Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Super. Ct. Nos. JV6293, JV6294, Eric L. DuTemple, Judge.
Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel, and Sarah Carrillo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Gomes, J.
Appellant S.M., the mother of now seven-year-old twins, a son P. and a daughter M., appeals from an order of the juvenile court following the 18-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and placing the children in their father’s custody with family maintenance services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.22, 395.) Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that returning the minors to her physical custody “would create a substantial risk of detriment to the[ir] safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) We affirm the order.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
After briefing was completed in this case, the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services notified this court that the juvenile court, in a subsequent hearing, had granted father custody of the children, with supervised visitation to mother, and terminated dependency jurisdiction. We requested briefing from the parties on whether to take judicial notice of these orders and whether they rendered this appeal moot. The parties filed letter briefs, disagreeing on these issues, but both acknowledging that mother has filed an appeal from those orders. As mother has appealed those orders, this appeal is not moot. Accordingly, we will address mother’s arguments on their merits.
FACTS
Jurisdiction and Disposition
On October 30, 2006, two social workers and members of the Sonora Police Department went to mother’s home to investigate a report alleging the home’s floors were covered in bird and dog feces, the children were playing with a decaying dog carcass inside the home, and mother collects “‘road kill’ and had a decaying animal carcass in the refrigerator”. Mother refused to allow the officers into the home to check on the children and told them to leave. Officers entered the house through the back door after hearing the children crying from inside the home. Mother told her children to run. An officer took the family to a neighbor’s home. As a social worker approached the front door to mother’s house, mother ran toward the house yelling for her to get out, grabbed another social worker’s shirt to move her out of the way, and attempted to grab the other social worker’s arm. After mother refused to comply with an officer’s instruction to sit down, she was arrested for obstructing a police officer.
This was not the first such report Tuolumne County child welfare services (CWS) had received. In June 2003, CWS investigated a referral which alleged mother’s home was filthy and full of debris, and found the home unsafe and unsanitary. The children were placed into protective custody and released to their father. They were later returned to mother’s care after she provided proof to the family court she had addressed the concerns with her home. Similar referrals regarding the condition of mother’s home were received in June 2002, October 2003, January 2005 and July 2006. Although CWS attempted to investigate the referrals, they were determined to be inconclusive because mother refused to cooperate with the investigations or allow a social worker to inspect the home.
An inspection of the home revealed that the front door would not open completely because large piles of items were obstructing the entryway. The living room floor was not visible. A large mattress without linens was piled on top of what appeared to be clothes, a guitar and its case, stacks of magazines, books and videos, and miscellaneous furs, toys and other items. There was no clear pathway on which to walk and animal feces were on the floor. Kitchen counters were completely stacked full of miscellaneous items, including animal pelts. A stuffed red tail hawk was found in the home. Officers also found a decaying otter carcass covered in maggots in a broken refrigerator along with other dead animals which were next to the family’s food supply. The Department of Fish and Game came to the home and cited mother for illegal possession of the red tail hawk, as well as of two barn owls, one great egret and the river otter which were all dead.
Officers also found the wood stove had a fire in it with the thermometer reading 250 degrees; a mattress and other flammable items were piled next to the stove. The fire department was called to the home and documented the use of the stove as unsafe. The fire department also found that the blocked entryways and layers covering the windows were fire hazards. The backyard had large piles of clothing, garbage and debris scattered about. A backyard shed containing a washer and dryer had clothing and other cloth materials in the entryway and a large pile of miscellaneous items stacked on the shed’s side. A large rodent ran past the feet of the officer inspecting the shed. Mother was arrested on charges of felony child endangerment and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer. After further investigation, two felony battery counts were added based on mother’s conduct with two social workers.
The children were placed into protective custody. The Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a dependency petition seeking their removal based on the home’s condition. The juvenile court ordered the children detained and sustained the petition. The children were placed with their paternal aunt and uncle in the same county, with whom they remained throughout most of these proceedings.
