Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD224296
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
Appellant S. M., mother of A. N. (minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (f) & 395.) Appellant contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were offered to her; (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it terminated reunification services; (3) appellant’s failure to object to the reasonable services finding does not preclude this court from considering the issue on appeal; and (4) any failure to object to the reasonable services finding was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Appellant is also the mother of S. C. (15 years old) and B. C. (16 years old), the minor’s half siblings, both of whom are the subject of separate juvenile dependency proceedings (case Nos. JD224297 and JD224298). S. C. and B. C.’s father, R. C., is deceased.
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Appellant also raises two arguments related to the minor’s half sibling, S. C: (1) because the juvenile court failed to advise appellant of the requirement to file a petition for extraordinary writ, appellant may directly challenge the order setting S. C.’s case for a section 366.26 hearing; and (2) the reporter’s transcript is controlling in determining whether the juvenile court failed to issue a writ advisement when it set S. C.’s case for a section 366.26 hearing.
We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders as they relate to the minor, and strike the remainder of appellant’s claims related to S. C.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2006, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of the minor, then seven months old. The petition alleged appellant’s failure to protect the minor and his half siblings from domestic violence perpetrated by the minor’s father, M. N.; M. N.’s continuing substance abuse and failure and refusal to rehabilitate or participate in voluntary services; and appellant’s failure to participate in voluntary services. The court removed the minor and his half siblings when it discovered that appellant had moved back into M. N.’s residence despite having been informed that the children would be placed into protective custody if she did so.
Appellant submitted on the social worker’s report. The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition, adjudged the minor and his half siblings dependent children of the court (§ 300, subd. (b)), committed them to the care and custody of the Department for suitable confidential placement, and ordered regular visitation with the minor. The court ordered appellant to comply with her case plan, and ordered both parents to participate in reunification services to address problems associated with domestic violence and substance abuse.
According to the permanency report filed in December 2006, appellant was maintaining regular visitation and participating in individual counseling and parenting classes. She was dropped from the domestic violence group for failure to attend, but was on the waiting list for another group. Appellant’s counselor reported that appellant was compliant with her treatment sessions, but “denies that there was any physical violence.” The social worker noted that, although appellant was “fully engaged in services,” additional time was needed to ensure appropriate change before the children could safely return home. Random drug and alcohol testing was recommended based on information from M. N. that appellant might be using illegal substances. The report also states M. N. attended three counseling sessions and participated in anger management and parenting classes. M. N. initially denied having an alcohol problem, but has since expressed remorse and admitted he is an alcoholic. M. N. was not initially compliant with substance abuse treatment services, but had been participating regularly in all alcohol and other drug (AOD) services since September 27, 2006. The report concluded the risk of abuse or neglect if the children were returned home was high based on the fact that “the parents have just recently begun participating in services and there is some concern that perhaps the mother has substance abuse issues that have not been addressed.”
The addendum report filed in January 2007 states that, due to a positive drug test, appellant’s case plan was updated to include an AOD assessment, outpatient services, random urinalysis testing, and NA/AA support group meetings.
According to the addendum report filed in February 2007, appellant participated well in counseling; however, her therapist recommended 10 additional sessions to further address appellant’s issues. Despite being required to submit to urinalysis testing three times per week, appellant had only tested a total of two times, both of which were negative. M. N. completed the anger management program. He tested negative for all substances in November 2006, but admitted relapsing thereafter. Since that time, however, M. N. was compliant with testing requirements. The social worker recommended an additional six months of services for both parents.
At the contested hearing in late February 2007, the court continued the minor and his half siblings as dependents of the juvenile court, continued out-of-home placement, and ordered the parents to comply with the updated case plan.
The June 2007 permanency review report noted that the additional counseling sessions requested by appellant’s therapist had not been authorized until May 1, 2007, “due to an oversight by the [social worker] in submitting the new referral.” Appellant had completed parenting classes and a 15-week domestic violence support group. She completed the AOD assessment and was referred to outpatient AOD services, but failed to test consistently. She tested positive for methamphetamines on two occasions, both in April 2007, but continued to deny using those substances. M. N. completed parenting education classes and continued to test negative for all substances. Both parents were maintaining regular visitation with the minor. While the report concluded reunification of the minor with M. N. was appropriate, reunification with appellant was not, based on appellant’s recent positive drugs tests, her denial of substance abuse, and her lack of appropriate housing accommodations. The report noted that appellant did not appear “capable of providing for the children,” and recommended that reunification services be terminated given her limited progress and continued denial of drug use.
At the contested permanency hearing in July 2007, appellant submitted on the reports, but objected to termination of reunification services as to the minor and his two half siblings. The court terminated appellant’s reunification services as to all three minors, finding by clear and convincing evidence appellant had not regularly participated in, nor made substantive progress in services.
