Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Nos. JJP02173, JJP02174, JJP02175, JJP02176, J.J. Ulloa, Judge.
NARES, Acting P. J.
The Imperial County Department of Social Services appeals findings and orders extending reunification services to Amber G. to the 24-month date from the date her four children were removed from her physical custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5, subd. (b).)
Unless otherwise indicated further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
INTRODUCTION
This court has previously emphasized that when the juvenile court extends the reunification period to one parent under statutory authority at a six or 12-month review hearing, it has the discretion to continue to offer or provide services to the parent for whom reunification is not anticipated or not likely. (In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 565-566 (Alanna A.); In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 55-56 (Jesse W.).) This case concerns an order continuing services at the 18-month review hearing for the mother of four children after the court extended reunification services to the father of two of her children to the 24-month review date.
Consistent with this court's reasoning in Alanna A. and Jesse W., we hold that the juvenile court has the discretion at the 18-month review hearing to continue services to the nonreunifying parent if it extends the reunification period for the other parent. In exercising its discretion, the court may consider the extent to which the nonreunifying parent will utilize additional services and whether continued services would ultimately inure to the child's benefit. (Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 66.) In considering whether further services would ultimately inure to the child's benefit, the juvenile court may consider a number of factors, including whether continuing services to the nonreunifying parent is likely to maintain or promote the sibling relationships.
We use the term "nonreunifying parent" for convenience to indicate a parent for whom reunification is not anticipated or is not likely. (Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 565, fn. 10.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Amber G. is the mother of four children, V.R., A.R., J.J. and M.J. (collectively, the children). The children are now ages 13, 11, 10 and eight years old, respectively. Victor R. is the father of V.R. and A.R. J.J.'s and M.J.'s alleged father is Ignacio J. Ignacio's whereabouts are unknown.
In May 2009 the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) initiated dependency proceedings after it determined that Amber left the children without making provisions for their support. M.J., then age six years, had injured her arm in a fall and did not receive medical care. The family's home was filled with trash, dirty clothes, dog feces and empty beer containers. There was no electricity. The only food in the home was a loaf of bread and several containers of dry noodle soup. A.R. said his mother spent all her money buying drugs.
When the children were detained, V.R. reassured his siblings. He said they had a second chance not to be hungry all the time, they would be clean and someone would take care of them.
Pending the jurisdictional hearing, the Department detained V.R. and A.R. with their father. They did well in his home. The social worker stated Victor did his best to meet his sons' needs. V.R. and A.R. attended school, completed their homework and did their chores. They enjoyed living with their father, their paternal half siblings and other relatives.
J.J. and M.J. remained in the receiving home. Their initial foster care placement lasted only one day. The Department stated J.J.'s and M.J.'s behaviors would impede successful foster care placements.
At the August 3, 2009 disposition hearing, the juvenile court placed V.R. and A.R. with Victor under a family maintenance plan. The court removed J.J. and M.J. from parental custody and ordered the social worker to offer or provide reunification services to Amber. Amber was required to complete a parenting class and a behavioral health assessment, and participate in outpatient substance abuse treatment, random drug testing and any recommended therapeutic treatment.
At the end of August 2009, the Department learned that Victor was incarcerated on charges of domestic violence. His release date was August 2010. The social worker reported that Victor had substance abuse and anger management problems. The juvenile court removed V.R. and A.R. from Victor's care and ordered a family reunification plan.
At the six-month status review hearing, the social worker reported that Amber did not complete a parenting class and did not obtain a behavioral health assessment. Amber entered a substance abuse treatment program in December 2009 and left the program in January 2010. Upon admission, she tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. From May 2009 to January 2010, Amber had three visits with the children. She regularly telephoned them.
V.R. was generally happy although his temper occasionally flared. His social skills were below age level. A childhood accident had left him blind in one eye.
A.R. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). A.R. could be violent with his peers and the staff at his group home. He regularly talked about reunifying with his family.
J.J. was diagnosed with ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). He was aggressive at times. He bruised his hand when he hit a wall with his fist. J.J. was prescribed medications to help control his agitation and irritability.
M.J. was diagnosed with ADHD and ODD. M.J. was verbally and physically aggressive. She cursed at her peers, hit and scratched them, and pulled their hair. Her treating psychologist was concerned about the possibility M.J. may have been exposed to drugs in utero or had an inherited mental illness. He recommended that she be closely monitored to help her learn appropriate socialization skills.
