Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Writ petitions to review order setting hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Stanley Genser, Juvenile Court Referee, Super. Ct. No. CK17467
Law Offices of Barry Allen Herzog, Ellen Bacon and Katherine Baca for Petitioner Jose G.
Law Offices of Katherine Anderson, Victoria Doherty and Lawren Cottles for Petitioner Rocio E.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Aleen L. Langton, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
ZELON, J.
Petitioners Jose G. and Rocio E. seek extraordinary relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights and implementation of permanent plans for their nine-year-old son Jo. G. and their two daughters, four-year-old E. G. and three-year-old Ja. G. We deny the petitions on the merits.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
The court also set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for Rocio E.’s 16-year-old daughter P. E., a half-sibling of the other children. Rocio E. does not challenge the setting order as to P. E.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March of 2004 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral alleging Jose G. and Rocio E. were neglecting the four children. Jo. G., who was not yet five years old, was morbidly obese at 160 pounds and was determined to be at high risk for diabetes, heart disease and sleep apnea. The Department opened a family maintenance case and began to provide family preservation services. Over the next several months the Department and various medical professionals scheduled numerous appointments for diagnosis, testing and treatment of Jo. G.’s condition, but Rocio E. and Jose G. consistently failed to take Jo. G. to the appointments, offering excuses of various sorts for their failure to cooperate.
As of 1996 Rocio E. had also failed to reunify with two older children and the children were adopted. P. E. also had been detained from Rocio E.’s custody but was returned to her in 1998 and juvenile court jurisdiction was terminated.
In February of 2005, at age six, Jo. G. weighed 200 pounds, regularly threw tantrums and used his size to intimidate his younger siblings. In order to quiet him down, Jose G. and Rocio E. gave him food. A physician stated Jo. G.’s obesity was not the result of a genetic or endocrine disorder and was likely caused by behavioral and environmental factors. The physician indicated the family home lacked the structured environment necessary for Jo. G. to lose weight and improve his behavior. Jo. G. reported that Rocio E. pinched him on the arm and pulled his hair. P. E. described an incident of domestic violence between Rocio E. and Jose G. P. E. was regularly absent from school and engaged in misbehavior. When the social worker visited the family home in March 2005, Jo. G. yelled obscenities at the social worker and exposed his buttocks, telling the social worker to “kiss it.”
On June 6, 2005 the Department filed a petition under section 300 to declare the four children court dependents. The court detained Jo. G. and P. E. and released E. G. and Ja. G. to Jose G. and Rocio E.
On June 20, 2005 the Department reported that Jo. G. was responding well to the structure at his group home and losing weight, but there were problems during and after his visits with Jose G. and Rocio E. Jose G. and Rocio E. brought fried and sugary foods for Jo. G. to eat during visits, and following the visits Jo. G. became agitated, verbally aggressive and destructive.
In reports for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing submitted July 12, 2005 the Department indicated Jo. G. was adjusting well to his group home, he continued to lose weight and his behavior had improved dramatically, although he was sometimes violent with other children and staff, especially after visiting with Jose G. and Rocio E. Jose G. and Rocio E. continued to give fried and sugary foods to Jo. G. during visits in disregard of nutritional directives from the social worker. During an unannounced visit the social worker found the family home to be dirty, full of clutter and without any beds. On July 12, 2005 the court ordered P. E. released to Rocio E. In a further report submitted August 4, 2005 the Department stated Jo. G. had lost 17 pounds since his placement in a group home two months earlier. Although Jo. G.’s behavior continued to improve, he became unruly and sometimes violent when Jose G. and Rocio E. were present.
On August 4, 2005 the juvenile court ordered Jo. G. transferred to a more appropriate placement with the structure to adequately address his behavioral problems, and ordered Jose G. and Rocio E. to participate in intensive services to learn appropriate parenting techniques for Jo. G. and to attend conjoint counseling focusing on developing effective parenting techniques.
