Opinion
E047602
4-1-2009
K.G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Charles A. Casey for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
Petitioner K.G. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services as to her sons, D.G. and C.G. (the children) and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother argues that she was not provided with reasonable reunification services, and that the court should have extended her services past the 18-month hearing. We deny the writ petition.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
D.G.
On June 12, 2007, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) filed a petition on behalf of D.G., who was 14 months old at the time. The petition alleged he came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition included the following allegations: mother admittedly used methamphetamine twice a week and was arrested on June 7, 2007, for being under the influence of methamphetamine and for being in possession of drug paraphernalia; mother had a history of mental health problems and was diagnosed with bipolar/manic depressive disorder; and she had engaged in domestic violence with her live-in boyfriend, the childs father (father), who was a registered sex offender.
The childs father is not a party to this writ petition. Thus, this writ petition will not include the allegations concerning him.
The detention hearing was held on June 13, 2007. The court made a prima facie finding that D.G. was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), removed him from mothers custody, and placed him in a foster home. The court ordered mother to participate in reunification services pending further hearing.
Mother was provided with a referral to the MFI Treatment Facility (MFI) that same day for substance abuse treatment. She admitted herself to the program but dropped out after one day. On July 10, 2007, mother was given a referral to the Omega Substance Abuse Treatment Program. On July 11, 2007, she was provided with a bus pass in order for her to comply with the services provided.
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report dated July 17, 2007, and recommended that the trial court declare D.G. a dependent and provide mother with reunification services. The social worker attached a case plan to the report. The case plan required mother to: 1) complete a domestic violence/anger management program; 2) attend general counseling; 3) attend a psychotropic medication evaluation; 4) complete a parenting class; 5) complete a substance abuse program, including aftercare; and 6) participate in random drug testing.
The department later amended the petition and struck the allegations regarding mother admitting she used methamphetamine twice a week, her possession of drug paraphernalia when arrested, and her having "a history of mental health problems."
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on September 17, 2007. The court ordered the amended petition filed. It also found that D.G. came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and declared him a dependent of the court. The court approved the case plan and ordered mother to participate in services.
On September 25, 2007, a social worker received a telephone call from mother, and he instructed her to call MFI since he had submitted a referral on her behalf. The next day, someone from MFI confirmed that mother had previously enrolled at the program on June 18, 2007, to June 19, 2007, and had left the program. When she left, she was referred to the Born Free Program, which she also left. On October 9, 2007, the social worker called MFI and was informed that mother was admitted to the program on September 27, 2007, for a 90-day residential women and childrens program, with an additional three to six months of day treatment/aftercare services. She appeared to be benefitting from the treatment.
In November 2007 mother gave birth to another baby, C.G. (See post.)
Then on January 17, 2008, the social worker filed a six-month review report recommending that the court continue reunification services. The social worker reported that mothers counselor at MFI advised her to continue with outpatient care after she was discharged. Since mother left the program, the social worker had tried to contact her several times but had been unable to reach her. On July 11, 2007, mother was given a referral for drug testing. She failed to drug test on August 14, 2007, September 4, 2007, and September 11, 2007.
The social worker further reported that on July 20, 2007, mother was given referrals for domestic violence counseling, general counseling, anger management, and a parenting education program. She could not attend the general counseling sessions because she was in the MFI program. However, at MFI, she participated in group therapy to address her domestic violence issues, attended anger management classes, and completed a parenting education program. In addition, on November 8, 2007, the social worker gave mother a referral for a medication evaluation and psychotropic counseling. Mother had a consultation with a psychiatrist on December 5, 2007, and began a mental health and medication regimen.
The social worker opined that mother was not ready to assume the responsibility of caring for D.G. Although mother had completed most of her classes and had made some progress, she had not demonstrated the capability of caring for D.G. without supervision, and she did not seem to have a suitable living environment. At the time of the report, mother had just recently moved into a sober living facility, and she did not have any income except for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Since she had demonstrated effort in completing her services, the social worker recommended that they be continued.
C.G
On November 9, 2007, the department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of C.G. when he was only a few days old. The petition alleged that C.G. came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). Specifically, the petition alleged that mother had neglected C.G.s health and safety, in that she admitted to abusing controlled substances during her pregnancy, father was unable to provide adequate care and support for him, and the childs sibling, D.G., had been abused as described in his section 300 petition. At the detention hearing on November 13, 2007, the court ordered mother to retain custody of C.G. under the conditions that she remain in the MFI inpatient program, continue to participate in it, and not leave it without permission. The court ordered family maintenance services to be provided to mother.
