Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court Nos. 515356 & 515357 of Stanislaus County. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.
Jennifer A. Gibson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Alice E. Mimms, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Kane, J.
The juvenile court denied reunification services to C.S. (mother) after removing two of her children, D.M. and A.M. On appeal, mother contends (1) the court’s determination that she had not made reasonable efforts to address the problems that led to the removal of another child was not supported by substantial evidence and (2) even if mother failed to make reasonable efforts, the court abused its discretion when it denied services without determining whether reunification would be in the best interest of the children. We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On July 23, 2003, mother tested positive for methamphetamine one week prior to the birth of T.R. After T.R. was born, mother took her to a drug house.
On August 1, 2003, T.R. was detained because of mother’s drug abuse, her transient lifestyle, and the domestic violence between her and father. T.R. was adjudged a dependent and reunification services of one year were ordered for mother.
On June 28, 2004, mother gave birth to S.R.
On September 21, 2004, mother was discharged from First Step treatment program due to problems she was having with her peers.
On April 28, 2005, mother’s reunification services regarding T.R. were terminated, and on March 8, 2006, mother’s parental rights were terminated. Shortly thereafter, T.R. was adopted by her maternal grandmother.
On July 31, 2006, when mother was 36 weeks pregnant with D.M., mother tested positive for opiates and THC. Two-year-old S.R. was living with a family member.
We assume this refers to tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active component of cannabis drugs, such as marijuana.
On September 25, 2006, D.M. was born. Both mother and D.M. tested positive for opiates, although the positive result might have been due to prescription drugs.
On February 2, 2007, both T.R. and S.R. were living with their maternal grandmother, but the grandmother would not take D.M. A police officer went to mother’s home because mother and father were having an argument. Mother appeared under the influence of alcohol or drugs. She locked herself in the bathroom and flushed something down the toilet.
On October 29, 2007, father was convicted of felony domestic violence.
On December 11, 2007, mother and father argued while one-year-old D.M. was between them. Father threatened mother in D.M.’s presence. Mother admitted using drugs. Around this time, mother was jailed on a gun charge. Mother and father accepted voluntary services through Families in Partnership for the period from January 2008 to October 2008.
On January 15, 2008, a probation search of mother’s home revealed a bag of white crystal powder on the seat of a chair, several aluminum foil wrappings with black residue, and a glass pipe. White powder residue was found on the countertop in mother’s bedroom with diapers nearby.
On January 17, 2008, mother and father admitted to a social worker that they were verbally abusive to each other every day in front of D.M. Mother said she had been diagnosed as bipolar three or four years earlier and had not been taking her medication. Mother said she liked to sell drugs and had a history of using methamphetamine, heroin, Vicodin, PCP and marijuana since she was 14 years old. She had used Vicodin recently. She said she started First Step outpatient treatment on December 27, 2007, and had been clean for a few days. She had missed three or four days of treatment.
On February 13, 2008, the social worker was informed by First Step that mother had been assessed two months earlier, but she never returned for services. Mother was eliminated from the program due to her nonattendance.
On February 19, 2008, father informed the social worker that mother did not allow him to attend 12-step meetings. He stated that mother would blackmail him with threats of taking D.M. away from him if he did not do as she wished. The social worker told father to attend meetings while mother was attending her own meetings.
On February 21, 2008, mother was scheduled to begin her treatment in two programs, but she was not home when the driver came for her. He knocked extensively, waited 20 minutes, knocked again, and then left. Mother was considered a no-show.
On February 22, 2008, father reported that mother was threatening to move away with D.M. if the department would not “get off her back.”
On February 25, 2008, mother admitted she was using methamphetamine. She requested inpatient treatment.
On February 27, 2008, father moved with D.M. to the paternal grandmother’s apartment because father did not know mother’s whereabouts.
On February 29, 2008, the social worker met with mother and father to plan their assessments and meetings. Mother refused to be tested for drugs.
On March 6, 2008, while pregnant with A.M., mother tested positive for methamphetamine and opiates.
On March 10, 2008, the social worker could not locate mother and she learned mother was in jail.
On March 25, 2008, mother was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence for assaulting father.
On April 10, 2008, while still pregnant, mother tested positive for opiates and benzodiazepines. Mother said she had taken Vicodin and Ativan for severe tooth pain the previous night. Mother said she wanted to work with Families in Partnership. She said she would do whatever was requested. She did not want to get arrested again and she wanted to be drug-free when she had her baby.
