Opinion
F087002
04-17-2024
In re S.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. TARA G., Defendant and Appellant. MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County Super. Ct. No. 22JP-00027-A, Donald J. Proietti, Judge.
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Tara G. (mother) contends the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services at the 18-month mark and failing to return her son, S.G., to her care under family maintenance was error. We disagree and affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On February 25, 2022, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging S.G. (age 13 years), A.T. (age 3 years), and P.R. (newborn) were at risk of harm because P.R. was born positive for methamphetamine and mother was also positive at the time of P.R.'s birth. Mother was alleged to have untreated substance abuse and mental health issues, deplorable housing conditions with dangerous knives, tools and medications where the children could reach them, a history of domestic violence, and issues relating to the supervision of the children. The petition noted that, when mother went to the hospital to deliver P.R., she left A.T. and S.G. with caregivers who had histories of substance use. Mother informed the social worker that she was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. While mother was not seeking treatment for her mental health, she acknowledged that she needed help with her addiction. Mother had had a previous dependency case in 2019 involving S.G. and A.T. in which "approximately twice a month" domestic violence was documented between mother and A.T.'s alleged father Kyle T.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless noted otherwise.
S.G. is the only child at issue in this appeal. A.T. and P.R. were at issue in a separate proceeding (case No. F086994), with our nonpublished opinion filed January 12, 2024.
The petition alleged that Michael S., listed as S.G.'s alleged father, failed to protect S.G. from repeated domestic violence between mother and Kyle T, and that he himself had a history of untreated substance abuse and knew mother was currently using. Michael S. currently had an open dependency with the confidential half sibling of S.G. Detention
The agency's detention report stated that mother was interviewed at the time of P.R.'s birth and admitted taking methamphetamine in order to go into labor. Mother said she needed help with her addiction and that her support group was made up of people who also use drugs. Mother had been diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication, but no longer took it. She was self-medicating with marijuana.
The day following P.R.'s birth, a social worker and sheriff deputy went to mother's house and found S.G. cooking pancakes. He claimed he knew how to call for help and his uncle, Tommy H., a friend of mother's who slept in his car, was there to help him. Mother had arranged for a friend, Christina, to watch A.T. when she went to the hospital. Both Tommy H. and Christina had a history of methamphetamine use.
Mother was present at the detention hearing February 28, 2022, and appointed counsel. Kyle T. sought to contest the detention of A.T. The juvenile court detained S.G. and P.R. and continued the matter to March 1, 2022, as to A.T. Jurisdiction/disposition was set for April 6, 2022, for S.G. and P.R.
First and Second Amended Petitions
On March 17, 2022, the agency filed an amended petition alleging O.G., also an alleged father of A.T., failed to protect her from exposure to repeated domestic violence between mother and Kyle T. P.R.'s father, Jose R., was incarcerated at the time. He had two prior dependency cases with P.R.'s confidential half siblings: his parental rights were terminated in one case and reunification services terminated in the other.
On March 30, 2022, a second amended petition was filed alleging mother and O.G. had two previous dependency cases with the children's confidential half sibling. Mother and O.G. did not reunify with their child in one case and the child was placed into guardianship. As to the other, mother and O.G. were bypassed for services.
On April 6, 2022, counsel for mother submitted on the agency's second amended petition while denying all allegations. The juvenile court adopted the findings and recommendations set forth in the second amended petition.
Disposition and jurisdiction were rescheduled for April 20, 2022.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
The agency's jurisdiction/disposition report recommended offering mother services, but not offering services to S.G.'s father, Michael S., who was elevated to presumed father status. In preparation for the report, mother was interviewed by the social worker and acknowledged that the condition of her household was unacceptable, but that she believed her children would not touch dangerous objects such as a torch and table saw which were accessible to the children. Mother alleged S.G. and A.T. helped her clean the home.
Mother acknowledged that she and P.R. were both positive for methamphetamine at the time of P.R.'s birth. Mother said she used the methamphetamine because she was "tired of being pregnant and wanted to go into labor." Mother's substance abuse history began 20 years earlier at the age of 13. Mother stated she was sober only when in jail or prison. She used marijuana off and on most of her life, including throughout her pregnancy. She acknowledged using methamphetamine "a couple of times" at the beginning of her pregnancy. When asked, mother said she now knew her drug use impacted her children because they were taken from her.
