Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. CK78871 Marilyn Mackel, Referee. Affirmed.
Eva E. Chick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ALDRICH, J.
INTRODUCTION
Z.C., mother of Cecilia, appeals juvenile court orders made at a combined six- and 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subds. (e), (f)) terminating her reunification services and limiting her right to make educational decisions. Mother contends the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) did not obey the juvenile court’s visitation orders, and because the Department did not facilitate visits, there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that she was provided or offered reasonable reunification services. Mother also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in limiting her right to make educational decisions because there is no evidence in the record to show she was unavailable and unwilling to make those decisions. We reject these contentions and affirm the orders.
Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case has a history. We previously rejected mother’s contention on appeal that the juvenile court’s visitation order was illusory in In re Cecilia C. (Nov. 5, 2010, B223491 [nonpub. opn.]). We provide a brief procedural history and recite only those facts relevant to mother’s appeal of the juvenile court’s orders.
We have taken judicial notice of the record in mother’s previous appeal.
1. Detention, Adjudication, and Disposition
Cecilia was 12 years old in September 2009, when the Department filed a petition after complaints of physical abuse, and mother’s failure to protect Cecilia based upon mother’s chronic substance abuse. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b).)
The Department received a referral in July 2009, alleging that Cecilia was a victim of general neglect, and emotional and physical abuse by her mother. Mother and grandmother, also living in the home, reportedly used drugs in the house. It was also reported that mother locked Cecilia in the bedroom for one to two days at a time, hit Cecilia with objects, and yelled at her all the time, which caused Cecilia to fear her mother.
Interviews with relatives confirmed mother’s drug use. According to relatives, mother’s current drug of choice was reported as “ ‘crystal meth, ’ ” but mother had used “crack, meth, downers, and various psychotropic medication including Adderall.” These interviews also revealed that mother had bipolar disorder, had exhibited a host of strange behaviors, and had severe mood swings.
Cecilia told the social worker that she was afraid of her maternal uncle who also lived with them, describing him as violent and a drug user. Mother confirmed to the social workers that he used drugs in the home and became violent during arguments.
Mother denied illegal drug use and agreed to participate in random drug testing. Mother acknowledged she took prescription drugs for her bipolar condition. On August 17, 2009, mother tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines, after failing to show up for testing on July 23, 2009.
Based upon this information, the Department recommended Cecilia remain in foster care and that a petition be filed on Cecilia’s behalf.
In January 2010, the juvenile court sustained a petition alleging mother had inappropriately physically disciplined Cecilia, and such physical discipline endangered her, creating a detrimental home environment and placing Cecilia at risk of harm, damage, danger, and physical abuse. (§ 300, subd. (a).) Moreover, mother’s physical discipline, history of substance abuse, and emotional problems caused by situational depression periodically rendered mother incapable of providing regular care for Cecilia, placing Cecilia at risk of physical and emotional harm, which constituted a failure to protect Cecilia. (§ 300, subd. (b).)
As for disposition, in addition to random drug testing, the juvenile court ordered mother to participate in (1) a drug rehabilitation program, (2) parenting program, and (3) individual counseling. At a subsequent hearing in March 2010, the juvenile court ordered mother to undergo a psychological evaluation pursuant to Evidence Code section 730.
As described below, the juvenile court’s initial visitation order of monitored visits with discretion to liberalize had been modified by the time of the disposition hearing to monitored visits in a therapeutic setting with no discretion to liberalize.
2. The Department’s Efforts to Facilitate Visitation
After Cecilia was placed in foster care, mother had monitored visits in a neutral setting. Cecilia’s foster mother and her daughter both monitored visits. Mother was reportedly uncooperative and unwilling to work with the Department or the foster family agency. Mother brought up inappropriate topics and yelled and threatened Cecilia’s foster mother and her daughter. During a visit, mother directed her anger toward Cecilia, and she reportedly told Cecilia that she was going to put her up for adoption and not participate in any programs.
The foster children’s social worker suspended the visits because mother refused to follow the visitation rules, and recommended to the Department that the best solution would be to schedule monitored visits at the Department or through another program. When the social worker tried to explain the visitation rules to mother, mother became angry, and hung up on the social worker.
In late October 2009, the Department attempted to arrange visits monitored by a social worker. When the monitor asked for mother’s schedule, mother became angry and asked for a different monitor. Mother agreed to the visit after learning that no other monitor was available. Mother, however, did not show up for the visit because the Department did not call to confirm. The social worker confirmed another visit with Cecilia for the following day. Mother again did not show up, claiming that she understood the visit was scheduled to start an hour later.
