Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. DP013518, DP013519 & DP013637, James Patrick Marion, Judge. Petition denied.
Juvenile Defenders and Donna P. Chirco, for Petitioner.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen, for Real Party in Interest.
Law Offices of Harold LaFlamme, and Harold LaFlamme, for the Minors.
O’LEARY, J.
J.H. (Mother) seeks extraordinary relief from the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services at the 18-month review hearing and referring the case to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing. Finding the petition without merit, we deny relief.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I
In May 2006, Mother’s two daughters, three-year-old, Ja.W., and one-year-old Ju.W., were detained. The petition alleged the children were living in unhealthy and unsafe conditions. The police received a report Ja.W. was eating Tide soap. The girls had insect bites, lice, and were dirty. Ja.W.’s teeth were rotten, and Ju.W.’s diaper was soaked with urine. The house smelled of natural gas, and the police called the fire department to look for a gas leak. Pornography and several sharp objects were within reach of the children. There were piles of trash and old clothes, but very little edible food. Mother was eight-months pregnant, but had not yet obtained perinatal care. She had an unresolved methamphetamine abuse problem. She used methamphetamine during her pregnancy and while being the sole caretaker for her daughters. The minors’ father was incarcerated. He had a lengthy criminal history and an unresolved drug addiction. He is not a party to this writ petition.
The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) had received several inconclusive and unfounded prior child abuse reports, which included allegations of general neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, and sexual abuse of the girls. The sexual abuse report was only a few days old, and was still being investigated when the girls were detained.
In June 2006, the new baby, D.W., was detained four days after his birth. He was born with congenital syphilis. His toxicology screen was negative, but Mother admitted using methamphetamine during the pregnancy. Mother stated she started using drugs at age 19, and her longest period of sobriety was two years. However, she told the Dependency Drug Court evaluator a different story, stating her longest period of sobriety was in 2002 for one year. Mother reported she was diagnosed with depression over six years ago. She had taken Zoloft, but stopped taking it when she became pregnant. She attempted suicide at age 15, and experienced panic attacks while pregnant. Mother had been unemployed since Ja.W.’s birth in 2003. Before that, her longest period of employment was one year. She was living with friends in a motel. She received Medi-Cal, food stamps, and cash aid. D.W.’s petition alleged Mother used methamphetamine while pregnant, and it also repeated the allegations stated in his sisters’ petitions.
Mother visited her daughters daily at the Orangewood Children’s Home (Orangewood). However, her visits became more sporadic in mid-June, when all three children were placed in a foster home. In June and July 2006, she had five visits with her children, and missed four visits. It was reported Mother was appropriate with her children, being playful and affectionate towards them. It was observed the girls responded well to Mother during visits.
In the July pretrial report, Mother denied most of the allegations, but she admitted using methamphetamine. She acknowledged the house was filthy, but claimed she had no other place to go. She did not know the children had lice “‘due to [her] poor vision.’” As for her drug usage, Mother claimed, “‘My kids come first. I know my limits. I will tend to my children even when I’m high. I smoke in a separate room or outside.’” She explained she relapsed when the minors’ father was arrested.
The social worker included an excerpt of the CAST (Child Abuse Service Team) interview with Ja.W. about the sexual abuse allegations. Ja.W. described how Karl, a friend of Mother, digitally penetrated her with a white pen he used in his Bible.
In August 2006, the social worker reported Mother continued to visit the children and called collect more consistently. Mother had attended a perinatal program, but had expressed confusion about obtaining mental health services. The social worker was unable to obtain more information from the mental health facility because Mother’s assigned case manager was on vacation.
After several continuances, the dependency hearing was heard in August 2006. The court sustained the petitions, finding the allegations true by a preponderance of the evidence. The court ordered reunification services for Mother. Her case plan required a suitable residence, general counseling, parenting classes, twice-weekly drug testing, and drug treatment.
At the end of September 2006, the social worker reported Mother had failed to make any progress with her services. She was not drug testing. She was habitually late to her visits and failed to take advantage of her twice-a-week visits. The social worker recommended visits be reduced to one time a week.
