Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. No. 06CEJ300117 Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge.
Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21.
Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
DAWSON, J.
H.M. (father) appeals from the order made November 15, 2007, after a 12-month review hearing in which the dependency court terminated reunification services for N.M., born in 2000, V.M., born in 2001, S.M., born in 2003, and Sa.M., born in 2004 (the children). Reunification services as to the children’s mother were not terminated and she did not appeal. Father contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that reasonable services were provided by the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department). We hold the court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence and reject the contention. We affirm the order.
A fifth child, born in 2005, tested positive for cocaine and alcohol at birth and was voluntarily placed with his grandparents, who became his legal guardians.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Father, mother and the children moved from Washington State and had been in California for only a few months when, on August 29, 2006, a juvenile dependency petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that the children had been exposed to domestic violence between the parents, that the parents had substance abuse problems, and that the parents were unable to provide the children with adequate food, clothing, and proper hygiene.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The family originally came to California to visit father’s relatives, and they stayed because father was convicted of corporal injury to a spouse and placed on probation while in Fresno. At the time the petition was filed, father was in the hospital due to a seizure disorder. Mother and the children were in a motel, homeless and without funds. Mother wanted to return to Washington but did not want to leave without father. Mother admitted both she and father regularly used drugs.
On September 18, 2006, the parents submitted on the petition as amended and the children were declared dependents of the court under section 300, subdivision (b).
The social worker’s report completed in anticipation of the disposition hearing stated that both mother and father “appear to love and care for their children,” “are willing to participate in services,” and “appear to be motivated to do whatever is necessary to have their children returned to their care and custody.” Mother told the social worker she needed drug treatment, parenting classes, and counseling. Father told the social worker he needed only parenting classes, as he denied he had a substance abuse or domestic violence problem. He claimed to have been wrongly accused of hitting his wife, that it was his brother who actually hit her.
The social worker’s report stated that the parents visited the children regularly. The parents interacted with the children “lovingly and appropriately,” and the children were excited to see their parents. Evaluations recommended that father participate in intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment, batterer’s treatment, and a mental health assessment to rule out major depression. Father had suffered from “a seizure disorder” all his life and had been hospitalized some 20 times “for medical problems.” Father was diabetic, was unable to work, and received disability payments.
At the disposition hearing on October 16, 2006, the dependency court ordered the children removed from the home, and the court-ordered reunification plan required mother and father to participate in parenting classes, random drug testing, and evaluations and recommendations for domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues.
The status review report completed in anticipation of the six-month review hearing stated that the parents “love their children and … there is a very strong bond between the children and parents.” But although the parents stated that they were willing to participate in whatever they needed to do to have the children returned to their care, “they have had a difficult [time] in following through with what they are supposed to do.” The report described the parents as being “overwhelmed” by the services they needed to complete, and that father was “illiterate and dependent” on mother to get him to his classes and assist him with his work. Mother reported that father had difficulty taking the bus on his own and got lost. Father missed classes when he feared he would have a seizure and had to be hospitalized on one occasion. The report stated, “The parents had to be given maps and exact address and directions for the appointments.”
At the six-month review hearing on February 26, 2007, reunification services were continued. Counsel for father requested that the Department provide him “transportation assistance” because he had difficulty getting around “simply on busses.” Counsel for the Department stated that the Department could assist father by providing bus tokens and a schedule. But father’s counsel explained that father had problems attempting to use the bus system and asked he be provided with taxi fare or transportation by someone in the Department. Counsel for the Department stated, “I can look into that,” and the dependency court ordered that the Department “provide reasonable efforts to assist [father] with his transportation to services.” The court found that the Department had provided and offered reasonable services and, while mother’s progress was “minimal,” father’s progress had been “minimal to moderate.” The court found that the parents visited the children regularly, and it gave the Department discretion for unsupervised visits.
A batterer’s treatment program progress report from Comprehensive Counseling Services (CCS) dated March 15, 2007, indicated that father’s attendance and participation in the program were poor. He had attended nine sessions and missed 10. Medical reports from University Medical Center in early March of 2007 reflected that father was treated, bed rest was recommended, and he was told to return to the emergency room for “worsening seizures” or “trouble walking.”
An interim status review hearing was held April 16, 2007. Mother and father were ordered to submit to hair tests due to numerous drug test “no shows.” Father was in custody at the time of the hearing.
The status review report completed in anticipation of the 12-month review hearing stated that mother and father had not completed all of the case plan components, but recommended that the family continue to receive an additional six months of family reunification services. By this time, mother and father were no longer living together and father had filed for divorce. The report stated:
“[Father] is illiterate, has a seiz[ure] disorder, asthma and receives disability benefits. He has had at least 2 hospitalizations due to his seizure disorder since the last court hearing. [Father] thereafter has refused to be hospitalized as he states he misses his classes and does not want to jeopardize his services. [Father] was previously completely dependent on his wife …. Since his separation from his wife he has become more independent. He does at times get[] overwhelmed, confused and frustrated.”
The report stated that father had completed a mental health assessment on January 17, 2007, and no mental health treatment was recommended, but that he was experiencing “some mental and emotional issues” since his separation. He reported “[contemplating] self-harm” and had an appointment scheduled at a mental health facility.
