Opinion
F087643
06-10-2024
MARIA A., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Moran Law Firm and Amanda K. Moran for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Francine Zepeda, Judge. Super. Ct. Nos. 0087183-2, 0087183-3
Moran Law Firm and Amanda K. Moran for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Appellant Maria A. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for June 11, 2024, as to her twin six-year-old daughters, A.M. and E.M. (collectively, the children). In her petition, mother contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's findings that: 1) return of the children to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment; and 2) reasonable services were provided. We disagree and affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS
Initial Removal
On June 14, 2022, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) received a suspected child abuse report that the children were exposed to domestic violence. An investigating social worker responded to a rural intersection to meet a deputy from the Fresno County Sheriff's Department. The deputy explained that a passerby had contacted law enforcement after mother and Juan R. (father) were seen fighting in their vehicle. The children were found in the back seat of the vehicle when the deputy arrived at the intersection. The family was familiar to the deputy because he responded to their home several times, and there was currently a restraining order between mother and father. Father was arrested for violating the restraining order, and he was transported to the Fresno County jail.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
The deputy found mother in a catatonic state, and she was transported to a hospital on a psychiatric hold. Mother reportedly had a long history of mental health issues, but the deputy was not aware of her specific diagnoses. Mother's refusal to take her medications caused problems in her relationship with father. The children were taken into protective custody by the deputy, and the social worker transported them for placement.
The children, twins at four years of age, were interviewed by the social worker as they were transported to the department's office. The children did not know the difference between the truth and a lie. The social worker asked the children about what occurred that day. A.M. responded," 'Dad hit mom and went to jail and mom went to the hospital.'" Both children reported that father and mother fought "a lot."
On June 15, 2022, a social worker spoke with the son of mother's landlord. The landlord's son believed mother was not fit to be a mother because she did not care for the children. He had witnessed mother threaten people and commit to make the threats happen. The entire community had problems with mother's behavior, and he was worried that mother would hurt the children due to her temper.
A social worker met with father while he was incarcerated to address the referral allegations. Father explained that he received a phone call from a neighbor while he was at work. His neighbor told him that the children needed help because mother was acting crazy and driving carelessly without buckling the children's seatbelts. Father left work and found mother's vehicle on the side of the road. Mother became upset when father attempted to take the children back home in the car of a passerby. She started to curse at the passerby and hit father on the back. Father claimed mother threatened to kill him, and he believed mother would hurt him.
According to father, mother became very aggressive when she did not take the medication that was prescribed by her doctor. Father was aware of the active restraining order that was put in place after a prior incident of domestic violence. As a result of the restraining order, father had reportedly moved out of the home. He claimed mother was abusive and always hurting him, but he did not seek help because he wanted to be with his family. Mother had two older children who had not been in her care for years.
A criminal protective order was issued on May 20, 2022, which listed father as the restrained party and mother as the protected party.
Father did not believe mother cared for the children because he would get home from work and the children complained of not being fed all day. Father also indicated that A.M. suffers from seizures and can become "very sick" if she stresses too much. After the social worker advised father of the need to keep a safe and clean environment for the children, he responded that mother did not do anything all day because she was always on her cell phone. Father was willing to seek full custody of the children once released from custody, and he provided the names of family friends who were willing to care for the children.
Later that day, the social worker visited the children at their foster home. A.M. did not want to speak with the social worker, but E.M. was willing to talk in the presence of her care providers. E.M. reported that she lived with her mother, father, and A.M. She stated that she never felt unsafe in her home, and she was not afraid of anyone in her home. E.M. denied that she was spanked, and she claimed to have a good relationship with mother and father. A.M. reportedly hit E.M. "all the time," but they were still friends.
E.M. responded that father hit mother in the face when asked about the previous day. She was crying and telling her parents to stop during the incident. E.M. indicated that she was "really scared," and her parents would not stop fighting. She understood that father went to jail and mother went to see a doctor. E.M. stated that she wanted to stay with her care providers, and she did not want to go back home.
On June 16, 2022, the department filed an original petition alleging the children were described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The allegations of the petition involved ongoing domestic violence between the parents and mother's untreated mental illness. The petition alleged that mother was driving carelessly without the children buckled. It further alleged that the parents were involved in a physical altercation in the presence of the children.
The department filed a detention report on June 17, 2022, which set forth the above events surrounding removal. At a detention hearing held on June 17, 2022, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from mother and father's custody, and both parents were provided supervised visits with the children at least once per week for one hour. A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set for July 28, 2022.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
The department's jurisdiction and disposition report dated July 22, 2022, recommended that the allegations in the original petition be found true and family reunification services be provided to mother and father. The children remained placed together in a family foster agency home, and no relatives were available for placement. An adult brother was willing to adopt the children, but he could not facilitate reunification because he lived in Los Angeles. Both children appeared to be developmentally on track at five years of age. A.M. had not had a seizure in over a year, but she was prescribed emergency seizure medication. Ongoing mental health treatment was recommended for A.M., but E.M. was not found to meet medical necessity for mental health treatment.
The report detailed previous child welfare referrals involving the children. In October 2018, a referral alleged mother shook the children when she became upset, and the children fell from their crib due to a lack of supervision. The following year, a referral stated A.M. was seen at a hospital due to seizure activity and a burn-like mark. In September 2021, the department received a referral alleging mother was aggressive and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Each of the referrals was either deemed "unfounded" or "evaluated out."
On May 17, 2022, a referral alleged law enforcement responded to the family's home after father was arrested for domestic violence. There were also concerns for dirty conditions of the home and mother's mental health issues. The referral was "evaluated out" because it was determined that mother "appeared to be stable." The next day, a referral stated that the children lived with relatives for an entire month while mother was in a mental health facility in April 2022. It was reported that mother was bipolar and can become aggressive. The referral was eventually substantiated due to the June 14, 2022 incident.
A social worker contacted mother by phone on June 28, 2022. Mother explained that she needed a ride to attend her visit with the children, but the social worker responded that it would not be possible at that time. The social worker offered to provide a bus pass, but mother became upset and yelled profanities at the social worker. The phone call was terminated after mother was advised that continued yelling and cursing would end the phone call. The social worker then informed mother that the visit would be virtual because she had no transportation and there were no buses within her area of residence.
On July 7, 2022, a maternal aunt, C.A., told the social worker that mother was recently hospitalized at a behavioral hospital. C.A. indicated that she did not know the details surrounding mother's hospitalization. The social worker reached mother by phone on July 11, 2022. Mother had been discharged from her hospitalization, and she was taking her medication. She explained that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, and she was prescribed Abilify and Oxcarbazepine.