On December 28, 2007, the department filed an amended section 300 petition regarding C.G., adding the allegation that mother was unable to provide the child with a stable and suitable living environment, and that she had no means for support of the child. Mother was scheduled to be discharged from MFI on December 26, 2007, but had not obtained housing for her and C.G. Furthermore, C.G. had a bad cough and was hospitalized because he needed to be put on oxygen. The court then removed C.G. from mothers custody and detained him in foster care.
However, on December 31, 2007, the court authorized placement of C.G. with mother on the conditions that she provide a residence address and receive a suitable home evaluation, that she not move without informing the social worker, and that she not smoke in the presence of the child. On January 2, 2008, a home evaluation was performed, and C.G. was returned to mother upon discharge from the hospital.
On January 23, 2008, the social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report regarding C.G. and recommended that he be declared a dependent of the court. The social worker further recommended that C.G. remain in mothers care and that mother be provided with family maintenance services. The social worker attached a copy of the case plan, which required mother to: 1) attend a psychotropic medication evaluation to stabilize her mental health issues; 2) continue participation in monthly general counseling sessions (individual therapy); 3) participate in the MFI Recovery aftercare courses; 4) participate in Narcotics Anonymous; and 5) continue to random drug test with the Med Tox facility.
Regarding the departments provision of services, the report stated that on November 26, 2007, mother was referred to individual therapy and psychiatric counseling, and that she began both therapy and a psychiatric treatment plan on December 5, 2007. On November 27, 2007, she was referred to Sober Living Housing, but she had no interest in living in Riverside or Moreno Valley; rather, she wanted to return to the Lake Elsinore area where she had been arrested. On December 4, 2007, mother was provided with a list of housing options, but she declined to put her name on the list. On December 18, 2007, mother was again referred to housing but failed to apply and obtain housing. On January 2, 2008, she was referred to the Med Tox laboratory for randomized drug testing. On January 6, 2008, she was provided with bus passes to assist her with compliance with her services.
Hearings Concerning Both Children
At a hearing on January 28, 2008, the court found that C.G. came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and adjudged C.G. a dependent of the court. Mother submitted. The court ordered family maintenance services to be provided to mother and ordered her to participate. As to D.G., the court continued reunification services. The court authorized the department to liberalize visits between mother and D.G. to include day visits. If the day visits went well, the court authorized overnight and weekend visits.
On July 14, 2008, the department filed a supplemental section 387 petition, requesting that C.G. be placed in foster care since mother had failed to comply with her case plan. The social worker reported that mother had failed to show up for eight drug tests, parenting classes, counseling, and the drug treatment program in which she was supposed to enroll pursuant to her case plan. In addition, mother was not taking her medication. The social worker found cocaine in her room at the sober living home. The court found that C.G. came within section 387 and detained him in foster care.
On July 16, 2008, the social worker filed a 12-month status review report as to D.G. and a family maintenance report regarding C.G. The social worker recommended that services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. The social worker continued to opine that mother was not ready so assume the responsibility of caring for the children. She still lived in a sober living facility with no viable source of income. She said she would not seek employment because then her SSI benefits would be terminated. Furthermore, mother was not taking her psychotropic medication consistently. While at MFI, mother successfully completed a domestic violence program, parenting class, anger management class, and a "class on being a good mother" in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, mother was referred to counseling at Dogon Psychiatric Services. Mother participated in random drug tests, but out of nine testing calls, she failed to show up for eight of them and tested negative for one. As for her reasons for missing the tests, mother blamed her absences on the weather twice—one time it was raining and she did not want to take the baby (C.G.) out in the rain, and one time it was 102 degrees and she did not want to take him out in the heat. On another occasion, mother told the social worker she had so many "no shows" because she had "to deal with economic stressors." She said a hold was placed on her SSI monthly allowance from December 2007 to April 2008, causing her to miss paying her rent, which then caused her to miss her drug tests, since she was "preoccupied trying to remedy her situation."