Father completed a substance abuse assessment and it was recommended that he participate in an intensive outpatient program. But father had consistent “no shows” for drug tests, tested positive for drugs, and was placed into an inpatient program, which he left after six days. Thereafter, father was referred to Fresno New Connections (FNC), where he had completed the primary phase of the program and was currently doing his “aftercare portion.”
Father was referred to a batterer’s treatment program at CCS, but he did not feel the program was accommodating his disability. At his request, he was transferred to another program, one at FNC, which he thought would better accommodate his problems. At the time of the report, he had 19 sessions left to attend.
The parents’ visits with their children were going well, although the Department could not recommend unsupervised visits because both parents had provided positive drug tests in April of 2007.
Two addendum reports filed November 15, 2007, recommended termination of services to father because he tested positive for cocaine on September 17, 2007.
Father did not attend the contested 12-month review hearing held November 7, 2007. At the hearing, social worker Eva Luera testified that she had been the social worker on the case since December of 2006. During the year that she had the case, she met with father two or three times a month. Luera testified that father was referred to a parenting class, substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence treatments, and random drug testing.
According to Luera, father completed “the mental health portion” and the drug program, but he had not completed parenting classes or the batterer’s treatment program. Father had “quite a few” sessions to complete in the batterer’s program and was not enrolled in a parenting class. Father told Luera he did not attend the parenting class he was first referred to because he was not able to find the location, and that he quit attending the subsequent class after he separated from his wife because he was upset and distraught about the separation. Father did not express any difficulty in finding the second parenting class.
When asked if she had referred father to another parenting class, Luera said she had not as yet, but that she would if father would come into the office to speak to her. Luera explained:
“There is a facilitator for one of the parenting classes that I was—wanted him to get into her class because she is—she’s had some disability—learning problems and I felt that she would be able to help him because she said she would be able to work with him and his problem with not being able to read or write.”
Luera was aware that father could not read or write, and that the substance abuse specialist referred him to the CCS program, which said they would accommodate him. When father continued to have difficulty and did not feel that CCS was accommodating him sufficiently, he was referred to FNC. There they worked with him “a little bit more, gave him more one-on-one.” Luera testified that father liked the substance abuse program at FNC and had asked to do his batterer’s program there as well.
Luera knew that father had episodes of confusion which made it difficult for him to use the bus system. Luera thought that when father was first sent to FNC, his wife showed him how to use the bus, and that once he became familiar with it, he was able to get there on his own. Luera testified that father did not tell her “in those words” that he had been able to learn how to use the bus system on his own, but that his wife or friends would help him or his brother would sometimes bring him to class. When asked if she had attempted any “specialized assistance such as therapeutic assistance or educational assistance to help him with that problem,” Luera stated, “Therapeutic—no.” Luera testified that, at this point, father did not appear to have difficulty using the bus system successfully, and he had not indicated any difficulty in locating the drug testing service.
Luera was aware that father suffered from seizures and that he was taking medication for that condition. Father told Luera that he experienced periods of confusion. When asked if she had taken any steps “in terms of services provided to address that,” Luera stated that she thought the Department was accommodating him through his classes and he was told to follow his doctor’s advice and take his medications.
Luera testified that visits between father and the children went well and that the children were “attached and bonded to the father.”
Luera testified that the Department had a “staffing” with father after he tested positive for drugs on September 17, 2007, but that he didn’t feel he needed a drug program. Luera testified that, after father and mother separated, father went to adult mental health and “was still going through” the recommended services.
Luera recommended termination of reunification services for father because he relapsed and had a positive drug test for cocaine and because he did not think he needed another program because he did not think he had a drug problem.
At the end of the hearing, counsel for father asked that the court grant father the additional reunification time up to the 18-month limit. Counsel for the minors recommended that services to father be terminated because, although visits went well, in the 14 and a half months since the children were removed, he had not completed parenting classes or batterer’s treatment, and he tested positive for drugs. According to counsel, “[The children] were removed due to domestic violence and substance abuse and [father] has not ameliorated those conditions.”
In ruling on the contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Department made reasonable efforts to aid father in overcoming the problems which led to the removal of the children. The court found that the extent of father’s progress was minimal; return of the children would create a substantial risk of detriment because father failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in several court-ordered treatment programs, including random drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and parenting. The court acknowledged that father had regularly visited the children and that they had a loving relationship, but noted that the court could only continue services if there was a substantial probability that the children would be returned within the extended period of time, which it did not think was likely. The court terminated services to father. Reunification services for mother were continued.
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Reasonable Services Were Provided
Father contends that the order terminating reunification services must be vacated because the Department did not provide reasonable services to address his “physical problems, illiteracy and other disabilities throughout the reunification period.” We disagree.
At the 12-month review hearing, if the child or children cannot be returned home to the parent but the dependency court finds that reasonable reunification services were not provided, the court shall continue the case for up to six months for a permanency hearing, provided that the hearing occurs within 18 months after the child was initially detained from parental custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (g); see In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 585.) In this case, the 18-month date was February 29, 2008, or three and a half months after the 12-month review hearing was held.
