Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ No. RIJ113065, Robert A. Padia, Commissioner.
Joni Sinclair for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
KING, Acting P.J.
By petition seeking extraordinary writ relief, Edward K. (father) asks U.S. to vacate the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 for his son, Isaac. He asserts that the juvenile court erred in finding that he had failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plan. We find his contention to lack merit and, accordingly, deny his petition.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Isaac (age 15 months) and his half brother (age three years) were taken into protective custody on October 3, 2006, after the children’s mother contacted the Department of Public Social Services (the department) and advised social workers that she was homeless and was unable to care for her children. Father was incarcerated at that time and was scheduled for release on December 5, 2006. The couple had a history of domestic violence and mother had a history of drug use.
At the detention hearing on October 6, 2006, the minors were ordered detained from the parents’ custody.
Father was present in custody for the jurisdictional hearing on November 6, 2006. The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be true and determined Isaac to be a dependent minor. The court ordered reunification services for the parents. Father’s case plan required him to complete a domestic violence program, general counseling, parenting classes, a substance abuse program and testing. The six-month review hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2007.
Immediately upon his release from prison, father contacted the social worker and requested case plan services so that he could reunify with Isaac. He began working as a car salesman. He completed anger management classes while in prison. Upon his release, he enrolled in and completed parenting classes. He moved into an apartment where he allowed mother to join him. They indicated that they planned to remain a couple.
The social worker reported in the six-month status review report that father had completed the majority of his case plan but still needed to drug test. However, mother had not made progress on her plan. The social worker opined that father was jeopardizing his chances of reunifying with the children because he resided with mother. Consequently, his reunification would be delayed until the mother demonstrated she was able to remain clean and sober. Although father was aware that there was a higher chance of returning the children to him if he resided alone, he moved mother into his home. Father stated it would be hard to raise the children alone and that they needed their mother. Father was very organized and appeared to “get things done,” but the social worker opined that he and mother appeared to be codependents.
Father is not the biological father of Isaac’s half brother. This petition concerns Isaac’s dependency only; however, the parents sought to have both children returned to their joint care.
The six-month status review hearing was scheduled for a contested hearing at the request of the minors’ counsel who disagreed with the department’s recommendation to continue family reunification services for the parents. The department filed an addendum report recommending termination of reunification services.
By June 2007, the parents were experiencing relationship problems. Mother had left to visit friends and did not return for a week, but father still wanted and hoped she would change her ways and return to him. Meanwhile, the foster parents reported that father and mother had harassed them, leaving bad messages on the telephone. They also reported that both parents sounded intoxicated and were cursing over the phone because they could not speak to the children when they wanted.
The social worker concluded that while father had been near completion with his case plan for some time, he continued to “open his home, heart, and emotions” to mother and could not understand why she walked all over him and failed to make progress in her case plan. Father appeared to be “too codependent and unable to raise the children on his own. He would most likely allow [mother] back into his home if the children were placed with him.”
On June 18, 2007, the juvenile court followed the department’s recommendations and found father had not made satisfactory progress in alleviating the causes that necessitated the placement. It terminated reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
DISCUSSION
Father contends that he participated in his case plan regularly and made substantive progress at the time of the contested review hearing. Therefore, the juvenile court erred in terminating services based on the speculation that he would allow mother to be part of Isaac’s life.
The focus of reunification services is to remedy those problems that led to the removal of the children. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1464.) “[S]imply complying with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy sessions and visiting the children is to be considered by the court; but it is not determinative. The court must also consider the parents’ progress and their capacity to meet the objectives of the plan; otherwise, the reasons for removing the children out-of-home will not have been ameliorated.” (In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143.)
Although father did comply with most, if not all, of his case plan components, his performance, while commendable, was not sufficient to compel the juvenile court to return Isaac to his custody. Rather, the juvenile court had to find the problem necessitating the child’s removal had been resolved and that father could provide for the child’s safety and well-being. (Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1343-1345.) Such was not the case here. Father himself admitted he could not raise Isaac without mother’s assistance and it is undisputed that mother had not made any progress in resolving her problems. Moreover, the couple’s relationship continued to be unstable. Neither the department nor the court relied on mere speculation that father would allow mother to reside with him and Isaac whenever she chose to do so; they relied on father’s words and actions in reaching this conclusion. In short, father had not been able to protect Isaac in the past because of his turbulent relationship with mother and there was no showing that he had made progress on this front.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: McKINSTER, J. GAUT, J.