Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK57391, Valerie L. Skeba, Juvenile Court Referee.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
A.W. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services as to her daughter L.M. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We set forth only those facts that are pertinent to Mother’s appeal.
In addition to L.M. (born Jan. 2006), Mother has three other children: Elizabeth D. (born in 2001), Abigail W. (born Jan. 2008), and Henry H., Jr. (Henry Jr., born Oct. 2009). L.’s father is Gregory M.
Elizabeth was born when Mother was 20 years old. After several referrals for a caretaker absence, emotional abuse by her father, and physical abuse and general neglect by Mother, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition as to Elizabeth. Mother’s parental rights as to Elizabeth were terminated on December 2007.
On March 26, 2010, Mother took Henry Jr. to the emergency room at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles because he had a large abscess on his neck. He was reported to be unusually dirty, feverish, and emitting a foul odor. The abscess was infected, caked with dirt, and did not respond to antibiotics. Henry Jr.’s testicles and the creases of his legs were caked with dirt. Henry Jr. had to undergo surgery to drain the abscess and he was admitted to the hospital. The admitting doctor opined that Mother did not appear capable of caring for Henry Jr.
Two social workers went to one of the addresses listed by Mother. The manager of the apartment building told them that she had seen Mother and two older children, but they did not live there. The manager took the workers to an apartment unit the children frequented. A man living in that unit told the social workers he was the spouse of the children’s maternal aunt. He and the maternal aunt often took care of the children. Mother did not live there. The maternal aunt said that she had to threaten Mother and give her money to get Mother to take Henry Jr. to the hospital. The aunt said L. and Abigail were filthy and disheveled. She said Mother was homeless and had the mental capacity of a 13 year old. The aunt reported that Henry H., Sr., Mother’s current companion, was on parole and living in a halfway house.
The social workers went to two other addresses listed by Mother and discovered that she did not live at either of them. The social workers finally were able to interview Mother at the hospital. She said she had taken Henry Jr. to two other hospitals prior to taking him to Cedars Sinai. She said she did not have a permanent address and stayed in shelters due to domestic violence issues. She denied any history of drug use or mental illness.
Social workers also interviewed Henry Sr. He admitted he was on parole, had a prior murder conviction, and had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
While Henry Jr. was in the hospital, Abigail and L. were detained and placed in foster care. L. told social workers that on prior occasions, Henry Sr. hit her on the forehead and face and pulled her ear hard. He occasionally hit her sister on the nose. Henry Sr. did not hit her brother. On one occasion, Henry Sr. scratched Mother. L. said Mother did not hit her.
The initial petition was filed on April 2, 2010. On May 6, 2010, an amended petition was filed, alleging that L., Abigail, and Henry Jr. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (g), and (j).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The social worker prepared a report in May 2010 that stated that Mother admitted that Henry Sr. had hit her and had been arrested in 2007. Mother said she did not know Henry Sr. had hit L. until the social worker told her. She denied that she knew Henry was on parole, but she admitted that he had moved in with her after his release from jail. She said she never saw him use drugs, but on the day of the detention hearing he asked her to hold his marijuana while waiting in line to enter the courthouse. The social worker determined that Henry Sr. had several prior convictions for domestic violence and had been convicted of homicide in 1992. The report also noted that Mother behaved inappropriately during an April 2010 monitored visit with L., either talking on the phone, reading, or being unresponsive to her needs. During the visit Mother became involved with a phone call with Gregory M., who had just been released from jail. At a second visit in April, Mother spent more time engaging with L., but yelled at her for not calling Gregory M. “Daddy.”
The Department recommended that no reunification services be provided to Mother under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11).
After the petition was filed, Mother completed a paternity questionnaire indicating that Henry Sr. was not the father of Henry Jr. or Abigail. She wrote that John B. was the biological father of Henry Jr., and that Abigail’s father was a man named James, whose last name Mother did not know.
Gregory M., Henry H., Sr., and John B. are not parties to this appeal.
The social worker filed a report for the court on June 7, 2010, which indicated that Mother was upset that the Department was not allowing her new male companion, Y.H., to participate in visits with the children. Mother said Y.H. had a clean criminal record. The social worker determined that he had a criminal history, which included drug-related and domestic violence convictions. Y.H. had recently been released from prison. Although Mother claimed that she and Y.H. were married, she failed to provide the Department with a marriage license. Therefore, the Department found that Y.H. had no standing in the matter.
Later, Mother claimed she married Howard on June 15, 2010. However, she could not say where the marriage occurred or provide the Department with a copy of the marriage license.
On July 13, 2010, at the adjudication hearing, the court admitted the social workers’ reports into evidence. The June 2010 report indicated that Mother stated that she had begun a parenting course in Long Beach and had attended a domestic violence program in 2009.
