Opinion
A101775.
11-13-2003
In re TAYLOR M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SOLANO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW M., Defendant and Appellant.
Andrew M., father of dependent minor Taylor M., appeals from a finding and order made by the juvenile court at a six-month review hearing. Father contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that he had been offered reasonable reunification services. We find no error and affirm.
Background
In May of 2002, the juvenile court found that the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),[] following her parents[] admission of amended allegations that both had substance abuse problems that periodically hindered their ability to care for the minor.[] The court ordered that father was granted visitation with the minor in the Solano County jail. This order was later modified to reflect that such visitation would occur only with approval of the sheriffs office, after the Department of Health and Social Services (the Department) advised the court that pursuant to state regulations, the jail had complete control over visitation with inmates. At the time of the dispositional hearing in June 2002, father was still housed in county jail, awaiting transfer to San Quentin Prison to begin serving a two-year sentence. The Department recommended that the minor remain placed with her paternal aunt and uncle and that reunification services be given to both parents for six months. It was recommended that both parents have supervised visitation with the minor; fathers visitation would be dependent upon San Quentins visitation policies.
All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
The original petition alleged that the minor had suffered, or that there was a substantial risk that she would suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the failure or inability of the parents to provide care, due to their substance abuse (pursuant to § 300, subd. (b)), and that the minor was left without provision for her support, as her parents were incarcerated on charges of possession of methamphetamine for sale. It also alleged child endangerment, leaving the minor without any provision for her care, etc. (§ 300, subd. (g)).
The six-month review was set for a contested hearing on January 15, 2003, at fathers request. When the hearing occurred, father was incarcerated at the Claremont custody center in Coalinga. The social worker indicated that she tried several times to contact father without success, including mailing monthly letters to him without response. She had sent letters to San Quentin until she was notified by the California Department of Corrections (CDC) that father had been transferred to Coalinga; not realizing there are two CDC facilities there, she initially sent future letters to the wrong location. At some point she discovered that the address she had for father was off by one digit. She spoke with his correctional counselor once and requested direct telephone contact with father. She learned the correct location for father and two visits with the minor subsequently occurred.[] During the time that father was incarcerated, he did remain in contact with his family, who facilitated telephone contact with the minor and forwarded at least one letter to her. Father did not himself contact the Department between June and December of 2002. Father was scheduled to be released in April 2003 and the social worker felt that the probability was small that he would be successfully assimilated drug free into the community by the end of the 12-month reunification period.
Father argues that the record is "slightly unclear" as to whether there were actually one or two visits. The social worker testified that father had a visit in late November or early December and one subsequent to that.
After the hearing, the juvenile court adopted the findings and orders proposed by the Department, including a finding that father had been offered reasonable services.[] Fathers counsel argued that because his client "didnt get any visits" he had not received reasonable services. The court found that continued out-of-home placement with relatives was in the minors best interest and continued her as a dependent. Reunification services for both parents were continued until May 1, 2003.
The court specifically stated that the Department had made "marginally diligent" efforts to offer services to father.
Discussion
Father appeals from the order finding that reasonable reunification services had been offered during the first six months, arguing that "the record established that the department did not arrange visits for appellant while he was incarcerated, despite a court order authorizing such visitation." We disagree.
When reviewing the sufficiency of reunification services, our task is limited to determining whether the record discloses substantial evidence that supports the juvenile courts finding of reasonable service. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) The issue 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.)
Here substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that reasonable services were provided. Father first complains that he was not provided visitation with the minor while he was housed at the local detention facility. However, as the juvenile court found out after making its initial order for visits to occur during that time, neither the Department nor the court controlled the situation. Under Title 15 of the Code of Regulations, the facility at which the prisoner is incarcerated has the sole authority to determine when and if visitation, including contact visits with a minor child, will occur. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1062.) (See In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1363 [inability of Department to link parent with services in prison not fault of Department, as "the department [was not] in any position to rectify the problem: prisons are run by the Department of Corrections, not the department of social services."].)
As to the meager number of visits with the minor after father was transferred to state prison, the social worker indicated that she made repeated attempts to contact father by writing him letters; he did not keep her advised of his whereabouts in the state prison system. Once CDC notified the worker that father had been transferred from San Quentin to Coalinga, contact was attempted there. Unfortunately the worker was not informed that there were two facilities in Coalinga and the letters went to the wrong location. But again, had father kept the Department aware of his exact location, there is no reason to believe that contact would not have been consummated and visitation conducted. The responsibility falls upon the parent to keep the department informed of his whereabouts at all times. (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441; section 316.1.) Even so, father did have contact with the minor that was facilitated by his family and once the Department ascertained where father was, he subsequently had two visits. While the visitation was limited, we find substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that the reunification services were reasonable, under the circumstances.
Disposition
The order of the juvenile court finding reasonable reunification services were provided is affirmed.
We concur: Kay, P.J. and Rivera, J.