One of her barriers was transportation because she had no family support and father hid the keys to their vehicles. There was no longer an active restraining order between her and father, and it was anticipated that father would be released from custody soon. Mother claimed that she and father were still together, and they intended to work things out for the children. Father was released from jail on July 15, 2022, after pleading no contest to a charge for battery. He was ordered to complete an anger management program and not contact mother or her family members.
On July 15, 2022, mother informed the social worker that she would be going to a program called Turning Point, but mother did not intend to sign a release of information for the department to receive her information from the program. A few days later, mother shared that she had an appointment with the program, but she had not provided the social worker with information about her medication. Mother apologized for inappropriate behavior at a recent visit, and she accidentally left a voicemail where she could be heard arguing with a male in Spanish. Mother initially claimed it was her brother when confronted by the social worker, and she later indicated that it was her brother-in-law as well. She denied that she was arguing with father in the voicemail. Her brother denied having an argument with mother when contacted by the social worker because he avoided speaking to her.
There were no concerns noted during mother's supervised virtual visit that occurred on June 28, 2022. A July 5, 2022 supervised virtual visit was cancelled after mother failed to join the visit. On July 11, 2022, a supervised virtual visit was terminated early because mother refused to comply with visitation guidelines. Mother was advised that she needed to speak in English for the supervised visit, but mother continued to speak to the children in Spanish and use profanities. The next day, mother argued with the visitation supervisor after she was advised that she could not make promises to see the children or have additional phone calls with the children.
During a July 18, 2022 virtual visit, mother told the children that they should kick and hit dogs in the face if they are licked by them. The children were playing with building blocks during the visit, and mother promised that she would buy them building blocks. After mother was asked not to make promises to the children by the visitation supervisor, mother began shouting that she talks to the children this way, and she also used an expletive. The visit was terminated after only 20 minutes due to mother's behavior.
Mother's proposed case plan included the following objectives: 1) show your ability and willingness to have custody of your children; 2) comply with all orders of the court; 3) pay attention to and monitor your children's health, safety, and well-being; and 4) consistently, appropriately, and adequately parent your children. Her recommended services included: 1) complete a mental health assessment and any recommended treatment; 2) complete a domestic violence assessment and any recommended treatment; 3) participate in an approved parenting program; 4) demonstrate her knowledge of age-appropriate behaviors, expectations and discipline techniques during her visits with the children; 5) complete a substance abuse evaluation and recommended treatment; and 6) participate in random drug testing. Any missed drug tests would be considered a positive test result by the department.
The department recommended that mother participate in a psychological evaluation to determine if she had a disabling mental disorder that would prevent her from benefitting from reunification services. It was also recommended that mother participate in a risk assessment to determine the level of risk that the children would experience if returned to mother's care.
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing held on July 28, 2022, mother and father were both present and represented by counsel. The juvenile court found the allegations in the original petition true, removed the children from the parents' custody, and ordered family reunification services for mother and father. Both parents were ordered to participate in parenting classes, substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence evaluations and recommended treatment, and random drug testing. Mother was ordered to participate in a psychological evaluation and risk assessment. Visitation was to be supervised once per week by the department, an approved third party, or an approved agency. A six-month review hearing was set for January 26, 2023.
Six-Month Review Period
In its report for the six-month review hearing dated January 20, 2023, the department recommended the juvenile court continue family reunification services for mother and father. Both parents were living together, and there were no active restraining orders between them. The children remained placed in the same foster home, and they felt safe and comfortable in the placement. Both children expressed their desire to return to their parents' care, but they also reported being afraid because of the constant fighting between their parents. They had witnessed their mother bleed after father put his hand over her face. The children also stated that mother fought with "everyone," including people at the store, school, and neighborhood.
A.M. was taken off of her seizure medication, and it was determined that she had likely outgrown her seizure risk. Both children were developing on track and enrolled in kindergarten through a homeschool based charter school. A.M. began mental health treatment in August 2022, and she was learning coping skills. The care providers explained that A.M. had a difficult time opening up to the therapist, but she enjoyed participating in play therapy. E.M. completed a second mental health assessment in October 2022, and she was found to meet medical necessity for services. E.M. participated in weekly therapy sessions, and a case manager provided her with emotional behavior support.
C.A. reported that she was still unable to take placement, but she hoped the children's current care providers were able to provide permanency for the children. C.A. frequently told the social worker that mother was not fit to raise the children. Two of the children's older siblings were reportedly not in mother's care for that reason. C.A. understood that there would be a detriment to returning the children to mother because she always struggled with her mental health and fought with others.
The children's adult brother was no longer interested in placement of the children, and he hoped the children would be adopted by their current care providers. He did not want the children returned to their parents' care because he had witnessed and endured similar abuse as a child. He also explained that the reason he had to leave mother's care was her mental health issues.
Mother completed her parenting class on October 19, 2022. She learned that hitting the children was not a solution, and she was taught about the importance of communicating with the children. In October 2022, mother began an online child abuse intervention program according to the recommendation of her domestic violence assessment. Mother's program was placed on a hold in November 2022 due to consecutive missed classes. An intake appointment was scheduled for January 23, 2023, to allow mother to reenroll in the child abuse intervention program.
Initially, mother refused to sign a release of information to allow the department to obtain information from her ongoing mental health provider. Mother was reportedly participating in weekly therapy, and she declined to participate in mental health services through the department. She provided proof of attendance for four different dates in July and August 2022, but the department did not receive any information on her treatment goals, diagnoses, or psychiatric services. On January 17, 2023, mother indicated that she would be signing a release of information for her mental health provider, but confirmation was not made at the time of the report. The social worker referred mother for a psychological evaluation in August 2022, and mother was on the waitlist at the time of the report.
The substance abuse component of mother's case plan remained incomplete. Mother missed two substance abuse assessments and a staffing from June through September 2022. Mother enrolled in random drug testing on September 16, 2022, but she was dropped on September 28, 2022, because she missed five consecutive tests. She finally attended her substance abuse assessment in November 2022, but her results were lost due to a system error. Mother reenrolled in random drug testing in December 2022, and she had five negative test results.
Father completed his parenting class on December 12, 2022, and a batterer's treatment program was recommended from his domestic violence assessment. As of December 30, 2022, father had attended six anger management sessions through his criminal case. There were no services recommended in father's mental health assessment. Father tested positive for alcohol during six random drug tests from October 2022 to January 2023.
During the six-month review period, the parents were transitioned from supervision being provided by the department to an agency for intensive supervised visits. On July 25, 2022, mother shouted at the department's visitation supervisor because she was admonished to speak English to the children during the supervised visit. The parents were referred to an agency for intensive supervised visits on August 5, 2022. At a virtual visit on August 8, 2022, mother became angry when one of the children referred to their care provider as "mom," and mother shouted that she should not call the care providers "mom" or "dad." Later in the same visit, mother shouted that the children were disgusting for walking barefoot in the care providers' home while dogs were inside. The department's visitation supervisor ended the visit because mother was shouting, cursing, and speaking in an aggressive tone towards the children.
