Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Super. Ct. No. SJ12245A-C.
NARES, Acting P. J.
Ernesto E. appeals juvenile court orders terminating his reunification services concerning the dependencies of his children, J.E., A.E., and E.E., (together the children). He contends there was not substantial evidence presented to show he was provided reasonable reunification services, and granting additional services to him would further the legislative purpose of family preservation. We affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2009, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of seven-year-old J.E., four-year-old A.E., and one-year-old E.E., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging they were at substantial risk of harm because their family home was a health hazard in that there were one-and-one-half pounds of methamphetamine and a small amount of marijuana in the kitchen where it was accessible to the children, and J.E. said he had seen marijuana in the home and he had smelled "weed" when his mother, Eleanor E., handed him a box containing marijuana. Ernesto and Eleanor were arrested. The children were taken into protective custody and the court ordered them detained.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Police said the drugs were in plain view and easily assessable to the children. J.E. said Ernesto's friends came to the home, and Ernesto gave them little bags and green things in exchange for money.
Eleanor reported there had been domestic violence in her relationship with Ernesto. Ernesto denied domestic violence except for one time in 2008. Eleanor said they had used methamphetamine together when they first began dating, but after she was arrested for transporting marijuana across the border, she moved to Nevada to get a fresh start. Ernesto later joined her there and they resumed their relationship. Ernesto admitted selling drugs out of the family home for financial reasons.
The social worker reported that in October 2009, she had emailed both parents introducing herself and providing her contact information. In November she activated telephone cards allowing each parent to telephone the children. She spoke to the parents by telephone and sent each of them a prison parenting packet. She said Eleanor had telephone visits with the children and contact visits were arranged at her detention facility, but Ernesto had not been able to reach the children by telephone and he had been moved from the San Diego Central Jail facility to the George Bailey Detention Facility because he was ill. Ernesto said he had signed up for numerous services at the prison, but could not start them until after he was sentenced.
On November 20, 2009, the court found the allegations of the petition to be true, declared the children dependents of the juvenile court, placed them in out-of-home care and ordered reunification services be provided.
Eleanor was released from custody in February 2010. She was participating in services and visitation and searching for employment. By June she was having unsupervised visits with the children. The new social worker verified Ernesto's address at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (Donovan). In May he sent him an Agency prison packet, contacted the counseling office at the prison and was awaiting a return call from the counseling office to learn what services were available there and if Ernesto was willing to participate. Ernesto said he just wanted to complete his sentence, get out of prison and help Eleanor care for the children. He continued to have problems telephoning them.
On June 9, 2010, at the six-month review hearing, the court found reasonable services had been offered or provided. It continued the children placed in foster care and found Eleanor had made substantive progress with her case plan, but Ernesto's progress was unknown due to no fault of his own.
For the 12-month review hearing, the social worker recommended providing an additional six months of services for Eleanor and terminating Ernesto's services. Eleanor was living with the maternal grandmother and needed to obtain employment and her own residence before the children could be returned to her care. The social worker reported that although he had sent Ernesto an Agency prison packet and communicated with Donovan's counseling office, Ernesto had not contacted him or requested any visitation.
In December 2010 the social worker reported Ernesto had been moved to the California Institute for Men in Chino. The social worker sent Ernesto notice of the 12-month review hearing and of the Agency's recommendation that his services be terminated. The social worker reported he had been attempting to reach Ernesto or his counselor by telephone, but had been unsuccessful. Eleanor said she was in regular contact with Ernesto and he was aware of the hearing, but did not wish to attend.
At the 12-month hearing on January 5, 2011, Ernesto appeared by telephone. His counsel said Ernesto expected to be released in November 2011, at which time he would be able to engage in the services that were not available to him at the prison.
The court found reasonable services had been provided, but Ernesto had not made substantive progress with the provisions of his case plan. It terminated his services and continued services for Eleanor to the 18-month date.
DISCUSSION
I
Ernesto contends there was not substantial evidence presented to support the finding he was provided reasonable reunification services. He argues the Agency did not make attempts to ensure the services required by his case plan were available to him, and the social worker did not make adequate efforts to contact him or attempt to arrange visits or facilitate telephone contact for him with the children.
A. Legal Authority
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '... view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' [Citation.]" (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114.) In determining the sufficiency of reunification services, the role of the appellate court is to decide "whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) A service plan must take into account the specific needs of the family. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) The standard is not that the best possible services were provided, but that reasonable services were provided under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
B. Application
Ernesto has not shown a lack of substantial evidence to support the court's finding he was provided reasonable services. The first social worker reported in November 2009 that she had spoken to each parent by telephone and had mailed each of them prison parenting packets. Ernesto said he had signed up for parenting classes, GED classes, counseling and a drug treatment program, but he would not be able to begin these programs until he was sentenced.
In May 2010 the new social worker said he had verified Ernesto's contact information and was sending him an Agency prison packet so that he could be familiar with services and the reunification process. The social worker reported he had mailed the packet to Ernesto at Donovan and said he had contacted the counseling office at the prison and was waiting for a return call to find out what services were available and whether Ernesto was willing to participate. He communicated with the counseling office and sent Ernesto a letter, encouraging him to call and to leave a message if he was not able to speak to the social worker directly. But the social worker did not receive any response from Ernesto. In December the social worker sent Ernesto another letter, telling him of the Agency's recommendations and again asking him to contact him. Again, he received no response. Although, as Ernesto argues, after the six-month review hearing, he spend much of his time in the reception area of the prison, where he was not permitted to receive mail, have telephone calls or participate in services, there were periods of time when he was able to communicate. Eleanor said they were in regular contact, yet he made no effort to respond to the social worker's attempts to reach him.
As the court observed, the Agency had no control over the services available to Ernesto in prison. The record shows the Agency made reasonable efforts to contact him while he was incarcerated and to facilitate services. Considering the Agency's limited ability to provide services in this case, substantial evidence supports the court's finding that reasonable services were provided.
II
Ernesto asserts that granting additional reunification services to him would further the legislative purpose of family preservation since he will continue to be a significant part of his children's lives after he is released from custody.
A. Legal Authority
A court has discretion at the 12-month hearing to terminate one parent's services while continuing services for the other parent. (In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 558-559.) A reviewing court will not reverse a discretionary order unless the juvenile court has " ' "exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations]." ' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
Section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1) states a court may extend services to the 18-month date only if it finds the parent has regularly and consistently visited the child, made significant progress in addressing the problems that led to the child's removal and demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the treatment plan and provide for the child, and that there is a substantial probability the child will be returned to the parent's custody by the 18-month date.
B. Application
Eleanor made the showing required by section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1), and the court found there was a substantial probability the children would be returned to her custody by the 18-month date. She kept in regular contact with the social worker, participated in numerous services, visited regularly and progressed to unsupervised visits. Ernesto, however, although he was in communication with Eleanor, did not respond to the social worker's efforts to contact him. Though, as he argues, there were few services available to him in prison and it appears that he spent much of his time in the reception area, where services were not available and he could not receive mail or make telephone calls, the record does not indicate he made any effort to keep in contact with the Agency or the children or that he attempted to participate in any services. Further, his expected release date is in November 2011, well after the 18-month date in April. Ernesto has not shown an abuse of the court's discretion in not extending his reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J., McINTYRE, J.