The children’s presumed father, who did not have custody of the children but did have supervised visitation pursuant to family court orders, requested placement of the children with him. The Department did not recommend placement with father, however, until he could complete reunification services. The children’s attachment to their father was strained, but the Department believed that with regular positive contact the attachment would strengthen. In December 2006, following a contested dispositional hearing, the court ordered the children removed from mother’s custody, found that placement with father would be detrimental to them, and ordered reunification services for mother and father. Mother’s reunification services consisted of participating in general counseling once a week, completing a psychological evaluation and parenting education program, and participating in the children’s school education meetings. Mother and father were given supervised visitation.
After the children’s removal, the Department became concerned about their behavior. M. exhibited a heightened sense of fear and anxiety around everyday activities and had difficulty with attachment; she showed an abnormal attachment to strangers and inconsistent attachments to familiar adults. P. demonstrated aggressive behaviors towards children and adults, was hyperactive and had difficulty focusing. Both children were found to need mental health services. After a psychiatric evaluation, P. was diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and a mood disorder, and prescribed psychotropic medication. The children, who at the time of removal had not been enrolled in any type of educational program, started kindergarten. P., however, was unable to remain in the class due to his behavior and significant academic delays, and instead was placed in a preschool class. An individualized educational plan was developed for P., which identified language delays, difficulties with gross and fine motor skills, and a limited ability to adapt to change.
The Sixth-Month Review Hearing
By the six-month review in May 2007, mother had moved into a new residence, which was a two bedroom, one bath apartment attached to a friend’s home. Mother had attended all of the children’s school appointments. Mother had not completed her parenting class -- she failed to receive a certificate of completion because she missed two of the eight parenting classes. When mother learned she would need to retake the class, she told the agency giving the class that she intended to pursue a grievance against them. Mother repeatedly called the agency to demand the certificate; her calls became so disruptive that the agency threatened to contact the police to file a harassment report if they continued.
The social worker was concerned about the mental health care mother had received. While mother stated she had a pre-existing counseling relationship with a psychologist, Dr. Arlene Giordano, mother refused to sign a release of information so the social worker could obtain information from Dr. Giordano until April 2007. Mother told the social worker she was taking one medication for depression symptoms and had received samples of another medication from her physician, Dr. Summers, in the past, but she refused to sign a release of information form or provide contact information for Dr. Summers. Mother began seeing Dr. Gaylen Savage, a psychologist, for a psychological evaluation. In February 2007, mother refused to complete the evaluation because she was concerned about how Dr. Savage was conducting it. Mother requested a written apology from Dr. Savage and asked that all evaluation questions be pre-submitted to her; both requests were denied. By the end of March, mother agreed to meet with Dr. Savage, but afterwards told the social worker she didn’t like the tests she was given and claimed the evaluation would be unfair and unprofessional. The next month, Dr. Savage withdrew from the case. The Department retained another psychologist, Dr. Shawn Johnston, to complete the evaluation and asked that the court set a nine-month review hearing so the court could consider the evaluation. The court continued out-of-home placement and reunification services, and set a nine-month review hearing.
The Nine-Month Review Hearing and Dr. Johnston’s Report
The nine-month review hearing was held in July 2007. Mother had not been participating consistently in counseling services since the November 2006 dispositional hearing. Mother attended only one counseling session with Dr. Giordano between March 9 and April 12, 2007, and then stopped going. In May 2007, she resumed counseling with Brian Jensen, Ph.D., a marriage and family therapist, but it remained unclear who would serve as her long-term therapist. Dr. Jensen told the social worker mother believed the children had been removed from her care due to “‘illegal police intervention into her home because she had animals in her freezer,’” but she never mentioned to him that her home was deemed unsafe or unsanitary. Mother gave conflicting information regarding the medications she was taking. The social worker had visited mother’s home during unannounced visits on numerous occasions since the dispositional hearing; on only one of those occasions was the home “moderately appropriate.”
