Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
San Diego County Super. Ct. No. J516266
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Carol Isackson, Judge. Petition denied. Request for stay denied.
Irene C. seeks writ review of orders terminating reunification services regarding her son, Alan O., and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Irene contends she participated regularly and made progress in services, and the evidence did not show that returning Alan to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment. She also asserts her services were inadequate and additional services would have ensured a substantial probability of Alan's safe return. We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of three-year-old Alan under section 300, subdivision (a), alleging he was at risk of serious physical harm because his father, Moises O., and Irene (together the parents) had periodically exposed him to domestic violence; the parents admitted a history of domestic violence; and Moises admitted a long drug abuse history. After a domestic violence incident in February, Irene had agreed to participate in a voluntary services contract that required her not to have contact with Moises. However, the parents did have contact with each other and the Agency took Alan into protective custody.
The social worker reported that the domestic violence had started four years earlier in Mexico. Moises admitted hitting Irene and admitted smoking crystal methamphetamine in Alan's presence. Irene's case plan required her to participate in counseling, domestic violence and parenting education programs, and to have a psychological evaluation. Moises's plan included similar programs plus participating in the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS).
At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on June 19, 2006, the court found the allegations true, declared Alan a dependent child of the court and ordered the parents to comply with their service plans.
The social worker reported that by December 2006 Irene had completed parenting classes and was attending weekly domestic violence counseling and individual therapy. Her therapist expressed concern about Irene's cognitive abilities and recommended a psychological evaluation. It was reported the parents had arrived together at Moises's criminal court hearing in violation of a temporary restraining order and that Irene was trying to get the restraining order removed.
The psychologist who conducted Irene's evaluation stated her somewhat limited intellectual functioning was not severe enough to prevent her from being an adequate parent. The psychologist said Irene was socially alienated, dependent and vulnerable to having clinging relationships with abusive men, and she needed ongoing counseling that focused on improving her self esteem and self assertion and social skills.
At the six-month review hearing on December 4, 2006, the court continued services.
In June 2007 the social worker reported Irene had attended 29 domestic violence sessions. Irene acknowledged she needed to protect Alan from domestic violence and said she understood why there was a protective order against Moises. However, she tried to have the order removed because he was her only family and support system. In January she had stopped therapy, but began again in June with a different therapist. The new therapist said Irene was just beginning to understand about protective issues. It was reported that Irene and Moises attended visits together in violation of the protective order and Alan acted out after visits.
In August 2007 Irene's domestic violence counselor stated Irene would no longer be offered services because of her lack of progress. In October there were reports she had requested MediCal pregnancy coverage and had indicated Moises was the father of her unborn child and a member of her household.
At the 12-month hearing, the social worker testified that in March 2007 Irene told him she was regularly attending domestic violence counseling and individual therapy, but he then discovered she had stopped attending therapy and referred her to a new therapist. He said although Irene may have had trouble grasping some concepts, the psychologist who evaluated her determined she was not an appropriate client for the Regional Center. He said Irene verbalized that domestic violence constituted a risk to Alan, but she continued to have contact with Moises even though she had been advised many times to stop violating the restraining order.
Irene testified she had attended all of her domestic violence therapy classes and believed her therapy had been stopped because the therapists wanted her to pay for the sessions. She said she had not lived with Moises for one month, but then said she was mistaken and she had not been in a relationship with him since February 2006. She denied trying to have the restraining order removed, but said she wanted some day to live with Moises and Alan as a family.
Irene's domestic violence therapist testified Irene did not meet the goals of her plan. The therapist who provided individual therapy testified Irene had had 11 sessions and needed three to four more to complete her initial goals. She said therapy stopped in July 2007 but then the Agency authorized further therapy.
The court found Irene had been provided with reasonable services, but she had made only minimal progress and returning Alan to her custody would create a substantial risk. It terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Irene petitions for review of the court's orders. (§ 366.26, subd. (l) ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1.) This court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
I
Irene contends the court erred by not returning Alan to her custody. She argues she regularly participated and made progress in services and the Agency did not prove that returning Alan to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment.
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) Determinations of credibility of witnesses and resolutions of conflicts in the evidence are for the trier of fact. (In re Tanis H. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1226-1227.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '. . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 337, 340.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Under the required standard of review, we hold there was substantial evidence to support the court's findings and orders. After a domestic violence incident in February 2006, Moises was deported to Mexico and the criminal court issued a protective order on behalf of Irene. Although Irene was informed that if she and Moises resumed contact Alan could be removed, when Moises returned to the United States they violated the protective order. Irene began domestic violence counseling that included implementing and following a safety plan, increasing self-protective skills, and processing feelings related to domestic violence. She verbalized that she understood how domestic violence could hurt Alan, but she continued to violate the protective order and continued to minimize the domestic violence and its risk to Alan. The foster mother, the visitation supervisor and Alan all reported that Irene and Moises came to visits with Alan together. Alan said that during the time they were having unsupervised visits, Irene took him to a mall to be with Moises, and Moises took Alan to his home to see Irene. Moises did not comply with his services plan. He did not follow SARMS requirements and he continued to use illegal drugs, yet Irene tried to get the protective order removed so that she could be with him. In September 2007 when she applied for MediCal benefits related to her pregnancy, she indicated Moises was the father of her unborn child and a member of her household. At the hearing on October 4, 2007, she testified she had last lived with Moises only one month earlier.
The therapist as well as the social worker were concerned about the domestic violence and Irene's continued relationship with Moises. As the court stated:
"[A]ll of that evidence really undermined [Irene's] credibility and gave the court great concern as to whether she would accurately report domestic violence in the home, whether she would actually report domestic violence that the child was exposed to. So I have no level of confidence whatsoever that Alan would be protected."
Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that returning Alan to Irene's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment.
II
Irene asserts the court erred by terminating her services because she was not provided reasonable reunification services. She faults the Agency for terminating her therapy for two months before the 12-month hearing. She also argues she would have been able to reunify with Alan if she had been referred to the Regional Center, and with additional services there would have been a substantial probability that he could have been returned to her care.
In determining the sufficiency of reunification services the role of the appellate court is to decide "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 standard is not that the best possible services were provided, but that reasonable services were provided under the circumstances. (In re Misako R (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
Substantial evidence supports the finding that reasonable services were provided. The fact that Irene missed three months of therapy was caused by Irene stopping therapy with her first therapist. In March 2007 the social worker learned Irene had not attended therapy for two months, apparently because she blamed the loss of her unsupervised visitation on her therapist. The social worker arranged for a new therapist beginning in April. The psychologist who evaluated Irene concluded that her somewhat limited intelligence should not prevent her from being an adequate parent. He did not recommend she participate at the Regional Center, but that she instead have long term individual counseling. Although the Agency did not fund Irene's therapy from August 1, 2007 until September 12, 2007, as the court observed, Irene had received additional help with the difficulties she faced in that she had had one-on-one therapy from two different therapy programs. Thus, the failure to fund therapy for a time was not what caused Irene's lack of success. Substantial evidence supports the finding that she received reasonable services.
As to Irene's argument the court erred in not extending services to the 18-month date, a court may extend services beyond 12 months only if it finds the parent has regularly contacted and visited the child, made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the child's removal, and demonstrated the ability to complete the objectives of the service plan and provide for the child's safety and protection. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) The evidence did not show that Irene had made significant progress in resolving the domestic violence that had led to Alan being removed from her care or that she had the ability to complete the objectives of her services plan and care safely for him. She has not shown error by the court not continuing services to the 18-month date.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for stay is denied.
WE CONCUR: McINTYRE, J., AARON, J.