Opinion
A157446
11-26-2019
In re A.L., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L.G., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Respondent; ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, et al., Real Parties 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. Nos. JD030076-02, JD030077-02, JD030078-02, JD030079-02, JD030080-02)
L.G., the mother of five children, files this petition for an extraordinary writ to overturn an order by the juvenile court terminating her reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She raises two issues: she contends the juvenile court erred by failing to conduct timely periodic review hearings during the reunification phase of the case, and also that the reunification services provided to her were not reasonable.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We deny her petition.
BACKGROUND
I.
The Commencement of Dependency Proceedings
On August 21, 2017, local police responded to a call about a domestic dispute at the family's home in Tracy, California that resulted in mother's arrest for physical child abuse and resisting arrest. She had pushed her teenage son's head into the microwave door and broken the glass, while holding her baby son in her arms. When child protection officials in San Joaquin County investigated, they ascertained that mother's five children were being exposed to traumatic levels of domestic violence in the home between mother and her husband, I.G., who was the father of the two youngest children, and concluded that father couldn't protect the children from mother. Father reported mother would hit and kick him, take his phone away and kick him out of the house whenever they fought. All five children were taken into emergency custody and placed in foster care.
Two days later, on August 23, 2017, child protection authorities in San Joaquin County commenced these proceedings by filing section 300 petitions concerning the five children: mother's oldest son Angelo (then age 15, born August 2002), daughter Celeste (then age 11, born December 2006), son Pedro (then age 9, born April 2008), daughter Chelsea (then age 2, born August 2015), and newborn infant Romeo (then three weeks old, born February 2017). Citing a history of domestic violence, unresolved mental health issues, and anger management issues on mother's part, the petitions alleged that mother had hurt both Angelo and the infant Romeo when she shoved Angelo's head into the microwave with force; had previously been arrested for domestic violence when 22 weeks pregnant with Romeo; had been investigated four times in the past two weeks by police responding to calls of domestic violence at the family's home; and had subjected the presumed father of the two youngest children, I.G., to ongoing extensive physical abuse (alleging the specifics in some detail) such that I.G. was himself unable to protect the children. The father of three oldest children was reportedly deceased. The petitions alleged a failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)), failure to provide support as a result of mother's having been arrested and leaving the children with no available caretaker (id., subd. (g)), and abuse of a sibling (id., subd. (j)).
The following day, on August 24, 2017, the children were ordered detained and supervised visitation was ordered.
Subsequently, after a contested jurisdiction hearing, the San Joaquin juvenile court found the petition's allegations true, that the children came within the provisions of section 300 as alleged, and that the children are residents of San Joaquin County.
There is no reporter's transcript of the contested jurisdiction hearing, which took place over the course of several dates. According to the minute orders from that hearing, however, mother and other witnesses testified, but on the last day of the hearing mother and father waived their rights and submitted a plea to the petition which the court accepted. The extent and nature of that plea is not clear from the record.
II.
Reunification Services Are Ordered on June 27 , 2018.
At the disposition hearing on June 27, 2018, the San Joaquin County juvenile court declared the children wards of the court and ordered family reunification services. Mother was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation, participate in counseling to address her issues with domestic violence and anger management, and complete a parenting education program and a domestic violence program.
In addition, she was ordered to sign releases that would enable the San Joaquin social worker to communicate with and receive reports concerning her participation and progress in the court-ordered treatment programs.
III.
Venue Is Unsettled for Almost Six Months of the Reunification Period Because Mother
Refused to Cooperate in Verifying Her Residence , Until the Proceedings Are
Finally Transferred to Alameda County in December 2018.
Several weeks after the disposition hearing, on July 18, 2018, a San Joaquin County social worker met with mother and explained her family reunification services. But mother said she didn't want anything to do with anyone from San Joaquin County and asked for the case to be transferred to Alameda County, which is where she claimed she and her husband had moved because they felt they had been mistreated by the San Joaquin child protection officials. Mother was told it would be necessary to verify her new residence in order to transfer the case.
Shortly after that, on July 31, 2018, the San Joaquin County juvenile court ordered the proceedings transferred to Alameda County.
At the transfer-in hearing on August 22, 2018, the Alameda County juvenile court accepted transfer of the case but ordered that the parent's residence be verified by a home visit, and it continued proceedings for a review hearing on September 7, 2018.
The day after the August 22, 2018 transfer-in hearing in Alameda County, an Alameda County social worker called mother to discuss the case and inquire about mother's participation in her reunification services. Mother reported she had participated in a 12-week parenting class and had provided the certificate to her previous social worker; and had completed both individual therapy and couples therapy with the therapist who facilitated that parenting class (and supplied his name and telephone number). The social worker also advised mother that the court had ordered a home verification of her address, and mother objected. She again refused to let anyone into her home unless her children were returned to her, and said she wanted the case to be reinvestigated. The social worker later drove to mother's home address and verified there was a house there.