In a report submitted September 30, 2005 the Department indicated Jo. G. was receiving nutritious meals and enjoying a regimen of daily exercise in his group home, and his behavior continued to improve. The Department had referred the family to an eight-week individualized program (Kidshape) staffed by experts who provide instruction on proper eating habits, how to make daily exercise fun, and how to form healthy life skills and develop self-esteem. Because the next Kidshape program would not begin until 2006, the Department substituted a six-session program, scheduled to begin October 15, 2005, designed to educate the family about nutrition, exercise and healthy living habits. At the last minute however the family was denied enrollment in the program because Jo. G.’s case was “too severe,” and after an unsuccessful search for a structured program the social worker put together healthy living materials from various sources and provided the materials to Jose G. and Rocio E.
On December 13, 2005 Rocio E. and Jose G. submitted the section 300 petition on the basis of the Department’s reports (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368) and the juvenile court sustained an amended petition alleging in part that Jo. G. had special and unique medical problems including being morbidly obese and discipline problems associated with his obesity; Jose G. and Rocio E. had been unable to adequately provide Jo. G. with the necessary medical treatment and appropriate discipline to deal with his obesity and discipline issues; Rocio E. had inappropriately disciplined Jo. G. by pinching him and pulling his ears; the parents’ conduct as to Jo. G. placed him and the other three children at risk of physical and emotional harm; and the parents placed the children in a detrimental and endangering situation by leaving them at home without adult supervision.
The disposition hearing was conducted over various sessions and a disposition plan was entered on February 1, 2006. The three girls were ordered to be placed in the home of Jose G. and Rocio E. under supervision of the Department with family maintenance services. Jo. G. was ordered suitably placed in foster care. The Department was ordered to provide reunification services to Jose G. and Rocio E. as to Jo. G. Jose G. and Rocio E. were ordered to participate in a parent education program, individual counseling to address case issues, conjoint counseling with Jo. G. as recommended by Jo. G.’s therapist, and family nutrition education. The court also ordered that Jo. G. undergo additional medical testing and analysis to rule out disease (Willi Prader Syndrome) as a cause of his obesity. The court granted Jose G. and Rocio E. unmonitored weekly visits with Jo. G.
In a progress report submitted March 3, 2006 the Department indicated Jo. G.’s behavior had improved dramatically in his group home, where he was eating a healthy diet and actively participating in exercise. The Department recommended that the court liberalize the parents’ visits with Jo. G. to unmonitored day visits. On March 3, 2006 the court granted the Department discretion to liberalize the parents’ visits to include overnight visits.
On March 21, 2006 the Department filed a subsequent petition under section 342 as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. alleging Jose G. and Rocio E. had a history of domestic violence, they were neglecting Ja. G.’s medical needs, and the family was residing in filthy conditions. In its detention report the Department stated the family was living in two rooms in a hotel. The social worker had visited the family and found the rooms messy and cluttered and furnished with mattresses lacking sheets and blankets. Large cockroaches infested the bedroom and bathroom and one wall contained several holes. Rocio E. blamed P. E. for the filthy conditions. P. E. reported that Rocio E. and Jose G. argued and Jose G. had hit Rocio E., most recently a week earlier. P. E.’s school counselor reported that P. E.’s teachers were “fed up” with her poor attendance and that Rocio E. had failed to respond to telephone calls from the school or to sign and return daily progress reports required for P. E. by the school. The Department further reported P. E. had stated that Ja. G. had recently had two or three seizures due to a high temperature, and that Rocio E. had instructed P. E. that if it happened again P. E. should shake Ja. G. to keep her awake and run to the hall to notify security. P. E. had also stated that a doctor had prescribed medication for Ja. G.’s seizures, but P. E. did not know how to administer the medication. Rocio E. told the social worker Ja. G. had only one seizure, she was taken to the hospital, no medicine was prescribed, and Ja. G. would likely continue to have seizures when her temperature got too high. The court ordered the three girls detained with monitored visits for Rocio E. with all three girls and monitored visits for Jose G. with E. G. and Ja. G.
Section 342 provides: “In any case in which a minor has been found to be a person described by section 300 and the [Department] alleges new facts or circumstances, other than those under which the original petition was sustained the [Department] shall file a subsequent petition. . . .”
