Opinion
B168415.
11-5-2003
DENISE W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Darold M. Shirwo for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel and Kenneth E. Reynolds, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.
By petition for writ of mandate, mother Denise W. challenges the juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing for her child, T. J. She claims reasonable reunification services were not offered. As our detailed factual summary establishes, there is no error and the requested relief is not warranted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In October 2001, City of Pasadena police officers conducting narcotics surveillance arrested Gary J., father of T. J., after finding methamphetamine on Garys person. With a search warrant, police searched the house where he lived, looking for equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine. They found mother and arrested her on an outstanding drug warrant. The police delivered T. J. into the care of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). A petition was filed to have T. J. declared a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. (All subsequent statutory references are to this code.)
On October 17, 2001, mother filled out a relative information sheet at Los Angeles Superior Court, listing fathers sister (aunt) as a relative to care for T. J. if she could not, and giving the aunts telephone number. Father also requested that T. J. be placed with the same aunt.
In a jurisdiction/disposition report prepared for a hearing in November 2001, DCFS social worker Anna Price noted the earlier termination of mothers parental rights as to two of T. J.s siblings and their permanent placement due to mothers failure to comply with court orders. Price recommended reunification services for father but not for mother. Father appeared at the November hearing in custody; mother did not appear. The court ordered the parents to keep DCFS informed of their current addresses and telephone numbers. Additional hearings followed, at which neither parent appeared because both were in custody and no arrangements had been made for their attendance. The proceedings were continued to a later date.
Father appeared at the disposition hearing in February 2002. DCFS prepared a disposition case plan requiring both parents to undergo drug rehabilitation with random testing, parental education, and individual counseling. The court found that mother, who also was still in custody, had not received proper notice and noted her anticipated release from prison in late March. In early April 2002, Price hand-delivered a notice for an upcoming hearing to mother at aunts residence. Mother signed the proof of service. She appeared at the April hearing, which was continued to May, with both parents again directed to keep DCFS informed of their current addresses and phone numbers. A letter from T. J.s maternal grandmother at about this time noted that mother was visiting with T. J. at aunts home on Sundays.
Price prepared an interim review report for the hearing on May 7, 2002. She gave mothers address as aunts address. After reviewing answers mother gave to questions regarding her own and fathers drug involvement and incarceration, Price again recommended no reunification services for mother. Mother appeared at the May hearing. T. J. was adjudicated a dependent child, and both parents were ordered to fulfill the terms of the disposition case plan. The court ordered that mother receive reunification services, found the case plan and T. J.s placement necessary and appropriate, and ordered mother to keep DCFS informed of her contact information.
In May 2002, DCFS social worker Patricia Osborne sent letters to both mother (at aunts address) and father (in custody). She noted that she had tried to reach mother by telephone several times and had left messages asking to be called back, and that T. J.s maternal grandmother and aunt both had agreed to pass these messages along. Osborne reminded mother that she was entitled to reunification services and that she and Osborne needed to communicate about case plan compliance. Osborne asked that mother supply a new address and telephone number if she no longer resided at aunts address. She also provided a telephone number at which mother could call her office and leave voice mail messages. Other letters followed in June and July, urging communication and cooperation and warning of negative impacts on the goal of family reunification if the court found mother unresponsive and noncompliant. A certified mail receipt dated June 12, 2002 for a mailing from Osborne was signed by mother at aunts address. Notice of an August hearing regarding changing T. J.s temporary placement from his maternal grandmothers home to aunts home was sent to mother at aunts address, and mother appeared at this hearing.
In October, Osborne sent notice of a six-month review hearing under section 366.21, subdivision (e) to mother at aunts address. In the status review report for this hearing, Osborne noted, "Reunification services have been made available to the mother and father. . . however . . . neither parent has made any attempt to comply with the court ordered case plans." At the hearing in early November, mother did not appear, but the court found proper notice had been given to all parties. It also found that the DCFS was in compliance with the case plan, but mother and father were not.
