Opinion
E066929
01-18-2017
H.H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates, and Stephanie M. Davis for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J261330 & J261769) OPINION ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Petition denied. Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates, and Stephanie M. Davis for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner H.H. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to her two daughters: six-year-old L.K. and one-year-old L.J.K. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a).) Mother argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) provided her with reasonable reunification services; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order reducing her visitation. We reject Mother's contention and deny her petition.
All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
The presumed father of the children P.K. (Father) is not a party to this appeal.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The family came to the attention of CFS after Mother and L.J.K. tested positive for benzodiazepines, opiates, and oxycodone at L.J.K.'s birth. Mother reported that she received Norco from Father who took the medication after he was shot in the face with a defective shotgun when he was a teenager. L.J.K. was showing signs of withdrawal including a high-pitched cry and stiff legs. L.J.K. received morphine to ease her withdrawals. While trying to comfort L.J.K., Mother aggressively shook the baby and the hospital nurse had to intervene. Prior to discharge, the hospital staff believed Mother and Father were trying to leave with the baby. The parents reported that they were from Alaska, having been in the Yucca Valley area for only six months; and that they also had a five-year-old daughter, L.K., who was visiting family in Alaska. The parents denied illegal drug use. CFS believed the baby was at risk and a detention warrant was granted. While the baby was hospitalized for three weeks, the parents rarely visited her, and Mother appeared to be under the influence when she did visit. Relatives, however, were at the hospital almost every day, bonding with the baby.
On July 28, 2015, a petition was filed on behalf of L.J.K. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), due to her parents' substance abuse. The following day, the court formally removed the baby from parental custody and ordered services pending a further hearing and assessment of relative placement.
Further investigation revealed that Mother had also tested positive for opiates and oxycodone following L.K.'s birth in April 2010 and that child protective services (CPS) in Alaska had intervened for a period of one month. CPS records from Alaska indicated that L.K. was born prematurely and suffered withdrawals as well. The parents resided with the maternal grandmother (MGM) off and on in Alaska, and last did so in September 2009.
CFS confirmed that L.K., then age five, was living with MGM and that both parents had a history of abusing drugs. The paternal grandfather believed that L.J.K. would be well-cared for by the paternal second cousin, K.D., who resided in California. Mother, however, desired L.J.K. be placed with MGM in Alaska. MGM pressured the social worker to place L.J.K. in her care, even though it would interfere with the parents' visitation and reunification. MGM was supposed to bring L.K. to the home of the paternal aunt so she could visit her aunt and cousins; however MGM refused, stating she was afraid she would not get L.K. back. MGM intended to move to North Dakota, and as such CFS did not initiate the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) with Alaska. CFS, however, assessed K.D. for placement of L.J.K.
On August 25, 2015, CFS received a referral indicating L.K. was living with her parents in San Bernardino County and was at risk of harm due to her parents' substance abuse. Because MGM did not have legal custody of L.K., Father had L.K. brought to California, but withheld that fact from CFS, knowing CFS would likely detain L.K.
CFS detained L.K., and on August 27, 2015, filed a petition on behalf of L.K. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). L.K. was detained the following day and placed in K.D.'s home with her sister.
CFS recommended that the children remain in their paternal cousin K.D.'s home. The relative home had been approved, and Father agreed with the placement. K.D. and her spouse had their own children, who were then ages two and nine. There was no mention of CFS placing the children with MGM.
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on September 14, 2015. At that time, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petitions true and declared the children dependents of the court. The children were maintained in K.D.'s home and the parents were provided with reunification services and ordered to participate. The case plans required the parents to attend general counseling, a parenting education program, a substance abuse program, a 12-Step program, and to randomly drug test. The objectives in the case plans required the parents to show an ability to live free from drug dependency, and comply with all required drug tests. The court approved the case plans and no party objected to the terms of the plans. The court also ordered supervised visits once a week for two hours.
In a minute order dated November 4, 2015, it was reported that the children were residing in a concurrent planning home. The relative was incorrectly identified as the children's paternal aunt. The children remained in the home of K.D. The minute order also stated that MGM resided in Dickenson, North Dakota and was requesting consideration as a back-up placement. CFS asked for the court's approval to initiate an ICPC with North Dakota, which was granted.
