Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. JV070137, JV070139-1, JV070139-2
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
M.C. (born in April 1998), C.S. (born in January 2000), and T.S. (born in May 2002) were made dependents of the Humboldt County Juvenile Court on August 13, 2007. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) Pursuant to rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court, their mother, M.A. (petitioner) has filed a petition for extraordinary writ review of an order following the 12-month review hearing setting a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan pursuant to section 366.26 (hereafter .26 hearing). She contends she should have been granted six more months of reunification services because she established there was a substantial likelihood the minors would be returned to her, she had made significant progress with her case plan, and Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) did not provide her reasonable services. We reject her contentions and deny the writ.
All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
BACKGROUND
In June 2007, the minors were detained and a section 300 petition was filed. Later that month, amended section 300 petitions were filed under subdivision (b) (failure to protect), alleging: (1) the minors were at risk of serious physical harm due to petitioner’s alcohol problem, which hindered her ability to adequately care for them; (2) the minors were at risk of serious physical and emotional harm due to physical and emotional violence at home between petitioner and the maternal grandmother; and (3) petitioner had left the minors in the care of the maternal grandmother who was incapable of caring for them due to her substance abuse issues and traumatic brain injury.
M.C. is the sole subject of separate Department reports and court orders. C.S. and T.S. are addressed together in Department reports and court orders issued the same dates as those concerning M.C.
Jurisdiction Reports
The Department’s July 2007 jurisdiction reports noted that since November 2000 the Department had received 18 referrals regarding petitioner, of which seven were investigated, four were substantiated and one led to the current petition. The reports stated the referrals indicated a pattern of general neglect. Petitioner became an alcoholic after suffering the loss of the two fathers of the minors. Her alcoholism caused her to neglect the minors and fight with the maternal grandmother. Petitioner received services for alcoholism and domestic violence from March through June 2006 and from August through November 2006, but the cases were closed because of her failure to cooperate. An attached May 2007 sheriff’s department report stated that the maternal grandmother (hereafter Marsha) said petitioner spent the social security money she received for M.C. on alcohol, had been on a four-day drinking binge, and was either drunk or not home, and therefore did not care for the minors. M.C. and C.S. told the sheriff that petitioner spanked them more when she drank. M.C. was hit by a piece of firewood petitioner threw at Marsha. In mid-June 2007, Marsha told a social worker she could not locate petitioner, who had been drunk for weeks at a “river bar.”
On July 30, 2007, petitioner submitted the issue of jurisdiction and the court sustained the amended petitions and ordered visitation.
The appellate record does not contain a reporter’s transcript from the jurisdiction hearing.
Disposition Report
The Department’s August 2007 disposition report noted that C.S. was placed in one foster home and M.C. and T.S. were placed in another. The three minors wanted to be placed together and M.C.’s and T.S.’s foster mother was awaiting licensing approval to enable C.S.’s placement there. The report recounted petitioner’s criminal history, which included multiple instances of driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, disorderly conduct and assault. The Department social worker had been unable to meet with petitioner prior to writing the report, but noted that petitioner had previously told another social worker that she had been at a shelter in the Bay Area and gone through an alcohol detoxification program. However, the information as well as petitioner’s sobriety was unverified. Marsha reported that she was regularly hit by petitioner when they lived together and the minors had often witnessed this domestic violence. The minors did well in school, were developmentally on track and had good relationships with each other. T.S. had prior problems with asthma, was being monitored and had not had a serious asthma attack since his placement in foster care. Although petitioner had been granted unsupervised visits, she had not taken advantage thereof. The supervised visitation log showed that in July 2007, petitioner visited the minors once and Marsha visited them 12 times.
The report stated that the family’s pattern of neglect would likely continue without court involvement. The Department social worker recommended that the minors remain in protective custody and services continue to be offered to petitioner.
At the August 13, 2007 disposition hearing, petitioner, who was present, submitted the matter. The court found petitioner had not complied with the case plan and made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating the court’s intervention. It also found petitioner’s substance abuse hindered her ability to parent the minors. The court ordered the minors removed and made dependents of the court, and ordered reunification services for petitioner.
The appellate record does not contain a reporter’s transcript from the disposition hearing.
Six-Month Status Review Report
The Department’s January 29, 2008 status review report suggests that petitioner was living with a friend, Glen M., in Orick until January 17, when she was incarcerated in the county jail in Eureka after her probation was revoked. Petitioner’s and Marsha’s relationship had improved as a result of living separately. The minors were living in the same foster home. However, the Department became concerned after M.C. disclosed that while living in the petitioner’s home he had engaged in sexual play with other children living there, and had witnessed his mother having sex on several occasions. The Department had not yet determined whether additional services or another dependency petition against petitioner was warranted.