On April 12, 2006 the Department reported that Rocio E. and Jose G. had been provided with family preservation services and had completed a parenting program, but they continued to demonstrate poor judgment and lack of commitment in caring for the children. Rocio E. and Jose G. had failed to follow through with Jo. G.’s medical treatment; P. E.’s school absenteeism and poor behavior had not improved; and Jose G. and Rocio E. had not enrolled in family counseling, individual counseling or nutrition education.
On May 5, 2006 Jose G. and Rocio E. submitted on an amended section 342 petition as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. on the basis of the Department’s reports. As sustained by the court the amended petition alleged Rocio E. had received services from the Department as to several children for the previous 11 years and Jose G. had received services for seven years; in March of 2006 Ja. G. had suffered a seizure due to a high fever; P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. were found to be living in a filthy home infested with cockroaches and were exposed to conflict between Jose G. and Rocio E. and to inappropriate language by Jose G. directed to Rocio E. and P. E. The court granted Rocio E. monitored visitation with P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. and granted Jose G. unmonitored visits with E. G. and Ja. G. The court appointed Armando de Armas, Ph.D. to conduct a psychological evaluation of the family (Evid. Code, § 730) and continued the matter to June 28, 2006 for the disposition hearing on the section 342 petition and the six-month review hearing on the section 300 petition as to Jo. G. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
On June 22, 2006 Dr. de Armas submitted his Evidence Code section 730 report, which was based on clinical interviews, observations and administration of several psychological tests. Dr. de Armas indicated all four children had special needs requiring considerable attention and special intervention, and Jose G. and Rocio E. were overwhelmed by the needs of the children. Specifically, Dr. de Armas stated Jo. G. had cognitive limitations and significant behavior problems including impulsivity and anger outbursts. P. E. was behind grade level in all major areas and suffered from depression, aggression, social withdrawal and conduct problems. E. G. was at risk for developing depression and social withdrawal, and both she and Ja. G. suffered from developmental delays. Jose G. had a very limited understanding of the needs of his children and was disgruntled with the dependency system and suspicious of the Department’s motives, which made it doubtful he could comply with the requirements of the court and the Department for any extended period. Rocio E. was defensive in personality testing, minimized her responsibility for the children’s problems, and was too personally disorganized to be able to comply with the treatment recommendations for the children and to monitor their progress.
For the six-month review hearing as to Jo. G. the Department reported that Jo. G.’s behavior continued to improve in his group home, he was eating healthy foods, and his weight had dropped to 170 pounds. Rocio E. and Jose G. were in partial compliance with their case plans, but had attended only one-third of Jo. G.’s nutritional appointments and had not yet enrolled in individual counseling.
On June 30, 2006 the juvenile court conducted the disposition hearing on the section 342 petition and the six-month review hearing as to Jo. G. The court ordered P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. suitably placed, ordered the Department to continue to provide reunification services, ordered Jose G. and Rocio E. to participate in interactive parent education and individual counseling, and granted Rocio E. and Jose G. unmonitored visitation with all four children. The court found that the Department had provided reasonable reunification services to Jose G. and Rocio E. as to all four children and continued the case to November 30, 2006 for the 12-month review hearing as to Jo. G. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)) and the six-month review hearing as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
In its report for the six month review hearing as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. and for the 12-month review hearing as to Jo. G. the Department indicated Jo. G. was exhibiting difficulty following the rules of his group home and had been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. were placed together in a foster home. Rocio E. and Jose G. were generally in compliance with their case plans and attending various programs, but had not yet begun family counseling and were struggling in implementing their newly acquired parenting techniques. The Department recommended the matter be continued for an additional six months with discretion to send the children home prior to the continued date. On November 30, 2006 the six-month and 12-month hearings were continued to January 9, 2007 for contested hearings.
On January 9, 2007 the court conducted the contested six-month and 12-month hearings. The court found the Department had provided reasonable reunification services and Rocio E. and Jose G. were in compliance with their case plans. The court continued the case to June 11, 2007 for the 18-month permanency review hearing as to all four children. (§ 366.22.)
