Opinion
B332739
02-20-2024
G.G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT of CHILDREN and FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Law Office of Rachel Ewing, Dominika Campbell, and Viator Ozoude, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, for Real Party in Interest. Children's Law Center of California and Daniel Szrom, for Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; Petition for Extraordinary Writ. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP01273A Cathy Ostiller, Judge. Petition denied.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Law Office of Rachel Ewing, Dominika Campbell, and Viator Ozoude, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, for Real Party in Interest.
Children's Law Center of California and Daniel Szrom, for Minor.
MORI, J.
Mother, G.G., seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court's order issued at an 18-month review hearing. The order terminated her reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter, C.G., born March 2022. Mother contends substantial evidence did not support the court's findings that (1) returning C.G. to mother created a substantial risk of detriment to C.G.'s safety and (2) reasonable services were provided to mother. We deny the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Detention
C.G. came to the Department's attention at the time of her birth due to a positive toxicology screen for methamphetamine and mother admitting to snorting the drug a week before giving birth. Hospital records indicated mother had multiple mental health diagnoses, including bi-polar and panic disorder, and was being "'followed by the Regional Center.'" Regional centers provide assessments and services for Californians with developmental disabilities.
A social worker met with mother, and she admitted to having a history of methamphetamine use. The social worker then received a call from the regional center service coordinator assigned to mother for the previous year. The coordinator reported mother was aggressive, suffered from hallucinations, and was easily triggered. That same day, the social worker spoke with maternal grandmother, who stated mother was not always compliant with "'her mental health'" medication. Maternal grandmother also stated mother recently went to maternal grandmother's residence and was physically aggressive, wrapping her hands around maternal grandmother's neck. The Department noted mother had a child welfare history going back to 2004 for substance abuse and mental health issues.
In April 2022, the Department filed a petition on behalf of C.G. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging mother's substance abuse and untreated mental health issues endangered C.G.'s health and safety. The juvenile court detained C.G. from mother, and the child was placed with a maternal cousin and his fiance.
B. Jurisdiction and Disposition
Mother met with a dependency investigator but had difficulty staying focused and responded to questions with references to Covid-19 and politics. When asked about her insight into her actions, mother referred the investigator to Netflix. Mother stated she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and "'mild retardation.'" She added she had a caregiver every day through an agency contracted with the regional center: Buena Vida Learning Services (Buena Vida). The director at Buena Vida clarified to the investigator that his agency contracted with the regional center to provide housing to mother and a personal aide. The director added that mother spent a previous weekend at her boyfriend's house and returned appearing to be under the influence of drugs. The director said, "She was really talking to herself, her lips were moving, and she was pacing back and forth. You could tell. She was incoherent and she was verbally abusive to myself to the point where I had to get into my car. Otherwise, she would have physically attacked me."
At the adjudication and disposition hearing in June 2022, the juvenile court sustained the allegations concerning mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. C.G. was declared a dependent of the court and removed from parental custody. The Department was ordered to provide family reunification services to C.G. and mother. The court granted mother monitored visits in a Department approved setting.
Nonparty father was not provided with family reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (a).
C. Six-Month Review
When the six-month review occurred, Mother was receiving 24-hour supervision and care from Buena Vida. At the same time, C.G. was a client of the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center and received weekly services on Fridays. Mother was able to engage in the services with C.G. during monitored visits.
The Department had regular interaction with C.G. and mother, including monthly face-to-face contact with C.G. and Child and Family Team meetings with mother and her Buena Vida staff. The Department worked with mother's Buena Vida staff to facilitate visits and coordinate services. The Department provided mother with referrals to court-ordered programs and information on how to apply for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program. Mother also enrolled in parenting classes and individual counseling. Mother consistently submitted to random drug testing with negative results and began a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in September 2022.
Mother visited with C.G. three times per week for three hours. The visits typically took place at the Buena Vida office, monitored by Buena Vida staff. Mother required frequent support and guidance from her Buena Vida staff and had difficulty multi-tasking. Mother needed reminders to ensure C.G. was fed at appropriate intervals.
