Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK 66367, Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FLIER, J.
Manny C. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s order at the six-month review hearing terminating family reunification services with his infant son, Jonathan C. Father argues the court erred in finding he had been provided reasonable services. Father contends respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), should have discovered he was incarcerated soon after the disposition hearing, despite his failure to inform the social worker of his whereabouts. He further argues that the social worker should have provided him with referrals and visitation in jail, though he had made little effort to visit his child before the incarceration. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Additional relevant facts are set forth in the legal discussion portion of our opinion, post.
The minor was detained in December 2006, at the age of one month, upon the filing of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging, as amended, that both mother and father had histories of drug abuse and were current users of methamphetamine, which limited their ability to care for the infant and placed him at risk of harm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The parents had been evicted from their apartment and were living in a motel. Reportedly, while at their apartment, they used drugs and frequently screamed at each other. They were evicted for trashing their apartment and using it to conduct illegal activities. The social worker was informed a warrant was out for father’s arrest due to possession of burglary tools. Mother told the social worker she had stopped using drugs since before her pregnancy and that father was not using anymore either. However, father admitted to the police he was still using drugs. The officers also observed scabs and marks on father’s arms consistent with methamphetamine use. Mother had scabs and marks similar to father’s. The social worker was told the parents had a criminal history, including possession of narcotics. A relative had expressed concern to the social worker over the child’s safety and feared the parents would sell the infant for money.
Both parents appeared at the detention hearing on December 20, 2006, and were appointed counsel. The parents were informed notice would be sent to the address and phone number each provided the court. They were further advised they needed to inform the court, the social worker and their attorneys in writing if they wished notice to be sent to another address. Father gave as his permanent address the paternal grandfather’s home in Santa Monica, California.
Father filed a statement claiming paternity and was declared the presumed father of the minor.
The juvenile court ordered the minor detained with a paternal aunt and directed the Department to provide family reunification services and concurrent permanency planning services. Both parents were ordered to be tested for drugs on demand, and the court ordered them referred for at least weekly drug testing and domestic violence counseling. The court ordered a pretrial release investigation to ascertain the status of mother’s drug testing and set a hearing for January 10, 2007, to address that issue. The Department was granted discretion to place the child with mother if she obtained appropriate housing or entered an in-patient program that accepted children. The parents were granted monitored visits twice a week, with the Department to have discretion to liberalize visitation.
The court warned the parents unless they made substantial progress within six months, the child could go to a permanent plan of long-term foster care, legal guardianship or even adoption. The parents were further warned not to change their address without notifying the social worker.
Neither mother nor father appeared at the pretrial release investigation hearing on January 10, 2007, although both counsel were present. The Department reported that mother had failed to establish any type of housing, including any in-patient substance abuse program. Mother and father had taken a random drug test on December 21, 2006, and mother had tested negative. Father, however, had tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. The parents had since missed two random drug tests, which were presumed to be “dirty” tests.
Mother and both counsel were present at the pretrial resolution conference on January 23, 2007, but father was not present. The Department had given notice of the hearing to father by personal service and by service at the motel where the parents had been living and from which the minor had been detained.
The social worker reported to the court that both mother and father had a criminal history. Mother had been arrested in December 2005, and she subsequently was convicted for possession of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor; in August 2006, another arrest warrant was issued for mother, again for possession of a controlled substance. In 2001, father was arrested for felony second degree robbery, for which he was convicted and spent 365 days in jail; he had warrants issued for domestic violence in 2002 and 2004; in November 2006, father was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance; and, in December 2006, father was arrested for first degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. The court was told that father had appeared at a team decisionmaking meeting under the apparent influence of a substance, though he denied using when questioned and claimed he had not used methamphetamines for the last month.
The court ordered a pretrial release investigation for the child’s placement with a different paternal aunt for a possible long-term commitment and directed the Department and father’s counsel to attempt to give notice to father at his permanent address at the paternal grandfather’s home.
In February 2007, the Department reported to the juvenile court that mother and father continued to reside with each other and apparently had no stable housing. From their drug tests, both parents appeared to be actively and regularly using drugs. Mother had one visit with the minor on January 24, 2007, which was facilitated by the maternal grandmother. Mother and father had not requested another visit.
By March 8, 2007, the parents reportedly had only one visit to the child since the prior hearing. Neither parent had provided proof of enrollment or compliance with the case plan.
