California Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested disposition hearing denying her family reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11), and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now eight-month-old son, K.D. (the child). Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support denial of family reunification services. We find no error in the court's orders and deny the petition.
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Initial Removal
These dependency proceedings were initiated in June 2023, after the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) received a referral alleging general neglect against mother. The referral stated that mother checked into the hospital under the maternal grandmother's name because she did not want the department to be involved. An investigating social worker responded to mother's home shortly after the child was discharged from the hospital. Mother claimed that her previous children (the siblings) were removed from her custody because her home was dirty and she denied any history of mental health issues. However, mother acknowledged that she was previously prescribed various medications for depression and sleep issues. She also claimed that she completed her entire case plan during the previous proceedings and she denied having any need for counseling. Mother blamed the child's alleged father, J.D., as the reason the siblings were being adopted.
J.D. was also present when the social worker arrived at the home and he initially refused to speak to her. Both mother and J.D. denied that he lived in the home and they explained that he was only there to assist mother with the child. There was no other local support for mother but she was willing to temporarily move in with her mother. Mother denied any history of domestic violence between her and J.D. and she also denied having a history of substance abuse.
The investigating social worker also spoke with the adoption social worker assigned to mother's ongoing dependency cases. The adoption social worker explained mother had a 20-year history of general neglect between the states of California and Texas and reportedly had untreated mental health issues. Three of the siblings were scheduled for a permanency planning hearing, and three other siblings were placed in long-term foster care. The maternal grandmother had three additional siblings living in her home and an appointment was set for the grandparents to obtain assistance with filing for legal guardianship of those three siblings. Four of the siblings are now adults.
On June 21, 2023, the child was taken into protective custody pursuant to a warrant. The department filed an original petition alleging the child was described by section 300, subdivision (j). The petition alleged that the child's siblings were abused or neglected by mother and the child was at substantial risk of suffering similar abuse or neglect. The petition further alleged that 10 of the siblings were removed due to mother's mental health issues.
The department's detention report set forth mother and J.D.'s child welfare history, which involved numerous referrals and four dependency proceedings between 2004 and 2023. In April 2004, a substantiated referral alleged mother's home was unclean, with dog feces, urine, and other debris on the floor. In January 2006, a referral alleged J.D. attacked the mother of two of his other children and he was arrested by law enforcement. A September 2006 referral alleged mother's home was "filthy dirty," and mother moved when she learned the child welfare agency had been called.
In January 2007, a referral alleged physical abuse to a sibling by mother and spousal abuse by the siblings' father, but the allegations were deemed unfounded. In March 2007, allegations of general neglect were substantiated when siblings A.V. and M.G. were found in a park without supervision. Law enforcement responded to mother's "filthy" residence, and mother was not aware of A.V. and M.G.'s whereabouts. The siblings were taken into protective custody but they were released to a relative because mother was willing to complete services. However, mother left California without completing a 52-week parenting course that she was expected to finish.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Texas DFPS) began receiving referrals regarding siblings K.V., A.V., J.V., and M.G. in August 2007. The first referral alleged physical abuse of K.V. and physical neglect of the four siblings by mother. Mother reported to an investigating social worker from Texas DFPS that she suffered from depression and had been prescribed medication as a result. In October 2007, another referral was received alleging mother's home was dirty and lacked food.
A Texas DFPS social worker spoke to Jo.V., the father of three of the siblings, in January 2008. Mother and Jo.V. had been married for two years but they had been together even longer. Jo.V. believed something was wrong with mother because she would regularly leave with the siblings whenever she became upset. Mother left with the siblings for California on two prior occasions but she returned to their home state both times. Jo.V. stated mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression by a doctor in California. Mother had psychiatric medications at home, but she was not taking them. Jo.V. wanted mother to get psychiatric help because of her mood swings.
In February 2008, Texas DFPS received a referral alleging mother had been hitting and yelling profanities at siblings K.V., A.V., J.V., and M.G. Mother told an investigating social worker from Texas DFPS that she was taking parenting and anger management classes. She claimed that she no longer believed in spanking her children and she hoped to provide a better life for them. Mother indicated that she was staying at the emergency shelter because there was "intense arguing and violence" in the home she shared with Jo.V. She had an evaluation for depression scheduled the following month.
