Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court No. CK64491 of Los Angeles County, Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Kirstin J. Andreasen, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
INTRODUCTION
Following a 12-month review hearing conducted pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f), the juvenile court ordered that family reunification services for appellant Barbara O. (Mother) were to be terminated as to her son, Jesse W. Mother appeals from that order, contending she was not afforded reasonable reunification services. We conclude that reasonable services were provided by respondent, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). We therefore affirm the challenged order.
All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jesse W. (born in Sept. 1999) came to the attention of DCFS in late June 2006 by way of a referral to the Child Protection Hotline. The informant expressed concern regarding Mother’s ongoing, frequent alcohol abuse, which rendered her unable to properly care for Jesse. Mother had apparently driven with Jesse in the car while she was intoxicated. The informant also said there was a history of domestic violence between Mother and C.W. (Father), in Jesse’s presence. Father had moved out of the family home a month earlier. Jesse’s babysitter lived nearby, and Jesse often called her when Mother was intoxicated and unable to care for him. However, Mother had recently gotten angry at the babysitter, pushed her, and no longer allowed her to help take care of Jesse.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
It was reported that Mother had recently broken into the home of Father’s neighbor, thinking it was Father’s home. She removed a window screen and had Jesse crawl through the window and open the front door. Mother then began shouting and smashing objects. The police were called, but Mother and Jesse left before the police arrived.
The social worker met with both parents in late July 2006. Mother insisted that she was not drinking, and that she was attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Mother was asked if she would participate in “on-demand” alcohol testing. She admitted to drinking alcohol recently, but said she would be tested. Later in the day she stated that she had misunderstood, and had not been tested. After meeting with the parents, the social worker determined that the child should be placed with Father.
Father admitted to prior recreational drug use, but said he had been in recovery since 1994. He also admitted that he had numerous arrests for theft and possession of controlled substances, dating from 1989, the most recent of which was in 1994. Only one of the arrests resulted in a conviction, i.e., for misdemeanor petty theft, in 1994, for which he served 60 days in jail.
Mother reported she had stopped drinking three months earlier. She enrolled in a seven-day detoxification program in mid-May 2006, and then lived in a recovery house for two weeks. She said she went to AA meetings daily.
DCFS filed a section 300 petition on August 1, 2006, alleging that Jesse was a child described by section 300 based on Mother’s alcohol abuse, Father’s failure to protect Jesse from the resulting neglect, and the domestic violence between the parents. The matter came before the juvenile court for a detention hearing on that date, and the court found a prima facie case to detain Jesse. Jesse was released to Father’s custody. DCFS was ordered to provide family maintenance services for Father, and family reunification services for Mother, including weekly visitation. The social worker was ordered to prepare a schedule for visitation. Father was ordered to attending drug counseling with weekly random drug testing. Mother was ordered to attend alcohol and drug counseling, with weekly random testing for alcohol and drugs.
DCFS reported that family friends confirmed that Mother’s drinking problem had worsened in recent years. She became angry and sometimes violent when she drank. Mother admitted that she was extremely mentally fragile, and said she had been diagnosed three years ago as suffering from depression and possibly bipolar disorder. She was prescribed psychotropic medications, and she admitted she also drank alcohol. The social worker recommended that Mother receive intensive treatment for her alcohol problem and also her mental health issues, stating “she is in need of treatment that is specifically designed for ‘dual diagnosis’ clients.” Individual counseling to address all of the case issues, including random alcohol testing, medication management, and anger management, was suggested by the social worker.
Mother underwent a psychological evaluation in August 2006. The therapist indicated Mother knew she needed treatment for her mental health problems and alcohol dependency.
On August 7, 2006, Mother received referrals for substance abuse programs, alcohol testing, 12-step programs, and bus passes. Mother was also given information regarding her visitation schedule (one hour weekly at the DCFS office) and guidelines for visitation.
A supplemental report dated September 26, 2006, indicated that the social worker had interviewed Mother and Father. The social worker expressed concern that Father smelled of alcohol during the interview; a different social worker and a staff member at Jesse’s school had also reported smelling alcohol on Father. Father admitted he drank, but denied he drank excessively.
Mother had begun attending an alcohol treatment program, and was in treatment five days per week. She had individual counseling once per week, parenting classes once per week, and regular AA meetings; she had obtained a sponsor. Her anger management classes were to begin shortly. She also attended a women’s group, and a relapse prevention group. She had participated in random alcohol and drug testing, but had missed one test; she denied relapsing and said she simply was not having a good week. She was visiting with Jesse regularly.