On November 18, 2015, MGM filed motions, requesting the court to set a relative placement preference hearing pursuant section 361.3, and consider her, as well as other relatives living in her home, for immediate placement. MGM also asked to be considered L.K.'s de facto parent. In addition, MGM filed section 388 petitions, requesting placement of both girls in her home. The juvenile court set all matters for a hearing.
CFS recommended continued placement of the children with K.D. and her family, and denial of MGM's requests. The parents resided in California, where they received services and visits, and MGM lived out of state. MGM also made inappropriate statements to the children, telling them she would soon get them because Mother was going to sign over her parental rights, and undermined the children's placement with K.D. MGM also failed to follow the visitation rules by FaceTiming L.K. for over an hour rather than the 15 minutes allotted time, resulting in L.K. not wanting to call MGM. K.D. reported that the parents had sent L.K. to MGM's home prior to L.J.K.'s birth; that MGM had sent L.K. back to the parents' home around August 15, 2015, despite knowing about the parents' drug use; and that the parents were trying to hide L.K. from CFS.
The matters were heard on December 11, 2015. After hearing argument, the court denied MGM's de facto parent request as well as her section 388 petitions, finding there was no prima facie evidence of a change in circumstances and changing the children's placement was not in their best interest. The court renewed its order for an ICPC to investigate MGM as a back-up placement and to authorize unsupervised visits if appropriate and established K.D.'s home as the concurrent planning home.
On February 8, 2016, K.D. and her husband D.D. (the D.'s) filed a de facto parent request. A hearing on the request was held on March 1, 2016. The parents were not present. After no counsel objected to the request, the court granted the de facto parent request.
By the time of the March 14, 2016 six-month review hearing, CFS reported neither parent was complying with their court-ordered case plan and recommended terminating family reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Father admitted he had relapsed, and was arrested twice for drug-related offenses. In addition, gunshots were fired at the parents' home and it was rumored Father was afraid to return home because someone was threatening his life. The parents then moved in with the paternal grandfather for their safety. Mother failed to consistently attend substance abuse treatment and randomly drug test. She also tested positive for opiates. The parents remained together, although conflict existed between them and they admitted they were self-destructive together. The parents' visits were described as inconsistent. They would often either miss or show up late for visits, and appeared to be under the influence during visits. Additionally, during visits, they had some inappropriate conversations with L.K. L.K. had a difficult time regulating her emotions before and after visits with her parents and required counseling and a mental health assessment. L.K. had emotional indicators of sadness, depression, and mood swings.
In October 2015, the parents met with the social worker complaining they had not received any referral for services. The social worker thereafter reviewed the file with the parents showing them that another social worker had made referrals for them. The social worker then gave the parents another copy of the case plan and referrals, which the parents signed. The social worker also provided the parents with transportation vouchers when requested. CFS submitted referrals for individual counseling, parenting education with New Horizons, and outpatient substance abuse with Mental Health Systems (MHS). CFS also requested the parents to randomly drug test and attend a 12-Step program. Mother was attending individual counseling, however, she only attended three of the eight sessions authorized and the therapist requested another referral to continue her counseling. CFS thereafter submitted another referral for continued counseling. Mother also enrolled in the parenting program at New Horizons in October 2015 and attended one class on October 28, 2015. Prior to that date, Mother failed to respond to multiple attempts made by New Horizons to contact them to begin classes. New Horizons requested another referral, and on November 25, 2015, a new referral was requested and approved by CFS. Mother did not complete screening for outpatient substance abuse counseling with MHS until December 2015 and was placed on a waiting list. She was then instructed to immediately begin a drug education or relapse prevention group at a recovery center weekly. The intake at MHS did not take place until January 14, 2016, however, Mother was attending relapse prevention group meetings and 12-Step meetings weekly. Once Mother began the outpatient program at MHS, her attendance was inconsistent until her counselor spoke with her, and thereafter, she attended regularly and tested negative for drugs on February 3, 2016.
On March 14, 2016, at the six-month review hearing, Mother arrived with a retained attorney and the court set a settlement conference and trial for April 1, 2016.
