Opinion
B299915
02-20-2020
P.E., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers; Law Office of Martin Lee, Bernadette Reyes and Christopher Borzin for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, Margaret K. Lee and Bridget R. Engle, for Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK62237D) ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Kristen Byrdsong, Juvenile Court Referee. Petition denied. Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers; Law Office of Martin Lee, Bernadette Reyes and Christopher Borzin for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, Margaret K. Lee and Bridget R. Engle, for Minor.
____________________
At the most recent hearing for 16-year-old J.R., the juvenile court found that it could not safely return him to his mother's custody. The court terminated reunification services for mother and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) (All citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) Mother petitions for extraordinary relief, arguing that the juvenile court failed to provide reasonable reunification services. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition.
I
First, the facts.
J.R., born in June 2003, is the youngest of mother's four children. He has an adult brother and an adult sister. J.R.'s second adult brother, A.R. died in January 2016. This death figures in this case.
J.R. and his siblings were previously the subject of a section 300 petition in 2006. The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) alleged in part that father had sexually and physically abused J.R.'s siblings and that mother and father had a history of violent altercations in the children's presence. The juvenile court sustained the petition. Father later was deported to Mexico.
In the year and a half after her son's death, there was a report to law enforcement for suspected child abuse and a referral to the Department. Law enforcement concluded mother was a danger to herself and took her for a psychological evaluation according to section 5150.
While there was some early speculation that A.R. died of a drug overdose, the record suggests he died of natural causes. Mother, however, was convinced that someone had murdered him. She believed the killer was watching the house. She found photographs of penises on her son's cell phone after he died and interpreted this as evidence that someone had abused and killed him. She feared that an eventual autopsy report would reveal that A.R.'s penis had been cut off, a fear that led her to paint the words "No more men's dick" on a wall in her house. She showed photographs of her late son's genitalia to J.R., her adult children, and a Department social worker. She claimed to see images in the photographs that the social worker could not see.
Mother believed that J.R. and her two adult children were in danger of being murdered as well. She homeschooled J.R. and would not let him leave the house without her. Mother spoke about making pipe bombs, so that if someone were to break into the house, she could blow them all up so they would not suffer. Mother also began taking classes to become a security guard with the stated goal of being able to carry a firearm so she could protect her family. J.R. had long shared a bedroom with mother, and although she eventually relented and allowed him to move into sister's bedroom, she repeatedly tried to convince him to move back to her room.
Mother frequently blamed J.R. and his siblings for A.R.'s death. She threatened to send J.R. to Mexico to live with father, who had abused J.R.'s siblings. During an argument with maternal great-uncle, with whom the family lived, mother grabbed a kitchen knife. Brother intervened and nobody was injured. Mother frequently threatened to "taze" J.R. and would take her taser out and turn it on both at home and when they were out shopping. She sometimes drove erratically when J.R. was in the car and once threatened to drive her car into a barbershop after accusing the barbershop owner of having killed A.R. She threatened a relative with a knife in front of his daughter. J.R. would sometimes wake up at night and cry in the bathroom.
During the Department's first visit to the house, J.R. said that some days mother was fine, but other times he did not feel safe with her. He said that sister had helped him look for a way to escape from mother or for his adult siblings to file for legal guardianship over him. He said he needed a break from mother and asked to visit maternal aunt for a week.
Mother previously was diagnosed with chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and her primary care physician prescribed Xanax. She went to counseling after A.R. died, but stopped in about June 2017.
The Department filed a section 300 petition on August 21, 2017 alleging that mother's mental and emotional problems endangered J.R.'s physical health and safety. The juvenile court ordered J.R. detained in shelter care.
J.R. soon began to resist visits with mother out of concern for his safety. He said that mother carries knives, a taser, and mace in her purse and expressed the fear that she would try to take him. Mother made unsettling comments to him during visitation sessions, including about having contact with father. When the Department social worker told mother that J.R. did not want contact with her, mother accused the caretaker, a maternal aunt, of abusing J.R. Mother threatened the social worker.
