Opinion
A153923 A154924
03-19-2019
In re L.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMY S., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV160224)
Following a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the juvenile court entered an order on July 25, 2018, terminating the parental rights of Amy S. (mother or Amy) with respect to her daughter L.P. (born June 2015) and directing the Humboldt County Department of Social Services (the Department) to commence adoption proceedings. In these consolidated appeals, mother does not present any substantive arguments challenging the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. She argues only that the case "likely" would not have proceeded to a section 366.26 hearing and that her parental rights would not have been terminated had she been provided with appropriate services during the first twelve months of the case. We disagree and affirm.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Detention: September 16 , 2016
In September 2016, the Department received a referral alleging general neglect of L.P. and her half-sister, B.P. Specifically, the reporting party stated that mother and alleged father Steven P. (father) had been homeless and abusing substances in Reno, Nevada. According to the reporting party, the parents were using L.P. and B.P. to beg for money, and they had been living their car when its windows were shot out. After child protective services in Reno intervened in August 2016, Amy agreed to take the girls to Humboldt County to stay with her mother. After bringing the girls to L.P.'s maternal grandmother, Amy returned to Reno without leaving any supplies or provisions for the children. Within a month, the maternal grandmother could no longer care for the girls and called the Department for help.
L.P. and B.P. share the same father but have different mothers. B.P.'s mother was incarcerated in Idaho at the time of detention. As B.P. is not subject to the present appeal, we omit certain background facts, except as relevant to mother's appeal.
Because father has not participated in the proceedings below and has not filed any appeals in this dependency case, our recitation of the facts focuses primarily, if not exclusively, on mother's circumstances.
A social worker from the Department met with the maternal grandmother on September 15, 2016, at her home. The maternal grandmother reported that Amy was in Idaho and was trying to get enough money to come get the girls. The social worker contacted Amy that same day to discuss the neglect allegations. Mother agreed to participate, either in person or telephonically, in a family team meeting with the Department set for September 19. It was agreed that the girls would stay with the maternal grandmother until the meeting. On September 16, however, the maternal grandmother reported that she no longer had a place to live and needed the Department to come get the girls. Social workers from the Department called mother in Idaho and advised her that the children were being placed into protective custody and that the September 19 family team meeting would still take place as scheduled. Mother reported that she was in the process of getting a ride to Humboldt County. The social workers explained that at the upcoming family team meeting, they would discuss whether L.P. could be released to mother. The social workers further advised mother that if L.P. could not be released, the case would proceed to a detention hearing, which would take place on September 21.
During the telephonic family team meeting on September 19, mother denied any substance abuse and reported that she had a safe place to stay in Idaho. Finding that mother's ongoing substance abuse affected her ability to safely care for L.P, the social worker recommended that L.P. remain in out-of-home care and that the matter proceed to the detention hearing. The social worker advised mother that the Department would assist with lodging, food, and travel expenses so that she could attend the detention hearing.
At the September 21 detention hearing, mother told the court that she lived in Humboldt County ten years ago; lived in Bend, Oregon from 2006 through 2012; lived in Idaho from December 2012 through November 2015; lived in Reno from November 2015 through September 1, 2016; and was currently residing in Idaho with her close friend Mamie A. The court adopted the detention orders submitted by the Department and calendared a jurisdiction hearing for October 12. B. Jurisdiction Report: October 11 , 2016
In the jurisdiction report prepared the by the Department prior to the jurisdiction hearing, it was noted that mother and Mamie had met with a Department social worker at the detention hearing. Mother told the Department social worker that she had tried methamphetamine for the first time approximately two months earlier, when she was having marital problems with father. Mother was not participating in any substance-abuse services at the time of the detention hearing. Mamie told the social worker that she is Amy's "second mother" and that she was willing to have temporary custody of the girls.
While mother was in town for the detention hearing, she visited with the children and also submitted to a drug test. The hair-follicle test came back positive for methamphetamine. On September 29, the social worker received a voicemail from mother in Idaho asking for updates. The social worker attempted to return the call but was unable to leave a voicemail. Mother later provided an email address where she could be reached.
On October 4, 2016, mother contacted the social worker to report that she was working a full-time job and still living with Mamie. She said that "things were falling into place." When mother asked the social worker whether she should go to drug treatment and parenting classes in Idaho, the social worker suggested that mother should enroll in the programs and provide proof of enrollment from the programs. Mother said that she would follow the social worker's suggestions. The social worker explained that she would be transitioning off the case and that a new social worker would have the file. The social worker offered to help mother with transportation expenses so that she could attend the upcoming court hearings.