Mother disclosed that she was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder and self-medicated with marijuana. She could not recall when she last received mental health services or took prescribed medication.
Mother insisted that her involvement with domestic violence was "in the past" and believed she understood the effect it had on her children, although it was "not an issue anymore." Mother admitted she had had two previous relationships involving domestic violence, but said she was able to leave those relationships without help.
The agency interviewed S.G., who believed he was detained from mother because mother "failed a drug test." According to S.G., he twice saw his mother use marijuana, but could not recall when. He denied ever seeing any other drugs or drug paraphernalia in the home, but did state that his mother always kept a room in the house locked and he did not know what was in that room. S.G. claimed the violence in the home "wasn't so much anymore, but sometimes." S.G. reported that his mother's friend Bruce would stay with them from time to time and Bruce would hit his mother. Before that, it was Kyle T. who hit both him and his mother. S.G. was afraid of Kyle T. and recalled a time when Kyle T. shot at them as they were leaving in the car.
S.G. stated that, at times, a homeless man named Tommy H. would care for him, although "nothing bad happened" when he did. S.G. acknowledged that there were various unsafe items inside and outside the home - a machete, table saw, blowtorch adapter, and other items - but he knew not to touch them. According to S.G., his mother was in charge of cleaning the house, but had not done so because she was in the hospital. S.G. said that he missed mother and wanted to go home. He was in the seventh grade with an individual education plan (IEP) as he had difficulty with peer interactions, hyperactivity, and emotional disturbance.
A.T. reported that her mother hit her, was mean to her, and "daddy" hurt her. She referred to her foster mothers as "mom" and mother as "other mom."
The report recommended visits once every two weeks with S.G. The subsequent written orders state that S.G. was to have visits with mother "no less than once a month." Dependency Drug Treatment Contract
On April 13, 2022, mother signed her Dependency Drug Treatment Contract (DDTC).
Third Amended Petition
The agency filed a third amended petition April 19, 2022, alleging S.G.'s alleged father, O.G., failed to protect S.G. from exposure to domestic violence between mother and Kyle T. O.G.'s whereabouts were unknown.
It appears that, at one point, mother and O.G. were married.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing held April 20, 2022, counsel for mother informed the juvenile court that mother denied the allegations of the petition but submitted for purposes of the third amended petition. As to the dual question of jurisdiction and disposition, mother denied the allegations in the jurisdiction/disposition report, but submitted on the agency's recommendation to receive family reunification services.
Section 387 Supplemental Petition
On September 13, 2022, the agency filed a section 387 supplemental petition alleging A.T. had suspicious marks on her forehead. A.T. reported that her relative resource parent's child hit, pinched and bit her, which she relayed to the resource parent, but nothing was done. A.T. and P.R. (who resided together) were moved from the relative placement and placed into the home of a foster caretaker.
Six Month Review Hearing
The agency's six-month review report recommended that reunification services be continued for mother. Mother's case plan required her to live free from drug dependency, to comply with medical or psychological treatment, develop and use her own specific domestic violence relapse prevention plan, and adequately parent her children.
The agency found mother partially compliant with her plan to live free from drug dependency. While mother complied with drug testing, DDTC, and sober living environment residence, she did not embrace other concepts, principles and skills foundational for recovery. Mother married Jose R., P.R.'s father on September 2, 2022, and he resided in the family home while she completed her program.
Mother allowed a friend, Brian Burgess, to move into her home and it was mother's intention that Burgess care for S.G. on a full-time basis. This despite the fact that mother and Burgess have a past history of substance use and mother knew Burgess was still actively using drugs.
On multiple occasions, mother was easily agitated, irritable, threatening, and unstable to the agency staff, as well as to A.T. and P.R.'s resource parent. When she was asked about these behaviors, mother stated she was unaware of the behaviors or how they may have been perceived. Mother was reminded that full case plan compliance was not met by earning certificates of completion, but by applying skills acquired in the groups and classes to real life situations. The agency was concerned with mother's ability or willingness to regulate her emotions and use appropriate coping skills when she was triggered or upset when facing challenges or unpleasant information.
Mother had been referred to Behavioral Health Services for a mental health assessment. Mother claimed she was seen by a clinician, but the social worker was unable to verify mother's claim.
