Opinion
E076421
04-07-2021
A.B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Friedman and Cazares, and Monica Cazares for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J275671) OPINION ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Petition denied. Friedman and Cazares, and Monica Cazares for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
I
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner A.B. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 24-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.25) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now three-year-old son, G.B. She contends the juvenile court erred in finding it would be detrimental to return the child to her care, and further erred in finding the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) provided her with reasonable reunification services. We find no error and deny the petition.
All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
C.B., the alleged father, is not a party to this appeal.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
G.B. came to the attention of CFS on April 6, 2018, when he was a newborn infant due to Mother's mental health issues. The social worker responded to the hospital where Mother had given birth. Mother's nurse informed the social worker that Mother saw a psychiatrist once a week. The nurse believed Mother had bipolar and a multiple personality disorder. Mother was "overly anxious" and cried when G.B. cried. The nursing staff was concerned about Mother's emotional stability, lack of support, and ability to care for G.B. Father's whereabouts were unknown, and Mother lived with friends. Mother had no basic necessities for G.B., including a crib, and believed G.B. could sleep in a car seat until she could obtain a crib. Mother was unemployed and relied on social security benefits to financially support her.
Mother had a history with mental illness. She was diagnosed with bipolar and major depression when she was 18 years old and had prior hospitalizations for depression and suicidal ideations. She took Prozac, Abilify, and Depakote every day and had previously received weekly therapeutic sessions. Mother admitted to suffering from severe depression and reported that she had stopped taking her medication during her pregnancy. The hospital psychiatrist's report noted that Mother suffered from a major depressive disorder, severe and recurrent, without psychotic features. The report also stated that Mother had very limited coping skills, was prone to being overwhelmed, and that Mother should be further psychologically assessed. The social worker noted that Mother's moods and behaviors were inconsistent and erratic and that it was unknown whether she would remain compliant with her medication.
Mother resided with a friend and her family. When the social worker advised Mother she wanted to assess her living arrangements, Mother became erratic, stated her friend would kick her out of the home if the social worker were to appear at the home, and blamed the social worker for making her homeless. Mother's friend confirmed Mother was homeless and noted she was willing to help Mother with G.B. CFS attempted to develop a safety plan for G.B. to remain in Mother's care with Mother's friend as a support network. Mother, however, stated that her friend and her friend's family were not her family and she did not think of them as support. Mother also declined to verbally approve her safety plan and her demeanor vacillated between compliant and understanding to erratic, hostile, and aggressive. As a result of Mother's mental health instability and refusal to cooperate and comply with the safety plan, CFS placed G.B. in protective custody.
On April 11, 2018, CFS filed a petition on behalf of G.B. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support).
At the detention hearing on April 12, 2018, Mother requested G.B.'s return to her custody. Mother provided a report from Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc. (IBHS), which confirmed that Mother was a patient at the facility receiving mental health services and medication. The juvenile court denied Mother's request, temporarily detained G.B. from Mother's custody, and ordered CFS to assess G.B.'s return to Mother pending the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.
CFS recommended the allegations in the petition be found true and that Mother be provided with reunification services. The goal of Mother's reunification services was to demonstrate compliance with her medication regimen to stabilize her mental health. Mother's case plan consisted of general counseling, psychiatric or psychological evaluation, psychotropic medication evaluation and monitoring, and a parenting class. Mother consistently visited G.B., and the visits appeared to be going well.
At a hearing on June 28, 2018, Mother requested return of G.B. to her custody on family maintenance. The juvenile court requested CFS to assess Mother's home and the possibility of family maintenance.
On July 10, 2018, the social worker assessed Mother's new residence, an RV/trailer, and found the home did not meet the minimum standard of living requirements. The social worker noted that there were no appropriate steps into the trailer, and the trailer was unacceptably hot and lacked adequate restroom facilities, such as a working toilet and shower. Mother eventually acknowledged that the home was inappropriate for G.B. to live in. The social worker recommended against family maintenance services, explaining Mother presented as "overly anxious," sending numerous letters, emails, and notes, and making suicidal comments on social media.
The contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on July 12, 2018. After hearing testimony from Mother and her psychotherapist from IBHS and arguments from the parties, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition as amended and declared G.B. a dependent of the court. The court provided Mother with reunification services and visitation twice a week for two hours with authority to CFS to liberalize the visitations. The court ordered Mother to participate in her case plan, and also ordered Mother to undergo, over her objection, an independent psychological evaluation at CFS's expense.