As to visitation, the social worker reported that as of April 2, 2008, mother had monitored visits once a week, at the department office. She missed some appointments because it was too far, and the bus was making her late.
On July 28, 2008, the review hearing was continued to August 19, 2008. On August 19, 2008, the hearing was set for September 16, 2008.
The social worker reported that mothers sober living facility was closed, so mother had to move. Mother moved to Lake Elsinore. On September 11, 2008, the social worker gave mother a referral to the Lake Elsinore substance abuse program and encouraged her to call as soon as possible to schedule an appointment.
In an addendum report filed on September 16, 2008, the social worker reported that mother requested to have her counseling service provider changed also, in order to be closer to her home. Thus, she was referred to a mental health clinic in Perris.
The social worker further reported that mother had visits with the children twice a week and that overall, the visits were appropriate. However, mother became overwhelmed and frustrated with the children at times.
The social worker also opined that the department had continued to provide services, but it was evident that mother was incapable of applying what she had learned. She continued to avoid participating in the random drug testing and outpatient drug abuse program.
At the hearing on September 16, 2008, the court continued mothers reunification services.
On November 17, 2008, the social worker filed a report that consisted of a 12-month status review for C.G.s case and an 18-month status review for D.G.s case. The social worker reported that mother had visits with the children twice a week at a McDonalds restaurant in Lake Elsinore. She had difficulty handling both children at the same time and consistently asked for help from the social services assistants who supervised the visits. The social worker opined that it would be detrimental to return the children to mother. The children were physically and emotionally stable at their current placement. (They were living together in the same placement.) Furthermore, although mother participated in numerous classes, she recently displayed a lack of participation in her case plan. During that reporting period, mother had avoided random drug testing and had been inconsistent with the rest of her services. The current service providers were unable to comment about her progress because mother had been inconsistent and had not demonstrated a desire to help herself. Mother demonstrated poor decision-making skills and did not take responsibility. She needed guidance and constant redirection to follow through with responsibilities.
In an addendum report, the social worker reported that she spoke with the Med Tox laboratory in Lake Elsinore, which reported that mother continued to be noncompliant with the random drug testing. As to visitation, the social worker reported that the visits had been set up to occur in the same city where mother lived, but mother continued to either fail to appear or cancel the visits. Mother said she was not attending the visits because she did not have a bus pass, so the social worker gave her a bus pass on December 11, 2008. Even after being given a bus pass, mother failed to attend the scheduled visits. She cancelled a visit on December 15, 2008, and on December 22, 2008, because of the rain. On December 29, 2008, the children waited for 20 minutes, but mother failed to show up or call to cancel the visit. The department had made every effort to accommodate mother by working around her schedule and transporting the children miles away from their placement to facilitate mothers attendance at the visits. Nonetheless, mother continued to miss visits.
On January 22, 2009, the court held a hearing that consisted of the 12-month review as to C.G. and the 18-month review as to D.G. Mothers counsel argued that after moving to Lake Elsinore, mother commuted one or two times to the parenting class, but it was a three-hour bus ride one way to get there. He said mother had a three and one-half hour trip for her counseling appointments as well. As for visitation, mother admitted missing "a couple of visits" and said she had problems with transportation, and that it rained for a couple of days. Mother simply claimed that she "had been trying to visit as much as she [could]" but it had "not been easy for her." Mothers counsel thus argued that mothers services were unreasonable. He also noted that mother was currently looking for a job.
The court found that return of the children to mothers custody would create a substantial risk of detriment. It further noted that mother had been given numerous referrals, and that her claim of unreasonable services had to do with her lack of transportation. The court then found that referrals had been made for therapy, testing, and counseling, and that the services rendered were reasonable. However, mothers progress over the last year and a half had been unsatisfactory. The court noted that it was at the 18-month mark, and that it either had to return D.G. to mothers custody or terminate services. Noting the instability in mothers life, the lack of visitation, even after being given a bus pass, the court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
ANALYSIS
There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Courts Finding
That Reasonable Services Were Provided to Mother
Mother complains that the department did not provide her with reasonable services. Specifically, she argues that after she moved to Lake Elsinore, the services provided were unreasonable due to the length of time required to travel to her programs, the lack of bus passes, and because she was required to attend a drug program where there was no public transportation after the time the class sessions ended at night. We conclude the services provided were reasonable.