We assume the record’s use of “benzos” or “benzo’s” refers to benzodiazepines.
On May 15, 2008, mother tested negative. She and father wanted to work with Families in Partnership and they would do what was requested.
On June 30, 2008, while still pregnant, mother admitted using methamphetamine, marijuana and Vicodin on June 28, 2008.
On July 1, 2008, the social worker met with father, who reported that mother was using Vicodin, alcohol and possibly methamphetamine. Mother attended First Step orientation. Her drug test was positive for amphetamines, benzodiazepines, marijuana and Vicodin.
On July 2, 2008, when father told mother a social worker was calling for her, she answered loudly, “‘I am sleeping.’” Father told the social worker mother would not talk to him.
On July 9, 2008, a social worker learned that mother had threatened a dentist. Mother wanted Vicodin and the dentist refused to prescribe it for her. She became hostile and the dentist called the police.
On July 15, 2008, while still pregnant, mother reported that she was using methamphetamine and Vicodin. She also reported that she and father were mutually fighting and she revealed a bruise.
On July 21, 2008, father reported that mother had received Vicodin from a doctor to treat her dental pain. Father said he was not able to stop her from using Vicodin.
On July 24, 2008, mother was angry that she needed to get medical clearance to start a program. She said, “‘[M]aybe I just won’t go to the &###### program’ if people are going to be this rude.” The social worker informed mother that the probation officer said she would be incarcerated if she failed to comply.
On July 29, 2008, mother was unable to get medical clearance because a doctor could not determine whether mother was using Vicodin for dental pain or was addicted to it. The doctor stated that the program would be unsafe for mother if she was addicted.
On July 31, 2008, while still pregnant, mother reported she was using more methamphetamine to lower her Vicodin use.
On August 5, 2008, mother informed a social worker that a dentist prescribed Vicodin for her.
On August 8, 2008, while mother was receiving services in a residential recovery program, mother began methadone treatment due to her Vicodin use.
On August 11, 2008, the methadone treatment staff informed the social worker that mother had a negative attitude and was rude to both staff and peers.
On August 13, 2008, the social worker met with the treatment staff to discuss mother’s noncompliant behavior, which placed her at risk of discharge from the program.
On September 9, 2008, mother graduated from the methadone program and was transferred to the First Step program.
On September 25, 2008, mother gave birth to A.M. Both mother and A.M. tested positive for methadone at delivery.
On September 29, 2008, mother was discharged from First Step because of her behavior. She was not getting along with staff and peers and thought everyone was there to serve her. She did not want to take part in classes and she constantly left to take a nap or use the restroom.
On October 8, 2008, mother reported to a social worker that father was violent with her and had recently choked her until she was almost unconscious. He also hit her on the face with an open hand. She did not feel safe living at home with father. She was provided a safe haven, but she immediately returned home.
On October 10, 2008, a decision was made to take D.M. and A.M. into protective custody due to ongoing domestic violence between mother and father.
On October 12, 2008, A.M. was admitted to the hospital. She was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome, diarrhea and dehydration. Mother had failed to inform the caretakers that A.M. was born addicted to methadone, even though mother had been so informed. When A.M. was removed from mother and was no longer breastfeeding, she went into methadone withdrawal. A.M. was discharged from the hospital on November 3, 2008, and was returned to protective custody.
On October 19, 2008, mother was arrested for being drunk and disorderly. She told the social worker that she was just celebrating her birthday and it did not matter that she was drunk because she did not have a problem with alcohol.
The social worker had referred mother and father to Camera Bonsack for substance abuse assessments. Bonsack, however, could not complete mother’s assessment because mother repeatedly refused to sign release forms that would allow Bonsack to get information from mother’s doctor, dentist and other service providers. Regarding the drunken incident, mother told Bonsack that she was an adult and she could drink whenever she wanted to.
On November 13, 2008, after much resistance, mother finally signed release forms—six days before the court hearing. She began a parenting program at Sierra Vista and she was also referred for domestic violence counseling. She met with a counselor at Telecare, and was accepted into a program in which she would receive case management services. Mother was directed to make an appointment at Corner of Hope for a psychotropic medication assessment.
Mother had a pending appointment on November 24, 2008, to complete the assessment with Bonsack.
In the report prepared for the November 19, 2008 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the social worker stated that mother informed the social worker that she no longer needed drug treatment because she had graduated from the program in August 2008. Instead, she wanted to concentrate on treating her mental health issues.