On March 8, 2007, both parents appeared for the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. They pleaded no contest to the petition after being advised of their rights by the court. The court found true the allegations of the petition as amended. It declared the infant a dependent of the court and placed him with the paternal aunt and uncle.
Mother and father provided evidence they had enrolled in programs at an alcoholism and drug recovery facility in mid-February, with an anticipated completion date in August 2007. Both parents were ordered to attend and complete drug rehabilitation with weekly random testing, parenting education, individual counseling to address the case issues, including conflict resolution and family dynamics. The court granted the Department discretion to place the child with mother in a residential program. The parents were granted monitored visitation as often as the relative caretaker was able to monitor the visits, but at least twice weekly.
The parents were ordered to keep the Department advised as to their address and telephone numbers at all times. The court directed the Department to provide the parents with transportation funds for visits and programs.
The six-month review hearing took place on August 16, 2007. The Department reported the nine-month-old infant had bonded with his caretaker and was doing well. The caretaker stated she was committed to caring for him and expressed interest in adoption if a permanent plan was necessary. Mother had begun to comply with the plan following her release from jail in early June. The Department recommended six more months of reunification services for mother. Father, however, was in jail. The Department recommended that reunifications services be terminated for father.
Mother and both counsel were present at the six-month hearing. Father’s counsel announced that father was in local custody, and she asked that the matter be continued for father’s appearance. Counsel expressed a need to speak with father before addressing the court on the Department’s recommendation to terminate his family reunification services. The court ordered father to be transported and continued the hearing so father could be present.
At the continued six-month hearing on August 23, 2007, father was present in custody. Counsel for the Department recommended further reunification services for mother, but asked to terminate such services for father. Father’s counsel told the court father had been complying with his plan of attending alcohol testing and counseling, parenting and individual counseling at the time of the disposition hearing on March 8. However, father was arrested later that month on the December 2006 warrant for burglary, and he had been in custody since then. Counsel argued the Department was aware of the December 2006 warrant, yet it had failed to contact father since his incarceration. Father contended he only recently had received a letter from the social worker and claimed he had not received reasonable services.
The Department had failed to provide its report 10 days before the hearing, but all counsel waived the defect in notice.
When questioned by the court, father asserted his sister had contacted the social worker “a couple of months ago.” The social worker reported the Department began attempting to contact father within a month of receiving notice of his incarceration.
After considering the social worker’s report and information for the court officer, the court found that proper notice had been given for the hearing.
Mother’s counsel reported mother was in a program that would allow the child to be placed with her in an additional program in about three months. Father indicated there were Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at the jail once or twice a month, and he was attending them whenever they were held. He stated he was taken into custody on March 16, a week after the last hearing, and, if convicted, the earliest he would be out would be three or four years.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided to the parents to reunify with the child. The court found that while mother was in compliance with the case plan, father had not been regularly participating in the plan, nor had he made any substantive progress.
The court concluded there was a likelihood the child could be returned to mother in the next six months, but it was not the case with father. The court therefore granted mother a further six months of reunification services and terminated father’s reunification services. The Department was directed to facilitate visits for father if he was incarcerated within a reasonable distance.
Father timely appealed from this order.
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
At a six-month review hearing, the juvenile court determines, among other things, whether the child welfare agency has offered the parent reasonable reunification services. (§ 366.21, subd. (e); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249.) The juvenile court must find that the parent has been provided or offered reasonable services by clear and convincing evidence. (Cynthia D., at p. 249; see Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 594, 596.) We review the court’s ruling for substantial evidence, reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. (Katie V., at p. 598.) In examining such evidence, we are also mindful that the focus at this point in the proceedings is on ameliorating the problems that led to the dependency to achieve the goal of family preservation and reunification. (Id. at p. 595.) We also bear in mind the heightened burden of proof requires evidence that is “ ‘ “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt” ’ ” and such that is “ ‘ “sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.” ’ ” (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Order
Father contends the juvenile court’s finding that he had been provided reasonable family reunification services was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
On appeal, father argues that reunification services provided by the Department were not adequate. He claims he was in a drug treatment plan at the time of disposition on March 8, 2007, and that the drug treatment provided “all the necessary elements required” by father’s case plan. However, he was incarcerated later in March, and at that time it was evident he was no longer in the program. He asserts the Department knew he had criminal charges pending, but there was no evidence the Department made contact with father’s program or did anything to establish his whereabouts. Father complains he received no visitation or services referral during his incarceration. At the hearing below, father asserted his sister had informed the social worker a “couple of months” before the hearing that he was in jail. The social worker informed the court that the Department acted promptly and attempted to contact father within a month of learning he was in jail.