According to visitation narrative forms prepared by the parents' visitation coach, intensive supervised visits began on August 19, 2022. Overall, the visitation notes indicated that the parents kept the children engaged and were verbally affectionate, but the parents were often admonished for failing to follow guidelines and set boundaries.
On August 26, 2022, the visitation coach reminded the parents to follow guidelines and not discuss future visits or living arrangements at the outset of a virtual visit. During the visit, the parents began to discuss the date that the children would return home, and mother told the children that they would return home in six days. The visitation coach attempted to redirect the parents, but both parents began using inappropriate language toward the coach. The coach ended the virtual visit due to the parents' violation of visitation guidelines.
At a two-hour in-person visit on September 16, 2022, both parents were present and provided snacks for the children. The visitation coach turned on a show for the family while they were sitting together on a couch. A.M. nodded in the affirmative after mother asked if she was doing alright. Afterwards, E.M. told mother that she talked about mother and father with her therapist. E.M. initially stated that she could not talk about what she told the therapist because it was" 'bad.'" However, mother inquired further, and she stated," '[i]t is you and daddy fighting. Do you still fight?'" Mother hugged and kissed E.M., and the visit continued.
The children told the parents that they were sad because they wanted to return home during a virtual visit on October 7, 2022. The parents comforted the children and explained that they would bring their favorite snacks to the next visit. The next week, the children ate snacks and watched a movie with the parents. E.M. began to cry at the end of the visit, and both children stated that they wanted to go home. On October 21, 2022, mother denied that she still fought at home when E.M. asked her. The visitation coach noted that both parents had learned to follow intensive supervised visitation guidelines by the end of October 2022.
On November 4, 2022, A.M. did not wish to participate in the visit with her parents and E.M. due to a stomachache. The visitation coach asked A.M. if she wanted to join the visit for a small amount of time, but A.M. took a step back and declined. Father acknowledged that A.M. told him that she had a stomachache the previous week. E.M. participated in the visit by eating snacks, watching a movie, and playing cornhole. A.M. apologized to her parents for missing their time during the next visit.
During a makeup visit on December 15, 2022, E.M. told mother that the children were not allowed to sit on their parents' laps or go to the restroom with them. During the visit, mother took the children to the restroom and visitation staff suggested that E.M. go into the restroom stall by herself. The family watched a movie together, and visitation staff told the children that they could sit on their parents' laps.
On December 23, 2022, and December 30, 2022, the children informed visitation staff that they did not want to go in to their scheduled visit with the parents. Each time, they expressed a desire to see their parents the following week instead. Mother became agitated after the children declined to attend a January 6, 2023 visit. The children were advised that they would not be alone with their parents, but they continued to refuse.
Arrangements were made to have a virtual visit on January 13, 2022, but the children still refused to participate. The visitation supervisor inquired if both children would attend a visit the following week to watch movies and have snacks. Both children agreed to attend. However, A.M. only agreed because she was scared, and E.M. still wanted to think about it. The visitation center indicated that the referral for intensive supervised visits would be closed due to a fourth refusal.
The social worker's assessment for the review report stated that the parents' visitation did not progress because of their lack of compliance with the case plan. In addition, the children refused to participate in visits because they did not wish to return to their parents' care, and they did not want to be tricked into returning to their parents. The children also reported that they were afraid to return to their parents' care because of their fighting. The social worker advised that visitations would be supervised and they would return to the care providers after the visit, but they continued to state that they would not visit. The children were told to contact the social worker if they wanted to visit with their parents.
At the six-month review hearing held on January 26, 2023, both parents were present and represented by counsel. After submitting on the department's recommendation, mother's counsel requested "either video, telephonic, … [a]nd maybe even separate visits," to address any fear that an argument would break out during the parents' visitation. Her counsel also indicated that mother was willing to separate from father, if necessary, to have the children returned. In response, counsel for the department suggested that the juvenile court could order that "intensive supervised therapeutic visits" be provided again. Mother's counsel then agreed with the department's offer to coordinate intensive supervised visits.
The juvenile court adopted the department's recommendation to continue family reunification services, and it also found that reasonable services were provided to aid the parents in overcoming the problems that led to the children's removal. The previous visitation orders were modified to allow "therapeutic intensive visits," and the department was provided with the discretion to determine if visits should be separate for the parents. The 12-month review hearing was set for July 11, 2023.
Twelve-Month Review Period
The children refused to attend scheduled visitations with their parents for most of the 12-month reporting period. The social worker arranged a virtual visit between the children and parents on February 10, 2023. A.M. began crying during the visit, and she left the video screen. E.M. smiled and interacted with the parents during the virtual visit. E.M. told her parents that A.M. was crying because she missed them. Later in the visit, A.M. reappeared for a moment while she was still crying.
The following week, the social worker supervised another virtual visit between E.M. and the parents. A.M. did not participate in the visit, and mother stated that it was "ok" that she did not join. The social worker redirected mother when she told E.M. that the children would be home in a couple of months. Mother informed E.M. that she did not fight anymore, and she shared that she was taking her medication now.
On February 23, 2023, the social worker supervised an in-person visit between E.M. and the parents. A.M. was encouraged to join in the visit, but she declined to participate. The parents brought pizza, cake, and candy for E.M. to celebrate father's upcoming birthday. During the visit, mother asked the social worker if she could provide cell phones to the children because she wanted to make sure that the care providers were telling the children that they were in the care provider's home temporarily. The social worker admonished mother to focus on the visit.
Another in-person supervised visit took place between the parents and E.M. on March 2, 2023. A.M. indicated that she did not want to participate even though the social worker would be present and supervising the visit. Mother became confrontational with the social worker after she observed that E.M. was the only child present. Mother continued to state that the children were coming home, and she wanted the care providers to understand. The social worker informed mother that this was not an appropriate place to discuss the issue because E.M. was present, but mother continued to discuss her concern that A.M. was not present.
In the visitation room, mother began to ask if E.M. told her sister about the things she does with her parents during visits. The social worker redirected mother to focus on the visit when mother asked about topics she would like to discuss during an upcoming meeting. Mother stated that the social worker was always rude, and E.M. looked to mother for a reaction during a subsequent admonishment from the social worker.
On March 10, 2023, an intensive supervised visit was scheduled for the parents and children, and the previous visitation coach was present to supervise the visit. The children were brought to the agency, but they both told the visitation coach that they did not want to attend the visit. The parents asked if they had other options to speak to the children, and mother wished that she knew why her children refused the visit.