The Department had concerns regarding mother's ability to adequately and independently provide care for C.G. The Department opined mother had not shown the capacity to care for the child without supervision. In a last-minute information, it was noted that maternal relatives requested a meeting with the social worker to discuss their concerns regarding mother's capacity to provide long-term care to C.G. and her "lack of judgment and motherly instinct." The maternal relatives advised the social worker mother showed little initiative in caring for C.G., and they disclosed an incident where mother left C.G. unattended on a sofa and others stepped in to prevent C.G. from falling to the ground. Other concerns were mother's lack of engagement with C.G. during visits and statements mother made about the Buena Vida office being haunted and having spirits.
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found mother made substantial progress in her case plan and continued reunification services for a 12-month review hearing.
D. 12-Month Review
When the twelve-month review took place, there were concerns regarding mother's capacity to meet C.G.'s basic needs if given unmonitored visits. The social worker observed mother was at times distracted during visits, minimally interacted with C.G., would "zon[e] out" while watching C.G., and did not verbally engage with the child.
In its status review report for the 12-month review hearing, the Department opined that mother "made great strides" toward being able to care for herself independently, but she struggled with comprehending why she needed to complete certain daily tasks. Mother's Buena Vida caregivers all expressed their concern with mother's ability to take care of herself and a child of such a tender age as C.G.
Regarding her case plan, mother was medication compliant, continued attending parenting classes, submitted to drug testing with negative results, and was receiving psychiatric services and individual therapy. As to visitation, mother was completing her visitation at the Department's office. She was reportedly still "in need of a great deal of help and redirection when caring for" C.G.
The social worker observed mother continued to struggle with the basic functions of caring for C.G. On many occasions, she appeared to be uninterested in what C.G. was doing or to be in a "daze." Mother also tended to lose focus on keeping C.G. safe. For example, she did not take actions to prevent C.G. from running out an open door or hitting her head when reaching under tables. Mother would become extremely frustrated and angry when redirected on a behavior or action. The Department recognized mother worked hard to better understand C.G.'s needs, but she still did not have the skills needed to care for her daughter and apply the information taught in parenting classes to real life circumstances.
At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court again found mother was making substantial progress in her case plan and continued reunification services. During the hearing, the Department's counsel inquired into whether mother had been attending C.G.'s regional center services. Mother's aide informed the court C.G.'s teacher had to change the appointment time to a day mother did not have visitation, so mother had not been attending. The Department's counsel expressed it would be beneficial to have mother attend C.G.'s services, but counsel noted multiple coordinators were involved and it might not be in mother's best interest to change her service provider. The court ordered the Department to use best efforts to facilitate mother attending C.G.'s regional center appointments.
E. 18-Month Review
In its October 2023 status review report, the Department reported mother remained medication compliant and participated in her court-ordered services. Mother was working towards administering her own medication but had not been cleared to complete the task without monitoring. Further, mother continued to require a personal aide "24/7." The aide assisted as a monitor and support for mother only.
The Department continued having monthly in-person contact with C.G. and her caregivers, conducting Child and Family Team meetings with mother and her Buena Vida staff, providing mother referrals for court-ordered programs, facilitating and observing mother's visits, and coordinating with mother's Buena Vida staff to facilitate services and visits. During this period, mother submitted to six negative drug tests but missed three testing appointments.
Mother visited with C.G. three times per week for four hours each visit. Mother required assistance from her staff to recognize circumstances that might be harmful to C.G. During visits, mother was sometimes distracted and did not interact with C.G. For instance, mother had to be reminded to buckle C.G. during diaper changes and to hold C.G. during potty training so that she would not fall. During a parenting class in late August 2023, mother did not have her attention on C.G. and the child walked away and got into a cabinet without mother noticing. During visits in September 2023, the Department reported that mother continued to be distracted and her focus had to be redirected to C.G. multiples times. Mother's Buena Vida supervisor believed that in time mother could become selfsufficient but opined that it was "at best a two[-]year time frame." The supervisor further explained that mother often wanted to take a nap after her four visits with C.G. When Buena Vida staff tried to help mother understand caring for C.G. would be a 24/7 job, mother would get frustrated.