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on September 26, 2006. The parties reached a mediated agreement, by which Mother was to complete a parenting class and an alcohol abuse rehabilitation program, including counseling and random testing, and to participate in individual counseling to address the case issues (“alcohol abuse, coping skills, co-parenting and personal history”); she was also required to complete an anger management class. Conjoint counseling was to occur with Mother and Jesse as requested by Jesse’s therapist. DCFS was given discretion to liberalize Mother’s visits, including allowing overnight visits. Mother’s visits were ordered to be twice weekly. Jesse was declared to be a dependent of the court, and was ordered to be placed with Father.
On October 6, 2006, Father tested positive for cocaine and alcohol; it was reported that Father drove with Jesse in the car while he was under the influence. Jesse was placed in the home of Cynthia and Richard C., who are friends of the family. A section 342 petition was filed, and a detention hearing was held on October 13 and 16, 2006. The court ordered Jesse detained from Father’s custody.
Father initially told the social worker that it was a mistake, that he would not risk having Jesse taken from him by using drugs. He said he had been sick and taking a lot of cold medicine and cough syrup. However, he later admitted that he had relapsed. He said he was committed to regaining custody of Jesse, and had begun attending a substance abuse rehabilitation program.
In addition, Mother recently had come to a dental appointment for Jesse and the monitor realized that Mother was inebriated; the monitor insisted that Mother leave immediately.
Father pleaded no contest when the jurisdictional hearing on the section 342 petition was held in December 2006. DCFS was ordered to provide Father with family reunification services.
Mother’s six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) was held in February 2007. DCFS reported that Mother had been consistently attending three 12-step meetings each week, one individual counseling session each week, and three group meetings each week. Mother’s random tests for drugs and alcohol were all negative. Mother was also receiving psychiatric services through Los Angeles County Mental Health, although the social worker had been unable to reach Mother’s mental health social worker. Dr. Patricia Brodhead of Edelman Mental Health was monitoring Mother’s psychotropic medication. As to visitation, Jesse told the social worker in late January 2007 that Mother had not visited him since the end of December 2006. She occasionally telephoned, “but not that much.” Father visited weekly and telephoned Jesse daily.
At the review hearing, the court found Mother was in compliance with her case plan, and that reasonable reunification services had been offered to her. The court continued reunification services for another six months. The court ordered that Mother’s visits were to remain monitored, and ordered DCFS to establish a visitation schedule for her to follow.
DCFS submitted a report dated May 30, 2007, for Mother’s 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)) and Father’s six-month review hearing. According to Jesse’s caregivers, Mother had visited Jesse only three to four times since the previous hearing. The caregivers were no longer willing to serve as monitors for Mother’s visits after they observed Mother acting inappropriately with the child during a visit in late April 2007. Mother attempted to have her cousin, Elaine R., monitor visits. The social worker met with Elaine in early May 2007, but Elaine said she was not comfortable monitoring the visits. Visits therefore were to be held at the DCFS office, but Mother had not responded to the social worker’s messages inquiring what day and time would be convenient for Mother to visit.
Mother’s attendance at her substance abuse program had been sporadic since the end of February 2007. Mother had been forced to move because her landlord’s parents were moving into the home she had been renting. Her drug and alcohol tests were negative; however, she had missed three tests. She had not completed a parenting program. The social worker was unable to obtain information regarding the women’s anger management group in which Mother participated because Mother had not signed a release of information. The report did not indicate whether Mother was still receiving services through the Los Angeles County Mental Health department. DCFS recommended that Mother’s family reunification services be terminated.
DCFS reported that Jesse’s caregivers stated that they were no longer able to care for Jesse because of the effect the situation was having on their own children. DCFS further indicated that Father had fully complied with the case plan, including completing parenting classes (and continuing to attend additional classes), fully participating in the components of his substance abuse rehabilitation program including random drug and alcohol testing, and participating in both individual therapy and conjoint therapy with Jesse. He visited Jesse frequently and telephoned him daily. DCFS recommended that Jesse be returned to Father’s custody.
At the hearing on May 30, 2007, the court ordered that Jesse be placed in Father’s home. The matter was continued for a contested hearing as to Mother. DCFS was ordered to provide family maintenance services to Father. It was further ordered to establish a visitation schedule for Mother.
