Opinion
No. H037211
10-11-2011
L. C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. JD19753, JD19754)
L. C., mother of the two children at issue here, has filed a writ petition seeking review of the juvenile court's orders terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Mother contends that the Department of Family and Children's Services (the Department) failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that return of the children to her would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well being of the children, and that the Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it provided her reasonable reunification services. As we find that substantial evidence in the record supports the juvenile court's findings and orders, we will deny the writ petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
In May 2009, mother's sons P. (age 8) and M. (age 5), molested her three-year-old daughter by digitally penetrating the girl's anus. Despite the family working with EMQ, Gardner Mental Health, and Silicon Valley Foundation, and creating a safety plan for the children, the boys molested mother's one-year-old daughter in August 2009. When mother learned of the latest molestation, mother ordered the boys to pull down their pants, and ordered her three-year-old daughter to insert her finger in the boys' anuses because mother wanted the boys to "know what it feels like." The boys had watched pornography at the home of their father, who was still married to but separated from mother and who had visitation rights every other weekend, and the boys had an extensive knowledge about sex. P. had also previously been molested by a roommate of the father's, but the father refused to believe the molestation had occurred. Both mother and the boys' father had perpetrated domestic violence on the other parent. Further, mother often left the home for long periods of time, leaving P. to care for his three younger siblings. On August 14, 2009, a San Jose police officer arrested mother and placed all four children into protective custody. The children were ordered detained after a juvenile court hearing on August 19, 2009. The boys were placed in separate emergency satellite homes (ESHs), and were separated from their sisters.
The Department filed first amended petitions under section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect], and (d) [sexual abuse], as to P. and M. on September 2, 2009. The social worker's reports and addendums for the jurisdiction hearing stated that P. and M. remained in their separate ESHs. Both mother and the boys' father coached their children to tell on the other parent and to accuse them of physical abuse. Both mother and the boys' father were reporting to Child Protective Services incidents of physical abuse, general neglect, and sexual abuse by the other parent. Domestic abuse was also occurring in mother's relationship with her boyfriend, the father of mother's one-year-old daughter. Although mother completed a court-ordered 16-week domestic violence support group in April 2006, and a court-ordered 16-week parenting without violence class in June 2009, she had not "integrated" into her parenting the skills she had learned in those classes, and she had not sought out individual therapy. Mother was having supervised visitation with all the children together and the visits were going well. Both boys were seeing a therapist once a week. The social worker recommended that the boys remain in their ESHs and that both parents receive family reunification services.
The Department filed similar petitions as to mother's daughters, but they are not at issue in this appeal. Accordingly, we will refer to the daughters only when needed to address the issues involving P. and M.
--------
The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on November 23, 2009. Both mother and the boys' father, who were represented by separate counsel, submitted the matters on the social worker's reports and addendums. The court found that the allegations in the amended petitions were true and that the boys were dependent children of the court within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). The court ordered that the boys remain in their ESHs and that both mother and the boys' father receive reunification services. Mother's case plan included a 52-week child abuser's treatment program; a program of counseling or psychotherapy addressing issues of sexual and physical abuse in the family and its effects on her and the children; a psychological evaluation; and a domestic violence assessment, with mother to follow all treatment recommendations. Mother was also ordered to not use physical punishment, to refrain from domestic violence, and to ensure that the children regularly attend counseling.
The social worker's report for an interim review hearing held on January 19, 2010, stated that mother had completed her domestic violence assessment and a parent orientation class. She had begun the 52-week child abuser's treatment program. She was participating in counseling services and the social worker had provided the counselor with the court-ordered requirements to make sure the counselor was addressing the appropriate issues. The assigned psychotherapist had not yet scheduled mother's psychological evaluation. Mother was visiting the children, but the visitation supervisor reported that mother "struggles" in her visits with all four children because she has a hard time controlling and interacting with them all at once. The visitation supervisor has had to intervene during visits because M. exhibited unsafe behaviors and mother was not correcting the behaviors. Following the interim review hearing, the court ordered that all prior orders were to remain in effect.
The social worker's report and addendum for an interim review hearing held on March 23, 2010, stated that P. was participating in individual counseling once a week, and M. was participating in individual counseling twice a week. Both boys attended supervised visits with mother and their sisters twice a week, and M. was separately visiting with mother once a week. Mother was participating in individual counseling, a 52-week parenting class, and a domestic violence support group. She was to begin a 16-week conflict and accountability class recommended in her domestic violence assessment. Her psychological evaluation had not yet been scheduled. Mother's boyfriend had been arrested in February 2010 for domestic violence involving mother, and mother had obtained a restraining order against him. Following the hearing, the court ordered that all previous orders were to remain in effect.
