Opinion
A170190
07-09-2024
K.J., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN &FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU et al., Real Parties in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J2300358)
Petrou, J.
K.J. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief from an April 10, 2024 order terminating reunification services as to M.J.-H. and K.H. (the children) and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights.
Reunification services were also terminated for K.H.'s father, and M.J.-H.'s father was not involved in the juvenile court proceedings. Only mother is a party to this writ proceeding.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We deny the petition as substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings that mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her treatment plan and that reasonable services were offered. We deny as moot the related request for a temporary stay of the section 366.26 hearing set for August 7, 2024.
Factual and Procedural Background
As the children's fathers are not parties to this writ proceeding, our factual recitation focuses almost exclusively on mother's circumstances. We set forth only those facts necessary to resolve this writ proceeding.
On May 23, 2023, the Contra Costa County Children &Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) filed juvenile dependency petitions (one for each child) pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) regarding M.J.-H., then 15 months old (born January 2022), and K.H., then 8 years old (born October 2014). The petitions alleged the children were at risk of abuse and neglect based on an incident four days prior where mother caused a collision by driving her vehicle into oncoming traffic on the highway; the children were in the car and were not properly restrained. The petitions further alleged mother had mental health issues that impaired her ability to provide regular care and supervision for the children.
Detention/Jurisdiction Report and Hearings
Unless otherwise noted, dates refer to 2023.
The detention/jurisdiction report provided the following information regarding the collision that resulted in the petitions. Mother believed she was being followed while driving on the highway. Mother had been staying at a shelter; she had been in an abusive relationship (with someone who was not the father of either child); and she thought someone connected to her abusive ex-partner was the person following her. She told the children to duck down, made a U-turn, and drove into oncoming traffic before striking another car. K.H. was not in a booster seat and M.J.-H. was not wearing a seat belt. The children were not injured, but mother was treated for broken ribs and a punctured lung.
At the detention hearing, the court ordered the children detained. The court ordered parent education, counseling, and intimate partner violence treatment services for mother and granted supervised visitation for a minimum of two hours once per week. The court ordered the children's placement, and they were thereafter placed in a foster home.
At a hearing on July 12, mother pled no contest to the allegation of driving into oncoming traffic. The court found the children came within section 300, subdivision (b) and set the disposition hearing for August 9.
The original petitions alleged mother did so "purposely," but they were amended to remove that word at the time of mother's plea.
Disposition Reports
The Bureau provided reports (one for each child) dated August 7 in advance of the disposition hearing. The reports focused on concerns with mother's mental health and her involvement in intimate partner violence.
Mother did not have stable housing, having left her residence to flee her ex-partner. She was residing temporarily with the maternal grandmother but hoped to move into her own place. She found a part-time job and reported being in the process of being hired for two jobs. Mother was enrolled in a parenting program with the county and was eager to learn tips to become a better parent. She was seeing her own psychiatrist and enrolling in counseling. She was prescribed medication, apparently after checking herself into a psychiatric hospital in June, but did not feel that medication worked well for her.
Mother had attended 9 of 11 scheduled visits over the preceding 11 weeks. The initial visits were difficult and mother often cried and expressed worries about her children, specifically her belief that the children were being sexually abused in their first foster home. A visit in June had to be canceled after 30 minutes as mother was incoherent, confrontational, and accused the social worker of being a different person. Mother missed the next two visits and reported she had checked herself into the hospital. The visits subsequently improved, with mother bringing the children food and playing, reading, and having fun with them.
As of the time of the reports, the children were placed in their second foster home.
The Bureau recommended mother's visits remain supervised until mother became compliant with her medication and managed her mental health. The Bureau's case plan included the following responsibilities for mother: complete regularly scheduled visits; successfully complete an intimate partner violence counseling program; complete a mental health assessment arranged through the county or another mental health provider approved by the social worker, and follow all recommendations resulting from that assessment; comply with medical or psychological treatment; successfully complete a parenting education class; demonstrate the ability to meet the emotional needs of the children; and sign all necessary releases of information.
August 9 Disposition Hearing
At the August 9 disposition hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that placement with mother would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the children, and that placement of the children was appropriate and necessary.
