Opinion
2d Civil No. B234834
10-25-2011
JULIE P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Ernest A. Casacca for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Warren R. Jensen, County Counsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publ or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. JV48477.)
(San Luis Obispo County)
Julie P. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services and setting the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother is the single parent of teenager K. Over a 10-year period, various child welfare agencies received complaints that Mother physically and verbally abused K. and imposed excessive punishments. On July 29, 2009, Mother stabbed K. with a pen, causing scratches or bruises on her arm, as punishment for interrupting her. Police officers later arrested Mother for child abuse and the San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services (DSS) detained K.
K. informed DSS social workers that Mother threw combat boots at her and, at times, imposed "solitary confinement" with bread and water as punishment. K. stated that she feared Mother and did not want to return to her care.
On July 31, 2009, DSS filed a dependency petition alleging that there was a substantial risk that K. would suffer serious physical harm in Mother's care and that Mother was incarcerated for child abuse. (§ 300, subds. (a), (g).) The whereabouts of K.'s father was then unknown.
DSS later located K.'s father. He did not appear in the dependency proceedings and is not a party to this petition.
--------
The juvenile court detained K. and later sustained amended allegations of the dependency petition continuing K. as a dependent child. (§ 300, subd. (b), (g).) The court also ordered that Mother receive family reunification services.
DSS reports stated that Mother, a military veteran, suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder from military service in Iraq, and that K. suffers from depression and anxiety. Mother worked long hours and was establishing a new business, "Moonlight Mechanics." The family reunification services plan required her to participate in parent education classes, submit to a psychological evaluation, and obtain counseling and therapy, among other things.
K.'s behavior soon deteriorated in foster care and she asked to return home. On January 11, 2010, DSS requested the juvenile court to change placement and permit K. to return to Mother's care. The court granted the request and ordered that Mother receive family maintenance services. Mother had been attending therapy and participating in anger management classes.
For approximately one year, Mother and K. received maintenance services. Mother became stressed from her National Guard military service and mechanic business, however, and did not attend to K.'s medical and dental needs, including K.'s broken collarbone. Several incidents of physical abuse also occurred during this time. In addition, for financial reasons, the family moved into the mechanics shop which had limited kitchen facilities. A report of the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) concluded that "[Mother] struggles with providing basic care for [K]."
On December 21, 2010, at Mother's urging, DSS requested the juvenile court to change K.'s placement to out-of-home care. K. was failing in school and had been dismissed from private school for misbehavior. Mother and K. no longer participated in therapy. K. had also expressed suicide ideation.
The juvenile court granted the request, detained K., and ordered that Mother receive six additional months of reunification services. The court then set an 18-month review hearing for March 30, 2011.
On March 4, 2011, Mother filed a petition seeking return of K. and dismissal of the dependency. DSS filed a response to the petition, recommending termination of reunification services and setting of a permanent plan hearing. In its 18-month report, DSS stated that K.'s mental state had deteriorated, Mother had not continued counseling as required, and Mother refused to allow DSS to receive information from her therapists at the Veterans Administration, among other things.
On June 16, 2011, the juvenile court held a contested 18-month hearing, which continued over three days. DSS presented evidence that Mother and K. received numerous services, but the family missed appointments and lacked commitment. K. informed social workers and stated in chambers that she wanted to live with a maternal aunt and uncle in Oregon and that she did not want to return to Mother's care. The CASA report described Mother and K.'s relationship as violent and "very toxic." Mother testified that her physical and mental health had improved and that she had completed a parent education course. She described her therapy through the Veterans Administration medical program and stated that she no longer was working long hours.
Following argument by the parties, the juvenile submitted the matter. In a written ruling, the court terminated family reunification services to Mother and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing pursuant to section 366.26. In ruling, the court found that joint counseling between Mother and K. was minimal and unproductive, Mother refused to allow her therapists to release information to DSS, and a substantial risk to K.'s safety existed if she returned to Mother's care. The court stated: "There are no indicators that the safety problems have been addressed by both [K.] and her mother. [Mother] has physically abused [K.] and has used excessive punishment in the past. [K.] has threatened suicide on at least two occasions in spite of all of the services that have been offered to her and her mother. . . . It is a tangled web of unresolved feelings which will perhaps take a lifetime to unravel in joint therapy. In the meantime, [K.] needs a sense of permanence and stability."
Mother seeks an extraordinary writ vacating the juvenile court's order.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that the juvenile court's finding that she made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement is not supported by sufficient evidence. She points out that she completed anger management classes, took prescribed medication faithfully, and participated in therapy through the Veterans Administration.
Mother also contends that insufficient evidence supports the finding that return of K. to her care would result in a substantial risk of harm to K. Mother asserts that K. does not fear her and points to evidence that they had a lengthy visit prior to the 18-month review hearing.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court must return the dependent child to parental custody unless the court finds that return would create "a substantial risk of detriment to safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) Compliance with a reunification services plan is not the sole concern with considering return of a child to parental custody. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 703-704 [although parent had substantially complied with services plan, court determined that return of children would create substantial risk of harm to them].) The court may consider the evidence, including DSS and CASA reports, and decide that return would be detrimental to the child. (§ 361.21, subd. (f).) We review the court's decision for sufficient evidence. (Constance K., at p. 705 [standard of review].)
Sufficient evidence supports the decision of the juvenile court. Although Mother received 18 months of reunification and maintenance services, her relationship with K. was dysfunctional to the extent that K. had threatened suicide on two occasions. K. was also adamant that she did not want to live with Mother and so testified in chambers. In December 2010, a therapist opined that it was not safe for K. and Mother to live together. Other than one therapy session in January 2010, Mother and K. were not participating in joint therapy. As the court concluded, "[t]here are no indicators that the safety problems have been addressed" by Mother and K.
Although Mother may have participated in her services plan, she did not fulfill significant aspects of the plan relating to counseling and therapy. Mother did not permit DSS to receive information from her therapists at the Veterans Administration to allow DSS to determine whether goals were being met. Mother also refused to allow a therapist to discuss information and conclusions obtained in future joint counseling sessions with K. The juvenile court properly found Mother's efforts at joint counseling "minimal" and "not productive."
We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P.J. We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.
Ginger E. Garrett, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
Ernest A. Casacca for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Warren R. Jensen, County Counsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.