Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Deborah Daniel, Temporary Judge.Super.Ct.No. J208675 (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Monica Cazares for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and P. Joanne Fenton, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Robin Denise Edmond for Minor.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, J.
Petitioner J.P. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (formerly rule 38.1(a)), challenging the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her child, A.M. (the child) and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that there was not a substantial probability that the child would be returned to her care within the statutory timeframe. We deny the writ petition.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2006, the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (the department) filed a petition on behalf of the child and his brother, J. The child was 19 months old at that time. The petition alleged that the children came within section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support). Specifically, the petition alleged that mother suffered from a mental illness, that her behavior was erratic and unsafe, that on June 2, 2006, she allowed the child to be in the presence of her live-in boyfriend (the boyfriend), who was carrying a concealed loaded weapon and was a known gang member, that mother failed to provide J. with medical care for his bronchitis, sore throat, and pink eye, and that mother was arrested on June 2, 2006, for assaulting a police officer. (The petition also included allegations regarding the child’s father, who is not a party to this petition.) In the detention report, the social worker stated that mother and her boyfriend were stopped by the police, and the boyfriend tried to run with the child. When the police stopped him, they found a loaded handgun in his pocket. While the boyfriend was being arrested, mother struck the officer.
J. is not a subject of this petition.
The court detained the child and placed him in foster care.
Jurisdiction/disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on June 27, 2006, recommending that the child be declared a dependent of the court and that mother be offered reunification services. The social worker reported that mother was bipolar. Mother said she was currently taking Prozac, Risperdal, and Dylatin, but mother’s cousin told the social worker that mother had not been taking her medications on a regular basis. Mother also told the social worker that she had been a victim of domestic violence.
The social worker attached a case plan for mother. The requirements included participating in general counseling, participating in a psychological or psychiatric evaluation, complying with her medication regimen, completing a domestic violence program, and participating in a parenting education program.
On June 28, 2006, the jurisdiction/disposition hearing was continued to July 31, 2006, for a contested hearing. The matter was also continued for mediation. At mediation, mother agreed to participate in general counseling, to attend parenting and anger management classes, and to complete a psychological evaluation.
On July 31, 2006, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition regarding mother to be true and declared the child a dependent of the court. The court granted reunification services and ordered mother to participate. The court also ordered supervised visitation for a minimum of twice per week.
Six-Month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month status review report recommending that mother’s reunification services be terminated. The social worker reported that after the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother stopped visiting the child and did not remain in contact with the department. He also reported that he received a phone call on October 2, 2006, from an Arrowhead Regional Medical Center social worker, who informed him that the police had brought mother to the psychiatric ward. In the middle of the night, mother went to a home where she thought the child was staying. She pounded on the door and demanded that the child be released to her. The police could not calm her down and had to use a taser gun on her. A conservatorship was established for her, and she was transferred from the psychiatric ward to a board and care home.
The social worker gave mother a referral to Dr. Heidi Knipe-Laird for general counseling on January 8, 2007. However, she did not make a counseling appointment.
On January 10, 2007, mother’s board and care home manager, Linda Phelan, spoke with the social worker and reported that mother had a very aggressive temper and was extremely moody. During the phone conversation, the social worker could hear mother screaming in the background. Mother told Ms. Phelan that she wanted to be taken off all her medications because they made her feel sick.
As to visitation, the social worker reported that, from the time of the child’s removal until July 30, 2006, mother visited the child weekly. The person supervising the visits stated that the visits fluctuated, depending on mother’s mood. When she was in a good mood, the visits went well, but when she was in a bad mood, her conduct was inappropriate, and she would mostly pay attention to J. From July 31, 2006, to October 15, 2006, mother failed to make any attempts to visit the child. She resumed visitation on November 3, 2006. During one visit, mother was upset and stated that everyone was out to get her. When the person supervising the visit asked mother to calm down, mother accused her of trying to frame her. When asked to calm down again, mother became irritated and threatened to run away with the child.
The court held the six-month review hearing on January 31, 2007. Despite the social worker’s recommendation, the court continued mother’s reunification services.
Psychological Evaluation
Mother completed a psychological evaluation with Dr. John Kinsman. Mother told Dr. Kinsman that she was raised by her grandmother, who emotionally and physically abused her. Mother was also sexually molested throughout her childhood. Mother further reported that she had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons on several occasions. Dr. Kinsman stated that mother met the criteria for Bipolar I Disorder and was currently experiencing depression. Dr. Kinsman also opined that mother did not have a close emotional bond with the child. Dr. Kinsman stated that until mother accepted the need for therapeutic assistance and engaged in a sustained medication regimen, as well as individual psychotherapy, reunification with the child would expose him to the same risk factors that previously resulted in his removal. Dr. Kinsman recommended that mother participate in individual psychotherapy to address the dysfunctional dynamics within her family, develop more effectiveness in appropriately expressing her feelings, and improve her ability to function socially. He recommended that she then participate in group therapy to address personal history and parenting issues.
12-Month Status Review
In April 2007 another social worker (the second social worker) was assigned to mother’s case. This social worker filed a 12-month status review report recommending that mother’s reunification services be terminated and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. The second social worker reported that mother completed a 15-hour cooperative parenting program and a 12-hour anger management program. However, there was no feedback available regarding mother’s participation in the classes, and, thus, it was questionable whether mother understood the content, or benefited from the courses.
The second social worker reported that as of June 20, 2007, mother still had not called Dr. Knipe-Laird. The social worker wanted to make sure mother had all the contact information, so she sent mother a letter listing her case plan requirements, reminding her of the general counseling requirement, and providing Dr. Knipe-Laird’s phone number.