On March 19, 2008, a referral was received alleging mother was having sexual intercourse with an adult male in the presence of the siblings. There was also an allegation that mother hit one of the siblings in the chest while he was riding a bike. The next day, another referral alleged mother was sharing pornographic images on her phone with a 14-year-old boy who was living at the emergency shelter. On March 21, 2008, a safety plan was created that would allow K.V., A.V., J.V., and M.G. to live with their father, Jo.V. However, Texas DFPS discovered that mother violated the safety plan by returning to Jo.V.'s home. Texas DFPS determined that mother neglected the siblings by repeatedly getting kicked out of shelters and returning home to live with her abusive husband.
On April 2, 2008, Texas DFPS took siblings K.V., A.V., J.V., and M.G. into protective custody due to a substantiated report of physical neglect. Texas DFPS eventually determined that mother had provided a false name on M.G.'s birth certificate because she was afraid he would be removed from her custody at birth. Mother's parental rights were terminated as to K.V., A.V., J.V., and M.G. by the State of Texas in September 2009.
In December 2009, the department received a referral alleging general neglect by mother of her one-month-old son, I.V. Mother returned to California from Texas to give birth to I.V. and while in California, she lived in a few different maternity homes. The referral alleged mother had given false identifying information to the maternity homes and hospitals. The department was unable to locate mother to investigate the referral because she left California and returned to Texas.
In August 2012, the department received a referral alleging neglect of siblings I.V. and O.H. The referral was substantiated because mother and E.M., I.V. and O.H.'s father, were living in the garage of persons involved in the sale of illegal drugs, which mother reasonably should have known about. In 2013, the department received four referrals alleging general neglect by mother, stemming from her squatting in a trailer and defying the rules of an emergency shelter, but the referrals were either evaluated out or unfounded. In April 2014, allegations of general neglect were substantiated after mother and siblings I.V., O.H., J.M., and Ja.M. were found squatting in a dirty trailer without running water. Mother was referred for differential response services.
Differential response services are voluntary services provided in situations that do not call for the filing of a dependency petition. (See § 10609.9, subd. (a)(1)(D); see also <https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/child-welfare-protection/differential-response> [as of March 11, 2024].)
In July 2014, a referral for general neglect was substantiated after mother's home was reported to be lacking food and covered in animal feces. Mother was provided assistance from the maternal grandmother and differential response services to obtain additional food, and the social worker found the home to meet minimal standards. Three referrals involving domestic violence between mother and E.M. were received in December 2014 and January 2015, but the referrals were attributed to a dispute between E.M. and the neighbors. In March 2015, an allegation of general neglect was substantiated against mother due to the lack of electricity and food in the home. The department determined that mother had moved to a motel in Los Angeles during the course of the investigation.
In September 2015, a referral was substantiated by the department for general neglect based upon mother's decision to walk in the heat with five of her children, three of whom were only wearing diapers. Another referral for general neglect was substantiated in October 2015. The referral alleged sibling O.H. was sent to school for six days with fever and vomiting and she was sent to school dirty and smelling of urine on most days. Mother denied allegations of physical abuse and domestic violence from a May 2016 referral, which was deemed inconclusive. The referral alleged O.H. tried to help mother during an argument with E.M. and E.M. threw O.H. up against the wall.
In November 2018, mother was instructed to clean up her home after the department received two referrals alleging general neglect. Four additional referrals were received in January 2019, due to the conditions of mother's home and the state of the children. Allegations of general neglect were substantiated based upon trash in the yard and home, and her children were found dirty and ungroomed.
On February 22, 2019, the juvenile court authorized a protective custody warrant for siblings I.V., O.H., J.M., Ja.M., L.M., A.M., and K.M., and they were taken into protective custody shortly afterwards. The department filed an original petition alleging the siblings were at risk of serious physical harm due to the unsanitary and hazardous conditions of mother's home. The siblings were returned to mother's care at a continued detention hearing and the department social worker was ordered to visit mother's home twice per month. The department received three referrals alleging previous domestic violence by E.M., unsanitary conditions in the home, and the poor hygiene of the siblings. The petition was dismissed at a jurisdiction hearing in July 2019.