Dr. Johnston completed the psychological evaluation of mother, which included testing and a clinical interview. He characterized mother’s personality dynamics as defensiveness, authority problems and attention-seeking. According to Dr. Johnston, mother’s defensiveness suggests she is likely to consider herself blameless in most situations and she has a strong need to appear adequate and in control. When Dr. Johnston asked mother her understanding of the current situation, mother responded that someone who knew she had an otter and owl in the freezer reported her to CWS. She explained that when she saw the dead otter and owls on the side of the road, she wanted to show them to her father and “‘[t]hings just snowballed out of control.’” Mother denied endangering her children and could not tell Dr. Johnston what she did wrong regarding her children’s safety. Mother admitted the house was a mess when the children were removed, but stated “‘. . . it was not the dangerous mess they said it was.’” Mother complained that “‘[t]he things that were done in this case are unlawful,’” and was “‘very concerned about the unlawful way things are going on in that county.’” Mother knew the court had ordered her to go to weekly therapy, but she did not know what she wanted to accomplish there. She also knew she was ordered to provide a safe home.
After a full battery of testing, Dr. Johnston determined there were two key components to mother’s personality -- oppositional or rebellious personality traits and interpersonal hypersensitivity -- that in combination is “best described as a ‘passive-aggressive personality style.’” Dr. Johnston explained that passive-aggressive behavior is primarily associated with self-sabotaging or self-defeating conduct which derives from indirect acting out of underlying anger, and individuals with this personality “tend to be their own worst enemies, in that by definition, they tend to engage in behavior or activity that harms, thwarts, or defeats them.” Dr. Johnston noted that while mother exhibited “glimmers of intelligence, insight, and even a wry sense of humor” during her clinical interview, she also “could quickly become defensive, reverting to a kind of self-righteous, angry, and even combative stance regarding the involvement of the court in her life and the reasons for which her children were taken into protective custody.” In Dr. Johnston’s opinion, “the most serious problem that will confront [mother] in her successful completion of a reunification plan will be herself.”
Dr. Johnston diagnosed mother as having an anxiety disorder and a depressive disorder that was in remission. Dr. Johnston also tentatively diagnosed mother as suffering from either pathological hoarding behavior or an impulse control disorder not otherwise specified, and suggested mother confront this issue with her therapist to determine the extent of the problem and how to resolve and overcome it. While mother exhibited significant passive-aggressive personality traits as well as a possible pathological hoarding problem, Dr. Johnston did not view these problems as indicating a definitive inability to provide proper parenting.
Dr. Johnston, however, had concerns regarding mother’s ability to successfully complete a reunification plan. He explained that at a minimum, she must acquire a new home and show the court she can maintain it in a clean and safe fashion. Dr. Johnston’s “greatest concern” was that mother would “surrender to her defensive, rebellious, and angry feelings, thus engaging in the kind of passive-aggressive or self-sabotaging behavior turning the juvenile court system against her.” Dr. Johnston stated it would be “extraordinarily difficult” for mother to keep the focus on herself and the things she needed to change or improve, “rather than focusing on her angry beliefs that the juvenile court system has unjustly and cruelly victimized her,” but if she could do so, she could be successful in the reunification plan. Success would require mother to have a serious commitment to completion of psychotherapy, which could be critical in helping her acquire self-control, self-understanding and interpersonal skills needed to complete the plan. Success would also require her to place “the well-being of her children above everything else.” Dr. Johnston believed mother would “likely fail,” however, if she was unwilling or unable to keep the focus on herself and instead revert to “full-fledged externalization of her problems by blaming and fighting the juvenile court system at every turn.” While Dr. Johnston thought mother could be successful, he “harbor[ed] no illusion regarding the fact that for her to keep the focus on improving herself rather than blaming the court for the next many months will be one of the most difficult things she ever does in her life.”
At the nine-month review hearing, the court continued out-of-home placement and reunification services. The court told mother she must begin to fully cooperate with the social worker by allowing for announced and unannounced visits at her home and committing to a therapist. Immediately following the hearing, mother confronted the social worker, pointed her finger at her while raising her voice and stated she did not respect her and she was “‘unprofessional.’” Mother confirmed Dr. Jensen would be her therapist.