The day before the upcoming September 7 review hearing, Alameda County officials had a conference call with a social worker in San Joaquin County who shared further information about some of mother's reunification efforts. The San Joaquin County social worker had received proof that the parents had completed an online parenting class but reported that the San Joaquin County court determined it wasn't sufficient to meet their case plan requirements. In addition, she reported that San Joaquin County child welfare officials had spoken with the therapist with whom mother had reported completing both individual and couples therapy; the therapist disclosed that, contrary to what mother had reported, mother had gone only once (with her husband) and then never returned despite the therapist's attempts to schedule a separate assessment with her.
In that conference call, the San Joaquin County social worker also advised Alameda County officials that San Joaquin County was not recommending transfer of the case to Alameda County; she said this was because they had been unable to verify the parents' home in Oakland and because there was a status review hearing calendared in October 2018. After that conference call, Alameda County officials filed an addendum report recommending the Alameda County juvenile court transfer the case back to San Joaquin County based on a finding that Alameda County isn't the children's county of residence.
At the review hearing on September 7, 2018, the Alameda County juvenile court adopted the recommendation and ordered the case transferred back to San Joaquin County because the Agency had been unable to verify the children's residence in Alameda.
The following month, on October 24, the San Joaquin County juvenile court ordered local officials to verify mother's address and continued the matter for a transfer-in hearing. Then, at the transfer-in hearing on November 7, 2018, the San Joaquin County juvenile court accepted transfer of the case and immediately transferred it back to Alameda County.
The Alameda County juvenile court conducted several more hearings, and on December 13, 2018, against the recommendation of local child welfare officials who maintained the case should be sent back to San Joaquin County, accepted re-transfer of the case. It remained there for the duration of these proceedings.
Local child welfare officials had been trying repeatedly to contact mother (both by phone and in person) to verify that she lived in Alameda County but mother was non-responsive. Eventually, in early December, they met with her in court and she was upset and crying, and described the many problems she was having with her husband, whom she accused of being a drug addict, aggressive and manipulative. The following day they spoke again, this time by phone, and mother told the Alameda County social worker she would not allow her into her home to do a home assessment. Nor would she provide a lease agreement or other documents to verify her residence. Unable to verify her residence, and sensitive to the fact the children were in foster care and enrolled in school in San Joaquin County, where their extended family lived too, the Alameda child welfare officials recommended sending the case back.
IV.
Reunification Services Are Terminated on June 4 , 2019 , Following a Contested Review
Hearing That Was Set in January 2019 and Spanned Several Months.
On January 8, 2019, Alameda County officials filed their first status review report in the case, for the upcoming review hearing on January 10, 2019. The agency recommended terminating mother's reunification services. (We address relevant particulars below).
At the January 10, 2019 review hearing, the juvenile court set the matter for a contested hearing on March 15, 2019. Mother represented herself at the contested hearing, with the benefit of court-appointed standby counsel. The hearing commenced in substance on March 29, 2019, took place on multiple dates over a two-month period, and concluded on June 4, 2019.
On June 4, 2019, the court made a number of findings including that "[r]easonable services have been provided/offered by the Social Services Agency"; it terminated mother's reunification services; and it set a hearing under section 366.26 for four of the children that we subsequently stayed. It ordered placement in a planned permanent living arrangement as the permanent plan for mother's oldest child, Angelo.
DISCUSSION
I.
No Prejudice Has Been Shown Arising from Any Error in Failing
to Provide Statutory Oversight.
Mother argues, first, that the juvenile court violated both federal and state law by failing to conduct timely periodic review hearings. The agency argues that any error was harmless.
It is unnecessary for us to address the merits of this issue. Even assuming for argument's sake that there was an error, mother has not demonstrated either that she was prejudiced (an argument that appears nowhere in her brief) or, alternatively, that the error of which she complains mandates automatic reversal of the court's ruling terminating her reunification services. Accordingly, the issue does not warrant further discussion.
II.
The Juvenile Court's Finding That Reasonable Services Were Provided Is Supported
by Substantial Evidence.
A. The Applicable Law and Standard of Review
The relevant legal principles are well-established and recently have been summarized as follows:
"Family reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings. [Citations.] At the dispositional hearing, the court is required to order the agency to provide child welfare services to the child and his or her parents. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) Services 'may include provision of a full array of social and health services to help the child and family and to prevent reabuse of children.' (§ 300.2.) Reunification services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family. [Citation.]
"At each review hearing, if the child is not returned to his or her parent, the juvenile court is required to determine whether 'reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent . . . in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent . . . ' (§§ 366.21, subds. (e)(8) & (f)(1)(A), 366.22, subd. (a).) The 'adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Agency's] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.' [Citation.] To support a finding that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent, 'the 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 . . . .' [Citations.]
"At the 12-month and 18-month review hearings, the juvenile court may not set a section 366.26 hearing unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent. (§§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C)(ii), 366.22, subd. (b)(3)(C).) 'Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.' [Citation.]
"We review a reasonable services finding 'in the light most favorable to the trial court's order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings based on the clear and convincing evidence standard.' [Citation.] In determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's reasonable services finding, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's finding and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine whether there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court." (In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14.)
