Opinion
A150144
03-28-2017
Joy M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent; SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT et al., Real Parties in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 4580-DEP)
Petitioner Joy M. (mother) is the mother of S.H. (minor), now almost six years old. In 2015, the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition because of minor's parents' failure to adequately protect him. At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered termination of mother's family reunification services and the scheduling of a section 366.26 hearing. Mother petitions for a writ mandating this order be vacated because, first, she substantially complied with her case plan and the Department did not show a substantial risk of detriment to minor if he were released to her custody and, second, the court should not have terminated her reunification services because the Department did not provide reasonable services. We disagree and deny mother's petition.
All statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2015, the Department filed a petition alleging that minor, then three years and 10 months old, came within section 300, subdivision (b) because of his parents' failure to protect him adequately. The Department alleged that minor's father, Mark H. had not provided a safe living environment for him after father engaged in a violent argument with a neighbor while under the influence of medication and alcohol, which led to father's arrest, and that father had a substance abuse problem that interfered with his ability to provide minor with adequate care and supervision. The Department alleged that mother had failed to protect minor by allowing father to continue to smoke marijuana in minor's presence, placing minor at substantial risk of harm.
Father has not petitioned this court. We discuss him only as needed to consider mother's petition.
Minor was removed from father's home in Healdsburg, California, detained and eventually placed in foster care. According to the Department, at the detention hearing, mother, then 27 years old, "stated she was unable to care for [minor] and too much was on her plate. She later "had a change of heart and stated she wanted to care for her son."
In its initial reports, the Department wrote that mother and father had met in a homeless shelter, had married and divorced, and were not together. Mother said father had mentally abused her and threatened physical abuse. In 2012, she recalled, sheriffs had arrested father for child endangerment, and she also said they had been kicked out of a housing program because of his marijuana use.
Minor, then almost four years old, was living with father at the time of his detention. He was anemic, would not eat solid foods and was not toilet trained. He had an individualized education program (IEP) and was in a special education preschool program. He "demonstrated global delays in all areas of his development except gross motor skills," and a doctor had diagnosed him as having "unspecified developmental delay." He did not speak at times and there was concern he had an anxiety disorder known as "selective mutism." He was "very uncomfortable when he saw his father for their visit."
Mother said she had joint custody of minor and three days a week of visitations. As of March 2015, she had not seen minor since May 2014 and contended father had kept minor from her. She lived with friends in Sonoma, was trying to find housing in Santa Rosa and worked 25 hours a week as an In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider for her mother. She wanted to save money, get housing, and participate in any services that would help her care for and protect her son.
Mother also said she was schooled at home in Santa Rosa throughout high school and graduated early. She was in a special "RSP" program from first through third grades, and was in a special education class in fourth grade. She said she had seen a therapist for about a year after separating from father, and did not have any mental health or substance abuse history.
The Department worried that mother did not "fully understand the commitments it takes to be a mother." She did not "appear to be motivated to organize her life to make it conducive to parent," and had not reestablished her relationship with minor. It recommended family reunification services and a case plan for her, which included that mother show she could provide adequate care for minor's special needs; obtain and maintain a stable and suitable residence for them; participate in counseling with a therapist; complete a series of parenting sessions and use what she was taught; cooperate with the Department's social worker; accept all referrals; work with a resource worker regularly; and follow housing recommendations.
The court found the petition allegations were true, took jurisdiction over minor and adopted the Department's services and case plan recommendations.
II.
The Six-Month Review
In its September 2015, six-month status review report, the Department reported that minor was in a foster home. He had been diagnosed with anorexia and allergies, and had started to eat pureed baby food daily and during father's visits. He had begun to eat some other soft foods and had gained five pounds in foster care. He was still resistant to potty training and eating solid food.
Minor's foster parents and his special education teacher said he was functioning more like a two year old, including in his speech and tantrums, but his foster parents said his speech had improved greatly in recent months. Minor had not participated in a mental health evaluation, but the Department thought it was "highly likely" that his concerning behaviors had an underlying psychological cause.
The Department reported mother had participated in two special education meetings regarding minor before permitting the foster parents to enroll him in a private preschool. She was visiting minor, with mixed success. She initially took a passive role in visits, but had become "much more actively involved playing with [minor]" with the help of a parenting educator. She did not bring food or feed minor the puree supplied by his foster parents because, she said, minor indicated he was not hungry. She changed minor's diapers, but sometimes returned him to his foster parents with a wet, soiled diaper. She had participated in weekly parenting sessions, had started to bring fun and educational activities for minor on her visits, and had sought advice from the parenting educator after minor had thrown tantrums.
