Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK70270, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Joseph D. Mackenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens and Denise M. Hippach, Assistant County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KLEIN, P. J.
M.F. (father) appeals an order terminating family reunification services with respect to three children, A.F., A.G.F. and M.J.F. We conclude the juvenile court properly terminated father’s reunification services after six months based on its finding father failed to have contact and visitation with the children after they were removed from his care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e); Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1017.) We further find no abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion in the failure to order a psychiatric evaluation of father over the objection of father’s counsel and affirm the juvenile court’s order.
Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Father obtains custody of the children in 2000.
In May of 2000, the children, then ages six, five and four years, resided with mother when they were alleged to have been victims of general neglect and sexual abuse by two unidentified males who resided with mother. An older female sibling of the children reported that two males in the house raped her. Allegations of general neglect and sexual abuse were “determined to be inconclusive.” The next month, A.F. was identified as the perpetrator of sexual abuse on a three-year old cousin. A.F. indicated she was imitating mother’s behavior. The allegations of abuse were unfounded and the allegations of general neglect were inconclusive.
Shortly thereafter, the children moved with father to the three bedroom home of paternal grandparents. Mother told a social worker she became homeless and father agreed to care for the children until her situation stabilized. Father claimed mother could not care for the children and asked father to take them. Father asserted he was awarded custody of the children in family law court in November of 2000 after mother missed several court dates.
2. The instant dependency allegations.
On October 3, 2007, mother reported to the police that A.F. and M.J.F. told her that father had “raped” A.G.F., who was then on vacation with paternal grandmother in Tennessee. A.F. further reported that in May of 2007, father touched her inappropriately while she slept in his bed and that this was not an isolated incident. A.F. and M.J.F. were taken into protective custody and placed in foster care. A.G.F. joined them upon her return to Los Angeles.
Father denied the allegations and claimed mother “may be putting things in the kids’ heads.”
On November 29, 2007, the children were placed with maternal grandmother. Mother lived nearby and regularly was involved in the day-to-day care of the children. All three children stated they were eager to be returned to her. Mother enrolled in individual counseling on October 24, 2007, and was participating in a parenting program and a six-month domestic violence program.
The jurisdiction/disposition report prepared for November 15, 2007, indicated father no longer lived with paternal grandmother. Father had not provided a current address and refused to allow an investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to visit his residence. The children’s social worker (CSW) attempted to meet with father who reportedly was living in La Habra. Father agreed to meet the CSW at a McDonald’s but failed to respond to numerous messages left on his cell phone.
3. Jurisdictional findings; juvenile court’s orders as to father.
On January 18, 2008, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and ordered DCFS to provide both parents family reunification services. As sustained, the petition alleged that father, while under the influence of alcohol and inhalants, sexually abused A.G.F. when she was nine or ten years of age, including forced oral copulation and threats of harm if she did not submit. The petition further alleged father also touched A.F. inappropriately while the child was asleep in father’s bed and that father has a history of abuse of inhalants and alcohol which renders him unable to provide regular care for the children
The juvenile court ordered father to participate in individual counseling to address case issues, parenting class and alcohol and drug counseling with random testing. The juvenile court also ordered father to participate in a Children’s Sexual Abuse Program (CSAP) for perpetrators. The juvenile court granted father monitored visitation in a neutral setting on condition mother not be the monitor and ordered DCFS to facilitate visits with paternal relatives.
4. Father fails to comply with the case plan until after the initial six-month review hearing.
The CSW met with father on October 26, 2007 and February 4, 2008, to give him referrals for court ordered programs. A DCFS “Delivered Service Log” for February 4, 2008, indicates that when the CSW gave father a “large packet full of referrals” and attempted to explain the case plan to him, father stated “he already knew everything he needed to know and left the CSW’s office.” Father telephoned the CSW about 30 minutes later and asked if he could leave school supplies for the children with the CSW, which he did.
A status review report prepared for the six-month review hearing on May 15, 2008, indicated father told the CSW he currently was living at his church in La Habra. Father did not wish to give the CSW his address for fear someone would find out the basis of the open case. When the CSW told father he had been ordered to participate in individual therapy and that the therapist would be forwarding all court records, father became “very angry and stated he did not want to be labeled as a sex offender.”