Mother had been referred to the Valley Crisis for individual and group counseling for domestic violence. She had been attending sessions and utilized the services to help develop a safety plan. While she technically complied with her plan, on multiple occasions when confronted with challenging situations, mother struggled to refrain from using aggressive behaviors which threatened and intimidated others.
Mother completed two parenting classes - one in May and one in July of 2022. As for S.G., he was approved for weekly homebased therapy in July of 2022.
Since then, it had been reported that S.G. had a fight with two other school students and was said to have behavioral outbursts in his foster home. In the most recent incident on October 14, 2022, the school reported S.G. having "inappropriate sexualized behavior," placing him at risk of suspension. In September of 2022, S.G. stated that he wanted to go back to live with mother and his sisters.
At the six-month review hearing October 20, 2022, mother waived her right to a contested hearing, denied all allegations and submitted on the agency's recommendation to continue family reunification services.
The 12-month status review hearing was scheduled for April 6, 2023, with an interim review on November 10, 2022.
12-Month Status Review
The agency's report for the 12-month review hearing recommended continued family reunification services for mother. The components of her case plan remained unchanged.
Mother was found to be in partial compliance with living free from drug dependency. She continued to participate in DDTC, but was sanctioned because she did not drug test on October 27, 2022, and missed a group session November 3, 2022.
Mother was asked to drug test for the agency on November 17, 2022, but did not comply and tested instead on November 22, 2022. Mother drug tested on February 16, 2023, and March 21, 2023, both with negative results.
Mother continued to participate in behavioral health and recovery services, but was told by the DDTC staff that she needed to work on honesty and accountability.
Mother received a certificate of completion from her domestic violence program March 28, 2022. However, the following day, mother was involved in a domestic incident with Jose R., mother's now husband and P.R.'s father. Mother and Jose R. were residing in the same house. According to a police report, mother reported that she and Jose R. were in a verbal argument regarding the children being in foster care. While both mother and Jose R. felt that foster care was putting a strain on their relationship, Jose R. also mentioned that mother's jealousy was interfering with his positivity and work life. The two engaged in another domestic incident on April 13, 2023, this time in front of P.R.
At the time, mother was accusing Jose R. of hiding "shit" from her. This incident caused the agency concern that mother was not utilizing her parenting and domestic violence skills.
At some point, A.T. disclosed to the agency information amounting to a sexual assault by a man named "Dominic." Mother deflected blame when told of this by the agency and instead accused the resource parent of the abuse. Two investigations ensued and found mother's blame of the resource parent unfounded. Kyle T. reported to the agency that, on December 19, 2022, A.T. told him "Dominic" and S.G. had touched her inappropriately on her vagina. Kyle T. confronted mother about this disclosure and mother denied any knowledge of the incident. Thereafter, mother did not allow Kyle T. to visit A.T.
On January 12, 2023, S.G. asked mother who Dominic was, and mother replied that she did not know. S.G. stated that he had heard A.T. call Daniel Dominic before, and again mother claimed she did not know what S.G. was talking about.
In other parts of the record, Daniel is identified as a then live-in boyfriend of mother's. In October 2020, he was arrested for corporal injury of a spouse or cohabitant, assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury, and willful harm or injury to a child. He was still incarcerated.
In May of 2022, S.G. was diagnosed with a mood disorder, suffered panic attacks, and his weight was classified as obese. He was prescribed medication. In monthly visits between mother and S.G., the two were comfortable and discussed a wide range of subjects, including him being upset at mother's decision to marry Jose R., and A.T.'s allegations of sexual abuse.
The review hearing was eventually held June 22, 2023, following numerous continuances. At the hearing, mother submitted on the agency's recommendation for continued family reunification services. The 18-month review hearing was scheduled for August 10, 2023.
18-Month Status Review
The 18-month status review report recommended the juvenile court terminate family reunification services and set a section 366.26 permanent selection and implementation hearing for A.T. and P.R. S.G. was assessed as not adoptable, and the agency recommended he enter "[a]ccelerated long term foster care" as his permanent plan, and a hearing be set for him under section 366.3.
The agency found mother in compliance with her objective of living free from drug dependency. As of July 31, 2023, agency mandated drug tests yielded negative results for all substances.
Mother was found not to be in compliance with her medical or psychological treatment. Mother's mental health records were requested in May and August of 2023, but mother's release of information did not allow for her records to be released.