The Twelve-Month Review Hearing
By the 12-month review hearing, held in November 2007, both parents had made progress in their case plans. The conditions of mother’s home had improved, but compliance had not been maintained long enough to ensure the children’s safety in the home under a family maintenance case plan. Despite the court telling mother the importance of allowing unannounced visits, the social worker made numerous attempts to access the home following the hearing, many of which were unsuccessful due to mother’s noncompliance. Only after a scheduled visit which involved mother’s attorney did the home present without safety concerns. Mother had maintained the home’s condition since mid-August 2007. Mother had progressed to unsupervised visits in the home, and the children were scheduled to begin having once weekly overnight visits. Meanwhile father, who had demonstrated an ability to remain clean and sober, had only recently obtained employment and housing. After verifying that father’s home was appropriate for home visits, the social worker stated home visits would begin with the likelihood of overnight visits within the next month.
Based on the children’s therapist’s recommendation that they receive a psychological evaluation due to concerns regarding their increased level of aggressiveness, the children were referred to the University of California at Davis CAARE Center for such an evaluation. The evaluation required three appointments, one of which the parents were to attend. Since the evaluation would be completed by the end of November 2007, the Department recommended continuing family reunification services and evaluation of the possibility of family maintenance services at a 15-month review hearing. The court agreed to continue reunification services and set a 15-month review hearing for January 2008.
The Fifteen-Month Review Hearing and the CAARE Center Evaluations
By the 15-month review hearing held in February 2008, the Department had received the psychological evaluations of the children conducted by the CAARE Center, which were prepared by Dr. Dawn Blacker, a psychologist, and Carrie Silver, a psychology intern. P.’s diagnoses included ADHD, pervasive developmental delay-not otherwise specified, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The examiners concluded that P. needs a home environment that provides a sense of safety, predictability and structure, an organized personal space that does not overwhelm him with external visual stimuli, and a positive emotional climate. M.’s diagnoses included anxiety disorder not otherwise specified and post-traumatic stress disorder. The examiners found that M. engaged in externalizing behaviors such as aggression and rule-breaking that appeared to be related to her difficulty trusting adults to provide for her and her brother, which behaviors would continue until she is able to relinquish this control. It was recommended that the children both participate in Parent-Child Interactive Therapy (PCIT), and continue in individual counseling.
The CAARE Center also completed an evaluation to assess the quality of the children’s relationship with their parents and whether their parents could safely and adequately care for them. As part of the evaluation, mother had been scheduled to participate in a clinical interview at the CAARE Center on November 15, 2007. After the examiners told her it would be a psychological evaluation of her parenting ability, mother stated it was not court ordered and refused to participate on her attorney’s advice. It was only after a court order was obtained that mother participated. She refused to answer several questions and when she did answer, she gave short answers that seemed rehearsed and void of personal reflection. She eventually became more forthright and open about her experiences.
With respect to the children’s removal in October 2006, mother explained that she was an overwhelmed parent trying to raise two children on her own, move from her home, and deal with father, who she described as a stalker and drug user. Mother admitted having two owls, an egret and an otter in the freezer, but believed the refrigerator was working and denied the presence of maggots. Mother stated the house did not smell and the feces on the floor was likely due to pellets from her parakeet. Mother was unable to articulate how the children were impacted negatively by the home’s condition or the presence of dead animals, and claimed the children were not bothered when she picked them up off the roadside and put them in a bag.
The examiners characterized mother’s relationship with her children as “strong, yet negative.” Although the children appeared to love mother and enjoyed spending time with her, the relationship has a potentially negative and detrimental effect on their well being because: (1) they grew up in a neglectful environment, as shown by the household clutter and debris and their exposure to large numbers of both dead and living animals, which forced them to make order by taking control, as M. did by becoming a parentified child; (2) mother’s demonstration of poor boundaries with M. in which the difference between parent and child appears ill defined, as shown by mother and M. dancing together after P. is put to bed; (3) P.’s perception of mother appears marked by fear and anxiety rather than security; and (4) mother has difficulty responding to the children’s needs or wishes when they conflict with her own interests.
The examiners concluded mother had not demonstrated an ability to safely and adequately care for the children for the following reasons: (1) she had not taken full responsibility for her behaviors; (2) she minimized the problematic nature of these behaviors; (3) she had not been able to identify how her actions impacted or continued to impact her children’s well-being; (4) she had not cooperated fully with CWS; and (5) she continued to have openly hostile interactions with father in the children’s presence. The examiners explained mother had limited insight into her hoarding behaviors that contributed to the home’s unsafe and unsanitary conditions and without such insight, mother had an increased vulnerability to repeat similar actions in the future. The examiners opined that “[f]ailure to recognize the negative impact of her behavior on the children will likely not dissuade [mother] from repeating old patterns particularly when overwhelmed.” They also believed mother could have difficulties maintaining her gains without the constant threat of social services checking on the home’s condition.
