Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Super. Ct. No. CK67485, Marilyn K. Martinez, Judge.
Law Offices of Timothy Martella, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Eliot Lee Grossman and Allen Koren stein, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Denise M. Hippach, Associate County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
CHAVEZ J.
Paula C. (mother) has filed a petition for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) challenging an order of the juvenile court terminating her family reunification services with her son, James S., and setting the underlying dependency proceeding for a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it found the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) had provided her with adequate reunification services. We deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In February 2007, James, then age nine, lived with his father, Eziekel S. On February 26, 2007, father became involved in an argument with James’s older half-sister N. Father slapped N., who summoned the police. Los Angeles police officers responded to the call and ultimately notified DCFS. Father had a lengthy case history with DCFS due to his drug abuse, criminal convictions, and abuse of James’s older half-siblings. DCFS detained James after the incident on February 26, 2007, and filed a section 300 petition on March 21, 2007.
During subsequent interviews with DCFS, James’s older half-siblings reported that father exhibited strange, threatening and violent behavior. James’s older half-siblings believed father had resumed his drug use. Father denied using drugs, but refused to submit to drug testing. On March 1, 2007, two of James’s adult half-siblings, one of whom was James’s caretaker, obtained a restraining order against father because he had threatened them and other family members.
Mother and father were never married, and father had raised James since James was two years old. Mother had a lengthy criminal record and a history of drug abuse, but denied she was presently using drugs. In its jurisdiction/disposition report dated March 21, 2007, DCFS stated it was currently evaluating mother for possible release of James to her care. DCFS also stated mother might benefit from family reunification services. At a hearing on March 22, 2008, the court ordered that mother have monitored visits with James and gave DCFS discretion to liberalize the visits.
Shortly thereafter, on March 27, 2007, mother tested positive for cocaine. Mother was adamant that she had not used drugs, and claimed the positive test result was part of a larger conspiracy to deny her custody of James. On April 11, 2007, DCFS amended the petition to include a count against mother for drug abuse.
The jurisdiction hearing was ultimately conducted on May 17, 2007. The court made James a dependent child of the court and ordered DCFS to provide family reunification services to both parents. Mother was ordered to participate in parenting classes and a drug rehabilitation program with random drug testing.
James had been placed in the home of mother’s adult daughter, L.L., in April 2007. In its report prepared for the six-month review hearing on November 15, 2007, DCFS stated that James was doing well in the placement. Mother’s visits with James were inconsistent, but mother maintained regular phone contact with him. DCFS social worker Vanessa Bradding interviewed mother on October 17, 2007. Mother had not begun any of her court-ordered parenting and drug treatment programs and had not submitted to random drug testing. Mother reported that she would be starting an outpatient program on October 25, 2007, where she would be able to attend a parenting class and have random drug tests. Mother later reported that she would start a program on November 16, 2007, and was attending a community Narcotics Anonymous group.
At the six-month hearing on November 15, 2007, the court found DCFS had complied with the case plan, but that neither parent had complied with the case plan.
The 12-month review hearing was held on May 15, 2008. In a report prepared for that hearing, Ms. Graddick stated that mother had had no contact with DCFS since November 5, 2007. Ms. Graddick had attempted to contact mother by phone on three separate occasions without success. On May 6, 2008, Ms. Graddick learned from L.L. that mother had been in jail since January 2008, and had been transferred to state prison. Ms. Graddick confirmed this with the statewide inmate locator and learned mother was currently housed at the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) in Chowchilla. Although mother was unable to visit James because of her incarceration, she did send him letters from prison saying she would “get it together” and was participating in programs while incarcerated.
Mother was not present at the May 15, 2008, hearing because an order seeking her removal from state prison had not been prepared. The court went forward with the hearing as to father, found he had not complied with the case plan, and terminated his family reunification services. The court continued mother’s portion of the hearing to June 9, 2008, and ordered DCFS to prepare a supplemental report on the reasons for mother’s incarceration, the length of the incarceration, and what programs she was attending in prison.
Ms. Graddick contacted a counselor at CCWF and learned that “per Ms. [C.], her intended release date is 9/14/2008. During this time Ms. [C.] will be enrolled in Parenting Classes and a 3 day workshop for Creative Conflict Resolution. She will not have time to enroll in any other courses given at the facility, however she should have certificates of completion for those two programs.” The counselor had limited contact with mother and did not know why mother was incarcerated.
L.L. told Ms. Graddick mother was incarcerated on a parole violation. Ms. Graddick reported it was “unclear at this time what the violation was.”
The 12-month hearing for mother was held on June 9, 2008. Mother waived her right to appear at the hearing but was represented by counsel. The court noted that although mother was “recently incarcerated” and intended to participate in two programs while in prison, the case plan had been ordered on May 17, 2007, and “[f]or the substantial period of family reunification mother did not verify any compliance whatsoever with the court’s orders. Now that she’s confined, she does intend to participate in parenting and conflict resolution. She has done nothing to address her drug rehabilitation and random testing and she certainly did have a reasonable opportunity.”
The court found DCFS had made reasonable efforts to provide mother with family reunification services. Prior to mother’s incarceration, DCFS “attempted to work with her. Provide her with referrals and encourage her to participate.” The court terminated mother’s family reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
We review the juvenile court’s order under the substantial evidence standard, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the dependency court’s findings. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is ‘“reasonable, credible and of solid value”’ that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to reach the same conclusion as the juvenile court. (In re Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1080.) Where there is any substantial evidence to support the court’s order, contradicted or not, we must affirm the dependency court’s decision. (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.)
Mother contends there was not substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that DCFS complied with the case plan and provided adequate reunification services to her, because DCFS did not make a good faith effort to address her problems and did not maintain reasonable contact with her during the course of the reunification period.
We note first of all that mother’s counsel never raised an objection in the juvenile court to the adequacy of the reunification services provided by DCFS. Any such objection would not have been well taken, however. DCFS provided mother with referrals for court-ordered programs to address her drug addiction and parenting issues, but mother did not avail herself of those programs. Mother told the social worker in mid-October and early November 2007 that she would enter a program in mid-November, six months after the court-ordered family reunification services. Mother did not do so. The social worker attempted to follow up with mother several times, but mother was not available at the telephone number she had given the social worker. Mother did not inform DCFS when she became incarcerated. When the social worker learned from L.L. that mother had been sent to state prison, she located mother through the statewide inmate locator system, contacted a counselor at the prison, ascertained what programs mother would enroll in there, and reported her findings to the court.
The standard for evaluating the adequacy of reunification services “is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) The above constitutes substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the family reunification services DCFS offered mother in this case were reasonable under the circumstances.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied and the stay order issued on August 4, 2008, is vacated. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.264(B)(3), this opinion is made final forthwith.
We concur P. J., J. BOREN DOI TODD