The court ordered the Department to give mother a schedule for visits in a therapeutic setting.
In October 2017, the Department filed an amended section 300 petition adding allegations that mother's behavior towards J.R. constituted emotional abuse and that mother had sexually abused J.R. by showing him graphic photographs of A.R.'s genitalia and by exposing her breasts to him.
Later that month, mother tried to prevent sister and brother from retrieving J.R.'s clothing from the house. Sister reported that mother "began to come at" her. Brother stood between them so sister could get out of the house. Mother then climbed out of the house through a window. Sister ran to her cousin's waiting car, and mother ran down the street after them and took pictures of the car.
The juvenile court granted three-year restraining orders on behalf of J.R., maternal aunt, and the social worker in November 2017, but allowed mother to have monitored visits with J.R. During an effort at monitored visitation in a therapeutic setting in March 2018, mother prevented maternal aunt from walking J.R. into the visitation session by refusing to leave the building lobby. In April 2018, J.R. said he got anxious and had stomach aches the day before visitation sessions. He said he worried about what mother would do, and described her as unpredictable. The Department expressed concern to the juvenile court that mother "demonstrates disregard of [the restraining order's] validity and continues to demonstrate unpredictable and intimidating behaviors which have caused [J.R.'s] own mental and emotional health to decompensate." The court suspended visitation out of concern for J.R.'s welfare on May 8, 2018.
J.R. remained with maternal aunt and began individual therapy in May 2018. His treatment goals included reducing flashbacks of traumatic events from four times to zero times per week; gaining insight on how his past trauma negatively affected his academic performance, motivation, and interpersonal relationships; improving in these areas; and establishing and achieving short-term goals.
From April to November 2018, the Department twice offered mother referrals for services. On August 23, 2018, the social worker spoke with J.R.'s individual therapist about the possibility of conjoint counseling for J.R. and mother. She said she could assess conjoint counseling, but not until J.R. felt ready to have the sessions with mother.
J.R. made progress in maternal aunt's care. He was attending public school and doing volunteer work. He completed individual therapy on September 12, 2018, having met all of his treatment goals.
J.R. remained unwilling to have monitored visits due to his safety concerns. He told the social worker he would feel more comfortable with visitation sessions if mother would stop bringing weapons. But when the social worker addressed this with mother, she refused and said it was her right to carry items like pepper spray.
The Department tried to schedule an appointment for an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation, but mother did not cooperate with those efforts. On August 2, 2018, mother failed to attend a scheduled appointment at her home with a Department social worker regarding the 730 evaluation. Later that month the social worker offered to drive mother to the 730 evaluation. Mother agreed to attend if the social worker would drive her. They scheduled an evaluation for September 2018, but when the social worker arrived to drive mother to the appointment, mother would not answer the door or telephone.
On September 20, 2018, mother called law enforcement to the house. When police arrived, mother was wandering around the house and could not explain why she called. Days later, mother left the house about 2:00 a.m. dressed in baggy men's clothes, walking with a cane, and using a wig as a beard. Brother and sister changed the locks on their bedroom doors to prevent mother from entering their bedrooms while they slept. Mother had been staring at them and accusing them of trying to burn her clothing. Undeterred, mother went outside and tried to get at them through their bedroom windows.
Mother participated in a 730 evaluation on October 16, 2018, but the doctor concluded that she had not been forthcoming and cooperative enough to allow an accurate diagnosis. Mother also refused to sign a consent for release of information about her past and current psychiatric treatments.
On October 23, 2018, mother wandered nude on a freeway and was placed on a psychiatric hold.
On November 6, 2018, the court sustained the amended section 300 petition under subdivisions (b) and (c). The court ordered mother to participate in a parenting program, a psychiatric evaluation, individual counseling, conjoint counseling with J.R. when his therapist deems it appropriate, and to take all prescribed psychotropic medication. The Department had already offered mother referrals for ordered services, and again offered her referrals after the hearing.