Because the examiners had significant concerns mother would revert to her previous patterns of behavior should the children be returned to her care, they did not recommend return of the children at that time. They did recommend continued reunification services to address their concerns and continuation in therapy to increase mother’s level of insight and responsibility. Specifically, mother needed to verbalize how her actions have impacted the children and demonstrate an understanding of how her high regard for animals negatively impacts them.
Based on the CAARE Center evaluations, the Department recommended mother continue to receive family reunification services with modifications to her current case plan, which included setting specific goals for mother to address in her individual therapy. Because mother had not consistently cooperated fully with the rules of visitation, the Department recommended visitation between mother and the children return to supervised visitation until mother consistently followed established rules, which included refraining from bringing the children inappropriate or excessive gifts, maintaining clear boundaries with them, saying goodbye in an appropriate time frame and interacting with them in a safe and acceptable manner. The Department also recommended contact between mother and father not occur in the children’s presence, and the parents participate in mediation therapy.
The court adopted the Department’s recommendations, ordered continuation of reunification services for both parents, and set an 18-month review hearing for April 2008.
The Eighteen-Month Review Hearing
By the time of the 18-month review hearing held in May 2008, the children had been living with father on a trial visit that began as a 30-day trial on February 6, 2008. The Department recommended that father receive court-ordered family maintenance services and that mother’s reunification services be terminated.
In her report prepared for the hearing, the social worker stated that mother continued to participate in individual counseling with Dr. Jensen, and that he told the social worker he would follow the goals suggested by the CAARE Center. Dr. Jensen reported to the social worker that mother had increased her sessions to twice per week. He was in full agreement with CWS removing the children from mother’s home, as it was unsafe and unfit for children, but he did not agree with CWS that her therapy should be focused on a hoarding disorder; instead, he had focused her therapy on what led mother to allow the home to become unsafe and unfit for her children and how to prevent the situation from happening again. Dr. Jensen spoke with Dr. Johnston and agreed mother possesses passive aggressive personality traits, which can be expressed through obsessive compulsive behavior. Dr. Jensen also agreed with Dr. Johnston that mother’s passive aggressive traits can be her biggest enemy for self sabotaging her case, as when she gets angry she can focus her anger at the child welfare system or an externalized source, becoming stubborn, withdrawing from her responsibilities and focusing on fighting, which sends a message that her need to be right is worth more than her children. Dr. Jensen agreed that mother could be a good parent, and said that Dr. Johnston approved of Dr. Jensen’s therapeutic approach and told him it was up to mother to keep “her mind and heart open to be willing to become the best parent she could be.”
Dr. Jensen reported that mother was not combative while working with him. Although he had seen mother become upset and angry twice while in court, in therapy mother was able to calm down and once calm, she did not react as if being controlled or persecuted and was able to show insight and admit her role in her children being removed. Dr. Jensen explained that once mother feels controlled or persecuted, she reacts defensively through externalization or blame, or investing an enormous amount of energy to have others see her point of view. Mother’s goals were to continue to recognize her triggers, sooth her own feelings, see another alternative in the moment and respond in a more beneficial way.
Mother was participating in PCIT therapy with P., which is a two-phase program, and had neared mastery level of the first phase of treatment. According to the therapist, mother had made rapid progress incorporating PCIT skills into her repertoire of parenting skills. Mother had also been participating in weekly cognitive behavior therapy sessions with P., had been proactive with therapy, and had been following the doctor’s medication recommendations for P. The social worker made four announced visits to mother’s home between February 21 and March 25, 2008; there were no reports of excessive clutter and by the last visit, there was no smell of animal urine, although there were four dogs in the home. The social worker attempted two unannounced visits, on February 15 and March 27, but was unable to gain access to the home as mother did not answer the door, although her car was parked outside and the dogs were barking inside the door.