The social worker arranged separate visitations for each parent and the children on March 24, 2023. The children refused to participate in either visit. According to the care provider, the children had a tough week after a visit took place the previous week. The social worker noted that one of the children believed mother was lying about being better than she was before. The visitation coach encouraged mother to hold off on bringing toys and focus on talking about the children's feelings. Mother indicated that she was looking to have family therapy with the children, and she would bring notebooks to the visits to discuss their feelings.
The following week, the children refused to attend their intensive supervised visit with either parent. The visitation coach explained that they would visit each parent separately and return to the care provider afterwards, but the children still chose not to participate.
On April 3, 2023, mother's counsel filed a section 388 petition requesting that the juvenile court order that the children be "mandated" to attend visits. As changed circumstances, the petition stated that mother completed all of her family reunification services. The request was alleged to be in the children's best interests because it would allow the children to reunify with mother. The court denied the request without a hearing due to a lack of changed circumstances or new evidence.
On April 7, 2023, the children indicated that they did not want to visit because they did not want to go home with either parent. The visitation referral at the agency providing intensive supervision was closed due to three consecutive refusals by the children.
Attempts were made by the social worker to supervise virtual visits between the parents and children on April 14, 2023, and April 21, 2023. The social worker explained to the children that the visits would be online, but they still declined to participate. The department was unable to refer the parents to an agency for visitation because the children were refusing, and the cancelled visits would take spots from other families who were on the waiting list.
The social worker agreed to allow the parents to send a video of themselves to the children in an attempt to encourage them to visit. On April 28, 2023, the social worker asked the children about their thoughts on the video and desire to visit. Both children continued to state that they did not want to see their parents. Mother's mental health case manager had agreed to supervise a visit, but the visit had to be cancelled because the case manager's supervisor did not give her approval.
The children's counsel submitted a report from its investigator, which documented interviews of the children and their care providers on May 2, 2023. The care providers informed the investigator that the children had not engaged in any visits since March 17, 2023. A.M. agreed to participate in that visit after E.M. told her about how much fun a previous visit was. The children displayed no concerning behaviors prior to the visit. A.M. cried for the first five minutes of the visit, and father told A.M. that the parents no longer fought with each other. During the night following the visit, A.M. began crying and stating that she believed father was lying about the parents no longer fighting. A.M. reportedly cried at random during the following week.
The children's care providers also described an occasion where A.M. started to cry while they were driving in the car. A.M. asked if the care providers were taking her back to the parents' home while she was crying in the car. A.M. became calm once the care providers explained that they were driving to a store. Later that same day, A.M. screamed when the front door opened because she thought her parents were coming to take her home. There were also incidents where A.M. would urinate in her bed or have nightmares prior to visits with her parents. The children had informed the care providers that they did not wish to return to their parents' care because they believed the parents would continue to fight with each other.
At the start of A.M.'s interview, the investigator determined that A.M. knew the difference between the truth and a lie. A.M. explained that she felt "really safe" with the care providers because there was" 'no one fighting'" in the home. Even though her last visit with father went well, she believed that father lied to her and E.M. about the parents no longer fighting. A.M. stated that she no longer wished to visit because she believed the parents would continue to fight with each other.
The investigator asked A.M. about her reasoning for not wishing to have phone or virtual visits, and A.M. responded that she did not want to see her parents anymore. A.M. wished to remain placed with her current care providers, but she believed that she and E.M. may return to the parents in the future. In the event that A.M. was returned home, she expressed that she would feel sad. A.M. denied that any person had instructed her on what to say regarding her wishes to visit with her parents.
The investigator also spoke separately to E.M., and it was determined that E.M. also knew the difference between the truth and a lie. E.M. shared that she did not wish to have further visits with her parents because she did not want to return home. She was afraid that her" 'mommy and daddy'" would fight again, and she also described how she previously witnessed mother fight one of father's friends. E.M. explained that she did not like people fighting with each other because it made her sad. She also denied that any persons instructed her about how to respond regarding her desire to visit with her parents.
On May 19, 2023, the social worker attempted to coordinate a visit between the parents and children at a park. A third party had been cleared to supervise the visit. The social worker arrived at the visit to find the third-party supervisor and mother standing by the care providers' vehicle and asking the children why they did not want to visit. Both children quickly responded that they did not want to visit with their parents when asked by the social worker. The children also refused the social worker's offer to play on the playground.
Mother asked the children if they could try again next week. A.M. responded," 'I'm not doing visits anymore,'" and E.M. shook her head in disagreement. Next, the children were asked to provide a reason for their refusal by mother. A.M. told mother," 'because I don't want to go home.'" Mother asked the children why they did not want to return home, and A.M. explained that she was scared. The social worker advised that mother should stop making the children feel like they were being interrogated, and the care provider was given permission to leave with the children.
Mother indicated that she wanted her therapist to speak to the children's therapist because mother believed the social worker and care providers were telling the children to refuse visits. Additional attempts were made by the social worker to encourage the children to visit on May 23, 2023, and June 9, 2023. The social worker informed the children that they could see their parents anytime, but the children continued to state that they did not want to visit with their parents.
The department's report for the 12-month review hearing dated June 23, 2023, recommended termination of mother and father's family reunification services. Mother and father were still living together, and they hoped to get through the case together. The children remained placed together in the home of the same foster family. There were no significant medical or developmental concerns for either of the children. Both children were participating in individual therapy with separate clinicians, and they also had group therapy as siblings.
A.M. began working with a new mental health clinician, Amanda L., in April 2023. Amanda noted that A.M. had behavior and attachment issues, and she was having difficulty separating from the care provider. The care provider noted that A.M. continued to have difficulties opening up to the clinician, but she appeared to be able to express her feelings well to the care provider and social worker.
E.M.'s mental health clinician, G.F., stated that E.M. was always engaged in her sessions, and she talked about the domestic violence between her parents on occasion. On May 15, 2023, the social worker asked both children's clinicians if they would recommend family therapy with their parents, and the clinicians responded that they did not believe the children were ready for family therapy.
Mother was participating in individual therapy with mental health clinician L.L. once per month. Her clinician provided the social worker with an update by phone in June 2023. According to the clinician, mother was attending consistently, and she was working on managing her emotions with coping skills. Mother also participated in group therapy once per month where she worked on arts and crafts.
In June 2023, mother completed another substance abuse assessment, and she did not meet medical necessity for treatment. Her last random drug test was a negative result in February 2023, and she had not been requested to test since that date. As of June 13, 2023, mother had completed 16 sessions of her child abuse intervention program. Mother was fifth on the waitlist for a psychological evaluation at the time of the report.
During the review period, father participated in his substance abuse program, but he missed one or two sessions each week due to his work schedule. He also missed several drug tests and tested positive for alcohol on five occasions. On June 6, 2023, father completed the 12-week anger management program that was ordered through his criminal case.