In mid-November 2002, Father was released on parole and rejoined mother. Father, who had not communicated with Osborne throughout the time he was incarcerated, did not contact Osborne until January 2003, when Osborne suggested parenting classes at the DCFS office in Pasadena. Father felt he was unable to attend at that time. He did not speak with Osborne again until late March 2003, when Osborne happened to encounter both parents at aunts house during a monthly visit to check T. J.s status. There Osborne discussed requirements for compliance with the case plan with father and mother. She met the parents again by chance at aunts house in April and May. These chance meetings were the only contact she had with either parent through early May. Because she was not expecting to see them at these times, she did not have information or lists for referrals with her to distribute to them. Father claimed he went to Osbornes office for information at a time when she was not there, and left a message at the front desk. Osborne denied receiving a message concerning this visit. She also alluded to other incidents in which the parents said they would visit her office but never arrived. Osborne said she mailed father a packet with information regarding case plan compliance but never received any response or notification that he could not attend recommended classes. Although Osborne asked for direct address and telephone contact information for the parents, father asked that she use aunts address and communicate by mail.
During the entire period of her incarceration and afterward, mother never contacted Osborne and did not respond to mailings or telephone calls. Osborne had many face-to-face meetings with aunt, but never met mother until the chance meeting in March 2003. Mother did not participate in Osbornes conversation with father about compliance. Osborne mailed a compliance information packet to mother between October 2002 and May 2003, but did not learn of the parents claim not to have received any such mailings until May 2003. She testified that aunt stated that she received everything Osborne had sent. Mother received a certificate of completion in January 2002 for a parenting class, but Osborne was not informed of this until mother or father mailed her a photocopy in 2003.
In late March 2003, Osborne sent each parent notice of an April hearing regarding termination of reunification services. This notice was sent to them both at aunts address and at their pre-incarceration residential address. Neither parent appeared at the hearing. The court found the notice to them inadequate, and the hearing was continued. Osborne sent notice of the continued hearing to both parents at aunts address. Both parents appeared at this hearing, which was continued for a contested hearing in June.
After Osbornes chance meeting with parents in early May, father arranged an appointment with Osborne. Mother was supposed to attend as well, but did not. Father signed a statement acknowledging receipt of referral information packets for himself and for mother. Father promised to supply Osborne with mothers Social Security number so she could enroll them in a drug-testing program. After a week during which father never called her back, Osborne looked up mothers Social Security number, enrolled both parents in the drug-testing program, telephoned aunt and left messages to notify parents, and also sought to reach parents at a hotel where they might be staying. Osborne received no response, and parents missed two drug test dates. Father claimed they had no notice of the testing appointments until after those dates.
The section 366.22, subdivision (a) 18-month review hearing was held on June 30, 2003. Mother appeared, but only father and Osborne testified. Counsel for parents elicited testimony to show that Osborne could have taken other actions or asked additional questions to get more information about parents, their location, and what progress they had made toward plan compliance. Counsel for DCFS elicited testimony that Osborne had made numerous attempts to contact parents by mail and by telephone and had tried unsuccessfully to get direct contact information for parents from aunt. Counsel for mother argued that DCFS provided no parental reunification services to parents until the May 2003 referrals for drug testing, and that the DCFSs own documentation showed a beginning date of May 2003 for reunification services for parents. The trial court disagreed, finding reasonable provision of services starting on November 1, 2002. The court found the case plan for T. J. necessary and appropriate, and that DCFS was in compliance with the plan, but parents were not. The court terminated reunification services and set a hearing for development of a permanent placement plan for T. J.
Mother asks this court to vacate the orders terminating reunification and setting the permanency planning hearing. Father does not seek relief from these orders.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that reasonable reunification services were provided.
In reviewing the reasonableness of these services, we indulge in all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) We recognize that family reunification services need not be perfect, but only reasonable under the circumstances. (Ibid.) We also presume that a petitioner has capacity to achieve the case plan reunification goals. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)
Normally, the record should show that DCFS identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parent during the reunification period, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance was difficult. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1011.) However, although the DCFS must make a good faith effort to develop and implement such a family reunification plan, reunification services are voluntary and cannot be forced on an unwilling or indifferent parent. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.) DCFS social workers are not required to take a parent by the hand and escort her to classes or counseling sessions. (Ibid.) The juvenile court system need not give another chance at compliance to a parent who does not seek to correct her behavior or waits until an impending court hearing to attempt reform. (Ibid.)
