Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner. Super. Ct. No. 509230
Nadine Salim, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, and Kane, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her son T. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
This case arises from a contested and combined 12- and 18-month dependency review hearing concluded in February 2008 at which the juvenile court terminated petitioner’s reunification services as to then eight-year-old T. and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan. Petitioner’s contention then and on this petition is that the community services agency (agency) knew that her ability to reunify with T. was dependent upon her ability to repair her damaged relationship with him yet the agency did not provide sufficient services to accomplish that.
Dependency proceedings were initiated in May 2006 when petitioner’s then six and three-year-old sons, T. and T.S., and 19-month-old daughter, A.B., fathered by three different men, were removed from petitioner’s custody because she exposed them to domestic violence and left them unattended. On the day of his removal, T. told the social worker petitioner fought with her boyfriends and that the police regularly responded to their home. He stated he did not like being with petitioner because she slept all day and was gone all night and he rarely saw her. In fact, petitioner was known to the police and the agency for her drug use and violent behavior. The agency offered her voluntary services but she refused them.
In August 2006, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered petitioner to complete parenting and domestic violence programs, participate in mental health therapy, complete residential drug treatment followed by outpatient drug treatment and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered reunification services for the fathers of T.S. and A.B. but denied them for T.’s father. The court set the six-month review hearing for January 2007. The children were placed in the home of Mr. and Mrs. G., non-relative extended family members, who wanted to adopt the children if reunification failed.
Over the next four months, petitioner was discharged from several drug treatment programs for threatening violence, cussing in front of staff and children, yelling and screaming and smoking marijuana with another resident. However, by January 2007, she was reportedly making good progress in a drug treatment program that provided all of her court-ordered services. She had completed drug treatment and was living in a clean and sober transitional living environment for women in recovery. She was also attending support group meetings and parenting classes, participating in individual counseling and testing negative for drugs.
While petitioner’s prognosis for recovery appeared promising, the agency was concerned about her ability to parent the children. According to petitioner’s caseworker, petitioner favored A.B. because she wanted to reconcile with A.B.’s father. She paid little attention to her children’s needs and, in the caseworker’s opinion, used the children to meet her own needs. At the end of visits, T. and T.S. rushed out of the visitation room to their caretakers. T.’s disinterest in petitioner alarmed the caseworker and prompted her in September 2006 to refer petitioner to a pro-family program which provided parenting support and mentoring.
In contrast, petitioner’s service providers at the drug treatment center had no concerns about her parenting skills. In a letter written in January 2007, her program administrator reported that petitioner sought counseling sessions with her parent educator and was anxious to begin trial visits at the facility with her children. During a parent/child lab in December 2006, she appeared comfortable with the children and tried to equally divide her time among the children. The administrator stated, “Overall, it appears there is a bond with [petitioner] and each of her children; it appears they are comfortable with [her], and enjoy the time spent with her.” Future counseling would focus on helping petitioner become more responsive to her children’s feelings and raising her awareness of how her chemical dependency affected her children’s lives.
The six-month review hearing was conducted in February 2007. The court continued services to the 12-month review hearing set for July 2007. The court also ordered a minimum of two overnight visits a month between petitioner and T. and granted the agency discretion to increase the visits if appropriate.
In February 2007, the caseworker began getting frequent reports from Mrs. G. that T. did not want to visit petitioner. Such reports continued into March 2007. T. stated he did not want to tell petitioner because he did not want to hurt her feelings. In an effort to assist petitioner, the caseworker solicited the help of the children’s therapist (the therapist), who observed visits between T. and petitioner in April 2007. During visitation, the therapist prompted petitioner to engage T. and focus on his interests and emotional needs. However, the concept of showing interest in T. proved difficult for petitioner as she struggled to be attentive. Meanwhile, in April and May 2007, A.B. and T.S., respectively, were placed with their fathers on a trial visit.