Twelve-Month Review Hearing
At the 12-month review hearing held on July 11, 2023, the children's counsel requested that the juvenile court order the children's therapists to provide a letter detailing whether intensive supervised visitation or conjoint therapy with the parents was therapeutically recommended. Any patient privilege regarding that specific assessment would be waived by the children's counsel. Mother's counsel requested that a child psychiatrist from mother's mental health provider be allowed to either "collaborate" with the children's therapists or have access to the children in order to prepare his own report.
Both parents requested a contested hearing, which was set for August 29, 2023. The juvenile court noted that it only wanted to hear from the children's therapists, but it would be open to additional referrals in the future. Each of the children's therapists was ordered to provide a letter explaining why they are not recommending that the children participate in intensive supervised visits or conjoint therapy with the parents as well as the basis for that opinion.
The department submitted an addendum report on August 11, 2023, which included a letter from each of the children's mental health clinicians and their clinical supervisor. The letter provided a summary of the children's treatment and a recommendation for future mental health services. Both children were assessed for mental health services on July 11, 2022. The assessment provided diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder for both children.
E.M.'s current clinician, G.F., had been providing her with individual therapy since December 2022. E.M.'s initial symptoms included nightmares, reenactments of trauma during play, feelings of guilt and fear, social withdrawal, difficulty concentrating, difficulty sleeping, over-familiarity with adults, willingness to leave with unfamiliar adults, and reduced reticence in interacting with unfamiliar adults. A.M.'s current clinician, Amanda, had been providing individual therapy since April 2023. A.M.'s initial symptoms included spontaneous intrusive memories regarding witnessing domestic violence, socially withdrawn, irritability, angry outbursts, easily attaching to adult figures, absence of reticence when approaching unfamiliar adults, and overly familiar verbal or physical behaviors with adults.
The letter concluded that the children were not ready to begin family therapy due to their history of trauma and impairment. The clinicians' plan was to continue to prepare the children for family therapy, however, it was not in the children's best interests to begin family therapy at that time.
On August 29, 2023, the children's counsel requested a continuance of the contested hearing to allow additional time for the children's clinicians to explore the possibility of family therapy between the children and parents. The juvenile court acknowledged that it had previously ordered that the children participate in therapeutic visits. However, it ordered that the children should not be forced to attend visits, and anyone putting undue stress on the children would not be viewed favorably by the court. Without objection from the parties, the court continued the hearing to November 2, 2023.
In an addendum report dated October 30, 2023, the department provided additional information on its attempts to encourage visitation between the parents and children. The social worker indicated that the children were asked weekly about their willingness to visit with their parents since April 2023, but the children continued to refuse any type of visitation. The report also detailed several positive test results for alcohol from father's random drug testing. Father explained that he drank beer after work, and he did not see any problems with his alcohol use.
After the previous hearing, the social worker asked the children's clinicians if they could observe an in-person visit. The clinicians explained that observing the visit could damage the therapeutic relationship between the children and clinicians. The department and children's clinicians put together a plan to start family therapy when the children were ready to start visitation. The report also noted that the visits that were cancelled at the agency due to the children refusing were considered "[t]herapeutic [i]ntensive visits."
On September 8, 2023, a mental health provider sent the social worker a family case plan for the children and parents with a goal to engage all of them in family therapy. The services would be provided weekly for both parents and children once all parties were ready to participate in family therapy.
There was some progress toward family therapy according to a September 20, 2023 update from the children's clinicians. A.M. declined to paint a picture for her parents, but she was willing to view the pictures that her parents drew. E.M. requested to write a letter for her parents without prompting during her session. The letter to her parents indicated that she wanted to stay in the care provider's home. E.M. also shared stories about the parents fighting, father grabbing mother's face, and father going to jail.
Both clinicians continued to work on building a bond and working through any fears the children had about seeing their parents. The clinicians were also able to have sessions with each parent by providing psychoeducation on the effects of trauma on young children. Mother was updated on the progress toward family therapy, and the clinician believed mother was developing an understanding of the need for a slow pace towards family therapy.
During a monthly contact on October 2, 2023, the social worker had the children express themselves through an activity by drawing three different houses: house of dreams, house of good things, and house of worries. Both children drew the care providers and their foster siblings in their house of dreams. Both parents were drawn in each child's house of worries. A.M. explained that mother was hitting father in the face, and she was worried that her parents would hit each other if she had to go back home. E.M. stated that she worried that her parents would fight if she went back home, and she began to tear up.
A child and family team meeting took place on October 10, 2023, to discuss progress towards family therapy. Amanda stated that A.M. experienced increased sadness during therapy and at the care providers' home. Amanda was working with mother since the previous month to pace her with therapy for the children and provide updates on progress. G.F. explained that E.M. was encouraged to try family therapy, but E.M. refused to see her parents. The clinical supervisor reported that both clinicians were doing well with encouraging the children to try family therapy, but the process could not be pushed to happen sooner. The social worker had noticed that A.M. was tearful and fearful during monthly contacts, and A.M. had to be reminded that the social worker was not there to take her home.
The children's counsel submitted an additional report from its investigator on October 31, 2023. The care providers told the investigator that A.M. cried multiple times per day as a result of her fear that she would return to the parents' care. A.M. was also becoming more aggressive by hitting E.M. and her foster siblings. E.M. stated that she no longer wished to have visits with her parents because she was close to being returned to her parents' care, and she did not want to return to her parents. E.M. expressed her understanding that her parents were participating in services to allow the children to return home, but she indicated that she would not feel safe in her parents' care. A.M. reiterated her previous statements that she did not want to visit or return to the parents because she was afraid of their fighting.
The contested hearing was continued to November 16, 2023, due to the unavailability of a Spanish interpreter. An additional continuance was granted after a conflict resulted in father being appointed new counsel. At a January 9, 2024 settlement conference, the matter was confirmed for a contested hearing to be held on January 23, 2024. The next day, new counsel filed a substitution of attorney on mother's behalf to replace her court-appointed counsel.
The department prepared a third addendum report dated January 17, 2024, which incorporated mother's psychological evaluation and risk assessment. The recommendation for the review hearing remained the same, and its assessment stated that mother had not benefitted from her programs. Mother had completed a parenting program, and she was still participating in a child abuse program.
The children continued to refuse visits with their parents despite the social worker's repeated efforts to coordinate visits in the months leading up to the contested review hearing. Mother had regular meetings with A.M.'s clinician to receive psychoeducation regarding the effects of trauma in children and how she may rebuild the parent-child relationship in the future. Mother provided letters, photos, and positive memories in an attempt to bond with the children.