Mother had been slow to pursue a number of aspects of her case plan. She continued to live with friends and care part-time for her mother, getting by on "a very limited income." She had met with a resource worker who helped her fill out and submit a county aid application; she had picked up one resume from a local business but had not completed it; she had been referred to a resource program to help her look for work, but had not made an appointment; and she was agreeable to attending Santa Rosa Junior College to obtain her GED, but had not enrolled. She said she was busy caring for mother, attending visits with minor, and that she had experienced a significant amount of stress. She had had a few recent asthma attacks and her doctor told her to " 'take it easy' "; also, her anxiety from a 2013 assault at the Santa Rosa bus depot limited her use of public transportation. The Department had offered mother weekly therapy services, but she said she already had a therapist, whom she had seen four times in about four months.
Mother had also resisted the Department's referral to the North Bay Regional Center for an assessment, made because she "had an IEP throughout her time in school and received Special Education services." Mother would not go there because, she said, one of her housemates had had problems with one of the Center's case workers in the past. She said she preferred to be assessed at Santa Rosa Junior College, but she had not arranged an assessment there.
The Department thought that mother, given her special education background, limited education and "inability to follow through" on some of her case plan goals, had "cognitive delays that may render her unable to make the necessary changes that would enable her to have [minor] in her care." Nonetheless, it recommended continuing reunification services for mother. The court adopted this recommendation.
III.
The 12-Month Review
In its March 2016, 12-month review report, the Department reported minor was attending preschool, had an IEP and was receiving speech and occupational therapy services. He had made "substantial progress," but still had feeding issues. According to his teacher, he was emotionally " 'very fragile' " and required a lot of attention. He sometimes had tantrums and became noncompliant, but still worked hard for positive attention. His foster parents reported he had "very well-developed pro-social behavior in terms of playing with other children," but was sometimes "possessive of objects or adults' attention." He was very interested in books and reading and, one observer said, had " 'increased his developmental age by several years within a few months of being in the foster home.' "
The Department reported minor had completed a feeding study and was found to have a feeding problem, not a swallowing problem. His foster parents had greatly increased the diversity of foods he ate by insisting that he taste at least one bite of a number of different foods at one time. He continued to rely on PediaSure, but his foster parents reduced his intake of it. He resisted eating solid foods immediately after each visit with father. He also had had extensive dental problems, which were probably related to his PediaSure consumption.
Minor still had frequent tantrums, but his "periods of disruptive behavior decrease[d] with a consistent schedule." He had gained the ability to carry on two-way conversations, enjoyed singing and was proficient in explaining how he felt, although he regressed in his speech after his father was incarcerated and their visitations were interrupted. He was almost completely potty-trained, but frequently wet his pants after visits with father and with mother.
The Department reported that mother's own mother had passed away in October 2015 and mother was now unemployed, had no source of income and received only government assistance. Mother said that since her mother's passing she rarely had asthma attacks and had less anxiety, which her therapist corroborated. Mother had participated in four in-person counseling sessions with her therapist during the reporting period, and did not need psychotropic medication for her anxiety. She had rescheduled "many appointments" because of issues related to transportation and her mother's passing. She also had worked on relaxation techniques with her parent educator.
Mother had been cooperative in certain aspects of her case plan. She signed consents for release of information from providers and had excellent attendance at the majority of the services to which she was referred. However, she had "failed to demonstrate follow-through necessary to complete developmental and educational assessments." She still had not visited the Santa Rosa Junior College Disabilities Office despite repeatedly stating that she would go there " 'next week.' " Only after the Department indicated it would recommend terminating her services did she reconnect with a resource worker to request assistance in filing out the college's disabilities program application, but she had not contacted a physician as required to complete it.
Throughout the reporting period, mother had visited minor for one hour twice a week, which visits were now loosely supervised. She ensured minor's physical cleanliness and engaged him in conversation, but was "described as somewhat more physically and emotionally distant from [minor] during visits."
According to the Department, mother's "largest obstacle remains precisely the same as at the time of [minor]'s removal." She had not secured income necessary to move to suitable housing, applied for General Assistance, or completed the application for special needs testing at Santa Rosa Junior College, as she had been "unable to successfully fill out the forms, even with multiple sessions partnering with [an] experienced Resource Worker." Wrote the Department, "Because [minor's] special needs require an enormous amount of coordination among service providers, it will be necessary for his caregivers to be able to demonstrate excellent follow-through and task persistence." The Department did not think there was a substantial probability that continued services would enable the safe release of minor to either parent's custody and recommended their termination.
