Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV070077
SIMONS, J.
Petitioner De.W. (father) seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders terminating his reunification services with his daughter, D.W. (minor), at the 12-month review hearing and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. We deny the petition.
All further undesignated section are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Minor was born in February 2005. In April 2007, minor was placed in protective custody by the Eureka Police Department; her mother’s whereabouts were unknown. The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition alleging minor was subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300. In relation to father, the petition alleged jurisdiction over minor under section 300, subdivision (g), no provision for support. Father was incarcerated and unable to arrange for minor’s care and his ability to parent her was unknown.
Mother has not challenged the juvenile court’s orders. Half-siblings of minor were involved in the dependency proceedings below, but the present petition only relates to minor.
Father has a long criminal history which includes convictions for drug possession and sale, burglary, infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and battery with serious bodily injury. In August 2007, a subsequent petition was filed under section 342 alleging minor was at risk of sexual abuse because, in January 2007, father was arrested on charges of sexually abusing minor’s half-siblings. Father ultimately pled guilty to willful cruelty to a child and was released at the end of July 2007. Among the conditions of the probation imposed at that time was a requirement that father “[e]nroll in and successfully complete a 52 week certified domestic violence program and provide proof of compliance to the Court.”
The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition in June 2007. In April 2008, the juvenile court adopted a dispositional order that, among other things, required father to comply with the conditions of his probation, to “engage in child abuse education as directed” by the July 2007 probation order, and to complete a parent education class. A September 2008 disposition order had similar requirements.
The Department’s May 2009 six-month report indicated that father was living in Las Vegas, Nevada, and that he had not completed a parenting class or the 52-week abuser program. The juvenile court found father had not complied with his case plan and had made minimal progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating placement outside the home.
The 12-month review hearing took place in September 2009. Despite the Department’s recommendation to continue services to father, the juvenile court terminated reunification services to mother and father and scheduled a hearing under section 366.26. Subsequently, father filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court erred in finding the Department had provided reasonable reunification services and in terminating reunification services. Both contentions lack merit.
On the reasonable services issue, it is well established the Department was obligated to make “a good faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification plan [citation] with services tailored to suit the needs of the parents [citation].” (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 810.) “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.) In this case, father asserts the Department failed to provide reasonable services, but he fails to support that contention with reasoned argument and citations to authority. Father fails to even detail what services were provided, much less how the services were inadequate. Thus, Father has abandoned the claim of error on appeal. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
On the termination of services issue, at the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court could not continue reunification services to the 18-month review date unless it found there was a substantial probability minor would be returned to father’s physical custody and safely maintained in his home within the extended period of time. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1); see also § 361.5, subd. (a)(3); M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 178 (M.V.).) To make that finding, the court was required to find all of the following: (1) father has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with minor; (2) father has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to minor’s removal from the home; and (3) father has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for minor’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C); Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 845; M.V., at p. 178.)
Father has not shown the juvenile court erred in finding no substantial probability minor would be returned to father’s physical custody and safely maintained in his home by the 18-month review date. One obstacle to successful reunification was the lack of visitation between father and minor. Although father maintained regular phone contact with minor, he had moved frequently, was living in West Virginia at the time of the 12-month hearing in September 2009, and had not visited minor since October 2008. Accordingly, there was no basis for the juvenile court to make the finding of consistent contact and visitation required under section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1)(A). (See S.W. v. Superior Court (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 277, 282 [“the failure either to contact or visit the child allows the court to terminate services”].) Even if the lack of visitation were not an absolute obstacle to continuation of services, it certainly provided a basis for the juvenile court to doubt minor would be returned to father’s physical custody by the 18-month review date. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
Another obstacle to reunification was the absence of evidence that father had the capacity to complete all the objectives of his treatment plan and to provide for minor’s physical and emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).) Among other things, father had not completed the required parenting class and he had no prospect of completing the abuser treatment program by the 18-month review date. Father was ordered to complete the parenting class in the April 2008 dispositional order, but at the time of the six-month report he had gone to only three out of six classes and the 12-month report stated that his level of compliance was “Not Determinable.” Father was ordered to complete the abuser treatment program in July 2007, as a condition of probation, and in April 2008 he was directed to complete the program as part of his case plan in the present matter. Nonetheless, at the time of the 12-month hearing in September 2009, father had only been in counseling since June 2009. At the hearing, the social worker admitted that completion of the program would require provision of services past the 18 month review date. Moreover, because probation required completion of a 52-week program and father was only going twice a month, it was unclear whether father would be able to complete the program by even the 24-month review date. Finally, it was not clear whether the counseling father was receiving in West Virginia would qualify to fulfill the probation condition.
Because there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding there was no likelihood minor would be returned to father’s physical custody and safely maintained in his home by the 18-month review date (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)), there is no need to detail father’s areas of compliance with his plan and his other areas of noncompliance. Neither is there any need to consider the evidence regarding the degree of father’s progress in resolving the problems that led to minor’s removal from the home. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(B).) Father has not shown the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services for father at the 12-month review hearing.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.