In its report for the 18-month review hearing the Department indicated Jo. G. had made marked progress in his behavior, he was working hard and independently at school, and his weight had dropped to 150 pounds. E. G. and Ja. G. were doing well in their foster home. P. E. had been moved to a group home and continued to exhibit academic and attendance problems at school. Rocio E. and Jose G. remained in compliance with the juvenile court’s orders, were visiting regularly with the children and were eager to reunify with them, but they continued to struggle with implementing boundary-setting for the children. The Department recommended that P. E. remain in foster care and the other children be returned to Jose G. and Rocio E. with family maintenance services.
At the 18-month review hearing on June 11, 2007 the juvenile court released Jo. G., E. G. and Ja. G. to Jose G. and Rocio E. under the Department’s supervision, on condition the parents maintain housing and child care approved by the Department, meet the children’s emotional and educational needs, cooperate with the Department in receiving services, and comply with the treatment plan. The court also ordered Rocio E. to participate in individual counseling and Jose G. and Rocio E. to participate in conjoint counseling. The court continued the 18-month hearing as to P. E. to August 21, 2007.
The Department’s report for the 18-month review hearing as to P. E. included information regarding the current situation in the family home. Jose G. and Rocio E. had shown little compliance with the juvenile court’s orders to participate in individual counseling; they had not taken E. G. and Ja. G. to any sessions of an Early Childhood Program (ECP), to which they had been referred by the social worker to satisfy the conjoint counseling requirement; they were not properly supervising and parenting the children, who were unruly and lacked boundaries; Jo. G.’s weight had ballooned to 213 pounds and he was reverting to aggressive behavior; and the home was unkempt and again infested with cockroaches. Because Jose G. and Rocio E. had already received over 12 months of family preservation services and were no longer eligible for those services, the Department had referred the family to Wraparound/Systems of Care services.
The Department recommended P. E. be returned to Rocio E.’s custody, citing improvement in P. E.’s behavior and in her relationship with Rocio E.
On August 21, 2007 the juvenile court ordered the Department to file a section 387 supplemental petition seeking removal of Jo. G. from his parents’ custody and continued the 18-month review hearing as to P. E. for a contest. On August 24, 2007 the Department filed the supplemental petition, alleging Jose G. and Rocio E. had failed to ensure proper care for Jo. G. resulting in weight gain of 34 pounds, they had allowed an unrelated man who abused alcohol to have unlimited access to Jo. G., and the family home had previously been found to be in a filthy and unsanitary condition. In its detention report the Department stated the social worker had found the family home cluttered and infested with roaches; Jo. G. had a large untreated spider bite that had become infected; a man who was clearly intoxicated was present in the apartment of a woman who was currently babysitting Jo. G. and Ja. G.; and as of August 21, 2007 Jo. G. weighed 218 pounds. On August 24, 2007 the juvenile court ordered Jo. G. suitably placed, ordered the Department to provide family reunification services, and granted Jose G. and Rocio E. unmonitored visitation with Jo. G. on the condition they not take any food for Jo. G. to visits.
Section 387 empowers the juvenile court to change or modify a previous order by removing a child from the physical custody of a parent when it finds, after a noticed hearing, “facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child. . . .”
On September 26, 2007 the Department submitted its report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on the section 387 petition as to Jo. G. The Department advised that Jo. G. had lost 20 pounds since he was detained one month earlier, and noted his recurring pattern of losing weight while in out-of-home care and gaining weight under his parents’ custody. The Department further observed that despite receiving more than two years of reunification services as to Jo. G. and completing numerous programs, Jose G. and Rocio E. remained incapable of properly parenting Jo. G. and there were few options for additional services to aid in their ability to ensure Jo. G.’s safety and well-being.
On October 5, 2007 the juvenile court set the adjudication hearing on the section 387 petition as to Jo. G. for November 6, 2007 for a contest.
The court also ordered P. E. placed with Rocio E. on certain terms and conditions.
