Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. 09JVSQ2824001, 09JVSQ2824101, 09JVSQ2824201, 09JVSQ2824301, 09JVSQ2824401, 09JVSQ2824501
RAYE, P. J.
R.H. (petitioner), mother of the minors, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner contends it was error to terminate her services based on her failure to separate from the minors’ father. We shall deny the petition.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A dependency petition was filed by the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) in November 2009 regarding the six minors, who, at the time, ranged in age from three to eight years old, as well as their 12-year-old half sibling, based on the father’s alcohol abuse and anger control problems. The petition alleged that petitioner was aware of the father’s alcoholism and violent tendencies but allowed him to continue to reside in the home and care for the minors.
The eight year old reported that the father “drinks beer and gets drunk, yells, screams, punches the cupboards in the house, and hits the children in the head.” According to this minor, in the most recent episode, the father became angry with one of the four-year-old twins for not taking off his pajamas and getting ready for school. The father shook and screamed at the four year old, “slammed [him] on the ground, hitting his head, ” and pulled off his pajamas, while petitioner yelled at him to stop. On the same morning, the father became angry with the reporting minor for not changing out of shorts into pants. The father “‘ripped his shorts off him’” and “banged his head on the floor.” Later, after being contacted by a social worker and police officers, the father became angry and “‘punched’” the reporting minor in the mouth, injuring his lip. When this minor showed petitioner the injury, she told him “his lip would be fine.”
The father had a lengthy criminal history that included alcohol- and violence-related offenses and a 2007 conviction for willful cruelty to a child. The half sibling had lived with his grandmother for six months in 2007 after the father assaulted him. There had been several contacts with the family regarding the father’s behavior while intoxicated. Although the father admitted he drank beer “every couple of days, ” he denied “‘get[ting] drunk, ’” did not feel he had a drinking problem, and claimed he was not a violent person. He did not believe he had done anything wrong and blamed the half sibling for the involvement of the Agency, expressing to the social worker that “‘this is a bunch of crap.’”
Petitioner, who worked nights and slept during the day, claimed the father “used to hit the children in the head but she thought he stopped.” She was aware that he previously participated in substance abuse treatment and a 52-week anger management program. She had asked the father to move out on numerous occasions, but he refused to leave. Yet, after the minors were removed, petitioner acknowledged only that the father had been “‘rough’” during the precipitating incident but denied the minors or she was being abused. Although petitioner stated she was willing to have the father move out if necessary to have the minors returned, she did not feel he was abusive or that she had failed to protect the minors.
There were also problems with the condition of the home and the minors’ hygiene. The social worker noted a “very strong urine stench” upon entering the home. One of the toilets was “brimming” with feces and bleach, and one of the bedrooms “reeked of dirty clothing [and] urine.” The three-year-old minor had “a ripe moldy odor emitting from her person” that was so strong the social worker had to pull her vehicle over and vomit while transporting her to the foster care agency. The eight year old “had a sour smell emitting from his body” when interviewed at his school. The four-year-old twins reportedly would come to their Head Start program in dirty clothes with “a strong smell of filth emitt[ing] from their bodies.” In addition, the twins had developmental and behavior problems, including significant delays in speech and in their social interactions.
After a contested hearing, the petition was sustained, and the juvenile court ordered reunification services for both parents.
By the six-month review hearing, all of the minors were in counseling, with diagnoses ranging from anxiety and adjustment disorders to posttraumatic stress disorder and “age-inappropriate behavior.” The parents had participated in an array of services, but they continued to need guidance in their interactions with the minors. Visits were reportedly “improving, ” although petitioner struggled to manage the minors’ behavior. A requirement for individual and couple’s counseling, the latter of which the parents were already attending on their own, was added to petitioner’s case plan.
By the 12-month review, the social worker was recommending that services be terminated. The minors, who had made tremendous progress with their various delays, had disclosed additional abuse by the father, including reports that he hit petitioner. The father had continued to display angry and intimidating behavior when he was given information he did not like or was challenged about his attitude, and the social worker did not feel he had benefitted from services. The social worker chronicled numerous occasions in which petitioner was made aware of the father’s abusive conduct toward the minors and talked about leaving him, including a conversation between petitioner and a social worker early in the proceedings in which she was encouraged to consider living separately from the father. Nonetheless, petitioner remained with the father and continued to deny any awareness of violence in the home, maintaining she would have left him if she had known his behavior would prevent the return of the minors.
In December 2010 the father’s visits with the minors were terminated after he had an outburst at the end of a visit, during which he yelled repeatedly in the minors’ presence that the social worker was trying to take them away and get them adopted. The minors had adverse reactions following this visit.
