Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. A. Rex Victor, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Super.Ct.No. J217650
Meg Hogenson for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and Jeffrey L. Bryson, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
KING, J.
E.C., the mother of the dependent minor, challenges the decision of the juvenile court to terminate reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider a permanent plan for the minor. Mother argues that she did not receive reasonable services tailored to her special needs, and that the juvenile court should have ordered six more months of services be provided for her. For the reasons explained below, we disagree and, therefore, deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2007, the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of an eight-month-old minor alleging physical abuse by father and mother’s failure to protect. An amended petition was filed two months later alleging that the parents engaged in domestic violence, which put the minor at risk of physical harm.
The matter came to the attention of the department as a result of a police report of child abuse. Mother had reported that father threw a stuffed animal at the infant. When the infant began to cry, he then placed his hand over the baby’s mouth and struck the baby multiple times with his hand. The infant had abrasions to the forehead and redness to her right eye. Mother called the maternal grandmother and police officers escorted her to the apartment to retrieve clothing. Mother and infant were to stay with the maternal grandmother. Several days later the social worker was informed by the maternal step-grandfather that mother had stayed with the grandparents only a few hours before returning with the infant to father. The social worker went to the parent’s residence and discovered mother and the infant there. Mother stated everything was fine now and that father only hit the infant a couple of times. She stated her intent to remain with father.
Although the infant exhibited no signs of trauma at that time, the social worker determined that she was at risk of further abuse and that mother was not protecting the infant. Therefore, the police were called, and the infant was placed in protective custody with a paternal aunt and uncle in Phelan, where she has remained.
Mother recanted, telling the social worker that she had lied about father hitting the baby. She claimed that she had argued with father about another woman and when she called the maternal grandmother to pick her up, the latter refused to do so unless mother first called the police. She did so, and was afraid to change her story after the police threatened to arrest her if she was lying. Mother claimed that the baby suffered the injuries in two separate accidents—by hitting her head on a coffee table and by rolling off a bed.
The maternal grandmother expressed her concern to the social worker that there was domestic violence in the home. She indicated that she had observed bruises on mother several months earlier and said that the San Bernardino Police Department had taken photos of the bruises. This report was confirmed by a police officer who indicated that mother had declined to prosecute father.
The juvenile court sustained all the allegations of the amended petition, and ordered the parents to participate in a family reunification service plan.
On April 8, 2008, father pleaded guilty in criminal court to a charge of willful cruelty to a child based on the same incident that prompted this proceeding.
To the newly-assigned social worker, mother continued to claim she had lied about the child abuse allegations. She did complete a parenting class in March 2008, and the social worker recommended separate therapeutic services for both parents to help them deal with issues of denial and change.
At the six-month review hearing, the court ordered that the parents continue to receive services. Thereafter, mother was referred for individual counseling with Dr. Pace. She completed 12 sessions with him, but continued to deny the allegations of physical abuse. He recommended she go back and try and finish her GED and referred her to the state department of vocational rehabilitation. She also received some service from Catholic Charities and was referred enrolled in a literacy program.
Dr. Pace reported on December 5, 2008, that mother had completed all 12 of her court ordered psychotherapy sessions. He formed the opinion that mother was emotionally immature, insecure, and prone to jealousy, but did not appear to be at high risk of intentionally harming her daughter. He opined that she had lied when she reported father had physically abused her and her daughter. He believed that it was more likely that she made these claims because she was upset and jealous when father had contact with another woman. Dr. Pace noted that mother is learning impaired but appeared to be of at least low average intelligence. There was no indication that she has had past or present substance abuse issues or any major psychiatric disorder.
At the 12-month review hearing, Dr. Pace testified that mother had consistently denied that father had physically abused her or her daughter and, at the time he wrote his report, Dr. Pace was unaware that father had pleaded guilty to abusing the infant or that the juvenile court had found the allegations of domestic violence true. He opined that if father had abused the child and mother knew of it, he would be concerned that mother would fail to protect her child. “[T]hat would mean [mother] has lied during those 12 sessions. Which would mean, to me, that the child would be a potential risk in that home because the issues have not been addressed.”
Mother’s counsel argued at the conclusion of the hearing that the department had failed in its obligation to provide a reunification plan individually tailored to address mother’s unique needs. Counsel noted that mother had disabilities of a sort but had never been assessed. The juvenile court rejected this assertion, finding that the social worker had more than adequately responded to mother’s mental health issues. It stated that one had to recognize that mother is a liar. “And it’s just an issue of what time she was lying, then or now. [¶] I firmly believe she’s lying now rather than when she reported these incidents of domestic violence.” The court found that reasonable services had been provided and that mother had substantially completed her case plan. It concluded, however, that she had “not benefited an iota from that plan.” The court then made the requisite findings in order to terminate reunification services and schedule a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
A trial court may not order reunification services terminated unless the services offered to the parent have been adequate. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) In reviewing the order of the trial court, and the finding that services were adequate, we apply the substantial evidence standard, albeit a slightly “heightened” one. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.)
Mother argues, and we agree, that every reunification plan “ ‘must be appropriate for each family and be based on the unique facts relating to that family.’ ” (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.) We also recognize that parents with mental difficulties may present unique challenges to the dependency process, and that care must be taken to afford the parent particularized assistance where required. (See In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545-546; In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1329-1331.) However, in this case, we do not agree that the department failed to make reasonable efforts to accommodate mother’s special needs.
Mother complains that in light of her obvious problems including illiteracy, the social worker should have referred her for a psychological assessment and investigated whether she had learning disabilities. The social worker did recognize that mother would be unable to participate in a group counseling so she obtained individual counseling services for her with Dr. Pace. The social worker assumed that Dr. Pace would perform a psychological assessment. Over the course of the 12 sessions with mother, Dr. Pace was able to conclude that she had no psychiatric disorders and appeared to have low average intelligence. In addition, mother was referred to a literacy program. Mother seems to suggest that the social worker was at fault for failing to inform Dr. Pace of necessary background information, specifically the facts to show that the instances of physical abuse by father had taken place. However, mother cannot complain when she herself was the person who continued to tell Dr. Pace that no abuse took place.
In addition, it appears that the jurisdictional report was made available to Dr. Pace, and, in any case, there is no indication that he did not provide competent counseling to mother. Other than to suggest that a full psychological assessment should have been completed, mother fails to specify how the services could have been modified to meet her needs. The services that were provided were designed to resolve the problems that led to the dependency—mother’s failure to protect the minor from father’s domestic violence. In the final analysis, mother’s failure to reunify was not due to an inability to read or mental disabilities, but her persistent denial that father’s domestic violence ever occurred. There was ample evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J., MILLER, J.