Opinion
A136808
02-01-2013
A.P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEL NORTE COUNTY, Respondent; DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al., Real Parties 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JVSQ-11-6149)
A.P. (Mother) seeks extraordinary relief from an order of the Del Norte County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, entered October 10, 2012, at the conclusion of a continued six-month status review hearing. At that time the juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for her daughter D.R. (born April 2011). Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding that the Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) offered or provided her with reasonable reunification services. Specifically, she claims the Department failed to accommodate her "educational and emotional handicaps." We conclude substantial evidence supports the challenged finding, and deny on the merits Mother's petition for extraordinary writ.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Section 366.26, subdivision (l)(1)(A) bars review on appeal if the aggrieved party has not made a timely writ challenge to an order setting a hearing under section 366.26, and encourages the appellate court to determine such writ petitions on their merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4)(B).)
BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2011, a deputy sheriff of the Del Norte County Sheriff's Office visited the rental trailer where Mother and V.R. (Father) resided with the minor, D.R., who was then some four months old. Mother reported she had asked her aunt to care for the infant overnight, three days earlier, but the aunt had since refused to return the child, because she believed the trailer was unsafe and Mother was not properly caring for D.R. The aunt had told Mother she was going to call the Department to report the unsafe conditions of her home. The deputy observed that the trailer was "cluttered, dirty and smelled moldy," and, aside from an upright car seat, contained no infant items such as a crib or high chair, and no basic infant supplies. The deputy summoned an on-call social worker (SW) to the home, and confirmed the minor was with the aunt. Two responding SW's informed the deputy they had received several previous referrals concerning Mother and the baby. Both SW's found the trailer to be dirty and smelling strongly of body odor and garbage. There were flies flying about, as well as several potential hazards including a broken window, a knife possibly within the child's reach, and boards nailed into the floor that could injure the child if she were left on the floor. One SW telephoned the aunt, who said she had seen Father smoking methamphetamine in the same room in which the baby was situated. The aunt also said when she first brought the baby home the baby badly needed a change of diaper and had a severe rash. The aunt had also learned that the parents had returned a supply of diapers back to the store and had none at home. Father stated, among other things, he suffered from "Bi-Polar and Schizophrenia," experienced auditory and visual hallucinations, had recently seen a demon, and acknowledged that "people think I'm crazy." The deputy and one of the SW's then went to the aunt's home and placed D.R. in protective custody.
The previous month the parents had agreed to a voluntary safety plan requiring them to clean the trailer and allow the Department to return to inspect the "health . . . and safety" of the home.
The minor later tested positive for methamphetamines through a hair follicle test. The Department, however, had been unable to confirm reports both parents used marijuana and methamphetamine, in that they had both subsequently tested negative on two occasions.
Four days later, on September 13, the Department initiated this proceeding with a petition under section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court ordered formal detention the next day. The minute order on this date noted the detention report had been read to Mother, "as she has a hard time reading." The juvenile court ordered psychological evaluations for both parents on September 30.
The jurisdictional report, completed on September 27, 2011, noted "[t]he parents will need extra help and guidance in child care, budgeting, personal hygiene, locating safe housing, and other areas of their lives." During the jurisdictional hearing on November 2, one of the investigating SW's expressed a concern that, in her professional opinion, both "appeared . . . to have some sort of cognitive or developmental delay" affecting their ability to care for the child's needs. The assigned SW noted psychological evaluations ordered for both parents had not yet been completed. Mother additionally testified, stating, among other things, that she had pursued a mental health referral but had been "turned . . . away" because she "did not need further assistance."