A referral was received by the department alleging general neglect and emotional abuse against mother in September 2019. The referral alleged sibling Ja.M. ran to a neighbor and screamed that E.M. was trying to kill her mother. Law enforcement indicated that Ja.M. was hysterical due to a domestic violence incident. The referral was deemed unfounded as mother and the siblings minimized the incident. The investigating social worker noted that O.H. was scared of the department because "she didn't want to go to the same babysitter where she was abused."
In October 2019, allegations of general neglect were substantiated after a referral claimed E.M. began throwing objects around the home during an argument with mother. E.M. was arrested after it was reported that he cut a crib and a highchair with a chain saw and threatened to kill mother. In December 2019, a referral alleging general neglect due to uninhabitable home conditions was substantiated. Mother agreed to move to the maternal grandmother's home until the conditions in her home were fixed. Another referral was received in February 2020, after mother moved back into the home, because there was no food, water, or gas in the home and mother was being evicted.
In March 2020, a referral alleged sibling K.M. was taken to the hospital emergency room with respiratory issues and she had poor hygiene, was wearing urine-soaked clothing, and had visible dirt on her body. The investigating social worker observed mother's home to be "completely trashed," with a stench of animal urine and feces, and there was no electricity or gas. The only food in the home was canned goods and there was no way to heat up the food without gas or electricity. The four siblings present all had lice and visible stains of dirt on their bodies and clothing. Mother claimed that she intended to move and had come home to pack up their belongings. After the social worker informed mother that the home was uninhabitable, mother was unable to secure temporary living arrangements for the siblings until she could find an apartment. The maternal grandmother and her spouse were unable to care for the siblings. On March 17, 2020, J.M., Ja.M., L.M., and K.M. were taken into protective custody and petitions were filed alleging the siblings were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to the unsanitary conditions of mother's home. In addition, the petition alleged mother's mental illness impacted her ability to provide regular care for the siblings. The petition further alleged that mother had stopped taking medication prescribed by her psychiatrist and her mental health was not stabilized.
In August 2020, mother gave birth to another sibling, L.D. L.D. was taken into protective custody in October 2020. The petition for L.D. alleged that she was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to mother's uninhabitable home and mental illness. In March 2021, a jurisdiction hearing was held on the petitions for siblings J.M., Ja.M., L.M., K.M., and L.D., and all but one allegation in the petitions were found true by the juvenile court. At the disposition hearing held in September 2021 for J.M., Ja.M., L.M., and K.M., mother was ordered to participate in family reunification services, to include mental health counseling and parenting and neglect counseling. Mother was also ordered to participate in counseling to assist with parenting in L.D.'s case.
In November 2021, mother gave birth to sibling Jo.D., who was taken into protective custody shortly after his birth. The petition for Jo.D. alleged that he was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to past neglect of siblings in Kern County and Texas. At the jurisdiction hearing in Jo.D.'s case, held in October 2022, the juvenile court found the allegations under section 300, subdivision (j) true. On that same date, mother's family reunification services were terminated for J.M., Ja.M., L.M., K.M., and L.D. at a 12-month review hearing. Mother testified at the review hearing that she was no longer in a relationship with J.D. because she realized that she would lose her children if she remained with him and claimed that she had no intention of reconciling with J.D. At the disposition hearing for Jo.D., held on March 20, 2023, mother was denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). A section 366.26 hearing for K.M., L.D., and Jo.D. was set for June 28, 2023.
Mother's criminal history included a misdemeanor conviction for willful cruelty to a child in April 2007. J.D.'s criminal history included convictions for vandalism, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, fighting in public, disorderly conduct, and trespassing.
At the detention hearing held on June 23, 2023, in the child's case, mother was present and represented by counsel. Mother's counsel entered denials to the allegations, and the juvenile court ordered the child detained. A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set for July 20, 2023.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
The department's jurisdiction report, dated July 6, 2023, recommended that the allegations in the original petition be found true. Mother met with the social worker after the detention hearing and the maternal grandmother and her spouse were also present. Mother indicated that she had learned to keep her home clean and she claimed that her relationship with J.D. had ended in April. She reported that she only communicated with J.D. through email and social media. The maternal grandmother and her spouse were providing mother any help as needed for the last few years. However, mother admitted that she reached out to J.D. for help after the child's birth instead of her mother and she was aware that she should not have. J.D. blamed mother for their children being removed and she acknowledged she and J.D. had arguments about who was responsible.
