Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. JV040188-1, JV040188-2, JV040188-3, JV040188-4, JV040188-5, JV040188-6
Sepulveda, J.
In a juvenile dependency action, the juvenile court terminated family reunification services to the parents of six children and set a hearing to determine a permanent plan for the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26 [all further section references are to this code except as noted].) We affirm the order.
I. facts
The parents have a long history of child neglect. Cindy B. (Mother) has given birth to eight children, at least five of whom tested positive for drugs at birth. The Humboldt County Department of Health & Human Services (County) has received multiple referrals for the family beginning in 1993, when Mother’s eldest daughter and second child was born with drug exposure. When Mother had her first child, she was 17 years old. Mother is now 32 years old, and has been in an unmarried relationship with William P. (Father) since about 1993. Mother and Father are the parents of the six children who are the subject of this appeal. The children range in age from two to eleven: L.P. (born in December 1995); A.P. (born in June 1998); S.P. (born in November 1999); M.P. (born in February 2001); R.P. (born in June 2002); and R.K.P. (born in August 2004). L.P. is a boy and the other children are girls.
This child and an older child are Mother’s children from a previous relationship. Those children now live with their father and are not a subject of this appeal.
The current proceedings arose following the birth of the parents’ youngest child, R.K.P., in August 2004. Mother gave birth to the child at home. The baby girl was delivered by her half-sister, who was then only 10 years old. Like the half-sister and other children born to Mother, the infant tested positive for amphetamine. The County did not detain the children and Mother agreed to voluntary services. Social workers investigated the family home (a trailer) and found mounds of dirty clothing covering the entire floor of one room, dirty dishes, a leaky roof, broken plumbing fixtures, and extensive clutter. The toilet was full of urine and feces and not in working order. The children had matted hair and lice infestations. The eldest child, 10 years old, reported that Father beat Mother and the children. A neighbor also reported physical abuse of Mother and the children. On one visit, a social worker found that the 10 year old had been left alone in charge of the other children. On another occasion, Mother was home with the children but so fast asleep that the social worker had to shout several times to rouse Mother.
The County filed a juvenile dependency petition on December 14, 2004, charging Mother and Father with neglect. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The court sustained the petition at a jurisdictional hearing on March 1, 2005. The court found that Mother “abuses controlled substances, which periodically render her incapable of providing appropriate care and supervision of the minors.” The court also found that Father “failed to recognize the mother’s substance abuse and the father failed to recognize that it impaired her ability to provide adequate care and supervision to the minors.” The children remained in parental custody, and the County offered family maintenance services. The children were declared dependents of the court at a disposition hearing on August 15, 2005. The parents had separated, and the children were placed with Mother but continued to visit Father.
The parents reunited and, in November 2005, Father was arrested for battery upon Mother and child endangerment. (Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (e), 273a, subd. (b).) In December 2005, Mother was arrested on an outstanding warrant and the County placed the children in protective custody and filed a supplemental petition. The County reported that the parents failed to comply with the family maintenance case plan in operation since September 2004. The parents had been ordered to meet the children’s educational and health needs but the children were frequently truant, infested with head lice, and suffering from rotting teeth and lack of immunizations. Father was smoking marijuana in the family home, and Mother refused drug abuse intervention. The parents dropped out of a court-ordered parenting program. When Mother was arrested at the family home in December 2005, the arresting officer noted that “the odor of feces and mildew was over-powering.” The residence was littered with rotting food in the living room, soiled diapers in the kitchen, and a soiled mattress on the living room floor. Photographs of the residence show that the children were living in filth.
In December 2005, the court authorized placement of the children in foster care and, the following month, sustained the supplemental petition. At the disposition hearing in February 2006, the court ordered compliance with a family reunification case plan. The case plan required that the parents live free from drug dependency, receive psychological and substance abuse evaluations, secure a suitable residence, parent appropriately, and complete domestic violence and parenting programs. Father asked the court to waive the fees for the court-ordered domestic violence program. Father was questioned on his ability to pay for the program, and the court denied the request.
A six-month review hearing was held on October 2, 2006. The County reported that the parents visited the children but failed to comply with any other aspect of their case plan. Father had been arrested again, in March 2006, for battery upon a cohabitant. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e).) The parents had not secured a suitable residence. The parents no longer lived in the McKinleyville trailer that served as the family home; they only received mail there. There was information that the parents had been evicted in May 2006. Mother did not provide a new residential address, only a telephone number, and Father said he was working out of town to raise money “to get a house.” The County provided Father with applications and information on low-income housing. The County also offered assistance in completing the applications, but Father refused the offer.