The social worker noted that mother continued to abuse Vicodin—the drug that made her methadone treatment necessary in the first place—by taking a Vicodin prescription from her dentist. Mother could not demonstrate that she had informed her dentist about her Vicodin addiction.
The social worker concluded that mother and father had unresolved domestic violence and substance abuse issues. Mother continued to “struggle with opiate addiction and ha[d] problems recognizing her need for substance abuse treatment and sobriety.” She also continued to struggle with mental health issues that rendered her unstable. The social worker believed mother was “immature and uncooperative in recognizing and addressing her needs and how this relates to her care of the children. All of these factors create[d] an environment that would not be conducive to the well-being of two very small children. [Mother and father] appear[ed] to have difficulty managing their own issues, much less the day to day needs of two very vulnerable children.”
The social worker recommended that the court deny mother reunification services, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). The social worker believed mother had not “alleviated the concerns” that led to T.R.’s removal and adoption. Mother continued to refuse to focus on her sobriety and her children’s well-being. She chose to believe that she no longer needed treatment and that she had been clean and sober since August 2008, which was apparently untrue because she had been arrested when she was drunk in October 2008 and she had received a Vicodin prescription from her dentist. The social worker thought mother was not serious about remaining clean and sober because she had been so uncooperative by refusing to sign release forms to aid in her assessment and treatment. The social worker questioned mother’s commitment to substance abuse treatment. The social worker further believed that mother failed to make her children’s needs a priority because she continued to stay in a violent relationship. Her mental health issues remained a problem because she was unable to maintain stability and stay on her medications.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
The social worker concluded that mother was “not adequately addressing safety concerns regarding her care of the children, mostly in the area of substance abuse, but also in the areas of domestic violence and mental health stability.”
At the dispositional hearing, mother testified that she was currently taking medications for her mental health problems. She explained that she had not originally cooperated with services because of her bipolar illness. It caused her to do things that she did not realize she was doing. She believed Telecare would help her a lot because she would get counseling that would keep her on the right medications.
Mother explained she went to a treatment program on Thanksgiving, then left the next evening because she was very depressed. She was suicidal and depressed, and she had not showered in a month. She wanted to talk to counselors, but they made her wait 15 to 30 minutes, so she left. She went to a different place for a few hours, but they did not keep her because she was not suicidal at the time.
Since leaving those two places, she had called Bonsack twice. Mother had been going to meetings, such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) three to five times per week. She had not yet started the 12-step program, but she had an appointment pending with Bonsack. Mother knew her appointments were important and she made every one of them.
Mother thought she needed a program that addressed her mental health issues because she believed a great deal of her attitude and addiction came from her mental health issues.
Mother was participating in a parenting program at Sierra Vista. She thought she had attended twice. She failed to go recently because she was trying to get used to her medication. She was trying to enroll in domestic violence counseling, which was required by her probation officer.
Mother was committed to staying clean and sober, and she had been off drugs since August 7, 2008. She did consume alcohol on her birthday in October, and her last dose of methadone was the day before Thanksgiving. She did not want to feel the way she felt on drugs and she did not want to experience withdrawal again. She knew that if she used drugs even once, she would violate her probation, go to jail, and lose her children.
When asked why T.R. had been removed from her, mother answered, “No caregiver.”
On cross-examination, mother denied that T.R. ever tested positive for drugs. She also denied that she tested positive for drugs when T.R. was born. Mother did not remember if she used methamphetamine a week before T.R. was born. Mother said, “I think I used in the beginning not knowing I was pregnant. I don’t remember. I don’t remember the rest.”
Mother explained that T.R. had no caregiver because mother was in jail for 72 hours and she did not know that she could call someone to get T.R. Since there was no one to care for T.R., the department took her.
Mother could not remember the services she received for T.R. She said, “You know what, seriously, it was my first kid, and I didn’t know what was going on. That’s the honest to God truth. I didn’t know what was going on.” She went to a First Step program, but she was “kicked out for [her] bad attitude.” She took her medications until she ran out. She did not have any insurance or money to pay for it, and she could not work because she was “mental and bipolar.” She found out in 2004 that she might be eligible for Social Security, but she did not know how to get it and where to go for help. She had supported herself in recent years by going “[o]ff and on with welfare.”
Mother defended her use of alcohol on her birthday as a one-time event. She wanted to drink because she went dancing. She currently had a prescription for Vicodin from her dentist for pulling her teeth.