The children were in three separate placements. V.R. was placed in a foster family home. Because of their behavioral needs, A.R. and J.J. were in a group home. M.J. was placed separately in another group home. M.J., A.R. and J.J. had monitored visits together every other week. M.J. was happy and excited before and after the visits with her siblings. The children's court-appointed special advocate (CASA) said the children enjoyed seeing each other and wanted to visit more frequently. They were protective of one another and worried they would be separated forever.
At the 12-month hearing, the Department recommended that the juvenile court terminate Amber's services and set a section 366.26 hearing for J.J. and M.J., and extend Victor's reunification services to the 18-month review date for V.R. and A.R.
The social worker reported that Amber did not enroll in a substance abuse treatment program or parenting class, and did not participate in a behavioral health assessment or submit to drug testing. From January to June 2010, Amber visited M.J. twice. She maintained telephone contact with J.J. and A.R. The children reported they enjoyed their telephone conversations with Amber and wanted to talk to her more often.
Victor attended NA/AA meetings in prison.
The juvenile court ordered the Department to offer or provide reunification services to both parents to the 18-month review date.
In reports prepared for the 18-month review hearing, the social worker said J.J. was placed at an out-of-county group home because his behavioral needs could not be addressed in his previous placement. V.R., A.R. and M.J. were placed in separate foster care homes. They continued to visit each other every other week and thoroughly enjoyed each other's company.
V.R. and A.R. visited their father in December 2010. In November M.J., V.R. and A.R. had a visit with Amber. The social worker reported that Amber and the children were genuinely happy to see each other.
The social worker said Amber made minimal progress with her case plan. She had a pattern of participating in several sessions and then disappearing for an indefinite period of time. At some point in time before the 18-month review hearing, Amber began attending parenting classes and an outpatient drug rehabilitation program. She received counseling through those programs.
Victor was paroled in August 2010. He said he was attending parenting classes. According to his parole officer, Victor continued to test positive for methamphetamine. He did not participate in out-patient substance abuse treatment.
The Department recommended that the juvenile court extend Victor's services to the 24-month review date, terminate Amber's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for J.J. and M.J. Without objection, the court continued Victor's reunification services to the 24-month date. Minors' counsel recommended continuing Amber's services to assist the family.
The juvenile court found that the children were clearly bonded to each other and understood the importance of their bonds. The court said there were indications Amber was recently making some progress and ordered the Department to continue to offer or provide services to her. The court set a review hearing for July 11, 2011.
DISCUSSION
The Department contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it continued Amber's services to the 24-month date. The Department argues the juvenile court erred because it continued Amber's services without making the findings required under sections 361.5, subdivision (a)(4), and 366.22, subdivision (b). The Department further argues there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the order continuing services to Amber.
Amber acknowledges she does not meet the statutory requirements for extended services under sections 361.5, subdivision (a)(4), and 366.22, subdivision (b). She contends the juvenile court did not extend services to her pursuant to statutory authority but instead exercised its discretion to offer services to one parent when the court extends the reunification period for the other parent. (Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 566 [when reunification services continue for one parent, the court has the discretion to offer services to the nonreunifying parent]; Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 55-56 [the juvenile court may, but need not, continue an offer of services to one parent when services are extended for the other parent and no selection and implementation hearing is set].) Implicitly recognizing that J.J.'s and M.J.'s father did not receive reunification services as required under Alanna A. and Jesse W., Amber argues the court continued their section 366.26 hearings under section 352.
We agree with the Department that the record does not support Amber's contention the juvenile court ordered a continuance of the section 366.26 hearings in J.J.'s and M.J.'s cases. The court found that it was not in J.J.'s and M.J.'s best interests to implement a permanent plan and ordered the Department to continue to provide services to Amber. The court did not set section 366.26 hearings in their cases, nor did it grant a continuance of the 18-month review hearing.
Victor joins with Amber's argument to the extent it pertains to V.R. and A.R. The children also join in Amber's brief and ask this court to affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
Victor did not file a respondent's brief.