The social worker's report for the six-month review hearing stated that P. and M. were still participating in individual counseling, and in twice-weekly supervised visits with mother. During his individual visits with mother, M. continued to demonstrate defiant and unsafe behaviors, and mother had to be prompted by the visitation supervisor to deal with the behaviors. During the group visits, mother sometimes joined the children in their play, but she still had discipline problems with them. Mother had completed her psychological evaluation. She was participating in the 52-week child abuser's treatment program, in counseling services addressing the effects of domestic violence on herself and her children, and in the conflict accountability classes. Following the hearing on May 18, 2010, the court continued the boys in their out-of-home placements, and continued both parents' reunification services.
The social worker's report for an interim review hearing on July 27, 2010, stated that both boys continued to participate in individual counseling, and in twice-weekly supervised visits with mother, but mother still struggled to contain M.'s difficult behaviors. Mother was participating in individual therapy, in her 52-week parenting without violence class, and in her 16-week accountability class. She had her first unsupervised visit with the boys on July 13, 2010, but because mother disregarded all the instructions the social worker gave her about the visit (she was 30 minutes late, she transported the children herself without providing proof of a current driver's license, her boyfriend was present during the visit and mother told the boys to lie about it, and M. was injured while playing unsupervised), no further unsupervised visits were scheduled. Following the hearing, the court ordered that all previous orders were to remain in effect.
The social worker's report for the 12-month review hearing stated that mother continued to participate in her 52-week child abuser's treatment program and in individual counseling. The boys also continued to participate in individual counseling, and in supervised visits with mother. The social worker recommended that the boys continue in their out-of-home placements with reunification services, and that the girls be returned to mother with family maintenance services, as mother had not yet demonstrated the ability to rear the boys in the same home as the girls. At the hearing on November 30, 2010, the court adopted the social worker's recommendations, but ordered that mother's case plan would include family therapy for mother and the children, and unsupervised visits with the boys.
The social worker's report and addendums for the 18-month review hearing recommended that reunification services be terminated for both parents and that a section 366.26 hearing be set for P. and M. Mother had custody of her daughters and had given birth to a fifth child in May 2011. Her boyfriend admitted that he lived with her, but she denied it. Mother had completed 52 sessions of her parenting without violence program, and had scored an "Above Average Progress," and she had completed other components of her case plan. However, she had only been participating regularly in individual counseling until reunifying with her daughters. The family received therapeutic behavioral services from EMQ but those services ended after they began participating in the court-ordered family therapy on January 21, 2011. The boys' caregivers reported complaints about mother and the boys following their unsupervised visits, so further visits were supervised. A visit the social worker supervised in June 2011 involving mother and all of her children in her home "was chaotic and the children were all over the place." Both boys continued to participate in individual counseling, and the boys' counselor reported that M. had demonstrated no affection towards mother, and that the counselor did not believe that mother could appropriately care for the boys. Both boys were still demonstrating sexualized behaviors, so the social worker felt that returning them to mother would place mother's daughters and her baby at risk, and that the boys' behavioral issues "supersede the parental capacity" of mother and their father.
The 18-month review hearing began on July 1, 2011. The court admitted into evidence the social worker's report and addendums. Counsel for mother's daughters informed the court that she was present at the hearing because she and her social worker did not feel that the girls would be safe if the boys were to be returned to the mother's care.
The boys' father testified that he wanted the boys to live with him. Although they have been out of his custody for two years, there has never been a time that he did not want them returned to him. When asked if he believed P. when P. said that he had been sexually abused by father's former roommate, father responded, "I haven't seen anything about, but I'm not saying that he didn't, it could be." "He hasn't told me exactly the truth, but I can believe it, but I hadn't seen it."
Rebeca Urquilla testified that she is the social worker who has worked with the family since June 2010. Her recommendation to terminate services and to set a section 366.26 hearing is based on her conversations with the boys, the boys' caregivers, the boys' service providers, and both parents, as well as her observations of the family's interactions. Although mother had completed most of her case plan, she still did not show that she could appropriately supervise her children. During their unsupervised visits, mother encouraged the boys to keep secrets, which is inappropriate because both boys have been sexually abused and have sexually abused others. Also during the visits, mother had her friend interrogate M. in order to attempt to sabotage his placement, and mother had encouraged both boys to do something that would cause their out-of-home placements to fail.