For a 12-month period, from July 2018 to July 2019, CFS provided Mother with numerous referrals. Mother made minimal to moderate progress in her case plan and consistently visited G.B. However, Mother's accusatory behavior towards the first caregivers led them to give CFS a seven-day notice of removal of G.B. from their care on July 31, 2018. G.B. was then moved to another foster home. Mother also made accusations against G.B.'s second caregivers and bombarded them with text messages. Further, Mother had continued to reside in the trailer deemed unsafe for G.B. and believed the housing resources provided by CFS were "'useless'" and "'a joke.'" Mother eventually entered a housing program but was terminated from the program in July 2019 for being belligerent towards staff and residents and engaging in inappropriate behavior with a volunteer.
In addition, although Mother had completed her parenting education program and individual counseling, it was reported that Mother had not benefitted from her services because she was "'stuck' in the 'why' mode" and denied any issues with her mental health. The therapist recommended "an evaluation of [Mother's] mental health status." CFS was concerned that Mother had not fully benefitted from the services provided to her.
As to Mother's psychological evaluation, on October 5, 2018, CFS scheduled an appointment with Dr. Yang. However, Mother refused to participate because "she plead[ed] the 5th." Mother appeared extremely anxious, expressed she felt "cluster phobic," and declined to provide any personal information. Mother further was difficult to engage in an evaluation, she derailed from topic, became upset, frustrated, and hostile. Dr. Yang eventually terminated the evaluation due to Mother's uncooperative behavior and emotional instability. Also, when the evaluation was terminated, Mother refused to leave the room, "suddenly changed her demeanor and got down on her knees on the floor, begging and pleading to continue the evaluation." Another evaluation was scheduled for December 13, 2018, with Dr. Kinsman.
Dr. Kinsman observed that Mother appeared extremely reluctant to disclose personal information and what she perceived as personal faults. She was unwilling to view herself psychologically and had little insight into her behavior. Based on the psychological testing Mother completed, Dr. Kinsman found that Mother was "unlikely to admit responsibility for personal or family difficulties." In regard to the parenting considerations, Dr. Kinsman remarked that Mother did not feel emotionally close to G.B., which could limit her maternal capability. Dr. Kinsman diagnosed Mother as having unspecified bipolar and antisocial personality features. Dr. Kinsman recommended Mother participate in psychotherapy in order to "regulate her emotional responsiveness, and to enhance her ability to safely and effectively parent her child." He also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to determine Mother's optimal medication.
Regarding Mother's psychiatric examination, CFS struggled to find a provider to assess Mother's mental health. CFS suggested Mother seek a psychiatric assessment from her regular psychiatrist, but Mother did not see one on a regular basis. Mother scheduled an appointment with a psychiatrist where she had previously missed several appointments because she felt okay. On June 25, 2019, the social worker accompanied Mother to the appointment in order to provide the psychiatrist with a copy of Mother's psychological evaluation. The office declined to see Mother because she was involved in a court proceeding and the evaluation was ordered by the court. A referral to another psychiatrist yielded the same result—the psychiatrist declined to provide a court-ordered evaluation even if CFS paid for it.
By the 12-month review hearing, CFS recommended to terminate Mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26. CFS acknowledged Mother's compliance with her case plan, but noted that the failure to benefit from services was the primary concern for G.B.'s return to Mother's care. Mother continued to deny her mental health issues and believed that her bipolar diagnosis was made solely for her to qualify for social security benefits and not because she exhibited the symptoms.
At the contested 12-month review hearing on July 25, 2019, the parties agreed to continue Mother's reunification services up to the 18-month hearing. Mother submitted on the recommendation. The court granted Mother's request for CFS to pay for the psychiatric evaluation. The court found CFS had provided reasonable services to Mother at the six-month and 12-month review hearings.
By the time of the 18-month review hearing, CFS recommended to terminate Mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. During this reporting period, Mother had made minimal progress in her case plan, and although she had participated in services, she failed to benefit from the services provided. G.B.'s second caregiver considered requesting a 14-day notice to remove G.B. from her home after Mother's excessive complaining about the care G.B. received in her care. Mother continued to participate in individual counseling and her therapist reported she enjoyed working with Mother. However, she was concerned about Mother's social media posts that "portray[ed] [Mother] as emotionally unstable." Mother continued to reside in the inadequate trailer and was not receptive to the recommendations of available housing resources.