The parents had also failed to sign the necessary release of information forms for performance of psychological evaluations until months after the disposition hearing. The disposition hearing, at which psychological evaluations were ordered, was held in February 2006. Yet, Father did not sign a release until June 2006, and Mother finally signed a release in July 2006. The County said that “[b]oth parents waited until they were sure they had to comply with the case plan requirements before they were willing to begin the process by signing the releases of information.” The parents failed to attend domestic violence programs. Mother did not attend any parenting classes, and Father claimed (without substantiation) that he attended one class. Mother did not receive a substance abuse evaluation or any treatment for her addiction. Father was evaluated for substance abuse but failed to respond to the counselor’s recommendations that Father receive intensive treatment for substance abuse and a mental health evaluation. The court found that the parents made only “minimal progress” toward alleviating the problems that had necessitated removal of the children. The court continued reunification services and set the matter for another review hearing.
The 12-month review hearing was held on April 5, 2007. The County reported that the “parents have not participated in any of their court-ordered objectives.” The parents’ rate of visitation was inadequate: Father visited only 70 percent of the time offered to him, and Mother only 39 percent of the time. The parents did not have stable housing, and were living apart. Father provided only a mailing address in Eureka, while working in another part of the county as a handyman and living at an undisclosed address. Mother was working as an in-home caregiver for a disabled man, sometimes spending the night there and other times staying with a relative. Mother received a psychological evaluation that had been delayed by Mother’s failure to sign a release form. The psychologist concluded that Mother did not have a mental disorder but Mother showed “poor reality testing ability which may interfere with her ability to exercise good judgments and function sensibly in an organized manner as a parent consistently.”
Mother did not attend any domestic violence or parenting classes, and received no drug treatment. Father dropped out of a domestic violence program, and resumed it only when compelled to by the court in a criminal prosecution for domestic violence. The County recommended that reunification services be terminated and a hearing set to determine a permanent plan for the children. Child advocates appointed to represent the children likewise urged termination of reunification services and adoption of a permanent plan. At a contested hearing, the children’s attorney joined in the County’s position, and the findings of the child advocates. The court terminated reunification services and set the permanent plan hearing for July 30, 2007. The parents initiated separate writ proceedings challenging the court’s order, which we consolidated for review and decision.
Ii. discussion
“ ‘California has a comprehensive statutory scheme establishing procedures for the juvenile court to follow when and after a child is removed from the home for the child’s welfare. (§ 300 et seq.; [citation].) “The objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time.” ’ ” (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1008.) A parent is typically entitled to social services aimed at family reunification after a child is removed from parental custody and placed in protective care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).)
Reunification services are generally limited to 6 or 12 months, absent exceptional circumstances, and may not be extended beyond 18 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1),(2).) Reunification services are strictly time-limited in recognition of “ ‘ “the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” ’ ” (Jessica A. v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 636, 644.) The juvenile court periodically reviews the continuing need for out-of-home placement and the reasonableness of efforts at reunification. (§ 366. subd. (a)(1).) “If, after the specified time period has expired, the efforts to reunify the family have failed, ‘ “the court must terminate reunification efforts and set the matter . . . for a [permanent plan] hearing.” ’ ” (Sara M. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 1008-1009.) Before terminating reunification services, the juvenile court must find that reasonable services designed to aid the parent in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the children were provided or offered to the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).)
The parents claim that they were not provided reasonable reunification services. In reviewing the parents’ claim that reasonable reunification services were not provided, “our sole task on review is to determine 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.) In so doing, we construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the juvenile court’s findings regarding the adequacy of services and the reasonableness of the agency’s efforts. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
The parents’ numerous complaints about reunification services are unfounded. Mother claims the services were not tailored to the unique needs of a large family with six children. The claim is generic, without specifying what additional services Mother deems necessary. The claim is also untenable because there are certain needs that every child has regardless of family size, like stable housing and a mother free of drug dependency. The case plan was reasonably focused upon these fundamental needs.
The parents argue that adequate visitation was not offered because the County social worker, who supervised visitation at a community center, also sometimes used the visitation time to discuss the case plan with the parents. In fact, the record shows that the social worker honored Mother’s request that discussions not occur during the visits. The social worker arranged to discuss the case plan with the parents apart from the children, either before or after the visits. Mother is also incorrect in asserting that the County failed to provide sibling contact outside parental visits. The County made an effort to place the children together in foster care, and succeeded in placing three children each in two foster homes. The children also visited with each other between the foster homes, and went on outings together. The social worker testified, without contradiction, that “[t]here is a good deal of sibling interaction.”