The Department determined mother was not able to fully understand the care C.G. needed. While mother was willing to care for C.G., mother lacked the ability to stay focused long enough to complete four-hour visits without getting distracted and required constant redirecting to remain available to C.G.'s needs. Mother indicated on several occasions she wanted to find a place to live alone with C.G., but the Department did not receive the needed assurances from mother's caregivers or therapist that she was ready for a transition to independent motherhood.
At the 18-month review hearing in October 2023, mother's counsel requested C.G. be returned to mother's care because the Department did not show substantial detriment in returning C.G. to mother. In addition, mother's counsel argued that given mother's unique circumstances, the Department did not provide her with reasonable reunification services.
The juvenile court determined reasonable services were provided to mother and found it was "not safe for the child to be released to mother." The court stated, "Given the time frames . . . mother is basically going to be out of time when it comes to getting to the point where she could potentially be in a position to care for this child." The court terminated mother's reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
Mother timely filed a notice of intent to file writ petition, and on December 11, 2023, filed her petition challenging the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. We issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The Department filed an answer, and C.G.'s counsel filed a letter joining in the Department's contentions.
DISCUSSION
A. There is Substantial Evidence to Show Return to Mother's Custody Would Create a Substantial Risk of Detriment
Mother contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's finding that there was a substantial risk of detriment in returning C.G. to mother's care. We disagree.
The purpose of the California dependency system is to protect children from harm and to preserve families when safe for the child. (§ 300.2; Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1423 (Tracy J.).) "As relevant here, section 366.22, subdivision (a) requires the juvenile court at the 18-month review hearing to return the child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return of the child would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's physical or emotional well-being." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.) The Department has the burden of establishing detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) "The standard for showing detriment is 'a fairly high one. It cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable than an available foster parent or other family member.' [Citation.] Rather, the risk of detriment must be substantial, such that returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child's physical or emotional well-being. [Citation.]" (In re Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400.)
Harm to a child cannot be presumed from the mere fact that the parent has a disability. "'The proper basis for a ruling is expert testimony giving specific examples of the manner in which the mother's behavior has and will adversely affect the child or jeopardize the child's safety.'" (Tracy J., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1424.) "The evidence must be viewed in light of the disabled parent's response to services and demonstrated ability to safely care for the child, despite that parent's labeled diagnosis, initial prognosis or eligibility for support services." (Id. at pp. 14241425.)
We review the juvenile court's finding of detriment for substantial evidence by considering whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court's finding. (Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864.) "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." (Ibid.) The judgment will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result if it had believed other evidence. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) "The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order." (Ibid.)
Here, mother asserts that by the 18-month mark, she addressed the issues that brought C.G. under the juvenile court's jurisdiction, such as substance abuse and mental illness, and complied with her case plan programs. As the Department points out, mother missed three drug testing appointments out of nine. (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [missed drug test following children's detention was properly considered the equivalent of a positive test result], disapproved on other grounds in In re N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 560, fn. 18.) However, mother did comply with her case plan in many ways, for example, by participating in a rehabilitation program, parenting classes, and individual counseling.
Mother's compliance with her case plan is certainly commendable, but it is not dispositive. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704.) "[W]hile the court must consider the extent the parent has cooperated with the services provided and the efforts the parent has made to correct the problems which gave rise to the dependency (§ 366.22, subd. (a)), the decision whether to return the child to parental custody depends on the effect that action would have on the physical or emotional well-being of the child." (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 899.) In cases where the parent has complied with the case plan, "[t]he problem is not, as it were, quantitative (that is, showing up for counseling or therapy or parenting classes . . .) but qualitative." (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748.) The court considers whether compliance has enabled the parent to care for the child safely. Further, detriment need not result from the actions that led to the child's removal from the parent; if return to the home would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child, out-of-home "placement must continue regardless of whether that detriment mirrors the harm which had required the child's removal from parental custody." (In re Joseph B., at p. 900.)