In mid-October, the children were returned to Orangewood. Their foster mother reported she was feeling overwhelmed with the added attention Ja.W. required because the three-year-old child was often rebellious and defiant.
On October 19, the social worker re-referred Mother to a perinatal program. Mother stated she no longer lived in Costa Mesa and she wanted to attend the facility in Fullerton that provided alcohol and drug abuse services as well as behavioral health services (to address dual diagnosis issues). Approximately one month later, November 10, 2006, Mother had not yet enrolled in the program, but claimed she was scheduled to meet the supervisor on November 13. The social worker waited until November 15 to call the facility and discovered there were no records showing Mother had enrolled.
On November 17, the social worker scheduled an appointment at the Fullerton facility for Mother, who later agreed she would attend. The social worker subsequently learned Mother went to the appointment and finally started the enrollment process. Mother was scheduled to complete the intake process on December 4. Mother had not yet drug tested, and all missed tests were considered positive.
In the report prepared January 2007, for the six-month review hearing, the social worker stated Mother had been homeless since late October 2006, and she was currently living with a friend. Mother did not know her friend’s last name and did not have a phone number to give the social worker. The social worker reported Mother failed to complete the intake process at the perinatal program in Fullerton. She missed her December 4, 2006, appointment. Mother had not yet drug tested. Mother stated she applied for jobs at Big Lots and Factory 2U in November 2006, but she was still unemployed as of January 2007. The social worker recommended termination of reunification services and for the court to schedule a permanency hearing.
The children had been in several different placements since being taken into protective custody. Three-year-old Ja.W. was described as a healthy, smart, and likeable girl. She got along well with the other children and staff at Orangewood. She smiled and laughed frequently. One-year-old Ju.W. was also in good health and without any developmental concerns. Ju.W. was crying less and adjusting more to her new placement. She enjoyed playing with her brother and sister and other children in the home. Six-month-old D.W. was reported to be a healthy and happy baby.
The children enjoyed positive, but infrequent visits with Mother. She visited only once in August, once in October, six times in November, and twice in December. She was over one hour late to visits twice in November.
During a visit in early November, the social worker observed Mother to be very affectionate with the children. D.W. would laugh and smile when Mother tickled him or kissed his belly and nose. Ju.W. liked to hear Mother talk to her as she would smile and try to repeat what was being said while laughing. Ja.W. played with the toys Mother had brought her and she hugged Mother. Throughout the visit, Mother told the children she loved them.
The hearing was continued to March 2007. In the social worker’s addendum report, she noted Mother had indicated she was attending the Fullerton drug treatment and mental health program. But when the social worker checked with the program at the end of February, she learned Mother was not a client because she failed to complete the intake process in December 2006. Mother had not submitted any drug tests. She had missed approximately 70 drug test dates since she was referred to Labcorp in July 2006. In February, Mother reported she had a job interview at Mimi’s Café. A local church was temporarily paying for her hotel room in Garden Grove. Since the last hearing date, Mother had five visits with the children and missed five visits. The social worker opined Mother continued to express an interest in reunifying with her children, but she had not shown a full commitment to her case plan.
On March 5, 2007, the court terminated reunification services and set a permanency hearing. The court granted funding for continued testing and counseling for Mother. She missed her visits with the children on March 7 and 9. However, a few days later, Mother enrolled in the perinatal program and began drug testing. In April, Mother gave the social worker her new address, but asked that it remain confidential.
In a report prepared in July 2007, for the permanency hearing, the social worker opined the children were adoptable and Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. The social worker credited Mother for consistently attending the perinatal program and testing negative since March. Mother, however, continued to be inconsistent in visiting her children.
When Mother visited, her daughters would often scream and jump to hug her. Mother usually brought gifts and she played appropriately with the children. Mother and the children were very affectionate with each other. She gave the children consequences for misbehavior. At one visit, the social worker noted she prompted Mother to interact more with D.W. so that he would not feel left out.
The children were placed with foster parents in early January 2007. The foster parents and the children had bonded quickly, and they wished to adopt. When the foster parents come to pick up the children from monitored visits, the children would scream in excitement, run to the foster parents, and then hug them. The children were described as being happy, adorable, and easy going.