On July 20, 2007, DCFS submitted information to the court indicating that Mother’s cousin, Elaine R., had in fact been monitoring visits between Jesse and Mother. The social worker had contacted Elaine on July 10, 2007, and Elaine said she was willing to monitor visits as long as Mother complied with court orders and tested clean. Mother, the social worker, and Elaine agreed to a visitation schedule by which Mother visited Jesse on Fridays at the DCFS office, and also visited him on Sundays with Elaine as the monitor.
Mother failed to appear for the continued hearing date on July 20, 2007. The court proceeded in her absence. Mother’s counsel argued that Mother was not offered reasonable reunification services because there was no “proof that the department has really referred the Mother to the appropriate counseling,” “to make sure that she is addressing all of the things that the Department wants her to address, whether they’re also taking care of mental health counseling to make sure she’s also on the medication if she needs medication, and this is really an important aspect of this hearing, to make sure she’s doing that.” Counsel pointed out that there had been no mention of any conjoint counseling with Jesse, or any co-parenting sessions. Counsel argued that Mother had made progress in her programs and should be given six additional months of reunification services. Counsel for Jesse joined in arguing that the reunification services offered to Mother were inadequate, and in requesting an additional six months of services for Mother. He pointed out that since a visitation schedule had been established, Mother had visited consistently.
The court concluded that reasonable reunification services had been provided to Mother, and that she had partially complied with the case plan. It further found that there was no probability that Jesse would be returned to her custody in the next six months, and terminated family reunification services as to Mother.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that the court erred in finding that reasonable family reunification services were provided to her. Specifically, she contends that DCFS had not referred Mother to “appropriate counseling or conjoint counseling with Jesse,” and had failed to establish a visitation schedule in timely fashion. We conclude, however, that the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that reasonable services, designed to aid Mother in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of Jesse, had been provided or offered to her. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).)
“[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our sole task on review is to determine 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.) In so doing, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598.) In determining whether reasonable services were provided or offered, “the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult.” (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414, italics omitted; see also David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 793-794.)
Referral to Counseling
At the review hearing at which Mother’s reunification services were terminated, her counsel argued that she had not been referred by DCFS to mental health counseling, including medication monitoring. She does not specify or elaborate on appeal that this was the “appropriate counseling” to which DCFS failed to refer her. In any event, we note that DCFS referred her for a mental health assessment in August 2006. In addition, Mother was in fact receiving mental health services and medication monitoring, which she apparently located on her own during the early stages of the proceedings. There was no deficiency in her services in this regard.
As to the alleged failure by DCFS to refer Mother to conjoint counseling with Jesse, the order was that Mother was to receive conjoint counseling with Jesse “if recommended.” Jesse was receiving individual counseling, as well as family therapy with Father, but his therapist had not recommended conjoint counseling with Mother. While Mother initially complied fully with her case plan, during the second reporting period she failed to do so. Her attendance at her various programs was sporadic, she missed several alcohol tests, and her visitation and contact with Jesse became infrequent, through no fault of DCFS. Under these circumstances, the lack of conjoint counseling between Mother and Jesse was understandable.
Visitation
The record simply does not support Mother’s contention on appeal that DCFS failed to timely establish a visitation schedule for Mother. From the beginning of 2007, Mother began visiting infrequently, though nothing had changed regarding the established visitation schedule with the caregivers. It was not until April 2007 that the caregivers no longer wished to serve as monitors after they observed Mother acting inappropriately with Jesse. In early May 2007, Mother’s cousin declined to monitor visits, so the social worker informed Mother that visits could be held at the DCFS office. However, Mother failed to respond to the social worker’s inquiry regarding the day and time for visits that would be convenient for Mother. In late May, the court ordered DCFS to establish a visitation schedule for Mother. At the beginning of July 2007, the social worker met with Mother and Mother’s cousin after learning that the cousin was willing to monitor visits. A visitation schedule was established for Mother to visit Jesse twice per week, once with her cousin as monitor and once at the DCFS office. There was no failure on the part of DCFS to provide for a reasonable visitation schedule. Any lack of visitation was attributable to Mother.
Respondent contends on appeal that Mother forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court. We note that Jesse’s counsel made reference to a failure on DCFS’s part regarding visitation. Therefore, the trial court had the opportunity to consider the issue. In addition, we address the issue to forestall any claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the issue. (See Deborah S. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 741, 748, fn. 5.)
Thus, the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided to Mother. The court did not err in terminating family reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: MANELLA, J., SUZUKAWA, J.