The court ordered the Bureau to make appropriate services available to mother to help the children return home, including those delineated in the case plan, and ordered mother to comply with those services. The court set a six-month review hearing for January 24, 2024.
Mother's Lack of Compliance with Case Plan
Following the disposition hearing, the social worker met with mother in September to go over the case plan and provide referrals. Referrals were provided to mother for: parenting education classes, counseling services, intimate partner violence assessment and classes, other contacts with the mental health department, and a parent partner (someone from the Bureau assigned to work with parents). With few exceptions, mother failed to follow up with the referrals over the following months.
Intimate Partner Violence
After initially cancelling or rescheduling several appointments, mother completed her intimate partner violence assessment in October. The assessment revealed mother had a history of severe conflicts in relationships, including with the fathers of K.H. and M.J.-H. The evaluator who completed the assessment noted that intimate partner violence did not seem to be her sole/principal issue and may not have been the actual catalyst for the car accident, and stated that a full mental health evaluation was needed. As of December she had not participated in any intimate partner violence class.
The Bureau reported conflicts where mother harassed K.H.'s father at a park and at his residence, leading him to call the police. Although K.H.'s father initially allowed mother to use his residence to cook meals for her weekly visits with the children, he asked her not to return after she became confrontational and argumentative. K.H.'s father shared a video with the intimate partner liaison of mother on his property after he had asked her to stay away. K.H.'s father indicated he and mother had a history of intimate partner violence spanning an eight-year period.
Mental Health Treatment
Mother missed a psychological evaluation scheduled for September and was advised to reschedule, which did not happen.
In September, mother told the social worker that she was in the care of her own psychiatrist. In November, that psychiatrist, Dr. Sharlena Wilson, informed the social worker that she first met mother in August, at which time mother talked about being paranoid and stressed related to being unhoused. Based on that meeting, Dr. Wilson did not find mother to be experiencing symptoms of psychosis, instructed mother to stop anti-psychotic medication previously prescribed pursuant to a hospital visit, and prescribed anti-anxiety medication. Dr. Wilson had last seen mother in early November. She diagnosed mother with Unspecified Anxiety Disorder and PTSD; she prescribed Zoloft (anti-anxiety medication) for both and believed mother to be medication compliant.
Mother was also seeing her own therapist through the Family Justice Center. After three unsuccessful efforts to contact the therapist between September and November, the social worker received an update on December 21. The therapist had met with mother 14 times since July, working towards improving communication and coping skills, emotion regulation, and addressing anger management and trauma. Mother came prepared to sessions, completed the homework, and maintained accountability towards sessions. Mother demonstrated knowledge on how to effectively use skills that they reviewed and made an active effort to demonstrate knowledge in mindfulness, apply it to herself, and model it for her children.
Visitation with the Children
Mother's in-person and telephone visits with the children were inconsistent and problematic, worsening as time went on.
From August through December, mother attended only 13 out of 22 scheduled in-person visits and she missed more visits as time went on, especially between November 2023 and January 2024. The early visits largely went well and involved engaged, responsive, and affectionate interactions between mother and the children. However, mother repeatedly focused on alleged abuse of K.H. that she believed occurred at the first foster home, leading the social case assistant to redirect mother when around K.H.
Telephone calls between mother and K.H. initially went well. However, mother was late for a scheduled phone call around the time of K.H.'s birthday (October); the caregivers allowed her to speak with K.H. but reiterated the importance of calling at approved times. After mother was again late, the caregivers explained the call could not proceed. Mother became upset and called the home 11 times, which disrupted calls for other children in the home. During a call in November, K.H. wanted to end the call after mother yelled about how God can be the only one to judge and then-when the caregiver asked her to change the subject-cursed at K.H. and the caregiver. After the call ended, K.H. told the caregiver that mother had tried to kill him and M.J.-H. by putting something over their heads, and had done so multiple times with K.H. but only once with M.J.-H. Phone calls were thereafter suspended.
K.H.'s Mental and Emotional Status
The report indicated that K.H. had endured trauma in mother's care but was doing well in his foster home.