The report stated that petitioner had not yet completed a substance abuse program, obtained a mental health assessment, attended a parenting class or addressed her anger management with a professional. However, she had made visitation with the minors a priority and had maintained regular contact with them by participating in supervised visitation and calling them daily. Petitioner told the social worker she still struggled with alcoholism and was trying to deal with it herself. She said she had improved her relationship with Marsha, but still needed help and would soon address her problems. The report concluded petitioner had the potential to overcome the problems that led to the dependency and recommended continuation of reunification services. The minors’ Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) agreed with offering petitioner six more months of reunification services.
After finding that petitioner had not complied with her case plan and had made minimal progress, the court ordered continuation of reunification services.
Section 388 Petitions
In March 2008, the Department filed section 388 petitions to change petitioner’s visitation with the minors from unsupervised to supervised based on allegations that petitioner had sexually abused one or more of the minors. In April, counsel submitted on the section 388 petitions and they were granted.
Twelve-Month Status Review Report
The Department’s July 29, 2008 12-month status review report stated that petitioner moved out of Glen M.’s home in June and was living at an undisclosed location with friends in McKinleyville. She was not working and her attempts at finding a job were unsuccessful. Allegations had been made that petitioner sexually abused M.C. over a two-year period and M.C. gave detailed testimony about the abuse to child abuse service workers. Petitioner denied the abuse allegations. Two child welfare service referrals in response to the alleged abuse were closed as inconclusive. T.S. was being evaluated for possible leukemia and M.C. had minimal scoliosis.
Petitioner completed a substance abuse assessment. Although she was eligible for the county alcohol and drug program, she refused to return there for services and said she had overcome her alcohol problems. Although petitioner told the Department’s social worker in April 2008 that she had not drunk alcohol since summer 2007, she also told him in December 2007 that she drank beer from time to time and struggled with her sobriety. Petitioner and the social worker agreed that petitioner would attend two alcoholics anonymous (AA) meetings per week and show proof of her attendance. As of the date of the report, she had attended one AA meeting and said she did not have an alcohol problem and did not need to attend meetings.
Petitioner completed a mental health assessment in April 2008. The assessment counselor opined that petitioner needed counseling for posttraumatic stress disorder for a chainsaw accident and to address the deaths of the minors’ fathers, and was minimizing her problems. However, petitioner told the social worker she did not need counseling.
Petitioner attended a six-week parenting class. While she reported that she missed only one session, the parenting center told the social worker petitioner attended only three of the six classes.
Petitioner visited the minors regularly at the Family Connection Center. However, on June 19, 2008, she and Marsha appeared to be under the influence of drugs. After the Department extended the visits at petitioner’s request, she asked that they be shortened because they were too long. The report stated that the minors had been bothered by some of petitioner’s behavior at visits. She discussed elements of the case with the minors, causing them “emotional problems,” and told them they would be sent home to her care in July. As a result, the minors were concerned because they were fearful of returning to her care without a stable place to live.
The report concluded petitioner had not demonstrated she could provide a safe and stable home for the minors or maintain a sober lifestyle, and had attended only three of six parenting sessions. However, the social worker opined that petitioner had made significant progress in resolving the circumstances leading to the dependency and recommended that petitioner continue to receive reunification services and the minors remain in their current placement.
CASA 12-Month Review Report
The CASA disagreed with the Department’s recommendation of six more months of reunification services to petitioner. He opined that petitioner had not made significant progress in that she had not complied with the services offered and another six months of reunification services would not prepare her to safely parent the minors. The CASA recommended the minors stay in their current foster placement, and noted the foster parents were interested in adopting them. The foster mother told the CASA that after visits with petitioner and Marsha, M.C. began lying, breaking his toys, taking toys from his brothers, writing on the walls and starting fires. Based on petitioner’s past performance and lack of involvement in services, the CASA opined that petitioner would not perform any better with more services. Thus, he recommended termination of reunification services and the setting of a .26 hearing.
Twelve-Month Status Review Hearing
The 12-month status review hearing commenced on October 16, 2008. Department social worker Jed Mefford, author of the Department’s 12-month status review report, testified he was unaware if petitioner had made any progress in securing housing for herself and the minors. Petitioner had not provided him with any proof that she had addressed problems related to drug abuse or alcohol. Beyond obtaining a mental health assessment, petitioner had not made any further progress in dealing with her mental health or counseling needs. Mefford admitted he had not observed a visit between petitioner and the minors since June or July. He opined that based on petitioner’s current situation, he no longer believed there was a substantial probability that petitioner would be reunited with the minors.