On November 6, 2007 the Department submitted a report for a section 364 home-of-parent review hearing as to E. G. and Ja. G. and an interim review report as to Jo. G. The Department reported E. G. and Ja. G. were exhibiting behavior problems. Rocio E. was attempting to comply with the court’s orders but was overwhelmed and struggling to meet the family’s daily needs. Jose G. was working long hours, was generally unavailable to parent the children, and had failed to enroll in counseling. Both parents continued to lack parenting skills to manage the children’s behavior. A clinician at Jo. G.’s group home had reported that when Rocio E., Jose G., E. G. and Ja. G. arrived at Jo. G.’s group for a visit the entire family appeared to be unbathed, E. G. and Ja. G. were barefoot, and E. G. was left unattended by her parents. During the visit, E. G. was actively jumping on chairs, the social worker repeatedly prompted Rocio E. to get E. G. off the chairs to prevent E. G. from hurting herself, and Rocio E. seemed to be unconcerned when E. G. jumped off a chair and hit her forehead on a glass window. Jo. G.’s therapist expressed concern that the parents’ visits with Jo. G. were unmonitored, observing that they generally visited during Jo. G.’s lunch time and provided him with excessive amounts of food. The Department recommended that the court terminate reunification services for Rocio E. and Jose G. as to Jo. G., stressing that Rocio E. and Jose G. had failed to benefit from the many services offered to them and had exceeded the 18-month statutory limit for reunification. The Department further recommended that E. G. and Ja. G. remain in their parents’ home. On November 6, 2007 the juvenile court continued the hearings to December 10, 2007. On December 10, 2007 the court continued the matter to February 28, 2008 for a contested section 364 hearing as to E. G. and Ja. G. and a contested adjudication hearing on the section 387 petition as to Jo. G.
On February 20, 2008 the Department submitted a report indicating the case manager at Jo. G.’s group home had reported that the family’s visits with Jo. G. had become problematic because “the kids beat each other up, [run off] by themselves, . . . throw their shoes on the roof, and the parents pay no attention to the kids whatsoever.”
The Department also reported that P. E.’s school performance was “dismal” since she was placed in the family home. Rocio E. had been unaware that P. E. was truant for one week and had been expelled from school.
On February 22, 2008 the Department filed a section 387 supplemental petition as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. based on the parents’ lack of compliance with programs since the children were returned home and Rocio E.’s failure to ensure P. E.’s school enrollment and regular attendance. In its detention report the Department cited the parents’ failure to comply with the juvenile court’s orders for counseling and conjoint therapy since the children were returned home; the continuing behavior problems exhibited by E. G. and Ja. G. and the parents’ failure to participate in programs addressing the behavioral issues; the parents’ continuing pattern of inappropriate parenting as reflected by the children’s poor behavior and the parents’ inability to control the behavior during visits with Jo. G.; and the parents’ lengthy history of noncompliance with the requirements of their case plans in previous cases and in the current case. On February 22, 2008 the juvenile court ordered all four children detained in shelter care with monitored visitation for Rocio E. and Jose G.
In a report submitted March 14, 2008 for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on the section 387 petition as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. the Department urged it was clear Rocio E. and Jose G. continued to show poor judgment and inability to adequately parent their children, demonstrating that they had failed to benefit from the extensive services provided to them over a period of many years. The Department argued that it was clear the previous disposition had not been effective to protect the children, and recommended the three children be committed to the custody of the Department for suitable placement without reunification services for Rocio E. and Jose G.