In December, K.H.'s father reported that K.H. told him mother had" 'put her hands around his neck and proceeded to cover his nose and mouth with her hands and . . . pull a shirt over [M.J.-H.]'s head. [K.H.] said he felt sad, confused and angry.'" An assessment was completed for K.H. in July indicating he was doing well behaviorally in the foster home and was beginning to speak more about past trauma. He was referred for individual therapy, which began in November. During his weekly therapy sessions, K.H. began opening up about traumatic events he experienced while living with mother. His therapist stated in a January 2024 update that K.H. was diagnosed with unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder. They were beginning to process incidents that happened while in mother's care that had traumatized him; his not being able to see her during some planned supervised visits; and questions he had about mother's failure to accept help for her own mental health.
The caregivers reportedly provided a safe and loving home for K.H., where he felt comfortable and was able to express his feelings and emotions. Investigations into allegations of abuse by the caregivers in June, August, and October concluded that all allegations were unfounded.
Child and Family Team Meetings
Throughout September and October, mother contacted the social worker with concerns about alleged abuse at the first foster home and that the children were being underfed and missing doctor's appointments at their second placement. Mother repeatedly contacted the social worker and caregivers about the children's medical care, and she contacted their doctor's office almost daily to change or request appointments. This created confusion for the medical providers and conflicted with the schedule of the caregivers, who oversaw the children's medical care.
In October, a Child and Family Team meeting that included the social worker, mother, and caregivers took place to, among other things, address mother's concerns. The meeting "was a failure as [mother] talked over everyone in the meeting and was insistent in having access to all appointments; she was more focused on being in the know, rather than what was in the best interest of the children." The team told mother she could attend telephone appointments and receive after visit summaries from the caregivers to ensure the children's medical needs were met, but mother ignored the solutions. She was also not responsive to the concerns that the children would need to be moved to a new foster home if mother continued interfering. The children's counsel later requested limitation of mother's medical and educational rights, as discussed below.
At a December Child and Family Team meeting between mother, mother's counsel, the parent partner, K.H.'s father, and the intimate partner liaison, mother was focused and composed. According to mother, she was attending college, looking for work, actively engaged in therapy, and visited her children. As noted above, however, mother's attendance at visits with the children became inconsistent beginning in November 2023. In light of the upcoming six-month review, the Bureau was concerned there had not been significant progress with her case plan or behavior. At the meeting, they discussed that mother was to follow up with the intimate partner liaison and social worker to determine what class to attend and assist in her enrollment. Mother did not follow through.
Ahead of the January 24, 2024 hearing, the Bureau recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The Bureau recognized that mother had made some efforts but concluded she had not made the necessary behavioral changes to safely parent the children, continued to display unstable mental health, and continued to engage in intimate partner violence.
Early 2024 Hearings
Unless otherwise noted, all further dates refer to 2024.
As a result of mother's disruptive intervention in the children's medical care, their counsel requested that the court limit mother's medical and educational rights. At a hearing on January 24, the court granted the request. Specifically, the court ordered mother not to change or make medical appointments, contact the children's medical or educational providers, or access their medical or educational records. Mother was ordered to go through her counsel to request from the social worker any medical or educational information or records. The social worker was ordered to provide mother notice and give her an opportunity for input as to any medical or educational appointments, and to keep mother informed of the outcome of those appointments. The court set a contested six-month review hearing for February 28.
At the February 28 hearing, the children's counsel requested appointment of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) on mother's behalf. Mother made a Marsden motion for substitution of her counsel, and sought to withdraw the request for a GAL. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court ruled appointment of a GAL was appropriate, set a hearing for appointment of a GAL and the Marsden motion for March 6, and continued the six-month contested review hearing to April 10.
On March 6, the court appointed a GAL for mother-over her objection-and granted her Marsden motion. On March 13, the court appointed new counsel for mother.