At a hearing on October 9, 2019, the juvenile court noted that housing was the only barrier to Mother's successful reunification. CFS, however, believed that "the housing issue is a symptom of her mental health." Mother argued that CFS provided unreasonable services because the court-ordered psychiatric evaluation was never completed because CFS struggled with finding a provider and ultimately tried to remove this component from Mother's case plan.
At the 18-month review hearing on October 23, 2019, after discussions about how to accomplish the psychiatric evaluation, the court provided Mother with an additional six months of services. Mother was willing to sign consents for release of her medical records concerning her psychiatric health kept by her primary care physician. The court found that CFS had provided reasonable services to Mother.
By January 7, 2020, Mother's counsel provided CFS with some of Mother's medical records, which documented Mother's history with mental illness. CFS continued its efforts to find a psychiatrist willing to provide a court-ordered evaluation. Additionally, on October 30, 2019, Mother advised the social worker that she had been in a domestic violence incident with the alleged father of G.B. Mother reported being concerned for her own safety because the alleged father had threatened to hurt her. The social worker therefore referred Mother to a domestic violence counselor and provided her with resources.
By the 24-month review hearing on April 23, 2020, CFS again recommended to terminate Mother's services and set a section 366.26 hearing. CFS noted that although Mother had complied with her case plan and consistently visited G.B., Mother had not benefitted from the services provided and concerns with Mother's ability to care for the child still existed. Despite Mother being compliant with her medication, she appeared to be obsessive-compulsive and paranoid. She excessively communicated with CFS staff, social workers, and CFS management, and continued to jeopardize G.B.'s placement with his second caregiver due to her overwhelming and accusative behavior to the caregiver. In January 2020, the social worker attempted an unsupervised visit with Mother, but Mother used 40 minutes of the visit to discuss the new drop-off arrangement and could not focus on the visit with G.B. Mother blamed the social worker for her difficulties in her relationship with the caregiver, which necessitated the social worker's presence in the child's exchange at the visits. Furthermore, Mother still resided in the trailer, despite having the opportunity to obtain adequate housing.
As to Mother's psychiatric evaluation, CFS outlined its numerous attempts to contact private and county psychiatrists to evaluate Mother. These providers, however, declined to conduct a court-ordered evaluation for liability reasons. Mother refused any further "'government intervention,'" sent the social worker numerous emails, and insinuated that CFS staff may consist of child sexual molesters.
CFS recommended against G.B.'s return to Mother for several reasons. First, despite Mother's claims that she was compliant with her medication, she continued to exhibit obsessive-compulsive behaviors and paranoia. The social worker opined that Mother "easily [became] fixated on a topic or issue and it [was] difficult for [her] to be able to move past it even though it hinder[ed] her ability to move forward with her case plan['s] goal of reunification." Second, adequate housing remained an issue for Mother, which was exemplified during the pandemic when Mother could no longer use her gym membership to shower. Despite the social worker encouraging Mother to focus on obtaining adequate housing, in April 2020, Mother declined to enter a second housing program because she was unable to preview her projected living arrangement before she left her trailer. The social worker explained to Mother that the housing project had a confidential address for confidentiality reasons, in part because it sheltered victims of domestic violence. On April 10, 2020, the executive director of the second housing program confirmed that Mother had three appointments to be admitted into the program. Mother, however, failed to appear. As a result, Mother was not allowed to enter the program and could not progress in her application for housing. The social worker believed CFS had provided Mother with the sufficient time and resources to locate safe and appropriate housing, but Mother did not avail herself to the available resources, resulting in unmet basic needs for G.B.'s health and safety.
Mother's psychological records indicated that housing had been a persistent issue for Mother. In November 2018, Mother's therapist noted: "[Mother] continues to wait for someone or something to come and fix her housing situation for her without her having to put forth much personal effort, and she continues to give reasons why she cannot repair it herself or find alternate housing . . . . [Mother] had mentioned a few months ago that maybe the best she could hope for was to spend this time with her son until he was taken for good and perhaps that has been her plan all along, although the thought of homelessness may be overriding her desire to reunify with her son (a real fear, especially with [w]inter coming)." The therapist also stated that Mother resisted making changes to her trailer, which CFS had identified as safety issues, and blamed G.B.'s counsel for opining that Mother had no insight into the reasons for G.B.'s removal. Mother thought minor's counsel was "ignorant and prejudicial." She also blamed the social worker for being prejudiced and biased. Mother's therapist identified being "verbally abusive to others" and "compulsive texting" as some of the components of Mother's treatment plan.