The court continued the permanency hearing to August 20 to hear argument on Mother’s section 388 petition. Mother continued to have negative test results and was in the third phase of the perinatal program. Mother was still unemployed and was living with her boyfriend in a rented room. Mother did not know the names of the other tenants, or the last name of the owner. Mother stated she planned to apply for housing and Social Security Income (SSI) to support herself and the children.
On August 20, Mother filed a section 388 petition seeking return of her children or alternatively, additional reunification services. She claimed the prior orders should be modified because she had made significant progress in a “self-developed” case plan and the children shared a strong bond with her. She claimed to be in a position to reunify with her children.
All the parties agreed Mother should receive additional reunification services. The court ordered additional services and vacated the permanency hearing. Mother’s service plan was amended to require counseling after Mother completed the perinatal program. The court set an 18-month review hearing for December 20, 2007.
The next report to the court, prepared on October 15, 2007, stated Mother continued to test clean and was enjoying four hours of unmonitored visits with the children each week. She had applied for SSI and the Shelter Plus Housing. Mother’s counselor at the perinatal program reported Mother was doing well. Mother visits with the children were also positive. She arrived on time and was attentive to each child, reading books, bringing crafts, and food. Mother stated she planned to find a secure and stable living environment to have overnight visits with the children.
Meanwhile, the foster parents had become frustrated with the dependency court process. They did not want to prolong placement now that it appeared the case was headed towards reunification. They were willing to keep the children until they transitioned to a new foster home in November, and they agreed to participate in a pre-placement process to ease the transition.
The next report, prepared at the end of December 2007, noted Mother was going to graduate from the perinatal program and was testing clean. Mother rented one room in a home, which was paid for by a local church. She did not know the names of the other residents. SSA had not assessed the home. Mother began having unmonitored visits at the end of November. However, on her first unmonitored visit, Mother took the children to her residence to meet her boyfriend, who still was not live scanned. Mother claimed she did not know this violated the visitation rules. It was noted the children laugh and smile when Mother comes to pick them up, and they do not cry when she leaves.
Despite being given referrals for housing assistance and several job leads, Mother was still unemployed. The social worker opined, “The prognosis for reunification with the mother is poor as further progress is still needed before the children can be returned . . . and the current hearing is an [18]-month review hearing. Although mother has completed her perinatal program and has begun to test with clean results, the mother does not have a home for the children to return to her care. She has been looking for suitable housing for at least the past two months, but continues to reside in the one room she rents in a house which is paid for by a local church.” The social worker recommended services be terminated and for the court to schedule a permanency hearing.
The hearing was continued to January. In the social worker’s next report, the court was informed Mother graduated from the perinatal program and she was participating in the after-care program. She also continued to drug test with negative results. The social worker asked Mother in December and January for information about the people living with her so they could be live scanned. Mother had not provided the information. In addition, Mother had “not made herself available” for the social worker to visit her home. The social worker gave Mother a packet with over 50 pages of community resources to assist her with housing, financial assistance, and employment.
As for visitation, mother continued to enjoy four hours of unmonitored time with her children. The social worker noted visits had not increased because the other residents in Mother’s home had not been approved. It would be difficult for Mother, with her three very young children, to have longer visits without an approved residence for them to go.
At the hearing on January 30, the court asked Mother about her housing and job prospects. Mother stated her church and therapist were helping her with housing. Mother’s therapist had helped her apply for SSI, for which she had an appointment on February 8. The court continued the hearing to February 28. Mother had now received services for over 19 months.