In December 2009, Cecilia told the social worker on two occasions that she did not want to visit or talk to mother. Cecilia previously reported to the social worker that mother told her “she was dead to her and that an adult should never say something like that to a child.” Mother denied saying anything negative to Cecilia, but Cecilia’s paternal grandmother also heard mother make this statement to Cecilia.
By early January 2010, the juvenile court’s visitation order had been modified to monitored visits in a therapeutic setting to protect Cecilia. The Department had no discretion to liberalize visitation without a court order.
On January 19, 2010, the social worker contacted Cecilia’s therapist and advised her of the court’s order. The social worker informed the therapist to prepare Cecilia for visitation beginning the first week of February. The next day, the social worker met with mother. Mother would not agree to meet with Cecilia and her therapist, and instead wanted to choose the therapist. The social worker explained that mother’s request would further delay visitation.
The social worker contacted mother’s choice of therapists. When Cecilia met with the therapist, she told the therapist that she did not want to visit mother. The therapist declined to assist in facilitating visitation. According to the therapist, Cecilia had been traumatized by mother, and should not be forced to have contact with her until she was emotionally ready.
Cecilia had returned to her previous therapist for individual counseling, and her therapist monitored one visit with mother on February 26, 2010. Following that visit, Cecilia’s therapist sent a letter to the Department stating that Cecilia told her therapist she did not want any further visits. Cecilia reported that during the February visit, mother threatened to have Cecilia moved from placement to placement if she did not participate in visits.
In March 2010, the court declined to modify its visitation order to permit the Department to choose an appropriate monitor outside of a therapeutic setting. The juvenile court cited the risk to Cecilia from abusive behavior and negative communication from mother.
Beginning in March 2010, mother refused to meet with the social worker to discuss her compliance and progress with the case plan. In April 2010, mother informed the social worker that she only wanted to communicate by mail.
On July 2, 2010, the court granted a travel request for Cecilia to visit her maternal aunt in New York, but before Cecilia left for vacation, the Department was ordered to arrange a therapeutic visit with mother. Cecilia’s trip was scheduled for July 10th, thus the visit had to take place between July 2 and July 9. The Department attempted to schedule the visit for July 8, 2010. The visit did not take place. The social worker’s report states that mother’s response to the therapist was to tell the social worker, “I have other plans.”
As of July 9, 2010, the juvenile court’s visitation order had been modified to therapeutic visits with a neutral therapist. Initially, the social worker asked the agency where Cecilia was attending therapy to assign a second therapist. The agency declined to assign a second therapist unless Cecilia requested visitation. The social worker’s report chronicled her efforts to find an alternative agency. The social worker located another agency, but the agency requested that mother contact them to schedule conjoint visits. The social worker sent mother a letter asking her to contact the alternate agency. Mother did not contact the agency. Another agency declined to provide therapeutic visits unless Cecilia was also attending therapy sessions at that agency.
Cecilia wanted to have a therapeutic visit with mother in September 2010, but mother did not respond to the social worker’s letter. The letter dated September 27, 2010 states: “I have tried reaching you by phone, however, your phone always has a busy signal. I came by your home and left a business card on 9/20/10. I am attempting to reach you to discuss your progress in court ordered services and to arrange visitation in a therapeutic environment with Cecilia....”
Mother asked for an after-court visit with Cecilia who was present at the October 12, 2010 status hearing. The request was denied because the visit could not take place outside a therapeutic setting. On that day, mother made an inappropriate comment to Cecilia, and Cecilia did not return to court the following day for the hearing.
3. Status Review Hearing and Motion to Limit Educational Rights
At the combined six- and 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subds. (e), (f)), the Department recommended that the juvenile court terminate reunification services for mother based upon her failure to comply with the case plan. Cecilia’s attorney also asked for an order limiting mother’s right to make educational decisions.
a. Mother Did Not Comply with the Case Plan
Mother partially complied with her drug rehabilitation program. Mother enrolled in Acacia Counseling in December 2009 and obtained a certificate after attending only nine of the 14 required sessions. Mother reportedly told her counselor she attended the remaining sessions at another agency, but the social worker reported that no one at the other agency returned the social worker’s calls to verify mother’s attendance.
Mother chose not to participate in random drug testing after March 2010. Mother had three positive tests for amphetamines and methamphetamines in August, November, and December of 2009. Mother had two negative tests in January and February, but was a no-show thereafter.
