Opinion
F086470 F086525
09-28-2023
J.R. et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent; MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY Real Party in Interest.
J.R., in pro. per., for Petitioner. C.D., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Jennifer Tran, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petitions for extraordinary writ. Super. Ct. No. 22JP-00022A Donald J. Proietti, Judge.
J.R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
C.D., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Jennifer Tran, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
Petitioners J.R. (mother) and C.D. (father), in propria persona, seek extraordinary writs (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a 12-month review hearing terminating their reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to their son C.D.D. (born January 2022). The parents request this court (1) vacate the order setting a section 366.26 hearing, (2) remand for hearing, (3) order reunification services be continued, (4) return or grant custody of C.D.D. to mother and father, and (5) terminate dependency. Additionally, they request a stay of proceedings in the respondent court. We deny their petitions and the requests for a stay of proceedings.
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On this court's own motion, we consolidated mother's case (case No. F086470) and father's case (case No. F086525).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
A. Referral
On February 11, 2022, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) received a referral alleging general neglect of then three-week-old C.D.D. by mother and father. Mother had been staying at Tranquility Village Recovery Facility (Tranquility Village) but was discharged because she had been refusing to participate in substance abuse treatment, had not been attending mandatory group sessions, and was not caring for C.D.D. at night. Approximately one week earlier she had tested positive for opiates and methadone. Mother's medication log indicated she had not taken her prescribed pain medication for four days, but still tested positive for opiates. She had been prescribed medication for pain after giving birth. Additionally, mother's roommates reported they had to wake her up to care for C.D.D. at night as she was not attentive to his cries.
The agency responded to Tranquility Village where they interviewed mother and father. Mother admitted she had a seven-year history of using heroin and methamphetamine. She stopped using heroin when she found out she was pregnant with C.D.D. four months into her pregnancy, but later stated she last used heroine the same month she entered Tranquility Village. At birth, C.D.D. tested positive for benzodiazepine and had to stay in the neonatal intensive care unit due to respiratory distress. After giving birth, mother was prescribed medication for pain. Additionally, mother reported she had been receiving 150 milligrams of methadone at Aegis Treatment Center (Aegis) since she was four or five months pregnant. In January 2022, mother entered Tranquility Village because "she wanted to be clean to raise her baby."
Mother was also suffering from untreated mental health problems. She stated she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression approximately 15 years ago but stopped taking her medications" 'seven or eight years ago.'" She had not been addressing her mental health issues with counseling or medication. Additionally, she was homeless. She had been listed as homeless in the California Statewide Automated Welfare System since 2015 and prior to entering Tranquility Village, she had been living in a hotel on and off for two years with father. She reported she had nowhere to go after being discharged from Tranquility Village, but stated father would pay for one night at a hotel for her.
Father appeared to be under the influence of a substance during the investigation. He had drastic mood swings, was half awake, had slurred speech, could not keep still, his eyes were shut, and he often covered his face with a piece of paper. He denied current substance use, but stated he smoked "pot." He admitted he had a history of abusing methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana. He had been trying to get into Hobie House, a drug and alcohol treatment center, and had been living in a hotel for three years.
C.D.D. was detained and placed with a relative that same day.
B. Petition and Detention
On February 15, 2022, the agency filed a petition on behalf of C.D.D. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging general neglect against mother and father. The petition alleged mother suffered from untreated substance abuse and mental health issues and was homeless. As to father, the petition alleged he suffered from untreated substance abuse issues, had unstable housing, and had failed to provide C.D.D. with adequate care.
On February 16, 2022, the juvenile court held a detention hearing and found a prima facie case had been established and ordered C.D.D. removed from parental custody.
C. Jurisdiction and Disposition
In its jurisdiction and disposition report, the agency recommended the allegations be found true and that mother and father be offered reunification services.
A social worker interviewed Rosanne, a staff member at Tranquility Village. She stated it was not mother's first time there and the reason she was discharged from the program most recently was due to several positive drug test results. Mother had tested positive for substances seven times while in treatment. Roseanne reported that mother was also not participating in classes and became aggressive when staff tried to address the issue.