In the February 28 addendum report, the social worker’s recommendation remained the same: terminate reunification services and schedule a permanency hearing. The social worker had made an unannounced visit during one of Mother’s visits with her children. The social worker reported their conversation was very confrontational. It started with the social worker expressing concern about Mother’s decision to smoke near her children, especially since Ja.W. suffered from asthma. Mother raised her voice at the social worker, accusing SSA of giving her a hard time and complaining about the location of the visit. When the social worker reminded Mother that she had picked the library, Mother asked if she could go to the park or someplace else. The social worker told Mother she needed only to notify her 48 hours in advance of any location she chose for the visit. The social worker asked Mother if she had obtained the names of the people she lived with so they could be live scanned for visitations to occur in Mother’s home. Mother raised her voice and stated, “‘I don’t have it! I’ve asked, but they’re not going to do it for me . . . .’” With respect to SSI, Mother reported she was evaluated over a week ago and she would be notified of the results in seven to eight weeks. Mother stated she would turn in that evaluation to the Shelter Plus Program for their consideration. Finally, the social worker noted in the report that Mother kept D.W. in his stroller, facing away from Mother and his sisters during their visit.
The hearing was continued to the end of March, pushing services past the 20-month mark. The addendum report prepared for that hearing stated the recommendation was the same. The social worker had again made an unannounced visit and spoke with Mother. As she approached the park, she saw five-year-old Ja.W. sitting with Mother, and one-year-old D.W. and two-year-old Ju.W. 30 feet away in the playground. The social worker noticed Mother did not look up or watch the younger children until after the social worker arrived. Mother did not play with the two younger children until after the social worker interacted with the children. The social worker noticed D.W. looked red from playing in the sun, but Mother stated she did not have any sunscreen for him. The social worker stayed for the rest of the visit after learning Mother experienced a seizure four days earlier. The hospital doctors did not prescribe any medication, but indicated Mother should rest because the seizure was “‘due to stress.’”
Two days later, the social worker visited the children in their placement home. When Ja.W. was asked how visits were going with Mother, Ja.W. responded, “‘momma hit me here, here, and here. . . .’” The child tapped her upper left and right arm and slapped her bottom. Ja.W. also stated Mother had slapped her sister, Ju.W. Ju.W. told the social worker, “‘I’m scared of momma. . . .’” Ja.W. also told the social worker she liked to smell her mother’s cigarette smoke during visits.
Mother had not yet provided the social worker with the names of the people at her residence to be live scanned. She had not secured a source of income or a stable living environment for her children. The children’s current caretakers indicated they would like de facto parent status.
The hearing was continued to April 1, 2008. In the corresponding addendum report, the social worker requested a 30-day continuance to allow Mother to move into a sober living home (the Collette’s Home). It was believed Mother could bring the children with her to this residence, but she did not yet have a move-in date. Mother would share an apartment with another family, and she would be required to maintain a job and save her income. Parents were allowed to live at the home between six to 12 months before transitioning to their own homes.
It was reported Mother’s visits were supervised again due to her recent seizure. The hospital discharge papers indicated Mother had a “syncopal (fainting) spell” due likely to a temporary shortage of oxygen or glucose to the brain. During a visit at the end of March, the social worker overheard Ja.W. ask Mother, “‘Momma, can I call Romey and Dan mommy and daddy?’” When Mother did not reply, Ja.W. stated, “‘. . . I know you’re my real mommy and they’re my fake mommy and daddy . . . I just want to call them mommy and daddy. . . .’” At the end of the visit, the girls told Mother they loved her.
At this point, both girls now required therapy. Ja.W. needed help to deal with her anxiety, grief, and inappropriate self-soothing and sexualized behaviors “‘due to a history of sexual abuse, neglect and numerous foster care placements.’” Ju.W.’s therapy was focused on her issues of anger, defiance, attachment, anxiety, and inappropriate self-soothing behaviors, such as eating non-food items, and smearing feces on her body and environment. A social worker for the foster family agency expressed concern about returning the children to mother because Ja.W. reported on several visits that Mother slapped Ja.W. and Ju.W. Mother denied slapping the girls. The social worker reminded Mother she could not hit the children to punish them.
The hearing was trailed from April 1 to April 2, and then April 7 and finally April 28. The next addendum report, prepared on April 28, informed the court Mother had moved into the Collette’s Home at the end of March, but there would be no room for the children until the end of May 2008. It was reported Mother had been consistent and compliant with the perinatal program’s after-care requirements. Her care coordinator, Johnnie Cooley, indicated Mother “was doing better and [was] not as angry as she was.” Mother was working on her issues, taking medication (Serogquel), and wanted to get her children back. Cooley opined Mother acted like a little girl and had no plan for when she got the children back. Mother expressed she did not feel she needed to take medication, and the coordinator questioned if she was taking her medicine consistently. Mother had missed six appointments with the Health Care Agency (HCA).