At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the following allegations under section 300, subdivision (b): (1) on September 9, a deputy sheriff found the parents not able to meet their child's immediate needs for food, shelter, and basic needs; (2) the conditions of their home were unsafe, due to the conditions summarized above; (3) the child has been exposed to drug use by the parents, which pervades their daily activities and places the child at risk of abuse or neglect; (4) the parents have failed to assure the child's medical appointments and immunizations, placing the child at risk of medical neglect; (5) Father suffers from untreated schizophrenia, and experiences auditory and visual hallucinations placing the child at risk of harm; and (6) previous voluntary services offered under section 301 were not effective in mitigating the problems. Afterwards, the court asked parents' counsel if they needed any additional services pending the dispositional hearing, and Mother's counsel noted "[o]ne small thing"—Mother was "not able to read." He requested the dispositional report be completed so he would have sufficient time to read it to Mother before the hearing. The assigned SW observed Mother could "read somewhat" but did need assistance, and she was aware of this need.
The dispositional report completed December 14, 2011, recommended continued out-of-home custody and reunification services for the parents. It noted both parents were currently homeless, and none of their family members in the area were willing to provide them with housing. Mother's most recent attempt to secure Social Security income had been denied and the assigned SW was working with her to begin the appeal process, which Mother had not previously understood was available to keep her application active.
Mother's court-ordered psychological evaluation by Tod A. Roy, Ph.D. had been completed by the time of the dispositional report. In this evaluation Dr. Roy noted Mother's responses to questions had been delayed in a manner suggesting "slowed mental processing." Mother reported graduating from high school, where she had been placed in a special day class and had not been "mainstream[ed]." Dr. Roy had to read to Mother the questions of the tests he administered, due to her "very poor reading comprehension level." The resulting profile of a standard personality test was invalid due to "elevated internal validity scales measuring consistent responding." To Dr. Roy, the elevated scales indicated a "possible personality disorder." Tests measuring cognition and achievement placed Mother in "the borderline range of cognitive ability," and an achievement level approximately equivalent to a fourth grade education. Dr. Roy concluded Mother "present[ed] with significant mental health issues," and "lack[ed] the means as well as the internal resources at this time to parent in a minimally adequate manner." He recommended Mother be given the following referrals: for psychotherapy; for an evaluation assessing her need for psychotropic medication; for a vocational assessment and possible training through the California Department of Rehabilitation; for parenting education "that take[s] into account her cognitive and reading comprehension limitations"; and for HUD subsidized housing. The SW reported she would refer Mother to these recommended services.
The MMPI-2-RF, a revised version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
--------
The recommended reunification case plan called for Mother to do the following: (1) learn to develop and utilize a budget enabling her to shop within her means; (2) maintain a relationship with her child by following the conditions of her visitation plan; (3) improve her grooming, dressing, and hygiene; (4) obtain and maintain a stable and suitable residence for the child; (5) obtain and maintain a legal source of income; (6) parent her child appropriately and consistently; and (7) participate in job training in order to secure employment. Mother's specific responsibilities were to complete an evaluation for psychotropic medications and follow any recommendations; participate in mental health counseling; complete the Incredible Years Parenting Class she had previously begun; fulfill the reporting requirements and timely submit any necessary documentation in order to remain eligible for CalWORKs, food stamps, and Medi-Cal; participate in Welfare to Work if assigned; and, pursue a referral to Rural Human Services to discuss possible job training and rehabilitation services to help her obtain employment.
At the dispositional hearing, on December 16, 2011, Mother agreed "to try to do the case plan," including a return to Del Norte Mental Health, where Mother had previously gone and claimed she had been denied services, whereas that provider had informed the SW that Mother had refused services. The juvenile court adjudged D.R. a dependent, continued her in out-of-home custody, and ordered the Department to offer or provide reunification services to the parents in accordance with their case plans adopted by the court.
The report for the six-month status review hearing, completed in mid-June 2012, recommended the juvenile court terminate both parents' reunification services and set the matter for a hearing under section 366.26. A supplemental report, completed in early October, maintained these recommendations. In addition to these reports, the court heard testimony on July 24, 2012, and again on October 10, 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing on the latter date, the court adopted the Department's recommendation, terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
Mother's petition followed. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).)
