Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 75114
Pollak, J.
Mother appeals from a juvenile court order entered at the six-month review under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) placing Savannah with her father. Substantial evidence supports the order and we shall therefore affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
Background
On January 19, 2006, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition alleging that Savannah, then three months old, came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged that her mother “has a history of illegal drug use and . . . a history of arrests and incarcerations involving her use of illegal drugs. . . . [O]n January 17, 2006 [she] was remanded into custody for violating the terms of probation by continuing to ingest illegal drugs, and when the child has been in the care of her mother the child’s ten year old half-sister is required to take care of the child because the mother is not available to care for the child due to the mother’s drug use, and the mother is in need of a drug treatment program and is not currently available to provide for the child.” The petition stated that Savannah and her nine-year-old sister had been placed with their maternal great aunt.
The petition also alleged that at the time the petition was filed Savannah’s father was incarcerated for driving with a suspended license, but was due to be released the following week. He “has a history of incarcerations for drug violations. He stated . . . that he has not used drugs since 1999.” Mother’s probation officer is reported as stating that he had had contact with father, and that he “is a good father. He said that [father] has a good job. And has been a positive role model for the children. He has supported the mother both morally and financially. [The probation officer] said that [father] has four more months on probation. He said that [father] cleaned up his act, and is currently serving time for a suspended license violation.” The social worker who wrote the initial report also spoke with father. Father told the social worker that “he has a past history of incarcerations for drug violations, but has not used since 1999.”
On January 20, 2006, the trial court found that there was a substantial danger to Savannah and ordered her detained. The court also ordered the agency “to assess [father’s] home.” On February 27, the agency filed a jurisdictional/dispositional report. The report revealed that father had suffered a rape conviction in 1986, and was therefore required to register as a sex offender. In 2002, father was sentenced to a four-year prison term for transporting or selling narcotics. Father told the social worker that he was currently on probation for that conviction. An employee of the California Department of Corrections “who reported that he has provided sexual offender relapse prevention to [father] since September 22, 2003 . . . stated that [father] has participated in thirteen sessions and that his participation has been positive. He reported that [father] is considered a low risk sexual offender.” Father’s criminal record revealed seven parole violations since 1990, the most recent being in 2000 for transportation and sale of narcotics. The report stated that father had “been caring and appropriate during . . . visitations.” The agency recommended that father receive reunification services, including “a psychological evaluation to help determine if he poses a risk to his child.”
The court adopted the agency’s recommendations, finding that Savannah was a dependent of the court and that placement with either parent would pose a danger to her safety and health. The court also ordered father to participate in a mental health evaluation.
In an addendum report filed on April 17, 2006, the agency reported that “Since the date of the last hearing [father] has continued to visit his daughter on a regular basis. . . . It is the [social worker’s] assessment that the maternal family does not wish for [father] to receive reunification services as they have reported several times to the [social worker] that there are ‘things that you do not know about [father].’ They were not willing to disclose what they were referring to, however. The visits have gone extremely well as the father and child appear to have a strong bond and interact positively and appropriately with each other. [The social worker] recently accompanied [father] and his daughter to a Baby Sign Language Class at his request. He reported that he wanted to attend the class so that he could communicate better with hi[s] daughter. He remains strongly committed to overcoming the many obstacles that would prevent him from reunifying with his daughter. . . . The comments made by [father’s parole officer and therapist] were largely positive. In addition, two narcotics officers with the San Mateo Police Department have come forward to make positive statements regarding their interactions with [father]. However, [father] did disclose to [the social worker] during the course of the Court investigation that he smoked Marijuana regularly. The [social worker] afforded [father] a period of more than thirty days to cease his use of the substance.” The report notes that a urine sample was diluted, and that the social worker was concerned because of father’s history of convictions for possession and sale of narcotics. The report recommends maintaining the visitation schedule and regularly testing father for drug use.