Before discussing the Department's contention the juvenile court abused its discretion when it continued Amber's services to the 24-month review date, we set forth the statutory framework governing the 18-month review hearing and discuss the limits of the juvenile court's discretion under case law to continue services to a parent who does not meet the statutory requirements to receive extended reunification services.
A
Extension of Services to the 24-Month Review Date
"Family reunification services play a 'crucial role' in dependency proceedings. [Citations.]" (Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 563.) Unless certain specified exceptions apply, the juvenile court is required to order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child, the child's mother and statutorily presumed father. The court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).)
Family reunification services are time-limited. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1).) For children ages three years or older, as here, court-ordered services are provided beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months from the date the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) If it can be shown that the child will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period, court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).)
Under limited circumstances, court-ordered services may be extended up to 24 months if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, or recently discharged from incarceration or institutionalization and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return. (§§ 366.22, subd. (b), 361.5, subd. (a)(4).)
To order an extension of services, the court must find that it is in the child's best interest to have the time period extended and there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent, or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(4).) To find a substantial probability the child will be safely returned home, the court is required to find that the parent has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home, and demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration or institutionalization, and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).)
The court's decision to continue the case based on a finding of substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).)
Amber correctly acknowledges she does not fall within the limited statutory exception to extend the reunification period at the 18-month review hearing. We next examine her contention the juvenile court has the discretion under Alanna A. and Jesse W. to order the Department to continue to provide services to her. The Department disagrees and asserts those cases do not apply at the 18-month review hearing.
B
When the Juvenile Court Extends Services to a Parent at the 18-Month Review Hearing, It May Continue Services to the Other Parent
In Alanna A. and Jesse W., this court highlights the importance of allowing, but not requiring, the juvenile court to offer continued services to a nonreunifying parent at a six-month or 12-month review hearing: "As a practical matter, ... where a nonreunifying parent is likely to have some continued contact with his or her child, further services to that parent may be in the child's best interests." (Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 565, fn. omitted.) "[O]ur decision does not foreclose the possibility of allowing further services, in the court's sound discretion, when a section 366.26 hearing is not set." (Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 66.)
In Alanna A., this court explains that the Legislature grants the juvenile court the authority to direct its orders "as the court deems necessary and proper for the best interests of... the minor. These orders may concern the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor." (§ 245.5.) There is no express statutory limitation on the juvenile court's authority to terminate reunification services to a parent at a 12-month review hearing when it continues services to the other parent. (Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 565.) Thus "when reunification efforts continue for one parent... a court has the discretion to offer services to the nonreunifying parent, and in many cases may choose to do so. (Id. at p. 566; accord, Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 65-66 [six-month review hearing].)
Similarly, we find no express statutory limitation on the juvenile court's authority to order the social worker to continue to offer or provide services to a nonreunifying parent at an 18-month review hearing when the court extends the reunification period for the other parent. (See § 366.22, subd. (b).) The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest. (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 652; § 245.5 [in addition to all other powers granted by law, the juvenile court may direct orders to the parent it deems necessary and proper for the best interests of the child].) The safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being of the children "may include provision of a full array of social and health services to help the child and family and to prevent reabuse." (§ 300.2, italics added.) Thus, contrary to the Department's argument, we conclude that the juvenile court has the discretion to continue services to the nonreunifying parent at the 18-month review hearing.
In determining whether to continue services to a nonreunifying parent, the juvenile court has "the ability to evaluate whether the parent will utilize additional services and whether those services would ultimately inure to the benefit of the minor." (Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 65-66.) At no time during the reunification process does the court's offer of continued services to one parent depend solely on the efforts of the other parent. (Id. at p. 60, citing In re Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 565.)
The juvenile court may determine whether the parent will utilize additional services by considering the extent to which that parent availed himself or herself to services provided. (Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 60, citing § 366.21, subds. (e) & (f); see also §§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1), 366.22, subd. (a).) Whether continued services will inure to the child's benefit depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the problem that led to the dependency, whether the parent is likely to maintain regular and consistent contact with the child, the impact of parental interaction on the child's well-being, the age of the child and the child's wishes for further contact with the parent, and whether continued services will promote or maintain sibling relationships. (See, e.g., In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 530-532 [assessing the child's best interests when considering whether to reinstate the reunification period under section 388]; In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1003 [assessing beneficial sibling relationships under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v)].)
