Opinion
A168548 A168548
11-20-2023
A.S., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. A.S., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super Ct. Nos. JD03361702, JD03475101
BURNS, J.
A.S., the presumed father of minor A.C, petitions under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to vacate the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 at the 12-month review hearing. Father contends the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) failed to provide him with adequate reunification services. His contention is unsupported by the record, so we deny the petition on its merits.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Petition, jurisdiction, and disposition
On April 24, 2022, nine-month-old A.C. and her three-year-old brother K.C. were placed in protective foster care after A.C. fell off a bed during a violent physical altercation between her parents. This was not the first time domestic violence had brought this family to the Agency's attention; K.C. had been adjudicated a dependent child in 2020 after Mother, while holding him, attacked Father with a hammer, scissors, a bottle of alcohol, and drug paraphernalia. That dependency was dismissed in early 2022. Father obtained a criminal stay-away order against Mother but, shortly afterward, had it modified to permit contact between them.
The children have different fathers. Only Father has challenged the order setting the section 366.26 hearing in this court.
About two weeks before the incident that triggered these proceedings, Mother was briefly jailed for hitting Father and falsely reporting him to police for breaking into cars. Thirteen days later she visited him at his hotel room, where they argued about getting a divorce. Mother punched Father's face, scratched his face and neck, threw hot candle wax at him, and whipped him with an electrical cord. It was then that A.C. woke up and rolled off the bed; Father tried to attend to her as Mother continued her attack.
Mother was arrested for corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant, violating a protective order with a prior for the same offense, and child endangerment. On April 26, 2022, the Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging (as later amended) failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)), no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)), and sibling abuse (§ 300, subd. (j)).
The children were placed together in emergency foster care with Mother's former legal guardian, who had previously cared for the children. The guardian reported that the parents fought violently with each other, usually about their belongings, their car, and money, and that Mother had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
Father told the social worker he had let Mother into the hotel room because he thought she had cooled off in jail; he was unaware of the restraining order; he wanted to give their relationship another chance; and he did not believe the situation would escalate. He wanted to start reunification services, including parenting, domestic violence, and anger management classes. He was also willing to work with a parent advocate and the Fatherhood Circle support group.
By mid-May 2022, the social worker had referred Father to a therapist and domestic violence classes. On June 1, Father reported the parent advocate and therapy were going well. By July he had also started attending Fatherhood Circle and a domestic violence support group. He did not like the support group, so the social worker offered to find a different provider. Father's supervised visits were generally going well.
On July 18, the Agency reported that Mother and Father were living together and that Father been seen driving Mother to her visits with the children. Father denied it.
The combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on July 19, 2022. The court sustained the petition, maintained the children's placement with their foster mother, and granted both parents reunification services and supervised visitation.
Six-Month Review
In its report for the six-month review hearing, filed January 6, 2023, the Agency recommended that the court maintain the children's foster placement. The social worker had referred Father to the Peace Creations domestic violence program in September 2022, but he had not followed up. Father found the Fatherhood Circle helpful, and he would reach out to the social worker with his progress, concerns, and updates. He saw his therapist for an hour every week and was on time and present during sessions. He had also worked with his parent advocate until September, when the service was terminated because the advocate felt he was on track with his plan.
In November 2022, Father admitted that Mother's name was on the lease at his new apartment. Nonetheless, he denied that they were living together until December or January, when he and Mother admitted they were cohabiting despite the restraining order. The Agency remained concerned about their pattern of domestic violence; that neither parent had consistently attended domestic violence classes; that they were concealing their cohabitation; and that "it seems [they] want to say everything is okay without any evidence that things have changed."
The six-month review hearing was held on January 18, 2023. The court adopted the Agency's recommendations, found reasonable services had been offered, and continued Father's reunification services.
12-Month Review
By June 2023, the parents' behavior had not changed. The Agency changed its recommendation to terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing.
Father had learned strategies for keeping A.C. safe, such as taking breaks, calling loved ones for support, and taking space when needed. He was upfront that his triggers were related to feelings of insecurity and jealousy arising from Mother's previous affairs. He told the social worker he was willing to engage in couples counseling, but the parents' therapists felt it was inappropriate in light of safety concerns and inadequate discussion in individual therapy.
In May 2023, Father reported that he and Mother had been in an altercation the previous night and were no longer together. Pictures he sent the social worker showed bruises and marks on his face and body and a shattered mirror, a wall with a punch mark, and an apparently broken door. Mother had threatened to take the children to Louisiana to be with K.C.'s father and told Father she was "not afraid to put her hands on" him and "do the time." After this incident, the Agency changed the parents' joint visitation to separate visits.
Father's program facilitator at Peace Creations during the past six months reported that he had been attending classes "off and on" and "need[ed] to take it more seriously and be consistent as opposed to popping in here and there." When Father did attend, however, he participated.