Father’s parole officer is reported as saying that he “feels that he could be a successful father if he had the proper supports from the Agency,” and that he “does not have concerns regarding the father having unsupervised visits with the child.” Father’s employer reported that father had worked for him for “over one year,” and that father “has a good character and is polite, respectful, and reliable.” A police officer with the narcotics unit reported that father was living in a home that “is known to be a community problem as it has been a ‘crash pad’ for drug users for years and people seem to congregate there,” however father was reported to be “cooperative and has called [the officer] a number of times to report drug activity at the home.” The officer stated that he and his partner had conducted searches of the home numerous times and had “never found drugs on his person or in his room.” The officer opined that “father is trying to get his life together.” The partner, who also knew father through his work in the narcotics unit of the San Mateo County Police Department, reported that although father was living in a home “where ‘shady characters’ are known to frequent[,] [i]n his opinion the father is clean and . . . [e]verything that he knows about the father’s current status is positive except for the fact that he lives in the home. He stated that he knows of the father’s extensive criminal history and feels that he is making substantial changes in his life. He reported that he contacted the [social worker] to give positive feedback, as he knows that he is making attempts to be involved in his daughter’s life.”
The social worker expressed concern that father was using illegal drugs and recommended that father not “be authorized to care for his daughter at this time.” He recommended “a minimum of thirty days of random urine testing” and that father find a location for a mobile home he had recently purchased, so that he could move from the house where he had been living.
On April 17, 2006, the trial court made a finding that placing Savannah with father would be detrimental to her safety and continued the case for an interim review on October 12, 2006. An interim report was filed on June 29, 2006. It was reported that father was visiting Savannah twice a week, and that he “has participated in case plan services.” He was attending parenting classes and reportedly had “not missed any classes, . . . participates in the class discussions, and it appears that he listens to suggestions from other parents.” Father had tested positive for cocaine on April 25, 2006, but had been tested weekly since, “and his tests have been negative.” The social worker reported ongoing concern over the relapses, however, and recommended that the prior orders remain in effect.
On August 28, mother wrote a letter to the court in which she stated that her relationship with father “was based on drugs,” and that they “used drugs together daily” while they were involved. She stated that she was “afraid at the idea of him with Savannah on a full time basis. He is not as stable as he has projected.” She alleged that father had given her other daughter a knife to take to school, that he “dropped Savannah when she was 2 months old,” that he left her other daughter on a street at 10:00 p.m. one night, and that he had hit her when she was eight months pregnant and threatened to kill her and the baby when she tried to leave him. Mother stated that she was “willing to let Savannah have a relationship with her father, however I do not feel secure with him caring for our daughter on a full time basis.”
On August 29, father filed a petition pursuant to section 388, asking that Savannah be placed with him. He cited as changed circumstances that he had “participated in a productive regimen of therapy & is ready to undertake the duties of a full time parent. Adequate housing has been obtained & [father] can provide a safe & nurturant environment for his daughter.” The request was supported by a letter from a therapist who had been providing treatment to father. The therapist stated that he “assumes that the court . . . remains concerned about returning the daughter due to the criminal and drug history of [father]. And while the undersigned understands these concerns, it is my opinion that the level of risk for child abuse while Savannah is in [father’s] care is currently lower than it may have been historically. Firstly, [father] has realized a strong support network, which can be crucial in dealing with the pressures and stresses of being a parent. He appears to have surrounded himself with a religious, social, and family community that promotes safety and nurturance. Secondly . . . [father] appears very connected to his daughter, and demonstrates an eagerness to learn about his child’s development and further appears to be in tune with his child’s developmental and emotional needs.” He stated that he believed father “can be a strong and consistent father for Savannah.”
The agency filed an interim report in response to the motion. The social worker reported that father had visited Savannah regularly, and that he “is attentive to his daughter whenever he is in contact with her. He talks, sings, and plays with her, and offers her toys or objects that he knows she enjoys. [Father] is also aware of Savannah’s diaper, feeding, and sleeping needs during visitation. [Father] holds Savannah with much love and care, but also challenges her by helping her to sit, stand, or practice walking. [Father] has also asked [the social worker], the Public Health Nurse, and other service providers about child growth and development and has shown a great interest and intent to be knowledgeable in raising a little girl.” It was reported that father’s “home is ready for Savannah’s return” and that father “already has a plan for childcare developed with his wife and with their non-relative extended family.” The report states that father had successfully completed a parenting course offered by the agency, and that a psychologist, while expressing some concern over father’s mental health and history of drug use, felt that father had “ ‘an appreciation of his daughter’s predicament and needs, and he did express what appeared to be genuine concern for his daughter’s wellbeing.’ ” Ongoing therapy was recommended.