“[O]ur sole task on review [of the sufficiency of reunification services] 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.) “The appellate court ‘construe[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the juvenile court’s findings regarding … the reasonableness of [the social services department’s] efforts.’ [Citation.]” (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018.)
“The focus of reunification services is to remedy those problems which led to the removal of the children.” (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1464.) “A social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parent’s problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult. [Citation.] However, in most cases more services might have been provided and the services provided are often imperfect.” (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598.) “The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
Services must be tailored “to fit the unique challenges suffered by individual families” and must accommodate the special needs of disabled parents. (In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1792.) “The effort must be made to provide suitable services, in spite of the difficulties of doing so or the prospects of success.” (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777; see In re Elizabeth R., supra, at p. 1790.)
Here, the children were removed from the home because (1) father exposed them to ongoing violence between himself and mother and (2) his substance abuse problem contributed to the domestic violence, unstable housing, and inability to provide his children with adequate food, clothing and proper hygiene. In response, the Department offered services: parenting classes, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse evaluation and recommended treatment, mental health evaluation and recommended treatment, and random drug testing.
To address father’s domestic violence problem, the Department referred him for a domestic violence evaluation, which referred him to a six-month batterer’s treatment program at CCS. The program stated that it was able to accommodate father. By the time of the six-month review report, father had attended eight classes but had several “no shows” at that program. When father did not think the program was adequately accommodating his disability, he requested and received a transfer to the batterer’s program at FNC. At the time of the 12-month status review report, father was participating in batterer’s treatment counseling at FNC and had 19 sessions left to attend. But at the contested hearing, social worker Luera stated that father had dropped out of batterer’s treatment in late September of 2007, had again been referred, but had not yet restarted classes.
To address father’s substance abuse issue, the Department referred him to a substance abuse treatment assessment that recommended he participate in an intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Due to consistent no shows for drug tests, a positive drug test, and admitted drug use, father was placed in an inpatient treatment program, King of Kings, but left after six days. Father was then referred to the substance abuse program at FNC. Father completed the primary phase of the FNC substance abuse program and needed two classes to complete the aftercare program. Father had a positive drug test for cocaine on September 17, 2007. When father was offered another referral to a substance abuse program, he declined, as he felt he did not need one.
As part of his drug treatment program, father was ordered to submit to random drug testing. Between September of 2006 and his positive drug test on September 17, 2007, father had 41 “no shows,” 41 negative tests, and positive tests in October 2006 and April 2007. At several points during the year, father did not submit to testing for a month or more at a time.
To address any mental health issues, the Department referred father for a mental health evaluation which, at first, determined no mental health treatment was needed. By the time of the 12-month status review report, father had developed some “mental and emotional issues” due to his separation from his wife, and he had an appointment with Adult Mental Health Metro. At the contested review hearing, Luera testified that father had gone to the appointment and was participating in the recommended services.
To address father’s parenting concerns, the Department referred father to a parenting class. Father was unable to locate the class, but was then referred to another parenting class, which he attended until he separated from his wife. Father told the social worker that he was not attending the classes because he was upset over the separation. He had not yet contacted his social worker for a referral to another parenting class, although Luera said she had a referral for him.
Although mother first reported that father had difficulty taking the bus on his own to attend classes, the social worker stated that the parents were given maps and exact addresses and directions for the appointments. It was at father’s request that he was transferred from the batterer’s treatment program at CCS to FNC, where he also attended substance abuse treatment. Luera testified that although father could not locate the first parenting class he was referred to, he expressed no difficulty in finding the second class. She thought that father had learned to use the bus system on his own, and that his wife, friends, or brother would sometimes help him.
Father argues that his seizure disorder and “other health issues,” his mental health issues, and his illiteracy and confusion presented significant problems for his successful completion of reunification services, and that special accommodations were required. Other than a social worker’s report stating that father sometimes did not attend a class because he anticipated having a seizure, father did not provide the juvenile court with any examples of how his illiteracy, periods of confusion, or his seizures hindered his ability to utilize the reunification services offered and provided. No expert medical evidence was offered to support this theory, nor was father present at the contested hearing to testify to the effects of his disabilities or medications.
We find that there is substantial evidence that the Department did make a good faith effort to address father’s problems through appropriate services. It maintained reasonable contact with father, and it made reasonable efforts to assist father in areas where compliance proved difficult, but it was father who refused to fully cooperate. Father chose to quit attending batterer’s treatment classes, even though the program at FNC was the one he asked to be transferred to. He chose to quit attending parenting classes because he was upset over his separation from his wife. And he chose to take drugs, leading to the positive drug tests, and to refuse any further drug treatment, claiming he did not need it.
A social worker cannot physically force a parent to accept services. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365 [“‘Reunification services are voluntary … and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them’”]; see also In re Michael S., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1463, fn. 5 [department is not required to “take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions”].)
Accordingly, the juvenile court’s determination that reasonable services were provided to father was supported by substantial evidence, and we reject his claim to the contrary.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: VARTABEDIAN, Acting P.J., HILL, J.