Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner, Super. Ct. No. 510190.
Catherine A. Ries, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her son A. 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
This case arises from a contested six-month review hearing at which the juvenile court terminated petitioner’s reunification services. A significant aspect of this case is that petitioner was a minor throughout the proceedings under review. She attained majority in early May 2008. At issue is whether the social services agency (agency) provided petitioner services commensurate with her age and maturity and whether there was a substantial probability A. could be returned to her custody with continued services.
Petitioner has a history of anxiety and depression with two previous hospitalizations for suicide attempts at ages 14 and 15. She also has a history of drug use and failure to follow through with treatment.
Dependency proceedings were initiated in July 2007 when then 17-year-old petitioner was arrested and placed in juvenile hall for using methamphetamine in violation of her probation. The agency took then 10-month-old A. into protective custody and placed him with his maternal aunt.
The juvenile court ordered A. detained and appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem for petitioner. At the jurisdiction/dispositional hearing in August 2007, the juvenile court adjudged A. a dependent of the court and ordered a plan of reunification for petitioner requiring her to participate in mental health counseling, complete a parenting program and a substance abuse assessment, submit to random drug testing and participate in Substance Abuse Family Education (SAFE) court. The court set the six-month review hearing for February 2008.
In late August 2007, petitioner was placed in a foster home. Over the next several months, she visited A. every Sunday for the day. She also enrolled in outpatient drug treatment, parenting classes and attended her first counseling session.
However, in mid-November 2007, petitioner informed her caseworker during a meeting that she no longer wanted to participate in the SAFE court. Rather, she wanted “regular” reunification services. She also told the caseworker she no longer wanted to go to her office or even see her anymore. That same day, petitioner ran away from her foster home after having an altercation with her foster mother. The next day, she turned herself in and was placed in juvenile hall for four days. She was then placed in a second foster home from which she ran away in late November 2007.
Petitioner’s caseworker filed a section 388 petition asking the court to remove SAFE court as one of petitioner’s case plan components. In the petition, the caseworker stated she supported the recommendation because petitioner’s progress was minimal, she was disrespectful to the staff and resisted following the court’s directives.
In December 2007, the juvenile court granted the section 388 petition. Neither petitioner, still a runaway, nor her guardian ad litem, were present for the hearing. By this time, petitioner had been discharged from drug treatment, was in violation of her probation, and was not visiting A.
While a runaway, petitioner kept in contact with her caseworker. Petitioner admitted using alcohol and marijuana but denied using methamphetamine. Her caseworker encouraged her to turn herself in and suggested she contact several places, including a specific inpatient drug treatment facility (facility). In January 2008, petitioner was placed on the facility’s waiting list and instructed to call in daily.
In mid-January 2008, petitioner requested a visit with A. and several visits were arranged. However, petitioner did not show up out of fear of being arrested by probation. In early February 2008, petitioner turned herself in and was arrested by the juvenile probation officer and placed in juvenile hall where she had her first visit with A. since November 2007.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the court terminate petitioner’s reunification services and set a hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for A. with his maternal aunt and her husband. The court set a contested six-month review hearing which was conducted in February 2008.
At the contested hearing, the caseworker testified that, prior to petitioner’s running away, she tried to assist petitioner by providing her transportation to drug treatment, meeting with petitioner and the SAFE court counselor to discuss ways the agency would further assist petitioner and engaging petitioner’s foster parents in the meetings. She also reviewed petitioner’s case plan with her, explained the requirements of the drug treatment program, tried to motivate her and advised her she only had six months in which to reunify with A. However, petitioner’s progress in drug treatment was minimal. She was reluctant to attend the required Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings, she was not journaling on a daily basis as directed, she was reluctant to obtain a sponsor and she was not contributing to the group process. In addition, she had altercations with the staff and her peers.
The caseworker further testified she treated petitioner like an adult, taking into consideration petitioner’s level of maturity. When asked if she knew the facility did not admit minors, the caseworker testified the facility accepts clients regardless of age following an assessment.