The contested hearings on the section 387 petitions as to Jo. G. and as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. were conducted over three court sessions on May 13, 2008, May 14, 2008 and June 2, 2008. Candis Nelson, the social worker assigned to the case from December 2004 until December of 2007, testified Rocio E. was ordered to participate in individual counseling and conjoint counseling at the discretion of the children’s therapists when P. E. and E. G. and Ja. G. were returned to her and Jose G.’s custody on June 11, 2007. As of that date Rocio E. was participating in conjoint counseling with P. E. and in the ECP with E. G. and Ja. G. Rocio E. did not participate regularly in the ECP after June 12, 2007, and thereafter there were escalating problems with the behavior of E. G. and Ja. G., Rocio E.’s supervision of the children, the cleanliness of the home and the cleanliness of the children. Nelson further testified that the filing of the section 387 petition as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. was triggered by a combination of the escalating issues set forth in the Department’s various reports, principally involving the children’s behavior problems (cursing, ignoring the parents’ warnings and directives, and engaging in physical violence) and the parents’ inability or unwillingness to properly supervise the three children. Nelson further testified Rocio E. had attended just two conjoint counseling sessions with P. E. and Jose G. had attended only one session. Rocio E. had given various reasons for missing ECP sessions.
The ECP therapist, Michelle Estrada, testified she had provided therapy for E. G. and Ja. G. since May of 2006 and Rocio E. had participated since June of 2006. Rocio E. made progress in the therapy and there was growth in her attachment to the children. Rocio E. was cooperative in therapy and the children were appropriately dressed when Rocio E. brought them to therapy sessions. Rocio E. missed eight therapy sessions between November 2007 and February 2008 and had previously missed approximately 20 sessions between June 2006 and November 2007. Jose G. did not attend any conjoint therapy sessions. Estrada had also referred the family to the Full Service Partnership, a “last resort” program that provides intensive in-home services.
Jose G. testified he had participated in individual counseling but could not remember the dates. Jose G. also testified he had given social worker Nelson a letter from his therapist indicating he completed his counseling, and thereafter Nelson did not tell him he needed additional counseling.
No such letter was attached to any of the Department’s reports and neither Jose G. nor his counsel had a copy of the letter as of a date of the hearing.
Rocio E. testified Nelson never told her she needed to re-enroll in individual counseling when her daughters were returned to her in June of 2007 and did not give her any further referrals for counseling. Rocio E. testified P. E.’s school never informed her that P. E. was not attending school, and she first learned of P. E.’s failure to attend school when she came to court; she was never given a plan to follow in order to help Jo. G. maintain his weight when he was returned to her care, and she felt that Jo. G.’s weight gain of 34 pounds in two months while he was in her care was caused by “anxiety to eat when he eats food;” Nelson told her she would refer Jo. G. to therapy to teach him to eat more slowly but did not follow through. Under cross-examination, Rocio E. testified she had told a nutritionist that Jo. G.’s weight gain was due to his getting seconds at mealtime.
At the conclusion of testimony and after hearing closing arguments, the juvenile court sustained an amended section 387 petition as to Jo. G. alleging he had special and unique medical problems including morbid obesity and Rocio E. and Jose E. failed to ensure his proper care resulting in a weight gain of 34 pounds since returning to their custody two months earlier, placing Jo. G. at risk of physical and emotional harm. The court also sustained an amended section 387 petition as to P. E., E. G. and Ja. G. alleging in part that Rocio E. and Jose G. failed to attend court-ordered individual counseling, Early Childhood Education and conjoint counseling with P. E., E. G. and Ja. G., endangering the children’s physical and emotional health and safety. In making its findings the court discounted all of Rocio E.’s testimony as not credible, and observed that despite the extensive services given to them over many years Rocio E. and Jose G. had not learned how to set limits for the children. The court proceeded to deny further reunification services to Jose G. and Rocio E., observing that “[t]hey’ve received more services than any family I think I ever had in this court” but had “not benefitted whatsoever from all the years and years of treatment they’ve received. . . .” The court proceeded to set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for all four children.
CONTENTIONS
Rocio E. and Jose G. contend there was not substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that the previous disposition had not been effective to protect E. G. and Ja. G. and thus to sustain a true finding on the section 387 petition as to E. G. and Ja. G. (§ 387, subd. (b).) Jose G. also contends there was not substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and its decision to remove E. G. and Ja. G. from the custody of Rocio E. and Jose G. Rocio E. contends the juvenile court should have exercised discretion to extend reunification services as to Jo. G. beyond the 18-month statutory limit for reunification.