The court placed the minor, A. N., in the home of his father. The court did not set a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) for A. N. For that reason, appellant may properly proceed by appeal rather than by writ petition.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal with respect to the court’s ruling as it relates to the minor only.
DISCUSSION
I.
We first address appellant’s claims related to the minor’s half sibling, S. C. Concurrent with the filing of her opening brief, appellant filed a motion to construe or amend the notice of appeal to include issues related to termination of reunification services and the setting of a section 366.26 hearing with regard to the minor’s half siblings, S. C. and B. C. We denied that motion. We therefore need not consider issues raised by appellant related to S. C. Appellant’s claims in that regard are stricken.
II.
Appellant contends she was not provided reasonable services due to the Department’s failure to timely authorize 10 additional counseling sessions, and its failure to provide assistance in finding adequate housing. Because she did not raise the issue before the juvenile court, appellant urges us to consider it nonetheless pursuant to an exercise of our discretion to hear an “important legal issue” (In re S. B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293-1294) or, in the alternative, to find that any failure to preserve the issue was the result of prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel. We need not do either, given that the issue is reviewed for sufficiency of the evidence (In re Brian M. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1401) and is therefore not subject to forfeiture for failure to raise it below. (People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 262.) That said, we consider appellant’s claim on the merits and find sufficient evidence that reasonable services were provided.
In reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services, we “recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which are provided are often imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.]” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) The minor was removed initially in response to appellant’s failure to protect him and his half siblings from domestic violence perpetrated by M. N., as well as M. N.’s substance abuse issues. Appellant was referred to general counseling and parenting and domestic violence classes to address those issues. After appellant tested positive for drugs, she was referred to outpatient AOD services; however, she failed to test consistently and tested positive for illegal substances twice in April 2007. Despite having completed 13 counseling sessions over nine months, appellant remained adamant that she was “not a drug addict” and had not used methamphetamine, and blamed the positive test results on cold medicine she had taken or someone “messing with the results.” The social worker admitted an unintentional delay in authorizing the 10 additional counseling sessions requested by appellant’s therapist; however, we note that those sessions were eventually authorized on May 1, 2007, nearly a month and a half prior to the hearing. The record is silent as to whether or not appellant availed herself of any of those additional sessions prior to the hearing; however, we have no reason to believe she did not have the opportunity to do so. In any event, the fact that she tested positive during the course of her treatment and the fact that, at the time of the hearing, she continued to deny using drugs both tend to suggest that appellant received little benefit from the services she received during the 12-month period. Given her continued failure to acknowledge her drug use or its impact on the issues preventing her from reunifying with her children, it is unlikely appellant was prejudiced by a delay in the authorization of 10 additional counseling sessions.
Appellant also contends the Department failed to provide her with services to find adequate housing. There is no indication in the record that the court relied on the social worker’s opinions with regard to the adequacy, or lack thereof, of appellant’s housing. To the extent the court relied on the social worker’s statements in that regard by adopting the findings in the report, the issue is immaterial given appellant’s continuing drug use and persistent denial thereof.
There is sufficient evidence that the services provided to appellant were reasonable.
Because we find the services offered to appellant to be reasonable, we need not address her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
III.
Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating her reunification services. According to appellant, there was a substantial probability that the minor would be returned to her care in six months (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.715(c)(3)) based on her consistent visitation with the minor, her significant progress in resolving problems that led to the minor’s removal, and her demonstrated capacity and ability to complete her treatment plan objectives.
Section 366.21 provides that, if the minor is not returned to the custody of the parent at the 12-month review hearing, the court must continue reunification services if it finds “there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) In order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find that (1) the parent has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, (2) the parent has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home, and (3) the parent has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
Appellant argues she maintained regular visitation with the minor and “partially completed her treatment goal of awareness of the negative impact of substance abuse.” Appellant urges that she “progressed sufficiently” in services and, in doing so, demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete her plan objectives and provide a safe environment for the minor. However, as appellant concedes, and the reports confirm, appellant was “in the early stages” of addressing many of the issues that led to removal of the minor. Notwithstanding 13 counseling sessions and participation in programs such as AA and NA, as of February 2007, appellant continued to: minimize her use of drugs and its impact on her and her children, maintain she was not a drug addict; test positive for methamphetamines while at the same time adamantly denying drug use, and blame others for the positive test results. Appellant’s “denial system around her [drug] use” concerned appellant’s therapist, causing the therapist to conclude appellant was still only “in the pre-contemplative stages of change.”
The juvenile court declined to offer additional services to appellant. In light of the fact that appellant was only at the early stages of achieving her treatment goals after nearly nine months of services and continued to deny her drug use or to recognize its impact on her ability to secure the safety of the minor, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination.
DISPOSITION
Appellant’s claims regarding S. C. are stricken. The orders of the juvenile court as to the minor, A. N., are affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J., HULL, J.