Opinion
A120611
4-25-2008
NORMA B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO COUNTY, Respondent; SOLANO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Norma B. (Mother), mother of G.G., age nine, and Kayla B., age three, petitions this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to set aside the juvenile courts order setting a permanency hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends the juvenile court erred in setting a permanency hearing because substantial evidence does not support the courts finding that the Solano County Department of Health and Social Services (the Department) provided or offered reasonable reunification services to her. We reject the contention and deny the petition on the merits.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dependency History
G.G. (G.) became a dependent of the Yolo County juvenile court on May 24, 2002, after Mother physically abused and neglected her. At disposition, the social worker reported that Mother was "angry, rude, and confrontational," did not believe she needed to participate in any services, and refused to take responsibility for G.s injuries. Mother was ordered to participate in a family reunification plan, which included counseling and a parenting education program.
Several months later, Mother was reported to be living in Dixon in Solano County, and the matter was transferred to the Solano County juvenile court. The Department referred Mother to Latino Family Services for services in anger management, parenting classes, individual counseling, and support groups. Mother was reunified with G. on June 10, 2003, and the court ordered six months of family maintenance services. According to a status review report, Mother was working with Latino Family Services, Cal Works and her support groups to ensure that G.s needs were met. Jurisdiction was successfully terminated on January 15, 2004.
In February 2005, shortly after Kalya B. (Kayla) was born, the Department received a referral alleging substantial risk of harm to Kayla. The referral was deemed unfounded and Mother was referred to the Integrated Family Support Initiative program. In February 2006, the Department received another referral alleging physical abuse and general neglect. The investigation found that G.s school attendance was very poor. G. disclosed that her mother physically abused her, and said she did not want to live with her mother. Allegations regarding abuse of Kayla were also discovered during the investigation. The Dixon Police Department reported that there was domestic violence in the home. An informal 30-day voluntary case plan was initiated in order to make available various services to the family, including transportation and services from Dixon Family Services, Public Health Nurse, and North Bay Regional Center.
In or about August 2006, the Department received a referral alleging emotional abuse, general neglect and substantial risk of harm. The investigation found that G.s school attendance was poor, Mothers housing was unstable, inadequate and unsanitary, and Mother was involved in domestic violence and alcohol abuse. Mother had not sought medical attention for Kaylas possible physical disability and had not cooperated with the Departments referrals to address Kaylas possible special needs.
The Department engaged in a voluntary case plan with Mother from September 2006 to April 2007, during which the Department met with Mother at least three or four times each month and provided her with transportation and referrals. The Department had difficulty getting Mother involved with the Families First Intensive Parenting Program. Mother did not follow up with referrals to mental health services for assessment and counseling. She continued to have difficulty controlling her anger, and several service providers had discontinued services due to her verbal abuse, demanding personality and uncooperative behavior. A family resource center reported that Mother was cooperative only when she received tangible items such as money, vouchers, diapers or food, and often blamed service providers for her inability to access and maintain services.
Current Petition
On April 24, 2007, the Department received an emergency response referral after welts and bruises were found on G.s body. G. disclosed that Mother hit her on her face with her hand, on her arm with a hair brush, and on her legs with a remote control. G. also disclosed that Mother slapped Kayla "very hard on the face." The Department filed a section 300 petition alleging the minors were in need of protection due to Mothers physical abuse, alcohol abuse, and failure to meet Kaylas medical needs. The whereabouts of the minors fathers were unknown. The minors were taken into protective custody, and the juvenile court took jurisdiction over them on May 17, 2007.
The Department submitted a dispositional report on June 7, 2007, stating it had provided Mother with transportation, parenting classes, visitation and referrals for substance abuse and psychological evaluations. Mother appeared "very interested" in participating in services. The Department recommended that the minors continue to be detained and that Mother be offered reunification services for six months. The juvenile court adopted the recommendation and ordered reunification services.
According to an interim review report, Mother was involved in a domestic violence incident in which her boyfriend hit her in the mouth. Mother went to the hospital and, with the help of the Department, moved to a transitional housing unit in Fairfield. At the time of the report, the Department was in the process of setting up anger management counseling for Mother, and had arranged for Mother to attend two Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) classes per week.
According to a six month status review report, the Department had provided Mother with bus passes, telephone cards, visitation, shoes, a psychological evaluation, and referrals to S.M.A.R.T, an anger management program, family resource centers in Dixon and Fairfield, the Mental Health Access Line/Crisis Referral, affordable housing and Safequest. Mother was "only partially participating in the supervised visits, even though . . . she is being provided [with] transportation to and from the visits." Mother had completed only two counseling sessions. She was scheduled to begin an anger management program but had not yet attended. She had not provided the Department with proof that she had attended AA meetings.