In June 2007, petitioner filed a “Request to Change Court Order” pursuant to section 388 (section 388 petition) asking the court to place T. with her on a trial visit. T.’s attorney countered by filing a section 388 petition asking the court to suspend visitation and order a bonding study. In the body of the petition, T.’s attorney stated T. was adamant about not wanting to return to petitioner’s custody or visit her. He felt so strongly about not wanting contact with petitioner that he became physically ill in anticipation of their scheduled visits. As a consequence, his visits scheduled for June 2007 had to be cancelled.
In its report for the July 2007 hearing, the agency recommended the court continue reunification services and order a bonding study to determine if petitioner and T. were bonded and, if so, what additional services might assist in helping them reunify. In an addendum report filed for the same hearing, the agency documented petitioner’s confusion about T.’s refusal to visit her. When the caseworker suggested it was because T. had been through a lot, petitioner reportedly stated in a very emotional and almost angry tone that “[T. needed] to get over it.” She stated she put herself through drug treatment and was clean and sober. She asked “What about me, what about my life [?]”
In July 2007, the juvenile court temporarily suspended visitation between petitioner and T. The court also set a combined and contested hearing in August 2007 to adjudicate a request filed earlier in the month by Mr. and Mrs. G. for de facto parent status, the section 388 petitions filed by petitioner, and T.’s attorney and the agency’s recommendation to continue reunification services.
In a letter to the caseworker dated late August 2007, the therapist reported her observations of petitioner’s visits with T.S. and A.B. at the residential facility and at the homes of their respective fathers. Petitioner was observed to make progress toward improving her relationship with T.S. and A.B. when under the supervision of the children’s fathers. However, according to the therapist, petitioner is unable to consistently provide for the emotional needs of her children for a prolonged period of time or without intervention of either of the fathers or program staff. With respect to T., the therapist stated T. was aware of petitioner’s diligent efforts but unwavering in his desire to remain in his current home. He feared her efforts were short-lived and longed for the unconditional love he received from Mr. and Mrs. G.
The August 2007 hearing was continued until September 2007 in anticipation of which the agency filed an addendum report. The agency reported that the caseworker frequently contacted T.’s therapist regarding his progress. The therapist stated that T. struggled to see anything positive about his past when he lived with petitioner. The therapist tried to help T. view his past and his relationship with petitioner differently. T. told the therapist he wished Mrs. G. had given birth to him.
In September 2007, the juvenile court ordered a bonding study and continued the contested hearing until October 2007. In October 2007, the court granted Mr. and Mrs. G.’s request for de facto parent status, continued the contested hearing and trailed the hearing on petitioner’s section 388 petition.
In mid-November 2007, the juvenile court convened the combined hearing, which because of the continuances, included the 12- and 18-month reviews as well as the section 388 petition. At this point, the bonding study ordered in September 2007 had not been completed. The therapist testified she began treating T. in March 2007 and that their therapeutic goals included helping T. improve his relationship with petitioner. To further that goal, she observed T. with petitioner four times early on in their therapy and offered petitioner suggestions on how to praise and nurture T. To her credit, petitioner made several attempts to implement the therapist’s suggestions after prompting but they were inconsistent and short-lived. The therapist opined it would be detrimental to reinstate visitation and to return T. to petitioner’s custody given his lack of relationship with petitioner and the potential for him to act out in a self-harming manner.
Responding to a hypothetical question, the therapist testified that she would have focused on petitioner’s nurturing skills if petitioner had been her patient. However, she did not believe she would have been successful. Petitioner’s problem was not that she was not provided parenting training but that she could not apply what she learned. She suspected petitioner had either a depressive or antisocial personality disorder that prevented her from improving her parenting skills. However, the therapist added that there was no psychological testing to support her opinion. Further, aside from the services petitioner had already received, she was unaware of any additional services that would assist petitioner.
Petitioner’s parenting instructor testified that she conducted six or seven one-on-one parenting sessions with petitioner and four parent/child labs with all three children in April and/or May 2007. None of the children, including T., acted negatively and, in her opinion, petitioner made very good progress. She stated the caseworker did not tell her that petitioner was having difficulty with T. Had she known that, she would have addressed those difficulties.