On October 5, the social worker received a text from mother explaining that she had been in a physically abusive relationship, that she began smoking methamphetamine after her husband held her down and blew smoke in her mouth, and that she wanted to get her life together and get the girls back. C. Jurisdiction Hearing: December 6 , 2016
The jurisdiction hearing, originally calendared for October 12, was continued several times to provide time for the court and parties to consider which state should assume jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.). Although Idaho was deemed the home state, because the jurisdictional facts occurred in California, Idaho did not have a basis to file a petition. The goal was to have services in Idaho, with an eventual transfer to that state. At the uncontested jurisdiction hearing on December 6, for purposes of exercising emergency jurisdiction, the court made findings that the children were safely located in Humboldt County. A disposition hearing was calendared for December 20. D. Disposition Report and Initial Case Plan: December 2 , 2016
In advance of the dispositional hearing, the assigned social worker submitted a report indicating that L.P. remained in a licensed foster home in Humboldt County and mother lived in Idaho. The Department social worker exchanged voicemails with child-welfare services in Idaho but, as of the date of the report (December 2), had not had an opportunity to discuss the case with them.
Mother told the social worker that she would be seeking a divorce from father, that she was currently dating someone she had known for years, and that she was living in a trailer on the property of an elderly man for whom she was providing care. Mother's address was listed as Fruitland, Idaho. Mother reported that she was working with Rose Advocates, a domestic-violence advocacy program that was helping her file for divorce, acquire housing, and get counseling. Mother also reported she would be getting drug-treatment services through Payette Family Services and that she would be calling to enroll.
The Department arranged for supervised visits with L.P. when mother was in Humboldt County for court hearings and gave her access to video conference visits through Skype when she was not in town. In an effort to facilitate in-person visitation, the Department provided mother with transportation assistance and motel accommodations when she came to town for court hearings.
Mother had recommended certain non-extended family members as possible placements, including Mamie. She also told the social worker that if reunification did not work out, she would choose legal guardianship for L.P. with Mamie.
The Department requested that L.P. be declared a dependent and that mother be provided with reunification services. Pursuant to a case plan attached to the report, mother was to work with her domestic violence advocate, Rose Advocates, to complete a Seeking Safety course in Idaho. The case plan also provided the name and contact information for a Seeking Safety course in Payette, Idaho, the town adjacent to Fruitland. Mother was required to complete a release of information, so the social worker could monitor her progress. She also needed to complete a parenting class and a substance- abuse program. Mother was instructed to go to Southwest District Health in Payette, Idaho to receive a substance-abuse assessment. She was further directed to comply with the recommendation of the counselor regarding whether she should attend an inpatient or outpatient program. Mother was required to sign a release of information for any service that she participated in, so the social worker could monitor her progress and access drug tests. At the time of the disposition report, mother had discussed the case plan and goals with the social worker, but she had not reviewed or signed the plan itself. E. Disposition Hearing: December 20 , 2016
At the December 20 disposition hearing, the court declared L.P. to be a dependent child and ordered the Department to provide family-reunification services to mother. The court ordered an expedited Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) (Fam. Code, § 7901, art. 3(b)) review to be performed in Idaho. An interim review was calendared for January 19, 2017, and a six-month status review was set for June 20, 2017. F. Six-Month Status Review Report: July 14 , 2017
The six-month review hearing was continued to August 23, 2017. In advance of that hearing, the Department social worker submitted a report on July 14, 2017, indicating that mother had moved to Weiser, Idaho and that L.P. continued to reside in a licensed foster home located in Humboldt County.
The Department was notified that the ICPC request had been received, that an Idaho social worker had been assigned, and that a home study was pending. In late June 2017, mother reported that she had been working on a farm for three or four weeks and believed that after she completed a short-term, inpatient drug-treatment program, she would be able to secure more permanent employment. Mother said that she had been to a treatment program called North Point Recovery. She reported that she had completed a release of information so that the program could communicate with the Department about mother's possible entry into the program. However, when the social worker spoke with North Point Recovery, the program reported that it could not locate any release of information form by mother. Mother stated that she had been clean for two months, without treatment, and that losing L.P. had been a wake-up call.