On April 4, the Bureau filed an ex parte application to suspend visitation with the children until the matter could be addressed at the upcoming six-month review hearing on April 10. The application cited ongoing concerns regarding mother's behaviors, specifically at a March 27 visit. At that visit, mother raised her voice at K.H. and "badger[ed]" him with questions about whether he had told anyone he did not want to visit with her. Mother told the social case agent to shut up when the agent attempted to explain that was not an appropriate topic. At one point, mother grabbed K.H. by his arm and pulled him to a standing position. K.H. had tears running down his face and was trembling. When the social worker attempted to intervene, mother turned to the worker with a balled fist and took a stance to lunge at her. A panic button in the room was pressed and the social worker ran to call the public safety and probation officers, who arrived on scene to deescalate the situation and help the children to a safe room. The court granted the application to suspend visits.
Six-Month Review Memoranda
Ahead of the six-month review hearing, the Bureau submitted memoranda (one for each child) with updates on visitation and case plan services. The memoranda described three scheduled visits in March. The first visit was canceled by mother as she could not timely arrive. The second visit on March 20 was a positive visit. The third visit on March 27 began well but quickly turned negative as mother started asking K.H. if he had told anyone he did not want to talk to or see her. That visit ended early based on the events noted above, leading to the suspension of visits.
The social worker sought updates from mother's individual therapist and psychiatrist in February and March. Dr. Wilson, the psychiatrist, did not respond to the social worker's email, fax, or telephone contacts. On March 14, mother's individual therapist reported:" 'Due to inconsistent sessions because of different variables I don't have any update for you and am no longer seeing this client anymore.'"
Six-Month Review Hearing
On April 10, the six-month contested review hearing was held. Mother was not present at the beginning of the hearing but appeared 30 minutes late. The children's counsel agreed with the Bureau's recommendation to end reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Counsel noted the most recent visit with mother was very traumatic for K.H.
Christy Roland, the social worker, testified mother was provided various resources, including two parent partners to work with her and provide updates to Roland. Mother had enrolled in intimate partner violence classes but did not sign a release for Roland to obtain updates, and Roland did not know whether mother was taking the classes. A psychiatric assessment, which was required as part of mother's case plan, had been scheduled but mother failed to appear for that appointment or reschedule as directed. Instead, mother decided to work with her own psychiatrist (Dr. Wilson) and individual therapist, which limited the services the Bureau could provide. Roland had concerns after November 2023 as she stopped receiving updates from either mother or her chosen providers, despite numerous efforts to reach the providers over several months.
Beginning in 2024, Roland offered additional resources to mother, including meeting with her monthly to apprise her of the case plan; offering mental health providers to replace her chosen providers; referring her to a housing assistant and Contra Costa Behavioral Health; and reminding her she could speak to a mental health liaison for those services. However, mother told Roland she did not trust the providers referred by the Bureau. Roland stated mother's health behaviors had escalated throughout 2024.
Roland had significant concerns about mother's mental health stability, as she vacillated between "zero to one hundred"; on some days she was calm and the next acted erratic. Mother sent Roland a lot of texts and emails, some of which did not make sense. Roland stated K.H. had no issues with his visits with mother when they went well and mother showed up regularly, but when she began to struggle and miss visits, K.H. expressed unhappiness.
The Bureau argued it had provided reasonable services to mother through numerous efforts to engage her, refer her to a parent partner, stay updated with her providers, and address concerns related to her behavior. Mother distrusted the service providers that were referred to her and the ones she chose to work with ended up terminating services. Given the recent visits with the children, there was no question mother had not made progress in addressing her significant mental health issues. The Bureau did not believe it was in the children's best interests to continue services or visits that placed their emotional and physical well-being at risk.
The children's counsel agreed reunification services should be terminated given mother's lack of compliance with the case plan. Counsel noted there was a long period where mother missed six visits in a row, to the point that K.H. did not want to visit with her, and also noted her inconsistent and problematic behaviors.
Mother's counsel requested that services be extended for an additional six months, asserting the Bureau failed to provide reasonable services as to mother's mental health. The crux of counsel's request was that mother had never received a full psychiatric assessment, admittedly due in part to mother's failure to attend the psychiatric assessment scheduled by the Bureau. And while Dr. Wilson diagnosed mother, it was based only on mother's reporting without the benefit of the Bureau's records. Counsel hoped mother, with the assistance of the GAL, would be able to get necessary psychiatric services.