The hearing was continued to May 12, passing the 22-month mark of services to Mother. In the report prepared for the hearing, the social worker informed the court that Jade Smith from the Colette Home stated Mother was given a month to obtain a job in order to remain at the residence. She missed the deadline, but was given an additional two-week extension. The new deadline was May 16. Mother would not be able to continue living at the Collette Home unless she found employment.
The social worker spoke again with the children. Ja.W. stated her mother had hit her, which made her sad. However, Ja.W. also indicated she wanted to continue visits with her mother. Ju.W. was assessed by a school psychologist who determined she would not be eligible for special education services, but that Ja.W. would benefit from counseling to address “some psychological issues.”
The May 12 hearing was trailed to May 13, and on that day, the court admitted the SSA reports and ordered Mother to return on May 15. The next addendum report stated Mother was still not employed, but was interviewing at two different fast food chains. There was now space available at the Collette Home for the children. Mother reported her care coordinator denied saying what the social worker told the court in her last report.
The social worker noted that although Mother had shown improvement in some areas, she had not proven she would consider the needs of her children above her own. As an example, the social worker reported mother asked Ja.W. to come to a visit with her and miss a dance performance the child had been practicing for and looking forward to attending. Five-year-old Ja.W. was sad and crying, but agreed to go ahead with the visit after speaking to Mother on the phone. Ja.W. said she did not want to make her mother feel sad. Ja.W. refused to attend the next scheduled visit with her mother.
The hearing was continued one more day, and finally commenced on May 16, 2008. The social worker testified stating she recommended termination of services and for the court to schedule a permanency hearing because she had concerns about Mother’s: (1) lack of stable housing, (2) lack of income, (3) mental health issues, (4) past choices in friends, and (5) ability to raise all three children on her own. The social worker was asked several questions about the services offered to Mother. The social worker believed the perinatal program addressed Mother’s issues. She did not know what was discussed at Mother’s sessions there, and the social worker admitted she should have inquired about the goals of Mother’s therapy. The social worker stated Mother completed some parenting classes through the perinatal program, but she was considering a referral for additional classes due to the recent allegations of slapping. It was undisputed Mother successfully completed the perinatal program and had tested negatively since August 2007.
As for employment, the social worker stated she had given Mother information about upcoming job fairs and job offers at Target, as well as “a list of resources from the rainbow directory for appointment assistance and the number to 211 Info Link where she can call and ask for further community resources.” The social worker knew that staff at the Collette Home was providing Mother with job listings too. Mother had applied for SSI, but was still waiting for a response.
The social worker also provided Mother with many housing referrals. Mother chose to remain in the rented room of a shared apartment until March, when she entered the Collette’s Home. The social worker did not increase Mother’s visits after she moved, because she mistakenly thought she had to live scan all the residents there.
On May 20, Mother testified she was still actively looking for a job. Mother had discovered she was not eligible for SSI. Mother did not finish high school, and she did not have her GED. She received food cards and bus passes from Collette’s Home, but she would have to leave there if she did not have a job “by Thursday.” Mother stated that after finishing the perinatal program, the social worker stated she would get her a referral for additional parenting classes, but failed to do so. Mother stated she would benefit from additional classes. Mother was being treated for a bipolar disorder from Dr. Luce, and she took medication for depression. She was also receiving ongoing counseling with Cooley. Mother opined these services were helpful and she was mentally stable. Mother also spoke about how much she and the children enjoyed visits, and she described what they liked to do together. Mother admitted it could be challenging to parent all three children, but she disagreed with the social worker’s conclusion she was not up to the task. Mother stated she spent equal time with each child, and she believed they listened to her directions. She denied slapping Ja.W.