On July 18, 2017, the social worker sent an email to mother's attorney, advising him that the Department was giving mother a bus ticket to travel to Eureka the following week. The Department had arranged for supervised visits with L.P. during mother's stay. The Department was putting mother up in a motel and giving her a return ticket back home. The social worker was "hoping to work with [mother's] schedule to make this a monthly occur[e]nce." Mother, however, missed the bus and did not contact the Department until a few days after her scheduled arrival. Mother told the assigned social worker that she had gone to the emergency room, with unspecified ailments, the evening after she was supposed have been on the bus. The social worker asked for more information, but mother did not respond. The social worker told mother that she would follow-up with her the following week to set up the next visit.
When the social worker called mother the next week, she received a message that mother's phone had been disconnected. Mother later texted the social worker from a different number, advising the social worker that she had changed her number. During this text conversation, mother asked if she could attend treatment at North Point Recovery. The social worker responded that the program, which cost $25,000 for 28 days, was too expensive; mother did not text back.
The report listed the services provided to mother during that reporting period, which included arranging visitation; providing transportation; arranging for L.P. to travel to Idaho to see her mother and the prospective caregiver; contacting the inpatient care facility in Idaho referenced by mother; submitting the ICPC request; contacting the prospective caregiver in Idaho; and offering mother referrals in Idaho, which she declined. The supervised visits, including a March 2017 visit in Idaho, had gone well. The Skype visits, however, had been "challenging for mother as she had struggled [with] maintaining composure."
The social worker reported that mother had not participated in the required substance-abuse treatment program at Payette Family Services and that she had not been involved in any substance-abuse treatment at all. Mother indicated that she was interested in inpatient treatment and had reached out to a local facility. The updated case plan was, for the most part, similar to the initial plan, except the Department would provide transportation to mother to come to California for in-person visitation once a month. G. Six-Month Status Review Hearing: August 23 , 2017
At the contested six-month review hearing held on August 23, 2017, the court found that reasonable services had been provided by the Department. The parties stipulated that services would continue to the 18-month date and that mother would retain the ability to raise the issue of reasonable services at the next review hearing. The court ordered continued reunification services for mother and calendared a 12-month review hearing for December 5 and an 18-month review hearing for March 15, 2018. H. Twelve-Month Status Review Reports: December 18 , 2017 & February 23 , 2018
In advance of the 12-month review hearing (which had been continued by agreement of the parties to February 28, 2018), the Department social worker submitted a status review report on December 18, 2017, and an addendum report on February 23, 2018. As to L.P.'s placement, it was reported that in early October 2017, two Department social workers travelled to Idaho with L.P. to facilitate her placement with a new foster family—mother's friends, Mamie and Mamie's husband, Jeff—mother's first choice for concurrent planning. The new placement made it easier for mother to have increased in-person visits with L.P. Mamie and Jeff supervised the visits between mother and L.P. The updated case plan was, for the most part, similar to the prior case plans, except that now, with L.P.'s placement in Idaho, mother was allowed two-hour visits, twice weekly, to be supervised by the foster parents. Mother was required to be free from alcohol and other drugs while visiting L.P.
Throughout this reporting period, the Department recounted challenges in maintaining regular contact with mother. On November 13, a program manager with the Department left a message for mother, requesting a return call. The program manager called mother on December 3, again requesting a return call. The newly assigned social worker reported that multiple messages had been left on mother's phone after the former social worker went on leave in mid-October. Mother contacted the Department on December 4, at which time she left a message stating that she had an appointment on December 5 with her Idaho social worker and that she would call back after that meeting. Mother reported that her phone had been turned off for a period of time and that she had been confused about who to call after mid-October, when her assigned social worker left the Department. Mother also reported that she had been in parenting classes for six weeks and was starting counselling, but she was unable to provide any documentation of her participation.
When mother did not call back on December 6, the Department program manager called her and left a message requesting a return call. Later that same day, the program manager called mother again in hopes of reaching her. This time, mother answered her phone. After confirming that the Department had the correct number for mother and that mother had the new social worker's desk and cell phone numbers, as well as the program manager's own contact information, the program manager asked about mother's engagement with services. Mother reported that she last used marijuana approximately a week and a half earlier and had used methamphetamine approximately six weeks earlier. Mother said she had completed a substance-abuse assessment that recommended outpatient treatment, but she had not followed through with this treatment. Mother told the program manager that she had attempted treatment with an outpatient provider, but she could not afford the cost. After admitting that she had not requested any financial assistance, mother agreed to go the next day to find out the cost of the program so that she could get started on services.