The documents filed with the court included a letter dated June 18, 2010, from the director of outreach and engagement at the Homeless Assistance Program. The director stated that Mother had been receiving services from the program in 2005 and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Mother had told them that she had been taking psychiatric medications since she was a child. The director reported that Mother “has an extensive pattern of unstable housing and homelessness. When [Mother] has been housed, she has been impulsive, exhibits low self-esteem and worth and has utilized poor judgment as she demonstrates a pattern of engaging in unhealthy and/or volatile relationships, verbal and physical altercations and destruction of property.” Mother “demonstrates ongoing impairments which have not been resolved through the level of assistance” which the program was able to provide.
The court also received a last minute information report which stated that Mother had told Gregory M. that Y.H. had beaten her up. Mother had apparently cancelled the visit with the children on June 18, 2010, so that no one would see the bruises Y.H. had given her. The social worker observed marks on Mother’s neck.
At the hearing, Mother testified on her own behalf. She denied that she had a history of domestic violence with Henry Sr. or that she was aware that he smoked marijuana in front of the children. She denied that Henry Jr. was dirty and testified that she washed him every day. She said she took Henry Jr. to two different hospitals before she took him to Cedars Sinai, but she had no documentation to prove that she had. She admitted that she had prior mental health assessments, but claimed there was nothing wrong with her. Mother denied being on any medications.
Mother claimed that she had attended several domestic violence classes, parenting programs, and individual counseling sessions. She said she had completed 45 sessions of a domestic violence classes at Haven House in Pasadena in May 2010, had gone to parenting classes at St. Mary’s Medical Center in 2005, had attended 46 sessions at “Peace & Joy” in 2004, had attended 26 sessions at “Rainbow Services” in San Pedro in November 2006, and had been going to individual counseling in Long Beach, twice a month, since November 2006. She did not bring any paperwork with her to document her attendance at these programs, claiming she had all the documentation at home.
With regard to her relationship with Y.H., Mother said she would never get into a relationship with someone who had a prior history of domestic violence. She initially said she was married to Y.H., but later testified she had the marriage annulled and that they were no longer together. She denied that Y.H. had ever hit her.
The foster father for the children testified. He said there was normal parent-child interaction between Mother and the children, that there appeared to be a bond between them, and that he never witnessed anything bad or negative during the visits.
The court recessed for the day and suggested to Mother that she produce the documents she had left at home at the next day’s hearing.
The next morning, Mother appeared in court without any documents. The court sustained allegations of the petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j), stating that Mother had no proof of the programs she claimed to have attended. Assuming she went to classes, she did not appear to have applied any information she had learned because she entered into another relationship where she was the victim of domestic violence. The court also questioned Mother’s credibility regarding Henry Jr.’s health, noting that she “has had this issue before in connection with medical neglect” with respect to Elizabeth. It addressed the inconsistencies in her testimony and her failure to bring back-up documentation to court. The court denied reunification services to Mother as to all three children and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for Abigail and Henry Jr.
The court stated, “Well, I understand the previous situation with Mother. I accepted she was a young mother, and she was having difficulty managing her life. I’m usually pretty open even though the Department is recommending no reunification services. I usually am pretty open to giving parents another chance, sometimes when they’ve done something that we could consider minimal, if I think that they’re really going to follow through with it.... I have to agree with [counsel for minors and the Department] that I think Mother can talk the talk. I think Mother is very intelligent. I think she knows the language to use. But her actions do not show any of this knowledge that she’s either received by going to some therapy or somehow has resulted in a change of action, particularly her decision to marry somebody who was recently released from jail for domestic violence. And her whole description of the annulment... just flat out seemed to be untruthful. And the problem is, is that Mother did not back up any of the things that she testified to. When she was confronted and cross-examined on some of these issues, she really could not offer anything to show that she’s changed her behavior. I gave her an opportunity to bring in the documents she claims she had, and she hasn’t brought anything in.... One of the things I kept hearing from her yesterday was [‘]substantial evidence.[’] Okay. That’s somebody who’s pretty sophisticated in the court system to know those type of words to use. So I think she’s very sophisticated.... But the problem is, is that her actions have been very different.... I think any parent who is taking minimal care of a child, even bathing every other day, would notice there was something wrong. And her efforts to treat it just don’t seem to be all that reasonable.... A big abscess like this in a little infant can be very serious, and it shows a lack of concern and a lack of knowledge and a lack of ability to parent.... And I guess I’m more concerned about what appears to be her willingness to be deceitful when she’s requesting reunification services. When I’m going to give somebody another chance with a child, I need to have some belief that they’re going to follow through and that I can trust them to take advantage of the opportunity that I’m giving them. And Mother really by her testimony yesterday did not appear to be somebody who deserves that trust. So I don’t feel that Mother has made a reasonable effort to address those issues. And I really think that, particularly given her willingness to continue to adopt the same behaviors over and over and over again, behaviors that really did endanger this young child, and the domestic violence is very concerning. Mother talked about how she knew the dangers of domestic violence to children, and yet she’s been involved in one relationship after another that has domestic violence as an element. And it makes me believe that any further reunification is futile....”