Father had also continued to engage in individual therapy and was able to verbalize his and Mother's triggers and what he had learned about coping with his anger and boundaries. Nonetheless, the couple's fight in May demonstrated that their behavior had not changed. Father did not appear to understand the Agency's worries "and [had] not mitigated the safety concerns."
As of July 2023 Father and Mother were living together, either still or again. Father felt their relationship had grown, acknowledged that the May fight was "out of control" and admitted his own responsibility for it, and described how his therapy was helping him understand and avoid the couples' triggers. He was still enrolled at Peace Creations, but the program reported he had" 'attended so little that he is not invested in the process.'" Father felt the Agency's expectations for his participation in services were not maintainable now that he was working.
The 12-month review hearing was held on August 8 and 16, 2023. On August 3 the Agency reported a previously unknown fight in April 2023 in which Mother punched Father in the face, visibly injuring him. Five days after the fight, Father told police he had lied when he reported the incident and attributed the marks on his face to an allergic reaction. Nonetheless, on August 7, the day before the first day of the review hearing, he filed a request for a new stay-away order based on the April and May altercations and yet another domestic violence incident that occurred at 3:00 that morning.
The court confirmed at the outset of the hearing that Mother was still subject to, and, based on the early morning altercation, in violation of the May 2022 criminal restraining order. The social worker testified that Father had visited A.C. regularly during the prior reporting period and maintained his bond with her. He had also consistently engaged in therapy, but had not adequately addressed the ongoing domestic violence in the home or completed the required domestic violence classes.
Father testified that he and Mother fought in May 2023 because he wanted to break up with her and they disagreed about who would keep the car and apartment. They continued to live together but slept in separate rooms until the day before the 12-month hearing, when Mother moved out of their apartment. He had not yet filed for divorce because of his demanding work schedule.
The court adopted the Agency's recommendations. It found that reasonable services had been offered and provided; the parents had made minimal progress toward addressing the reasons for the children's removal; returning them would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being; and there was no substantial probability they would be returned within 18 months of their removal. Accordingly, the court terminated both parents' reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for December 13, 2023.
DISCUSSION
The juvenile court may not order that a permanency planning hearing be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the reunification services offered or provided to the parent were reasonable. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C)(ii).) Here, Father contends there was no such evidence. Specifically, he maintains the Agency failed to tailor services to "assist an indigent, unsophisticated victim of domestic violence" or tailor visitation "to allow Father to progress." We are unpersuaded.
As a preliminary matter, neither Father nor his attorney raised these contentions during the juvenile court proceedings. Consequently, they are forfeited. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338-1339 [generally, parent's failure to object or raise issue in the juvenile court forfeits the right to raise it in the court of appeal].) But even assuming Father did not forfeit the issue, he bears the burden to show the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding of reasonable services. (In re L.Y.L (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) In assessing that claim we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record most favorably to the juvenile court's order, and affirm if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. We neither evaluate witness credibility, reweigh evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. (Ibid.)
Applying these standards, we are satisfied the record sufficiently establishes the Agency complied with its responsibility to identify the problems that led to Father's loss of custody, offered him services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with him, and made reasonable efforts to assist him when compliance proved difficult. (See In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414 [requirements for adequate service plan].) We need not reiterate our foregoing discussion of the facts in detail here; with that discussion in mind, it is sufficient to note that (1) the Agency took the children into custody because the parents' violent fights put them at risk of harm; (2) it provided Father with domestic violence programs and individual therapy designed to address the parents' pattern of domestic violence; (3) it connected Father with a new domestic violence program when he was dissatisfied with the first; and (4) it placed him with a new therapist when he had scheduling difficulties with his previous therapist. Moreover, the social worker's records show she was in frequent communication with the parents, caregiver, and service providers.
While Father concedes it was his "consistent choice" to remain engaged with Mother despite the safety risk to A.C., he maintains "[it was] not his job to 'figure it out;' rather it is the Department's job to assist [him] in his life to create a safe place for his children to return." But the Agency did its part. It assisted Father by offering him domestic violence classes, a fathering support group, and individual therapy to address the family's pattern of violence. There is no indication in the record that those services were inadequate; rather, Father chose to remain with Mother, lied about living with her, and failed to participate in his domestic violence services "enough for the material to make a lasting impact." Ultimately, notwithstanding any violence-avoidance strategies he learned during the reunification process, the couple's continuing violent encounters show he was unable to effectively put them into practice. "The requirement that reunification services be made available to help a parent overcome those problems which led to the dependency . . . is not a requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions." (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.)
Father's remaining, undeveloped complaints about the Agency's purported failure to provide services he apparently had not requested during the service period (for example, an additional restraining order, housing assistance, or "individualized" visitation) are unaccompanied by cogent argument supported by appropriate citations to the record and pertinent authority. Accordingly, we will not consider them. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); Young v. Fish &Game Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1190-1191; Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, 461; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120.)" 'Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] waived.'" (Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 600.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for an extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (See § 366.26, subd. (1); In re Julie S. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 988, 990-991.) Our decision is final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b).)
WE CONCUR: JACKSON, P.J. CHOU, J.