The issue, thus, was not simply whether mother completed her case plan, but whether she could provide a safe and protective home for C.G., caring for and meeting C.G.'s needs on a full-time basis. The record indicates maternal relatives expressed concerns with mother's capacity to provide long-term care to C.G. Maternal relatives advised the social worker mother demonstrated little initiative in caring for C.G. and did not engage with the child during visits. The social worker was also advised of an incident where mother left C.G. unattended, and others intervened to prevent her from falling to the ground from a sofa.
There continued to be concerns regarding mother's capacity to meet C.G.'s basic needs throughout the case. Notably, mother's Buena Vida caregivers all expressed concern with mother's ability to effectively take care of herself and a child of such a tender age. Mother required regular reminders to feed C.G. and change her diapers. During visits, Mother did not seem interested in what C.G. was doing, appeared to be in a daze at times, and tended to lose focus on keeping C.G. safe. For example, she did not prevent C.G. from running out an open door. She had to be reminded to buckle C.G. during diaper changes and hold her during potty training on a toilet so that C.G. would not fall. Mother would become frustrated and at times angry when directed on a behavior or action. The Department opined mother was unable to apply the information she learned in her parenting class to real life circumstances.
Mother was medication compliant and learning to administer her own medication during the 18-month review period, but she had not yet been cleared to do so without monitoring. Mother's Buena Vida supervisor opined that in time mother could become fully self-sufficient, but it was at best a two-year timeframe. The supervisor further explained to the Department that mother often wanted to take a nap after her four-hour visits with C.G., and that when Buena Vida staff tried to help mother understand taking care of C.G. was a 24/7 job, mother got frustrated. As C.G. is less than two years old, has special needs, and is a regional center client, she would require close care and supervision.
The foregoing evidence, including the social worker's and Buena Vida caregivers' opinions, demonstrated it would be detrimental to C.G. to return her to mother's custody. (Tracy J., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1424.) Mother had not shown she was able to meet C.G.'s special needs on a long-term basis, thereby placing C.G. at risk if returned to mother's care at the time of the 18-month review hearing.
Mother argues the juvenile court improperly held her to the standard of a "non-disabled parent" and improperly treated her disability accommodations as a risk to C.G.'s safety, including by finding mother's need for an aide placed C.G. at risk. The court did not hold mother to an improper standard. The court properly focused on protecting C.G. from harm and ensuring her physical and emotional well-being. (§ 300.2; Tracy J., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423.) As detailed above, the court determined, based on the evidence, that it was not safe to return C.G. to mother's custody. Specific examples were provided about the manner in which mother's behavior would adversely affect C.G. or jeopardize her safety. At no point did the court suggest any of mother's disability accommodations posed a risk to C.G. Nor did the Department report any of mother's disability accommodations caused a negative impact on her ability to parent C.G.
We commend mother for the effort that she has undertaken to address challenges she faces. However, viewing the record most favorably to the juvenile court's orders, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding there would be a substantial risk of detriment to C.G. if she was immediately returned to mother's custody.
B. There is Substantial Evidence to Support the Juvenile Court's Finding the Department Provided Reasonable Services
Next, mother contends substantial evidence did not support the finding she was provided reasonable services. We are not persuaded.
Once a child has been removed from a parent's custody, dependency laws establish a timeline that seeks to balance the parents' interest in reunification with the child's interest in a stable and permanent home. "[T]he court ordinarily must order child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family. [Citations.] Such services may, depending on the case, include evaluations and assessments, counseling, parent education, substance abuse treatment and testing, and other forms of assistance." (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624, fn. omitted (Michael G.).) "For qualifying parents, the minimum length of reunification services depends on the age of the child at the time of removal. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (a)(1).) Parents of children under three are presumptively eligible for at least six months of reunification services. (See id., subd. (a)(1)(B).) Parents of children three or older are presumptively eligible for at least 12 months of services. (See id., subd. (a)(1)(A).) Reunification services are ordinarily provided for a maximum of 18 months after a child has been removed from parental custody." (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 625, fn. omitted.) After that, the Legislature has made clear the child's interest in the stability of permanent placement, and in avoiding the uncertainty of foster care, weighs against waiting in hopes of reunification that may or may not ultimately be possible. (Id. at p. 627.)