Mother appeals only from the order denying reunification services as to L.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that the court erred in denying reunification services as to L. because it did not state the legal basis for its ruling. While it is true that the dependency court did not state a statutory basis on the record for its decision to deny reunification services, Mother concedes that “section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11) could reasonably be considered the statutory guidelines for a denial of reunification services in L.’s matter since Mother’s parental rights had been terminated as to L.’s half-sibling, Elizabeth D., in 2007, and prior to that, the reunification services had been terminated due to Mother’s noncompliance.”
Mother next asserts that the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence.
Section 361.5 provides that reunification services shall be provided when a child is removed from a parent’s custody except under certain enumerated circumstances. If those circumstances are established, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced by a legislative assumption that offering reunification services would be an unwise use of governmental resources. (K.C. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1393.) Subdivision (b) of that section provides that: “Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following:.... [¶] (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 this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a), 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.”
On appeal, we review an order denying reunification services for substantial evidence. (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96.) The appellate record is examined in the light most favorable to the dependency court’s findings and conclusions. (In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th, 207, 216.)
The purpose of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10 and (11) is to allow “a parent who has worked toward correcting his or her problems an opportunity to have that fact taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings; it was not [enacted] to create further delay so as to allow a parent, who up to that point has failed to address his or her problems, another opportunity to do so.” (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 843.) “The ‘reasonable effort to treat’ standard ‘is not synonymous with “cure.”’... To be reasonable, the parent’s efforts must be more than ‘lackadaisical or half-hearted.’ [Citation.]” (K.C. v. Superior Court, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1393.)
Mother argues that her testimony established that she was attending classes and counseling that were helping her to address her problems and that she had made “tremendous subsequent efforts to address her parenting skills and her inclination to involve herself with abusive men.” She also points to the foster father’s statement that she had a loving relationship with her children and that the visits were appropriate.
Mother appears to have significant mental health and emotional issues that very likely impact her perceptions and reactions. After her parental rights to Elizabeth were terminated, she continued to associate with men who had domestic abuse issues and/or violent criminal backgrounds. In addition, throughout this case, Mother has made patently untrue assertions that have undermined her credibility. For example, she gave two different addresses to social workers that she knew to be false, and only later admitted that she did not have a permanent address. She asserted she did not know of Henry Sr.’s violent criminal past, she did not divulge to Henry Sr. that Abigail and Henry Jr. were not his biological children. She claimed that she had no mental health issues despite having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed medication. She maintained that she bathed Henry Jr. every day and did not notice the abscess. The court concluded that the nature of the child’s abscess belied Mother’s claim. Mother said she was married to Y.H., but then contradicted herself while on the witness stand. Moreover, her assertions that she was attending classes and counseling were seriously called into doubt by her inability to provide any documentary proof of her attendance.
Mother cites Albert T., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th 207 , in support of her argument that the record establishes that she has made reasonable efforts to ameliorate her prior problems. However, in Albert T., the mother of the dependent child enrolled in and completed programs. Here, there were only Mother’s unsubstantiated claims that she had completed programs and her behavior did not show any changes since her parental rights to Elizabeth were terminated.
Mother also claims the order must be reversed due to the court’s failure to find that clear and convincing evidence supported its refusal to grant reunification services. Before rendering its decision, the court stated that it was open to granting Mother reunification services even though the Department was recommending against it. The court also said that it was open to giving parents a second chance. Nonetheless, after enumerating its concerns about Mother’s lack of credibility and inability to parent, the juvenile court concluded, “I don’t feel that Mother has made a reasonable effort to address those issues.” Although the court did not expressly state that its findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, “we will infer a necessary finding provided the implicit finding is supported by substantial evidence.” (In re S.G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1260.) The evidence supports such an implied finding here.
Finally, Mother argues that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that L.’s best interests would have been served if reunification services were granted, citing section 361.5, subdivision (c). That subdivision provides, in relevant part, that, “The court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in paragraph (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), or (15) of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” Contrary to Mother’s argument, we can find no evidence that L.’s best interests had been served by Mother’s lifestyle choices. L. did not have a stable home. She was reported to be dirty and subjected to physical abuse by Mother’s male companion. Despite many opportunities to avail herself of resources, Mother continued to make poor parenting decisions and there is no evidence that L.’s situation would improve if further services were ordered.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Mother reunification services as to L.M. is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P.J., MANELLA, J.