The caseworker also testified she did not believe there was any animosity between herself and petitioner even though petitioner told her she did not want her as her caseworker because she is Mexican. She still felt she could be effective for petitioner and petitioner would be responsive.
Petitioner testified she was active in drug treatment and did not believe her caseworker encouraged her in a way that was helpful or helped her as much as she could. She also testified her second foster mother spoke Guatemalan, which she did not understand and spoke English with a very heavy accent. Consequently, she was unable to communicate with her. She stated during her two-month absence, she was in contact with the caseworker and called the facility every day for admittance. She stated she turned herself in because it was her responsibility as a mother to do so. She testified she used marijuana until her arrest and methamphetamine once on December 21, 2007. She stated she was no longer using marijuana but believed it was probably still in her system. She gave up her “good time credits” to remain in juvenile hall until her 18th birthday at which time she would be placed in a 28-day inpatient drug treatment facility. She testified she was under a physician’s treatment and would use whatever services were available while in juvenile hall. She testified she was never referred to a program designed for teenagers but believed such a program might have helped her recover.
Following argument, the court found petitioner was provided reasonable services given her age and level of maturity but failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress in her court-ordered services. Consequently, the court ordered petitioner’s services terminated and set a permanency planning hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
A. Reunification Services
Petitioner argues reunification services were unreasonable both as to the specific services offered as well as the manner in which they were provided. We disagree.
Services are reasonable when the supervising agency identifies the family’s problems, offers services targeting those problems, maintains reasonable contact with the parent, and makes reasonable efforts to assist in areas where compliance is difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
With respect to the specific services offered, petitioner argues the agency should have referred her to a teen recovery program. Unlike the adult recovery program to which she was referred, a teen recovery program would have addressed the unique problems she faced as a teenage mother with a family history of teen pregnancy and substance abuse. Petitioner claims that a teen recovery program exists in her county. However, that evidence was not before the juvenile court nor does petitioner establish that a program designed for teenagers, even if one was available, was better suited to her needs. At the age of 17, she was nearly an adult. Furthermore, the caseworker testified that she considered petitioner’s maturity level in determining where to refer her.
With respect to the caseworker’s efforts to facilitate reunification, petitioner essentially asserts the caseworker was out of touch with her needs. The caseworker placed her with a Guatemalan family with whom she could not communicate, referred her to a drug treatment facility that would not accept anyone under the age of 18 and refused to acknowledge the strain in their relationship following petitioner’s insults and request for a new caseworker. As to placement, petitioner ignores the fact that she was placed with the Guatemalan family by her probation officer not the caseworker. She also misstates the evidence. The caseworker testified that the drug treatment facility admitted clients regardless of their age. Finally, the caseworker testified she did not hold petitioner’s comments against her and it did not affect her desire to facilitate services.
Petitioner has failed to show how participating in a teen recovery program, having a different caseworker or being in a different foster home would have enhanced her chances of reunifying. Consequently, we conclude she was provided reasonable services.
B. Substantial Probability of Return
Petitioner argues the court erred in finding there was not a substantial probability A. could be returned to her care with continued services. We disagree.
In order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent and safely maintained in the parent’s care within the extended time, the court must find the parent met the following three requirements: (1) regularly visited the child; (2) made significant progress in resolving the problem prompting removal of the child; and (3) demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection and well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
In this case, petitioner had not satisfied any much less all of the three criteria. She did not regularly visit A., make any progress or demonstrate the ability to complete the objectives of her reunification plan and safely parent her son. Accordingly, the juvenile court properly found there was not a substantial probability of return.
C. Detriment
Petitioner appears to argue, though it is not clear, that the juvenile court could not properly find it would be detrimental to return A. to her custody because reunification services were not reasonable. Her argument, so stated, has no legal basis. As long as detriment exists, the juvenile court cannot return the child to parental custody whether the services provided were reasonable or not. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) Assuming reasonable services would eliminate the detriment posed by the parent and they were not provided, then the result is that they would be continued, not that the child would be returned to parental custody. (Ibid.) We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.