On review of the order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights, the reviewing court must determine whether there is any substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings. ( In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 680].) It is not our function, of course, to reweigh the evidence or express our independent judgment on the issues before the trial court.
The reasonableness of reunification services is to be determined light of all relevant circumstances, which include “the mental condition of the parent, her insight into the family’s problems, and her willingness to accept and participate in appropriate services.” (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.) The reunification process is a collaborative effort.
We first address Agency's argument that Mother forfeited her claim that Agency did not make reasonable efforts to provide reunification services because she did not timely raise that issue in the juvenile court. In In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404 (Christina L.), at page 416, we stated: "If Mother felt during the reunification period that the services offered her were inadequate, she had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a better plan: ' "The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and of calling the judge's attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.
" 'The requirement that reunification services be made available to help a parent . . . is not a requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions.' " (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414 (Christina L.).) The Agency acknowledged the potential mental health issues, and at the August 2016 contested adjudication and disposition hearing, the court ordered Mother to attend individual counseling—with a psychological evaluation to be conducted "if ordered by Mother's therapist."
Such circumstances necessarily include the mental condition of the parent, her [or his] insight into the family's problems, and her [or his] willingness to accept and participate in appropriate services." (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.) Under section 361.5, the agency is required to make " '[a] good faith effort' to provide reasonable services responding to the unique needs of each family.
The first, which alone would be reason enough to reject it, is that mother, who was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, did not at any point during the reunification period, including at the combined six- and 12-month review hearing, object to the case plan offered by CFS and approved by the juvenile court regarding mother as inadequate. CFS's argument is well taken that having never complained about the claimed lack of reasonable services in the juvenile court, at a time when that court could have rectified any deficiency, mother should be precluded from raising it here. (See In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416 (Christina L.) [if the mother "felt during the reunification period that the services offered her were inadequate, she had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a better plan"].) Second, even if we were to address the merits, the record amply supports the juvenile court's findings.
A noncustodial parent may not refuse to participate in reunification treatment programs until the final reunification review hearing has been set and then demand an extension of the reunification period to complete the required programs. ( In re Christina S. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 680] ; In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 84]; In re Heather B. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 535, 563 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 891].) Neither may a parent wait silently by until the final reunification review hearing to seek an extended reunification period based on a perceived inadequacy in the reunification services occurring long before that hearing. ( In re Christina L., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 415-416.)
We review the juvenile court's determination of reasonable services for substantial evidence. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.) "When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.
Father complains that the agency failed to provide him reasonable services because it did not provide him with separate visits for the children and their infant sibling or secure him housing. Father also argues that the agency unreasonably limited him to supervised visitation when mother relapsed. If father was dissatisfied with his visitation arrangements, he was fully capable of advising his attorney of what was being required of him. Reunification is a collaborative effort and a parent is presumed capable of complying with a reasonable services plan. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 415.) Consequently, the parent is responsible for communicating with the agency and participating in the reunification process.
If Father believed that his 11 months of reunification services had been misdirected and should have focused on anger management or aggression issues, he "had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a better plan." (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416 (Christina L.).) Father was not entitled to sit back and wait until the contested 12-month review hearing to have counsel raise the issue for the first time. The standard is not whether the Agency could have provided better services in an ideal world, but whether it provided reasonable services under the circumstances.