Opinion
E042363
5-24-2007
MARTHA D. Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENS SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Monica Cazares for Petitioner No appearance for Respondent. Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and Sandra D. Baxter, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
The mother of E.W. and W.T. challenges the decision of the juvenile court to terminate reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider a permanent plan for the minor. Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that the reunification services offered to her were reasonable and, also, that return of the minors would create a substantial risk of detriment to them. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with both contentions and, therefore, deny the petition.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
E.W. (born in July 2002) and W.T. (born in Jan. 2005) were detained by the San Bernardino County Department of Childrens Services (department) on February 6, 2005, after medical personnel at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center reported that mother was acting in a bizarre manner and did not appear able to provide appropriate care for her sick child, W.T. The staff reported that mother attempted to force-feed W.T., who had already eaten, and that she held him in a careless manner.
Mother and her sons were residing with her sister, Victoria, and the latters parolee boyfriend. Victoria told the social worker that she had been the primary caretaker for E.W. and planned to be the babys as well.
Both mother and Victoria readily admitted that their apartment was regularly used by people using illicit drugs and that this activity occurred in front of the two minor boys. Mother explained that these people were gang members and that she and her sister could not keep them from using their apartment. Victoria stated that she knew that allowing this activity was not a good decision, but she allowed it because it was her boyfriend and his friends. She asserted that she herself did not use drugs and promised that it would not happen again if her nephews were placed with her. Because of Victorias unresolved criminal matters, the department decided not to place the minors in her care.
The minors were detained and placed in foster care while mother was attending an inpatient drug treatment program through dependency drug court. Drug court case notes indicated that on February 24, 2005, mother tested positive for marijuana and that she made a court appearance on that date. Mothers drugs of choice were methamphetamine, marijuana, and alcohol. Mother admitted she had used speed since she was 14 years old; that she had been convicted six times on drug charges; and said she was a Proposition 36 participant.
The social worker raised concerns about mothers mental condition and a psychological examination was ordered to determine whether she had developmental delays, brain damage, or thought disorder.
Following mediation, mother admitted allegations under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) and (b)(2), and the juvenile court made the requisite jurisdictional findings. Mother was to receive family reunification services and the court noted that she also would be receiving excellent services through drug court. Her case plan required her to attend individual counseling on issues of mental health and inappropriate decisions; a parent education program; both inpatient and outpatient substance abuse programs; a 12-step program; and substance abuse testing.
In the six-month status review report, the department noted that mother was doing well, had completed the Cedar House residential program, and had remained drug free. Although mother had taken a parenting class, there was a concern that she seemed unable to apply what she had learned. The treatment team at Cedar House had become concerned because mother appeared to be slow. She was seen by a therapist and then by a psychologist. The latter reported that mothers performance indicated low intellectual functioning, but that she was highly motivated to do a good job in parenting. She was willing to get along with people and accept criticism. She was aware of her significantly below-average cognitive ability and occasionally used humor to defuse an embarrassing failure.
The social worker indicated that she had intended to make a referral to Inland Regional Center (IRC), but concluded mother was ineligible for its services because she had not been diagnosed as having developmental delays before she was 18 years old.
The court continued reunification services for another six months as recommended by the department.
By the time of the 12-month review, mother had successfully completed juvenile dependency court, having remained clean and sober for 13 months. However, there were concerns about her parenting skills. She was referred to Christian Counseling Service for their Parent Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), where the parents wear an earpiece and are coached during sessions. Mother attended all sessions, but the program therapist reported that she appeared to be mimicking what she was being taught and was unable to apply it. It was noted that she praised her child for behaviors that the child was not doing at the time she was praising him. The therapist opined that mother seemed to lack essential emotional and cognitive integration skills to manage her children in daily interactions. It was recommended she undergo a mental and psychological evaluation to assess her cognitive abilities prior to proceeding with PCIT.