At the contested review hearing in March 2011, petitioner testified that, after receiving the social worker’s recommendation to terminate services, she left the father and moved to Washington to live with relatives. According to petitioner, she had not had contact with the father since moving out. Petitioner maintained that, prior to receiving the social worker’s recommendation, she thought she was supposed to attempt to work things out with the father because couple’s counseling was part of their case plan. She also testified that the father had remained sober and appeared to be learning from his services, so she thought the minors would be able come home and they could “be a normal family.” She stated that she never saw the father’s behavior as abusive and felt that his “primary issue” was that “[h]e yelled a lot” and would “throw things.” She continued to describe the incident leading to the dependency proceedings as the father “being rough.” However, she claimed she did not want to reunite with the father.
The father made an offer of proof that if he testified, he would state that he never physically or emotionally abused any of the minors, he believed one of the foster parents was the source of the allegations against him, and some of the abuse allegations referred to a prior foster parent who had abused some of the minors.
The social worker testified that couple’s counseling was added to the case plan at the six-month review because petitioner had chosen to remain with the father and the parents had already begun the counseling on their own. The social worker explained that “as a matter of course, the [Agency] doesn’t tell people to get divorced” and, instead, dealt with domestic violence situations in which the spouse chose to stay by recommending services to help teach the parent how to exercise better judgment. Petitioner was referred to classes for this purpose. According to the social worker, petitioner had been present during the father’s displays of a “volatile temper” and “problems with authority, ” but she had not been able to reach the conclusion on her own that she needed to separate from him in order to protect the minors.
Petitioner’s trial attorney argued that petitioner had been willing to leave the father but had not been told this was necessary, and that she had believed reunification as a family was viable because couple’s counseling was part of the case plan.
The juvenile court terminated services and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for the minors. With regard to petitioner, the court noted that, at the jurisdictional hearing in December 2009, it had stressed to her “that if she truly wanted to protect her children, she would have removed the danger, that being [the father, ] out of the home, and that she doesn’t fully recognize the problem by leaving him in the home.” The court stated it was clear that, a year later, mother still “wasn’t getting it and she wasn’t doing what she needed to do.” Concluding that petitioner was not strong enough to protect the minors from the father and that she had made only minimal progress in services, the court terminated services, finding there was not a substantial probability that the minors could be returned to petitioner in the two months remaining before the 18-month review.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims it was improper for the juvenile court to terminate her reunification services based on her failure to leave the father. We discern no error in the court’s ruling.
At a 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must determine whether the parent has been offered reasonable services designed to aid in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) At the hearing, the case shall be continued for up to six months if the court finds “a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) In order to find a substantial probability of return, the court must find that the parent has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to removal. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(B).) A court’s finding regarding reasonable services is subject to review for substantial evidence. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.)
Petitioner maintains substantial evidence does not support “the court’s ruling as it pertains to [her]” because the Agency relied on the fact that she was still with the father in recommending termination of services but had required her to attend couple’s counseling during the reunification period. According to petitioner, “[b]y making [couple’s counseling] a part of the case plan, ” the Agency misled her to believe that she was required “to try to work it out” with the father. She accuses the Agency of being “disingenuous” in making conflicting demands on her.
We discern no disingenuousness on the part of the Agency. Petitioner’s case plan objectives included attending and progressing in a domestic violence prevention plan, being able to take appropriate action to avoid being a victim of further domestic violence, and accepting responsibility for her actions. Petitioner was provided services to address these issues, and she does not contend these services were inadequate or identify other services that could have been provided to assist her in meeting these objectives.
The juvenile court’s termination of petitioner’s services was not based solely on her failure to leave the father earlier in the proceedings. This was merely a symptom of petitioner’s inability to acknowledge that the father’s conduct constituted abuse, that she was responsible for failing to protect the minors from this abuse, and that the father continued to pose a danger to them. The court’s conclusion that there was not a substantial probability the minors could be returned by the 18-month review was amply supported by the evidence.
It is true that couple’s counseling was added to petitioner’s case plan at the six-month review hearing. However, the social worker was required to tailor the case plan to fit the family’s circumstances. (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.) Petitioner chose to remain with the father despite evidence that his presence in the home continued to pose a danger to her and the minors, a fact that had been discussed with her by social workers and the court. Petitioner and the father had begun couple’s counseling on their own at the time of the six-month review, further demonstrating petitioner’s commitment to remaining in a relationship with the father. As petitioner appeared to be committed to remaining with the father, it was reasonable for the social worker to add couple’s counseling to the case plan. Petitioner’s claim that she understood this to mean she was required to “work things out” with the father is simply untenable given the repeated encouragement she had received to separate from him. Accordingly, we reject this claim.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J., HOCH, J.