On February 14, 2022, mother submitted to random urine and hair follicle drug tests. Her urine test came back negative for all substances, but her hair follicle test came back positive for opiates, morphine, and heroin. In March 2022, father also submitted to random urine and hair follicle drug tests. His urine tested negative for all substances. His hair follicle test was positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines, but "due to not obtaining a large enough sample[,] marijuana and opiates came back as canceled." The agency noted it would schedule another test for father.
On March 30, 2022, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing and found the allegations true, ordered C.D.D. removed from parental custody, and ordered mother and father to participate in reunification services.
D. Six-Month Status Review
In its report, the agency recommended mother and father's reunification services be continued. Mother's case plan required her to (1) stay free from illegal drugs, show her ability to live free from drug dependency, and comply with all required drug tests, (2) comply with medical or psychological treatment, (3) consistently, appropriately, and adequately parent C.D.D., and (4) obtain and maintain a stable and suitable residence. With respect to staying sober, mother was partially compliant. A few days after being discharged from Tranquility Village, she entered a clean and sober living program at Redwood Family Center where she attended narcotics and alcoholics anonymous meetings. She also received weekly counseling services through Aegis. In May 2022, she began a 90-day outpatient alcohol and drug treatment program, which she successfully completed. From May to August 2022, she submitted to four random drug tests, which were all negative for substances. Two tests included hair follicle tests. As for psychological treatment, mother was partially compliant. Mother was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and began receiving weekly counseling. However, she began missing sessions and was at risk of being terminated. Mother was in compliance with adequately parenting C.D.D. as she had completed her parenting class. As for obtaining stable housing, mother was not in compliance as she was homeless. The agency had planned to transition C.D.D. into mother's care while she was residing at Redwood Family Center on a plan of family maintenance, but mother voluntarily left the program after she refused to comply with their rule of not having a cell phone. After leaving, she returned to live with father who was not in compliance with his case plan.
As for father, his case plan required him to (1) stay free from illegal drugs, show his ability to live free from drug dependency, and comply with all required drug tests, (2) consistently, appropriately, and adequately parent C.D.D., and (3) obtain and maintain a stable and suitable residence. He was not in compliance with any aspect of his case plan. Father was living in an inpatient substance abuse treatment facility but had been homeless prior to entering, he admitted to using drugs, and had not completed his parenting class.
On November 15, 2022, the juvenile court found that mother and father both made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement and ordered that their reunification services continue.
E. Twelve-Month Status Review
1. Report (Mother)
In its report, the agency recommended mother and father's reunification services be terminated and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. The report stated C.D.D. had been removed from mother's custody due to her substance abuse, untreated mental health, and housing issues. Mother had made minimal progress in the four points of her case plan, outlined above. Her progress was as follows:
a. Mother's Substance Abuse
Mother was partially compliant with her requirement to stay free from illegal drugs, show her ability to live free from drug dependency, and participate in required drug testing. She participated in three drug tests from October 2022 to March 2023 and the results were negative for all substances. Although she had not used heroin, she had not shown she could live free from drug dependency as there was no plan for her to stop taking methadone in the foreseeable future. The social worker received verification that mother had been enrolled in services through Aegis since March 2022, but the release of information did not allow for other information to be disclosed. However, mother reported she participated in Aegis' services daily. Additionally, the agency noted that mother had been discharged from the Redwood Family Center for violating program rules and had not checked into another inpatient treatment program.
b. Mother's Mental Health
Mother was not in compliance with her psychological treatment as the social worker had not received verification of treatment. However, mother reported she was attending weekly counseling sessions for her PTSD through Stanislaus County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services.
c. Mother's Parenting Skills
Mother was partially compliant with consistently, appropriately, and adequately parenting C.D.D. Although mother fed, changed, and played with him, she did not talk to him, and he cried during visits. Additionally, she had been offered visitation outside of the visitation center, but she only took advantage of outside visits twice.
d. Mother's Housing
Lastly, mother was not in compliance with obtaining and maintaining a stable and suitable residence as she was still homeless. She was either staying with friends or sleeping in her car. However, she reported she had applied for housing, but had been waiting one month for Section 8 to complete its inspection.