Prior to the removal of D.M. and A.M., mother was not taking her mental health medications because she did not have a doctor. The service was not provided to her. She said, “They kept saying, [‘]We are going to refer you somewhere for your mental health.[’] They kept lying to me, obviously, because I never got services.” Her mental health issues were originally diagnosed in 2004 and she was treated with the same medications that she was currently taking. When asked why services would be more successful this time, mother answered:
“The reason why I haven’t taken [the medications] before, I just remembered, was because I have been pregnant for the last, like, few years. I had three kids [since T.R.], and you can’t take medication when you are pregnant, That’s the answer for that. [¶] Now, the reason why I’m not—what’s different from now is I’m older and I want to be better. I want to be a better parent. I want to be a better person, period. I can’t live with myself being bipolar and not being on medication. I see the big difference. [¶] When I was on my medication before, when I was at First Step, I was a lot more better person [than] I am now, and my meds are still going to take a while to kick in. I think they take 30 days, but I have only taken them for a few days now.”
Mother explained she was expecting to participate in a program at First Step, but she was never put in the program. She said, “They were supposed to put me in there and they never did. I really looked forward to it. I really need to learn how to deal with my mental health. It is an issue with everybody I’m around. It affects me, my mother, my boyfriend, my kids, me.” She said she would not be normal unless she took her medications.
Mother testified that she never (“Ever. Ever.”) missed her appointments because they were important. She had been to two parenting classes. She was not in a drug treatment program, but she did not use drugs because she attended AA meetings, although she had no sign-off sheets to prove she attended because she lost them all the time.
Mother was still in a relationship with father, and she believed domestic violence counseling would be helpful to her. She said, “I believe it would help a lot, and I think that I should—I need to go through the process, but I also think I need one-on-one counseling with the counselor so I can know what triggers my anger. I mean, obviously, it is my bipolar disorder. I don’t know. Maybe it is something different.”
When asked what programs mother had participated in during the last three years, since her services for T.R. were terminated in 2005, mother mentioned programs she attended before 2005. When the dates were pointed out to her, she explained she could not remember the dates for the programs. She said, “I know I have tried a lot. I have tried a lot to get my substance abuse taken care of.” She said she started going to AA and NA meetings when she was 14 years old. She had not gone consistently since then, however. She had “these phases” when she went and “these phases” when she did not go. She said, “Off and on. It just depends on how depressed I am. If I’m depressed and don’t want to get out of bed, then I’m not even going to take a shower.”
Mother explained that her sponsor had not been available lately because “[the sponsor] work[ed] really hard at the fabric store on McHenry, and she does extracurricular activities for our church.” When asked why mother did not try to find a sponsor who could do her some good, mother said, “I am trying to find a sponsor. Because I didn’t want to put her down because I love her. She’s a good person. I haven’t found one. I want to find one that’s going to be hard on me. You know what I mean? I think I need that stability.” When asked what she had done to find a sponsor, mother answered, “I have been going to meetings. I go three to five times a week.”
On redirect examination, mother explained she was still getting adjusted to her medications and they required some “tweaking.” She felt like she was not able to sleep. She believed the Telecare program would help with her medications.
Mother wanted reunification services because she loved her children and wanted them back. Her children needed her to be a new person, not the person she used to be. She was 27 years old and she needed to get her life together and be an adult and a real person. She needed to stop trying to run away from her issues and try to deal with them. She was not mad at the department for taking her children. It was her own fault. She needed help. She thought things were different now because now she had medication for her mental health issues and because father had been a good support, despite their domestic violence issues.
Mother understood that taking Vicodin could cause a problem with her recovery. She did not intend to get a prescription for Vicodin again, now that she was off of methadone. That was the reason she was now taking medications other than Vicodin for her migraine headaches. She would usually take Vicodin, but she did not want to start using drugs again.
On recross-examination, mother explained that she did not ask her dentist for the Vicodin prescription. She admitted that she did take the Vicodin as prescribed, but it was okay because she was still on methadone. The dentist prescribed the Vicodin because she had holes in her teeth that caused her a lot of pain. She was pregnant and the dentist would not pull her teeth out.
Father testified that mother was a completely different person when she was at First Step and taking her medications. She was very cooperative and understanding. When she was not taking her medications, she was the opposite. She was uncooperative, combative and erratic. Father requested mental health services for mother when they first got involved with Families in Partnership services. Mother told father she was not offered mental health services.
