Opinion
D042116.
7-21-2003
CHRISTY B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
The juvenile court declared Christy B.s infant son Steven B. a dependent because Christys developmental disability made her unable to care for him ( § 300, subd. (b)). After six months of reunification efforts the court found the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) provided Christy with reasonable services and she did not make substantive progress with her case plan. It terminated services and set a permanency hearing for Steven. Christy seeks writ review challenging only the adequacy of services (§ 366.26, subd. (l) & Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B). We issued an order to show cause, HHSA responded and the parties waived oral argument. We consider the petition on the merits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Christy is mildly mentally retarded. She gave birth to Steven in May 2002. A public health nurse instructed Christy on newborn care and Christy enrolled in a mothers and infants program. Christy lived in a motel with her partner, Jody F., who is deaf and developmentally disabled. They received $ 1,700 per month in SSI benefits but were often homeless.
In June a visiting social worker observed that Christy did not know how to properly hold Steven, mix formula or comfort him. The public health nurse assisting Christy thought she was not learning how to care for Steven and did not have a parental bond with him. The hotel manager told the social worker that Christy and Jody battled with each other with the baby in the room. On June 27 the court detained Steven and ordered services for Christy.
In July the social worker reported that Christy agreed she did not have the skills and resources to care for Steven. The social worker called the Regional Center, a non-profit agency that provides services to people with developmental disabilities, to assist Christy with housing and parenting skills. On September 5 the court declared Steven a dependent and ordered Christy to participate in counseling, a psychological evaluation, parenting classes and visits with Steven. The goals of Christys case plan were to enable her to provide a safe home for Steven and meet his physical, emotional, medical and educational needs.
In March 2003 the social worker reported that Christy was homeless and her daily activities were unknown. The social worker could contact Christy only by pager or when Christy called the HHSA office. In September 2002 Christy was again referred to the Regional Center and in November 2002 and January 2003 the social worker reminded her to participate in the centers programs. She was given multiple counseling and therapy referrals. Christy said she attended a parenting class in February 2003 and had an appointment to be evaluated at the Regional Center in March.
Christys scheduled visits with Steven were one hour per week. She would hold Steven for 15 to 20 minutes and then hand him to the foster mother. Christy would not hold Steven if he cried. When asked to change her sons diaper, Christy said she did not know how. Christy missed 30 percent of her visits. She told the social worker that riding the bus to visit Steven was a waste of time if the visits were only for one hour. She felt pressured to be able to care for Steven.
At the six-month review hearing HHSA recommended terminating Christys services. In August 2002 the social worker provided Christys psychological evaluation conducted by Walter Litwin, Ph.D. Dr. Litwin reported Christys cognitive skills were in the mild mental retardation range and that she has the general intelligence of a seven to nine-year-old child. Christy is able to read and Dr. Litwin believed she has the capacity to learn with assistance from others. However, he predicted her attainment of basic child care skills would be a "long term process" and her distrust of others might make her resist assistance. Christy had difficulty caring for herself. Dr. Litwin urged that Christy be evaluated by the Regional Center for a full behavior profile to determine her strengths and weaknesses.
At the hearing on May 2 social worker Connie Manriquez testified that Christy was evaluated at the Regional Center in March. Manriquez did not expand Christys visits with Steven because Christy was not "involved" in the visits and did not try to bond with Steven.
Christy testified she did not know why Steven was taken from her. She stated she did not need a parenting class because her mother taught her how to take care of Steven. She knew she needed counseling but HHSAs referrals were to unavailable counselors. Christy said she was evaluated at the Regional Center and the lady "said she would call me, but then two weeks and she never called me back and I havent had no phone card so I couldnt call her back." She said the Regional Center could not help her with housing and she did not return there because she thought the center should call her first. Christy did not want to take Steven home because she lived periodically in hotels and knew the social workers would keep the case open and would take him away again. She was on the list for Section 8 housing and thought she would be ready to care for Steven when she obtained housing.
DISCUSSION
Christy claims the social worker did not help her respond to referrals for counseling and temporary housing assistance, she received inadequate visitation and she should have been evaluated by a psychiatrist. Christy contends the social worker was inattentive to her unique challenges.
Reunification services are reasonable if HHSA makes a good faith effort to assess and address the parents problems that caused the dependency finding. (See In re John B. (1984) 159 Cal. App. 3d 268, 275, 205 Cal. Rptr. 321.) Our review is limited to whether the finding is supported by substantial evidence. We view the record most favorably to the finding and decide if the evidence supporting it is reasonable, credible and of solid value. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
The fundamental problem that caused Stevens dependency was Christys developmental disability. A parent with such a disability is presumed to have some capacity to comply with an appropriate reunification plan. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 415.) When Steven was detained Christy lacked the most basic knowledge and skills to safely care for her son. HHSA promptly directed her to the Regional Center, an agency that specializes in providing services for persons with developmental disabilities. According to Dr. Litwin, the Regional Center would have conducted a full developmental evaluation of Christy and then would have provided her with appropriate services, including counseling and instruction to improve her living skills. Despite repeated urging by the social worker, Christy did not seek assistance at the Regional Center until March 2003. She did not pursue their services, explaining she felt the center should be responsible for locating her despite the fact she had no telephone.
HHSA also directed Christy to parenting classes to learn child care skills. Christy testified she did attend once but she was uncomfortable being around other people and she did not learn anything. She said she did not need a class because her mother had taught her how to care for Steven.
Christy claims her visits with Steven were inadequate because a home health nurse should have been present to provide her with hands-on training. The social worker testified that when Christy was asked by the foster mother to change Stevens diaper, Christy replied that she did not know how. Christy apparently did not ask for hands-on training from the foster mother. If she thought she needed a home health nurse to instruct her, she or her counsel should have timely requested that service.
Christy asserts she should have received a "psychiatric medication evaluation" because Dr. Litwin recommended it. She speculates if her anxiety and depression were treated she might have been able to complete her case plan. Dr. Litwins recommendation was not incorporated in Christys reunification plan but could have been requested.
The record shows the services offered by the Regional Center were crucial in helping Christy to attain her plan goals; however she resisted that help. She also resisted the other services offered by HHSA. Christy had the ability to read, use public transportation and collect benefits but she was not willing to try to learn to adequately parent her son. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Christy was offered reasonable services.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., OROURKE, J.