During the review period of November 2018 to May 2019, J.R. continued to do well in maternal aunt's care. He was doing well in school, was receiving speech therapy, continued to do volunteer work, and was bike-riding with friends. He participated in an independent living skills workshop every other month through maternal aunt's housing complex. He started to practice driving with the goal of getting a driver's license and a job upon turning 16. He had unmonitored sibling visits with brother and sister at least every other month. There was no conjoint counseling because J.R. did not want contact with mother.
In December 2018, sister reported that mother was "doing her own thing" and was not causing problems at home. But in January 2019, there was an incident between mother and a neighbor, resulting in the neighbor getting a restraining order against mother. Sister told the social worker that mother had talked about getting a gun when she was upset about the neighbor. When they met that month, mother reported to the social worker that her boyfriend was jealous and got mean when he was angry and that she did not want J.R. around him. The social worker provided mother referrals to domestic violence support groups and shelters.
The Department was unable to reach mother in February 2019. In March 2019, mother reported to the social worker that she recently had been in and out of hospitals and lately had been feeling "out of sorts."
In April 2019, mother enrolled in a parenting program. She also reported that she was receiving monthly therapy from a psychiatrist and that the psychiatrist had not prescribed her any medication. But she would not consent to service providers speaking with the Department. The social worker explained that the court had ordered her to do so, that the Department is required to talk with her service providers to track her progress, and that the Department could not recommend reunification without verifying that she was following through with her court-ordered plan. Mother was adamant: no consent.
During a May 2019 phone call, the social worker again asked mother for permission to speak to her service providers to verify compliance with the case plan. Mother refused and accused the social worker of improperly trying to get private information about her. After the call, mother tried to hug sister, sister told her not to and pushed her away, and mother called the police claiming sister had assaulted her.
Mother repeatedly told the social worker, as late as May 2019, that she never caused J.R. emotional harm and the only thing she ever did wrong was not attending the first court hearing. She denied J.R. did not want to see her. She told the social worker that she had not learned anything new from her parenting class.
The court held the section 366.21, subdivision (e) review hearing on May 9, 2019 and set the matter for a contested hearing.
On June 18, 2019, mother gave the Department a completion letter for her parenting program and authorized the social worker to speak with the instructor, who reviewed mother positively. Mother continued to refuse to allow other service providers to speak with the Department.
The juvenile court held the contested section 366.22 review hearing on June 19, 2019. (The minute order suggests this was an 18-month review hearing, but it appears this was actually a six-month review hearing. The juvenile court continued hearings several times due to difficulty properly noticing father according to the Hague Convention.) The Department recommended an end to reunification services and a selection and implementation hearing according to section 366.26. J.R.'s counsel joined with the Department. Mother argued the Department did not provide her conjoint counseling with J.R. as the court had ordered and that she therefore had not received proper reunification services. A Department social worker testified about her work with mother, including about conjoint counseling.
The juvenile court considered the evidence and described the social worker as very credible. The court found the Department tried to contact mother on 12 occasions during the review period of November 2018 to May 2019. Mother failed to sign a release allowing the Department to verify whether she had made progress. Mother did complete a parenting class, but she "is continuing to deny any wrongdoing or even causing any harm, which mother has repeatedly stated throughout the entirety of this case - even when mother was given an opportunity to have conjoint therapy with [J.R.], she would not [leave] her weapons and her bag. She refused to do so, which supports [the] argument that mother has not learned from her actions in this case as she repeatedly said she hasn't done anything wrong and she didn't learn anything from the classes that she didn't already know."
The court found the Department went "above and beyond in providing reasonable services" to mother. The court also concluded that "[m]other has failed to comply with her case plan." While she completed the parenting class, "she has not completed all of the other items . . . ." Mother's counsel stated that he had no further evidence of mother's compliance. The court found mother "is not in substantial compliance." "She's in minimal compliance, at best. More importantly, she's failed to learn from the services which the Department has tried on multiple occasions to provide for her and she continually states that she's done nothing wrong, despite the extreme abuse this child has suffered at the hands of the mother." "[M]other's own actions and . . . outrageous conduct" establish that "return of the child to her physical custody would pose a substantial danger to the child's physical and mental health . . . ." The court thus terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing.