The report indicated father had not contacted the CSW in months and the telephone number father had given DCFS was not in service. Father had failed to participate in the case plan, has had no contact with the children and has not called the CSW or maternal grandmother to request visitation. The report noted paternal grandmother has unmonitored day visits with the children every other weekend but the children have no contact with father during these visits. The children have stated they do not wish to visit father. However, A.F. has stated she would not mind visiting father and that she missed him. The report noted that when the CSW last spoke to father, “he failed to accept any responsibility for his part in the sustained allegations....”
The report indicated the children recently began participating in mental health services and mother has participated in some of the sessions. A report for each child was being prepared but had not been received. The report noted mother’s individual counseling case was closed on March 5, 2008 because mother had fulfilled her therapeutic goals. Mother also completed a parenting program and she continued to participate in a domestic violence program. DCFS recommended placement of the children in the home of mother with family maintenance services and termination of father’s family reunification services.
At the May 15, 2008 hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children placed with mother and continued the matter for one month for a contested hearing as to whether father’s family reunification services should be terminated.
An interim review report indicated that, after the hearing on May 15, 2008, the CSW provided father with referrals in Orange County. On May 29, 2008, a representative of CSAP confirmed that father had enrolled in the East Los Angeles program beginning June 2, 2008. A letter attached to the report indicated father also attended an orientation to enroll in a six-month in-patient alcohol and drug abuse program in Fullerton. Father had not yet enrolled in parenting class or individual counseling.
5. The contested hearing.
At the contested hearing on June 12, 2008, father testified the CSW never sent him a visitation schedule, never discussed when the visits would take place and never advised father the location of the neutral setting. Even at the recent meeting on May 15, 2008, the CSW did not discuss visitation. Father testified he had telephone contact with the children after his father passed away on June 1, 2008. Father claimed he telephoned mother thereafter to “see if she could bring the kids” but did not hear from her. The juvenile court asked why father did not call before that. Father replied paternal grandfather had been in the hospital dying and father was “just there.” Father telephoned the social worker but “she never got back to me” or provided a telephone number where he could reach the children.
When father indicated he had maternal grandmother’s home number, the juvenile court asked why father did not telephone the children when they lived with maternal grandmother. Father replied, “I just shut down for while. I tried calling them. I did try calling her work to give me the number. Then to this day she never called me back about the number or anything.” Father then indicated he only obtained maternal grandmother’s telephone number a month and a half ago. Father testified that after the juvenile court sustained the petition in January, father did not think he was allowed to telephone the children whenever he wanted.
Father claimed he spoke to the CSW and a DCFS supervisor about visitation four or five months ago. The CSW first indicated she would confirm the court orders and get back to father but she never did. The supervisor refused to transfer the case to another social worker.
Father testified that in February the social worker knew he lived in La Habra in Orange County but gave him referrals in Los Angeles County. Father indicated there were only two programs he could attend. He enrolled in a program in Bell but was not able to complete it due to “the distance and the money factor.” Father found the programs in which he currently is enrolled in Orange County on his own. Father did not look for programs before May because he thought he had to do the case requirements in Los Angeles. “I was just doing what they gave me. And that was it.” Father stated he very much wanted to visit the children and anticipated he would successfully complete counseling.
Father admitted he knew paternal grandmother visited the children but indicated he had no idea how she arranged those visits. Under questioning by County Counsel, father admitted he did not provide his address to the caseworker until May 15, 2008.
After listening to argument by father’s counsel, the juvenile court recounted father’s conduct at the DCFS office in February, noting in particular that father asked to drop off school supplies but did not ask to visit. When father’s counsel complained DCFS failed to propose a visitation schedule, the juvenile court found “father’s testimony to be totally lacking in credibility.... I believe that the father did not make any attempt to address the issue of visits with the social worker.” Father “did not tell the social worker where he was staying. And did not maintain contact with the social worker, did not ask anyone to set up visitations.... [¶] He even knew that his own mother was having visits and knew the phone number of the caretaker. He never made any attempt to obtain that information.”