The social worker made similar observations of mothers parenting skills during a visitation, observing that she did not "know how or when to feed the children, when to change a diaper, how to play with the children and how to protect them." Mother would focus on W.T. and not interact with E.W., who would be aggressive and/or crying during the visits. When mother did interact with E.W., it seemed that she did not know how to play, redirect, or calm him down. It was even requested that mother not be allowed to walk the children to the car after visits because E.W. would run down the street and in the parking lot, but mother would not go after him. The social worker concluded that mother seemed to be disconnected from her children and has a difficult time identifying dangerous behaviors. The social worker recommended that she undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation, and an evaluation from IRC.
The 12-month status review report recommended continuation of services, but the court indicated at the May 18, 2006, hearing that that was "out of the question because the .22 date is August the 6th [18 months from removal] and the uncontested .22 would be set for July 14th. So what this case today is really about is can these children go back to their mother in less than 60 days and I dont think there is a chance that thats going to happen based on the lack of progress at this point."
The court did continue the hearing for a full psychiatric or psychological evaluation.
Mother was evaluated by Dr. Garett, who reported that she had a full scale IQ of 67 and a mental age equivalent of between six and one-half to seven years old. He concluded that her IQ, in combination with her history of methamphetamine abuse, made her a "poor candidate to be the full-time custodian of children." He did opine that mother was eligible for benefits from IRC.
The department now changed its recommendation to termination of services. However, at the June 28, 2006, hearing, with the agreement of all parties, the court found extraordinary circumstances existed, which justified an additional six months of services.
IRC did evaluate mother and determined that she is eligible for services, which include support services, independent living skills, vocational resource, and improving her medical and dental health. None of the IRC services would support reunification. At the time of the 18-month review hearing, in February 2007, mother was receiving 40 hours of services a month and the maximum amount she might be able to receive would be 120 hours per month.
Despite the four different parenting programs mother had completed, her parenting skills had not significantly improved. Indeed, she still had not been able to have unsupervised visits with her children. None of the service providers believed that mother could parent the minors on her own, but that she would need 24-hour supervision. The social worker testified that mother simply cannot assess for safety issues. In addition, mother was arrested on December 26, 2006, for being drunk in public—a serious relapse after months of sobriety. Although mother and her sister claimed that she had only had a few beers, the juvenile court found that this was not believable given the level of inebriation she exhibited and her admission to police at the time of her arrest that she had consumed four, large bottles of Old English Malt Liquor.
Thus, despite the many programs that mother completed, the juvenile court concluded that mother was incapable of caring for the minors.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that the reunification services offered to her were reasonable, in that the services offered failed to address and accommodate her special needs. The standard of review, when a parent challenges the reasonableness of the reunification services provided or offered, is whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts conclusion that such services were reasonable. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) "All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and the reviewing court must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court." (In re Albert B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 361, 375.)
The juvenile courts determination that the department had provided reasonable services is supported by substantial evidence. Mother was able to participate in many programs in an effort to improve her parenting skills, and maintain a drug- and alcohol-free lifestyle. It is unfortunate that despite these services and her efforts, she was unable to overcome her problems and reunify with her sons; but, this failure cannot be blamed on the lack of services provided. There was a delay in evaluating mothers eligibility for IRC services and this delay was largely due to the mistaken assumption by the social worker early on that mother was not eligible. However, the court continued reunification services for six months in order that mother could be properly evaluated. It is clear that the earlier provision of IRC services would have had no significant effect on mothers reunification efforts.
Mother also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that the return of the minors would create a substantial risk of detriment. Here again, the courts conclusion is supported by the evidence. Mother completed the programs in her case plan, including counseling and drug rehabilitation, but the evidence shows that she did not sufficiently benefit from these programs. She had a significant relapse in December 2006 when she was arrested for being drunk in public; but, even more importantly, the professionals who have had contact with mother agree that she is incapable of parenting her two young children on her own. As the social worker testified, mother is simply incapable of assessing safety issues when caring for the minors. They agree that mother requires 24-hour supervision, but there has been no showing that that type of support is available to mother now or in the future. In short, there is substantial evidence that the minors cannot safely be returned to mothers care.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur:
GAUT, Acting P.J.
MILLER, J. --------------- Notes: All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.