The court ordered SSA to provide a new report in one month (June 16), and recessed until then. The addendum report stated Mother had secured a part-time job at Pizza Hut. She was staying at a friend’s house, but she did not recall the exact address. Mother had to leave the Collette’s Home because she failed to find a job in time, despite being given two extensions. The social worker had given Mother a list of transitional homes, a list of low-cost housing locations, emergency shelters, free medical care, employment referrals, free groceries, and other community resources. Mother was also given referrals for parenting and counseling. The social worker referred Mother to low-cost medical locations, and encouraged Mother to get examined because the social worker believed Mother was pregnant. The social worker told Mother it was important to obtain perinatal care. The social worker reported she had observed Mother and the children during a recent visit. They played with toys and were affectionate with each other.
The hearing resumed on June 16, and Mother’s care coordinator, Cooley, testified first. Cooley stated her duties included individual therapy, case management, and helping Mother find a residence. Cooley had worked with Mother for approximately one year. Cooley reported Mother was in a severely depressed mood approximately one month ago, which was part of her bipolar diagnosis. She explained Mother acted like a little girl during her depressed mood, and suffered from impaired judgment and poor concentration. Cooley told the social worker she was unsure if Mother was consistently taking her medication because the depression continued longer than expected. Cooley stated that one week ago Mother came in without an appointment and they talked for 15 minutes. Mother expressed her mood had changed for the better as she was feeling powerful, hopeful, and responsible. Mother claimed she was making decisions and moving on with her life.
Ja.W. timidly testified next. She stated she enjoyed visits with her mother and she would like to see her more often than just on Fridays. She denied being slapped by Mother and stated Mother gave her a time out when she was misbehaving. When asked if she could live anywhere in the whole wide world, she stated she would like to live “[w]ith my mom.”
Mother’s new roommate, Amber A., testified they rent a two bedroom apartment and there was plenty of room for Mother’s three children. She had lived with Mother for almost a month, and Mother had not shown any signs of depression. Amber A. described Mother as always being in a good mood. Amber A. did not expect Mother to pay rent in July, but she would have to pay $500 in August. Amber A. worked in a detox facility, and she graduated from Dependency Drug Court in 2007. She met Mother in the perinatal program in 2007. Amber A. said she live scanned that morning and SSA had approved her house before her dependency case closed in February 2008.
Minors counsel next called Mother to testify, asking a few questions about whether or not she was pregnant. Mother stated she went to the doctor last week, and she was waiting for the results. Mother explained she went to the doctor because people were asking her if she was pregnant. Mother denied being severely depressed one month ago, claiming the depression ended eight or nine months ago. Mother stated she was ready to take the children home because she had a job and she had clothes, beds, toys, and food for them. She said she made $8 an hour at Pizza Hut, where she worked 15 hours a week. She expected her hours to increase next week to 35 to 40 hours a week. Mother stated she was on the waiting list for several housing programs, but she could not remember the names of them.
The court admitted an addendum report dated June 18. The social worker reported she spoke to Mother’s manager at Pizza Hut on June 17. The manger confirmed Mother was employed part-time and she could start full-time when she completed her training in approximately two to three weeks. The social worker also spoke to Ja.W.’s caretaker, who stated that during the car ride home from the court Ja.W. stated she did not tell the court about “‘mom hitting me’” because “‘I was scared that I’d get my mommy in trouble.’”
In the report, the social worker also was contacted by the Olive Crest Foster Family Agency social worker, Marilou Cruz, who relayed two conversations she had with Mother about the possibility of Mother being pregnant. In the first conversation, Mother asked Cruz if it mattered if the baby’s father was in rehab and had a “history.” In the second conversation, Mother stated, “‘. . . I’m working now so they can’t take my baby away.’” Mother told Cruz she was pregnant.
At the next hearing date, June 18, Cruz testified she often monitored Mother’s visits. Ja.W. had also reported to Cruz that Mother hit her. The child was reluctant to talk about the incident and she was worried about getting her Mother in trouble. Cruz never saw any marks or signs of abuse. She never saw Mother lose her patience or get angry during visits. Cruz repeated the two conversations previously reported on about Mother’s suspected pregnancy. Cruz stated she noticed Mother looked tired, she was careful not to carry the children, and she wanted to lie down more often during visits. Cruz opined it was clear Mother loved her children, but she had concerns about Mother’s ability to parent four children.