During the December 6 telephone conversation, mother also reported that she had attended a few Alcoholics Anonymous meetings but not on a regular basis. She could not provide cards or any other corroboration to demonstrate participation. Mother told the program manager that she had focused on locating an inpatient facility because she could complete service more quickly. The program manager urged her to engage in the outpatient service as soon as possible, because further delay would hinder her ability to achieve and maintain sobriety.
When the program manager inquired about the meeting with the Idaho social worker, mother said transportation issues prevented her from attending the meeting. Mother apologized for missing the meeting and said she would reschedule it. The program manager stressed the urgency of meeting with the local social worker, because the local person would be able to connect mother to additional services in Idaho. In the same call, mother reported that she had not engaged in any victims-of-domestic-violence services or programs. When the program manager stressed the importance of such programming, mother promised to immediately attend to the issue.
Mother stated that she had participated in counseling for approximately five weeks and that she would sign releases of information so that her attendance could be verified. Mother also said she would ask her therapist whether she could work on domestic-violence issues with the therapist, as opposed to attending a separate formal domestic-violence-survivor program. As for the parenting class referenced in her December 4 voicemail, mother told the program manager that she had participated in an on-line class for about three weeks and then took a break. Mother could not recall the program name but promised to text the name to the program manager. The program manager sent a follow-up text asking for the name of the program. However, as of December 18, the date of the status-review report, the Department had not received the name of the on-line class mother had purportedly commenced. As to visitation, mother reported that she had missed two weeks of visits with L.P. because she was "focusing on work and counseling." The program manager reiterated the importance of visitation.
The December 18 report further noted that before L.P. had moved to Idaho, mother struggled with regularly making phone/Skype visits. It was further reported that mother continued to struggle with regular twice-weekly visitation, even with L.P. in Idaho. On December 7, the program manger spoke with foster-parent Mamie, who reported that mother's visitation had not been consistent and that mother had twice attempted to visit L.P. while under the influence of drugs and was turned away. On December 8, the program manager sent a text to mother, reminding her to supply the name of the on-line parenting class, as well as the cost of the outpatient treatment plan.
On December 11, mother met the Idaho social worker who referred her to a substance-use treatment program at Payette Family Services and re-referred her to Rose Advocates for counseling services for survivors of domestic violence.
On December 16, mother sent a text to the Department program manager, indicating that mother would find out the cost for treatment at Rose Advocates. On December 18, the program manager had a text conversation with mother, in which mother said she was starting domestic-violence and drug classes. Mother referenced classes at Rose Advocates, saying that they required payment in advance. The program manager requested that mother provide releases of information so that the Department could confirm mother's treatment at Rose Advocates and verify her class attendance. Mother texted only a telephone number for Rose Advocates.
On December 19, the Idaho social worker informed the Department social worker that she had provided mother with referrals for court-ordered services. She said mother had been struggling and that she had provided mother with referrals to Rose Advocates where she could participate in domestic-violence classes, individual counseling, and group activities. The local social worker also described other programs open to mother.
On January 22, 2018, the Department social worker spoke with Mamie, who reported that mother's visits with L.P. continued to be infrequent and inconsistent. Mother was reported to stop in unexpectedly, usually on a Saturday, and then not return for a week.
On January 23, the Department social worker received an email from the local social worker reporting that the local social worker had not heard from mother since she last met with her, in December 2017. When the Department social worker attempted to contact mother on February 1, the social worker was unable to leave a message, as mother's voicemail was full. The Department social worker sent mother a text but received no response.
On February 5, the Department social worker received a call from Mamie, who reported that mother had found an inpatient program that would allow her to attend and take L.P. with her. Mamie was concerned that mother was not capable of caring for her daughter. She also reported that visits between mother and L.P. had not been going well.
Also on February 5, the Department social worker received a text from mother requesting payment for substance-abuse services and parenting classes. Mother reported that she last had been in contact with the Idaho social worker "a few weeks ago." Although mother had not completed a substance-abuse assessment, she wanted the Department's approval before entering a program. She claimed to have given this information to the Department program manager and was waiting for approval before undergoing an assessment for inpatient treatment. The Department social worker requested that mother complete the releases of information with the programs and give the program information to the Department and to the local social worker so that the Department could assist in getting her admitted. When the Department social worker asked mother about the services she had participated in, the text conversation ended.