A contested 12-month review hearing was held in May 2016. Mother presented two witnesses. The first, a parent educator, testified that mother was always on time, never missed a session, and had completed the parenting program in 2015. However, mother did not hug or hold minor without minor prompting her, even after 24 sessions with the educator. The second, mother's therapist, testified that she had seen mother nine times over the past year to address symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, and mother had used the basic techniques they had discussed. Mother had experienced a number of stressors, including her mother's passing, and had maintained where she was when she began. The court terminated reunification services for father, but continued them for mother.
IV.
The 18-Month Review
A. The Department's Report
In its August 2016, 18-month review report, the Department wrote that minor's PediaSure prescription had been increased after he had lost weight. His doctor thought minor's foster parents were doing a " 'great job of encouraging nutrition,' " and minor's range of foods was improving.
Minor was starting kindergarten at a new school soon. IEP specialists designated him as "emotionally disturbed" because he was " 'extremely sensitive,' " had " 'anxiety about things being the same,' " and his day was controlled by his not getting what he wanted. He was using more words for his feelings, but required an adult to help him work through his frustrations. He had many fears about trying new things. When he did try and became frustrated, he would throw or break an object. He usually played by himself and "yell[ed] at other kids if they touch[ed] his toys.' " He was receiving special academic instruction, speech and occupational therapy, and had been accepted into a special therapeutic kindergarten program.
Minor was wetting his pants three days a week in school, but his foster parents said during the summer he had only done so while sleeping. They planned to transition him from diapers to pull-ups. His eating habits remained problematic. He had continued to make progress on his speech, to the point that he was no longer considered to have a speech impairment at school.
Minor had recently transitioned to a prospective adoptive home and had "displayed positive affect" there. The Department reported, "The prospective adoptive mother worked as [minor's] behavioral assistant at his school, so she has an intimate knowledge of [minor's] most intense behaviors and emotional reactions . . . . [Minor] is happy in his new home and frequently engages in affectionate hugs, cuddles, and kisses with his new caregivers."
Mother continued to live with friends in Sonoma. She had completed testing through the Santa Rosa Junior College Disabilities Office and was planning to meet with a disabilities specialist soon to review the results of her testing. Afterwards, a specialist would assist her in scheduling classes.
Mother reported she was not working well with the parenting resource worker she had been referred to, so she was given a new referral. She met with this new resource worker four times before changing her phone number and did not provide the worker with updated contact information. The new resource worker reported that mother was "very resourceful," but had "a hard time going through with the task." Together, they had filled out housing applications but had not sent them in because mother did not have enough income to qualify for wait lists. Mother said she had applied for a county section 8 housing waiting list, but the agency did not have her listed in its system; after the worker told mother to sort this out by a specific date, mother did not contact her again and her phone was not in service.
The resource worker further reported that she had gone over with mother different ways to comply with her case plan, but mother had not followed through with them. Mother had said she would complete tasks related to finding employment, but was "resistant" to doing so. She had posted one advertisement for her IHSS services online, but had not reached out to a specific program or temporary employment agency, and had not completed a resume or cover letter. She sometimes did not respond to the worker's attempt to contact her and was late for most of their appointments. She had not applied for General Assistance either, offering multiple reasons for delaying her application and saying on "many" occasions that she would " 'go in tomorrow.' " "Due to not following through with tasks that need to be done," she did not have enough income to obtain suitable housing.
Mother reported going to two therapy sessions in the reporting period. She said her anxiety had been " 'on and off a little bit' " due mostly to her stressing about school. Her anxiety did not appear to be impacting her parenting during her visits with minor, but the quality of these visits was "average." She fed minor granola bars and some yogurt, but had not assisted in expanding his repertoire of acceptable foods, failing in the efforts she had made. She played with minor, but while waiting to enter the visit area with him she almost always focused on her phone. Minor's foster parents and mother's parent educator "noted a distinct lack of physical affection between the two." Also, mother had brought people to see minor who had upset him. One repeatedly asked him if he missed his father and another facilitated a phone call between minor and father, which mother allowed to occur. Father told minor that minor would soon be living with him when he was released from jail. This confused and set back minor, who had increased tantrums for several days.