Mother also made continuous attempts to reconnect with the alleged father of the child. Mother initially denied knowing the alleged father's whereabouts. However, in May 2019, Mother acknowledged that he was her next-door neighbor. In October 2018, Mother disclosed to her psychologist that she had lost her voice from yelling at the wall in her trailer because she was frustrated because the alleged father's "'deliberate ignoring of her [was] triggering her.'" The social worker concluded that G.B.'s return to Mother's custody created a substantial risk of detriment because Mother had not benefitted from the services provided to stabilize her mental health and to obtain adequate housing.
On April 12, 2018, in response to the juvenile court's question if Mother knew in which city the alleged father resided, Mother responded: "Not anymore."
Due to the pandemic, on April 23, 2020, and again on May 28, 2020, the 24-month review hearing was continued. At both hearings, the juvenile court found that CFS had provided Mother with reasonable reunification services.
On July 28, 2020, the social worker agreed to assess Mother's trailer at Mother's request. However, a few minutes before the scheduled appointment, Mother cancelled the assessment because of a "'toilet overflow.'" On August 13, 2020, Mother advised the social worker that she was considering renting a dormitory room from a university and wanted CFS to pay for her move-in fee. During a conversation with the social worker regarding the reasons for CFS's involvement in the case, Mother believed CFS had become involved in the case because of inadequate housing and was unable to demonstrate an insight into how her mental health impacted her parenting skills. Mother also continued to exhibit signs of depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The social worker was concerned about a lack of support as Mother's safety network was limited to family and friends willing to provide emotional support only. The social worker maintained that Mother had not benefitted from the services provided "to stabilize her mental health and obtain adequate housing for herself and the child."
At a hearing on October 7, 2020, the juvenile court and the parties discussed the issue of Mother's psychiatric evaluation. Ultimately, the court continued the matter to allow Mother's counsel to arrange a psychological evaluation for Mother.
By December 7, 2020, CFS continued to recommend termination of Mother's services. Mother discontinued her individual counseling sessions as she felt her therapist was not supportive. She also revoked her consent for the social worker to receive updates from the therapist. CFS was thus unable to receive any progress reports from Mother's counseling sessions. Mother's therapist was concerned about her appearance, inadequate housing, and limited support. Mother switched her counseling sessions to a different provider. On November 4, 2020, Mother participated in a psychiatric examination arranged by her counsel.
CFS also made another attempt to assess Mother's housing on November 24, 2020. However, Mother missed the appointment, later excusing her failure to keep the appointment due to oversleeping. As to Mother's visits with G.B., the social worker observed that the child cried and exhibited hesitancy to stay in the same visitation room with Mother and it took G.B. approximately 10 to 15 minutes to warm up to Mother. G.B. also attempted to follow the social worker out of the visitation room instead of staying with Mother. On one occasion, the social worker had to stay with G.B. in the visitation room for 40 minutes because the child cried and refused to go with Mother. On at least four other occasions, G.B. cried and refused to stay in the visitation room with Mother. When the child's caregiver was present, the child clung to her, cried, and refused to go with Mother. Mother was convinced G.B. was mimicking the social worker and the caregiver's "'attitude'" towards her. The social worker encouraged Mother to take advantage of her unsupervised visits by taking G.B. outside the office, but Mother preferred to stay at the CFS office during her visits. Mother eventually took G.B. to a restaurant across the street from the office.
By January 2021, Mother provided her psychiatric records from her new medical provider. According to the records, Mother saw Dr. Masih on March 19, 2020, April 21, 2020, and November 4, 2020. Mother reported a history of psychiatric hospitalizations consisting of seven hospitalizations with the last admission in 2013. Mother stated that she was struggling with "'hellish depression'" and believed she was misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder. Mother reported being medication complaint. Dr. Masih found that Mother exhibited symptoms of depression, anxiety, mania, and "PTSD." Dr. Masih also noted that Mother appeared "[d]isheveled, [m]aloderous, [u]nwashed hair and [w]earing dirty clothing." Dr. Masih adjusted Mother's medication by increasing her intake of Prozac, including a medication for insomnia, and discontinuing Depakote.
The contested 24-month review hearing was held on January 11, 2021. At that time, Dr. Masih, the social worker, and Mother testified. Mother acknowledged that her trailer was not suitable for G.B. Mother's counsel argued that housing was the only issue that Mother was facing at the time of the section 366.25 hearing and believed that the court could not proceed to the section 366.26 hearing. Mother's counsel also believed that CFS had not provided reasonable services to Mother because it failed to set up a psychiatric evaluation for Mother. Minor's counsel and counsel for CFS argued Mother had not benefitted from services and G.B.'s return to Mother would pose a risk to the child because Mother had no ability to care for G.B. on her own. CFS's counsel also asserted that reasonable services had been provided.