The record indicates father had tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines on December 21, 2006, at the time the infant was detained. The Department met with the family as early as December 29, 2006, at a team decisionmaking meeting to discuss the most appropriate plan for the child and to develop a treatment plan for the parents. For father in particular, this included drug treatment, random drug testing, individual counseling and parent education. The Department provided the parents with referrals and bus passes on January 4, 2007. The social worker explained to the parents that a missed test would be considered a “dirty” test. Yet, father failed to show up for drug tests on December 29, 2006, and January 5, 2007. He then tested positive for the same drugs again on January 25, 2007.
The record also shows that father failed to maintain contact with the Department. The social worker scheduled two interviews with father, on January 2, 2007, and January 11, 2007, neither of which father kept nor called to cancel. Father visited the child with mother on January 4, 2007, but he failed to show up for a January 9 visit, and he did not return the social worker’s call inquiring about the missed visit. He again failed to visit the baby with mother on January 24, leaving mother to explain to the social worker that father was out “selling some tools.”
The parents did not attend a scheduled appointment for an assessment, treatment and referrals on January 31, 2007. The social worker tried to contact the parents on February 12, 15 and 16 and again on March 1, 2007, to no avail. The social worker sent them a letter on February 16, 2007, to let them know she had been trying to reach them and informing them of a visitation schedule. Even with these efforts, the parents failed to follow through on visits or to get in touch with the social worker or the child’s caretaker.
On March 8, 2007, father signed a mediated agreement in which he agreed to participate in the various programs, have monitored visits and keep the Department informed of his address and contact number. Father failed to do so, however. As of August 16, 2007, father had yet to contact the Department. From the record, all that was known at the time was that father was incarcerated at Wayside Honor Rancho outside Los Angeles, notice having been sent to him on July 11, 2007. Father contended he had been incarcerated since March. According to his own admission, he made no effort to contact the Department to let the social worker know he had been incarcerated. Instead, it was the paternal aunt who purportedly let the social worker know in June 2007 that father was in jail. Once informed, the social worker immediately sent father a letter, which his counsel acknowledged he received.
The record indicates father made little effort to comply with the case plan. A March 7, 2007 letter reflected that father had enrolled in a rehabilitation program on February 16, 2007. His enrollment admittedly addressed father’s issues that had required the infant’s removal. Ultimately, however, father did little beyond that brief participation. He made little or no effort to visit his child, although the court had allowed twice weekly monitored visits with the opportunity to liberalize them. He did not take advantage of the allowed visitations, much less expend any effort to increase their frequency or achieve unmonitored visitation. Even when he was not incarcerated, he did nothing to let the Department know where he was living, leaving it to the social worker to try and discover this information from other sources. The juvenile court had directed both parents at the December 20, 2006 detention hearing to keep the social worker informed of their current address. The court again ordered the parents to keep the Department advised of their whereabouts at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on March 8, 2007. Father failed to comply with this directive.
During his incarceration, father by his own admission was in contact with the paternal aunt, and he therefore had the ability to notify the Department of his location so as to continue with the case plan to the extent feasible. Even according to father’s own version of the facts, he let four months go by before having his sister notify the social worker of his whereabouts. Father was fully aware of the issues he needed to address and the programs he needed to participate in to reunify with his child. Father cannot complain he was not offered services when he did not take advantage of the assistance he was offered and did not keep the social worker informed of his location. As the courts have noted, “Reunification services are voluntary . . ., and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them. [Citations.]” (In re Mario C. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 599, 604; accord In re Ronell A. (1995) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365.) Once father was incarcerated, the Department hardly was in a position to rectify his problems in that “prisons are run by the Department of Corrections, not the department of children’s services.” (In re Ronell A., supra, at p. 1363.) In any case, father stated he was participating in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at the jail to the extent available.
Father also was unlikely to be able to take custody of the child within the foreseeable future. He informed the court that the minimum sentence for his current offense was three or four years.
Substantial evidence, therefore, supports the juvenile court’s finding that the Department provided reasonable family reunification services to father, that father had not made substantial progress under the case plan, and that there was no substantial likelihood that the minor could be returned to father within six months.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: COOPER, P. J., RUBIN, J.