Opinion
F075754 F075755
09-25-2017
G.C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. ROBERTO G., SR., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Robin N. McStay, for Petitioners G.C. and Roberto G., Sr. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 517495, 517496)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petitions for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Robin N. McStay, for Petitioners G.C. and Roberto G., Sr. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Black, J.†
-ooOoo-
Petitioners Roberto G., Sr. (father) and G.C. (mother) seek an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) terminating their reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to their now 11-year-old son Robert G., Jr. (Robert) and 21-month-old son, M.G. Petitioners contend there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) provided them reasonable reunification services and there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to their custody by the 18-month review hearing. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Detention and Removal
In December 2015, the agency was contacted after M.G., born prematurely, was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Mother disclosed to hospital staff that she was developmentally delayed and arguing with father. She denied they engaged in domestic violence but said father was controlling and called her names, such as "ho" and "slut." She also disclosed that then nine-year-old Robert was developmentally delayed as well. She agreed to participate in family maintenance services.
On February 2, 2016, while mother was visiting M.G. in the NICU, the staff noticed she had a black eye. She said father punched her while they were in the car and Robert, who was sitting in the backseat, witnessed it. She also said father threw her to the tile floor two days before and kicked her in the shins.
Mother's black eye was not the first indication the parents engaged in domestic violence. They had a documented history dating back to 2007 between Stanislaus and Los Angeles Counties. In 2008, Los Angeles County attempted to offer the family services for domestic violence but the family violated their safety plan and moved to Stanislaus County. Given the parents' history and concerns of substance abuse, the agency placed a protective hold on M.G. and took Robert into protective custody, placing him with a relative.
In March 2016, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, removed them from parental custody and ordered the parents to complete a parenting program and participate in individual counseling. Father was also required to complete a 52-week domestic violence program and participate in substance abuse treatment.
Six-Month Review
By the six-month review of services in September 2016, M.G. was in relative placement with Robert and the parents were participating in their reunification services. Mother was trying to establish her own home and father was participating in domestic violence counseling and active in recovery. However, the agency was concerned the parents remained romantically involved, even though they claimed to have severed their relationship.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency advised the juvenile court the parents' dishonesty concerning their relationship made it difficult to assess their progress in resolving their domestic violence issues. The agency believed they needed to resolve their domestic violence issues separately before working on their relationship.
In October 2016, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued reunification services for the parents to the 12-month review hearing in March 2017 and approved a revised case plan requiring them to participate in coparenting counseling if approved by their therapists.
12-Month Review
By March 2017, the parents were living separately; mother in a family mentor home and father in a sober living facility. However, they disclosed they had been romantically involved since the inception of the case. Consequently, mother's therapist declined to approve her for couples/coparenting counseling sessions. In addition, the parents paid more attention to M.G., causing Robert to feel neglected. The visitation supervisor characterized most of the visits as "ok" or "needs improvement" and Robert told his caregiver he did not like visiting mother because he felt ignored. Social worker Courtney Mummert discussed Robert's concerns with the parents and, in February 2017, after seeing improvement, began scheduling father's visits at his residence.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the agency opined the parents could successfully reunify if they gained insight into how their domestic violence impacted their children. In the meantime, however, the agency opined the juvenile court could not return them to parental custody without placing them at risk of harm. The agency recommended the juvenile court continue the parents' reunification services and grant it discretion to arrange overnight visitation. Minors' counsel objected and the court set a contested review hearing.
Meanwhile, the agency changed its position and recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services. In an addendum report, the agency expressed concern about father's controlling behavior and capacity to engage in a healthy, nonviolent relationship with mother. He criticized mother's wardrobe and wanted to know who she saw when she was not with him. In addition, he threatened to take the children from her during a conversation in March 2017 and said he wanted to control her and Robert's social security income. Mummert consulted with father's therapist, Judi Schardijn, about his behavior. Schardijn said she did not believe he had engaged in his recovery long enough to sustain a healthy relationship with mother.
As to mother, the agency reported she was conflicted about her relationship with father. In February 2017, she told Mummert she wanted "all the control" in her relationship with father. When asked to clarify, she said she wanted him to know how she felt. She also said she was only with him because she was scared and it was the only way to get custody of the children.
The agency also reported that the parents' therapists expressed concern about their ability to engage both children at the same time. They interacted more with M.G. and Robert did not want to visit them out of fear for his safety and that of his brother. The agency did not believe the parents could meet the children's special needs and developmental delays.
Further, the parents had yet to complete their reunification services. Father had only completed half of the 52 domestic violence sessions and mother had three individual parenting sessions to complete. In addition, their therapists had not cleared them for couples/coparenting counseling, which the agency believed was imperative to their understanding of the violence in their relationship. The agency did not believe the parents were capable of successfully reunifying with the children before August 2017, which marked the 18-month limit on reunification services.
Contested 12-Month Review Hearing
In May 2017, the juvenile court convened the contested 12-month review hearing. Schardijn, facilitator for the batterer's intervention program, testified father attended 34 of the required 52 sessions. She originally assessed him as "satisfactory" in the area of taking responsibility for abusive behavior but revised it to "needs improvement" after county counsel elicited her testimony that father failed to disclose running over mother's foot with a car in 2007, being convicted of spousal abuse in 2009 and child cruelty in 2014 where Robert was the victim, and pushing and kicking mother in 2016. Schardijn said most of the progress in domestic violence occurred in the last six months of treatment, so she would not have expected father to make these disclosures. However, his lack of disclosure made it difficult to assess his progress and she believed he needed a lot more work. Nevertheless, she rated his risk of physical abuse as "low."
Mother testified and struggled to understand the questions asked by counsel and the juvenile court. For example, she denied that father was physically, verbally and/or emotionally abusive to her but also testified he "was abusive to [her] for years." She was clear, however, in her desire to maintain a relationship with father and reunify with the children.
