Opinion
E042391
5-4-2007
DIANA S. Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENS SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Allen S. Remes for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Messer, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Petitioner Diana S. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a) regarding her son D.S. (the child). Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that she failed to make substantive progress in her reunification plan. We deny mothers writ petition.
Effective January 1, 2007, California Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a) has been renumbered as rule 8.452(a) without substantive change. For the sake of clarity, we will refer to the rule under the current rule number.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2006, the San Bernardino County Department of Childrens Services (the department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition, alleging that the child, who was nine years old, came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition alleged that mother left the child in the care of another person since March 2005 and made no efforts to contribute to the needs of the child. The petition also included the allegations that the alleged father, who is not a party to this writ, negligently entrusted care of the child to mother, knowing that she could not supervise or protect him adequately. The social worker prepared a detention report explaining that mother requested the childs godmother to take care of him in March 2005. The godmother supported the child with her own resources and mother only had periodic contact with the child. The godmother brought the child to the departments attention since she had a family emergency out of state and could no longer care for the child. The juvenile court detained the child in foster care.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report recommending that mother be provided with reunification services. The social worker reported that mother had been unable to maintain a residence of her own for approximately one year. Mother said that she lived in a shelter with the child over the past summer and that prior to that, she lived in Lancaster to avoid domestic violence with her ex-boyfriend. Since she continued to struggle with maintaining a suitable residence for her and the child, she left the child in the godmothers care. Mother reported that she had an alcohol abuse problem for 10 years. The social worker attached a case plan to the report, which required mother to: 1) participate in general counseling to address issues of bonding, having a healthy parent/child relationship, depression, alcohol abuse, and providing a safe home for the child; and 2) participate in a parenting education program. The case plan also included the objectives that mother have a legal source of income, and obtain and maintain a stable residence for her and the child.
The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on January 31, 2006. The court found that the child came within section 300, subdivision (b), declared the child a dependent of the court, and ordered mother to participate in the case plan.
Six-month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month status review report recommending that the child remain in foster care and that mother receive reunification services for six more months. The social worker reported that mother remained homeless, staying where she could from night to night. Mother continued to take no responsibility for her son being removed from her custody and told the social worker that the department should give her a home, a job, and money for her son. The social worker reported that she had given mother numerous referrals for jobs, counseling, and housing. Despite those referrals, mother had not completed her case plan.
The six-month review hearing was held on July 26, 2006, and the matter was set contested and continued to October 5, 2006.
In an addendum report filed on September 26, 2006, the social worker reported that the department had provided mother and father with crisis intervention, weekly visits with the child, gas vouchers, monthly bus passes, transportation to court, transportation to and from visits, and referrals for counseling, therapy, parenting classes, jobs, job training, job fairs, housing, drug and alcohol testing, and psychological evaluations. Mother remained homeless and unemployed. The social worker further reported that mother had not yet produced proof of completion of a parenting class or individual counseling. Mother submitted copies of attendance of group counseling at the July 26, 2006, hearing, but group counseling was not a part of her case plan. During a phone call with mother, the social worker informed mother that she needed to provide proof of completion of a parenting class and individual counseling, and mother agreed to do so. The social worker attended a visit between mother and the child on September 8, 2006, and asked mother for proof of completion of the parenting class and the individual counseling. Mother stated that she did not have the proof with her, but that she would get it to the social worker. By the time of the filing of the addendum report on September 26, 2006, mother still had not provided the required proof.
At the contested hearing on October 5, 2006, the court noted that mother had completed the parenting class component of her case plan. The court ordered mother to continue to participate in reunification services and set a 12-month review hearing for January 10, 2007.
12-month Status Review
The social worker filed a status review report recommending that a permanent plan of adoption be established for the child. Mother was still homeless and unemployed, and had not completed her case plan. The social worker reported that she had reviewed the case plan with mother consistently on a monthly basis. Mother maintained that she had never done anything wrong and refused to take responsibility for her actions that led to the departments intervention.
The 12-month status review hearing was set contested and continued to February 15, 2007. Mother testified that she was living in a homeless shelter, that she was unemployed, and that she had not attended individual counseling. After hearing testimony from mother and the social worker, the court found that mother had failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in completing her case plan. The court found that there was not a substantial probability that the child could be returned to mother within the statutory time frame. The court set a section 366.26 hearing for June 14, 2007.
ANALYSIS
Mothers sole contention is that there was insufficient evidence to show that she failed to make substantive progress in her case plan. She claims she was unaware that the general counseling component of her case plan required her to participate in individual counseling. Mother asserts that she completed the general counseling requirement by attending group counseling. We reject mothers claim.
A. Standard of Review
"Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence employs the substantial evidence test by which we review the record in a light most favorable to the judgment and must uphold the trial courts findings unless it can be said that no rational factfinder could reach the same conclusion. [Citation.]" (In re Heather B. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 535, 563.)
B. The Evidence Was Sufficient
At the 12-month status review hearing, the social worker testified that she met with mother on February 8, 2006, and informed her that the general counseling component of her case plan meant that she was required to participate in individual counseling. Mother subsequently began participating in group counseling. The social worker testified that, on June 5, 2006, she told mother that group counseling was not appropriate and that she needed to go to individual counseling. Subsequently, the social worker met with mother every month, reviewed her case plan with her, and explained what she needed to do. Furthermore, the addendum report dated September 29, 2006, reflects that the social worker informed mother that she needed to provide proof that she had completed a parenting class and individual counseling. Mother agreed to do so. The report also shows that, on September 8, 2006, the social worker asked mother for proof of completion of the individual counseling. Mother stated that she did not have the proof with her, but that she would get it to the social worker. As of the 12-month hearing that was held on February 15, 2007, mother admitted she had not attended individual counseling, despite being given referrals. In addition, at the time of the 12-month hearing, mother had not obtained permanent housing (she was living temporarily at a homeless shelter) and she was still unemployed.
Mother maintains, as she did at the 12-month hearing, that she did not learn that she was required to attend individual counseling until November 2006. At the 12-month hearing, mother also contended that there was no place she could attend individual counseling, for free, and that she could not "get them to fund it." However, the evidence showed that mother learned of the individual counseling requirement in February 2006. Moreover, the social worker testified that she repeatedly told mother that the department would pay for her individual counseling. Assuming arguendo that mother did not learn of the individual counseling requirement until November 2006, she still had not participated in individual counseling as of the February 2007 hearing.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the courts finding that mother had not completed her case plan.
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied.
We concur:
GAUT, J.
MILLER, J.