2. Report (Father)
In regard to father, C.D.D. had been removed from his custody due to substance abuse, unstable housing, and a lack of parenting skills. Like mother, he had made minimal progress in the three points of his case plan, outlined above. Father's compliance in court-ordered services was as follows:
a. Father's Housing
Father was in partial compliance with housing goals. He reported he was residing in a two-bedroom apartment he had acquired through the Merced Rescue Mission; however, his housing did not appear to be stable as he was required to pay rent and he had been unable to obtain employment and had no income. Additionally, he was displaced and staying at a hotel temporarily as his apartment had flooded.
b. Father's Substance Abuse
Father was not in compliance with his substance abuse goals. In August 2022, father was admitted to Hobie House but was discharged the same day after he tested positive for methamphetamine. Then, in March 2023, he admitted to a social worker he had relapsed with fentanyl. His relapse prompted him to enroll in services through Aegis and he began receiving daily methadone treatment. However, father had not signed a release of information. Father exhibited a pattern of relapsing despite being enrolled in relapse prevention classes. In March 2023, father's urine test revealed he was negative for all substances, but his hair follicle test was cancelled because there was an insufficient amount of hair provided.
c. Father's Parenting Skills
Father was in partial compliance with consistently, appropriately, and adequately parenting C.D.D. He changed, fed, and played with C.D.D., but his visits were more akin to playdates and C.D.D. cried at many of the visits. Additionally, he was offered visitation outside of the visitation center and only visited C.D.D. twice. One visit was not intended as a visit; rather, C.D.D. happened to be present when the resource parents went to help him store food from his flooded apartment.
The report went on to summarize that mother needed to establish a plan for ceasing methadone use, maintain her sobriety, maintain her mental health, secure housing, and make continued efforts to visit C.D.D. As for father, he needed to establish a plan for ceasing methadone use, maintain sobriety, maintain his mental health, secure affordable housing or gain employment, and make continued efforts to visit C.D.D. The agency concluded that neither parent had met their case plan objectives.
3. Contested Hearing
On June 27, 2023, the juvenile court held a contested review hearing. Mother, father, and their social worker testified at the hearing.
a. Mother's Testimony
Mother testified she had consistent and regular visits with C.D.D. and had only missed "[t]wo or three" visits. She had also been visiting him outside of the visitation center. She said that although the 12-month report stated she had only participated in two outside visits, she actually participated in "at least 10 or 15" visits. Those visits took place at the maternal grandmother's home, who was the resource parent.
In regard to substance abuse, she testified she had already been working on addressing her problem when the agency became involved. She had been going to Aegis for counseling and enrolled in Tranquility Village in January 2022. Although she was discharged from Tranquility Village after only one month, she entered Redwood Family Center, a sober living house, a few days after her discharge. In August 2022, she was also discharged from Redwood Family Center due to violating program rules. However, mother successfully completed a three-month outpatient treatment program. She testified she complied with all drug testing requirements and tested negative for substances. She was still going to Aegis for drug testing, mental health counseling, and doctor appointments. She said the 12-month report incorrectly stated she did not have a plan to stop methadone dependency. She had been tapering down for at least a year. She started off at 155 milligrams and was currently at 90 milligrams. Her goal was to be completely off of methadone within one year.
As for addressing her mental health issues, mother testified she started participating in weekly mental health counseling approximately in March or April 2022 and stopped attending approximately in December 2022 or January 2023. She then transferred to another provider where sessions took place once a month.
In regard to housing, mother testified that in December 2022, she was accepted into Section 8 housing. In February 2023, she was approved for an apartment, but it did not pass inspection due to its condition. She was then given an extension until July 2023 to find another apartment. She had already found another apartment and was waiting for it to be approved.
Mother testified she kept in contact with her social worker until the social worker told her she was going to terminate her reunification services due to being on methadone and not having signed release of information forms. She tried to tell the social worker that the information was incorrect.
