Opinion
F063469 Super. Ct. No. 11CEJ300025-1
01-10-2012
ANDREA G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMEN OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Cheryl K. Turner for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Mary D. Dolas, Commissioner.
Cheryl K. Turner for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Andrea seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's order issued at a contested six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her 11-month-old son, Isaac. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
--------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In early February 2011, newborn Isaac was taken into protective custody at the hospital after he and his mother, Andrea, tested positive for drugs. Isaac was discharged from the hospital into foster care.
The juvenile court ordered Isaac detained and ordered the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) to offer Andrea parenting classes, mental health and substance abuse evaluations, and random drug testing. The court also ordered reasonable supervised visitation.
In early February 2011, Andrea entered inpatient substance abuse treatment where she remained for one day. She tested positive for methamphetamine the day after that and then stopped drug testing. In early March, Andrea was dropped from her parenting class for nonattendance and was removed from the visitation list for not visiting Isaac. She never scheduled a mental health assessment.
In late March 2011, the juvenile court conducted the dispositional hearing. Andrea did not appear. The court ordered Isaac removed from Andrea's custody and ordered the services previously offered as her reunification plan. The court set the six-month review hearing for September 2011.
Meanwhile, in late May 2011, Andrea was arrested for first-degree burglary and, in August, was sentenced to a little over five months in county jail. The department first became aware that Andrea was incarcerated in late August when Andrea contacted social worker Tracy Knott. Ms. Knott told Andrea that she would visit her and advised her to attend parenting classes and Alcohols Anonymous (AA) meetings in the jail.
In September 2011, the department prepared its report for the six-month review hearing and recommended that the juvenile court terminate Andrea's reunification services. The department informed the juvenile court that Andrea last visited Isaac in early March 2011 and had not maintained contact with the department. In addition, Andrea enrolled in parenting classes at the jail in July 2011, however, was disenrolled for failure to attend. She reenrolled in August. The department further informed the juvenile court that Isaac was placed with his maternal grandmother.
The six-month review hearing was continued and conducted as a contested hearing in October 2011. Ms. Knott testified that, approximately two weeks after the dispositional hearing, she attempted to contact Andrea by going to an address she listed with the court and calling the telephone number she provided, however, she was told Andrea no longer lived there. In addition, she saw the maternal grandmother monthly and each time asked her if she had any contact with Andrea. The grandmother stated she had not had contact and did not know where Andrea was. In July 2011, Ms. Knott initiated a parent search for Andrea through the sheriff's department but was unable to locate her.
Ms. Knott also testified that she did not arrange visitation for Andrea after her incarceration because she did not know where Andrea was and, once they had contact, Andrea did not request visitation.
Andrea appeared in custody and testified. Asked why she did not comply with her court-ordered services, she responded: "I just didn't go. The three months I was outside, I didn't go. And I got locked up the three months before the six months were over." She was also asked what services, other than parenting instruction, were available in jail. She said AA meetings and relationship building but she did not attend those programs because she was working in the laundry room from 5:00 a.m. until about noon or 1:30 p.m. She said she did not know when the AA meetings were conducted. She also testified that the social worker did not visit her in jail after she spoke to her in August 2011.
Andrea also testified that she was told at sentencing that she would be admitted to an inpatient drug facility as soon as there was space available. She said she would comply with treatment to regain custody of her child.
Following testimony, Andrea's attorney argued that Andrea was not provided reasonable services because Ms. Knott did not make reasonable attempts to locate her, identify the services available to her in jail, regularly visit her, and arrange visitation with Isaac.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that the department provided Andrea reasonable services but that she made choices that prevented her from taking advantage of them. The court also found it would be detrimental to return Isaac to her custody. Consequently, the court terminated Andrea's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
I. Detriment
Andrea contends that the juvenile court erred in finding it would be detrimental to return Isaac to her custody. At the same time, she concedes that the juvenile court properly found detriment: "Here, the court rightly found that return of the child to the mother [at this time] would create substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (Writ petition at p. 8.) In light of Andrea's concession, we need not address the issue further.
II. Reasonableness of Services
Andrea contends that the juvenile court erred in finding she was provided reasonable services, claiming the department did not make reasonable efforts to assist her in accessing services. Specifically, Andrea contends Ms. Knott delayed in searching for her, did not identify the services available to her in jail or ascertain the plan to transfer her to a drug and alcohol treatment center where she could visit and have custody of Isaac. We find no merit to her contentions.
The department has a duty to devise and implement a services plan based on a goal of reunification. (In re Mario C. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 599, 603-604.) To that end, the department is required to make a good faith effort to help the parent access services. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) However, reunification services are voluntary and the department cannot force an unwilling and/or indifferent parent to participate in the case plan. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365.)
In assessing the reasonableness of reunification services, the juvenile court evaluates not only the department's efforts to assist the parent in accessing the services but also the parent's efforts to avail him or herself of the services. On appeal, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating error. (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632.)
In this case, Andrea received referrals for all her court-ordered services but chose not to participate. She spent one day in inpatient treatment, left the program, and continued using drugs. She was dropped from her parenting class for nonattendance and removed from the visitation list for not visiting. By the dispositional hearing in late March 2011, Andrea had stopped attending the hearings and severed contact with the department. Ms. Knott tried to contact her through all the available means to no avail. At the same time, Andrea knew she was required to maintain contact with the department but chose not to do so. Instead, she let five months pass before she contacted Ms. Knott to let her know she was incarcerated. During that time, Andrea discovered that parenting classes and AA meetings were available to her but did not take full advantage of them. She participated in some parenting classes but only after signing up for the parenting program twice. She did not attend AA meetings at all, claiming they conflicted with her work schedule. However, she testified she did not know when the meetings were conducted. Finally, she did not ask for visitation when she spoke to Ms. Knott even though she had not seen Isaac since March 2011.
We conclude, under the circumstances, the juvenile court properly found that Andrea received reasonable services. Andrea was unwilling to participate in her services both in and out of custody, was disinterested in visiting Isaac, and failed to maintain contact with the department. She cannot now claim that the department failed in its efforts to assist her when she made no effort to assist herself. We find no error on this record.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.