Opinion
F043034.
7-10-2003
ANTHONY M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent, STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Stephen L. Foley, for Petitioner. No appearance, for Respondent. Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l ); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) of respondent courts order that a section 366.26 hearing be held on July 15, 2003, as to his daughter A. He contends the court erred in terminating reunification services. We will deny the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In July 2001, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) removed petitioners then six-year-old daughter, A., from his custody after his then 21— and 16-year-old stepdaughters reported that he had been sexually molesting them for approximately five years. Petitioner denied the molestation, however, was arrested and charged with various sexual offenses. The agency took A. into protective custody and filed a dependency petition on her behalf pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (d) (sexual abuse).
The juvenile court detained A. and found the allegations true. After a contested dispositional hearing, the court adjudged A. a dependent and ordered petitioner to successfully complete counseling for sexual perpetrators offered at Parents United.
In its six-month review, the agency reported petitioner was progressing in all aspects of his case plan except sexual abuse counseling. He enrolled in Parents United, however, according to the clinical director, Dr. Debra Johnson, Ph.D., he was "entrenched in ... denial...." Consequently, she considered reunification unlikely in the near future. However, she remained hopeful that he could benefit from the program even in his state of denial. At the six-month review hearing, the court found petitioner was provided reasonable services and continued services for another six months.
By the 12-month review, petitioner completed all the case plan requirements, except for sexual abuse counseling. In March 2002, he stopped attending without explanation. In May 2002, he was dropped from the program for poor attendance and lack of progress.
In a letter dated June 12, 2002, the caseworker asked Dr. Johnson for a progress letter, outlining specifically what petitioner needed to do in counseling to successfully reunify with his daughter. Dr. Johnson responded by letter stating:
"[Petitioner] dropped out of the program without any explanation and reports from his group therapist [were] that he did not do anything in group other than speak up one time to complain about Child Protective Services to snicker at what was being discussed in the group. Thus he left this program deemed high-risk to reoffend. There is nothing in his behavior that persuaded us that he had not molested or that he would not molest.... As far as what [he has to do] to successfully [complete the program], we can make no statement since he has never allowed us to get to know him so that we could make insightful treatment recommendations."
Despite petitioners failure to complete sexual abuse counseling, the agency recommended the court grant him the full 18 months of services. The court found petitioner was provided reasonable services and continued services for another six months.
In its 18-month review, the agency recommended the court terminate reunification services because petitioner had not successfully completed sexual abuse counseling. He refused to continue counseling through Parents United, apparently believing counseling was contingent on him admitting he sexually molested the girls. As a result, petitioner asked the agency for a referral to a comparable program. As to that issue, the caseworker reported:
"The undersigned has instructed [petitioner] that Parents United is the required program, as it can holistically deal with the family. The contention that Parents United might require an admission of guilt from [petitioner] was addressed in the undersigneds clarification letter to Debra Johnson. Parents United offered [petitioner] counseling on understanding the dynamics and harm of molest, but found the poor attendance [and] [petitioners attitudes] were the barriers to successfully completing the program. The undersigned knows of no comparable program suitable to this familys needs."
Additionally, petitioner harbored the false impression that a successful resolution of his pending criminal matter would simultaneously resolve the dependency matter. The caseworker reported, "Throughout reunification, [petitioner has] strategized that [he] would have the criminal case thrown out of court and [the agency] along with it to use [his words]."
A contested 18-month review hearing was conducted on May 2, 2003. The court found petitioner was provided reasonable services and ordered them terminated. On May 27, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary writ.
A.s mother also filed an extraordinary writ petition in this courts case No. F043037.
Petitioner was provided reasonable services.
Petitioner claims he was not provided reasonable services because the only counseling option offered, i.e., perpetrator counseling through Parents United, required him to admit guilt in violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate. We disagree.
Reasonable services have been provided where the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 403, 414, 286 Cal. Rptr. 592.) On review of sufficiency of reunification services, a reviewing courts sole task is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the trial courts finding that reasonable services were provided or offered. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)
In this case, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding petitioner was provided reasonable services. Petitioner was referred to and participating in Parents United that, according to the caseworker, offered the only counseling program that would satisfy his reunification plan requirement. Further, petitioners contention he had to admit guilt to successfully complete counseling is not borne out by the evidence. The caseworker clarified through Dr. Johnson that petitioner could benefit from the program without having to admit guilt. Even if court-ordered counseling required an admission, we have held it would not violate his Fifth Amendment right. (In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 504, 521, 254 Cal. Rptr. 883.) Exactly what petitioner had to do to successfully complete the program, however, is unclear because, according, to Dr. Johnson, he refused to meaningfully participate while attending counseling sessions and then dropped out of the program. On this evidence, we conclude petitioner was provided reasonable services. He simply refused to avail himself of them.
II. The court properly terminated reunification services.
Petitioner claims there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services. We disagree.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court must return the minor child to his or her parent(s) unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety and protection of the child. (& sect; 366.22, subd. (a).) The failure of the parent to participate regularly in and make substantive progress in court-ordered services is prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. (Ibid .) If the court determines that the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of the parent(s), the court must refer the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. (Id .) On review, we will affirm a juvenile courts order terminating reunification services if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.)
In this case, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts order terminating services. Petitioners refusal to complete counseling at Parents United is prima facie evidence he posed a continuing risk of detriment to his daughter. Absent exceptional circumstances not presented by these facts (i.e., the court did not order a reunification plan, the court found reasonable services were not offered or the court found the best interests of the minor would be served by continued services), the juvenile court was compelled to proceed to permanency planning. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.) We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.