Opinion
F077449
07-26-2018
G.T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent; MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Sean P. McLeod, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. James N. Fincher, County Counsel, and Ann M. Hanson, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16JP00142-A, 16JP00142-B)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. Sean P. McLeod, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. James N. Fincher, County Counsel, and Ann M. Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Smith, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and Ellison, J.†
-ooOoo-
G.T. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) as to her now nine-year-old daughter, Claire, and six-year-old son, Christopher. She contends the failure of the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) to accommodate her learning disability rendered the reunification services it provided her unreasonable. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In December 2016, social workers and law enforcement went to mother's residence in response to reports of domestic violence, physical abuse and a dirty home. Christopher A. (father) was hostile toward the social workers as he had been on two previous occasions. Drug paraphernalia and open alcohol bottles were found accessible to the children. There was an unloaded shotgun found stored in the parents' bedroom, leaning up against the wall, which was in reach of the children. There was a gun case on the floor that was unlocked but not open and mother and Claire reported there was a gun inside the case. The home was filthy, in disarray and hazardous.
Mother denied she and father engaged in domestic violence but said he verbally abused her in front of the children. Approximately a year before, she was holding the door shut to keep father out during a verbal altercation when she split her forehead open. She said she was "a little" afraid of him.
Claire stated father physically disciplined them with wooden paddles, causing injury. She saw him hit Christopher in the abdomen with his fist and observed Christopher crying and in pain. She also witnessed father push mother to the ground, causing a head injury and described mother's wound as "dripping blood." She attempted to intervene during the altercation but father pushed her to the ground.
The agency took the children into protective custody and placed them in foster care. The juvenile court ordered them detained pursuant to an original dependency petition.
Mother informed the agency she was diagnosed with dyslexia and attended special education classes in high school. She graduated from high school in 2006. Her work history included telemarketing, waitressing and more recently, stripping. Her learning disability made it hard to find a job. The agency anticipated that her learning disability may impede her ability to advocate for herself and her children in stressful situations. Father refused to be interviewed.
The parents were ordered to participate in reunification services, including mental health counseling. No specific provision was made with respect to mother's mental health services to address her learning disability. Her case plan was revised, however, at the six-month review hearing in July 2017, requiring her to contact the Merced County Mental Health Department or another provider approved by the agency to address her learning disorder vis-à-vis her ability to advocate for herself and the children.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for the parents and pursue adoption with the foster parents. Although mother complied with the parenting instruction, domestic violence counseling and drug testing components of her case plan, she continued to live with father, who was not only noncompliant but defensive and verbally abusive to the social workers. The agency referred mother to the Merced County Mental Health Department for an assessment on January 25, 2017, and to the Los Banos Mental Health Department in February and December of 2017, but she did not schedule an appointment. The agency did not believe she could protect herself and the children from father.
Mother testified at the contested 12-month review hearing that she contacted the Merced County Mental Health Department and was told she did not qualify for their services. However, she was given the numbers of other providers to call, which she did but got no response. She also obtained a list of counselors and started calling those numbers, again with few responses. She lost hope but did not tell the social worker of her difficulty. She finally spoke to someone just before the hearing and was waiting for a return call with an appointment.
Mother also testified father moved out of the family home and relocated to Texas. Asked whether she planned to join him there, she stated, "Not right now." Witnesses, however, refuted her testimony. Social worker Saul Rodriguez testified he supervised a visit in March 2018 when the children were informed about father's move to Texas. Father told the children he was moving to a big ranch and would arrange for the family to move there by May 1, 2018. Court appointed special advocate Kristi Foley testified Claire blurted out she was moving to Texas and father was going to get everything ready and send for them. Claire also stated, "[My] dad left my mom ... and he said that if she doesn't get us back, that he doesn't want her to come back to Texas."
Social worker Jonathan Corbin testified mother had not met the objectives of her case plan and he saw no evidence she could protect the children in future domestic violence incidents. He considered whether her learning disability impacted her ability to benefit from her domestic violence counseling but did not have any evidence, such as a mental health assessment, that it did. He contacted the Merced County Mental Health Department and was informed that mother had not been to their office to arrange a formal assessment. He did not consider the possibility that mother's learning disability impeded her ability to schedule an assessment. However, she did not demonstrate an inability to communicate or follow through with any of her other case plan objectives.
The juvenile court found it would be detrimental to return the children to mother's custody, stating it did not find her testimony she planned to put the children first credible. The court believed she wanted to continue her relationship with father and to do so needed the children. The court was concerned for their safety. The court also found the agency provided mother reasonable reunification services, stating "I don't believe that this one issue of dyslexia or learning disability has prevented [mother] from receiving the services and understanding [them]. I just don't think the willpower is there for her to implement the recommendations that she stay away from [father]." The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the agency's efforts to assist her in complying with her reunification services were not reasonable because, despite knowing she suffered from dyslexia, the social worker did not assist her in finding a provider to conduct a mental health assessment.
In determining whether the agency provided reasonable 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.) Services are reasonable when the supervising agency identifies the family's problems, offers services targeting those problems, maintains reasonable contact with the parent(s), and makes reasonable efforts to assist in areas where compliance is difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
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.) As mother bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632), she must show that the juvenile court's finding that the agency made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence.
The agency addressed mother's learning disability by incorporating it into the mental health component of her services plan and referred her multiple times for a mental health assessment. Though mother encountered difficulty scheduling an assessment, she never conveyed that to the social worker. Further, there is no evidence that her learning disability in any way contributed to her difficulty in arranging for the assessment as she successfully accessed and participated in her other case plan requirements.
Mother, nevertheless, contends In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323 (K.C.) compels a reversal of this case. We disagree. In K.C., the father underwent a psychological evaluation required by his case plan. The evaluator identified certain psychological conditions that interfered with his ability to safely parent his children and recommended a pharmacological evaluation. The supervising agency made no attempt to secure the evaluation and delegated the burden of securing the evaluation to the father, "despite the high likelihood that the very issues necessitating treatment would interfere with his ability to obtain it." (Id. at p. 330.) The appellate court reversed the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services, concluding it erred in finding reasonable services were provided. (Id. at p. 334.)
In this case, there is no evidence mother's dyslexia interfered with her ability to arrange a mental health assessment. Consequently, we find no error in the juvenile court's reasonable services finding.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.
† Retired judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.