Before closing argument, the minors’ counsel asked the court to require Mother to provide proof she had gone to a doctor regarding her pregnancy. Counsel expressed concern about Mother’s veracity and her history of failing to receive adequate perinatal care. Mother’s counsel objected. The court concluded it could not force Mother to disclose what had occurred during a confidential doctor’s visit.
During closing arguments, both county counsel and minors’ counsel agreed Mother had made a great deal of progress, but nevertheless returning the children to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment to their physical and emotional well-being. The court agreed, concluding reasonable services had been provided. It noted the minor girls had some difficult issues to resolve, and all three children were very young and fragile. The court questioned whether Mother had the maturity or sound judgment to help and care for them properly. The court set a permanency hearing, but continued funding for the perinatal dual diagnosis program, parenting classes, and drug testing. Mother filed a timely writ petition.
II
“At the 18-month permanency review hearing the juvenile court either orders the return of a dependent child to parental custody or terminates reunification services and sets a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan pursuant to section 366.26. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); rule 5.720(c)(1) & (3).) ‘Absent extraordinary circumstances, the 18-month review hearing constitutes a critical juncture at which “the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children.” [Citation.]’ [Citations] [¶] As was true at the six-month and 12-month review hearings, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child to the physical custody of his or her parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being, the court must order the child returned. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); rule 5.720(c)(1).) ‘If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the [18-month] permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child . . . . The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian.’ (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) A finding of reasonable services offered or provided is not a precondition to ordering a section 366.26 hearing. [Citation.]” (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 306-307, fn. omitted; see also In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1788 [“The Legislature has determined that the juvenile court must embrace or forsake family preservation at this point by circumscribing the court’s options”].)
This court reviews the juvenile court’s ruling for sufficiency of the evidence. “Evidence sufficient to support the court’s finding must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be substantial proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case. Where, as here, a discretionary power is inherently or by express statute vested in the trial judge, his or her exercise of that wide discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. In the presence of substantial evidence, appellate justices are without the power to reweigh conflicting evidence and alter a dependency court determination.” (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 705, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
Mother argues the court erred in failing to return the minors to her care because substantial evidence did not exist showing the children would be at risk in her care. She argues there was compliance in all respects with the reunification plan, and her case is like Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738. In Blanca B., a different panel of this court recognized the easy cases in deciding whether it would be detrimental to return a child are “ones where there is a clear failure by the parent to comply with material aspects of the service plan. In Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763-764 . . ., for example, a mother continued to test positive for illegal drug use, continued to move from place to place, failed to “regularly” attend therapy, and failed to complete her parenting class. This was obviously enough to support a finding of detriment. [¶] The harder cases are, like the one before us, where the parent has complied with the service plan, but for some reason has not convinced a psychologist or social worker that it would be safe to return the child to the parent. The problem is not, as it were, quantitative (that is, showing up for counseling or therapy or parenting classes, or what have you) but qualitative (that is, whether the counseling, therapy or parenting classes are doing any good). These are sensitive cases, fraught with emotional overtones, because they invariably deal with an evaluation of the personality, character and attitudes of the parent.” (Blanca P., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1748, fn. omitted.) We disagree with Mother’s comparison. This is not a hard case.
Mother waited over nine months to enroll in a drug treatment program and waited 10 months before receiving counseling for her mental health issues. While we applaud Mother for kicking her drug habit, testing clean for over a year, and successfully finishing her perinatal program, her issues were far from resolved by the time of the 18-month hearing (which was in fact two years after detention).