Mother had not resumed unsupervised visitation with the children because she failed to maintain clear boundaries with them on several occasions and had not interacted with them in a safe and acceptable manner. Mother continued to discuss the case in front of the children and would question them about their father. On one visit, she found a pocket knife in the parking lot which she showed to the social worker; when the social worker left the area to answer a phone call, mother placed the knife in her pants pocket. According to mother, when she took a bag of toys to her car she did not realize the knife had fallen out of her pocket and P. picked it up and opened it.
On another visit, mother told the social worker P. had a “burn” on his hip that had been covered with a band aid and P. refused to let her look at it. Mother insisted father was not properly caring for the children and insisted on calling her attorney. Mother repeatedly questioned P. about the “burn” and when the social worker told mother to stop pushing the issue, mother left and called her attorney. When she returned, she continued to carry on about it. P. became increasingly agitated due to mother’s persistence. Mother demanded a supervisor become involved; P. eventually agreed to show the “burn” to the supervisor, which turned out to be merely a “slightly pink mark on his skin.” P. said he had taken a band aid that covered a scab on his knee and placed it on his hip. Thereafter, mother continued to point out issues with P., which were adversely affecting him. Toward the end of the visit, mother appeared to be frantic in her request for social worker assistance in deescalating P.’s behavior; mother reported he was hitting her and she did not know what to do. The supervisor intervened and helped to redirect P. When told her constant questioning had contributed to P. becoming agitated, mother adamantly denied he was agitated because of her and claimed he arrived at the visit agitated.
Since the children began their 30-day trial visit with father, mother had made several allegations that his home was unsafe for the children. She made complaints to the Tuolumne County Code Compliance, Environmental Health, and the California State Department of Social Services ombudsmen’s office. The social worker reported father was not responsible for certain aspects of the home, as he was renting from someone else, and Code Compliance had authorized him to remain in the home for up to 90 days while they sent a notification to the property owner regarding the issues with the residence. Mother, however, requested the court remove the children from his home based on her allegations.
Mother filed two separate section 388 petitions seeking to have the children removed from father’s custody and placed with either herself or in foster care based on his home’s condition. The court denied both petitions without a hearing.
The social worker reported that mother had made minimal progress in keeping the focus on herself and instead continued to revert to blaming and fighting the system. The social worker explained that throughout the proceedings, mother had presented as argumentative with CWS, as well as different service providers, had disputed the reasons for CWS involvement, had demonstrated a pattern of refusing access to her home for unannounced visits, despite being court ordered to cooperate, had not demonstrated an ability to take responsibility for her actions, and continued to minimize what she subjected the children to and instead focused significant time and energy blaming others and making allegations that she and the children are being wrongly treated. Since mother had received 18 months of “extensive services” and had only made minimal progress, the Department recommended reunification services be terminated.
At the contested review hearing, Dr. Johnston testified for the Department regarding his psychological evaluation of mother. He opined that if mother was not taking responsibility for the actions or behaviors that led to the children’s removal, there was an increased risk if the children were placed with her because it would make her misbehavior more likely to occur. Dr. Johnston explained that if a person doesn’t confront the problem that creates difficulties in her life or the reasons for that problem, the problem is “that much more likely to reoccur.” Dr. Blacker also testified for the Department regarding the CAARE Center’s evaluations of mother and the children. Dr. Blacker testified that if mother did not comply with the goals stated in the evaluations, she would not recommend reunification because, in their opinion, if mother continued to demonstrate poor insight and minimization of her responsibility and role regarding CWS’s involvement, as well as the role her behaviors play in the impact of the children’s functioning, “the risk would be too great that those behaviors would return again if the children were returned to her care.” The social worker testified that she recommended termination of mother’s reunification services because there had not been consistent progress, as mother continued to question the children at almost every single visit, and while mother loves the children and they love her, mother cannot apply the principles she learned in PCIT outside of a controlled environment. Moreover, the children need consistency “and there has been none.”