The court found that CFS had made "extreme efforts to try to get [a psychiatric evaluation] done" and that CFS had provided Mother with reasonable services. The court was "a little unclear as to why Mom didn't tell anyone, tell the social worker at least, in 2020 that she was seeing Dr. Masih." The court was also concerned that Mother did not see Dr. Masih for six months, noting Mother had provided no satisfactory "explanation of why there was that gap when he had set up appointments for her." The court did not believe there were any other services, even if offered under the child's permanent plan, that would resolve the issues after the "two and a half years of extensive services" already provided. The court thus found return of G.B. to Mother's care was detrimental, terminated Mother's reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition.
III
DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the juvenile court's detriment and reasonable services findings. She contends there was no evidence of detriment in returning G.B. to her care. She also claims the court erred in terminating her services because the services she received were unreasonable since CFS was unable to provide her with a referral to a psychiatrist. We disagree.
A. Risk of Detriment
Section 366.25 governs cases in which reunification services have been extended to 24 months. At a 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court must order the return of a child to the parent's physical custody unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(1).) If the child is not returned to his parents at the 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court must set a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(3).) In reviewing the juvenile court's detriment determination, we apply a substantial evidence test. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400-1401.)
Mother contends that there was little evidence to warrant a detriment finding. We disagree. The evidence summarized above amply supports the juvenile court's finding that returning G.B. to Mother's custody would pose a substantial risk of such detriment. Although Mother completed her case plan, she had not benefitted from the services received. Mother has had mental health issues since she was 18 years old. While she has made recurring efforts to control her mental illness, the efforts have not been successful on a sustained basis. Despite receiving services, Mother continued to demonstrate emotional instability, obsessive-compulsive behavior, depression, anxiety, irrational thoughts, and paranoia. Mother reported to Dr. Masih that she was struggling with "'hellish depression,'" but believed she was misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder. In fact, she believed that her bipolar diagnosis was made solely for her to qualify for social security benefits and not because she exhibited the symptoms. Furthermore, as the juvenile court observed, Mother stopped seeing Dr. Masih for a six-month period from May 2020 to October 2020, despite suffering from severe mental health issues.
Moreover, Mother was unable to demonstrate an insight into how her mental health impacted her parenting skills and continued to have inappropriate housing. G.B. was removed from Mother's custody when he was a newborn. He cried and refused to stay in the visitation room with Mother during her visits in late 2020. By the January 11, 2021 contested 24-month review hearing, 32 months had passed since G.B.'s detention, and Mother still had unstable housing. After 32 months of services, Mother's mental health was still not in control as she continued to demonstrate an inability to control her mental illness. These issues placed G.B. at serious risk of harm. In short, as of the 24-month hearing, Mother was not yet capable of providing G.B. with a safe and secure home. Although the record indicates that she loves G.B., there is substantial evidence that after having received reasonable services for an extended period of time, Mother was unable to consistently provide a nondetrimental environment for the child and that returning him to her care and custody would be detrimental.
Mother argues she consistently visited G.B. and substantially completed her case plan. Mother's compliance with her reunification service plan is commendable, but not dispositive. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704 ["Compliance with the reunification plan is certainly a pertinent consideration at the section 366.22 hearing; however, it is not the sole concern before the dependency court judge"].) Although a parent's compliance with his or her case plan must be considered by the juvenile court, it is only one factor in determining whether returning the child presents a risk of detriment. (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 899.)
In view of our standard of review (In re Brian M. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1401 [substantial evidence]), and Mother's appellate burden (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947 [parent has burden on appeal to show there is no substantial evidence to support the finding or order]), we cannot disturb the juvenile court's finding. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's ruling that returning G.B. to Mother would be detrimental.
B. Reasonableness of Services
Despite having received 32 months of reunification services, Mother contends there is no substantial evidence to support the finding she was provided reasonable services due to the lack of timeliness of psychological and psychiatric evaluations. We reject this contention.
