Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. J41601
Mihara, J.
Appellant L. L. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for the selection of a permanent plan for his son L. L.-U. (L.). Father challenges the juvenile court’s finding that it would be detrimental to place L. in his care, and its finding that father had been provided with reasonable reunification services by real party Monterey County Department of Social & Employment Services (the Department). We conclude that both findings are supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. Background
E. U. (mother) has a lengthy history of substance abuse, and father has suffered multiple convictions for domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon. While father was in prison for domestic violence, mother gave birth to L. in August 2006. Mother initially denied having used drugs during her pregnancy.
In November 2006, mother left L. and his half-sister E. with the maternal grandmother, who has a history of substance abuse. E. is not father’s child. Mother was thereafter arrested for possession of a controlled substance and incarcerated. Three-month-old L. and E. were found living in a backyard shed with the maternal grandmother. The shed had no running water or toilet facilities. L. and E. were detained on December 7, 2006.
On December 11, 2006, the Department filed a section 300 petition alleging that L. came with the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). At the December 12 detention hearing, an attorney was appointed to represent father, who remained in prison. L. and E. were placed with L.’s paternal aunt on January 3, 2007. L. was referred for evaluation of possible in utero narcotics exposure.
Father was contacted by the social worker on January 8, 2007, and he told the social worker that he would do anything that was asked of him to obtain custody of L. He denied that he used drugs or abused alcohol. Father was due to be released from prison on February 13, 2007.
At father’s request, the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was continued from January 26, 2007 to February 16, 2007 so that he could attend. At the February 16 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, both mother and father submitted the petition on the social worker’s report. The court found the petition true, ordered the provision of reunification services to both mother and father, and ordered father to submit to drug testing. Father was granted visitation. Father’s initial case plan required him to complete parenting education classes, consistently participate in scheduled visitation, and obey all laws.
Father resided at Turning Point of Central California’s Parolee Service Center (Turning Point), which provides residential substance abuse treatment and housing for parolees, from May 2007 to September 2007. Father attended life skills classes at Turning Point through June 2007. While at Turning Point, father attended two narcotics anonymous (NA) meetings and more than a dozen sessions on domestic violence.
In May 2007, L. and E. were removed from the paternal aunt’s care at her request and placed in a foster home. At an interim review hearing on May 16, 2007, father was found to be the biological father of L.
Before the July 2007 six-month review hearing, mother admitted that L. had been exposed to drugs during her pregnancy. L. was suffering from developmental delays in both gross motor skills and communications skills. He was just beginning to crawl.
By the time of the six-month review hearing, father had “made a lot of progress.” He had obtained housing and fulltime employment, and had remained clean and sober since his release from prison. Father was visiting L. regularly with minimal supervision. He was pro-active in requesting visitation and communicating with the social worker regarding arrangements. His conduct during visits was appropriate, and he was “affectionate, engaging, and loving to his son.”
However, father was not yet able to provide a home for L. In addition, father had been offered “extended visits” with L., but had “repeatedly passed on the offer.” Father was complying with his parole, seeking housing that would allow him to care for L., and trying to find parenting classes that he could attend. He had also asked the social worker about other resources that would help him gain custody of L. The social worker was working with father to connect him to additional resources, and she felt that it was likely that father would be able to “provide for his son by the 12-month Review Hearing, if not sooner.” The social worker remained concerned that, if mother did not succeed at reunification, placing L. with father would be detrimental to both L. and his half-sister, as they had always been together since L.’s birth.
At the six-month review, the court found that both mother and father had made substantive progress. The court found that it was “probable” that L. would be returned to mother or father within six months, and it continued reunification services to both parents. Father’s case plan was supplemented to require him to attend a “Family Assessment” and to attend “individual/family counseling as recommended by the therapist.”
By the time of the 12-month review hearing in January 2008, father had completed his domestic violence and parenting classes. He had made progress, and was “rated at low risk” for further domestic violence. Father had increased his unsupervised visits with L. to the point of full weekend unsupervised visits, and he had five weekend visits with L., all of them at the paternal grandmother’s home. Father’s visitation had decreased after he “relapsed on alcohol” and returned to Turning Point in December 2007. Turning Point did not accommodate children. It was anticipated that father’s overnight visits could be resumed once he completed his program at Turning Point and demonstrated that he could remain clean and sober and maintain a stable lifestyle. Father had missed two visits with L. due to lack of money for transportation, and the Department had given him gas vouchers to avoid this problem in the future. Father continued to be attentive to L. and to behave appropriately during visits.
L. was continuing to show developmental delays in gross motor skills and communication. He had been referred to the Central Valley Regional Center for early intervention services. Father had “recently come to terms with the fact that his son is delayed and may require additional services due to his delays.” He had agreed to participate in individual therapy to gain insight, and he was “willing [to] learn about his child’s developmental delays and what special needs and services that his child may need.”
In December 2007, the court granted mother’s section 388 petition and returned E. to mother’s physical custody with family maintenance services.