The children were attending individual therapy weekly, but E.M. refused to attend a session in November 2023. A.M. was willing to keep a toy that mother provided for her, but she refused all other items from mother. E.M. refused to take any items, letters, or paintings that mother provided for her. Both of the children's clinicians attempted to offer the children a brief visit where they could play a game with their parents with them present, but the children still refused to meet with either of their parents. The children's display of increased sadness, irritability, and aggressiveness both at the care providers' home and during sessions resulted in a temporary hold on offering the children items from their parents. The subject of family therapy would be pursued once symptoms decreased, and conjoint sessions between both children would be assessed.
Dr. Alexander Johnson, a licensed psychologist, completed a report for mother's psychological evaluation and risk assessment on November 29, 2023. The report described a clinical interview between mother and Johnson that took place on September 25, 2023. Mother explained how her parents separated due to domestic violence perpetrated by her father, and she recalled witnessing her father physically abuse her mother several times as a child. On one occasion, mother intervened in a fight by hitting her father with a pot of boiling beans because she feared that her father was going to kill her mother.
Mother indicated that the domestic violence aspects of her relationship with father began one year prior to the children's removal. The parents were participating in couples' therapy, but she did not offer any perceived growth or benefit from therapy. In total, mother estimated that she had been placed under a psychiatric hold pursuant to section 5150 approximately eight to 10 times since 2003. Her current psychiatric treatment included weekly therapy and psychiatric medication. At least one of her psychiatric hospitalizations was related to her history of medication noncompliance.
Johnson inquired about mother's understanding of the children's refusal of visits, and mother responded," 'if the care providers had been talking good about it there's no reason why they wouldn't want to be visiting with us.'" It was noted that mother made an effort to minimize her current life stressors during the assessment. The report concluded with a diagnostic impression of "Bipolar I Disorder, Unspecified," which mother had been previously diagnosed with. Her disorder did not appear to be disabling because she was medication and treatment compliant at the time of the assessment.
Bipolar I disorder was described as a mental health condition that does not typically resolve spontaneously, and most individuals who are diagnosed with bipolar I disorder require medication interventions to manage their manic and depressive episodes across their life span. Due to mother's past disregard for her medication treatment, Johnson opined that her "currently tenuous medication compliance" was a point of concern that would likely impair her ability to parent. A remedy for this concern was for mother to demonstrate medication compliance and engagement with therapy treatment for a sustained period of time of no less than nine months.
Based upon the totality of the evidence in the report, Johnson concluded that there was a moderate risk of the children being physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abused by mother if they were allowed to visit or return home. Mother continued to lack awareness of her role in the children's refusal to visit, and she did not take responsibility for her own behaviors that created tension in their relationship. During the assessment, mother verbalized her continued belief that the children did not visit with her because they were being improperly counseled by their current care providers.
Johnson recommended that the children be allowed to decline or terminate visitation at any time due to the "clear schism that has arisen between [mother] and her children .…" Supervised in-person visitation could be appropriate once the children were willing to consistently engage in visitation with mother.
After a final continuance at the request of mother's new counsel, a contested 12-month review hearing began on February 8, 2024. The contested hearing started with testimony from mother's mental health case manager, N.G. Mother became a patient of N.G.'s after she was elevated to a higher level of care in November 2022. N.G. provided coaching, education, and support for her assigned patients, but she resigned from the mental health provider in January 2024.
During N.G.'s initial contacts with mother, she noticed that mother was agitated, crying, and unable to control herself. After several months, mother began taking her time to breathe and calm herself down. N.G. testified that mother was engaged in her services and maintained her appointments throughout the previous year. Mother told N.G. about her belief that the care providers were telling the children to not participate in visits. There were also occasions that mother expressed her lack of understanding about the reasons the children stopped visiting with her.
The social worker's supervisor, Abigail M., testified that the children's case was assigned to her unit in March 2023. Abigail had reviewed the reports that were prepared for the review hearings, and she acknowledged that mother was participating in her court-ordered services. Conjoint family counseling had been part of the case plan, but Abigail was not aware of any specific order for mother to participate in conjoint family counseling.
The children were refusing visits at the time that Abigail was supervising the children's case, and she had conversations with the assigned social worker about ways to get the children to participate in visits. In situations where children refuse to visit, the department consults with treating clinicians and attempts family therapy. Family therapy was delayed between mother and the children because the department was consulting with the treating clinicians.
In her 25 years of experience with the department, Abigail had observed children begin to refuse visits after past participation. She believed such refusals could be based upon a sense of not feeling safe and remembering past trauma. Children may begin to remember past trauma from removal while participating in therapy, which may cause them to refuse visits with a parent.
The children continued to participate in therapy, and their clinicians did not believe that either of them were ready for visitation or family therapy. The children's clinicians expressed that the children were not ready because they had not processed their trauma. The department was not aware of any evidence that the children were coached to refuse visits after inquiring of the care providers and the children's clinicians. It was the department's position that additional trauma would be inflicted if the children were forced to participate in visits with their parents, and a social worker is unable to physically force a child to attend a visit.
The parents indicated that they were living in separate residences, but father also stated that he would move back into the home if the children returned to mother's care. Abigail testified that visitations appeared to be detrimental to the children's well-being. Mother had completed a parenting program, and she continued to participate in a child abuse program and therapy. However, mother reportedly made statements that she did not believe that domestic violence had any impact on her children.
Mother testified on her own behalf. She described the children as loving and playful, and the children had a "[v]ery good" relationship with each other. Prior to the children's removal, father worked for 10 hours each day while mother took care of the children. Mother testified that her mental health was poor on the date of the children's removal, and she indicated that she was not sleeping well due to prescription medications. Mother also acknowledged that the children were traumatized by mother's mental health episode and arguments between the parents. She denied ever using any physical discipline on the children.
Her hospitalization for three days pursuant to section 5150 was her third hospital stint in 2022. Mother testified that she was devastated when she returned home to find that the children had been removed. She was emotional during her first virtual visit after the removal, and the children and mother told each other "I love you." At their first in-person visit, the children were happy during the visit, but mother observed the children to be sad at the end of the visit.
Mother felt the children began to act differently during a visit in December 2022. She testified that the children reported being told not to sit on the parents' laps by the care providers. The children appeared hesitant to get close to the parents, but A.M. still gave mother a kiss at the end of the visit. The first declined visit occurred just before Christmas, and mother did not know why the children did not attend. At an attempted visit in a park, mother told the children that she loved them, and E.M. reportedly responded, "I love you more."
Mother was previously connected with a mental health provider, but she was not engaged in therapy until after the children's removal. She testified that therapy taught her how to manage her depression and anxiety. Her parenting class taught her how to discipline and set boundaries with the children. She was still attending a 52-week child abuse program, which taught her about the effects of trauma on children. A psychiatrist prescribed two medications to treat mother's mental health issues, which she identified as Wellbutrin and Trileptal. She attributed two of her past hospitalizations to interactions between her medication that interfered with her sleep.