Mother did not complete parenting classes. In March 2010, mother stopped attending and was terminated from the program.
Mother discontinued her individual counseling. Mother received individual counseling in January 2010, but her therapist terminated the relationship in February, informing the Department that the case issues should be handled by another agency. Mother received referrals to three different agencies and refused to obtain individual counseling.
Mother did not undergo the court-ordered psychological evaluation. In March 2010, mother was ordered to undergo an evaluation (Evid. Code, § 730) with Dr. Crespo. Mother did not respond to phone calls and written correspondence sent to her by Dr. Crespo to schedule the evaluation.
By April 2010, mother had stopped all monthly contact with the social worker. The social worker attempted to contact mother by phone at her residence, and eventually she sent letters to mother regarding her compliance with her case plan. Mother did not respond.
Mother testified at the contested hearing. She stated she initially attempted to comply with the case plan but stopped when the Department was not complying with the court’s visitation order. Mother’s explanation for the positive drug tests was that the lab made a mistake because her prescription medications were not reflected in the lab report.
Mother admitted the Department arranged monitored visits when Cecilia was first placed into foster care. Mother denied making inappropriate statements to Cecilia during those visits. She could not attend the July 2010 visit because she was given short notice, and she was taking care of her sister. She denied receiving any correspondence from the social worker about contacting the agency for therapeutic visits or to arrange therapeutic visits.
b. The Juvenile Court Terminated Mother’s Reunification Services
The juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services. The court did not find mother’s testimony credible, and complimented the social worker for doing a yeoman’s job in trying to follow the court orders. The court strongly suggested that mother “get out of denial and move forward to get the treatment that is necessary.” The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to provide reunification services and mother had minimal compliance with the case plan.
On mother’s request for visitation, the juvenile court ordered no visits until Cecilia returned to individual counseling and the Department obtained a report from her therapist addressing Cecilia’s contact with mother. The juvenile court gave the Department discretion to allow visits with mother if Cecilia’s therapist felt that it would not be detrimental to Cecilia, and Cecilia wanted to visit with mother.
Father was represented at the proceedings and was given reunification services. Therefore, the juvenile court did not set a section 366.26 hearing.
4. The Juvenile Court Limits Mother’s Educational Rights
At the status review hearing, Cecilia’s attorney asked for an order to limit mother’s right to make educational decisions for Cecilia and to appoint her paternal grandmother. Cecilia’s attorney informed the court that the school is trying to have Cecilia tested, but no parent has come forward or returned the social worker’s phone calls. Mother’s attorney responded that mother did not know where Cecilia was attending school because she does not get along with the social worker, and mother testified that the social worker had instructed the school not to speak to mother.
The trial court granted the request to give Cecilia’s paternal grandmother educational rights based upon mother’s lack of cooperation and her failure to follow through with the case plan. As the court stated, “we cannot have the child’s educational issues held up by mother’s conflictual [sic] relationship with everybody here[.]” Following the contested hearing, Cecilia’s attorney renewed the request, and the court responded: “It is actually appropriate.”
DISCUSSION
1. The Department Provided Reasonable Reunification Services
Mother contends that the Department failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services. Although this contention is ordinarily raised by a petition for extraordinary writ review (§ 366.26, subd. (l)), at the time the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services, it did not set a permanent planning hearing under section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.708(l).) Thus, mother properly sought to proceed by way of appeal rather than writ petition.
Turning to the merits, mother contends the Department failed to provide reasonable reunification services because it did not facilitate visits with Cecilia, and in failing to do so, violated the juvenile court’s visitation order. Under these circumstances, mother claims the juvenile court’s finding of reasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence and is erroneous.
In reviewing the juvenile court’s finding, our sole task is to determine whether substantial evidence establishes that the Department made a good faith effort to provide reasonable services. (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.) We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court ruling, resolving conflicts and indulging all reasonable inferences in favor of the finding. (See In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46.) We do not reweigh the evidence. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.)
Services may be deemed reasonable when the case plan has identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, the Department has offered services designed to remedy those problems, has maintained reasonable contact with the parent, and has made reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas in which compliance has proven to be difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) In reviewing the reasonableness of services provided by the Department, 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.” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) The evidence established that under the circumstances of this case, the Department made reasonable efforts to facilitate visitation, as visits became increasingly more difficult to arrange based upon mother’s conduct.