The parents were, contrary to their claim in this court, provided sufficient referrals for housing, domestic violence counseling, and parenting courses. The County provided Father with applications and information on low-income housing for the family. The County even offered assistance in completing the applications, but Father refused the offer. The County also provided contact information for a domestic violence program but Mother made no effort to enter the program, nor did she participate in a substance abuse program that would have given her the support necessary to address problems with domestic violence. The parents were referred to a parenting course, but were dropped from the course when they did not attend the first two meetings. After being dropped from that course, the social worker discussed other parenting classes with the parents, but the parents never enrolled in those classes.
Nor may the County be faulted for not visiting the parents’ new, separate living quarters to investigate whether the living quarters provided suitable housing under the case plan. Mother admits that she did not have a home of her own and was living part-time with an uncle and part-time with a man she assisted as a caretaker. Mother did not ask the County to evaluate either home for child placement. When Mother was asked at the hearing if she was capable of taking care of one or more children at either residence, she said “[m]aybe one.” (Italics added.) Father was sharing an apartment with his cousin. Father never gave the social worker his residential address and instead used a mailing address in another town. Under these circumstances, and the parents’ poor performance under their case plan, the County was under no obligation to inspect the parents’ living quarters for possible child placement.
Mother also claims that the County was responsible for delays in receiving a psychological evaluation of Mother, and that a more timely evaluation would have alerted the County to additional services Mother needed to reunify with her children. A psychological evaluation was ordered in February 2006 but no report was received by the County until a year later. The County did not cause the delay. Mother herself is partly responsible because she did not sign a release of information form until July 2006. As a result, Mother’s evaluation was not fully performed until September 2006. The remaining delay, from September 2006 until February 2007, was the fault of the psychologist who did not timely prepare the report despite the County’s effort “to speed up the process.” In any event, the delay in receiving the report did not impede reunification efforts. The psychologist concluded that Mother did not have a mental disorder and that Mother’s drug abuse problem was the “primary concern.” This was not news, and the case plan was already tailored to meet this concern.
Father argues that the children should have been returned to his care because there was not substantial evidence that the children’s return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the children. The argument is belied by the record, which we have summarized above and need not repeat here. Father also argues that he complied with his case plan, or at least showed meaningful progress, because he was enrolled in a domestic violence program, recently attended four parenting classes, and visited his children 70 percent of the time.
Father’s minimal effort at compliance was too little, too late. A family maintenance program was initiated in September 2004, and reunification services commenced in February 2006 after removal of the children from the family home. Yet, Father did not participate in a domestic violence program until compelled by criminal prosecution for domestic battery in March 2006. His participation was far from complete. Father attended the program for about a month, then dropped out, and was later reinstated. Even after reinstatement in August 2006, he missed a number of sessions and only recently became an “active participant.”
Father’s enrollment in parenting classes was also late. The parenting class teacher testified that Father had “just initially started this program by completing four sessions” and had about six months of sessions left. Father is making some effort, and that is commendable. But “[t]he reality is that childhood is brief; it does not wait while a parent rehabilitates himself or herself. The nurturing required must be given by someone, at the time the child needs it, not when the parent is ready to give it.” (In re Debra M. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038.) The juvenile court properly found that Father was not ready to give the nurturing required, and would not be ready to do so anytime soon.
Finally, Mother argues that the juvenile court failed to ask the children’s attorney about the wishes of the children. “The counsel for the child shall be charged in general with the representation of the child’s interest. . . . In any case in which the child is four years of age or older, counsel shall interview the child to determine the child’s wishes and to assess the child’s well-being, and shall advise the court of the child’s wishes.” (§ 317, subd. (e).) There was sufficient advisement here. Counsel was not required to make a record of interviews with the children. (Deborah S. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 741, 752.) Counsel adequately conveyed the children’s wishes by joining in the findings of the County social worker and court-appointed child advocates who detailed the children’s wishes and concerns in reports to the court. The social worker reported that “[t]he children enjoy seeing their parents and each other but . . . they are just as happy to go to their respective foster homes when the visit is finished.” A child advocate acknowledged that one of the children in particular, nine-year old A. P., “is very attached to her mother.” The child advocate nevertheless recommended terminating reunification services. The record shows that the court was well-acquainted with the children’s wishes, and took those wishes into consideration when ruling in the matter.
III. disposition
The juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 permanent plan hearing is affirmed. The petitions for an extraordinary writ filed by Mother Cindy B. and Father William P. are denied on the merits. This decision shall be final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264 (b)(3).)
We concur: Reardon, Acting P.J., Rivera, J.