At the April 1, 2016 settlement conference, the case was resolved with CFS recommending to continue reunification services. Following some visitation amendment requests by CFS, the juvenile court continued reunification services and set a 12-month review hearing for August 18, 2016.
Due to the parents' inconsistency with visits and failing to appear even after confirming attendance, CFS asked the court to order the parents to confirm visits 24 hours in advance, and appear before the children were brought. The court responded, "All right."
In mid-April 2016, the social worker noticed the attorneys of the amended case plans, and submitted the plans for court approval. The plans delineated the conduct by the parents giving rise to ongoing child safety concerns and emphasized the need for the parents to engage in open communication, to build a safety support network with service providers, law enforcement, social workers, to show up for drug tests, test clean, and abide by the law. With sobriety and responsible conduct over 90 days, CFS contemplated endorsing unsupervised visits. Several objectives were also added to the amended case plans. The court ordered the amended case plans into effect on April 29, 2016; no objections were noted in the record.
On April 5, 2016, Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting placement of the children with MGM. On April 11, 2016, the juvenile court summarily denied the petition.
On May 5, 2016, Mother filed a motion to hold a relative placement preference hearing as to MGM pursuant to section 361.3. In her motion, she attached law in support of her motion and MGM's background. The motion noted that MGM had received ICPC approval; that MGM could facilitate services and could provide a permanent home if reunification efforts failed; and that K.D. thwarted reunification efforts by cancelling visits with the parents and MGM.
CFS provided a response to Mother's motion with supporting exhibits, explaining the cancelled visits were due to L.J.K. being ill and the caretakers being unable to bring the children to the visits once due to a family emergency and others due to conflicting schedules. CFS provided medical documents of L.J.K.'s illness, which required hospital treatment. CFS also noted that it could not inform the parents about the cancelled visits, because the parents' phones were disconnected and they failed to confirm visits as they were required to do. The parents admitted they were often unavailable as they changed phones or had defective phones. The social worker also noted MGM's acrimonious behavior towards CFS and the relative caretakers.
On April 8, 2016, the social worker made an unannounced visit to the parents' home at around 10:30 a.m. and the parents were asleep. After being coaxed by the paternal grandfather, the parents woke up and spoke with the social worker. The social worker discussed the need to set up their phone voicemail and spoke to them about their case plan services and visits. Days later, the parents still had not set up their voicemail, as such, the social worker left them a message about the visitation schedule through the paternal grandfather. The parents were to confirm visits, but failed to do so. The social worker also mailed correspondence to the parents in April 2016, conveying her concern about their lack of progress in services, and unavailability for phone calls. The social worker also warned of the prospect of adoption by the D.'s, and gave them detailed instructions on arranging visits.
L.K. began therapy in March 2016. L.K.'s therapist believed it would be detrimental to remove L.K. from the D.'s. When the social worker spoke with L.K., L.K. stated that she wanted to stay with the D.'s forever. L.K. also stated that she liked the D.'s home and that she did not want to live with MGM. MGM had engaged in antics at a recent visit that made L.K. "scared" and "ready to cry."
On June 14, 2016, MGM filed a section 388 petition requesting immediate placement of the children with her or, in the alternative, out of state visitation with her in North Dakota, unsupervised visitation in California, and regular video visits. The court set the matter for hearing on the same day as Mother's motion for a relative placement preference hearing.
On June 30, 2016, the court heard argument from all counsel about whether a full evidentiary hearing should be held on MGM's section 388 petition. Thereafter, the court denied a further evidentiary hearing on the section 388 petition, finding no change in circumstance. The court also found the requested orders and change in placement were not in the children's best interest.
On June 30, 2016, MGM filed an appeal from the court's order denying her section 388 petition.
This appeal is currently pending before this court in case No. E066375.