Ordinarily, parents are entitled to a minimum reunification period of 12 months for children who are over the age of three on the date they are initially removed from parental custody (see § 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A)), and six months for children who are under the age of three at the time of removal (see id., subd. (a)(1)(B)). Here, both periods apply. Mother was entitled to a minimum of 12 months of services to try to reunify with her three older children (Angelo, Celeste and Pedro), who were older than three when removed. The two youngest children (Chelsea and Romeo) were under three, and so mother was presumptively entitled to only six months of services for them. As we will explain, there is substantial evidence that she received reasonable reunification services during these periods, and thus the juvenile court did not err in terminating her services for all five of her children.
Although services may be limited to six months for older children who are members of a sibling group that includes a child under the age of three (see id., subd. (a)(1)(C)), that limitation does not apply here. "[T]he juvenile court's statutory power to limit a parent's services to six months for all minors removed from that parent's custody, even when they were older than three years of age when removed, when one member of the sibling group was three years of age or under at the time of removal applies only when that sibling is placed with the older siblings." (W.P. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1196, 1202 [mother entitled to 12 months of reunification services for three older children when youngest child, under three, was in a separate placement].) The two younger children, Chelsea and Romeo, were not placed with their three older half-siblings.
B. Analysis
The reunification period lasted nearly 12 months: from June 27, 2018, when services were ordered by the San Joaquin County juvenile court, until June 4, 2019, when terminated by the Alameda County juvenile court.
We do not ascribe any significance to, or rest our decision upon, the fact that services were terminated approximately two weeks short of the 12-month mark, a point no party has raised.
In evaluating the reasonableness of the agency's efforts during that time, we are mindful that "[r]eunification services are voluntary, and cannot be forced on an unwilling or indifferent parent." (In re Jonathan R. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1220.) Child welfare officials are not required "take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counselling sessions." (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.) These principles are fatal to mother's contention she was not provided reasonable reunification services.
For the first six months (June to December 2018), mother was completely unwilling to engage in services and in total denial that she had mistreated her children. The record on this point is too voluminous for us to detail. Despite mother's total lack of cooperation, the record discloses that child welfare officials still worked diligently to attend to her needs. Among other things, they: (1) arranged for visitation and responded to her many complaints about aspects of it; (2) set up a family team meeting to discuss her case plan in December 2018 that she refused to attend and then sent her follow up questions after the meeting that she never answered; (3) offered to provide referrals for her; and (4) contacted the service provider with whom she claimed to have completed a parenting class to ascertain whether it was sufficient for her needs and to verify whether mother had in fact participated in therapy with him as she claimed. What is more, mother alone was responsible for all of the delay occasioned by the repeated inter-county transfers, because she adamantly refused to allow child welfare officials into her home to verify her residence, repeatedly. It wasn't until seven months into the reunification period, on January 22, 2019, that she finally let a case worker into her home, and even then she was unwilling to discuss her case plan with him. Indeed, several months after the case was finally accepted in Alameda County, the agency stated in its February 14, 2019 status review report that it was "concerned about how the minors' permanency was impacted when the case was transferred back and forth" between the two counties.
For example: in July 2018, the San Joaquin County social worker met with mother to discuss reunification services, but mother claimed her children had been unfairly removed and insisted she wouldn't work with anyone from that county and asked for the case to be transferred to Alameda County. The following month, child welfare officials from both counties talked to mother (sometimes in person) at least five times to encourage her to engage in services, and each time she either refused or resisted, said she had already completed her required services and/or refused to sign releases that would enable them to speak to her providers (on August 8, August 14, August 15, August 20, and August 23). Over a four-day period at the end of November, mother declined to respond to a case worker who tried calling her three times and left several voicemail messages and also sent her a text message with contact information. And in December, among other things, she refused to attend a child and family team meeting that went forward without her. --------
Things did not get much better in the last five months (January to June 2019). Her new case worker, assigned to the case in January 2019, testified he met with mother approximately three times and had more than ten phone calls with her. Each time they met, and again in about two or three of their phone calls, he tried to talk about reunification services with her by asking her what she'd be willing to do. Each time, she would say she didn't want to do any of her case plan because it didn't apply to her, and she refused to do any domestic violence or parenting classes because she didn't think she needed them. Although mother finally agreed to participate in a team meeting that took place on March 4, 2019, and in that meeting she agreed to participate in therapy, she still remained in complete denial that she had abused her children or needed any help, had any anger management issues, mental health issues or needed a domestic violence or parenting class. Two months later, her social worker procured a therapy referral for her but he should have done so sooner. That said, to be adequate, efforts to provide reunification services need not be perfect. (See In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
We refrain from summarizing all of the evidence contained in this voluminous record. We have reviewed the record and have no hesitation concluding mother's reunification services were, under the circumstances, reasonable.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The stay we issued on September 19, 2019, is vacated. Our decision is final immediately. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
/s/_________
STEWART, J. We concur. /s/_________
KLINE, P.J. /s/_________
MILLER, J.