Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Super. Ct. No. CK17592. Marilyn Kading Martinez, Commissioner.
Law Offices of Katherine Anderson, Victoria Doherty and Amy Einstein for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Owen L. Gallagher, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
PERLUSS, P. J.
Petitioner Carrie F. seeks extraordinary relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order, made at the 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)) after the expiration of the 18-month statutory limit for reunification (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), 366.22), setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights and implementation of a permanent plan for her three-year-old daughter L.F. We deny the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2005, when L.F. was 17 months old, police officers responding to an emergency call alleging domestic violence found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Carrie F.’s home. Upon investigation the officers determined there was an outstanding warrant for Carrie F.’s arrest for possession of controlled substances and she was on probation for a narcotics conviction. Carrie F. was arrested, and L.F. was taken into protective custody.
On December 21, 2005 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under section 300 to declare L.F. a dependent child of the juvenile court. The court ordered L.F. detained and placed in shelter care with reunification services and monitored visitation for Carrie F.
At a hearing conducted February 15, 2006, Carrie F. waived her rights and submitted to the Department’s dependency petition on the basis of reports submitted by the Department. (See In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368.) The juvenile court sustained the petition, which alleged Carrie F. had created a detrimental home environment by possessing methamphetamine placing L.F. at substantial risk of harm, Carrie F. had a history of substance abuse that periodically rendered her incapable of caring for L.F. and L.F. was exposed to extreme domestic confrontations between Carrie F. and her male cohabitant. The court ordered Carrie F. to participate in individual counseling, a parent education program and drug counseling with random drug testing. Carrie F. also signed a mediation agreement in which she agreed to participate in counseling to address issues of substance abuse, illegal activities, child safety and domestic violence. The court granted Carrie F. monitored visitation and continued the matter to June 23, 2006 for the six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
In its report for the six-month review hearing the Department stated Carrie F.’s parental rights to an older sibling of L.F. had been terminated while she was in prison in the late 1990’s, and Carrie F. had an extensive criminal history including convictions for narcotics, forgery and theft offenses. The Department further reported Carrie F. was in partial compliance with her case plan. She had enrolled in an outpatient drug rehabilitation program and was participating in individual counseling and parenting classes, but had not appeared for several drug tests, missed several scheduled visits with L.F. and arrived late for other visits. The Department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a hearing to select a permanent plan for L.F.
After several continuances the six-month review hearing was conducted on August 28, 2006. In an addendum report for the hearing the Department indicated Carrie F. had been provided with numerous referrals for her court-ordered programs. Although she had completed a parenting program and had enrolled in other programs, she was not participating in those programs on a regular basis and had been inconsistent in appearing for drug tests and visits with L.F. Carrie F. also made excuses for her bad choices, minimized the case issues and blamed others for her lack of compliance with her case plan. The Department again recommended termination of reunification services. In a last-minute report, however, the Department changed its recommendation to continued reunification services, advising that the social worker had verified Carrie F.’s attendance in some of her programs and had learned that Carrie F. was receiving support from various relatives.
At the hearing on August 28, 2006 the court found the Department had provided reasonable reunification services and Carrie F. was in partial compliance with her case plan. The court ordered the Department to continue to provide reunification services and continued the case to February 26, 2007 for the 12-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).)
In its report for the 12-month review hearing the Department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a hearing to select a permanent plan for L.F. In support of its recommendation the Department advised that in November of 2006 Carrie F. had been sentenced to a five-year state prison term following a conviction for possession of narcotics, receiving stolen property and forgery. The Department further reported that the social worker’s repeated attempts to contact Carrie F. during September and October of 2006 at three different telephone numbers Carrie F. had provided had been unsuccessful and that Carrie F. had not responded to letters addressed to her by the social worker at the county jail and state prison. The report also made reference to a recent letter from Carrie F. to the court, indicating she had applied to participate in a prison program allowing incarcerated mothers to be housed with their children in supervised facilities away from the prison setting, the Community Prisoner Mother Program (CPMP). The Department asserted such a placement would not be in L.F.’s best interest, given Carrie F.’s unsatisfactory progress with her case plan and L.F.’s fragile medical condition, as well as L.T.’s dependence on the intensive services she was receiving from therapists and workers assigned to her in her current placement. When the hearing was called on February 26, 2007, the court noted it had received the letter from Carrie F. seeking court approval for L.F.’s placement with her in the CPMP, had not read it because it was an ex parte communication and had provided copies of the letter to counsel. The matter was continued to March 23, 2007 for a contested 12-month review hearing and for hearing on a motion for de facto parent status filed by L.F.’s caretakers. The Department was ordered to prepare a supplemental report addressing Carrie F.’s compliance with her case plan prior to her incarceration and to make reasonable efforts to interview Carrie F.
L.F. was undergoing testing for hepatitis or another life-threatening disease due to a chronic condition of cough, congestion, fever and lack of energy.