By the time of the August 4, 2016 12-month review hearing, CFS recommended terminating services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. CFS reported its ongoing concern regarding the parents' progress in reunification efforts and their failure to participate in the case plan. The parents tended to change their phone numbers without notifying the social worker or the caretakers; they provided nonworking numbers or they failed to set up their voicemail for messages; and they failed to contact the social worker and service providers. In an attempt to make contact with the parents, the social worker resorted to tracking down the parents through mailed correspondence, relatives, and appearing at their home or visits. The social worker sent mail to the parents at the paternal grandfather's address, and was told by Father it was never received. On April 20, 2016, the social worker set up an appointment for the parents to go over the case plan, receive referrals, and a gas card. The parents failed to attend the appointment. The social worker came unannounced to the parents' visit with the children on June 11, 2016. When confronted about the lack of contact with the social worker and the letters sent to their mailing address, the parents had no response except to deny receiving the letters. The parents advised the social worker they moved from the paternal grandfather's home, failing to notify CFS earlier. During this encounter, the parents also informed the social worker they were on the waiting list for outpatient treatment and needed a referral for individual counseling.
Both letters sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mother were returned to the social worker indicating they were unclaimed. --------
The parents made an appointment for June 13, 2016, which they attended. The case plan was reviewed and the social worker reported "referrals to outpatient, [and] counseling are the same. Parents have no 12-Step meeting cards to turn in. They said they are testing." The parents were advised to turn their phones on so they could be contacted by the service providers once the referrals were approved. Both were also advised to contact the social worker in two weeks to discuss their services. After the June 14, 2016 court hearing, the social worker provided Mother with copies of the two letters previously sent to her and Father. The parents never contacted the social worker as promised. After obtaining a new contact number for the parents from the caretaker, the social worker sent the parents a text message asking them to contact the social worker and also noted that their services for counseling and substance abuse had been approved and that they should drug test. The parents responded back and acknowledged receipt of the text message. The parents attended a meeting with the social worker on June 27, 2016, during which she gave them copies of the previous letters written, gas cards, and information on their service providers. The parents were also asked to drug test that day. The parents advised the social worker they were moving again and would notify her of their new address. They moved back to the paternal grandfather's home and failed to notify the social worker.
Mother was attending therapy, however, in April 2016, therapy was terminated because of her lack of attendance and her unwillingness to engage in the therapeutic process. The parents failed to make themselves available for calls from CFS from April to June 2016. Mother received a new referral for therapy in June 2016. On July 16, 2016, she reported to the social worker she had contacted the new referrals, calling two times weekly, leaving messages with the therapists but had not yet started counseling. On October 28, 2015, Mother started her parenting program, missed several classes and the referral had to be renewed. She eventually completed her parenting program on April 20, 2016.
Mother only attended three out of eight days of her outpatient substance abuse program in March 2016. In April 2016, her counselor reported she only attended one group and the counselor terminated her from the program due to lack of attendance. The termination letter recommended "a higher level of care." In June 2016, Mother reported she was doing great in her outpatient program and then had "major issues with getting there." She acknowledged receiving a letter terminating her from the program for missing classes. Another substance abuse referral was submitted by the social worker on June 16, 2016, for outpatient or residential treatment. Mother was approved for outpatient treatment but not residential because the program indicated she did not meet the criteria. Mother told the social worker she was calling the referrals weekly but was unable to get in touch with anyone. Her previous outpatient program indicated to the social worker they received the latest referral, however, as of July 26, 2016, Mother had not contacted nor come back to them for services. Mother drug tested negative in March 2016, but failed to take an on-demand test on April 8, 2016. Mother reported the last time she went to test she was not on the list. She told the social worker in June 2016, she stopped calling and on July 16, 2016, said she missed drug testing because she was still not calling but would start to call. Mother claimed to be attending 12-Step meetings regularly, but said her signature cards were misplaced and admitted she had no sponsor. On July 25, 2016, the social worker was advised by a sheriff deputy that Mother was seen with Father at the home of heroin dealers and users. The deputy was making an arrest of someone else in the home, noticed the parents, and conducted a field sobriety test.
The parents' visits continued to be inconsistent, with them arriving late or not showing up at all, and having inappropriate conversations with L.K. It appeared on some visits, the parents may have been under the influence of a controlled substance. It was also reported that the caretakers cancelled visits because of their schedules. They insisted the visitation day change but the day they selected conflicted with Mother's counseling. The visitation center placed the family on the waiting list to accommodate visitation on a different day. Eventually, visitation was reestablished and took place at the caretakers' church. Nonetheless, the parents missed 22 out of 48 visits. In addition, the social worker noted ongoing problems with visits, including suggestions of coaching of L.K. by family members, who chastised L.K. for referring to the D.'s as "mom" and "dad." The D.'s concerns about visits were reflected in emails. The social worker determined MGM undermined the D.'s and had a personal agenda to get the children back at all cost. L.K.'s therapist opined it would be detrimental to L.K. if she were removed from the D.'s.