Mother admitted that the Department initially provided visits with Cecilia. Mother acted inappropriately toward the monitors and toward Cecilia during these visits. Thereafter, the court ordered therapeutic visits with no discretion to liberalize visitation to protect Cecilia from her mother’s hurtful comments. Neither Cecilia’s therapist nor mother’s choice of therapists would force Cecilia to visit with her mother until she was emotionally ready. During the only therapeutic visit between mother and Cecilia, mother threatened Cecilia that she would be removed from her current foster home if she did not agree to continue with the visits. After that visit, mother did not continue with her case plan, did not participate in monthly meetings with the social worker, and did not comply with the court-ordered random drug testing or participate in individual counseling. Mother took no steps to obtain individual help that was intended to benefit her and repair her relationship with Cecilia.
Although mother stopped cooperating with the Department in March 2010, the Department continued to attempt to facilitate additional visits by encouraging Cecilia to visit with her mother. While mother explained why she could not attend the July visit because of short notice, the Department complied with the court order to arrange that visit. In July 2010, when the juvenile court ordered therapeutic visits with a neutral therapist, the Department contacted several agencies, but mother did not respond to the social worker’s letter. When Cecilia asked to visit her mother in September 2010, mother again did not respond to the social worker’s letter.
The foregoing evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling, provides substantial support for the finding that the Department offered or provided reasonable services to facilitate visitation, in light of the challenges presented by the juvenile court’s order for therapeutic visits and mother’s lack of cooperation with the Department. Mother’s focus on one therapeutic visit in the last eight months ignores the evidence of the Department’s efforts to comply with the court’s orders, mother’s conduct toward the monitors, mother’s demands, and mother’s hurtful comments to Cecilia during their therapeutic visit.
Based upon this evidence, we also find no merit in mother’s argument that the Department did not comply with the court’s visitation orders. Therefore, we conclude substantial evidence supports the finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to facilitate visitation.
As part of this contention, mother makes the following claims: (1) by March 2010, the juvenile court should have explored another therapist for Cecilia who would have promoted the “therapeutic process more aggressively, ” (2) the court abdicated its duty by giving the Department the power to ignore the visitation order, and (3) the court’s visitation order was illusory. Mother focuses on the court, not the Department’s good faith effort to provide reasonable services under the circumstances of this case. Mother also blames Cecilia’s therapist and the Department for not being aggressive in encouraging Cecilia to visit mother, arguing there was no physical threat to Cecilia’s safety, which ignores that the issue here also is Cecilia’s emotional safety.
We are not persuaded otherwise by the authorities cited by mother or with mother’s argument that since the Department did not comply with its obligation to provide her visits, she had no obligation to undergo random drug testing, participate in a drug rehabilitation program and parenting classes, obtain individual counseling, or schedule her 730 evaluation. Cecilia was removed from mother’s care based upon reports of drug abuse and inappropriate discipline. Mother’s case plan included services to address those issues before Cecilia would be returned to her custody and care. Mother’s failure to participate in court-ordered services is substantial evidence that no further reunification services were appropriate. The juvenile court did not err in finding reasonable services were provided and in terminating reunification services for mother.
We reject the alternative argument that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that mother did not comply with her case plan. Mother admitted she did not comply.
2. Limiting Mother’s Educational Rights Was Not an Abuse of Discretion
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in limiting her rights to make educational decisions for Cecilia because the evidence does not show mother was unwilling to participate in making educational decisions. (§ 319, subd. (g)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.650.) We will not disturb this decision because the juvenile court did not exceed the limits of legal discretion by focusing on Cecilia’s educational needs, and Cecilia’s right to timely obtain the appropriate educational services. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319; In re R.W. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1277.)
While Cecilia was improving her performance in school, her school wanted to test her for educational problems, but was unable to obtain parental consent. While mother testified that she would cooperate with the school and wanted to be involved in making Cecilia’s educational decisions, mother was nonresponsive to the Department and antagonistic toward the social worker. Mother insisted the Department communicate with her by mail, but she did not respond or would not acknowledge receipt of correspondence sent to her by the Department addressing the case plan. Mother made herself unavailable to the Department through her own conduct. Moreover, the juvenile court found it troubling that mother demonstrated an inability to follow through with obtaining services, noting mother’s failure to schedule her own evaluation. In light of mother’s inaction, her unavailability despite the Department’s efforts, and her considerable resistance to the Department, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion giving Cecilia’s paternal grandmother the right to make educational decisions to ensure Cecilia obtained the appropriate services.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, Acting P. J.KITCHING, J.