At the January 18, 2008 12-month review hearing, the social worker recommended that reunification services be continued, as it was “possible” that one or both parents would be able to reunify with L. within the next six months. Father had “fully participated in his court ordered case plan.” Father’s updated case plan added the requirements that he attend two or three NA/AA meetings each week and provide written proof of attendance to the social worker. He was also required to obtain a sponsor, and participate in random drug testing. The Department recommended that father continue to have weekly unsupervised visits with L. The court accepted the social worker’s recommendations and continued reunification services.
While he was at Turning Point, father had full-day visits with L. at the home of the paternal grandmother. After father began missing visits, these visits were reduced. Father missed three visits with L. in a row in February 2008, one due to illness and two due to transportation issues, notwithstanding the fact that the Department had provided him with gas vouchers and bus passes to avoid transportation problems.
Father completed the Turning Point program on March 27, 2008, and “completed the majority” of his case plan. Father completed classes at Turning Point that addressed both substance abuse prevention and anger management. He participated in random drug testing and submitted proof that he had attended NA/AA meetings while at Turning Point, but he attended no meetings after leaving Turning Point and failed to obtain a sponsor. Father had completed six sessions of an “FRP Parent Orientation Group” program, a therapeutic support group, by May 13. After leaving Turning Point, father had unsupervised visits with L. in his home, once in April and once in May.
After the 12-month review hearing, father’s visitation with L. had become “sporadic.” He often had to be reminded of the visitation dates and times. Father was also “in complete denial of the medical and developmental needs” of L. During a late March 2008 meeting to discuss L.’s special needs, father said he “did not believe that [L.] had special needs or was delayed in any way.” Mother had admitted that she had consumed both drugs and alcohol during her pregnancy, and L. had been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. Faced with these facts, father insisted that mother had not consumed alcohol during her pregnancy with L., and he wanted L. to be “tested again.”
In May 2008, mother was arrested for being drunk in public, and E. was removed from her custody. E. was placed in the same home as L. E. reported that she had seen father kicking mother, and mother kicking him back. Father denied the allegation. Mother told her probation officer that she was pregnant with father’s child. After E.’s domestic violence report, father’s visits were reduced to a single one hour supervised visit each month.
The Department thereafter notified both parents that it would be recommending that reunification services be terminated at the 18-month review hearing, which was then scheduled for June 13, 2008. On June 2, 2008, the Department filed its report recommending that the court terminate services and set a section 366.26 hearing for October 10, 2008. The Department anticipated that adoption would be recommended as L.’s permanent plan, and his caretaker was willing to adopt him.
L. had been “diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome and significant developmental delays, and lab reports reveal that he has an extra Y chromosome.” L. “bangs his head when he is angry and becomes physically aggressive towards others when he is displeased and acts aggressively towards others even when he is not provoked.” L. “tantrums, screams, and whines for long periods of time” and cannot be soothed or redirected during these periods. He “does not like direct attention and affection displayed towards him and does not respond well to loud or high pitched sounds.” The Central Valley Regional Center’s assessment found that L. was delayed in multiple areas: “cognitive/receptive language; language/expressive; gross motor skills; fine motor skills; social skills and self help skills.” The extra Y chromosome could lead to “significant aggressive behavior towards himself and others” in the future.
Father had two supervised visits in June and one in July. These visits went well.
The 18-month review hearing was repeatedly rescheduled and actually commenced on August 6, 2008. The social worker testified at the contested hearing that L. is developmentally delayed, has been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, and has an extra Y chromosome. L. was “still not talking yet” at age two. He was “[v]ery delayed” in gross motor skills, and had only recently started using his index finger and thumb to grasp. L. did not walk until he was more than one year old, “does not run” and was only now starting to climb. L. experienced “severe tantrums and crying.” Fetal alcohol syndrome was the likely cause of L. sometimes not wanting to be touched, and crying and having tantrums in response to high pitched sounds. These problems made L. a very challenging child to parent because his tantrums and crying could last for as long as two hours at a time. In additional, L. “can be a very aggressive little boy,” and sometimes bites or hits others “for no apparent reason.” L. was receiving services from the Regional Center for his problems.
Mother did not appear for, or participate in, the contested hearing. After all of the evidence was received on August 6, 2008, the hearing was continued to August 15 for argument by the attorneys.
Father refused to believe that L. had developmental delays or suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. He stated that L. could not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome because “mother didn’t drink, she just used drugs while she was pregnant.” The social worker informed father that mother admitted drinking while pregnant, but he still did not believe that L. had fetal alcohol syndrome and wanted L. retested. The social worker was concerned that father lacked the ability to meet L.’s special needs because he refused to acknowledge those needs. She felt that he needed to participate in a program called SPARK, which offered specialized training for the parents of children with developmental delays, but father had not been directed to participate in SPARK.
The social worker was also concerned about the potential for domestic violence between mother and father. Father denied any contact with mother, but mother told the social worker that she had been “hooking up” with father and was currently pregnant by him, and E. had reported that father had kicked mother.