L.K., then age six, was attached to the D.'s and the D.'s were protective of the children. L.K. was doing well in therapy and was emotionally attached to the D.'s, their school-aged children, and extended family. L.K. desired to stay with the D.'s "forever." L.J.K., who was almost age one, was also thriving and developing well emotional and physically.
On August 4, 2016, the parents set the 12-month review hearing for contest. On that day, the court ordered the parents to drug test after court, however, both failed to test.
On September 21, 2016, the day of the contested hearing, CFS reported Mother was still not participating in any counseling, was not drug testing, and was visiting sporadically, attending 31 visits and missing 26. Additionally, in a recent visit, L.K. cheerfully told her parents the D.'s were going to adopt her. When Father asked L.K. if she was happy with the D.'s and if she liked her brothers and sisters, she responded "yes." Mother's counsel advised the court of her intention to enter an inpatient drug treatment program, argued she had not been provided with reasonable reunification services since the last status review hearing and asked the court to extend reunification services. Following arguments, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence reasonable services had been offered, terminated the parents' services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court also reduced parental visitation to one time a month for one hour and provided CFS authority to liberalize visitation as appropriate. Mother was provided with notice of her appellate rights.
Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition on September 28, 2016.
II
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding CFS had provided reasonable reunification services. She also asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order reducing her visitation.
CFS initially responds that the writ petition must be dismissed because Mother filed her petition 11 days past the due date and failed to assert good cause to obtain relief from default. CFS further asserts that the writ should be dismissed or partially struck for failure to abide by briefing rules. We reject CFS's request to dismiss the petition.
Good cause appears in that Mother's counsel did not timely receive a copy of the notice that the record had been filed in this court or notice that the petition was late. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.60(c), (e); compare and contrast Roxanne H. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1012 [indicated relief from default in failing to timely file petition could be given if good cause shown, but denied relief because no showing was made].) The late filing was the result of an inadvertent error on the part of counsel, not a willful failure to file the petition and through no fault of Mother. Accordingly, we grant Mother's motion for relief from default. We also reject CFS's claim that the petition should be dismissed, or struck, for failure to abide by briefing rules, and exercise our discretion to address the petition on its merits.
A. Reasonableness of Services
Mother argues that she did not receive reasonable reunification services because the social worker failed to follow through with providing her with a " 'higher level' " of care, presumably an inpatient drug treatment program, for two months. However, it was determined Mother did not qualify for the inpatient drug program. For several reasons, we reject Mother's contention.
First, Mother did not raise the issue of the inpatient assessment until the time of the 12-month contested hearing. She also did not complain about the adequacy of the case plan provided to her. Rather, she repeatedly consented to the terms of her reunification plan, and her counsel never argued her case plan was insufficient or inadequate. Thus, she has forfeited this issue on review. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [forfeiture rule applies in dependency proceedings], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962.)
Forfeiture aside, sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that Mother received reasonable reunification services. (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598-599 [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].) "The adequacy of a reunification plan and of the department's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362 (Ronell A.).) Relevant circumstances include a parent's willingness to participate in services. Reunification services are voluntary and the department cannot force an unwilling parent to participate in the case plan. (Id. at p. 1365.) The department is not required to "take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions." (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.) Therefore, in assessing the reasonableness of reunification services, the juvenile court evaluates not only the department's efforts to assist the parent in accessing the services, but also the parent's efforts to avail him or herself of those services.
"[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) In doing so, we "must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
When considered in this context, we conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that services provided to Mother were reasonable. In its dispositional report, CFS identified the problems which led to the loss of custody as the parents' substance abuse and parenting issues. The reunification plans adopted for Mother contained a myriad of services designed to remedy these problems. As set out above, supra, II, the social worker supplied appropriate referrals for service providers on a number of occasions, including follow-up referrals when the parents repeatedly failed to make themselves available to CFS or service providers. Further, even after Mother continued to abuse drugs, the social worker provided Mother with substance abuse referrals, including an inpatient substance abuse program, which she did not meet the criteria for. Under the circumstances, the services provided were reasonable. (Ronell A., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1362.)