A social worker assigned to the case of D.M. and A.M. testified that on October 21, 2008, she had referred mother to various services—substance abuse assessment with Bonsack, parenting, domestic violence, and Telecare. The social worker learned that mother had gone to Sierra Vista on November 6, 2008 to enroll.
On cross-examination, the social worker explained that mother attended her appointment with Bonsack on October 27, 2008, but Bonsack was unable to complete the assessment for weeks because mother refused to sign the release of information forms. Mother had since signed the forms and Bonsack was attempting to get her into an appropriate substance abuse recovery program. The social worker believed mother had become more cooperative as the process continued, but she did not know if it was due to her medications.
County counsel asked the juvenile court to deny mother reunification services, arguing that mother’s efforts had not been reasonable despite a plethora of services available to her. She had continued her pattern of getting on medication, getting off medication, relapsing, and being uncooperative. And now the court was looking at providing her essentially the same services that she had received and resisted before, which ultimately did not serve the children’s interests. The department characterized mother’s testimony as “lip service” because “really nothing much ha[d] happened.”
Counsel for the children disagreed, but conceded mother’s efforts had been “uneven.” Counsel was “impressed that [mother had] successfully gotten off Methadone” because many of her clients were unable or unwilling to do that. Counsel hoped the court would give the children a chance to have two functioning parents.
Mother’s counsel argued that mother had made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to T.R.’s removal. Mother was older, she was off methadone, she understood her mistake in taking the prescription Vicodin, and she was taking medications for her mental health. She was now in a position to want her family. Counsel urged the court to save mother’s relationship with her current children, arguing that although mother’s efforts had indeed been uneven, she was doing everything she could—her best effort—since T.R.’s removal.
Father’s counsel encouraged the court to grant mother services because she was getting treatment and management at Telecare and because she was now in a stable relationship with father.
The court adjudged the children dependents of the court, then stated:
“The heart of this case, at this point, is whether or not services should be offered to the mother or denied pursuant to [section] 361.5[, subdivision] (b)(10) and (11). And mother’s counsel argues that mother has given her best efforts and, therefore, her effort is reasonable; so the denial of services under 361.5[, subdivision] (b)(10) and (11), is that a subjective look or is that an objective look? And that’s a very interesting question.
“Certainly a parent—each parent who comes before the Court has a different set of issues and the reasons why they are here. The [section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11)] statutes were enacted primarily because why throw good money after bad? Why try over and over again to help parents reunify with their children when there really is no indication that those efforts are going to be fruitful? This Court has serious concerns that any continued efforts for the mother would be fruitful. That’s based upon the fact that she has not provided reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to removal of her previous child.
“In 2005 was the termination of services, and those services that were offered to the mother were—basically in 2005, were identical to those services that are being discussed today, that being substance abuse recovery services, parent education services. Suitable housing was another service, as well as that the mother was to be under the care of a qualified mental health professional and comply with all medication and/or therapy recommended by that mental health professional.
“And what we have here is … a parent coming to court and complaining that the [department] hasn’t done enough for her. Where the Code is clear that … we don’t look at what the [department’s] efforts are, but, rather, we look at what the parent’s efforts are. There is no evidence that this mother did anything to remedy those issues until [Families in Partnership] services became involved with this family in … January of 2008. The report identifies that between January 2008 and October 2008, [Families in Partnership] services were offered to this family; so more than six months of services have been offered to mother, but, yet, we are still right back where we started, which is there being no progress. And if there is any progress, it is very limited.
“So, despite mother’s counsel’s argument that this mother has done the best that she could do, the Court does not find that to be true. And even if that were found to be true, how many months of services must we give a parent when we have such young children? There [have] already been six months of voluntary services since the petition was filed. The participation by the mother has been sketchy, I guess, would be the vernacular that one would use.
“So the Court finds that in assessing the evidence before it, that the mother has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of the sibling, and under [section] 361.5[, subdivision (b)(10) and (11)], services are denied to the mother.
“There has been argument made since mother and father are a couple, what is the harm, basically, of offering mother services. The harm is financial. The harm is that we would be throwing good money after bad. If mother chooses to engage herself in services, she certainly can do that. There is nothing to prohibit her from engaging in services. There’s nothing to prohibit her from getting herself involved in mental health counseling, substance abuse recovery or domestic violence [treatment].
“Also, she’s already going to be doing domestic violence [treatment] because that’s part of her probation; so she needs to do that, she needs to pay for that, she needs to be able to demonstrate that she has the ability to care for her children; so the Court does find that those code sections on bypass apply to this parent and deny services to her on that basis.”