The juvenile court indicated it likely would order DCFS to arrange a psychiatric assessment of father even if it terminated father’s family reunification services “because it appears to me that things have just got even worse... for him. And at least a psychiatric assessment can help him listen when he’s ready to get some treatment and... give some direction to the person who is going to be providing that treatment.”
Father’s counsel immediately objected to a psychiatric evaluation. The juvenile court indicated surprise at the objection but sustained it.
Counsel for the children requested reunification services for father in the interests of the children. Counsel noted the children recently had lived with father and they currently were attending counseling to address the issues and fears they have regarding him. “I think that if they have future contact with the father, it’s beneficial to them if he has received the services that he needs to address the issues that are preventing him [from having] contact with them.”
The juvenile court indicated its goal in ordering a psychiatric evaluation was not to determine whether family reunification services would be appropriate but to determine “whether there are any psychiatric diagnoses that the individual therapists and drug counselors need to be considering in their... treatment of him.”
The juvenile court noted father could continue to participate in programs on his own and asked why DCFS should assist him “when he’s done nothing?” The juvenile court observed, “Alcoholism and drug abuse and mental illness are all very sad things. But there is only so much [DCFS] can do. And the father up until the May 15th date had not complied at all with the case plan. Right now he’s in partial compliance having signed up in the past couple of weeks for programs.” The juvenile court noted father still had not enrolled in individual counseling or parenting class. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided to father and that father had not had contact or visitation with the children within the meaning of section 366.21, subdivision (e). The juvenile court terminated father’s family reunification services but continued the previous order for monitored visitation.
CONTENTIONS
Father contends he was not provided reasonable family reunification services, the juvenile court lacked authority to terminate family reunification services after six months and the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating family reunification services and in failing to order a psychiatric evaluation of father.
DISCUSSION
1. The services provided father were reasonable.
In order to terminate family reunification services at a hearing under section 366.21, the juvenile court must find reasonable services designed to overcome the problems that led to removal of the children have been provided or offered to the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) In reviewing the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services have been provided or offered, we apply a substantial evidence test and review the entire record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s finding, indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold that finding. (In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
Father contends reasonable family reunification services in this case included “timely provision to him of referrals for court-ordered reunification services in Orange County where he resided.” Father notes the CSW knew he lived in La Habra but gave him referrals in Los Angeles County, which he could not complete. Father claims he was not aware he could attend programs in Orange County. Father concludes the services provided were not reasonable under the circumstances.
Father’s argument is not persuasive. The record shows the social worker provided father with referrals for court ordered programs in October of 2007 and February of 2008. Father signed receipts for the referrals. In February 2008, father refused to speak to the social worker about the case plan. Father said he already knew everything he needed to know. Father admitted he did not provide the social worker his address until May 15, 2008. Prior to that date, father failed to inform the social worker of his residence other than to state he lived in the city of La Habra. The social worker had no means by which to contact father. When father’s telephone was in service, he failed to return messages. Father failed to enroll in CSAP or a drug and alcohol program until two weeks before the contested review hearing. Even then, father did not enroll in parenting classes or individual counseling.
Against this backdrop, it is apparent that the cause of the failure of father’s case plan was his indifference towards reunification, not a lack of effort on the part of DCFS or a failure to provide referrals in Orange County. (In re Ronnel A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365 [“ ‘Reunification services are voluntary... and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them. [Citations.]’ [Citations.] ].)”
Father next asserts the juvenile court focused improperly on his failure to visit the children. Father claims that, under the circumstances, visitation could not occur until the children first had been provided individual counseling or conjoint counseling with father. However, the children did not commence individual counseling until May of 2008. Father concludes DCFS’s failure to enroll the children in mental health services effectively prevented father from visiting the children. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.)
In the case cited by father, In re Alvin R., the father “fully cooperated and complied with all aspects of the plan....” except the requirement that father participate in conjoint counseling after the child had received eight sessions of individual counseling. (In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 965.) In re Alvin R. found the social agency failed to take timely steps necessary to have father and the child begin conjoint counseling and reversed a finding that reasonable reunification services had been provided. (Id. at p. 996.)