The social worker inquired of mother regarding her past court-ordered case plan. Mother previously completed a parenting class, received mental health services via telephone, and underwent three psychological evaluations. According to mother, her mental health provider told her that she was "fine" except for post-traumatic stress disorder from having her children removed. She attended a domestic violence program one or two years earlier. Mother learned from her classes that she needed to clean her home because her children could breathe "things." However, she indicated that she did not understand the reasons that her family reunification services were terminated or the child was removed. For the initial case plan in the current case, mother was requested to enroll in counseling for domestic violence as a victim and undergo a mental health assessment.
The department's disposition report, dated July 11, 2023, recommended that mother be denied family reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) and a section 366.26 hearing be set. Family reunification services were not recommended for J.D. due to his status as an alleged father. Mother had not enrolled in any of the counseling recommended by the department as of the date of the disposition report. The child was placed in a resource family home and multiple caregivers of the siblings had requested placement of the child.
On July 18, 2023, J.D. informed the department by text message that he did not want to be involved in the case. He indicated that he was no longer living with mother. J.D. acknowledged that he lived with mother "for a few months" before moving to his current girlfriend's house in April 2023. J.D. did not believe that the child was his son but he did go to mother's home to help her after the child was born.
After a continuance of the initial jurisdiction hearing, a contested jurisdiction hearing took place on August 25, 2023. Mother testified she was not currently in a relationship with J.D and she had not lived with him since April. J.D. helped mother recover from her cesarean section delivery of the child and he left her home on approximately June 28 or June 29, 2023. Mother testified that her life had changed because she now kept her home clean and J.D. was no longer a part of her life. She admitted to past domestic violence with the siblings' father, E.M. Mother also acknowledged that she provided a false name to the hospital at the time of the child's birth because she was afraid the child would be removed from her care.
The maternal grandmother's spouse, R.F., testified that mother had difficulty maintaining a clean home since he had known her. He claimed she had been "really trying hard" and "done a 180" since her other children were removed. Although R.F. lived "a distance away," he was willing to allow mother to move into his home and provide any necessary help. After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court found all of the allegations of the original petition true and continued the disposition hearing to October 18, 2023.
In a supplemental report, dated December 13, 2023, mother informed the department social worker that she would not enroll in mental health counseling because her domestic violence program had a component on healthy relationships. The social worker noted that mother had attended 17 of 26 sessions of her domestic violence program with good progress as of the date of the supplemental report. She had also attended three mental health appointments in October and November 2023. The department did not believe the condition of mother's home was an issue in the present case but it was concerned that mother continued her pattern of maintaining relationships with violent men like J.D.
At the continued and contested disposition hearing held on December 21, 2023, mother was present and testified on her own behalf. The juvenile court took judicial notice of the dependency cases for siblings J.M., Ja.M., K.M., Jo.D., and L.D. Mother testified that she had voluntarily relinquished her parental rights during the child welfare proceedings in Texas because she was unhoused, and she believed it was best for the siblings to live with their father, Jo.V. She acknowledged that the siblings were removed in Texas due to a lack of supervision and domestic violence.
Mother also testified there was domestic violence in her relationships with E.M., Jo.V., and J.D. Mother indicated that J.D. abused her verbally and mentally. She claimed that she did not realize there was domestic violence in her relationship with J.D. until her current domestic violence program. However, she had previously completed a domestic violence program in 2020 while she was pregnant with L.D. Mother acknowledged that she had previously stated that she was not in a relationship with J.D. on several occasions but she insisted there was no relationship now.
After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court stated, "[mother] has some really serious credibility issues. She has very convincingly testified in this court about her relationship with [J.D.] being over, her intention to move forward in a certain way and some of it wasn't even true at the time. [¶] What she said today sounds really good. I can't place any confidence in it because of the lack of credibility." Accordingly, the court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) were applicable, and family reunification services were not provided to mother. A section 366.26 hearing was set for March 13, 2024.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court committed reversible error when it denied her reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to deny family reunification services because she had made efforts to fix the problems that led to the removal of the child's siblings.