The six month review report further noted that Mother asked the social worker to stop all services for one month because she wanted to work full time. When the social worker reminded Mother of the importance of court mandated services, Mother asked why she had to attend parenting education classes and therapy sessions with Kayla and wondered why Kaylas foster mother could not go with her. She did not understand "why this is such a big deal," and minimized the physical abuse and domestic violence. Mother agreed to "come in for one last visit with her children, as she knew her daughters were going to be adopted out." The social worker was concerned that Mother "still does not exhibit an emotional attachment to her children." The report recommended that an additional six months of reunification services be provided to Mother.
At a contested six-month review hearing on December 3, 2007, the social worker testified that his recommendation at the time was to terminate services because Mother had informed him that she wanted to stop participating in services. The Department offered to subsidize Mothers rent so that she would have more time to focus on completing her services, but Mother refused the offer and opted to stop services in order to work full time. The social worker felt that Mothers anger management issues and her attitude were preventing her from successfully completing her programs. He testified that the Department referred Mother to a family resource center to address her anger issues, but that Mother had participated in only three out of twelve sessions. Mother was also referred to the Fairfield Adult School for anger management classes but had not attended any classes A psychological evaluation was done, despite the difficulty in arranging for one because of Mothers attitude toward being evaluated. The Department referred Mother to two substance abuse programs, but she did not participate in either program. Various people reported to the social worker that Mother lacked motivation. The social worker testified that based on his experience in dealing with the family over the last six months, an additional six months of services was not likely to significantly improve the situation.
The juvenile court found the Department had made reasonable efforts to return the minors to Mother. The court found that Mother had failed to participate regularly and make substantial progress in the court ordered treatment plan that was designed to address her anger management, skill building, and domestic violence issues. The court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanency hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a permanency hearing because substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that reasonable services had been provided or offered to her. We disagree.
If, at the six-month review hearing, "the court finds . . . that the child, who was under the age of three years on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group [in which one of the siblings was under the age of three years on the date of initial removal], may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing." (§ 366.21, subd. (e), italics added.) A juvenile court may terminate reunification services and order the setting of a section 366.26 permanency hearing only if "there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent[] . . . ." (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1), (2).)
On the date of their initial removal, G. was 8 years old and Kayla was 2 years old.
The reasonableness of services is judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554.) A social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parents problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult. (Id. at pp. 554-555.) "In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. 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.) We determine whether substantial evidence supports the courts finding that reasonable services were provided, reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging in all reasonable inferences to uphold the courts ruling. (Id. at p. 545.)
The reunification plan prepared by the Department and ordered by the court was appropriately designed to address the issues that had led to the removal of the minors from Mothers care and custody. Among other things, the plan required Mother to attend therapy and counseling sessions, anger management classes, and substance abuse classes, and obtain a psychological evaluation. Mother complains that "a significant portion" of the services were offered late in the reunification period. However, as early as June 7, 2007, the Department had provided Mother with "referrals for a substance abuse evaluation, transportation, parenting classes, . . . visitation," and was "in the process of making a referral for a psychological evaluation . . . ." A psychological evaluation was completed on July 17, 2007, despite Mothers uncooperative behavior. By October 30, 2007, the Department had referred Mother to various support groups, an anger management program, family resource centers, a mental health access line and affordable housing. Further, Mother had been involved with the dependency system on several occasions over the course of over five and a half years since G. was initially detained in early 2002, and should have been familiar with the various services that had been made available to her during that period.
Mother also complains that some of the services, including therapy sessions at Dixon Family Services, were not accessible to her because she moved to a transitional housing unit in Fairfield during her reunification period. However, the social worker testified that shortly after Mother moved to Fairfield, the Department referred her to various services in that area, including parenting and skill building classes at Stage One Womens Group, located in Fairfield, a family resource center in Fairfield, and anger management classes at Fairfield Adult School. " `The requirement that reunification services be made available to help a parent overcome those problems which led to the dependency of his or her minor children is not a requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions. " (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.) Here, the record shows that Mothers "real problem was not a lack of services available but a lack of initiative to consistently take advantage of the services that were offered." (See Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763.) Although Mother initially showed some motivation to participate in services, she failed to follow through with them and did not complete any of her programs. She insisted on working full time instead of participating in services and rejected the Departments offer to subsidize her rent so she could focus on her reunification plan. At the time of the six month review, Mother still did not understand why she had to attend parenting education classes and therapy sessions with Kayla.
In sum, the conditions of the reunification plan were reasonable, sensible and fair, and were properly designed to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances that led to the removal of the minors. (See In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1776-1777.) We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to provide Mother with adequate reunification services, and that the reunification services provided were reasonable.
In light of our conclusion that Mothers contention has no merit, we will not address the Departments argument that the petition should be denied for the additional reason that it was not timely served on the Department.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.600; see Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893-895 [written opinion on petition for extraordinary relief precludes reconsideration of or further challenge to orders in any subsequent appeal].) Our opinion is final as to this court forthwith. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)
We concur:
Siggins, J.
Jenkins, J.