Mother did not participate in individual therapy from mid-October 2010 through January 2011, and she inconsistently participated in it from January to April 2011, even though both her domestic violence assessment and her psychological evaluation stated that it was a very important program for her to complete. At the disposition hearing, the court ordered that the family was to be referred to family therapy once the boys' therapist deemed the family ready for it. On November 30, 2010, the court ordered the social worker to provide the family with family therapy. The social worker had not provided it before that date because, in her opinion, the family was not yet ready for it, the boys' therapist never said that family therapy was appropriate, and the social worker decided to use therapeutic behavioral services instead. Family therapy began in January 2011, and the family continued to receive therapeutic behavioral services until the end of March 2011.
In the social worker's opinion, it is safe for mother's two daughters to be in her home with family maintenance services, but it is not safe for the boys to be in mother's home, "[b]ecause [the girls] have different needs. They don't have behavioral issues that [the boys have]. They have not witnessed severe domestic violence. They haven't been exposed to too much physical abuse. They are just different kids." In addition, P. does not demonstrate the same types of behavior in his foster home that he does when he is with his parents, because P.'s foster father "has clear rules. He has a structured day for [P.] And he is consistent with [P.]" The same is true for M., because "[h]is caregivers have also a very consistent day. They have a structured routine. They speak to him firmly, and he does well with that."
Lisa Salmeron, the family's family therapist, testified as an expert in the areas of family systems, identifying goals in family therapy, and assessing the progress of those goals. She started working with the family beginning in January 2011, but she discontinued working with them once they had completed part one of the therapy. She wanted P. to know that they had accomplished certain things, but she had to end the therapy after about four months because she did not know what P.'s ultimate placement would be. She could resume the therapy once she knows whether the boys are going to stay in their current placements or are going to be returned to mother's care.
On July 7, 2011, mother testified that she began seeing a new therapist about three weeks before testifying, and mother plans to continue seeing the therapist. Mother found family therapy helpful, and she would like it to continue. She would also continue taking the boys to their individual therapy sessions if the boys are returned to her care. Her daughters and her two-month old baby, and nobody else, currently live with her. She has separate bedrooms for her boys and her girls, and she can supervise them all both during the day and at night because she would be sleeping in the boy's room with them. She is currently going to school four evenings a week. Her boyfriend, the father of her youngest two children, would supervise all her children during those evenings if the boys were returned to her. She believes that it is best that the boys be returned to her because they love her and she loves them. They need their mother and she is willing to take care of them 24 hours a day. She knows how they feel and she knows their needs. She learned a great deal during her classes and she is ready to have the boys back. She does not think that there is any safety risk to any of her children if the boys are returned to her, and she is not worried about either P. or M. doing anything inappropriate with their sisters or with the baby. She is sorry that she made the decision to have her daughter put her finger in the boys' anuses, but she does not believe that she perpetuated sexual abuse on her children.
Lisa Slater, a social worker with the office of dependency counsel, testified as an expert in the areas of risk assessment and the placement of dependent children. She has been following this case since P. was removed from mother in August 2009. She agrees with the recommendation to terminate family reunification services to both parents. She believes that mother had failed to sufficiently internalize her services, and that mother had made marginal progress in her mental health services. Mother had not been able to demonstrate an "operating awareness" of why P. was removed from her care. The boys' therapist had told Slater that she believes that there is a bond between mother and the boys, but that it is "a disorganized bond." Both boys are very attached to mother, but their bond "is almost sometimes like a rival sibling bond. And no one knows quite who the parent is." All of mother's children would be at risk if the boys were returned to mother's care, partly because of the lack of supervision for the children.
After hearing argument from the parties, the court took the matter under submission. On August 2, 2011, the court stated that it had reviewed the prior court findings and orders, all of the reports and documents, the witnesses' testimony, its notes, the parties' trial briefs, and counsels' arguments. It found that the Department had met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the boys to one or both parents would present a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, especially to their emotional well-being. The court noted that the parents substantially complied with their case plans, and it stated that it took into consideration the progress that they had made. "[W]hat I could not overlook, what I could not, not take into consideration and give it significant weight was that in spite of, I think by now August, over 20 months of services since disposition on this case that there was a still a pattern of the parents' inability to internalize information, the services that you received. You[r] inability to use good judgment and apply the necessary parenting skills.