In regard to the release of information forms, mother testified she signed a release for Aegis at the beginning of 2023. However, she did not sign the form appropriately and the social worker could not obtain the necessary information. As a result, mother signed a second form in May 2023. Mother also signed a release of information form for her mental health provider. She signed two releases in May 2023, but they were erroneous; therefore, she signed a third release in June 2023.
Mother signed the corrected release of information forms after the 12-month status review report had been written.
b. Social Worker's Testimony
Social worker Marissa Meskus testified she had been assigned to the case since February 2023 and had authored the 12-month status review report. Prior to writing the report she interviewed father. Father was in partial compliance with his housing requirements. At the time she wrote the report, father informed her he was staying at a hotel because his apartment had flooded, but he never provided evidence of having obtained an apartment in the first place. After she wrote the report, she spoke to father and he reported he was no longer staying at the hotel, but he did not tell her where he was living. She believed he was currently homeless. As for his sobriety and drug testing compliance, Meskus testified that his most recent urine drug test was negative for all substances. However, she noted he had not been tested for fentanyl, which he had previously relapsed on. A hair follicle test was not done because not enough hair was provided. As far as father's compliance with adequately parenting C.D.D., Meskus testified there were concerns with the amount of crying C.D.D. exhibited while he was with father. C.D.D. would smack father's hand away and turned his head away during visits. Father's counsel noted that C.D.D. had been removed 16 months prior and asked if Meskus believed father could complete his reunification objectives if given an additional two months of services. Meskus did not believe he could, given his inconsistent sobriety and the low number of visits that occurred outside of the visitation center.
c. Father's Testimony
Father testified he was currently living at an Airbnb until repairs to his apartment were completed, which he expected to occur within the month. He provided his apartment's address and stated he had been living there since December 2022. Father testified he became employed in May 2023. As far as compliance with adequately parenting C.D.D., he stated he had been visiting him regularly and had completed two classes-"Caring for Children Experiencing Trauma," and "Men's Trauma and Resiliency." He believed the classes helped him become a better parent. He also completed an outpatient treatment course after his relapse.
d. Evidence
On mother's behalf, the juvenile court admitted into evidence the latest release of information form she completed for Aegis (Exhibit 101), a document showing her plan to taper down from methadone (Exhibit 102), all three signed release of information forms for mother's mental health provider (Exhibit 103), and a letter showing she was preapproved for housing (Exhibit 104).
On father's behalf, the juvenile court admitted into evidence hotel receipts from the time his apartment flooded (Exhibit 201), his earnings statement (Exhibit 204), a certificate of completion for the "Caring for Children Experiencing Trauma" class (Exhibit 205), a certification of completion for the "Men's Trauma and Resiliency" class (Exhibit 206), a certificate of completion of outpatient treatment (Exhibit 207), and two authorizations to release records (Exhibits 208 &209). The court did not admit into evidence two letters from Aegis (Exhibits 202 &203) due to lack of foundation.
e. Juvenile Court's Ruling
The juvenile court first noted that there were 45 days until the 18-month anniversary of C.D.D.'s removal and he had been out of mother and father's care since shortly after his birth. The court went on to state that mother and father had demonstrated through their testimony-not by supporting documents-that they had "pretty much been doing their own thing through [Aegis]." They attempted to participate in a few substance abuse treatment programs, but they were unsuccessful as they "were still in the throes of their addiction" and could not comply with the rules of the programs. The court recognized, however, that the parents demonstrated through their testimony that they were getting a handle on their addiction. They were both employed and trying to change their lives. The court went on to state:
"The concern I have is can [C.D.D.]-is there a substantial probability [C.D.D.] will be returned, within the next 45 days, to either or both parents. And [county counsel], from the [a]gency, argued to the [c]ourt that there are criterias [sic] the [c]ourt needs to evaluate, what it means when we use the term 'substantial probability.' And the factors she argued are correct. Have the parents been having regular contact with [C.D.D.]? They have. They have clearly met that.
"Have the parents met the goals? Have they been able to demonstrate they can complete and make significant progress resolving the problems that led to [C.D.D.]'s removal? They have made progress. The question is, has it been significant progress[?] I believe it's early progress, very early.
