Opinion
D042050.
7-11-2003
LINDSAY H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Lindsay H. seeks review of juvenile court orders at the 12-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for her daughter Violet. She contends the court erred by finding there was not a substantial probability Violet would be returned to her custody by the 18-month hearing date. We conclude substantial evidence supports the courts finding and deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
Three-year-old Violet was taken into protective custody after Lindsay repeatedly allowed her to play unattended in an unsafe area. Lindsay was gravely disabled because of psychiatric problems and had a child welfare history dating from Violets birth. She had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and was receiving SSI. Lindsays reunification plan included individual therapy, psychiatric treatment and medication monitoring, parenting classes, and a psychological evaluation.
At the 12-month review hearing the juvenile court found reasonable reunification services had been offered, Lindsay had not made substantive progress with her case plan, and there was no substantial probability Violet would be returned to her care by the 18-month hearing date. It terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Lindsay seeks review of the courts findings and orders by filing a petition for extraordinary relief. ( § 366.26, subd. (l) ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B.) This court issued an order to show cause and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency responded. The parties declined oral argument. We now review the merits of Lindsays contentions.
DISCUSSION
The court may continue a case until the 18-month hearing date if it finds there is a substantial probability the child will be returned to the physical custody of the parent and safely maintained in the home within the extended period. ( § 366.21, subd. g)(1).) To support a finding that there is a substantial probability of return by the 18-month hearing date, a parent must show that he or she has: 1) consistently contacted and visited with the child, 2) made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home, and 3) demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. ( § 366.21, subds. (g)(1)(A)-(g)(1)(C).)
The court found Lindsay had consistently visited with Violet but she had not met her burden with respect to the other two criteria. We determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the courts findings by reviewing the evidence "in a light most favorable to" the prevailing party and indulging "in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the [courts ruling]." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) The parent bears the burden of showing there is insufficient evidence to support the ruling. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal. App. 3d 412, 420, 159 Cal. Rptr. 460.)
Lindsay had completed a six-week parenting program and a psychological evaluation. The psychological evaluator reported that despite having been treated on an ongoing basis with appropriate psychotropic medications, Lindsay had not stabilized her psychological and cognitive functioning and remained "quite delusional and significantly impaired." He further reported Lindsay had "no insight into the nature of her difficulties" and was "in complete denial as to the importance of the problems" that had occurred. The evaluator stated that no services could currently be offered that would decrease the impact of Lindsays mental health disorder. He further stated that although Lindsay might be able to "complete" a parenting class, it did not mean she would be able to integrate or apply any information provided in the class.
Several therapists had discontinued Lindsays therapy after she did not attend therapy sessions. Her current therapist reported Lindsay had attended five of nine scheduled appointments. The therapist further reported Lindsay was unable to connect her maternal neglect to Violets removal from her custody and described Lindsays progress in therapy as poor or minimal. The therapist questioned Lindsays ability to utilize individual therapy and opined that Lindsays capacity for positive change was "extremely limited."
Lindsay contends she met the second and third criteria because she was seeing a therapist and a psychiatrist and argues she might have continued to participate in and benefit from services had the court not terminated her reunification services. This is not the standard the juvenile court is statutorily required to apply when considering whether to order continued services until the 18-month hearing date.
Lindsay did not show she had made significant progress with her service plan or that she could complete her plan and safely care for Violet within the four months before the 18-month hearing date. The only progress Lindsay had made was to complete a parenting class and a psychological evaluation. The psychological evaluation concluded that even after completing a parenting class, Lindsays mental health problems would not allow her to apply the information provided in that class. Both the psychological evaluation and the therapy progress report demonstrated Lindsay was not progressing and it was highly unlikely she could ever successfully complete her plan or safely care for Violet.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J. and OROURKE, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the California Welfare and Institutions Code.