A reasonable services finding is not a prerequisite to setting a section 366.26 hearing following a 24-month hearing, and there is no authority for extending services further. G.B. was a newborn infant when taken into protective custody. When a child under three years of age is removed from the parents' care, the parents ordinarily are entitled to receive family reunification services only "for a period of 6 months from the dispositional hearing as provided in subdivision (e) of [s]ection 366.21, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care . . . ." (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The statute governing six-month and 12-month review hearings, section 366.21, specifically requires the juvenile court to make a reasonable services finding before it may schedule a section 366.26 hearing. (See § 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C)(ii) ["The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to [s]ection 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided . . . ."].) Here, at the six-month and 12-month review hearings, the court found reasonable services had been provided. After the parties agreed to provide Mother an additional six months of services, the matter was continued for an 18-month review hearing.
Section 366.22 allows juvenile courts at the 18-month review hearing to extend services for another six months—to a 24-month maximum—under very limited and exceptional circumstances. (§ 366.22, subds. (a) & (b).) If the court cannot return the child to the parents at the 18-month review hearing, it must set a section 366.26 hearing "[u]nless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met . . . ." (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) And while the juvenile court must make a reasonable services finding, setting a section 366.26 hearing is not conditioned upon such a finding. (See Earl L. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1505 (Earl L.); Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1511-1512 (Denny H.) [at the 18-month permanency review hearing, the authority of the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing is not conditioned on a reasonable services finding].)
Section 366.22, subdivision (b), sets forth the only circumstances permitting extending services for another six months at the 18-month review hearing. The juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence the best interest of the child would be served by additional services because the parent has made substantial progress in a "court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program" or has been "recently discharged" from custody or institutionalization and has made substantial progress in establishing a safe home following that recent release. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).)
Thus, despite having passed the statutory limit of 12 months of services for a very young child (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B)), having received 18 months of reasonable reunification services, and there being a continued risk of detriment, the court ordered another six months of services and set a 24-month review hearing. Section 366.25 governs the 24-month review hearing. Section 366.25, subdivision (a), is similar to section 366.22, subdivision (a). It provides that if the child cannot be returned to the parents at the 24-month review hearing, the court shall order a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(3).) And like section 366.22, subdivision (a), although section 366.25, subdivision (a), requires the court to make a reasonable services finding, it does not expressly condition setting a section 366.26 hearing upon that finding. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(3); Denny H., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1511-1512.) Here, the juvenile court found that reasonable services had been provided to Mother at the six-month, 12-month, 18-month, and 24-month review hearings. Mother did not object, and therefore she has forfeited her right to assert error in this court. (See Los Angeles County Dept. of Children etc. Services v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1093 [a parent may not "wait silently by until the final reunification review hearing to seek an extended reunification period based on a perceived inadequacy in the reunification services occurring long before that hearing"]; In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [forfeiture rule applies in dependency cases], superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962.)
In any event, Mother's challenge to the services provided is without merit and concerns an order made at the 18-month review hearing. Mother largely complains CFS failed to timely secure a psychiatrist to examine her, to her detriment, and thus, the court erred in finding reasonable services had been provided at the six-month, 12-month, 18-month, and 24-month review hearings. We disagree. The record amply supports the court's reasonable services findings. (See In re J.E. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 557, 566 [we review the juvenile court's order finding that reasonable services were offered under the substantial evidence standard].) As the court noted, CFS had made "extreme efforts to try to get [a psychiatric evaluation] done." From April 2018 to January 2021, CFS provided Mother a full array of services to address the problems that necessitated G.B.'s removal. However, ultimately Mother failed to reunify with G.B. because she failed to benefit from the services provided, she was not willing or able to control her severe mental illness to become a safe parent, and she was unwilling to secure appropriate housing for herself and G.B.
Furthermore, we need not decide whether the final services were reasonable, because as explained by the court in Earl L., supra, 199 Cal.App.4th 1490, in the context of a referral order made at the 18-month review hearing under section 366.22, subdivision (a), even if the services in that final review period were found to be unreasonable, the court was required to set a section 366.26 hearing. Mother here was ultimately afforded far in excess of 24 months of reunification services—almost 32 months total—and was still unable to assume custody of G.B. at the conclusion of that period. The court was required to set a section 366.26 hearing at the end of the 24-month period without regard to whether the services provided in the final review period were deemed reasonable. Contrary to Mother's claim, there is no authority for the juvenile court to continue reunification services beyond 24 months. (See § 366.25, subd. (a)(3) [section 366.26 hearing must be ordered if child not returned to parent at 24-month review hearing].) We conclude Mother was provided with reasonable services.
IV
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: FIELDS
J. RAPHAEL
J.