Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Writ petition to review order setting hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Robert L. Stevenson, Juvenile Court Referee. Super. Ct. No. CK67809
Law Office of Emma Castro, Ellen L. Bacon and C. Benjamin Curley for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, Jessica Esterkin and Sophia Ali for Real Parties in Interest S.O. and D.O.
PERLUSS, P. J.
Petitioner Felix O. seeks extraordinary relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights and implementation of permanent plans for his two sons, seven-year-old S.O. and six-year-old D.O. The petition is opposed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and also by S.O. and D.O., who have joined in the Department’s response. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2007 the Department filed a petition under section 300 seeking to declare S.O. and D.O. dependent children of the juvenile court. On June 7, 2007 Felix O. submitted to the petition on the basis of the Department’s reports. (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368.) As sustained by the juvenile court, the petition included an allegation Felix O. and the children’s mother had engaged in physical altercations, endangering the children’s physical and emotional health. The court ordered the Department to provide reunification services to Felix O., and Felix O. was ordered to participate in a domestic violence program and attend parenting education classes and individual counseling.
At both the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) and the 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)), the juvenile court found Felix O. was in partial compliance with his case plan and the Department had provided reasonable reunification services. In reports for the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22) the Department requested the court terminate reunification services for Felix O. and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. Felix O. opposed the Department’s recommendation and requested the hearing be set as a contest, but he later withdrew his request for a contest. At the hearing on January 14, 2009 the court admitted into evidence the Department reports, which included a chronicle of the various services offered to Felix O. since the date of the 12 month review hearing. Among these services were multiple meetings between the social worker and Felix O. to monitor Felix O.’s progress with his court-ordered programs, meetings with Felix O. and communications with Felix O.’s low-income housing case manager to assist Felix O. in obtaining suitable housing, provision of bus passes and a team decision meeting to assist Felix O. with visitation.
No testimony was taken at the 18-month review hearing. Counsel for the Department requested the court terminate reunification services for Felix O., principally for his failure to obtain suitable housing for the children. Counsel for the children joined in the Department’s request. Counsel for Felix O. requested the court extend the reunification period beyond the 18-month date to enable him to obtain suitable housing. The court found that the Department had provided reasonable reunification services. The court further found, although Felix O. was in full compliance with his case plan, his lack of appropriate housing for the children continued to put them at risk if placed under his care and, because the case had reached the statutory limit for reunification, there was no alternative to termination of reunification and the setting of a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The court encouraged Felix O. to obtain appropriate housing and suggested he may seek a change in the court’s order setting the section 366.26 hearing, prior to the date of the hearing, by petition for modification (§ 388).
CONTENTION
Felix O. contends the juvenile court improperly terminated reunification services because there was not substantial evidence to support its finding the Department provided reasonable reunification services.
DISCUSSION
The record, as summarized above, contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding the services offered to Felix O. by the Department were reasonable under the circumstances of his case. (See In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416-417; In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 424-425; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) Felix O. did not present any evidence at the 18-month hearing to challenge the sufficiency of the Department’s reunification services as set forth in its reports, nor did he even argue the Department’s services were not reasonable under the circumstances of his case. Rather, he withdrew his earlier contest, submitted the matter on the basis of the Department’s reports and made no objection to the court’s finding of reasonable services. In addition, Felix O. does not indicate with any specificity what additional services the Department could have provided to assist him in obtaining appropriate housing, which the juvenile court determined was the sole impediment to his ability to care for the children. Under these circumstances Felix O. fails to demonstrate the Department did not comply with its obligation to provide services.
When we review the juvenile court’s findings under the substantial evidence standard, we inquire only whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.)
We further observe subdivision (a) of section 366.26 provides that, if a child cannot be returned to parental custody at the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court “shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to section 366.26... and shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent....” (Italics added.) Although the statute also requires the juvenile court to determine whether reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent, except in certain limited circumstances not present here the court’s authority to terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing at the 18-month stage is not conditioned on a finding of reasonable services. As the court explained in Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1015-1016, section 366.22, subdivision (a), “does not give the juvenile court the option to continue reunification services nor does it specifically prohibit the court from ordering a section 366.26 hearing even if it finds reasonable reunification services have not been provided to a parent.” (See also Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1511-1512.) The juvenile court in this case found S.O. and D.O. could not be returned to Felix O. at the 18-month hearing, and Felix O. does not challenge this finding. Under these circumstances the juvenile court was required to terminate services and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 even if the reunification services offered to Felix O. were deficient.
See generally sections 361.5, subdivision (a)(3), 366.22, subdivision (b) [extension of reunification services to the 24-month date for a parent who is making significant and consistent progress in substance abuse treatment or who was recently discharged from incarceration or institutionalization and is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a home for the child’s return].
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied on the merits.
We concur: ZELON, J., JACKSON, J.