Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J08-01572
RIVERA, J.
I. C., the father of J. T., petitions this court to set aside the juvenile court’s order setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He contends that the court erred in terminating reunification services. We deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2008, a section 300 petition was filed alleging that mother had failed to protect J. T. because she left him in father’s care and father, who has a substance abuse problem and was intoxicated, dropped J. T. on concrete resulting in J. T.’s sustaining multiple contusions on his face. The petition also alleged that mother failed to provide adequate care and supervision of J. T. in that he was found to be suffering from an untreated high temperature, pneumonia, a staph infection, and severe asthma. The petition further alleged that mother has a substance abuse problem and a history of domestic violence with father. J. T. was detained and placed in foster care. On November 5, 2008, an amended section 300 petition was filed to add the allegations that father has a serious substance abuse problem that impairs his ability to provide adequate care and supervision of J. T., that he was arrested for willful cruelty to J. T. on September 19, 2008, and that he has engaged in domestic violence against mother. On December 5, 2008, mother pled no contest to the amended petition except for the allegation that she has a substance abuse problem. Mother agreed to drug test for 30 days. On December 12, 2008, father pled no contest to the amended petition with the exception of the allegations that he failed to provide adequate care and supervision of J. T. and that he was arrested for willful cruelty to him. The court continued the matter for disposition.
The dispositional hearing was held on February 3, 2009. The court ordered reunification services for parents including visitation; completion of a domestic violence counseling program, parent education classes, an outpatient substance abuse program, and substance abuse testing; and participation in an AA/NA program.
The report of the Contra Costa County Bureau of Children & Family Services (the Bureau) for the six-month review hearing noted that parents had only partially complied with the reunification plan. In particular, as relevant here, father had failed to show up for several visits. The Bureau further reported that father had violated the terms of his probation twice but had been reinstated. He also showed up for a meeting at the Bureau’s office with a strong odor of alcohol on his breath on April 9, 2009. While father was required to attend AA meetings as a condition of probation, he was not in a substance abuse treatment program. His participation at AA meetings had not been consistent, he failed to show up for random drug tests on dates over several months from February to May 2009, and he had not yet attended parenting classes or participated in a course for domestic violence.
Mother has not petitioned to set aside the court’s order terminating her reunification services.
At the contested review hearing, the social worker testified that father indicated he did not want to attend domestic violence classes, that he had not visited J. T. consistently, had not completed a substance abuse program, nor had he completed the requirement that he attend parenting classes. She conceded that father had been attending AA meetings on a regular basis since May 25, 2009.
The court found that father had not regularly visited with J. T. and had not completed an alcohol outpatient program, and that there was not “a substantial likelihood that six more months of services” would lead to reunification with J. T. The court noted that alcohol was a big issue in the case and that father had violated probation following a DUI conviction, and had just begun AA classes in May 2009. The court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
Father contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision to terminate reunification services. He argues the Bureau failed to establish that he was unfit and that there was no substantial probability he could reunite if services were extended.
“ ‘In juvenile cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate court asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible.’ [Citation.] ‘ “If the evidence so viewed is sufficient as a matter of law, the judgment must be affirmed....” ’ ” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.)
“[T]he court may not schedule a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing at the six-month stage unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence the parents failed to regularly participate in reunification services. Even absent compliance, however, the court must continue the case if it finds ‘a substantial probability that the minor... may be returned to his or her parent... within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided[.]’ ” (Daria D. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 606, 613.)
Father acknowledges that at the six-month review hearing, the court has the authority to extend reunification services to parents of children under the age of three only to the 12-month review hearing. (Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 840, 845-847.) “Thus, 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, and the juvenile court therefore should consider only what the impact of those four months of services would be on the parent and child, not whether another hypothetical two months of services beyond the next prospective hearing might have a different or additional impact.” (Id. at p. 846.)
Here, the six-month review hearing was set for May 12, 2009, but was continued twice and not held until August 26, 2009. By the time of the six-month review hearing, father had received seven months of reunification services but had just begun to participate in AA meetings on May 25, 2009. It was thus not until the six-month review hearing was continued that father began his quest at reunification. While he visited with J. T. somewhat regularly since January 2009, he failed to show up for six scheduled random drug tests from February to May 2009. Further, he did not participate in any parenting classes or complete a domestic violence program; and he did not complete a substance abuse treatment program, only recently resuming his participation in an 18-month DUI program. Hence, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that father failed to substantially comply with his reunification plan. Although father showed some late attempts at the reunification process, given that the six-month review hearing was held almost a year after J. T. was removed from father’s custody, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was not likely that J. T. could be returned to father by the 12-month review hearing.
The six-month review hearing was continued for argument to September 2, 2009. At that point, counsel for father attempted to introduce evidence that father had attended two domestic violence classes since the hearing on August 26, 2009. The court did not admit the evidence but considered counsel’s representation that father had taken the classes.
III. DISPOSITION
The petition for an extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Our decision is final in this court immediately in the interests of justice.
We concur: RUVOLO P.J., REARDON J.