Here, in contrast to the father in In re Alvin R., father failed to participate in the case plan until after the date set for the six-month review hearing and the juvenile court found father had failed to contact the children or demonstrate any interest in visitation. In light of the father’s failure to cooperate, DCFS provided reasonable services. (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598 [in most cases more services might have been provided and the services provided are often imperfect]; In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547 [“The 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.”].)
Lastly, father notes the juvenile court’s order for monitored visitation left it to DCFS to designate a monitor, an appropriate neutral site as well as the frequency and duration of the visits. Father complains DCFS failed to make any of these determinations and failed to facilitate father’s visitation in any way. However, all of the arrangements father claims DCFS should have made are routine and would have commenced upon father’s inquiry about visitation. The juvenile court specifically found not credible father’s testimony that he repeatedly inquired about visitation, noting father was aware that paternal grandmother was visiting the children on a regular basis but he did nothing to commence visitation or even contact the children.
In sum, the juvenile court’s finding that DCFS offered father reasonable family reunification services is substantially supported by the record.
2. Termination of family reunification services after six months.
a. Legal authority to terminate.
Father asserts he was entitled to at least 12 months of family reunification services because his children were over the age of three years when they were detained. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1) and (a)(3).) He is wrong.
“[P]arents are generally entitled to 12 months of reunification services.” (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59.) However, when the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence “the parent has failed to contact and visit the child,” it may terminate family reunification services at a six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e); Sara M. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1017; In re Jesse W., supra, at pp. 60, 63; In re Monique S. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 677, 682-683; see also In re Derrick S. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 436, 445 [there is no absolute right to receive the maximum amount of statutorily-fixed services]; In re Aryanna C. (2005)132 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1242-1243 [father’s abysmal efforts at reunification supported termination of services before expiration of six-month period].)
The juvenile court, having made the finding required by the statute, namely, that father failed to contact and visit the children, had the authority to terminate father’s family reunification services after six months. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
b. Abuse of discretion.
Father contends the juvenile court should have exercised its discretion to continue family reunification services under section 366.21, subdivision (e). Father notes the first priority of the juvenile court law is to preserve the family where possible. (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 824.) Father observes counsel for the children requested family reunification services and a psychiatric evaluation of father, over the objection of father’s attorney, as being in the best interests of the children who had lived with father for seven years and were attending counseling.
Father asserts the juvenile court’s order punished father and the children, overlooked their unresolved relationship and abdicated the duty to act in the best interests of the children. Father also claims the juvenile court lacked the evidence needed to address the best interests of the children in that it had no current information about the children’s participation or progress in counseling or father’s participation in his programs. Father notes that, at the time of the May 15, 2008 hearing, the children only recently had begun participating in therapy and the counselors had not yet reported on their status.
The Legislature has recognized that in some circumstances it may be fruitless to provide reunification services. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478.) In such a case, “[t]ermination of reunification services... is rationally related to the legitimate government interest in focusing government resources on the parent who has consistently visited the child, made significant progress in resolving problems, and demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the treatment plan and provide for the child’s needs.” (In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 566.)
Here, father had no contact with the children after they were removed from his care in October of 2007. The juvenile court found father exhibited no interest in making contact with or visiting the children even though he knew his mother was visiting them. Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion to terminate family reunification services after six months. The juvenile court reasonably could conclude father was unlikely to comply with the case plan in the future based on his failure to comply in the past.
Moreover, as the juvenile court noted, father is free to continue to attend the programs in which he has enrolled. Also, the juvenile court remains free to reconsider an order for psychiatric evaluation of father in the future upon a showing of changed circumstances, such as a recommendation for such an order from the children’s therapists. However, at this juncture, we need only find that, given father’s lack of compliance with the case plan and in light of the objection of father’s counsel, no abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion appears in the termination of family reunification services or the failure to order father to participate in a psychiatric evaluation.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating family reunification services is affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, J., KITCHING, J.