The court found the case turned on mother's mental health issues and the corresponding danger her untreated conditions caused for the children. The court found that reasonable services had been provided, as social workers, parent partners, and her own counsel had made efforts for her to engage in the services and tasks required by her case plan. The court noted mother received referrals to parent partners and service providers, and while she was entitled to distrust the Bureau's referrals and seek her own providers, she failed to obtain adequate care through those providers to complete the requirements of her case plan. Despite making some progress at times, she failed to complete her mental health assessment, and her recent behavior during visits underscored that she had not addressed the primary issues that brought the case to the court.
The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the children to custody of a parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. It also found that: (a) reasonable services were offered throughout the relevant times in the case, and (b) mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her case plan. The court further found there was not a substantial probability the children may be returned to either parent within the following six months.
The court stated it was not in either child's best interest to extend reunification services to the 12-month point and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 7, 2024. It also ordered that visits with mother remain suspended until there was proof that she was consistently participating in treatment and her mental health was stable.
Mother interrupted the court three times throughout its findings of fact and issuing orders, and the court admonished her twice to comport herself with the rules required in the courtroom. When she interrupted for a fourth time during a discussion of an ancillary issue regarding a child's haircut, the court said it would ask mother to step outside to gather herself if she again interrupted. As the parties discussed whether to keep the caregivers' address confidential from mother, mother interrupted for a fifth time to say she already knew the address. The court ordered her to step outside and noted that mother's behavior in court only corroborated that she was unable and/or unwilling to treat her mental health conditions.
Mother filed a writ petition seeking relief from the court's order and requests a temporary stay of the hearing.
Discussion
Mother challenges the court's findings that she failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress in her case plan, and the court's finding that reasonable services had been offered. We conclude substantial evidence supports both findings.
I. Legal Framework
When a child is removed from the custody of a parent, the court ordinarily must order child welfare services for the purpose of facilitating reunification of the family. (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 (Michael G.).) When at least one child in a sibling group is under three years old at the time of initial removal, as M.J.-H. was, the parent is presumptively eligible for at least six months of reunification services. (See id. at p. 625 &fn. 5; § 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B), (C).) During this stage of dependency proceedings, the court holds periodic review hearings (ordinarily at six-month intervals) to evaluate reunification efforts and appropriate next steps, including the "adequacy of the reunification services offered or provided and the extent of the parent's progress." (Michael G., at p. 625; see § 366.21.)
At a six-month review hearing for a sibling group with one child under three years of age at the time of removal, like M.J.-H. and K.H., the court has the discretion to set a section 366.26 hearing to consider terminating parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3); M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 176.) If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability the children may be returned to the parent within six months, or that reasonable services were not provided to the parent, the court must extend reunification services for an additional six months. (Michael G., supra, at p. 625; § 366.21, subd. (e)(3).) Hence, "the court may schedule the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing 'only if it finds 'there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents.'" (Michael G., at p. 625; § 366.21, subd. (g)(4).)
"We review an order terminating reunification services to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] In making this determination, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. [Citation.] 'We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the [juvenile] court.'" (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688-689.)
II. The Court Did Not Err in Finding Mother Failed to Participate Regularly and Make Substantive Progress in Her Treatment Plan
Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her treatment plan given her inconsistent and ultimately unsuccessful efforts to engage with required components of the plan.
First, despite making some initial progress, the record is devoid of any evidence that mother substantially completed the classes and services that were ordered, and mother failed to provide the Bureau with information that she participated in those services. Mother did not show up for the scheduled mental health assessment, which also meant she could not follow any recommendations from the assessment, as directed in the case plan. And while mother points to her efforts to seek out her own mental health providers, she failed to show the Bureau that she was regularly seeing those providers after the initial updates they provided in 2023. Dr. Wilson provided no further updates despite Roland's repeated attempts to contact her, and the individual therapist's sole update in 2024 indicated mother was no longer a client due to" 'inconsistent sessions.'" Additionally, although mother completed the intimate partner violence assessment and had enrolled in classes, there was no evidence that mother participated in those classes.