In a February 5 call, mother told the Department social worker that she was going to engage in substance abuse services through Payette Family Services, but she missed her assessment and lost funding for her participation through the State of Idaho. Mother said that she wanted to do outpatient services but was also considering inpatient treatment. Mother told the social worker that she was interested in attending counseling and parenting classes through Rose Advocates.
In contrast to what Mamie reported, mother said she visited L.P. every week: once during the week and once on weekends. She reported that the visits were going well. When asked about her drug use, mother said that she had not smoked methamphetamine for approximately seven to eight weeks. On February 8, mother texted the social worker to report that she had been denied funding for services by the State of Idaho due to a lack of state income. The social worker again asked mother to sign a release of information for Rose Advocates.
On February 9, the Department social worker contacted Rose Advocates, seeking information about their services. Rose Advocates office personnel reported that mother had never been to their office and that there was no release of information on file. On February 13, the Department social worker submitted a payment request for mother to attend Rose Advocates. The social worker sent a text to mother advising her of this information and requesting mother to provide her assessment information; mother did not reply. On February 14 and again on February 21, the Department social worker contacted Rose Advocates about enrolling mother.
On February 22, the Idaho social worker called the Department social worker to report that mother had texted on February 8 to set up a meeting but then failed to show up. The Idaho social worker reported that it could not be confirmed whether mother had engaged in any services. The Idaho social worker's experience was that mother says she will do a lot of things but "fabricates" excuses. For instance, mother told the Idaho social worker that Idaho social services refused to fund her treatment due to lack of income, but the Idaho social worker explained that income was not a requirement for substance-abuse treatment funding. The Idaho social worker also reported that mother had not followed through with any of the services for which she had been referred. Although the Idaho social worker had made appointments to meet with mother in January and February, mother had canceled every time.
The Department social worker concluded the 12-month review report by noting that mother had not yet begun to participate in regular services for substance abuse. Mother had described the lack of a local social worker as a previous barrier but reported that she would be immediately begin, now that she had local support and a contact person. The social worker reported that the Department had explained to mother that the missed visits, now that L.P. was in Idaho, were a real concern, as was missing the first meeting with the local social worker without calling to cancel and reschedule. I. Twelve-Month Status Review Hearing: February 28 , 2018
After three continuances, the contested 12-month review hearing took place on February 28, 2018—more than 15 months after L.P.'s removal. No witnesses were called. The parties agreed that services should continue through the 18-month review. Mother's counsel sought to have the court find that reasonable services had not been provided in the last review period. After argument by counsel, the court found that the Department made reasonable services available to mother and adopted the agency's recommended findings and orders. J. Eighteen-Month Status Review Hearing: April 11 , 2018
The 18-month review hearing was held on April 11, 2018, approximately 20 months after L.P. was detained by the Department. The court found that reasonable services had been provided but that mother had made no progress towards reunification. The court terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Mother filed a petition for an extraordinary writ, which this court denied. (Amy S. v. Superior Court for the County of Humboldt (June 13, 2018, A154126) [nonpub. opn.].) In denying the petition, we noted that although mother purported to challenge the reasonableness of services between the 12-month and 18-month reviews, this claim had been forfeited by reason of her attorney's concession that there had been "a lot of attempt[s] at services within the last reporting period and going into the previous one." (Ibid.) K. Section 366.26 Hearing: July 25 , 2018
The parties appeared for a notice and due diligence hearing on May 8, 2018. Counsel for the Department reported that since the termination of mother's reunification services in April, the social worker had been unable to reach mother, either by phone or email. Mother had not visited her daughter at all, and the Idaho social worker had not been able to locate mother. The Department tried to give mother notice through certified mail, but she had not picked up her mail from the post office.
In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, the Department social worker filed a June 14, 2018 report, recommending that parental rights be terminated with a permanent plan of adoption with foster parents Mamie and Jeff—mother's stated preference for concurrent planning. There were no reported issues with L.P. adjusting to care in their home, and the placement was intended to allow frequent in-person visits with mother, supervised by Mamie and Jeff. The Department recommended, however, that no further visitation be offered at that time, because mother's visits had been inconsistent and disrupting L.P.'s daily schedule.
L.P. was described as an adoptable three-year-old child, who was bonded to Mamie and Jeff. Two local social workers had observed L.P. with her foster parents and reported that the foster parents appeared to meet L.P.'s social, emotional, and behavioral needs.
