Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane Cardoza, Judge No. 07CEJ300202-2,3
R.B. in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Janelle E. Kelley, County Counsel and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Levy, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
This case arises from a contested 18-month review hearing at which the juvenile court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his two children. Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the juvenile court’s orders. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In late December 2006, the Madera County Department of Public Welfare (department) took petitioner’s then six-year-old stepdaughter, four-year-old daughter, C.B., and 14-month-old son into protective custody after petitioner engaged in a physical altercation with his sister in the presence of the children. Through its investigation, the department discovered the family, which includes M.B., petitioner’s wife and the children’s mother, has a history of homelessness and instability and M.B. was being treated for mental illness.
M.B. also filed a writ petition (F056168).
The juvenile court adjudged the children dependents and the department placed them together in foster care. Not long after, the foster parent reported C.B. masturbated while on the toilet and disclosed that petitioner “touched” her. As a result, the social worker generated a suspected child abuse report and arranged for C.B. to undergo a sexual assault examination, which yielded no evidence of sexual trauma. However, while supervising visitation between the parents and the children, the social worker had to tell petitioner to stop giving C.B. “wedgies” (pulling her underwear in an upward direction from behind). The social worker also saw petitioner kiss C.B. on the lips for whet the social worker perceived as a prolonged period of time.
In February 2007, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered both parents to participate in a plan of reunification. Petitioner’s plan required him to complete a parenting course as well as participate in substance-abuse related services. The court also ordered petitioner’s stepdaughter and C.B. assessed for counseling and set the six-month review hearing for August 2007.
A short time after the dispositional hearing, the department received a referral alleging petitioner sexually abused his stepdaughter and C.B. The foster mother told the investigating social worker C.B. said petitioner touched her vagina and his stepdaughter said he hurt her a lot “down there.” C.B. told the social worker petitioner would insert two fingers in her vagina while she was on the toilet. She simulated his behavior by holding up her right index and middle fingers, thrusting them as if into something and wiggling the fingers. She also told the social worker that while petitioner had his fingers in her vagina, he had his hand in his pants “on his peanuts.” Later, in an interview with a police officer, C.B. said petitioner touched her private parts five times. During the touching, petitioner told her she was a bad girl. C.B. reported the abuse to M.B. who agreed it was bad. Petitioner’s stepdaughter refused to be interviewed by the police officer. The department substantiated the sexual abuse allegations but did not file a subsequent petition.
By August 2007, the children were living with their maternal aunt in Madera and petitioner and M.B. had established a residence in Fresno. The parents had weekly supervised visitation with the children and petitioner’s inappropriate behavior continued. The social worker supervising visits saw petitioner pick C.B. up by his forearm between her legs, and give her a hard-pressed kiss on the mouth. C.B. later told her care provider petitioner tried to lick her. In mid-June 2007, just before a three-hour supervised visit, C.B. disclosed to her therapist she was afraid petitioner would hurt her private parts. In late July, the care provider reported finding C.B. masturbating in the bathroom with two fingers inserted in her vagina. When the care provider talked to C.B. about her behavior, C.B. stated she missed her daddy.
In August 2007, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found the department provided reasonable services and ordered them to continue for both parents and ordered the case transferred to Fresno County. The court also amended petitioner and M.B.’s case plans to include offender’s sexual abuse counseling for him and non-offender sexual abuse counseling for her.
In January 2008, the Fresno County Juvenile Court (juvenile court) accepted the case and ordered the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) to offer petitioner and M.B. parenting classes, domestic violence, mental health and substance abuse assessments and any recommended treatment and random drug testing. The court set a review hearing which was continued and conducted in April 2008.
In March 2008, petitioner and M.B. completed mental health evaluations. Petitioner’s evaluator recommended mental health therapy for him when he completed sexual offender treatment. M.B.’s evaluator opined she needed 5 to 10 years of intensive therapy and recommended the department refer her for a psychological evaluation.
In April 2008, the department filed a 12-month status review, in which it reported petitioner and M.B. completed their parenting courses and both were participating in their respective sexual abuse counseling. However, they both denied petitioner abused their daughters. Petitioner’s therapy was expected to last 6 to 12 months depending on his progress. The department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing. The department also initiated a referral for therapeutic visitation.
In April 2008, the juvenile court conducted a contested 12-month review hearing at which it found petitioner and M.B. were not provided reasonable services. The court ordered the department to continue providing reunification services until the 18-month review hearing which the court set for June 2008.
Prior to the June 2008 review hearing, the department removed the children from their aunt after C.B. told the social worker her aunt placed her (the child’s) head in the toilet. The department filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) and the children were placed in foster care.
The juvenile court set a combined contested hearing on the 18-month review and disposition of the supplemental petition for September 2008. In its reports for the hearing, the department opined neither petitioner nor M.B. had sufficiently addressed their mental health issues and reported the therapist supervising visits believed the children would be at risk if left unsupervised with the parents. The visitation therapist was also concerned about avoidant behavior demonstrated by the children toward petitioner. Both C.B. and petitioner’s stepdaughter stated they did not want to return to their parents.
In September 2008, the juvenile court conducted the combined contested hearing. The social worker testified petitioner completed all his court-ordered services except sexual abuse counseling and mental health therapy. The social worker did not know when he would complete his sexual abuse counseling, stating it was based on his progress and no one had given her an expected completion date. She did not believe the children could be safely returned to petitioner or that he had made substantial progress in his services because he had not completed sexual abuse counseling.
Following testimony and argument, the court found petitioner and M.B. were provided reasonable services but had only made moderate progress. The further found it would be detrimental to return the children to their custody and terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in finding he was provided reasonable services and in failing to find he substantially complied with his court-ordered services. Consequently, he argues, the juvenile court erred in terminating his services and setting a permanency planning hearing. We disagree.
Reunification services are limited by statute to 18 months from the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).) Nevertheless, the juvenile court may extend services beyond that if it determines the parent was not provided reasonable services. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.) If the court does not continue reunification services, it must set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to establish a permanent plan for the child. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).)
Petitioner argues his services were not reasonable because he was merely given a copy of his case plan but not provided any assistance in accomplishing his case plan goals. However, the record does not support his contention. On the contrary, according to the record, petitioner was referred for a full array of services comprised of parenting classes, domestic violence counseling, outpatient substance abuse treatment, and sex offender treatment. If services were unreasonable, it is petitioner’s burden on appeal to demonstrate how that is so. Rather than specifying how the department failed to assist him in complying with his services, petitioner offers an unqualified assertion that services were unreasonable. Such an assertion without more does not warrant reversal of the court’s reasonable services finding. Consequently, we affirm it.
In support of his argument he substantially complied with his court-ordered services, petitioner attached to his petition certificates of completion, including one for a 26-session sex offender treatment program awarded to him approximately two weeks following the 18-month review hearing. Since this evidence was not before the juvenile court, we cannot consider it. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.) Rather, our review is confined to the appellate record, which the supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate reunification services and proceed to permanency planning.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.