Mother’s severe depression (a facet of her bipolar disorder) had been stable for only a few weeks. In two years, she could not find employment, but in the middle of the hearing she obtained a part-time job. In the past, she has depended on and lived with friends, boyfriends, a local church, and a transitional sober living home. At the time of the hearing, she was living temporarily rent free with a friend she met in drug treatment. She had no plans for child care when she worked, and she had no idea when, or if, she would receive full-time employment from Pizza Hut in time to pay her rent the following month. Her name is on a waiting list for transitional housing. As noted by the juvenile court, Mother was only “starting to turn it around[.]” There was substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion Mother’s recent transformation to a functioning adult may not be permanent, and there was a substantial risk she would again become overwhelmed and neglect these “fragile” young children. It is undisputed Ja.W. and Ju.W. were dealing with emotional issues that related to their difficult history with Mother, and also due to the length of time they have been waiting for their mother to put their needs before her own. There is no dispute Mother loves her children, but the evidence supports the court’s finding that in two years Mother has not proven she is able to take care of herself, let alone, for her three children.
III
Alternatively, Mother asserts the court erred in denying her additional reunification services because substantial evidence does not support the finding she received reasonable services. We disagree.
The court’s finding reasonable reunification services had been offered or provided to Mother is subject to review for substantial evidence. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010 (Mark N.).) “We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the department and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the order. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
“Family preservation is the first priority when dependency proceedings are commenced. . . . Reunification services implement the law’s strong preference for maintaining the family relationships if at all possible. Therefore, reasonable reunification services must be offered to a parent. The reunification plan is a crucial part of a dispositional order. The department must make a good faith effort to provide reasonable services responsive to the unique needs of each family. Moreover, . . . the plan must be specifically tailored to fit the circumstances of each family, and must be designed to eliminate those conditions which led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding. The effort must be made to provide reasonable reunification services in spite of difficulties in doing so or the prospects of success. The adequacy of the reunification plan and of the department’s efforts to provide suitable services is judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. . . . [T]he record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . .” (Mark N. supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1010 -1011, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to SSA, we find sufficient evidence it offered or provided reasonable reunification services to Mother. SSA properly identified Mother’s drug addiction as the first obstacle to reunification and referred her to a perinatal program. When it became apparent Mother also needed mental health care treatment, she received general counseling sessions in the perinatal program from Cooley. She also began attending the Health Care Agency, where she received medication and counseling from Dr. Luce. SSA also indentified Mother’s lack of housing and income as an obstacle to reunification. The social worker repeatedly provided referrals for housing and jobs. The social worker met with Mother monthly and observed many visits between Mother and the children. We conclude SSA properly identified the problems leading to loss of custody, offered relevant services to address those problems, and maintained regular contact with Mother. (Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1010-1011.)
Mother complains that when she graduated from the drug treatment program, the social worker failed to provide her with the additional parenting classes she requested. She argues the social worker failed to contact her treating psychiatrist or consult frequently with her care coordinator about the goals of her therapy. She believes the social worker should have asked the therapists to assist her with a perceived “disconnect” the social worker observed during visits between Mother and D.W. Mother also asserts the social worker should have increased her visitation beyond four hours. She points out the social worker was inexperienced, having worked less than two years at her job.
At the hearing, the social worker acknowledged she would have done some things differently with respect to monitoring Mother’s therapy. Had the social worker maintained better contact, she could have included more information in her reports and in her testimony. However, the record shows Cooley and Mother filled in the missing pieces of information at the hearing. As for visitation, the social worker explained it was difficult for Mother to visit beyond four hours because she never secured an approved home setting to take the children. The social worker explained that with nowhere to go other than the park, a mall, or the library, longer visits were not practical with three very young children. Moreover, Mother never requested more time with the children in any of her court appearances.
We would agree there were some minor snags with the services provided. But as aptly noted by one appellate court: “In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. 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. We conclude here the mother was provided with the assistance of numerous people and agencies and the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
Similarly, in this case we find the record supports the juvenile court’s conclusion SSA made a good faith effort to provide reasonable services. The court concluded, “I find reasonable services. I find that social workers have done a good job. They provided you with the information you need[ed]. They’ve even held your hand a number of times. It’s not perfect. But in this case I find it’s done. They did a credible job. They testified credibly. The reports indicate there were reasonable services.” Based on our review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court’s assessment the exceptional limited circumstances under which courts will permit services to continue beyond the 18-month statutory period are not present in this case. (Compare In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768 [no plan given to father]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205 [court found mother’s service plan a “disgrace”].)
IV
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., RYLAARSDAM, J.