Petitioner’s caseworker testified petitioner’s relationship might be improved by utilizing the parent mentoring service and T.’s therapist, which were already available to her, and additional parenting instruction, which petitioner requested several months prior.
Petitioner testified and was asked how she felt about T. She stated “I don’t know. That’s my son. It’s hard for me to talk or think about him.” She claimed the caseworker never told her that T. was having problems and she was not offered counseling to overcome her difficulties with T. When recalled to the stand, the caseworker rebutted petitioner’s testimony she did not know T. did not want to visit her. She referred to her July 2007 report where petitioner questioned why T. did not want to visit her.
Following testimony, the court continued the hearing for the results of the bonding study, which was conducted in January 2008. The psychologist who conducted the study concluded that T. did not feel a bond toward petitioner. Rather, he viewed her as a “necessary acquaintance.” Further, continued interaction with petitioner would be detrimental and return to her custody would amount to a “breach of trust” in adults. According to the psychologist,
“[T.] does not trust his mother to know who he is, understand his needs and interests and provide him with a protected and nourishing environment. The agency system and his therapist have worked long and hard to help him speak his thoughts and feelings. He has never wavered in his assertion that [he] does not want to live with or even visit with his mother. To dismiss the reality of his needs and wishes would be a crushing defeat for him and likely generate anger and opposition. He might not even be able to hold on to school as his safety net .…”
The juvenile court reconvened the hearing in February 2008 after reading and considering the bonding study. No further testimony or evidence was presented. Petitioner’s attorney argued in closing that the agency’s failure to consult a parenting specialist was unreasonable and contributed to an already weak parent/child bond especially where visitation had been suspended.
Following argument, the court found it would be detrimental to return T. to petitioner’s custody. The court also found petitioner was provided reasonable services and ordered them terminated. The court denied petitioner’s section 388 petition and suspended visitation. The court also set a hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues reunification services were not reasonable because the agency’s response to her parenting difficulties was grossly inadequate and there was an utter lack of effort to preserve the parent/child relationship. What petitioner ignores is the reality that sometimes services, no matter their type or duration, are inadequate to resolve deeply-entrenched problems such as those presented by this case.
At the young age of six, T. was aware of and unhappy with petitioner’s chaotic lifestyle and neglect. Domestic violence and police presence were commonplace at his home and, in his mind, petitioner was unavailable to him. She was either asleep or gone. Under the circumstances, the statement T. made on the day of his removal that he did not like being with petitioner is understandable. It also indicates that, even then, he was, to some extent, emotionally disengaged from her. Conversely, he enjoyed his siblings, which explains why the parent educator perceived the foursome as comfortable with each other and why T. flatly refused visitation with petitioner alone.
Petitioner argues reasonable services would have included specific, intensive counseling geared toward parenting and her relationship with T. In our view, petitioner received such services. She was provided parenting instruction and parenting counseling focused on raising her responsiveness to her children. She had parenting counselors available to her, whom she consulted and parent mentors whom she chose not to consult. At the same time, T. received counseling geared toward improving his relationship with petitioner. These efforts were joined when T.’s therapist monitored visitation and advised petitioner on ways to engage T. and gain his trust.
To that, petitioner argues the agency’s reliance on T.’s therapist was unreasonable because the therapist did not have training in parent education. We fail to see the significance of that even if true. T.’s resistance stemmed from his negative experience with petitioner. The resolution required petitioner to become a better parent and T. to reframe his perception of her as his parent. To that end, T.’s therapist had the greatest insight into his psyche and counseled him with the specific objective of improving his relationship with petitioner. Who better than she to intercede for the betterment of their relationship?
As in all cases, more or different services could always be offered. The question is to what good? The sad truth in this case is not that services were unreasonable but that petitioner emotionally traumatized her son and, like as she might, he was unable to “get over it.” We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.