The therapist who provided the letter of support for the motion also spoke with the social worker and again stated that father “continues to ‘demonstrate the many qualities inherent in good parenting.’ ”
The report noted that father had been arrested on September 21, 2006, for failing to register as a sex offender, though he had done so monthly for approximately 20 years. Father was charged with a misdemeanor and a hearing was pending at the time the report was filed. A report from a toxicology screen showed that father had tested positive for alcohol on September 21, 2006, with a blood alcohol level of .10. Father explained that he did not know he was being screened for alcohol and that he had consumed three beers on a lunch break. Father told the social worker that he did not drink or smoke in front of Savannah and “that he would abstain from alcohol at all times now because he does not want it to affect the Department’s or the Court’s decision in his abilities to appropriately care for his daughter.” All other tests for substance use were negative.
The social worker stated that he was “not opposed to the father’s request to have the child returned to him,” but also recommended “slowly moving toward reunification by offering longer visitation, such as through overnights, over the next two weekends prior to the Family Reunification Six-Month Review” to allow continued oversight and assessment by the agency. The court ordered that the agency could allow overnight visits for the following two weeks, and that the issue would be revisited at the six-month review on October 12, 2006.
On October 5, the agency filed a six-month review report. The social worker stated that father “has shown his commitment to participating in services and in preparing his home for Savannah’s return to his care. [Father] appears to hold the capacity to make sound decisions regarding his daughter and her daily care, and that he would be able to provide a developmentally healthy and caring environment for which Savannah to grow.” Nevertheless, the report recommended continuing the hearing until after father was sentenced for his failure to register. Father expected to be sentenced on October 17 to an additional 27 days’ jail time, possibly served on weekends. The court continued the matter to November 7. On November 6, an additional report was filed, stating that father had been “sentenced to 30 days of county jail. He has completed 4 days of this sentence thus far. [Father] must surrender at jail on January 5, 2007 . . . and will be released on January 7, 2007 . . . and will have to surrender at jail for consecutive weekends until the sentence is completed . . . .” Father’s wife planned to share parenting responsibilities for Savannah, had been doing so on visitations, and presumably would care for Savannah on the weekends that father was serving his sentence.
The social worker “recommended that Savannah be returned to [father] at this time.” Ongoing services were also recommended for father. Mother testified at the six-month review hearing, reiterating many of the concerns voiced in her August 28 letter. On November 7, 2006, over mother’s objection, the court adopted the agency’s recommendations and placed Savannah with father. Mother timely appealed.
Discussion
Although the issue of placing Savannah with father was first raised in a petition for modification pursuant to section 388, the order was made at the six-month review hearing, held pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e). This section provides that “At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, the 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. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. . . . 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. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations and the report . . . and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided.” We review the trial court’s determination for substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763.)
The trial court expressly disbelieved mother’s testimony, stating, “I think she came up to the stand with a definite agenda, answering questions in a way that favored her version of events. Her answers seemed contrived, practiced, and premeditated. She was not convincing in the least. On the other hand, I found that [father’s therapist’s] testimony was very compelling. This court firmly believes in the possibility of redemption as a value and as a human condition. And I think [father] is a person who has undergone that process and deserves to have the duty and obligation of raising his daughter, with the assistance of the department to provide the services that he will absolutely need and, I believe, will fully make use of.” “We must accept the juvenile court’s assessment of [a witness’s] demeanor, its resolution of his credibility, and the reasonable inferences it has drawn as a result.” (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 974.)
Although there were reasons for concern in placing Savannah with father—among them, father’s arrest for failure to register under Penal Code section 290, the positive cocaine test, and the positive test for alcohol—there was substantial evidence supportive of the trial court’s findings that father had shown diligence and perseverance in complying with the trial court’s requirements, and in learning appropriate parenting skills. The failure to register appears to have been a single aberration in a long record of timely registration. Despite ongoing random testing, there is no indication that father tested positive for narcotics in the more than six months that had elapsed since the last positive test. And father accepted responsibility for the positive alcohol test, explained that he had not understood that he was to abstain from drinking alcohol, and vowed to do so henceforth. Even if the trial court believed mother’s allegations, the incidents she described predated father’s participation in therapy and other services. In short, the evidence amply supports the trial court’s finding that there was no substantial risk of detriment to Savannah in placing her with her father.
Disposition
The order from which the appeal was taken is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Parrilli, J.