Opinion
E033696.
7-1-2003
LINDA J., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENS SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
William E. Drake for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Alan K. Marks, County Counsel and Joanne Fenton, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Mother has filed this petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B, challenging an order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing in regard to her four-year-old son. Mother argues that the reunification services were unreasonable because her mental illness was not properly evaluated or treated. We deny the petition, concluding that there was very little evidence of a mental illness, and that mothers substance abuse program contained a counseling component adequate to address any related mental illness.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The reports indicate that mother has a history of mental illness and substance abuse that resulted in the removal and loss of parental rights for two other children in 1996. Regarding the child at issue in this case, there had been several prior substantiated referrals for general neglect and one prior referral based on mothers failure to take the child to a September 2001 medical appointment. The child has Down Syndrome and therefore requires special medical treatment.
In February 2002, when the child was just under three years old, mother reported that he had been physically and sexually abused by the alleged father. A week later, however, mother denied that the childs injuries were the result of abuse and asked that the criminal investigation be dropped. Upon further questioning, mother indicated that she was being threatened and stalked by the alleged father. Mother seemed disoriented and confused, and appeared to be lying. It was believed that she had reestablished contact with the alleged father and was unable to protect the child. Additionally, although mother was able to provide basic care for the child, such as immunizations and well-baby appointments, mother missed another medical appointment despite being provided with gas vouchers. Mother reported that she suffers from a learning disorder and medical problems which interfere with her ability to follow through with services for the child, but denied any substance abuse problem. The child was immediately detained.
The court found that mother was unable to care for the child due to her history of alcohol abuse and impaired mental functioning, and asserted jurisdiction. A case plan was established requiring mother to complete parenting classes and participate in substance abuse assessments and testing. Mother began participating in parenting classes and was put on a waiting list for substance abuse counseling almost immediately.
During the first six-month review period, mother successfully completed the parenting classes, but failed to attend the substance abuse sessions and was terminated from the program. A referral was issued for a second substance abuse program that included weekly drug rehabilitation and individual counseling sessions. Mother attended two sessions, but then stopped attending. Mother continued to deny that she had a substance abuse problem despite having a drug test that was positive for methamphetamines.
By the 12-month review, mother had been terminated from the new substance abuse program for non-attendance. Mother was subsequently given a second referral, which ended in her termination for non-compliance. Mother was then given a third referral, which ended in her permanent dismissal from the program on grounds that further services were a "waste of time" because she was "not even trying." Mother continued to deny a substance abuse problem, but still tested positive for methamphetamines twice. Furthermore, after appropriate visitation during the first review period, mother missed three consecutive scheduled visits. Mother was instructed to call ahead if she wanted a visit, and missed three more visits after calling to request them. The department eventually lost track of mother, who had been moving frequently without informing the department of her whereabouts. Due to these failures, the court terminated services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that the reunification services were unreasonable because her mental illness was not properly evaluated or treated. We disagree. The trial courts finding in this regard is reviewed for substantial evidence, which means that all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the finding and the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the finding. (In re Maria S . (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) The services provided need only be reasonable under the circumstances of the individual case, because it is almost always true that better services could be provided in an ideal world. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 48.)
In this case, there was very little evidence of an existing psychological disorder. Although there was a reference to a history of "mental illness," mother merely indicated that she had a learning disorder and the court merely found that mother had a mental "impairment." Even if there were some underlying mental illness fueling mothers substance abuse, that mental illness could have been addressed in the substance abuse program, which included a counseling component. But, as described above, mother literally struck-out with that program, having been terminated from it three times in a row. Courts have long recognized that services cannot be forced on unwilling parents. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365.) In conclusion, under the circumstances of this case, we find substantial evidence to support the finding of reasonableness.
Mother also appears to argue that services were unreasonable because the department never liberalized visitation to allow for in-home extended stays and hands-on assistance. This argument is baseless. Mother failed to follow through with the existing visitation regimen, thus there was certainly no reason to liberalize visitation.
Lastly, mother states in a conclusory fashion that she substantially completed the case plan. This assertion is also baseless. Mother only completed one aspect of her case plan: parenting classes. She failed at everything else, including visitation and substance abuse counseling, which were perhaps the most important elements.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: Gaut, J., and King, J. --------------- Notes: All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code.