Mother, however, argues that because MHS recommended a "higher level of care" for Mother, CFS failed to provide reasonable services. Mother never challenged the social worker's finding that she did not meet the criteria for an inpatient program nor did she ever assert she required an inpatient substance abuse program. It appears that MHS's "higher level" opinion occurred due to Mother's failure to attend her outpatient drug services. As has been often remarked, if Mother felt during the reunification period that the services offered to her were inadequate, she had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a better plan. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.) Reunification services are reasonable if they address the problems that required removal of the child from parental custody and the supervising agency made reasonable efforts to facilitate compliance. (Ronell A., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1362.) Mother began receiving services pending further proceedings at the July 28, 2015 detention hearing. Her case plan eventually became effective at the dispositional hearing conducted in September 2015. Mother did not challenge the reasonableness of her case plan by appealing from the juvenile court's dispositional order. Nor did she at any time during these dependency proceedings petition the juvenile court to modify her case plan. (§ 388.) Consequently, by failing to challenge the content of the reunification plan by direct appeal, Mother waived any claim that the plan as ordered was unreasonable. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46-47.)
In sum, the evidence shows that Mother's case plan was tailored to fit her circumstances and that CFS made reasonable efforts to assist her to comply with her case plan. The record shows that CFS provided Mother with numerous referrals. Mother simply failed to avail herself of the referrals and the programs. As in Angela S. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 763, Mother's "real problem was not a lack of services available but a lack of initiative to consistently take advantage of the services that were offered." The services provided were reasonable under the circumstances, and the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided is supported by substantial evidence.
B. Visitation Order
Mother also argues that the juvenile court's order reducing visitation was not supported by substantial evidence and will ensure her parental rights will be terminated. We disagree.
The juvenile court has broad discretion in fashioning visitation orders, and the court's determination will not be disturbed on review absent a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.) In fashioning a visitation order, the juvenile court should balance the interests of the parent and the child, and impose any conditions on visitation consistent with the child's best interest under the particular circumstances of the case. (In re Shawna M. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1690.)
Mother fails to establish an abuse of discretion. In the first place, the court terminated reunification services because Mother had not participated regularly in her case plan. Since services were terminated and a section 366.26 hearing was being set—moving from reunification toward a permanency option that did not include Mother as a caretaker—it was not irrational or arbitrary for the court to reduce the weekly minimum visitation order. Furthermore, there was evidence that the visits were problematic and that Mother was not always consistent with her visits. Although visitation with Mother generally went well, at times she appeared under the influence and failed to confirm visits with the children as required. She also failed to attend about half of her scheduled visits with the children. Moreover, it appeared that visitation was emotionally impacting L.K., who began to receive mental health counseling. L.K. was anxious before parental visits and had a hard time regulating her emotions after visits, and it appeared L.K. was conflicted between her parents, MGM, and the relative caretakers. L.K.'s therapist determined she had emotional indicators of sadness, depression, and mood swings.
In this case, the juvenile court did not terminate visitation and allowed CFS authority to liberalize visitation beyond monthly if appropriate. Therefore, there was no requirement for it to make a finding of detriment in order to modify visitation. Further, the court has the authority to determine the length and frequency of visitation and may impose other conditions or requirements on visitation depending on the particular circumstances. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) Moreover, once reunification services are terminated, the court's focus shifts to the child's need for stability and permanency. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
Here, we find no abuse in the juvenile court's finding that curtailment of visitation was in the children's best interest. The recommended permanent plan in the children's case was adoption with their relative caretakers. While weekly two-hour visitation served the children's best interest when the goal was family reunification as in In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1491, the case heavily relied upon by Mother, it is not necessarily in the children's best interest when the objective shifts to permanent placement. We therefore conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Mother's visitation.
III
DISPOSITION
The petition of H.H. seeking extraordinary relief from the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing is denied on the merits. This decision is final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).).
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: McKINSTER
J. CODRINGTON
J.