In its supplemental report submitted March 23, 2007 the Department stated Carrie F. had tested negative for drugs seven times and failed to appear for tests six times over the seven-month period prior to her incarceration. Carrie F. had completed a six-month drug rehabilitation program, which was insufficient because the Department requires 12 months of rehabilitation. Carrie F. had been dropped from other programs and had submitted no evidence she had completed any counseling or parenting programs. Carrie F. was habitually late for visits with L.F., did not interact appropriately with L.F. and became easily frustrated or distracted during visits. In an interview with the social worker at the county jail, Carrie F. stated she had completed a parenting program, was participating in other programs and had applied for admission to the CPMP. The social worker also spoke with the official in charge of the CPMP at Carrie F.’s prison location, who confirmed Carrie F. had applied to the CPMP, adding that Carrie F. would be denied participation if the Department were to object. The Department opined it would not be in L.F.’s best interest to participate in the CPMP, as Carrie F.’s sentence of five years exceeded the maximum time L.F. would be eligible to remain in the program and L.F. would thus eventually have to be returned to foster care. The Department also questioned Carrie F.’s ability to remain drug-free outside of prison. The Department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. On March 23, 2007 the court granted the motion of L.F.’s caretakers for de facto parent status and continued the contested 12-month review hearing to April 25, 2007.
In a further report for the April 25, 2007 hearing the Department indicated Carrie F.’s criminal history included 13 convictions for drug, forgery and theft offenses dating back to 1995, she had failed to complete drug rehabilitation and counseling programs during the pendency of her case as to L.F. and she could not be released from prison prior to the expiration of the 18-month statutory limit for reunification services. The Department also stated L.F. had developmental needs that required Regional Center services, and her physician had expressed concern that removing L.F. from her current stable placement would be detrimental to her well-being. Included as an attachment to the Department’s report was a quarterly report from the Children’s Bureau of Southern California, which reported to the Department on L.F.’s progress in foster care. In the report the Children’s Bureau social worker stated that, although CPMP participation might enable Carrie F. to become successful at parenting L.F. during the remainder of her prison sentence, there was no evidence Carrie F. could sustain a lifestyle without criminal activity upon her release and this would leave L.F. “at high risk for neglect, abuse, or future separations when [Carrie F.] is released . . . back into society.”
The contested 12-month review hearing was conducted over six sessions from May 9, 2007 until June 25, 2007. Carrie F.’s substance abuse counselor (William Beavers), called by the Department, testified that, contrary to reports submitted earlier, Carrie F. had never tested for drugs at his institution (Claire Foundation), she completed none of her programs, and she participated in only three individual counseling sessions during the six months she was enrolled. In her own testimony Carrie F. gave various reasons for her missed drug tests (a miscarriage, a meeting, a misplaced driver’s license, a wrist injury, heavy traffic conditions, incarceration), attributed her failure to attend programs to the miscarriage (which rendered her unable to sit for long periods of time) and difficulty in reaching counselor Beavers, and testified she was late for visits with L.F. due to traffic conditions and the monitors would not wait for her to arrive. Carrie F. further testified she made several requests to the social worker to be placed in the CPMP and was participating in several programs in her incarceration.
Beavers explained the earlier reports had been inaccurate because Carrie F.’s file was temporarily lost (possibly taken by a disgruntled employee), and the reports were based on poor information.
At the conclusion of testimony on June 11, 2007, the court noted the case had reached the 18-month statutory limit for reunification (§ 366.22) and continued the matter to June 14, 2007 for closing arguments. When the case was called on June 14, 2007, counsel for the Department requested the court terminate reunification services, noting Carrie F. had failed to complete the requirements of her case plan; had provided inadequate explanations for her failure to appear for drug testing, attend programs and appear for visits with L.F. on time, if at all; had an extensive criminal history extending back more than 10 years; and had been unable to abstain from a criminal lifestyle for any substantial period of time. Counsel for L.F. joined in the Department’s request, urging Carrie F.’s compliance with her case plan was “[not] even close.” Counsel noted Carrie F. had not been consistent in drug testing, counseling or visitation and, after 18 months of reunification services, remained unable to have unmonitored visits with L.F. Counsel further asserted it was clear Carrie F. had not resolved the problems that led to L.F.’s dependency status: Carrie F. had a long history of instability and criminal conduct, had lost another child to the dependency system and was now serving a state prison term for new felony offenses.
The 18-month maximum period for reunification services is measured from “the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.” (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), 3d par.) L.F. was initially removed from Carrie F.’s physical custody on December 17, 2005. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.502(17) [“initial removal” means date on which child was taken into custody by social worker or peace officer].)
Counsel for Carrie F. argued L.F. should be returned to Carrie F.’s custody, because she had substantially complied with her case plan and there would be no risk to L.F.’s well-being in the structured environment of the CPMP, where she and L.F. could reside until her expected release from prison in April 2009.