Mother also failed to regularly complete scheduled visits with the children or demonstrate the ability to meet their emotional needs. Mother was initially more consistent with in-person visits and phone calls, but around November 2023, her attendance began to decline and she was also regularly late. Phone calls were suspended after mother disruptively and repeatedly called the caregivers' home and cursed at K.H. and the caregiver on another phone call. In-person visits were suspended after a visit in March 2024 when mother badgered K.H. and grabbed him, causing him to cry and tremble, and balled her fist and took a stance to lunge at the social worker.
Moreover, as the court noted, mother failed to address the primary issues that led to the dependency proceedings: mental health concerns that impaired her ability to provide regular care for the children and intimate partner violence. There were reports that mother harassed K.H.'s father in public and at his property, even after he asked her to stay away, and was confrontational and argumentative with him. K.H. told the caregiver and his father about incidents where mother tried to kill him and M.J.-H., which further underscores the court's concerns about mother's ability to care for the children. Also, mother had interfered with the children's medical care to such an extent that the court had ordered limitations on her medical and educational rights.
Hence, at the time of the six-month review hearing, there was no evidence that mother was enrolled in any mental health or intimate partner treatment services; visits had been suspended; and mother had failed to address the issues underlying the dependency proceedings. Despite mother's speculative assertion that extending reunification services would allow her to be assessed and receive appropriate treatment, our task is to decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding, at the time of the hearing, that she had not shown regular participation and substantive progress in her case plan. (See Kevin R. v. Superior Court, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at pp. 688-689.) We conclude the record contains such evidence.
Citing Daria D. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 606, 613, mother argues that services may be terminated at the six-month stage only when" 'parental unfitness is so well established that there is no longer "reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist" [citation], and the parens patriae interest of the state favoring preservation rather than severance of natural familial bonds has been extinguished.'" The Bureau argues mother's assertion is misleading as the same court noted a section 366.26 hearing may not be scheduled unless there is a finding that the parent failed to regularly participate in reunification services. (Ibid.) We need not resolve this conflict as we conclude substantial evidence supports either formulation of the standard.
III. The Court Did Not Err in Finding That Reasonable Services Were Offered
We next turn to mother's challenge to the court's reasonable services finding. The Bureau must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a reunification plan, and we judge the adequacy of that plan and the reasonableness of the Bureau's efforts based on the circumstances of each case. (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345.)" '[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.'" (Ibid.) "The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances." (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)
Here, substantial evidence supports the court's finding that reasonable services had been offered to mother, but she failed to consistently take advantage of those services. (See Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 599 [finding substantial evidence of reasonable services and noting the" 'real problem was not a lack of services available but a lack of initiative to consistently take advantage of the services that were offered' "].) The record shows the social worker met with mother to review her case plan and provide referrals to help resolve the issues that led to loss of custody, including for a mental health assessment (which had been scheduled), counseling services, an intimate partner violence assessment, and intimate partner classes. The Bureau also assigned mother parent partners. Roland maintained contact with mother throughout the course of the service plan and made reasonable efforts to assist her, including through the Child and Family Team meetings. This was precisely what was required of the Bureau. (See Amanda H. v. Superior Court, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1345.)
Mother concedes the Bureau properly focused on her mental health but argues that focus was "not strong enough to help her obtain the necessary diagnosis and recommended treatment." She contends referrals alone were insufficient and the Bureau should have made greater efforts to coordinate with her mental health providers and provide her transportation. However, Roland made numerous efforts to reach out to those providers throughout the reunification process, and there is no indication in the record that a lack of transportation prevented mother from obtaining any services. The requirement to provide reunification services "is not a requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort . . . her to and through classes or counseling sessions." (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.)
Further, when mother apparently stopped seeing her chosen providers and her mental health behaviors began to escalate in 2024, Roland met with her monthly to apprise her of the case plan, offer mental health providers to replace her chosen providers, and remind her she could speak to a mental health liaison for those services. In response, mother told Roland she did not trust the providers referred by the Bureau. But that does not change the fact that the Bureau provided numerous resources to mother, and "it is not the court's role to force a parent to participate in services." (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233.) On this record, there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that reasonable services were offered.
Disposition
The petition for an extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(h)(1).) The request for a temporary stay is denied as moot. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
WE CONCUR: TUCHER, P.J., FUJISAKI, J.