Father testified he no longer struggled with control issues in his relationship with mother. He also intended to reunify with the children and mother as a family unit, although he was willing to cut ties with mother in order to gain custody of the children. He told his substance abuse counselors and therapist Maryanne Cose in August 2016 that he and mother were in a relationship. He told them because he was "[not] at peace" and it was "holding [him] back." He denied saying he wanted to control mother's money or that he would take the children from her. He admitted being violent toward mother during their 12-year relationship and having completed a 52-week domestic violence class in 2010. He believed he needed to do more work on control issues but also believed he and mother could safely parent the children. Father believed Robert's aversion to visiting was not related to him but to a client living at the sober living facility. Father believed if he moved out, Robert would want to live with him. He explained that the felony concerning Robert was the result of him having guns in his home.
On questioning by the juvenile court, father identified methamphetamine as his drug of choice and February 5, 2016, as his clean and sober date. He was clean from 2002 until approximately April 2015, when he relapsed. While using, he used corporal punishment on Robert. He also physically abused mother while not using methamphetamine.
Cose testified father disclosed to her in January 2017 that he was in a relationship with mother. Since that time, his progress had significantly improved. Asked what he needed to complete in therapy, Cose said she wanted him to complete codependency counseling, which she estimated would require five or six sessions. She said it would take more than that after hearing that Schardijn changed her risk assessment of father. She said she and Mummert had discussed when it would be appropriate to begin coparenting/couple's counseling. She did not recommend it, given the new information.
Mummert testified it would be detrimental to return the children to parental custody because Robert reported the parents struck him and Robert was fearful for his brother. On May 1, 2017, he reported father hit him on the butt, leg and back. Mummert asked him if he wanted to live with his parents and he said, "No, because they hit me." She asked him if he felt safe with his dad and he said, "No." In April 2017, Robert told a mandated reporter that father hit him in the face with an open hand. Mummert did not receive any reports after May 1st that father was hitting Robert.
Mummert changed the recommendation to termination of services because, after talking to the parents' therapists, she surmised the parents would not be able to reunify with the children before the 18-month review hearing in August. Specifically, she did not believe they would be cleared for and complete couples counseling by then.
Father's attorney asked Mummert whether she considered therapeutic supervised visitation to address Robert's negative feelings about visiting father. She spoke with Cose about father's interaction with Robert but did not specifically ask about therapeutic visits and did not know it was an option. She also talked to Robert's therapist who said Robert was difficult to engage because of his limited capacity to understand the content of their discussions.
The juvenile court concluded the parents' decision to remain a couple prevented them from adequately addressing their roles as abuser and victim in their troubled relationship. The court also believed that mother would not protect herself from father and did not find father's testimony credible. In ruling, the court found it would be detrimental to return the children to parental custody. The court also found the parents were provided reasonable reunification services and there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to them by the 18-month review hearing. The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
In order to continue reunification services at the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must find that the parent was not provided reasonable reunification services or that there is a substantial probability the child can be returned to parental custody by the 18-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Petitioners contend the court's findings are error because the agency failed to provide them couples counseling and therapeutic supervised visitation and they could have resolved any deficiencies in the two to three months remaining before the 18-month review hearing. We disagree.
Reasonableness of Reunification Services
In assessing the reasonableness of reunification services, the juvenile court considers not only the appropriateness of services offered but also the extent to which the agency facilitated utilization of the services and the extent to which the parent availed him or herself of the services provided. To be reasonable, the services provided need not be perfect. The "standard is not whether [they] were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances." (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)
On a challenge to the juvenile court's reasonable services finding, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent, indulging all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) If substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding, we will not disturb it. (Ibid.)
In this case, the juvenile court removed petitioners' children because of domestic violence and ordered petitioners to participate in individual, domestic violence and parenting counseling to address the problem. In addition, the agency assisted petitioners in accessing their services and advocated for overnight visitation. However, the agency also counseled petitioners to make treatment their priority, not their relationship and offered them coparenting and couples counseling if approved by their therapists. However, petitioners continued their relationship, while telling their therapists they were no longer a couple, and father's controlling behavior persisted. Consequently, the therapists opined they had not made sufficient progress and declined to clear them for coparenting and couples counseling. Thus, petitioner's inability to engage in such counseling was not the result of unreasonable efforts on the part of the agency but their own choice not to meaningfully engage in treatment.
As to visitation, father, who raises the issue, fails to show therapeutic supervised visitation was warranted or even appropriate. According to Robert's therapist, Robert's limited capacity made it difficult for him to engage. Given that evidence, there is no reason to believe that the assistance of a visitation specialist would have improved father's interaction with Robert or enhanced father's ability to reunify with him.
Substantial Probability of Return
In order to find a substantial probability of return, the juvenile court must find the parent regularly visited the child, made significant progress in resolving the problem prompting removal of the child, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child's safety, protection, and well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) We will uphold the court's finding if substantial evidence supports it. (In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960, 966.)
Here, it was undisputed petitioners regularly visited the children. The question was whether they made significant progress in resolving their domestic violence and demonstrated the capacity to safely parent the children. The juvenile court found they had not, stating:
"[T]his court [believes] that the parents have a significant amount of work to do, and I have significant concerns about whether these parents really should have remained together as a couple ever since removal. I think if the parents would have actually [focused] on the children and not have continued to remain in a relationship with each other and a relationship that they were not even honest about for a significant period of time, things could have been different."
Considering the parents still had a "significant amount of work to do," despite having received 15 months of reunification services, there was no reason to believe that more counseling, be it coparenting, codependency or couples counseling, would result in the children's return by August 2017.
We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petitions for extraordinary writ are denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.