On cross-examination Mefford said petitioner had attended two of three sessions of her most recent parenting class, but had not made an ongoing commitment to a parenting class. He also said that petitioner had missed about 15 of the 44 scheduled visits with the minors, and failed to call to cancel on eight or nine occasions. He later testified petitioner had made about 70 percent of the scheduled visits. Mefford also said that petitioner’s minimizing of her problems presented a risk to the minors.
Petitioner’s counsel argued that reunification services be continued and that petitioner had not received reasonable services since there had been no assessment of her home. The Department’s counsel rejoined that a home assessment is not done until a parent is ready for the child to be returned to their custody, but opined petitioner should be given a full 18 months of reunification services based on the substantial progress she had made.
The court found that reasonable services had been provided and that returning the minors home would create a substantial risk of detriment to the minors’ safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The court found that petitioner had not made “real progress” as to the issues leading to the dependency. However, the court found that petitioner had consistently and regularly visited the minors. The court ordered reunification services terminated and set a .26 hearing for February 17, 2009.
DISCUSSION
I. There Was Not a Substantial Likelihood of the Minors’ Return to Petitioner
Petitioner argues the court should have permitted her to receive an additional six months of reunification services because the evidence established a substantial likelihood of the minors’ return. She cites the Department’s 12-month report which indicated she had made significant progress in resolving the circumstances that led to the dependency. We review the correctness of the court’s order terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a .26 hearing for substantial evidence. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.)
For children the ages of the minors, court-ordered reunification services may be extended up to a maximum period of 18 months if the court finds at the 12-month review hearing “that there is a substantial probability that the child[ren] will be returned” to parental custody or that reasonable services have not been provided. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).) The 18-month period commences on the date the child originally is removed from parental custody. (Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1509.) Extension of reunification services beyond the 18-month statutory period is warranted only under “extraordinary circumstances ‘involv[ing] some external factor which prevented the parent from participating in the case plan.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1510.)
The minors were detained on June 19, 2007. Thus, absent extraordinary circumstances not shown here, at the time of the October 16, 2008 12-month review hearing, reunification services for petitioner could be extended for only three months. Though petitioner’s relies on the Department’s 12-month report written in July 2008, Mefford testified at the 12-month hearing that based on petitioner’s current situation, he no longer believed there was a substantial probability that petitioner would be reunited with the minors. As of the 12-month review hearing, petitioner had failed to obtain safe and stable housing or employment, had not provided proof that she had addressed problems related to drug abuse or alcohol, and had made only limited progress in dealing with her mental health or counseling needs. Moreover, after visits with petitioner and Marsha, M.C. began lying, breaking his toys, taking toys from his brothers, writing on the walls and starting fires. Based on petitioner’s past performance and lack of involvement in services, the CASA worker opined that petitioner would not perform any better with more services.
This evidence provides ample support for the court’s determination that there was not a substantial likelihood of the minors’ return to petitioner within three months. This same evidence permits us to reject petitioner’s assertion that that there was substantial evidence that she had made significant progress on her case plan and therefore continued reunification services were justified.
II. Reasonable Services Were Provided
Finally, petitioner argues that reasonable reunification services were not provided because no attempt was made to inspect petitioner’s residence for suitability of return, and there were missed visits with the minors which were not made up.
“A finding that reasonable reunification services have been provided must be made upon clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.]” (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) We review such finding for substantial evidence. (Ibid.; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and if the juvenile court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, it cannot be disturbed. (Angela S., at p. 762; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that reasonable services were provided. The short answer to petitioner’s argument regarding visitation is that there is no evidence that she requested to make up the missed visits or was denied an opportunity to do so. Any suggestion that the court was unreasonable in requiring that visits be supervised while sexual abuse allegations were investigated borders on absurd. Finally, it was not unreasonable for the court to conclude that a home assessment need not be provided until closer to the time that petitioner was determined to be ready for the minors to return to her custody. This is particularly true in light of the number of different places in which petitioner resided during the reunification period.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied on the merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); rule 8.452(i)(1).) The request for a stay of the .26 hearing, set for February 17, 2009, is denied, and our decision is final as to this court immediately (rule 8.264(b)).
We concur. NEEDHAM, J. STEVENS, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.