The Department concluded that although mother had said she would " 'fight tooth and nail to the end' " to reunify with minor, she had "not succeeded in making life changes that would enable her to have [minor] in her home," including because of her frequent failure to complete agreed-to tasks and her allowing father to talk to minor on the phone during a visit, as she "seemed to lack understanding regarding how this could be upsetting to [minor] and thus why it would be inadvisable." Further, minor was "a very high-needs child" who likely would "require specialized services both at school and at home for years to come," which mother had demonstrated she could not support. The Department recommended mother's reunification serves be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set for minor.
B. Mother's Therapist's Progress Report
In a November 2016 progress report, mother's therapist wrote that mother had attended four therapy sessions between May and November 2016, and had another session scheduled for December 8, 2016. Also, mother had said that, although she was "fearful about living in a shelter," she was on wait lists at "a few different shelter programs" and was "working on" her "willingness" to live in a shelter on behalf of her son.
C. The 18-Month Review Hearing
At the contested 18-month review hearing on December 2 and 9, 2016, the Department's social worker testified that mother's recent visits with minor had been problematic. Minor had ended one after only about 20 minutes. At the next visit, he "did not seem particularly comfortable," played separately from mother for about 40 minutes, and started to make a low, moaning sound. When mother asked him what was wrong, he turned away from her and eventually said he wanted to end the visit, which ended about a half hour early as a result. Neither mother nor minor initiated physical contact at the beginning of their visits, but minor was very affectionate with his foster adoptive mother.
The social worker also testified that mother had used poor judgment one visit by feeding minor four granola bars, which led to his vomiting on the way home. She had concerns about mother's ability to safely supervise and care for minor, which, she said, was why mother's visits continued to be supervised. The social worker thought mother had not made substantial progress in her case plan, including because mother had not followed through with applications for various services to which she was referred. The social worker recommended the termination of mother's reunification services.
Mother's resource worker testified that her communications with mother had improved after some initial problems. Mother said she was now employed, but the worker had not verified it. She had helped mother fill out various applications, but had put a housing application on pause because mother did not have enough income. The worker did not know if mother had followed through on various applications, but thought she was now doing "a lot of follow through with some—her actions."
Mother also testified. She acknowledged that minor had a "meltdown" at a recent visit, but said she was working to implement what she had learned from her parent educator and learning to better manage minor's meltdowns. She was no longer giving him granola bars, and he ate apple sauce and apple cinnamon cheerios. She was attending his IEP meetings and helping him with his motor skills.
As for other aspects of her case plan, mother said she had recently been hired for an IHSS job that she had found through social media, although she did not know how many hours she would be working. She had participated in special needs testing at Santa Rosa Junior College and was in a disabilities resource program learning to better organize herself. She admitted losing paperwork for her General Assistance application in the past. She did not have stable permanent housing, but said that if minor were released to her custody, they could live with her godmother until they were accepted into a family shelter.
Counsel then presented argument. The Department's counsel argued for termination of mother's reunification services. Counsel contended that in the 21 months since the petition was filed mother had not completed her case plan and had not participated regularly and made substantive progress. "One of the key elements of this case was for her to find a place to live and to do something to accomplish that," counsel said, but despite receiving "multiple supports" to improve her living situation, she had done "very little and very late to make that happen."
Also, said the Department's counsel, mother's efforts to find work had been "exceptionally slow," her recent employment was "something that seems extremely limited . . . and there's no evidence that she could have work that would allow her to have a home." Mother's junior college work had come "at the very tail end," and she had yet to attend classes. Counsel continued, "it's all postponed and delayed, and we have a little boy who has very high needs, who can't wait for someone to maybe get things together. He needs security. She, herself, is taking baby steps to take care of herself, but right now she has some difficulty doing that."
Further, mother had a "lack of connection" with minor, despite lots of instruction. She continued to seem too "paralyzed" to sufficiently reestablish her relationship to minor. Her visits were still supervised, and her allowing the father to talk to minor by phone showed "really poor judgment."
Minor's counsel also asked the court to terminate mother's reunification services. He argued that "given [minor's] extreme needs, the constant need for some kind of treatment, . . . [mother] just may not be able to do it. . . . [S]he just forgets paperwork and she needs prodding. But you need more than prodding to keep an appointment with [minor] who . . . has a lot of problems right now." "[I]n the totality of facts, [mother] has not made substantive progress."