We next examine whether the juvenile court acted within its discretion when it extended services to Amber. The reviewing court will not reverse the court's order absent a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.)
C
The Department Does Not Show that the Juvenile Court Abused Its Discretion When It Continued Amber's Services to the 24-Month Date
The Department recommended that the juvenile court extend reunification services to Victor to the 24-month date for V.R. and A.R., terminate Amber's services and set section 366.26 hearings for J.J. and M.J. The court extended Victor's reunification period, stating the Department was not able to provide services to Victor while he was incarcerated. In deciding to continue Amber's services, the court relied on Amber's recent participation in court-ordered services, a report she was doing well in the substance abuse treatment program and the lack of information in the record about the Department's efforts to help her obtain services, specifically, a behavioral health assessment.
We draw all legitimate and reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. (Candari v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 402, 408.)
The record shows that Amber was participating in parenting classes and substance abuse treatment, and her participation in treatment was characterized as "good." Although the court could have made a contrary finding on this record, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that Amber will utilize additional services. (Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 65-66.)
Significantly, despite Amber's neglect of the children, the record does not show that the children's relationships with their mother were strained or they were troubled by their interactions with her. The social worker reported that the children were genuinely happy to see Amber. They enjoyed talking to her on the telephone and looked forward to her telephone calls. Thus, the record does not indicate that continued contact with Amber would be contrary to the children's emotional health or well-being.
The Department acknowledges the children's behavioral and emotional issues make them difficult to place. At the time of the 18-month review hearing, M.J. had been in 10 placements, J.J. in eight, A.R. in five and V.R. in three placements. A child may be found to be difficult to place for adoption if there is no identified or prospective adoptive parent for the child because of the child's membership in a sibling group, or the presence of a diagnosed medical, physical or mental handicap, or the child is seven years of age or more. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(3).) All those factors are present here. In the absence of any identified or prospective adoptive parent, the court could determine it was likely the children would have continued contact with Amber and that her participation in services designed to stabilize her circumstances would ultimately inure to the children's benefit.
In ordering the Department to provide services to Amber to the 24-month review date, the juvenile court did not distinguish between the two sets of half siblings on the basis of their father's status. Unlike Victor, M.J.'s and J.J.'s alleged father, Ignacio, did not qualify for extended reunification services. The Department's arguments focus only on Amber's lack of eligibility for extended services under sections 361.5, subdivision (a)(4) and 366.22, subdivision (b). The Department does not raise the issue whether Ignacio's status prevents the court from continuing Amber's services in J.J.'s and M.J.'s cases under the principles described in Alanna A. and Jesse W.
Because the issue was not raised on appeal, we do not address whether the juvenile court has the authority under statutory and case law to continue services to a parent in the cases of half siblings when one of the other parents of the half siblings, but not both, meets the statutory requirements for an extension of the reunification period.
Under the circumstances of this case and the issues presented for review, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it continued Amber's services. The court found that the children were members of a bonded sibling group and emphasized the import of their bonds with one another. The children worried they would be separated forever. They were supportive and protective of one another. Their visits together were happy. The CASA believed the children would benefit from frequent sibling contact.
Under the unusual circumstances presented here, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it recognized that maintaining and promoting the sibling relationships was significant to the children's emotional well-being and kept their dependency proceedings on the same track. It is reasonable to infer that if reunification efforts in V.R.'s and A.R.'s cases are not successful, keeping the children's cases together might increase the likelihood the Department would be able to find a permanent placement for the children in the same home. (§ 16002 [the agency shall make a diligent effort to place siblings together in the same home and to develop and maintain sibling relationships; see also §§ 358.1, subd. (d), 361.3, subd. (a)(4), 366, 366.1, subd. (f), 366.21, subds. (a), (e), 366.22, subd. (a), 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v), 366.3, subd. (e)(9), 388, subd. (b).) Thus, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that continuing Amber's services in J.J.'s and M.J.'s cases might maintain or promote the sibling relationships. (See In re Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003 [maintaining a dependent child's sibling relationships may have great import for the child's emotional well-being, both during and after the dependency proceedings].)
On this record, the juvenile court could reasonably determine it was likely that Amber would have continued contact with the children and continuing services to her would ultimately inure to the children's benefit. (Jesse W., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 65-66.)
DISPOSITION
The findings and orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J., AARON, J.