In the July 12 adoption assessment addendum to the section 366.26 report, the Department social worker described three-year-old L.P. as a "happy, healthy toddler," and the Department had no concerns regarding her mental or emotional health. She was reported to be comfortable in her foster parents' care, and the Department's assessment was that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. The Department concluded that L.P. was an adoptable child "who deserves to be raised in a loving, permanent and stable home environment." The Department continued to recommend that parental rights be terminated.
The contested section 366.26 hearing was held on July 25, 2018. Mother was not present. Mother's attorney reported that he had email contact with his client the day before, and that she could not be present "because she's in treatment currently." Mother's attorney did not indicate the type of treatment, whether it was outpatient or residential, where the treatment took place, or the condition that was being treated. He introduced no evidence of an exception to the termination of parental rights, arguing only that mother had not received adequate services, "an issue she has litigated previously." Her counsel reported that mother wanted to have another opportunity to work on reunification but did not identify a legal basis. He then "object[ed] and submit[ted] on her behalf, given her circumstances."
After some discussion regarding mother's then-pending appeal challenging the reasonableness of the services, the court entered orders terminating parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for L.P.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it found that reasonable services had been provided at the six-month and 12-month review hearings. Mother argues that if the appropriate services had been provided during the first 12 months of the case, she "likely" would have reunified with L.P., and the matter would not have proceeded to a section 366.26 hearing. Thus, she claims that the order terminating her parental rights must be reversed and that she is entitled to six additional months of reunification services on remand. A. Relevant Legal Principles and Standard of Review
The notices of appeal in this consolidated case were filed on March 16, 2018 (case No. A153923) and July 25, 2018 (case No. A154924), and although briefing was completed in a timely manner, with limited extensions of time requested, the cases were not fully briefed until late November and early December 2018. However, because the minor was removed on September 16, 2016, services cannot as a matter of law be extended beyond September 16, 2018. (See § 366.22, subd. (b); In re J.E. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 557, 563, fn. 3.)
When a child is removed from a parent's custody, the juvenile court ordinarily must order child-welfare services for the minor and the parent for the purpose of facilitating reunification of the family. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) For a child under three years of age at the time of removal, as L.P. was, reunification services are presumptively limited to six months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2); Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 843 (Tonya M.).) The child's status, and the question of whether services should be extended for an additional period, must be reconsidered no less frequently than every six months. (§ 366, subd. (a)(1); Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1009.)
The dependency scheme sets up three distinct reporting periods for the provision of reunification services to parents of children under the age of three. (Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 845.) The first period runs from roughly the jurisdictional hearing (§ 355) to the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)); the second period runs from the six-month review hearing to the 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)); and the third period runs from the 12-month review hearing to the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22). (Tonya M., at p. 845.) At each review hearing, if the child is not returned to his or her parent, the juvenile court is required to determine whether "reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent . . . in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent." (§§ 366.21, subds. (e)(8) & (f)(1)(A), 366.22, subd. (a).) The "adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Department's] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) To support a finding that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent, "the 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; Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426.)
Where, as here, the child is under three years of age at the time of removal, at the six-month review hearing, the court must decide whether to terminate or extend reunification services. "If . . . the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a [section 366.26 hearing]. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child . . . may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency [review] hearing." (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3), italics added.)
At the 12-month hearing, the juvenile court may not set a section 366.26 hearing unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C)(ii).) "Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt." (T.J. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1229, 1238 (T.J.).)
The same standard applies at an 18-month review hearing if services are extended through the third reporting period. (§ 366.22, subd. (b)(3)(C).)
We review a reasonable-services finding "in the light most favorable to the trial court's order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings based on the clear and convincing evidence standard." (T.J., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 1239.) In determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's reasonable-services finding, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's finding and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment but merely determine whether there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688-689.) The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's findings. (In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) B. Reasonable Reunification Efforts
Mother argues that the juvenile court's reasonable efforts finding must be reversed because during the first 12 months of the case, Department social workers failed to regularly contact her and provided insufficient assistance in helping her reunify with her child. Mother also claims her case plan was inadequate because it placed all of the burden on her to engage in services, without requiring the social workers to assist her with case plan goals. We disagree. As we shall explain, the record before the juvenile court included substantial evidence to support by clear and convincing evidence the finding that the Department provided reasonable services to mother for the statutorily-required minimum period—here, six months—during the dependency. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2); Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 843; see Earl L. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1500, 1502-1503.)