Dr. Jensen, mother’s treating psychotherapist, testified on her behalf. When asked if mother had achieved the goal of taking responsibility for her actions and how her actions led to the children’s removal from her home, Dr. Jensen responded that mother was “working on it,” and on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best, he thought she was about a six or a seven. Dr. Jensen thought mother had made “vast improvement” from the beginning of therapy in this area and he “think[s] she knows, ultimately, her children’s need come first over here.” Dr. Jensen explained that in dealing with CWS, mother can be very difficult until she is understood, which is when she becomes open, eager and flexible, and mother was “making progress” toward awareness of her needs and the ability to articulate them without being hostile and resistant. Dr. Jensen thought mother could be a good parent as long as she could demonstrate that she had learned the “triggers” and recognized her children’s needs come before her own. Dr. Jensen said it was a “huge concern” if mother was constantly questioning the children in ways that negatively impacted them.
Mother testified that the condition of her home was “[s]anitary, suitable, safe.” When her attorney asked if she knew why the children were removed, she responded “[u]nsafe and unsanitary.” When asked if there were other reasons, mother answered: “I mean, I could really go into it, but as far as putting it in a nutshell, it is difficult.” When her attorney asked again why the children were taken, mother testified the house “was a dangerous crazy mess,” and there “was stuff everywhere,” but it was difficult for her to put it in “quick words ... as it should be up here.” Mother said she would never have road kill in her home again. When asked what effect the home’s condition had on the children, mother stated “. . . so many things. And with yesterday’s information [from the hearing testimony] and all that, I -- it was a devastating, horrible environment,” and admitted she was responsible for it.
Mother denied that she ever intentionally decided not to allow the social worker into her home and claimed she must not have been there when the social worker came for unannounced visits. Mother testified about the visit where P. ended up holding the open pocket knife. Mother said she found the knife outside the visiting area, showed it to one social worker, and then put it in her pocket. Mother asked another social worker to watch the kids while she went to put a pizza tray in her car; mother later saw P. holding the open knife. Mother admitted the incident was her fault because she brought the knife in, but also complained that no one was supervising her children and if someone had been watching, they would have come out sooner.
When asked why she deserved to have reunification services continue, mother responded because she had just started receiving services that were “helpful” and didn’t have the opportunity to pass or fail. Mother claimed she was doing whatever she could to comply and said she had a social worker who was not “the greatest or the most helpful.” Mother testified she complained about father’s home because she was concerned for the children’s safety and was not attempting to blame everybody else. Mother complained to environmental health about the home even after the county code compliance officer had inspected it because the officer “is kind of a funny thing here too, with me in this county .... Who is [the officer] to take the safety and well-being, to put himself responsible for three adults here in the County of Tuolumne? All he did was check the electrical .... [He] never went into the trailer.” Mother said she was concerned that father was just given the children without a plan and she believed that by questioning the children about their father, she was being helpful.
Following the testimony and argument, the court took the matter under submission. The court explained that after reviewing all of the material and testimony, in its view mother’s testimony “pretty much substantiated the concerns Dr. Johnston had at a previous hearing. The same issues that . . . were raised by Dr. Johnston were pretty much laced throughout the testimony of [mother].” The court stated it was not possible for it to say, with the evidence submitted, that there had been substantial improvement or significant progress towards alleviating the concerns that were raised based on the children’s removal. The court explained further, “[t]he same issues came up, and obviously, during the testimony, despite what she said, the way she conducted herself, and the issues she seized upon and were obsessive about still came through in her testimony, as well as the other evidence submitted, and the Court is going to go ahead and find that the progress made by the mother toward alleviating or mitigating the issues necessitating placement of the child[ren] have been minimal.” The court made the findings recommended in the report, which included termination of reunification services for mother and placement of the children with father with family maintenance services, and set a 24-month permanency review hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court’s finding pursuant to section 366.22, subdivision (a), that returning the children to her physical custody “would create a substantial risk of detriment to the[ir] safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” is not supported by sufficient evidence. We disagree.
The objective of California’s dependency system is to protect children from abuse or neglect and to provide permanent, stable homes if those children cannot be returned home safely within a prescribed period of time. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307 (Marilyn H.).) At the same time, it recognizes a parent’s fundamental interest in the care, companionship and custody of his or her child and the child’s fundamental independent interest in belonging to a family unit. (Id. at p. 306.) Consequently, safeguards were built into the system to provide “the parent due process and fundamental fairness while also accommodating the child’s right to stability and permanency.” (Id. at p. 307.)