"[Father] has got a job. I congratulate him for that. He's on 90 days probation, which he'll still be on probation at the end of 45 days when we have a target that we have to evaluate whether or not to delay some finality for [C.D.D.], delay another 45 days to wait and see what happens with housing, employment.
"I think the area that falls way short in this presentation here today for me-and when I say '[p]resentation,' I am talking about the evidence that was presented-there was an implication that [mother] and [father] have done everything even though the [a]gency doesn't know about it, even though the social worker is in the dark and the parents are doing their own thing. And I think they could have done a better job of presenting the [c]ourt more information than simply their testimony.
"Obviously, they rely very heavily on the progress they claim they have made through Aegis and mental health counseling, as well as testing clean repeatedly, weekly, through Aegis and working and tapering off the methadone program to the point where they hope, in the future, they could be off entirely.
"I think I could have received much stronger information than what I have received here today, [which was] only an implication that I should believe that what the social worker wasn't given [was] information ... I should assume is there. And I think stronger evidence could have been presented to show the [c]ourt that all the things you said were correct. [¶] ... [¶] But I think that you could have done more to bring to the [c]ourt the information that Aegis apparently has that could be helpful to you to convince the [c]ourt there's substantial probability that [C.D.D.] could be returned within 45 days. [¶] ... I am going to terminate the services that you would only likely have gotten another 45 days [of] and services that, frankly, I didn't hear that you were utilizing. You were doing your own thing. So[,] I am not really sure what you are going to be missing out on.
"You are going to continue to have visitation with your son. And by the time we get to the next hearing, I presume we will have the possibility that some of the things you are anticipating will occur within the next 45 days. And in July-90 days, whatever it may be-we will have much more clarity whether or not all those things could happen and did happen. And your attorneys can talk to you about what rights you have to demonstrate that."
The juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that C.D.D. could not be returned to parental custody, the parents had made minimum and unsatisfactory progress in completing court-ordered programs, and there was clear and convincing evidence reasonable services had been offered. Accordingly, the court ordered reunification services terminated and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
I. Adequacy of Writ Petitions
As a preliminary matter, we address the adequacy of mother and father's writ petitions. Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. "The petition must be liberally construed and must include: [¶] (A) The identities of the parties; [¶] (B) The date on which the superior court made the order setting the hearing; [¶] (C) The date on which the hearing is scheduled to be held; [¶] (D) A summary of the grounds of the petition; and [¶] (E) The relief requested." (Rule 8.452(a)(1)(A)-(E).) Additionally, "[t]he petition must be verified," and it "must be accompanied by a memorandum." (Rule 8.452(a)(2)-(3).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. However, the petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Both mother and father's writ petitions are technically inadequate. Both parents filled out a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ" (JV-825) but did not set forth a statement of facts or identify and develop legal arguments. Nevertheless, we construe their writ petitions in favor of their adequacy. (Rule 8.452(a)(1).) Accordingly, we review their arguments on their merits.
II. Family Reunification Services
Mother and father's claim that the juvenile court's decision "does not correlate with the documentation, evidence, [and] proof regarding completion of services," is essentially a challenge to the court's finding that they failed to make substantive progress in services, thereby contesting the court's termination of reunification services. Additionally, mother implies she was not provided with reasonable services by asserting the agency did not provide her with a housing referral.
A. Legal Principles
"Reunification services implement 'the law's strong preference for maintaining the family relationships if at all possible.'" (In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1787.) As a result, absent certain exceptions, the juvenile court is required to provide the parent with services to facilitate reunification of the family when a child is removed from parental custody. (§ 361.5, subds. (a) &(b).) When the court orders reunification services, the agency must provide the family with a plan that is tailored to their needs and designed to eliminate the circumstances that gave rise to the child's removal. (In re Taylor (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451.) The agency "must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification plan. [Citation.] '[T]he record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult ....'" (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345.)