In light of our holding that substantial evidence supports the reasonableness finding for the 12-month reporting period, we affirm the section 366.26 finding terminating mother's parental rights and recommending L.P.'s adoption by her foster parents, Mamie and Jeff, from which Amy filed a protective appeal.
Mother left L.P. with a family member in California, without providing for her care. That failure, apparently caused by mother's drug use and domestic-violence issues, led L.P. to be removed from mother's custody and to remain in foster care for approximately 20 months. Mother's initial case plan included counseling with a domestic-violence advocate, parenting education, and substance abuse treatment. The Department provided mother with the names and contact information for domestic-violence counseling, parenting classes, and substance-abuse treatment in Payette, Idaho, where mother lived. The Department referred mother to Rose Advocates—a domestic-violence advocate—for assistance in finding a Seeking Safety Course in Idaho. The Department also referred mother to Southwest District Health for assistance in finding a parenting class. Mother was directed obtain a substance-abuse assessment at Southwest District Health. She was further directed to comply with Southwest District Health's recommendations based on the results of her assessment. Eventually, mother was referred to Payette Family Services in Idaho for treatment of her substance-abuse disorder. As part of her substance-abuse services, mother was subject to random drug and alcohol tests in Idaho.
Mother was responsible for enrolling in and attending the programs. She was also required to provide releases of information for each program, so the Department could verify and monitor her progress. For its part, the Department would facilitate weekly parent-child visitation, which would occur by telephone or by Skype. The Department was also required to have monthly contact with mother either by telephone or written communication. Mother argues that the initial case plan put the burden of achieving her goals solely on her, with little or no required assistance by the Department.
While we agree that mother's initial case plan was not particularly robust, the Department did more than merely identify plan objectives and place the onus on mother. In re T.W.-1 (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 539 (T.W.-1), cited by mother, is distinguishable. In T.W.-1, the case plan failed to identify any service providers and instead placed the burden on the parent to locate services. Here, the Department provided mother with names, addresses, and telephone numbers for Idaho agencies deemed appropriate for her specific needs. Given that mother lived in Idaho, it was not unreasonable for the Department to expect mother to contact the listed agencies and follow through with enrolling in the specified programs. The Department was not required to " 'take the parent by the hand and escort . . . her to and through classes or counseling sessions . . . .' " (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233, citing In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.)
Mother argues that the services provided to her were not reasonable because the social workers failed to maintain regular contact with her, as required by the case plan. As the Department concedes, its efforts in communicating with mother during the initial reporting period were spotty. Nevertheless, the six-month review report lists numerous services provided to mother, including arranging visitation, providing transportation, assisting with Skype visits, and offering mother referrals in Idaho. Mother maintains there is no evidence in the record that any social worker attempted to contact her before October 2017. She argues that "if it[']s not in the [delivered services logs] and if it[']s not recorded, it didn't happen." We disagree. Mother cites to no authority for this novel proposition. In any event, the record belies her claim.
In March 2017, the Department arranged for L.P. to visit mother in Idaho—a visit that was reported to have gone very well. It is unclear how this inter-state visitation could have occurred without the Department ever contacting mother.
In late June 2017, the Department noted a report from mother, advising the Department of her employment and her visit to North Point Recovery. Although the date and time of this conversation is not referenced in the delivered-services log, a summary of this discussion is contained in the six-month status review report.
In July 2017, the social worker had arranged for mother to travel to Humboldt County to visit L.P. The Department provided a round trip bus ticket and lodging and also arranged supervised visitation for mother. Presumably, these travel arrangements required some contact with mother. On July 18, the social worker emailed mother's attorney about the upcoming trip and expressed the Department's desire to make this a monthly occurrence. As noted, mother failed to follow through with the planned visit and never got on the bus. The subject of the failed July visitation is memorialized in an August 8, 2017 email from the social worker to the Department. This same email also referred to a discussion the social worker had with mother in late July regarding mother's desire to attend North Point Recovery. After contacting the program and learning that it cost $25,000 for 28 days, the social worker advised mother that the program was too expensive. Mother did not respond.
In early October 2017, the Department arranged for L.P. to be placed with mother's friends in Idaho. Two Department social workers personally escorted L.P. to Idaho. Mother's then-assigned social worker reported that while she was in Idaho in October 2017, she attempted to meet with mother, but she was unable to reach her. On November 13, the Department's newly-assigned program manager left a message for mother, requesting a return call. The program manager called mother on December 3, again requesting a return call. The newly assigned social worker reported that multiple messages had been left on mother's phone after the former social worker went on leave. Despite these efforts, mother did not contact the Department until December 4.