Mother desired to participate in counseling with the children, and the social worker provided her with information about potentially participating in counseling due to the refused visits. However, she was never able to participate in any counseling with the children during the case. Mother testified that she was no longer living with father. She did not intend to get back together with father because their relationship had "a lot of arguing," and she was disappointed in his positive drug test results. Mother was informed that the children refused to visit due to the parents excessive arguing. Mother testified that she and father never argued during any of their visits with the children. Mother did not believe that she ever had the opportunity to the prove to the children that she would no longer expose them to fighting.
On cross-examination, mother acknowledged that she and father had physical altercations in the presence of the children on more than one occasion. She understood that the department scheduled her for "therapeutic or intensive supervised visits" after it was reported that staff did not feel safe with mother's behavior at the previous visitation facility. Mother denied that she ever yelled at social workers, but she admitted to disagreeing with the social worker and raising her voice on occasion. She also testified that she did not believe the care providers were coaching the children, but she felt that they were not motivating them to visit. Mother never observed any physical reactions in the children to suggest they were afraid of her during visits.
Father testified that he completed a parenting class and anger management program. He stated that he would complete his substance abuse program if his reunification services were continued. Father was not aware of the reasons that the children refused visits, but he hoped to have the opportunity to reunify with the children.
The next day, the contested hearing continued with closing arguments from the parties. Counsel for the department argued that it met its burden of proof that it would be detrimental to return the children to the parents' care. It also asserted that the department had shown by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were provided. Counsel for the children agreed with the department's position. She asserted that there would be an emotional detriment to the children if returned home with citation to the case of In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890 (Joseph B.)
Mother's counsel argued that mother did not pose a risk to the children because she was living separately from father and had benefited from her services. Both mother and father's counsel claimed that the department failed to provide reasonable services.
After hearing argument from all counsel, the juvenile court continued the hearing for a ruling on February 16, 2024. In its ruling, the court acknowledged that both parents had likely made moderate progress in reaching their goals. However, it reasoned that the focus of its inquiry should be on the emotional well-being of the children even when the parents had been compliant with services. The court also indicated that conjoint therapy with the parents would be detrimental to the children.
The juvenile court ultimately found that return of the children to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children, and it also found that the department provided reasonable services. Both parents family reunification services were terminated, and a section 366.26 hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2024.
DISCUSSION
I. Finding of Detriment to Return
Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that return of the children to mother's custody would be detrimental to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. It was insufficient, she argues, because she had fixed all of the issues that led to the children's removal. Therefore, she contends, the court erred in not returning the children to her custody. We disagree.
A. Legal Principles
California's dependency system is designed to provide for the protection and safety of a minor who comes under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and, when consistent with the minor's welfare, to preserve the minor's family ties. (§ 202, subd. (a).) At each dependency review hearing, there is a statutory presumption that the child will be returned to parental custody. (§§ 366.21, subds. (e) & (f), 366.22, subd. (a).) Section 366.21, subdivision (f)(1) governs the 12-month review hearing and provides:
"After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent … unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent … would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment."
"[T]he decision whether to return the child to parental custody depends on the effect that action would have on the physical or emotional well-being of the child." (Joseph B., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 899.) While compliance with the reunification plan is a pertinent consideration, it is not conclusive evidence that a parent poses no risk of detriment to the child. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704.) Section 366.21 "does not state or imply that, in order to keep a minor out of parental custody, the serious risk of detriment posed by returning the minor to his or her parent must involve the same type of harm which formed the basis for the dependency and the removal of the minor from parental custody." (Joseph B., at p. 898.)
B. Standard of Review
We review a finding of detriment to determine whether the record is supported by substantial evidence. "In so doing, we consider the evidence favorably to the prevailing party and resolve all conflicts in support of the [juvenile] court's order." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401.) We do not inquire whether the evidence supports a contrary finding but instead whether substantial evidence, contradicted or not, supports the finding actually made. (Adoption of A.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 912, 925.) On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's detriment finding.
C. Analysis
Parents' compliance with their case plan components is not to be confused with substantial progress toward reunification. (Fabian L. v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1029; In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143 ["[S]imply complying with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy sessions and visiting the children is to be considered by the court; but it is not determinative."].) The decision to return a child to parental custody ultimately depends on the effect that action would have on the child's well-being. (Joseph B., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 899.) Thus, as explained in Joseph B., where a child who for example has been physically abused experiences emotional trauma as a result of the abuse and fears being returned to parental custody, it would be inconsistent with the child's well-being to compel his or her return to parental custody even if there were means available to protect the child from further physical abuse by the parent; instead, services should be provided to address the child's emotional trauma before returning the child to parental custody. (Joseph B., at pp. 899-900.)
While mother completed components of her case plan, her conduct during the initial period of visitation established a reasonable fear in the children's minds that mother would continue to expose them to domestic violence in the future. Prior to the children's initial refusal to visit in December 2022, mother's visits had to be terminated early on several occasions due to her failure to follow visitation guidelines. In August 2022, mother was observed shouting, cursing, and speaking aggressively at the children. This incident resulted in a referral to "therapeutic" or intensive" supervised visits. During intensive supervised visits, mother began to make promises that the children would be returning home in a matter of days, and the visitation coach ended a visit after both parents began using inappropriate language toward the coach.
Constant fighting between mother and father was one of the reasons that led to the removal of the children. Therefore, it was important for mother to demonstrate to the children that she could control her anger. Mother was participating in individual therapy and taking her prescribed medication at the time of these incidents, but she failed to demonstrate to the children that she could provide a home that was free of domestic violence. She was combative with the social workers and visitation staff, and she put unnecessary pressure on E.M. to convince A.M. to attend visits. As A.M. continued to refuse visits in March 2023, mother became confrontational with the social worker in the presence of E.M., and she stated that the children's care providers needed to understand that the children were coming home. As a result of the behavior that mother demonstrated, the children reasonably and insightfully concluded that mother was not changing. Thus, the children did not want to return to mother's custody.
In addition, the fact that mother and father were currently separated did not render the children's fears as mere speculation because mother and father had previously ignored a protective order that required them to be separated. Mother's mental health issues were longstanding, and her current medication compliance was still considered to be tenuous by Johnson. Maternal relatives also expressed their beliefs that the children would not be safe in mother's care due to her mental health and conflicts with others.
