Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
PROCEEDINGS for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. San Diego County Super. Ct. No. J514685 C-D, F. George W. Clarke, Judge.
IRION, J.
Carey J. seeks writ review of juvenile court orders terminating his reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing regarding his daughter, Monique J. He contends there was not substantial evidence to support the court's finding he received reasonable reunification services. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of two-year-old Monique J., alleging she was at risk of serious harm because she had been exposed to domestic violence between her parents, Carey and D.G. The petition additionally alleged Carey had participated in a violent altercation with a neighbor that included the use of a knife and resulted in injury to the neighbor.
On September 20, 2007, the court found the allegations of the petition to be true, ordered the parents to participate in their case plans and ordered Monique placed in foster care. Carey's services included a domestic violence program, counseling, parenting education, a psychological evaluation and substance abuse testing. On October 17, 2007, Carey signed his case plan. The social worker reported Carey said he was already participating in domestic violence classes as required by an earlier criminal court order and that he was interested in therapy with a particular therapist with whom he was familiar.
The psychologist who conducted Carey's psychological evaluation opined that Carey exhibited poor judgment and a lack of sensitivity and had cognitive limitations that might cause him to lack insight and awareness as to how his behavior caused Monique to be removed from his care. The psychologist recommended individual therapy and said Carey might benefit from parenting classes, domestic violence treatment and anger management classes.
The social worker reported that she had provided Carey with referrals for parenting classes on October 17, 2007, and with additional referrals on November 2, 2007, and February 28, 2008. She said although Carey understood he had exposed Monique to domestic violence, he believed that because he had already participated in services and reunified with Monique during a previous juvenile dependency case he should not have to repeat services and did not want to enroll in a parenting class. A court order provided Carey was not to have contact with Monique until December 10, 2007. After that date, Carey declined visits until the visitation center could accommodate visits on Saturdays. Visits began on January 19, 2008, but Carey missed visits on February 2 and 16. Monique had very negative reactions to Carey's visits. The domestic violence treatment group facilitator reported that although Carey had made some progress, he did not accept responsibility for his role in violent confrontations and he did not inform the facilitator that he continued to be involved with D.G.
At the six-month review hearing on April 18, 2008, the social worker testified Carey had completed 22 sessions of a 52-week domestic violence program, but he had not made substantive progress. He was participating in counseling and he had had a psychological evaluation, but he had not started a parenting class.
The court found Carey had not made substantive progress with the provisions of his case plan, reasonable services had been offered or provided, and there was no substantial probability Monique could be returned to his care within the next six months. It terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Carey contends he was not provided with reasonable services in that the Agency did not attempt to provide services that took into account his borderline intellectual functioning. He argues the social worker did not attempt to explain, on a level he could understand, why he needed a parenting class, and that he was given the same boilerplate referrals all parents are given.
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '. . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114.) In determining the sufficiency of reunification services the role of the appellate court is to decide "whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) The standard is not that the best possible services were provided, but that reasonable services were provided under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Substantial evidence supports the finding Carey received reasonable services. The psychologist who evaluated Carey estimated his composite IQ to be 77, which places him in the below average range. She stated his nonverbal abilities may be slightly more advanced than his verbal skills. The psychologist reported Carey's intellectual limitations may have impacted his ability to be a safe parent and may make it difficult for him to have insight and awareness as to how his actions caused Monique to be removed from his care. The psychologist recommended therapy and suggested Carey might benefit from parenting, domestic violence and anger management classes.
The Agency provided referrals for all of these services except anger management classes. Carey refused this service and the topic was addressed during therapy. The social worker reported she twice provided Carey with referrals for parenting classes, on October 17, 2007, and November 2, 2007, and that on February 29, 2008, he told her he had not yet enrolled in a parenting class and needed additional referrals. She provided referrals to him again at that time. Contrary to Carey's appellate claim, it does not appear that his intellectual abilities were so low that he would have been prevented from understanding the social worker's explanation of his need for parenting classes. The psychologist who evaluated him estimated his composite IQ to be 77, in the below average range. At this level Carey would have understood the reasons for him having to participate in parenting classes. The record shows that Carey refused to participate in parenting classes, not because he did not understand the need for the classes, but because he had completed services in the previous dependency case involving Monique and did not see why he should repeat the services. The record does not support his claim that the social worker did not adequately inform him at a level he could understand of the reasons for parenting education. If Carey had concerns about his services, he had adequate ability to bring this to the attention of his trial counsel. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.)
The record shows Carey was provided with reasonable services, but he chose not to participate in all of the services that were offered. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding reasonable services were offered or provided.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., NARES, J.