The duration of reunification services is set by statute in section 361.5, subdivision (a) according to the age of the child when taken into protective custody. When a child is under the age of three, such as here, the statute requires the juvenile court provide reunification services for six months from the date of the dispositional hearing but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B) &(C).) A child is deemed to have entered foster care either on the date of the jurisdictional hearing or 60 days after the date of the child's removal, whichever occurs first. (§ 361.49.) "The' "unique developmental needs of infants and toddlers"' [citation] justifies a greater emphasis on establishing permanency and stability earlier in the dependency process' "in cases with a poor prognosis for family reunification." '" (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 175.)
Until the child is returned to parental custody or reunification services are terminated, the juvenile court is required to conduct review hearings at six-month intervals. (§ 366, subd. (a)(1).) It is presumed that at the 12-month status review hearing the child will be returned to parental custody unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child to parental custody would place the child at a substantial risk of detriment. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(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." (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(B).) "In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker's report and recommendations . . ., shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided ...." (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(C).)
We review the juvenile court's decision to terminate reunification services for substantial evidence. (J.H. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535.) "We resolve all conflicts in favor of the court's determinations, and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold its findings." (Ibid.)
B. Analysis 1. Termination of Mother and Father's Reunification Services
The question before us is whether substantial evidence, contradicted or not, supports the juvenile court's finding that mother and father did not participate regularly or make substantive progress. (Adoption of A.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 912, 925.) Because the court has to find both regular participation and substantive progress (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(B)), its inability to make one of the findings is sufficient to terminate reunification services. Here, the juvenile court found mother and father had not made substantive progress in their court-ordered programs. Mother's problems leading to the loss of custody included substance abuse, untreated mental health, and housing issues. Father's problems included substance abuse, unstable housing, and lack of parenting skills. The court acknowledged they had made progress, but noted that it was "early progress, very early," and considered it "minimum progress." At the time of the 12-month status review hearing, mother had been approved for Section 8 housing, but was still homeless. She was waiting for approval on an apartment but did not know how long it would take. She had already been denied for one apartment. Moreover, mother was still on methadone and was expected to take it for another year. Although she completed an outpatient substance abuse program, she had been discharged from two residential programs for refusing to follow program rules and never completed an inpatient program.
As for father, at the time of the 12-month status review hearing, he was staying at an Airbnb because his apartment had flooded. However, he never provided proof that he had actually secured housing. Moreover, he was required to pay rent and had only been employed for one month, despite living in the apartment since December 2022 (approximately six months). Additionally, he had been discharged from the one substance abuse treatment program he entered and had a history of relapsing. Thus, neither parent had resolved the problems leading to the loss of custody.
Mother and father claim they completed their case plan objectives; however, the record does not support such claims. Mother and father attached documents to their writ petitions in an effort to show they participated in certain services; however, these documents are not part of the juvenile court record. As a reviewing court, we cannot consider evidence that is not part of the record. (In re K.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 450, 456 ["' "an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered"' "].) An appeal is not a second chance to try the case. (See In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531 [the appellate court is not a second trier of fact].)
Accordingly, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that mother and father did not make substantive progress.
2. Reasonable Services for Mother
Additionally, mother contends one of the social workers had promised to give her a housing referral, but never did. We note that neither mother nor her attorney at any time claimed she was not being provided reasonable services. Consequently, she forfeited the issue on appeal. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338 [generally, a parent's failure to object or raise an issue in the lower court forfeits the right to raise the issue with the appellate court].) Assuming mother did not forfeit the issue, she bears the burden on appeal of demonstrating that the services provided were not reasonable. (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632.) According to the record, at the time the 12-month report was authored, mother had already "applied for housing but ha[d] been waiting for a month for Section 8 to make an inspection date for her." As such, we can only infer that mother had the necessary information to apply for assisted housing. Thus, we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's finding mother was provided with reasonable services.
Finally, we note, nothing precludes petitioners from filing a section 388 petition, asking the juvenile court to change, modify, or set aside its prior orders terminating reunification services based on a change of circumstances or new evidence. (§ 388, subd. (a).)
DISPOSITION
The petitions for extraordinary writ are denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).
[*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.