Mother's counsel urged the court to use its inherent authority to continue mother's reunification services with the goal of having and evaluating "real-life" visits between her and minor, and pending approval of better housing. Counsel argued the Department had not shown it would be detrimental to minor to be released to mother's custody. She emphasized mother's recent progress, including her work at the junior college, her obtaining employment and her recognition that she needed to learn to better manage herself. She had made progress in therapy, was working effectively with the resource worker, and was learning to work with minor and his meltdowns.
Furthermore, the argument that mother was unable to care for minor was "a lot of noise." Detriment was not established by a parent's living arrangement being "less than ideal," mother was taking steps to secure housing and she could house minor with her if he were released to her that day. Her allowing father to talk to minor happened in July because mother did not understand the rules, and mother had not since violated a visitation rule. The limited expressed affection between the two was a minor issue given the interest mother showed in minor during their visits.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated, "there is no one thing to point to that makes the decision in this case." Instead, "[i]t's about everything together." It concluded the Department had met its burden for the reasons stated by the attorneys for the Department and minor. It adopted the Department's recommended findings and orders, concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that releasing minor to mother's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to him, found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to make it possible for minor to be safely returned home, ordered termination of mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing date. Mother filed a timely notice of intent to petition from these findings and orders and subsequently petitioned this court. We subsequently stayed the section 366.26 hearing, which had been scheduled for April 5, 2017.
DISCUSSION
I.
Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Finding That Minor Faced a Substantial
Risk of Detriment if Released to Mother's Custody.
Mother first argues that the court erred in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that releasing minor to mother's custody created a substantial risk of detriment to him. She contends she substantially complied with her case plan and that the Department did not meet its burden of showing a substantial risk of detriment. We disagree on both counts.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court is required to order the child returned to the physical custody of the parent unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to the parent "would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) "The failure of the parent . . . to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker's report and recommendations" and "shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided." (Ibid.)
The social service agency has the burden of establishing detriment in the court below. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.) We review the record to determine if substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding of detriment. (Id. at pp. 1400-1401.) "Substantial evidence" means evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value. (Id. at p. 1401.) We do not "evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion." (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) "The appellant has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial evidence." (Ibid.)
Mother contends that she "[e]ssentially . . . completed her whole case plan, only failing to sign up for general assistance." There is substantial evidence in the record to the contrary. Mother commendably made efforts to comply with aspects of her case plan, including engaging in some therapy, completing the parenting education program and working with the parenting educator, participating in minor's IEP meetings, regularly visiting with minor, working at times with a resource worker on housing, unemployment and government assistance applications and, eventually, contacting and working with Santa Rosa Junior College's disabilities program. However, the court could reasonably conclude from the record that mother's overall efforts to comply with her case plan were too little and too late, and included efforts that she engaged in only after the Department had indicated it would recommend terminating her services. The court could presumptively and reasonably conclude from her failure to substantially comply with her case plan that she lacked the motivation and ability to adequately care for minor, whose special needs and persistent eating and emotional issues required constant, focused attention.
Specifically, the Department's case plan recognized that mother had significant and emotionally difficult issues in her life, particularly regarding her mother, for whom she cared until her mother's passing, and also had significant issues of anxiety and depression. Therefore, the Department offered her weekly therapy sessions. Mother rejected this referral, opting instead for a therapy regimen with her own therapist that resulted in her attending less than a quarter of the therapy sessions the Department had recommended. This regimen yielded only meager results. Mother's therapist wrote at the end of the 18-month period that mother had maintained herself, but had not improved, during their more than a year of therapy work together.
Similarly, the Department recognized that mother might have special needs herself that she needed to address and referred her to an assessment program. Once more, mother rejected the Department's referral, insisting that she would arrange to be assessed at Santa Rosa Junior College, only to fail to do so for over a year, despite the Department's repeated prodding. As a result, mother was assessed very late in her services period and at the time of the 18-month review hearing had yet to review the results of her testing or take any classes towards her GED.
It is reasonable to infer from mother's very limited participation in these therapy and special needs aspects of her case plan, as well as her very limited performance in other aspects of her plan, that she lacked the ability to provide adequate care for her special needs child. Throughout the services period, mother resisted seeking suitable housing, employment and government financial assistance despite repeatedly representing that she would do so. As a result, by the end of the 18-month period she had not arranged to receive sufficient government assistance, claimed to have obtained only one vaguely defined and unverified job as an IHSS worker and said only that she and minor could stay temporarily with her godmother until she could obtain a spot for them at a family shelter. Mother's efforts were meager and late in these critical areas. The court could reasonably conclude that she was not in substantial compliance with her case plan.
