Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review, Super. Ct. No. 07CEJ300225-1, Mary Dolas, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21).
Judith Sanders, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Levy, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner (father) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent court’s order issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating his reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter L. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In October 2007, newborn L. was taken into protective custody by the social services department (department) after she and her mother, A., tested positive for methamphetamine. At the time, petitioner was on formal felony probation for selling methamphetamine. Later that month, the juvenile court ordered L. detained pursuant to a dependency petition and ordered the department to arrange weekly supervised visitation and offer petitioner and A. parenting classes, substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence evaluations and any recommended treatment, and random drug testing. Petitioner and A. promptly completed substance abuse evaluations and were deemed to need inpatient drug treatment. However, they did not pursue drug treatment or any of the other services ordered and they continued to use drugs.
A. did not file a writ petition.
In November 2007, the juvenile court sustained allegations petitioner and A.’s drug use placed L. at a substantial risk of harm and set the dispositional hearing for the next month. However, the dispositional hearing was not conducted until June 2008 after several continuances. Meanwhile, L. was placed with her paternal cousin.
In January 2008, petitioner enrolled in a parenting class but was disenrolled after he entered inpatient drug treatment that same month. Consequently, he was placed on a waiting list for the next available parenting class. In April, petitioner completed the 90-day inpatient phase, reportedly having made good progress, and entered the 90-day outpatient phase. He also completed a domestic violence evaluation and was referred for anger management counseling. In addition, he and A. visited L. weekly under the supervision of L.’s caretaker who reported petitioner and A. were patient and loving with L. In March 2008, the juvenile court granted the department discretion to arrange unsupervised visitation.
In June 2008, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered L. removed from parental custody and ordered a reunification plan consisting of the same services already being offered by the department. The court set the six-month review hearing for July 2008. In July, petitioner completed the outpatient phase of his drug treatment program.
In July 2008, the juvenile court conducted the six-month review hearing and found the department provided reasonable services but that petitioner and A. made only moderate progress. The court continued services to the 12-month review hearing which it set for November 2008. The court also ordered petitioner and A. to remain active in their recovery either through Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings, a 12-Step program or an aftercare program, and to obtain a sponsor.
In November 2008, prior to the date set for the 12-month review hearing, the department filed a petition asking the court to resume supervised visitation because petitioner and A. were not complying with their reunification services. Neither parent had tested for drugs since mid-July 2008 and petitioner did not believe he needed to attend anger management classes. In addition, the department had arranged unsupervised visitation and they were not regularly visiting. The court granted the petition.
In November 2008, the juvenile court convened but continued the 12-month review hearing. On the day of the hearing, during a probation search of his home, petitioner was arrested for possessing and selling crystal methamphetamine and violating his probation. Petitioner and A. both admitted they were selling the drug from their home to support their own drug habits and for financial gain.
The 12-month review hearing was conducted as a contested hearing in February 2009 on the department’s recommendation the court terminate reunification services for both parents. Petitioner appeared in custody at the hearing and argued services were unreasonable because the department made no effort to provide him services subsequent to his arrest in November.
Petitioner called the social worker who testified she did not inquire of jail officials whether parenting instruction was available to petitioner or provide him any literature on parenting. Nor could she refer him for substance abuse treatment until his release. However, she said she always encouraged incarcerated clients to take advantage of any programs available to them. She said her last contact with petitioner occurred in January 2009 when she took L. to visit petitioner. However, she testified the department intended to make up any missed visits.
Petitioner testified he had been accepted into a year-long inpatient substance abuse program. In addition, he was scheduled to be sentenced the week following the 12-month review hearing and had signed a plea agreement that would allow him to be released into the program. In addition, petitioner stated he either signed up for or requested the services he knew to be available which included AA/NA meetings and parenting literature.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found petitioner was provided reasonable services and terminated reunification services as to petitioner and A. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends the juvenile court erred in finding he was provided reasonable services and requires reversal of the order setting the section 366.26 hearing. Specifically, he points to the department’s alleged failure to maintain reasonable contact with him after his incarceration, provide visitation as ordered, and ascertain what services were available to him. We find no merit to his claim of error.
Services are reasonable when the supervising agency identifies the family’s problems, offers services targeting those problems, maintains reasonable contact with the offending parent(s), and makes reasonable efforts to assist in areas where compliance is difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) To be reasonable, the services provided need not be perfect. The “standard is not whether [they] were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances.” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)
We review the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding for substantial evidence. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Petitioner has the burden of showing substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) On the facts of this case, as summarized above, we conclude petitioner failed to meet his burden.
L. was removed from petitioner’s custody primarily because of his substance abuse. In an effort to help petitioner reunify with L., the department provided him a full array of services, which the court extended to him over the course of a year starting from the detention hearing in October 2007. At no time prior to the 12-month review hearing in February 2009 did petitioner challenge either the substance of the services offered or the department’s efforts to assist him in complying. Moreover, during that time, petitioner successfully completed drug treatment and appeared to be on the road to reunification until he was caught using and selling methamphetamine and jailed. To now argue the department’s inability to continue providing the same services through the jail system renders services unreasonable is groundless for several reasons.
First, the department has no control over what services are offered in jail. Secondly, even if the department were remiss in not asking what services were available, its failure to ask did not disadvantage petitioner. He inquired on his own initiative and was participating in the services available to the extent that he could. Consequently, with respect to the services aspect of petitioner’s reunification plan, he fails to show that he was not provided reasonable services.
With respect to visitation, petitioner fails to show that the department was unreasonable in not arranging more than the one visit he received in January 2009. He fails to show, for example, that more frequent visitation was possible and the department unreasonably failed to make the effort. Further, he fails to show why making up the missed visits does not cure any perceived slight, especially in light of the undisputed bond he and L. share.
Finally, petitioner’s claim the department was unreasonable in not maintaining regular contact fails given the lack of evidence, as set forth above, that the department could have or should have done anything more. The bottom line, as we see it, is that petitioner was provided reasonable services and had ample time to complete them. He alone bears the blame for failing to reunify by continuing the behavior that necessitated the removal of his child.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.