A. Applicable Law
As a general rule, when a child is removed from parental custody under the dependency laws, the juvenile court is required to provide reunification services to "the child and the child's mother and statutorily presumed father" (§ 361.5, subd. (a)). However, it is also the "intent of the Legislature, especially with regard to young children, ... that the dependency process proceed with deliberate speed and without undue delay." (Marlene M. v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151.) Thus, the statutory scheme recognizes that there are cases in which the delay attributable to the provision of reunification services would be more detrimental to the child than discounting the competing goal of family preservation. (Ibid.) Specifically, section 361.5, subdivision (b), exempts from reunification services "those parents who are unlikely to benefit" from such services or for whom reunification efforts are likely to be" 'fruitless.'" (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470, 470.)
The statutory sections authorizing denial of reunification services are sometimes referred to as "bypass" provisions. (Melissa R. v. Superior Court (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 816, 821.) Reunification services need not be provided when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence "[t]hat the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child [have] been permanently severed . . . and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from the parent." (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(11).)
"In order to meet the burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, a lack of reasonable efforts in this regard, child welfare workers must focus on the facts underlying the previous dependency action and its resolution, as well as on any efforts made by the parent since the sibling removal." (Jennifer S. v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1113, 1126, italics omitted (Jennifer S.).) Moreover, "[t]he 'reasonable effort to treat' standard 'is not synonymous with "cure." '" (K.C. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1393.) "[A] 'parent who has worked toward correcting his or her problems [has] an opportunity to have that fact taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings.'" (Ibid.) "To be reasonable, the parent's efforts must be more than 'lackadaisical or half-hearted.'" (Ibid.)
"Moreover, not every 'effort by a parent, even if clearly genuine, to address the problems leading to removal will constitute a reasonable effort and as such render these provisions inapplicable. It is certainly appropriate for the juvenile court to consider the duration, extent and context of the parent's efforts, as well as any other factors relating to the quality and quantity of those efforts, when evaluating the effort for reasonableness. And while the degree of progress is not the focus of the inquiry, a parent's progress, or lack of progress, both in the short and long term, may be considered to the extent it bears on the reasonableness of the effort made.'" (Jennifer S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1121, italics omitted.)
B. Standard of Review
"A court reviews an order denying reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b) for substantial evidence." (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96.) Substantial evidence exists when the evidence is "reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value," so that "a reasonable mind would accept [it] as adequate to support [the] conclusion." (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) Under this standard of review, we consider the record as a whole, in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's findings and conclusions. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733-734.) "[W]e do not make credibility determinations or reweigh the evidence." (Jennifer S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1121.)
C. Analysis
Mother asserts that there was significant evidence presented that she had made reasonable efforts toward correcting the problems that resulted in the removal of the child's siblings. She argues that she had completed most of the services offered by the department at the time of the disposition hearing, and she also contends that the juvenile court merely assumed that she would not complete her case plan. Mother correctly notes that section 361.5 provides a parent who has worked toward correcting their problems an opportunity to have that fact taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings. (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 843.) However, as previously noted, the court may consider the "duration, extent and context of the parent's efforts, as well as any other factors relating to the quality and quantity of those efforts, when evaluating the effort for reasonableness." (Jennifer S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1121.)
In its opposition to mother's petition, the department cites to the case of R.T. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 908 (R.T.), which is instructive. In R.T., the child was removed from his parents' care after his father was arrested for domestic violence and the mother admitted drug and alcohol use. The parents had previously failed to reunify with the child's sibling, P.T., who was removed based on the parents' substance abuse and chronic homelessness. (Id. at p. 911.) The parents had made only minimal efforts to engage in reunification services in P.T.'s case. But, two months after the child's removal, the mother moved to a safe residence, separated from the father, was following mental health recommendations, and had started attending a drug treatment program and 12-step meetings. Notwithstanding these efforts, the juvenile court ordered bypass of reunification services, citing the termination of parental rights in P.T.'s case and finding the parents had not made reasonable efforts to treat the underlying problems. (Id. at pp. 911-913.)
The court of appeal reasoned: "We do not read the 'reasonable effort' language in the bypass provisions to mean that any effort by a parent, even if clearly genuine, to address the problems leading to removal will constitute a reasonable effort and as such render these provisions inapplicable. It is certainly appropriate for the juvenile court to consider the duration, extent and context of the parent's efforts, as well as any other factors relating to the quality and quantity of those efforts, when evaluating the effort for reasonableness. And while the degree of progress is not the focus of the inquiry, a parent's progress, or lack of progress, both in the short and long term, may be considered to the extent it bears on the reasonableness of the effort made. [¶] Simply stated, although success alone is not the sole measure of reasonableness, the measure of success achieved is properly considered a factor in the juvenile court's determination of whether an effort qualifies as reasonable." (R.T, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at pp. 914-915, italics omitted.)