DISCUSSION
I. Reunification Services
Family reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings. (In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 563.) When a minor is removed from parental custody, the court must provide services designed to reunify the family unless one of several statutory exceptions applies. (Tyrone W. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 839, 845.) The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the enumerations described in section 361.5, subdivision (b) apply to a parent before it may deny reunification services to that parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(1)-(15).) These statutory provisions reflect that in some circumstances “‘it may be fruitless to provide reunification services.’ [Citation.]” (In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 200.)
We review an order denying reunification services for substantial evidence. (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96.) If, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. We do not consider the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or evaluate the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order even if there is substantial evidence supporting a contrary finding. The parent has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
In this case, the juvenile court denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11), which state that reunification services need not be provided to a parent when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence
“(10) That the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361 … and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from that parent or guardian.
“(11) That the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child had been permanently severed, … and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from the parent.”
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) thus have two requirements: (1) the juvenile court ordered termination of reunification services for a sibling because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling, or permanently severed parental rights over a sibling; and (2) the parent did not subsequently make a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of that sibling from the parent.
Mother argues that the juvenile court determined she had not made a reasonable effort in addressing the problems that led to T.R.’s removal because she had made only limited progress in addressing her drug addiction in the six months of services she received from Families in Partnership. Mother contends the court was wrong for two reasons. First, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) do not specify a certain time period to assess her efforts, and second, the subdivisions do not require progress, just a reasonable effort. Mother maintains the juvenile court required that she demonstrate “more than a little progress” to meet the reasonable effort requirement. We disagree and conclude the juvenile court did not err.
The phrase “‘has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems’” in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) refers to the parent’s reasonable efforts since the removal of the sibling. (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.) Drug abuse, domestic violence, and a transient lifestyle were the problems that led to the removal of T.R., followed by the termination of reunification services in April 2005, and the termination of mother’s parental rights in March 2006. Accordingly, the question before the juvenile court was whether mother made a reasonable effort since that time to address those problems.
We have reviewed the record in detail and we are convinced there was overwhelming evidence that mother made an entirely unreasonable effort to address the problems that led to T.R.’s removal. Without rehashing details, we note that mother was noncompliant with her programs. She repeatedly used drugs, even while pregnant; she engaged in and was convicted of domestic violence; and she generally thwarted efforts by public servants to help her overcome her problems and get her children back. Mother considered the endless services lavished on her an annoyance, complaining that the department should get off her back. She was uncooperative and dissatisfied with her services. She demanded other services and tormented her public servants with an attitude of arrogance and entitlement. Perhaps mother is interested in getting her life together, as she puts it, but the statutory scheme very sensibly requires that she make a reasonable effort to do so. Mother’s children cannot wait for her to finally decide it is time to make that effort. Her successful completion of a methadone treatment program alone does not negate what was otherwise a general lack of effort and commitment. And her last-minute surrender to services and her professed reformation—just in time for the hearing—were not enough.
II. Best Interest of Children
Section 361.5, subdivision (c) states: “The court shall not order reunification for a parent... described in paragraph... (10), [or] (11)... of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” Thus, once the juvenile court determines that a situation described in section 361.5, subdivision (b) applies, the general rule favoring the provision of reunification services to parents of dependent children is replaced by a legislative assumption that offering services would be an unwise use of governmental resources. The parent bears the burden of changing that assumption and of showing that reunification would serve the child’s best interests. (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227.)
“A juvenile court has broad discretion when determining whether further reunification services would be in the best interests of the child under section 361.5, subdivision (c). [Citation.] An appellate court will reverse that determination only if the juvenile court abuses its discretion. [Citation.]” (In re William B., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229.)
Here, mother claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied reunification services without considering whether reunification would be in the children’s best interests. Mother asserts that the court focused instead on the cost of providing services to her. Again, we disagree. The juvenile court’s implied finding that reunification was not in the children’s best interest was amply supported by the evidence. The exceptions in section 361.5, subdivision (b) “demonstrate a legislative determination that in certain situations, attempts to facilitate reunification do not serve and protect the child’s interests.” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.) Mother did not demonstrate that she was currently a fit parent and that reunification would benefit her children. She claimed that she wanted to become a better person and parent, but her efforts thus far toward actually doing so were minimal. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning its dispositional order.
DISPOSITION
The findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J.