Mother was not participating regularly in her domestic violence prevention program, cancelling, rescheduling, and then cancelling sessions.
While mother had not missed any scheduled visits with the children, she failed to prepare for the visits in advance, but instead relied on whatever was in the visitation room or her cell phone to entertain the children. Mother was affectionate physically and verbally with the children during visits, but the children did not always reciprocate. Of most concern were A.T.'s statements asking if mother was going to hit her, calling mother "mean mommy", and stating she did not want to go back to mother's house. A.T. stated that mother had said she did not love her anymore, that she would "make me dead when I get home", and that mother hit her. There were instances of A.T. having nightmares and stating she did not want to go back to mother. At one point, A.T. stated she had a "secret" with mother and mother would get mad if she said anything. A.T. engaged in a multitude of negative behaviors following visits with mother, including bed wetting, acts of selfinflicted harm, and physical aggression, and she would have night terrors. A.T. stated that she did not want to live with mother.
S.G. reported that he wanted to go home and go on vacation with his family. On July 20, 2023, S.G. told the agency he wanted two unsupervised visits with his grandmother instead of one. He also wanted to see Jose R., and" 'that's it.'" On August 24, 2023, the juvenile court approved an order for the agency's application for psychotropic medication for S.G., as he was being treated for hyperactivity, inattention, impulsivity, anxiety, and trauma.
At the scheduled August 31, 2023, 18-month review hearing, mother requested a contested hearing, which was scheduled for October 10, 2023.
Contested 18-Monlh Review Hearing
At the October 10, 2023, contested hearing, the agency asked that the juvenile court take judicial notice of the various reports filed during the pendency of the case and submitted on the August 30, 2023, status report.
Mother disputed the agency's recommendation to terminate her family reunification services and requested the children be returned to her under a family maintenance plan. Mother testified that she had made progress by taking classes, she was living free from drug dependency, was testing negative and participating in DDTC, from which she was scheduled to graduate in a few days.
Mother testified that she was in compliance with her psychological treatment plan, as she was regularly attending counseling, saw her therapist, and took prescribed medication. She testified she had seen her counselor twice a month since August of 2022 to address trauma and believed she had signed a release of information for the agency. A letter from mother's psychiatrist that she was attending appointments and had an upcoming one scheduled for August 23, 2023, was entered into evidence.
According to mother, she had completed 14 domestic violence classes and was waiting for another.
When questioned about a March 2023 domestic violence incident, mother explained that tensions between her and Jose R. were high when she learned that S.G. was not coming home. She called the police but wanted to gather her personal belongings before driving away. The arrival of police brought about a de-escalation of tensions.
As for the domestic incident that occurred in April 2023, mother testified that, while she was visiting her daughter, she found another woman's number in Jose R.'s phone and an argument ensued. She now recognized that there was a better way to handle the situation by taking a deep breath, waiting and then approaching the situation another time.
According to mother, she was no longer living with Jose R., but was now living with a friend and thought her children could live there with her. She was awaiting admission to a sober living facility where all of her children could be with her.
Mother testified that she never missed visits with her children and had attended two parenting classes where she had gained insight into how to speak to her children and how to discipline them. As to S.G., mother stated she would discipline him by taking away "his phone or his game" and giving him a timeout for a "little minute to cool off."
Asked about an incident during a visit in May of 2023 when A.T. did not give mother a kiss and mother had asked A.T. if she no longer loved her, mother claimed she said it in a joking manner and often asked that of her children.
Mother testified that she did believe A.T.'s allegations of sexual abuse from January of 2023. When asked why she waited until May of 2023 to bring this information to the attention of the agency, mother said, "Well, being as that person is so close to me I didn't really - I couldn't think of who was around my children at that time because I didn't have people coming in and out of the house. It was just that one person who was there helping me while I was pregnant."
On cross-examination, although mother claimed she could provide a safe place for her children, she acknowledged that the friend she was living with was in substance abuse recovery with her. She also acknowledged that the friend had an open CPS case and does not have her own children in her care. Mother had not received permission to live with her friend from the owner of the apartment.
Mother was asked about employment and stated she was working at Foster Farms from midnight to 9:00 a.m. When asked who would care for the children while she was working if they were returned to her, she stated, "[a] babysitter," although she had not gotten one yet and did not know how much she would have to pay one to care for them every night.