DISCUSSON
1. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Jurisdictional Findings and Dispositional Orders as to E. G. and Ja. G.
The “jurisdictional fact” necessary to place a child in a more restrictive placement pursuant to section 387 is that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1460.) We find substantial evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s finding that the previous home-of-parent disposition was not effective in protecting E. G. and Ja. G. (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1200.) As set forth above, the evidence shows that Rocio E. and Jose G. initially demonstrated an inability to control the behavior of their children and to meet their children’s emotional and educational needs. Participation in individual and conjoint counseling was a critical component of the treatment plan developed by the Department to assist Rocio E. and Jose G. in developing the ability to properly parent the children. The record further shows that when E. G. and Ja. G. were returned to Rocio E. and Jose G. at the 18-month permanency review hearing on June 11, 2007 both parents were specifically ordered to participate in counseling. During the ensuing two months Jose G. and Rocio E. showed little compliance with the orders to participate in individual counseling, failed to participate regularly in ECP, demonstrated inability to manage the deteriorating behavior of E. G. and Ja. G., and were again keeping the home in an unsanitary condition and infested with cockroaches. There was thus substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding the previous disposition had not been effective in protecting E. G. and Ja. G. (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 460.)
When we review the juvenile court’s findings under the substantial evidence standard we inquire only whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.)
The record also contains ample evidence to support the court’s decision to remove E. G. and Ja. G. from their home-of-parent placement. The applicable standard for removal of E. G. and Ja. G. from the custody of Jose G. and Rocio E. is found under section 361, subdivision (c)(3). (In re Javier G., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 462.) This provision requires a finding that the child is suffering severe emotional damage and there are no reasonable means to protect the child’s emotional health without removing the child from the physical custody of the parents. As set forth above, the record in the case shows that from the time E. G. and Ja. G. were reunified with Rocio E. and Jose G. on June 11, 2007 they became increasingly unruly, exhibited a lack of boundaries, did not respond to the parents’ directions, used foul language, and engaged in physical violence and other dangerous behavior. This rapid and significant decline in the behavior of E. G. and Ja. G., the unsanitary condition of the family home, and the unbathed condition of E. G. and Ja. G. when they visited Jo. G. demonstrates that E. G. and Ja. G. were suffering emotional damage from which they could only be protected by removing them from the custody of Rocio E. and Jose G. Despite the diligent efforts made by the Department to preserve the family unit, as set forth above, as of June 2, 2008 the evidence was unassailable that E. G. and Ja. G. could not safely remain in the custody of Jose G. and Rocio E.
2. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Declining to Extend Reunification Beyond the Statutory Limit as to Jo. G.
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to exercise discretion to extend reunification services beyond the 18-month statutory limit as to Jo G. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), par. 3, 366.22.) The cases in which appellate courts have ruled reunification services may continue beyond the 18-month statutory period have involved truly exceptional circumstances, involving some external factor that thwarted the parent’s efforts at reunification. (See, e.g., In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777-1778 [no reunification plan was ever developed by the Department for the father]; In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 [mother was hospitalized during most of the reunification period, and after her release the Department attempted to restrict visitation]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1209, 1212-1214 [the Department’s reunification services for the father were a “disgrace”].)
This is not even close to the sort of extreme case of dereliction by the Department that might warrant extension of reunification services beyond the 18-month statutory limit. By the time of the hearing on the section 387 petitions Jose G. and Rocio E. had received several years of reunification services as to Jo. G. The record shows that during the entire pendency of the case the Department provided Jose G. and Rocio E. with extensive reunification services. The record further shows Jose G. and Rocio E. were generally uncooperative with the Department’s efforts and, as a result, by the time the case reached the statutory limit the conditions that resulted in Jo. G.’s dependency status continued to exist. The record thus fully supports the juvenile court’s determination Jo. G.’s welfare and his need for permanence and stability overrode any claim by Rocio E. and Jose G. to additional reunification services. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.)
DISPOSITION
Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order to conduct a hearing pursuant to section 366.26, the petition is denied on the merits.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., JACKSON, J.