Mother contends the court inappropriately found a substantial risk of detriment to minor if released to mother's custody and terminated her services solely because of her lack of employment, poverty and less than ideal housing, which, as she correctly points out, would be contrary to established case law. (See David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 789 [a substantial risk of detriment "cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable than an available foster parent or other family member"].) The record indicates the court did not do so. Rather, the court agreed with the contentions made by the attorneys for the Department and minor that mother had not acted as required by her case plan and had acted only after prodding, demonstrating a lack of motivation and/or ability to adequately care for minor. As the Department's counsel contended, "This is not a case about homelessness or anything of that nature." Rather, counsel continued, "mom can't stay organized. She has trouble tracking things. . . . [¶] . . . She has issues that, apparently, make it difficult for her and everyone is sympathetic, but that doesn't translate into her being able to take care of this little boy," who "is already very compromised by virtue of his limitations and his special needs." The court could reasonably concur with this assessment.
The court also relied in significant part on contentions by counsel that mother had not taken sufficient steps to reestablish her relationship with minor and show she could manage his difficulties. There is substantial evidence to support this. Mother did not see minor for over a year between 2014 and 2015. Then, despite more than a year of visits between them, minor in his last two visits with mother before the 18-month review hearing did not engage well with her and ended both visits early. Mother also had exercised poor judgment in other visits by overfeeding minor with granola bars and allowing his father to talk with him, which caused minor significant confusion and discomfort, and mother had at times been inattentive to minor and had been unable to diversify the types of foods he was willing to eat. Her ineffectiveness with minor, along with her continued lack of organization and follow-through, were particularly troubling in light of minor's fragile emotional state and constant needs; further, the record indicates he could respond well to structure and consistent practices, and also become upset in their absence.
In short, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that mother was not in substantial compliance with her case plan, which was prima facie evidence of a substantial risk of detriment to minor if he were released to her custody. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) Further, even if mother were in substantial compliance, there is substantial evidence that releasing minor to her custody posed a substantial risk of detriment to him, given the combination of his special needs and her significant and unresolved difficulties in accomplishing basic tasks necessary for her to adequately care for him.
II.
Mother's Claim That She Did Not Receive Reasonable Services Lacks Merit.
Mother also argues that the juvenile court should not have terminated her reunification services because the Department did not provide her with a reasonable opportunity to ascertain appropriate parenting skills and utilize them with minor between the 12-month and 18-month reviews. We disagree.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court was required to find, and did find, that the Department had made reasonable efforts to return minor to a safe home. (See § 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) To provide reasonable services, a social services agency must " 'make a good faith effort' " to develop and implement a family reunification plan. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 424.) "Services will be found reasonable if the [social services agency] has '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." (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972-973.) "The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [social services agency's] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) "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." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) We review a juvenile court's ruling on the reasonableness of services to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 545.)
Mother contends the court should not have found that the Department provided her with reasonable services because, first, the Department did not help her address her parenting issues between the 12-month and 18-month reviews and, second, it failed to provide additional services to help her in her efforts to parent minor despite knowing mother had special needs. We disagree. The Department had already provided her with a parenting program and the services of a parenting educator; mother does not contend that these services were inadequate. After mother completed these services, her social worker remained available to assist her in her efforts to put what she had learned to good use. Further, mother had declined the Department's referral to weekly therapy sessions and a special needs assessment, which conceivably would have helped her in her efforts to understand and manage her own behavior, as well as to organize and follow through on daily tasks, and as a result, better parent minor. Instead, she insisted on a more limited therapy regimen and repeatedly put off arranging an assessment at the Santa Rosa Junior College despite the Department's persistent prodding that she do so.
Mother also contends that the Department blamed her for allowing father to talk with minor during one of the visits when there was no evidence that she knew the phone call would happen or the impact it would have on minor. However, it can be reasonably inferred from the record that mother allowed the phone call to occur, given that she was present when it occurred, and that she was aware, or should have been aware, of minor's difficult emotions about father.
In short, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that mother was provided with reasonable services. Her argument to the contrary lacks merit.
DISPOSITION
Mother's petition is denied. The stay we have previously issued is dissolved. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
/s/_________
STEWART, J. We concur. /s/_________
RICHMAN, Acting P.J. /s/_________
MILLER, J.