In its conclusion that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding, the R.T. court stated: "There is no evidence that mother made any effort to address her substance abuse issues after minor was returned to her, until minor was once again removed and bypass was recommended. By then, mother had been using drugs again for nearly a year, if not longer, and minor was once again languishing without proper care as a result. There is no evidence in the record that mother, in the month or two of services following minor's second removal, had engaged in these services in any meaningful way. [Citation.] In any event, the juvenile court properly could conclude this recent effort, even assuming the effort were substantiated, was simply too little, too late." (R.T., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 915, italics omitted.)
In the present case, mother's parental rights to K.V., A.V., J.V., and M.G. were terminated in September 2009 by the State of Texas. Thus, mother had more than 15 years to address the problems that led to their removal in April 2008. (Jennifer S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1126 ["child welfare workers must focus on the facts underlying the previous dependency action and its resolution, as well as on any efforts made by the parent since the sibling removal"].) At the time of those siblings' removal by Texas DFPS, mother's problems included not taking prescribed medications for her mental health, domestic violence with the siblings' father, and unstable housing.
In October 2022, family reunification services were terminated for siblings J.M., Ja.M., L.M., K.M., and L.D. The older four siblings, J.M., Ja.M., L.M., and K.M., were removed in March 2020, after substantiated referrals for domestic violence and unsanitary home conditions in the months preceding the petition. (See In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 108 ["problems that led to removal" are not restricted to problems alleged in the petition.].) L.D. was removed in October 2020, due to mother's uninhabitable home and mental illness. Thus, mother's problems treating her mental health, maintaining adequate housing, and engaging in domestic violence relationships had persisted from April 2008 to October 2020, and these problems resulted in the removal of nine of the child's siblings through dependency proceedings over those 12 years.
At the time of the disposition hearing for the child, mother was participating in a domestic violence program, and she had attended three mental health appointments. The department had raised no concerns with her current ability to maintain a clean home. Based upon these efforts, mother contends that the juvenile court's "no reasonable efforts" finding was not supported by substantial evidence. While we acknowledge that mother had made positive steps to improve her circumstances by maintaining adequate housing and participating in mental health services, we have no difficulty concluding that substantial evidence supports the court's denial of family reunification services.
Mother's longstanding pattern of remaining involved in relationships with domestic violence was well documented over the course of her child welfare history, and her struggle to permanently end an abusive relationship with J.D. continued into the present case. Although mother completed a domestic violence program in 2020, and testified that their relationship was over during prior child welfare proceedings in October 2022, she continued her relationship with J.D. until at least April 2023. Mother admitted to the social worker that she was aware it was a mistake to contact J.D. for help after the child's birth.
In sum, the juvenile court was not required to accept mother's self-serving testimony that she would continue to avoid relationships with domestic violence given its finding that she was not a credible witness, and we are not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the juvenile court's credibility determination. (See, e.g., T.W. v. Superior Court (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 30, 47 [appellate court must "defer to the juvenile court's findings of fact and assessment of the credibility of witnesses"]; In re Jordan R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 111, 135 [in reviewing jurisdiction findings, the appellate court "do[es] not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses or resolve evidentiary conflicts"].)
The purpose of the reasonable effort prong of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11), is not to create further delay for a child by allowing a parent, who up to that point has not reasonably addressed his or her problems, another opportunity to do so. (In re Harmony B., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 843.) There is no evidence that mother made any real efforts to address her domestic violence problem prior to the child's removal. Mother made no meaningful effort to treat that problem until after the child was removed from her custody. Although her participation in a domestic violence program for a period of time prior to the contested hearing may demonstrate early progress, it was not reasonable in the context of mother's extensive history of maintaining abusive relationships. Her brief efforts, which did not result in the completion of her most recent domestic violence program, did not negate what was otherwise a general lack of effort and commitment for the past 15 years.
Viewing mother's history in its totality, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that mother did not make a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of the child's siblings from her care. Accordingly, the court did not err when it denied family reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11).
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. The request for a stay of the section 366.26 hearing is also denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A). --------- Notes: * Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.