As to visitation, the second social worker noted that although the weekly visits were scheduled for two hours, they usually ended rather quickly, as mother grew tired of the child after 30 to 40 minutes. Mother and the child had no apparent bond. He did not recognize her as his mother, but rather as a playmate. She was not maternal toward the child, in that she never used terms of endearment or attempted to cuddle him. Mother brought candy to each visit and usually had to be prompted not to feed him too much, as well as to check the child’s diaper.
The second social worker reported that she visited mother on June 11, 2007, and mother asked if the child was going to be adopted. When the social worker confirmed that she was recommending adoption, mother became so enraged that the social worker thought mother was going to strike her.
In an addendum report, the second social worker stated that mother had a visit with the child on June 27, 2007. When the child arrived and saw mother, he immediately turned back to the door, screaming “‘car.’” The child then ran to the second social worker and clung to her waist. He did not want mother to touch him and did not want to interact with her. When the second social worker tried to redirect his attention to mother, he threw himself on the floor and had a major tantrum. Mother attempted to pick him up and told him he needed a time out. The child’s tantrum did not subside, and mother became frustrated, so the visit was terminated.
The court held a 12-month status review hearing on August 13, 2007. Mother’s case manager through the Department of Behavioral Health, Dorothy Romo, testified at the hearing. Ms. Romo monitored the services mother received at the board and care facility. She testified that mother was released from the conservatorship on August 3, 2007. Since mother’s residency at the board and care facility was based on her conservatorship status, Ms. Romo was in the process of helping her relocate. Mother was allowed to stay at the board and care facility until she found a place to live, but could not have a child with her there. Ms. Romo testified that mother was currently taking Depicote and Risperdal, and that she was compliant with her medication regimen.
Mother also testified at the hearing. She denied ever receiving a letter regarding the need to see Dr. Knipe-Laird or ever discussing the matter with the second social worker. As to visitation, mother said the visits were scheduled for one hour every week. She denied that she only wanted to stay for 40 minutes during the visits, and instead said that the visits were shorter because the child was tired or the social worker would have to leave. She further denied ever becoming frustrated during visits. Mother also testified that she planned to stay at the board and care facility for another two to three months, until she found a stable place to live. In addition, mother denied becoming angry with the social worker when told that the child was going to be put up for adoption.
Mother’s second social worker testified as well. She said she personally gave mother two referrals to Dr. Knipe-Laird. The second social worker also said that she recently became aware that mother was attending counseling at Caritas Counseling. Mother’s counselor at Caritas was not a licensed therapist, but rather an intern. The second social worker testified that she never contracted with Caritas to provide counseling to mother, and that the department was not paying for it. Rather, mother was supposed to be receiving counseling from Dr. Knipe-Laird.
Regarding visitation, the second social worker testified that the visits were scheduled for two hours, and that she was present during most of the visits. She testified that mother usually wished to end the visits early and observed that mother seemed unable to tolerate the child, and the child seemed unable to tolerate mother.
After reviewing all the evidence, the court found that mother failed to make substantive progress in her case plan, and that return of the child to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The court further found that mother had not consistently visited the child, and that mother had not shown the capacity or ability to complete the treatment plan objectives or provide for the child’s needs. The court ordered mother’s reunification services terminated and set a section 366.26 hearing for December 11, 2007.
ANALYSIS
The Court Properly Terminated Mother’s Reunification Services and Set a Section 366.26 Hearing
Mother argues that the court should have extended her reunification services, since there was a substantial probability that the child would be returned to her. She specifically asserts that she visited the child regularly, made significant progress toward resolving the problems that led to the child’s removal, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of her case plan and provide for the child’s needs. We conclude that the court properly terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Section 366.21, subdivision (f), provides, in relevant part that, “[a]t the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the child’s home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. The court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. . . . The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) In order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his parent, the court must find that the parent has consistently and regularly visited the child, that the parent has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home, and that the parent has demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of his treatment plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
The record here supports the court’s finding that mother failed to participate regularly or make substantive progress in her case plan. Mother’s case plan required her to participate in general counseling, participate in a psychological evaluation, take her medication, complete a domestic violence program, and complete a parenting education program. While the record shows that mother participated in a psychological evaluation with Dr. Kinsman, and completed parenting education and anger management classes, there is no evidence that she completed a domestic violence program. Moreover, despite completing an anger management program, mother still has not learned to deal effectively with her anger. The record shows that when the social worker told mother that she was recommending adoption, mother became so enraged that the social worker thought she was going to strike her. Furthermore, mother suffered from bipolar disorder, was extremely moody, and had a very aggressive temper. Although she needed individual psychotherapy, as recommended by Dr. Kinsman, she failed to seek counseling with the doctor selected by the department. Instead, mother made her own arrangements with an unlicensed therapist to pursue self-development goals, such as not being depressed.
Of greater concern, mother’s conduct with the child during the dependency showed that the return of the child to her would create a substantial risk of detriment to his emotional well-being. Mother stopped visiting the child for over two months. When she resumed visits, she failed to bond with the child. Although the weekly visits were scheduled for two hours, mother usually wished to end them after 30 to 40 minutes. The social worker observed that mother grew tired of the child and was unable to tolerate him after a short while. Moreover, the child did not recognize mother as his mother, but rather as a playmate. She was not maternal or affectionate toward him, and she had to be prompted not to feed him too much candy and to check his diaper. At a visit on June 27, 2007, the child saw mother and immediately ran and clung to the social worker. He did not want mother to touch him and did not want to interact with her. When the second social worker attempted to redirect his attention to mother, he had a major temper tantrum.
In addition, at the time of the 12-month hearing, mother was living in a board and care facility that did not allow children, and she had no definite plans for moving out.
In sum, the record clearly demonstrates mother failed to make substantive progress in her case plan and that returning the child to her care would put him at risk of harm. Thus, the court properly terminated mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P.J., RICHLI, J.