"The most compelling [things] in my decision to terminate family reunification services is . . . the emotional harm that these children have suffered and their current state of mind that has been exhibited in their drawings, in their behavior, in their thoughts. And I was not looking for perfect parents or a parent, I think with children that were not in the situation that [M.] and [P.] are, children that have not suffered physical and emotional harm and sexual harm, let's call it the 'C' minus parent, but the current state of these children, their emotional state of mind requires that they have a structured, stable home. That a watchful eye be on them on a constant basis. And that all potential risk of harm whether it be physical, sexual or emotional be eliminated to the degree that it is possible.
"And I go back to what I believe perhaps was the genesis of how these children were affected. That perhaps going back to when [P.] was sexually molested by the friend at the father's home. And what was very revealing for me was that during testimony, not only father's words, but his body language told me that to this day he doesn't believe that the sexual abuse happened. That was a very large hurdle for me to overcome. If you do not believe that it happened, it would be very hard for you to protect them from it happening again.
"And then I look to the fact, okay, we don't have an intact family so that perhaps if not with the father is it possible that the children be placed with the mother or split them one a piece. And neither one of those scenarios for the many reasons that came out at the trial. I'm not going to go through the laundry list of all of the things that led the children reverting from unsupervised to supervised visits. We all know the facts. But neither option was one I could live with.
"And so that I see no other decision that would protect these children from further harm. And at this point more services 'A' beyond the 18 months, and 'B' I don't believe it's a matter of more services as I don't believe they have taken root.
"So as far as the reasonable, whether the Department provided reasonable services, primarily because of the delay in therapy. When we look in the continuum of services which were over 20 months, I don't believe that two months delay would have made a difference. So I don't find merit in that argument.
"Therefore, I'm going to adopt the recommendations and set a [section] 366.26 hearing." The section 366.26 hearing was set for November 15, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that the court erred in setting a section 366.26 hearing because the Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that return of the boys to her would create a substantial risk of detriment to the boys, and it failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it provided reasonable services to her. She argues that the record shows that she complied with her case plan, that the service providers all remarked that she engaged in her services, and that the visit supervisors reported that she was able to provide clear and consistent rules and structures for the boys. She also argues that reasonable services were not provided because family therapy was an integral part of her case plan, yet the social worker determined herself that family therapy was not appropriate and did not provide it until after the 12-month review hearing in November 2010.
The Department contends that the juvenile court properly terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. It argues that substantial evidence supports the court's finding that return of the boys to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment, as well as the finding that it provided mother reasonable services.
Section 366.22, subdivision (a) provides that, following an 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court "shall order return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." An appellate court reviews the juvenile court's decision following a section 366.22 hearing to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 705 (Constance K.).) We examine the evidence in favor of the juvenile court's order, and indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the court. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545; In re Walter E. (1992) 13 Cal.App.4th 125, 140.)
"It is the trial court's role to assess the credibility of the various witnesses, to weigh the evidence to resolve the conflicts in the evidence. We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. [Citations.]" (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.) "The 'clear and convincing' standard is for the edification and guidance of the juvenile court. It is not a standard for appellate review." (In re J.I. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 903, 911.) "Thus, on appeal from a judgment required to be based upon clear and convincing evidence, 'the clear and convincing test disappears . . . [and] the usual rule of conflicting evidence is applied, giving full effect to the respondent's evidence, however slight, and disregarding the appellant's evidence, however strong.' [Citation.]" (Sheila S. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872, 881; In re J.I, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 911.)
"In determining whether it would be detrimental to return the child at the 18-month review, the court must consider whether the parent participated regularly in any treatment program set forth by the plan, the 'efforts or progress' of the parent, and the 'extent' to which the parent 'cooperated and availed himself or herself of services provided.' (§ 366.26, subd. (a).)" (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748; Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1341 (Jennifer A.).) "The [Department] has the burden of establishing detriment. [Citations.] . . . [T]he risk of detriment must be substantial, such that returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child's physical or emotional well-being. [Citations.]" (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.)
"Compliance with the reunification plan is certainly a pertinent consideration at the section 366.22 hearing; however, it is not the sole concern before the dependency court judge. [Citations.]" (Constance K., supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 704; Jennifer A., supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 1341.) Other pertinent considerations include "properly supported psychological evaluations which indicate return to a parent would be detrimental to a minor," "instability in terms of management of a home," "limited awareness by a parent of the emotional and physical needs of a child," "and the manner in which the parent has conducted himself or herself in relation to a minor in the past." (Constance K., supra, at p. 705.) "The court must also consider the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement." (In re Yvonne W, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400.)