"The department must make a '"good faith effort"' to provide reasonable services responsive to the unique needs of each family." (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.) The adequacy of the reunification plan and of the Department's efforts to provide suitable services is judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. (Id. at p. 1011.) "[T]he record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult. . . ." (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) "The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) "Although services need not be perfect, they must be designed to remedy the family's problems and accommodate the special needs of disabled parents." (Tracy J., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1427.)
The juvenile court's reasonable services finding "must be made [by] clear and convincing evidence." (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) "When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. In conducting its review, the court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give appropriate deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence." (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011-1012.)
Mother asserts there is not substantial evidence to support the finding she was provided with reasonable reunification services. She contends that, as part of reunification services, the Department should have investigated whether C.G. could live in mother's regional housing or whether C.G.'s regional center services could be provided to her if she lived with mother. In making this argument, mother cites to In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216, disapproved in part on another ground in Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 634, fn. 11.
In re Daniel G., is distinguishable because the reunification services provided were "virtually nil-a 'disgrace.'" (In re Daniel G., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1216.) "The social worker assigned to the case did not even contact the mother during this period but put all his time into working with [the child] and the foster mother who wished to adopt him." (Ibid.) Not only did the social worker fail to "investigate the possibility [the mother] and [child] could be housed together in a facility which would meet both their needs," but the worker also had "no idea whether [the mother] was progressing toward an independent living situation. He never asked [the mother's] psychiatrist whether he believed [the mother] would ever reach the point where she could care for [the child] and, if so, when. Despite the fact the court ordered weekly visits between [the mother] and [child], the record shows visits were only arranged monthly-the social worker taking the view that even these visits were through the 'grace' of the foster parent." (Ibid.) Under the facts presented in that case, the juvenile court had discretion to continue reunification services beyond the 18-month review hearing. (Ibid.)
Here, mother does not dispute the Department gave her referrals to programs to assist her in addressing the case issues. Nor does she dispute the Department had regular contact with mother, Buena Vida staff, C.G., and C.G.'s caregivers throughout the life of the case. Mother also had regular visits with C.G., which the Department observed. After 18 months of services, mother's Buena Vida supervisor opined mother made progress in caring for herself and C.G. but believed, at best, it would be two years or more before mother was self-sufficient. Under these circumstances, although the Department may not have investigated whether C.G. and mother could receive regional center services together, there was substantial evidence upon which the trial court could have found it highly probable that mother received reasonable services.
Mother also argues the Department failed to provide evidence it assisted mother with visitation tailored to her disability. In particular, mother states her visits with C.G. were largely limited to the "artificial construct" of the Department's visiting room, even though mother's Buena Vida aides could have adequately supervised the visits. However, there were numerous concerns with mother's lack of attention and focus on C.G.'s safety, such that the Department's office was an appropriate location for visits. The location of the visits also provided the Department with an opportunity to observe mother's interactions with C.G. Mother does not explain how visits in a different setting would have materially changed her ability to reunify with C.G. Thus, the juvenile court could conclude reunification services were reasonable with visitation taking place in the Department's visiting room.
Even if a juvenile court finds that reasonable services were not provided within 18 months, it is not required to extend services. (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 629-630.) "[C]hildren's interests in avoiding protracted uncertainty about who will care for them" weigh against extended services, except in rare circumstances where good cause is shown. (§ 352, subd. (a)(1) and (a)(2); Michael G., at p. 632; see also Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.) Good cause may be found, for example, when "a parent never receives unification services." (Michael G., at p. 632; Mark N., at p. 1017.) Mother does not argue or identify any exceptional circumstances that required the juvenile court to continue reunification services beyond the 18-month hearing in this case. There is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding by clear and convincing evidence the services mother received were reasonable. The court, therefore, did not err in scheduling the section 366.26 hearing.
Section 366.22, subdivision (b), also authorizes extension of the reunification period to 24 months for three narrowly defined categories of parents under certain circumstances: (1) a parent making progress "in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program"; (2) "a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing"; and (3) "a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security." Mother does not contend she falls within any of these categories.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The stay entered on December 13, 2023, is lifted.
We concur: CURREY, P. J. COLLINS, J.