Even if we were to accept mother's characterization of the record, her compliance with the reunification plan would, at best, constitute conflicting evidence for the juvenile court's consideration, and reversal is not warranted simply because conflicting evidence in the record might support a conclusion different from that reached by the court. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 640.) And even assuming mother had made progress toward addressing some of the problems that initially resulted in removal by the time of the review hearing, the court cannot return the children to parental custody if there continues to be a substantial risk of harm to the children.
The juvenile court was clear that it was concerned with the effect that returning the children to mother's care would have on their emotional well-being. Both Johnson and the children's clinicians advised that the children should not be forced to participate in visits with mother until they had made further progress in addressing their trauma. There was significant evidence presented that forcing the children to return to the home of a person that they were afraid to even see would cause them additional trauma.
The juvenile court's decision whether to return a child to a parent's custody must be guided not by how compliant a parent has been in completing court-ordered services but "by the well-being of the child at the time of the review hearing; if returning the child will create a substantial risk of detriment to his or her physical or emotional well-being [citations], placement must continue .…" (Joseph B., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 900.) Based upon the forgoing, we conclude there is substantial evidence supporting the court's conclusion that returning the children to mother created a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.
II. Reasonable Services
Mother also contends the juvenile court's finding that the department provided her with reasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, mother argues that the department failed to provide her reasonable services because conjoint family therapy was required under the circumstances.
A. Legal Principles
"Family reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings. [Citations.] At the dispositional hearing, the court is required to order the [department] 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." (In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 13 (M.F.).)
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)(1).) The 'adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [department'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 [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 .…'" (M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 13-14.)
At the 12-month review hearing, "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." (M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 14.) Reunification services are a benefit, and there is no constitutional"' "entitlement" '" to child welfare services. (In re Aryanna C. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1242, citing In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 476.) Furthermore, the resources available to the juvenile court are not unlimited. (In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 566.)
B. Standard of Review
"In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all reasonable and legitimate inferences to uphold the judgment. [Citation.] 'If there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of a juvenile court, a reviewing court is without power to weigh or evaluate the findings.'" (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1361- 1362.)
C. Analysis
Mother complains that the department failed to provide her reasonable services because she should have been provided "conjoint family therapy" with the children. She contends that the department caused unnecessary delay after the juvenile court ordered "therapeutic intensive visits" on January 26, 2023. However, her argument is misplaced because it conflates "family therapy" and "therapeutic intensive visits."
The children were removed from mother's care due to ongoing domestic violence between the parents and mother's untreated mental health issues. The objectives and responsibilities of mother's case plan included paying attention to her children's well-being and demonstrating her knowledge of age-appropriate discipline techniques during visits.
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 28, 2022, mother was ordered to participate in a parenting class, domestic violence, mental health and substance abuse evaluations and recommended treatment, and random drug testing. Mother was also ordered to participate in a psychological evaluation and risk assessment. Visitation between mother and the children was ordered to be supervised once per week with supervision provided by the department, an approved third party, or an approved agency.
The children began refusing visits with their parents in December 2022, and the visitation center providing "intensive supervised visits" closed the parents' referral due to the children's fourth refusal. At the six-month review hearing held on January 26, 2023, the department's counsel suggested that the juvenile court could order that "intensive supervised therapeutic visits be held again." Mother's counsel agreed with the department's offer, and the court modified the previous visitation orders to allow "therapeutic intensive visits." The children and mother were already participating in their own individual therapy sessions by the end of the six-month review period.
"Therapeutic intensive visits" were scheduled for the parents in March 2023 at the previous visitation center. The children attended one of the visits on March 17, 2023, but the children refused all other therapeutic intensive visits. Thus, the referral for therapeutic intensive visitation was closed after three consecutive refusals by the children. In May 2023, the department inquired of the children's mental health clinicians about the possibility of family therapy between the children and mother. However, both clinicians responded that the children were not ready for family therapy.
At the initial 12-month review hearing on July 11, 2023, the juvenile court ordered the children's clinicians to provide a letter to explain why intensive supervised visits or conjoint therapy was not recommended. The clinicians submitted a letter opining that the children were not ready to begin family therapy due to their history of trauma and impairment. The clinicians' plan was to prepare the children for family therapy. On August 29, 2023, the court ordered that the children not be forced to attend visits or have undue stress placed on them to visit. In September 2023, a mental health provider was prepared to begin family therapy once the children were ready to participate.
The children's clinicians worked with the children to address any fears about visiting with their parents, and the parents were able to have sessions with the children's clinicians to receive psychoeducation on the effects of trauma on young children. The children were encouraged by their clinicians to try family therapy, but they continued to decline any type of visitation or contact with their parents. The clinicians had to pause offering the children items and letters from their parents because the children were displaying increased sadness, irritability, and aggressiveness during sessions and at home. Family therapy would be pursued once the children's symptoms decreased.
Johnson, the psychologist who administered mother's psychological evaluation and risk assessment, also recommended that the children be allowed to decline visitation at any time due to the "clear schism" between the children and mother. In its ruling, the juvenile court believed that forcing the children to participate in family therapy with their parents would be detrimental.
Contrary to mother's suggestion, the juvenile court did not order that "conjoint" or "family" therapy be provided at any point of the proceedings. Her argument that the department failed to pursue conjoint family therapy for months is misplaced. It is clear from her petition that she incorrectly uses the terms "therapeutic intensive visits" and "conjoint family therapy" interchangeably. "Therapeutic intensive" supervised visits were provided to the parents on two separate occasions, but the visitation center providing that form of visitation closed the referrals due to the children's refusals. After "therapeutic intensive" visits were unsuccessful, the department considered "conjoint" or "family" therapy to address the issues that were preventing visitation from occurring.
The juvenile court and department sought the input of the children's clinicians regarding the children's ability to participate in family therapy, but the clinicians indicated that the children still needed to process their trauma. Mother was provided with the opportunity to have individual sessions with one of the children's clinicians to help her gain insight into the children's trauma. Therefore, it cannot be said that the department failed to arrange family therapy or improperly delayed its assessment of such an opportunity. The option of family therapy simply could not begin despite the best efforts of the children's clinicians to address barriers to both family therapy and visitation with the children's parents.
The mere existence of services that were not yet therapeutically recommended does not undermine the adequacy of the services that mother did receive. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547 ["In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect" but the standard is "whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances."].) The services were reasonable under the circumstances of this case when no mental health professional recommended family therapy. (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426.)
Mother has failed to demonstrate how the services provided to her were deficient. In fact, the department underwent extensive efforts to address the barrier of the children's refusal to visit with the parents. Unfortunately, there were no options available to the department short of inflicting additional trauma on the children by physically forcing or restraining them to participate in visits with the parents. The lack of family therapy was reasonable given the attempts made by the department to help the children become open to participation in visits. The department provided mother with reasonable reunification services, and we reject her claim to the contrary.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
[*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.