"In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [Department]. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the [juvenile court's findings]. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed." (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545; accord, In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46.) "And, in reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services provided by the Department, we must also recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which were provided are often imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.]" (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969; accord, In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 48.) " '[T]he record should show that the [Department] 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 (such as helping to provide transportation and offering more intensive rehabilitation services where others have failed).' [Citation.]" (Robin V. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1165; see also In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006-1007; In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972-973.)
In this case, the record indicates that mother complied with virtually all aspects of her reunification plan in terms of completion of required classes and programs. However, "[t]he problem is not, as it were, quantitative (that is, showing up for counseling or therapy or parenting classes, or what have you) but qualitative (that is, whether the counseling, therapy or parenting classes are doing any good)." (Blanca P., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1748; Constance K, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 706.) We agree with the Department that the social workers' and mother's testimony at the 18-month review hearing and the reports in the record constitute substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that, although mother substantially complied with her case plan, there remained a substantial risk of detriment if the boys were returned to mother's custody.
Mother testified that she learned a great deal during her classes and she is ready to have the boys back. However, she does not think that there is any safety risk to any of her children if the boys are returned to her, and she is not worried about either P. or M. doing anything inappropriate with their sisters or with the baby. She is sorry that she made the decision to have her daughter put her finger in the boys' anuses, but she does not believe that she perpetuated sexual abuse on her children. As the court stated, if someone does not believe that sexual abuse actually occurred, it would be very hard for that person to make sure that it did not happen again.
Rebeca Urquilla, the social worker in charge of the case since June 2010, testified that mother could not show that she could appropriately supervise her children. During unsupervised visits, mother encouraged the boys to keep secrets, which is inappropriate when children have been sexually abused and have sexually abused others, and mother had her friend interrogate M. in order to attempt to sabotage his placement. Neither P. nor M. demonstrated the same types of behavior in their foster placements that they continue to demonstrate during mother's supervised visits, because their foster parents have set rules and are consistent, which is what the boys need.
Urquilla's report and addendums for the 18-month review hearing state that a visitation involving mother and all of her children in June 2011 in mother's home, just one month before the 18-month review hearing, was "chaotic." The boys' counselor did not believe that mother could appropriately care for the boys, as mother had not demonstrated that she had an appropriate parental relationship with the boys. Returning the boys to mother's custody would place all of mother's children at risk because the boys' behavioral issues, including their continued sexualized behaviors, exceeded mother's parental capacity.
Lisa Slater, an expert in the areas of risk assessment and the placement of dependent children who had been following the case since August 2009, testified that mother had failed to sufficiently internalize her services and that mother had made marginal progress in her mental health services. Mother had not been able to demonstrate an awareness of why P. was removed from her care. All of mother's children would be at risk if the boys were returned to mother's care, partly because of the lack of supervision for the children. Slater agreed with the Department's recommendation to terminate services.
Mother's capacity to protect and to provide adequately for the safety and physical and emotional well-being of all her children was an objective of mother's reunification plan. At the 18-month review hearing, the evidence indicated that, even though mother had completed the services provided, she had not met the objectives of the plan and had not sufficiently ameliorated the conditions giving rise to the boys' removal from her custody. She did not recognize that she had sexually abused her children. She was exhibiting problematic behavior during unsupervised visits and the boys were still exhibiting problematic behavior when in her supervised care. In addition, the boys' therapist and two social workers were of the opinion that returning the boys to mother's care would create a substantial risk of detriment. Accordingly, we find that the record supports the juvenile court's finding that return of the boys to mother's care would create a substantial risk of detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); Constance K, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 705.)
The record further supports the court's finding that reasonable services were provided, and that a delay in proving family therapy would not have made a difference in the outcome. Even with services from EMQ, Gardner Mental Health, and Silicon Valley Services, mother was not able to properly respond to the boys' sexual abuse of her daughters in August 2009. After the boys were removed from her custody in August 2009, mother was provided individual counseling, parenting classes, supervised and unsupervised visitation, and therapeutic behavioral services and counseling for the boys for well over 16 months before family therapy began. The social worker kept in regular contact with mother, the boys, the boys' caregivers, and all the service providers. The social worker believed that the therapeutic behavioral services were a better fit than family therapy, and the behavioral therapeutic services had to be phased out after family therapy began. On this record, we find that the services provided by the Department were designed to address the problems leading to the removal of the boys from mother's custody and were reasonable under the circumstances of this case. (Elijah R. v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 969.)
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied.
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J. WE CONCUR:
MIHARA, J.
DUFFY, J.