DISCUSSION
The juvenile court found, among other things, that the Department had offered or provided Mother with reasonable reunification services. Mother challenges this finding, contending specifically that the Department failed to tailor her services to accommodate the fact she is a "low functioning adult with limited education and a history of psychological issues." She argues, in particular, that her reunification plan—summarized above—did not reasonably implement the recommendations made in Dr. Roy's psychological evaluation—also summarized above. Mother further contends the Department failed to complete "a psychiatric work up" ordered by the court on July 27, 2012. In failing either to implement Dr. Roy's recommendations or to complete a second ordered psychological evaluation, Mother claims, the Department essentially failed to make a more "concentrated effort" to provide the services warranted by Mother's "significant educational deficits."
In reviewing the challenged finding, we examine the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding under the clear and convincing evidence standard. (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 694 (Isayah C.).) We construe all reasonable inferences in favor of a finding regarding the adequacy of an agency's reunification plan and the reasonableness of its efforts. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46 (Julie M.).) We likewise resolve conflicts in favor of such a finding and do not reweigh the evidence. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) Services may be deemed reasonable when the case plan has identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, the Agency has offered services designed to remedy those problems, has maintained reasonable contact with the parent, and has made reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas in which compliance has proven to be difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414 (Riva M.).)
As we have noted, Mother's case plan called for her to complete an evaluation for psychotropic medications, participate in mental health counseling, to complete the requirements necessary to remain eligible for CalWORKs (the statewide, county-operated welfare program), food stamps, and Medi-Cal, and to pursue a referral to Rural Human Services for possible job training and rehabilitation. The offer of these services, in our view, are substantially commensurate with Dr. Roy's recommendations for psychotherapy, a psychotropic medication evaluation, and a vocational assessment. Dr. Roy also recommended parenting education tailored to Mother's "cognitive and reading comprehension limitations." One of Mother's service providers testified that the classes to which the Department had referred Mother "serve[d] lots of people with special needs" and were small enough to afford Mother with "one to one" instruction tailored to her needs. The SW's report attributed Mother's failure to complete her parenting class to her missing classes, as distinguished from her comprehension limitations. The SW later testified that, while Mother "does have some delays," the SW believed she was capable of completing her case plan requirements "if she wanted to" do so. The juvenile court itself observed, following Mother's testimony, that she appeared "quite capable of functioning within the range of at least normal," and "if she lacks abilities in terms of the written word, her speaking skills are well within at least the normal range."
Such evidence supports the conclusion the Department, under the particular circumstances of this case, developed a case plan that identified the problems leading to Mother's loss of custody, and offered services designed to remedy those problems. (Riva M., supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 414.) There is also evidence the SW maintained frequent contact with Mother, although the latter often missed scheduled visits. (Ibid.) Additionally, the SW's testimony and reports indicate she made reasonable efforts to assist Mother in areas in which compliance had proven to be difficult. (Ibid.) Specifically, she assisted Mother on occasions with the paperwork necessary for Mother to obtain or maintain housing and other services.
Finally, with respect to the Department's failure to complete a second "psychiatric work up," we observe the SW testified she did attempt to have Mother evaluated for cognitive or developmental deficits through the Regional Center. The Center had denied these requests, as well as the SW's attempt to appeal the denials, because Mother had been previously evaluated, was found to be ineligible for the Center's services, and there was no new information regarding Mother's situation. Moreover, by the conclusion of the six-month hearing on October 10, 2012, more than 12 months had passed since D.R.'s initial detention. As such we see no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision not to continue the matter further based on the lack of a second evaluation, particularly in the absence of any motion for continuance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a).)
An agency is not obligated to provide the best services possible in an ideal world, but only those that are reasonable under all the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547; Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 48.) We conclude the foregoing evidence provides substantial support for the juvenile court's finding that the Department offered or provided reasonable services. Mother's reliance on In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, does not persuade us to the contrary. That decision, involving a mother hospitalized for mental illness during much of the reunification period—but who nevertheless displayed an "impeccable record" of efforts to comply with her case plan—is distinguishable from the facts of this case. (Id. at pp. 1777-1778.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 894; Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1012, 1024.) The decision is final in this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(3).)
________________
Margulies, Acting P.J.
We concur:
________________
Dondero, J.
________________
Banke, J.