In this case, mothers (and fathers) refusal or inability to maintain reasonable contact with the DCFS or even to provide direct mailing and telephone contact information made it impossible for them to take advantage of an adequate family reunification plan. DCFSs attempt to provide services to a parent with whom it could not communicate and who did not respond to mailings or telephone calls was futile. Nor could DCFS identify parents areas of compliance difficulty, beyond basic failure to communicate, since they used no services. Under these facts, we do not find unreasonable, and mother does not challenge, the DCFSs identification of problems leading to loss of custody, including incarceration, a history of illicit drug use, and a need for improvement in parenting skills. This case hinges almost entirely on whether the DCFS reasonably maintained contact with mother during the reunification period.
In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, is particularly instructive. In that case, the petitioner argued that the San Diego County Department of Social Services (DSS) had failed to offer adequate reunification services because it had not made sufficient efforts to locate or contact him. (Id. at p. 440.) The trial court noted the statutory obligation of the DSS to use due diligence to notify parents, by mail or personal service, of the dependency petition; of conditions under which the child would be released, the hearings required, and the parents rights to counsel, appeal, and against self-incrimination; and of each review hearing. (Ibid.)
The court rejected the petitioners contention that the DSS "had a duty to track him continually throughout the dependency process even after he had been identified, contacted by a social worker, apprised of the proceedings, provided with counsel and participated in hearings." (Raymond R., supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 441.) The court concluded, "The Department has a duty initially to make a good faith attempt to locate the parents of a dependent child. Once a parent has been located, it becomes the obligation of the parent to communicate with the Department and participate in the reunification process." (Ibid.) It noted that the petitioner was under a court order to inform the DSS of his address and telephone number, and in failing to provide those, he could not blame the DSS for his "disappearance." (Ibid.) The court also observed that petitioners appearance at hearings provided "abundant evidence" that he had notice of them. (Ibid.)
In our case, mother continually failed to fulfill her obligations to keep the DCFS informed of contact information and to keep in contact with the agency. The DCFS located mother, first in prison, then at aunts address, and served her with a copy of the dependency petition and notice of the April 2002 hearing that was continued to May 2002. Thereafter, it reasonably used aunts address as the best available means to communicate with mother. Mothers appearance at most hearings from April 2002 onward confirmed that DCFS was reasonable in using aunts mailing address. Like the petitioner in Raymond R., mother apparently received notice of the hearings, which suggests that she received other mailings from the DCFS as well.
At the June 2003 hearing, mothers counsel argued that DCFS efforts to locate and contact mother were insufficient. This implicitly would blame the DCFS for mothers disappearance. Yet both before and after the beginning of the six-month review period in November 2002, Osborne made significantly more efforts to contact mother than the minimum notice of upcoming hearings required in Raymond R. (26 Cal.App.4th at p. 440.) DCFS need not engage in ongoing guessing as to an unresponsive parents whereabouts. (See ibid.)
Mother cites Mark N. v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 996, as a case in which a reviewing court found the DCFS had failed to maintain reasonable contact with a parent. The facts of Mark N. are distinguishable from this case. There, the incarcerated father repeatedly wrote to the DCFS regarding case plan compliance, and the DCFS generally failed to respond. (Id. at pp. 1000, 1005, 1008, 1012; see also Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1163, 1165-1167.) This is the reverse of the situation here.
Mother also argues that DCFS failed to tailor a case plan to meet the needs of T. J.s family. In support of this argument, she cites cases concerning parents with special needs as to reunification services. (See In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1778-1780 [parent mentally ill]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1207-1208 [parent mentally ill and developmentally disabled]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 299 [parent incarcerated].) The record before us does not show that mother has or had any similar special need for a specially tailored case plan. Although she was incarcerated earlier, she was not in custody for the period in question, nor the six months preceding it. Absent a showing of special needs, the juvenile dependency system presumes parents ability to comply with a basic case plan and does not force services upon an unwilling or unresponsive parent. (Angela S. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 762; In re Christina L., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 414.)
We find substantial evidence in the record that DCFS reasonably offered family reunification services to mother. Failure to utilize these services is due to mothers unresponsiveness and lack of communication rather than any fault of DCFS.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: VOGEL (C.S.), P.J. and CURRY, J.
By inaction, mother has forfeited any challenge to the trial courts finding of reasonable provision of reunification services during the period before November 2002 (see Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811-812). Information on this period is included here only as background.