Mother denied she was ever mean, raised her voice, yelled or hit A.T., and did not know why A.T. would refer to her as "mean mommy." She also did not know why A.T. would allege that mother did not love her or threatened to kill her. While mother knew A.T. had night terrors, she was unaware that the night terrors occurred mostly after visitation.
Counsel for the children proffered that the client coordinator had interviewed S.G., but had to stop the interview due to S.G.'s behavior. During the interview, assistance was required to stop S.G. from throwing things and cursing. When the interviewer spoke with A.T. and P.R., both called the foster mother "mommy," and A.T. stated she did not like visits with mother.
Counsel for the agency and counsel for the children both argued for termination of mother's family reunification services in that such services exceeded 18 months, mother still lacked stable housing, and mother lacked critical insight into the needs of her children. Counsel argued that mother's testimony provided evidence that return of the children to her care would create a substantial risk of harm to them.
Counsel for mother argued that mother had worked hard in her services.
The juvenile court found that, while mother had made progress in her programs, it had serious apprehensions concerning the children, noting A.T.'s allegations of sexual abuse and mother's delayed response, as well as A.T.'s statements about mother being a "mean mom," and the house being a "mean house." The juvenile court found "the children are lagging behind in the relationship with their mom even though mom has tried to bond with them on a regular basis with visitation."
While the court thought it might be willing to continue the case if housing was the only issue, "[b]ut even with that housing, I would be gravely concerned about the children coming back to Mother's care and Mother being able to provide for them, given what I have heard today about A.T., what I have heard about S.G., and what I have heard about some of the domestic flare ups that have occurred in the last few months."
The juvenile court also expressed concern that mother's work schedule, from midnight to 9:00 a.m., would result in her leaving the raising of the children to a babysitter or someone else. The juvenile court found that, due to concerns for the safety of the children, it could not order the return of the children to the care and custody of mother under family maintenance services.
The juvenile court ordered mother's reunification services terminated and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for A.T. and P.R., to be held February 1, 2024. As to S.G., the juvenile court terminated reunification services with continued placement in long term foster care, and set a post permanency planning status review hearing under section 366.3 for September 23, 2024.
Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition on October 13, 2023. On October 18, 2023, this court, on its own motion, deemed mother's notice of intent filed on October 13, 2023, to be a notice of appeal as to S.G.'s case only and directed the clerk of the court to file a copy of mother's notice of appeal under case No. F087002 forthwith.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues the juvenile court erred because substantial evidence did not exist to terminate her reunification services. She further contends that S.G. should have been returned to her care with the provisions of family maintenance services as she completed the components of her case plan. We disagree.
"The Legislature has determined the juvenile court may generally offer family reunification services for a maximum period of 18 months. [Citations.] At the 18-month permanency review hearing the juvenile court must order a child returned to a parent's custody unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return of the child will create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being." (Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864, fn. omitted; see § 366.22, subd. (a).) If the child is not returned to a parent at the permanency review hearing, the court must terminate reunification services and order a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select a permanent plan. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).)
Section 366.22, subdivision (b), provides exceptions, none of which apply here, that permit the court to continue services. The court must also find the parent is making significant and consistent progress, that there is a substantial probability the child will be returned, and that it is in the child's best interest to continue services to the parent. If that is the case, the court may continue services up to 24 months from the date the child was initially removed from parental custody. (§ 366.22, subd. (b)(1).)
Section 352 also allows a court to order a continuance only if it is not "contrary to the interest of the minor," giving "substantial weight to a minor's need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable evidence environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements." (§ 352, subd. (a)(1).) "Notwithstanding the[ ] statutory limits on reunification services" discussed above, "a juvenile court may invoke section 352 to extend ...services beyond these limits if there are 'extraordinary circumstances which militate[ ] in favor of such an extension. [Citations.] Extraordinary circumstances exist when 'inadequate services' are offered by the child welfare agency or 'an external force over which [the parent has] no control' prevented the parent from completing a case plan." (In re D.N. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 741, 762.)