On June 25, 2007, having taken the matter under submission, the juvenile court announced its decision to terminate reunification and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The court found, although Carrie F. had attended some of her court-ordered programs, her compliance was “marginal” and the evidence made clear she had not made sufficient progress to resolve the problems that resulted in L.F.’s dependency status. The court observed Carrie F. had a 13-year drug abuse history, with relapses even after losing a child to the dependency system and having served a prison term for a drug conviction. In addition, after L.F. was declared a dependent of the court, Carrie F. missed drugs tests without providing reasonable explanations, which showed she had not benefited from her attendance in drug treatment programs. Making specific reference to the CPMP, the court stated it could not “overlook [Carrie F.’s] failure to make substantial progress to live a drug-free lifestyle simply because she might have an opportunity to reside in an institutionalized program with forced compliance and constant supervision.” The court further found the evidence showed Carrie F. had failed to address her issues of domestic violence in individual counseling, had not disengaged from her involvement in sophisticated economic crimes and had not been able to progress to unmonitored visitation with L.F. after 18 months of family reunification. The court found the Department had provided reasonable reunification services, the return of L.F. to Carrie F.’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to L.F.’s well-being and there was not a substantial probability L.F. could be returned to Carrie F.’s custody within six months. The court then set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
CONTENTIONS
Carrie F. contends the juvenile court improperly terminated reunification services because (1) the Department did not offer her reasonable reunification services and (2) the court erroneously determined Carrie F. had failed to make substantial progress with her case plan. Carrie F. urges the proper remedy is a remand for additional reunification services, including consideration of L.F.’s placement with her in the CPMP.
DISCUSSION
1. Adequacy of Reunification Services
Carrie F. did not contend at the 12-month hearing that the services provided to her by the Department were inadequate. By failing to object to the adequacy of services in the juvenile court, Carrie F. has forfeited her right to assert error in this court. (In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338-1339; In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.)
2. Return of L.F. to Carrie F.’s Custody
At the 12-month review hearing the court may not order the return of a child to her parent’s custody if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (f); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249; Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 306.) The mere completion of the requirements of the reunification plan - - such as participating in counseling and treatment programs and visiting the child - - is just one consideration under the statute; and the court must also consider to what extent the parent has ameliorated the conditions that required court jurisdiction. (See In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1139-1142.) The record, as we have set forth, contains substantial evidence that, as of the 12-month review hearing, Carrie F. had not resolved the problems that led to L.F’s removal from her custody and remained unable to care for L.F. without substantial risk of detriment to L.F.’s well-being. Carrie F.’s inconsistency in drug testing and insufficient participation in drug rehabilitation constitute evidence of her failure to resolve her drug addition problem. Her failure to complete a program of domestic violence counseling is evidence she had not acted to resolve those issues. And her criminal recidivism and current incarceration reflect her inability to abstain from a criminal lifestyle.
When we review the juvenile court’s findings under the substantial evidence standard, we inquire only whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.)
The record further shows that as of the 12-month hearing Carrie F. had not substantially complied with the requirements of her case plan as she contends. Significantly, her participation in drug rehabilitation was insufficient, she was inconsistent in drug testing, she had been dropped from several programs and she had failed to complete counseling programs.
3. Extension of Reunification Beyond the Statutory Limit
As the juvenile court pointed out, by the time the 12-month review hearing was conducted the dependency proceedings as to L.F. had reached the 18-month statutory limit for reunification. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), par. 3, 366.22.) We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to exercise discretion to extend reunification services beyond the statutory limit. The cases in which appellate courts have ruled reunification services may continue beyond the 18-month statutory period have involved truly exceptional circumstances, involving some external factor that thwarted the parent’s efforts at reunification. (See, e.g., In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777-1778 [no reunification plan was ever developed by the Department for the father]; In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 [mother was hospitalized during most of the reunification period, and after her release the Department attempted to restrict visitation]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1209, 1212-1214 [the Department’s reunification services for the father were a “disgrace”].)
This is not even close to the sort of extreme case of dereliction by the Department that might warrant extension of reunification services beyond the 18-month statutory limit. To the contrary, the record shows that during the entire reunification period the Department provided Carrie F. with adequate reunification services. The record further shows Carrie F. was generally uncooperative with the Department’s efforts and, as a result, by the time the case reached the statutory limit the conditions that resulted in L.F.’s dependency status continued to exist. Additionally, Carrie F.’s continued incarceration until 2009 eliminates any prospect of reunification with L.F. The record thus fully supports the juvenile court’s determination L.F.’s welfare and her need for permanence and stability overrode any claim by Carrie F. to additional reunification services. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.)
DISPOSITION
Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order to conduct a hearing pursuant to section 366.26, the petition is denied on the merits.
We concur: WOODS, J., ZELON, J.