A. Standard of Review
"[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile courts finding that reasonable services were provided or offered. [Citations.]" (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) "We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the department and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the order. [Citation.]" (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010 (Mark N.).) "The adequacy of the reunification plan and of the departments efforts to provide suitable services is judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 1011.)
B. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Courts Finding
We have reviewed the record and find mothers argument unavailing. The record reveals that appropriate services were provided to her. Mother was referred to MFI and was admitted to the program on September 27, 2007, for a 90-day residential women and childrens program, with an additional three to six months of day treatment/aftercare services. At MFI, she participated in group therapy to address her domestic violence issues, attended anger management classes, and completed a parenting education program. On November 8, 2007, the social worker also gave mother a referral for a medication evaluation and psychotropic counseling. Mother had a consultation with a psychiatrist on December 5, 2007, and began a mental health and medication regimen. On November 26, 2007, mother was referred to individual therapy and psychiatric counseling, and she began both therapy and a psychiatric treatment plan on December 5, 2007. Mother was also given referrals for drug testing (ct 175, 266) and bus passes to assist her with compliance with her services. Thus, substantial evidence supports the courts finding that mother was given numerous referrals and that the services rendered were reasonable.
Mothers complaint with regards to lack of reasonableness in services is essentially based on her move to Lake Elsinore and the consequent lengthy commute to her services, as well as her lack of transportation. However, she chose to return to the Lake Elsinore area. After mother moved, the social worker gave her a referral to the Lake Elsinore substance abuse program and encouraged her to call as soon as possible to schedule an appointment. When mother requested to have her counseling service provider changed in order to be closer to her home, she was referred to a mental health clinic in Perris. In addition, the record reflects that after mother moved, the department made every effort to accommodate her by working around her schedule and transporting the children miles away from their placement to facilitate mothers attendance at the visits. She had visits with the children twice a week at a McDonalds restaurant in Lake Elsinore. We note the social worker reported that even though the visits had been set up to occur in the same city where mother lived, she still either failed to appear or cancelled the visits.
Regarding bus passes, the social worker reported that she had been providing mother with passes since the time she moved. The arrangement had been for mother to obtain her monthly bus passes at her regularly scheduled visits. So, if mother failed to attend the visits, she did not receive the bus passes. The social worker encouraged mother to contact her when mothers bus passes expired so that she could be provided with new ones.
In any event, "[a]t the critical juncture of the 18-month hearing, the authority of the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing is not conditioned on a reasonable services finding." (Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1511.) "Section 366.22, subdivision (a), does not give the juvenile court the option to continue reunification services nor does it specifically prohibit the court from ordering a section 366.26 hearing even if it finds reasonable reunification services have not been provided to a parent. [Citations.]" (Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1015-1016, italics added, fn. omitted.)
Nonetheless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the department, as we must, we conclude that the department provided mother with reasonable services and that the court properly set a section 366.26 hearing.
II. The Court Properly Concluded Return of D.G. to Mother Would Create a Substantial Risk of Detriment to Him
Mother claims she fit the criteria of section 366.22, and thus, the court should have continued her services "to the 24 month date" as to D.G. Mothers claim is meritless.
The statute governing the 18-month review hearing is section 366.22. At the 18-month hearing, "[i]f the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a substance abuse treatment program . . . the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian." (§ 366.2, subd. (b).)
Here, the evidence clearly showed there was no substantial probability that D.G. would be returned to mothers custody and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time. As noted by the court, mothers life was unstable. Mother started out by actively participating in her services and completing courses at MFI. However, during the most recent reporting period, the social worker stated that mother had avoided random drug testing and had been inconsistent with the rest of her services. The current service providers could not even comment about mothers progress because she had been inconsistent. She was also inconsistent in her visitation. Mother said she was not attending the visits because she did not have a bus pass, but even after being given a bus pass, she continued to miss the scheduled visits. Furthermore, when she did have visits, she had difficulty handling both children at the same time and consistently asked for help from the social services assistants who supervised the visits. In addition, at the time of the last review hearing, mother was unemployed and lived in a mobilehome.
We further note that, even after 18 months of services, it was the social workers opinion that mother demonstrated poor decision-making skills and did not take responsibility. She needed guidance and constant redirection to follow through with responsibilities.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the court properly terminated reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied.
We concur:
KING, J.
MILLER, J.