While mother does not explicitly claim that she received inadequate services, she argues that "concerns regarding S.G.'s behavioral problems were not addressed in the case plan. Nor was there evidence on why the agency chose to limit visitation." However, mother never addressed either the reasonableness of services or visitation below and has therefore forfeited those issues on appeal. "A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court. [Citations.] Forfeiture, also referred to as 'waiver,' applies in juvenile dependency litigation and is intended to prevent a party from standing by silently until the conclusion of the proceedings." (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221222; see In re Christopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 558.) Appellate courts have applied the waiver (forfeiture) doctrine in dependency proceedings in a variety of contexts in which the parent has failed to object, including situations in which the juvenile court has set a section 366.26 hearing after determining that reasonable services had been provided. (In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886.)
"The juvenile court's detriment finding is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard." (In re A.J. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 154, 160.) "[T]he reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. [Citation.] In making this determination, all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. [Citation.] In dependency proceedings, a trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it exceeds the bounds of reason." (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.) We review the denial of a continuance under section 352 for an abuse of discretion. (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1140.)
A parent's 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.) And the decision "whether to return a dependent child to parental custody is not governed solely by whether the parent has corrected the problem that required court intervention." (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 906; 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."].
Here, the juvenile court understood the reunification time frame and properly considered the issue of detriment to S.G. if returned to mother's care. The juvenile court also considered whether granting further extension of family maintenance services would be in S.G.'s best interests.
While mother completed components of her case plan, her actions did nothing to promote connection, comfort, safety and security with S.G. S.G.'s behaviors were out of control, described by the juvenile court as S.G. having "some serious problems." Counsel for the agency described S.G.'s aggressive and defiant behavior and that mother "has been observed to place blame on S.G. for his behaviors and placement changes." While mother acknowledged that S.G. had displayed excessive negative behaviors in various foster homes, she claimed that he always took direction from her and would not display such negative behaviors in her care.
It was noted in the jurisdiction/disposition report that S.G. was receiving special services for emotional disturbance and receiving special education services. At the sixmonth status review, it was reported that S.G. needed structure in order to control his behaviors, and by the 12-month review had been diagnosed with a mood disorder, panic attacks, difficulty sleeping, being tongue tied, and obesity. While S.G. had begun taking medication for his diagnoses, he continued to struggle with peer interactions. In July of 2022, S.G. was approved for several specialized services, including homebased therapy. While it was reported that S.G. had stated he wanted to return home in the six-month and 12-month review reports, in the 18-month report he was quoted as stating he wanted to have "unsupervised visits with my grandma, two visits a month with her instead of one. {And] I want to see my dad which is Jose [R.] and that's it."
"[W]hile a goal of child welfare services provided to the minor and family (§ 361.5) is to help the parents correct problems that caused the minor to be made a dependent child of the court (§ 366.1, subd. (d)) and thus permit family reunification, the focus of dependency law is on the well-being of the minor. [¶] Hence, the question whether to return a child to parental custody is not governed solely by whether the parent has corrected the problem that required court intervention; rather, the court must consider the effect such return would have on the child." (In re Joseph B., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 901.)
Here, the juvenile court found S.G. would be at risk of substantial harm if returned to mother, stating, "I cannot return the children safely back to the custody of Mother today with family maintenance." We find no error in this decision by the juvenile court. The evidence showed that S.G. needed intense structure to control his behavior. While mother had participated in various programs, she had not completely followed through with her own mental health and domestic violence programs. Mother was living in a temporary situation with a short-term friend, also a recovering addict, who was also going through CPS proceedings and had had her own children removed from her care. And mother did not have a plan for care for S.G. while she was at work and she gave no evidence as to how she would address S.G.'s escalating negative and assaultive behaviors, other than to say she would remove his phone or his game and give him a timeout. Although mother stated that she knew S.G.'s behavior was problematic, she did not discuss his behavior or redirect his behavior when they were together.
In denying extension of services, the trial court stated that, if the only issue for mother was waiting for her to get into sober living housing, "I might be willing to continue this case ._ But even with that housing, I would be gravely concerned about the children coming back to Mother's care and Mother being able to provide for them in a way that she would need to provide for them ._" In making this statement, the juvenile court specifically noted the evidence it had heard concerning S.G.
Thus, despite mother's claim that she had progressed well enough in her case plan to have custody of S.G. with family maintenance services, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings terminating family reunification services and setting a section 366.3 hearing for S.G. rather than continue the matter under family maintenance services.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders terminating services are affirmed.
[*] Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.