The Department argued that it would be detrimental to L. to place him with father because father had not been attending NA/AA meetings as required, had fairly recently relapsed on alcohol, had not established that he could maintain his sobriety, and had not maintained consistent visitation. It also argued that father would not be able to provide for L.’s special needs since he did not believe that L. had any special needs. The Department was also concerned that father was having prohibited contact with mother and possibly engaging in domestic violence.
Father sought custody of L. His counsel also alternatively asked the court “to consider extending services because I wonder if reasonable services have really been offered.” He suggested that the social worker had never provided special classes for father to learn how to deal with L.’s special needs. L.’s trial counsel did not support father’s request for immediate custody, but he did support father’s request for additional services. He asserted that additional services were warranted because reasonable services had not been provided.
The court concluded that father was “in denial” about L.’s special needs, and could not have failed to be aware of those special needs, given that L. was receiving services from the Regional Center. Father had failed to do the “bare minimum” of attending NA/AA meetings, and there were concerns that he had recently been drinking again. The court credited E.’s report of domestic violence between father and mother, and expressed concern that father was continuing to have contact with mother despite the fact that such contact was prohibited.
The court found that reasonable and adequate services had been provided to father. It found that father had participated in services but had made “minimal” progress. The court made a finding that returning L. to the parents “would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” Reunification services were terminated, and a section 366.26 hearing was set for October 10, 2008. The court did not terminate visitation. Father filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition, and a timely writ petition.
II. Discussion
A. Detriment Finding
“The court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian [at the 18-month review hearing] unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. . . . The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a).)
Father contends that the Department failed to establish that placing L. in father’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to L. We disagree. Because L. suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome and has serious developmental delays, he is a very challenging child to parent. Father has resisted accepting the seriousness of L.’s problems, and has yet to develop any skills for coping with L.’s problems. Father’s inconsistent visitation demonstrates a lack of commitment to L. Father has only recently admitted his problems with alcohol, and he has not yet been able to maintain his sobriety outside of a residential treatment facility for more than a few months. He is not currently attending N/AAA meetings, despite having been directed to do so. His history of domestic violence and assaults are indicative of a lack of self control.
The risks of putting little L., with his difficult behaviors, in the custody of a potentially violent alcoholic are obvious. Father’s lack of a consistent commitment to L. and his refusal to fully accept the nature of L.’s maladies bodes ill for his ability to safely parent a “very aggressive” child who attacks others for no reason. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court’s detriment finding is adequately supported.
B. Finding That Reasonable Services Had Been Provided
Father maintains that the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable reunification services had been provided to him.
“The court shall determine [at the 18-month review hearing] whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a).) If reasonable services have not been offered or provided, the court has discretion to extend services for an additional period. (In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1212-1215.)
“A proper service plan must be tailored to the specific needs of the dysfunctional family. However, to make the requisite findings, the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult (such as helping to provide transportation and offering more intensive rehabilitation services where others have failed).” (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
The record reflects that the Department’s service plan was adequate. L. was originally detained because father and mother were unavailable to provide for his care, and he had been left with an inappropriate caretaker. Mother’s substance abuse had led to her incarceration. Father was in prison for domestic violence, and therefore unavailable to care for L.
At the beginning, father denied any drug or alcohol abuse. The services provided to him were aimed at establishing a relationship between him and L., and assisting him in learning to parent L. Thus, the Department offered him assistance with visitation and a referral to parenting classes. Because father resided at a residential substance abuse treatment facility for nine months of the reunification period (May to September of 2007, and December 2007 to March 2008), he was able to take advantage of numerous programs there, including life skills classes and domestic violence sessions. The Department also made an effort to connect him with other resources in the community.
When father began missing visits, the Department provided him with gas vouchers and bus passes, but he continued to miss visits. The Department later offered him a family assessment and individual counseling. After father admitted that he had an alcohol problem, his services were modified to include requirements that were designed to enhance his ability to maintain his sobriety. The Department made substantial efforts to educate father about the nature of L.’s serious developmental delays, but father was reluctant to fully accept that L. had delays. While specialized training for dealing with L.’s developmental delays would have been helpful to assist father in handling L.’s delays, the Department never got to the point of offering such training to father because father insisted that L. had no delays.
Father emphasizes that L. was not diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome until after the 12-month review hearing, and he maintains that he had “come to terms” with L.’s delays well before that. He claims that he would have participated in specialized training for dealing with L.’s delays if only such services had been offered to him. We do not believe that the Department unreasonably failed to provide father with specialized training for dealing with L.’s delays. L.’s delays were not among the causes that triggered the dependency, nor were his delays critical to father’s ability to regain custody. Father’s failure to consistently visit L. and to steadily progress toward custody, his inability to maintain his sobriety, and his failure to avoid domestic violence were the primary factors that established that father could not provide a safe and appropriate home for L. The Department properly and reasonably directed its services at eliminating these barriers, and it cannot be faulted for failing to provide specialized training that would be of use only if these barriers were first overcome. The juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services had been provided is supported by substantial evidence.
III. Disposition
The petition is denied. This opinion is final as to this court immediately upon filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(2).)
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., McAdams, J.