One of those safeguards is the 18-month review hearing at which the juvenile court determines whether it would be detrimental to return the child to the parent’s custody. (Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 308.) Section 366.22, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent ... unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent ... would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” Thus, at the 18-month permanency review hearing, the court must order the return of the children to their parents unless the court finds that doing so creates a substantial risk of detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) The Department bears the burden of establishing detriment. (Ibid.)
“The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) In determining detriment, the court must consider whether the parent participated regularly, made progress, and cooperated or availed himself of the services provided in the court-ordered treatment plan. (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748.) While participation in services and compliance are important considerations, they are not determinative of the juvenile court’s decision to return a child to parental custody. (In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141, 1142.) Rather, the court ultimately must decide whether the parent’s progress eliminated the conditions leading to the child’s placement out of the home. (Ibid.)
In reviewing a juvenile court’s ruling under section 366.22, we consider the entire record, resolving all conflicts in favor of upholding the ruling, to determine whether it contains substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, to support the court’s finding. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) In so doing, we resolve all conflicts in favor of the prevailing party and do not reweigh the evidence. (Ibid.) Issues of fact and credibility are questions for the lower court. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 705.) If supported by substantial evidence, the court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the court exercised its wide discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner. (Ibid.; In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) It is mother’s burden to show there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another point in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
Here, although mother availed herself of the services provided and made significant progress in some areas, most notably in eliminating the hazardous home environment and attending individual therapy and PCIT, the evidence supports the court’s finding she made “minimal progress” in recognizing and admitting that she was responsible for the dangerous conditions in the home that led to the children’s out-of-home placement. As both Dr. Johnston and Dr. Blacker testified, the children would be at risk if they were returned to mother’s care unless she was able to take responsibility for her actions that led to CWS involvement and their impact on the children’s functioning. Mother’s own therapist testified that while she had made progress in these areas, she was still “working on it.” Significantly, his testimony showed that she had not taken full responsibility for her actions, as she was only at about a six or seven on a scale of one to ten.
Mother’s failure to take full responsibility is shown by her testimony at the hearing. She could not explain the reasons for the children’s removal or the impact the home’s condition had on them. She continued to blame others, for example by blaming the social worker for failing to watch her son when he found the pocket knife and for not being helpful during reunification services, when mother herself was the one who interfered with the provision of services. She failed to see the impact her behavior had on the children, as shown by her belief that questioning the children about father was “helpful” and failing to see the negative impact of that behavior on them.
Mother contends the problems that led to removal had been resolved, since her home was now clean and tidy, there were no animal carcasses in her home, and she had participated in therapy and made “great progress.” Technical compliance, however, is not enough. (In re Dustin R., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1141-1142.) Without insight into the reasons why the children were placed into protective custody, the problems were likely to recur. For this reason, mother’s reliance on Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, is misplaced. There, the children were removed because the mother left them alone in a motel while she went to work. The court concluded the mother’s 84 negative drug tests and 9 missed tests over an 18-month period constituted substantial compliance with the drug treatment aspect of her case plan and there was no evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding of detriment because no evidence was presented linking the mother’s marijuana and alcohol use to her parenting judgment or skills. (Id. at pp. 1343, 1346.) In contrast here, while mother was able to correct the conditions in her home, the evidence showed that those conditions likely would be repeated since, even after a year of therapy, she was unable to articulate the reasons the children were removed from her custody, the effect her behavior had on the children, or take responsibility for her actions.
Since mother had not taken full responsibility for her actions and did not appear to understand the risk of harm her home and behavior presented to the children, the juvenile court reasonably could find that there was a substantial risk of detriment to the children should they be returned to her care, as the conditions that led to their removal would likely be repeated. Accordingly, the court did not err in refusing to return the children to mother’s custody.
Since we conclude the trial court did not err in finding it would be detrimental to return the children to mother’s care, we do not address mother’s argument that it would be in the children’s best interest to be placed with her rather than with father.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Wiseman, Acting P.J. Levy, J.