The 12-month report, its addendum, and the accompanying service logs reflect that during the second reporting period, the Department made consistent efforts to keep in contact with mother. These efforts, however, were often thwarted by mother's non-responsiveness. The Department also kept in contact with the local social worker in Idaho, who also experienced difficulties in maintaining contact with mother.
In a related claim, mother claims the Department failed to provide reasonable services because the social workers provided "almost no" assistance in getting her the help she needed to meet her case plan objectives. According to mother, the Department did not provide any meaningful assistance until the 17th month of the case. Mother contends that the Department's inaction negatively impacted her visitation with L.P. While we agree that the Department did not initially provide exemplary assistance to mother during the first reporting period, the record belies mother's claim that she did not start receiving help until almost the end of the case. As to visitation, the Department, during the first reporting period, provided mother with Skype visits, facilitated L.P.'s visit with mother in Idaho, and arranged for mother to travel to Humboldt County to visit with L.P. Then, during the second reporting period, two social workers escorted to L.P. to Idaho and facilitated her placement with mother's friends, Mamie and Jeff. With L.P. in Idaho, the Department increased mother's visits to two-hour visits, twice weekly, to be supervised by Mamie and Jeff.
Moreover, the remedy for the Department's failure to provide reasonable services during the first reporting period would be an extension of services until a 12-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3).) Here, pursuant to the parties' stipulation at the six-month review hearing, services were extended to the 18-month review hearing. Accordingly, mother has received services beyond what would have been ordered had the issue been litigated at the six-month review hearing, and has received precisely what she would have received had the juvenile court agreed with her claim that reasonable services had not been provided through the second reporting period—i.e., an extension of services for a third reporting period up to 18 months from the date L.P. was removed. (§§ 361.5(a), 366.21(g)(1).)
Also, during the second reporting period, the Department repeatedly contacted both mother and the Idaho social worker and provided referrals to and actively worked with mother regarding her entry into parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and counseling for domestic-violence victims. Further, during the last reporting period between the 12-month and 18-month review hearings, which was arguably only six weeks due to numerous continuances of the six-month and 12-month hearings, mother conceded that the Department had provided reasonable services. (Cf. Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 846 [explaining that "if at most four months remain until the next review hearing (i.e. the 12-month hearing or 18-month hearing), at most only four months of services can by law be ordered . . . [¶] . . . Delays in the timing of one hearing should not affect either the timing of subsequent hearings or the length of services to be ordered"]; (Amy S. v. Superior Court for the County of Humboldt (June 13, 2018, A154126) [nonpub. opn.].)
Mother argues that the juvenile court erroneously focused on her lack of participation in determining whether the services provided were reasonable. We acknowledge that a parent's "difficulty meeting the case plan's requirements does not excuse the agency from continuing its effort to bring [the parent] into compliance with the court's orders." (In re Taylor J. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451.) To the extent the court may have highlighted mother's lack of participation, we review rulings, not reasoning. (In re Zamer G. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1271.) As set forth ante, we review a reasonable-services finding "in the light most favorable to the trial court's order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings based on the clear and convincing evidence standard." (T.J., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 1239.) Therefore, while part of the juvenile court's reasoning may have erroneously considered mother's lack of participation in services, reversal is nonetheless not warranted because, as set forth ante, substantial evidence supports the court's reasonable-services finding.
Although not relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the services provided by the Department, mother's failure to comply with her case plan constitutes prima facie evidence that return of L.P. to her custody would be detrimental. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
Finally, mother asserts that the above-mentioned legal errors were compounded by the lack of continuity in her case. She argues that there was a great deal of unnecessary confusion in this case because it was heard by five different judges. And, due to this panoply of judges, the required oversight was missing in this case. In an ideal world, a single judicial officer would preside over the case from start to finish. In reality, however, "[j]udges, social workers, and attorneys change often in dependency proceedings." (In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1782, & fn. 1.) As mother concedes, there is no law requiring dependency cases to be singly assigned.
III. DISPOSITION
The order filed on August 23, 2017 and the February 28, 2018 minute order, filed on March 6, 2018, each finding that the Department had provided reasonable services to mother, are affirmed. The July 25, 2018 orders terminating mother's parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for L.P. are affirmed.
/s/_________
BROWN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
STREETER, ACTING P. J. /s/_________
TUCHER, J.