Mother timely filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition. The present petition for extraordinary relief followed.
II
This is a one-issue case: is there substantial evidence to support the finding that the Department gave mother a reasonable level of family reunification services? The answer is yes.
A
We review the juvenile court's determination for substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) Petitioner's burden is to show there is insufficient supporting evidence. (See In re A.G. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001.) We review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's determination and we resolve all conflicts in support of upholding the court's order. (See In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)
To support the finding that the Department offered mother reasonable reunification services, the record should show the Department identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with mother, and made reasonable efforts (such as helping to provide transportation) to assist her where compliance was difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) The question is not whether the services were the best an ideal world would offer, but whether the services were reasonable in the circumstances of the case. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547; Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164-1165.)
B
Mother argues conjoint therapy was necessary for visitation to occur and that visitation, in turn, is essential to reunification. She argues that, without conjoint therapy, she received inadequate reunification services. She implies visitation and reunification were impossible because she and J.R. did not have conjoint therapy. The record refutes this position.
The juvenile court ordered J.R. removed and detained upon finding that mother's emotional and mental health problems had created a substantial risk of physical or emotional harm to J.R. The court ordered various reunification services to help mother address the problems that had led to removal: psychiatric evaluation, individual counseling, taking prescribed psychotropic medication, a parenting program, and conjoint counseling with J.R. when his therapist deems it appropriate.
In the months following removal, mother continued to display erratic and aggressive behavior. In response, the court progressively restricted contact between mother and J.R. by ordering monitored visitation, and then monitored visitation in a therapeutic setting. Then the court issued a restraining order with contact only as provided by court order. Finally the court suspended all visitation upon finding further visitation would be detrimental to J.R. By that time, the Department had reported its concern that mother's intimidating and unpredictable behavior was causing J.R.'s mental and emotional health to suffer.
Mother did not then avail herself of the services that could have helped her address the problems that led to J.R.'s removal and, ultimately, the suspension of visitation. She did not participate in individual counseling or psychiatric evaluation. She did not take prescribed psychotropic medication. She blocked efforts to verify her participation in services. There were periods of improvement, but mother continued to display erratic, unpredictable, and aggressive behavior, resulting in hospital stays and contacts with law enforcement. Mother persistently maintained that her behavior had not harmed J.R. and that the only thing she did wrong was to miss the first hearing. She said she learned nothing from her parenting class.
Mother cites In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962 for the principle that a lack of conjoint therapy may deprive a parent of reasonable reunification services. But in Alvin R., the father had done all that was required of him under the plan. (Id. at p. 973.) This case is obviously different. (See Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704, 706 [the question is whether the counseling, therapy or parenting classes are doing any good].)
Mother also argues that the court improperly delegated to J.R. the question of visitation and conjoint therapy. She cites In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, in which the appellate court reversed a juvenile court order that gave children absolute discretion to decide whether mother could visit. The order abdicated government responsibility. (Id. at pp. 48-49.) Here, the juvenile court did not give J.R. absolute discretion over whether to have visitation with mother, or even whether to participate in conjoint counseling. To the contrary, the court continued to order visitation for months after J.R. first objected.
Mother failed to take advantage of the services the Department offered. She refused the very portions of the case plan that could have helped her address the concerns that led to removal and suspension of visitation - psychiatric evaluation, individual therapy, and taking prescribed psychotropic medication. Her focus on conjoint therapy with J.R. ignores the fundamental issues of her own mental and emotional health and the ways in which her conduct harmed J.R. Mother's position throughout has been she has not harmed J.R., she has done nothing wrong, and any suggestion that J.R. does not want contact with her is due to influence from others. Visitation is a key element of reunification, but the court must focus on the best interests of the children by remedying the root problems. (In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 50.)
The Department provided mother with reasonable reunification services. (See In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 973 [mere fact more services could have been provided does not mean efforts were unreasonable].) The Department repeatedly provided referrals for reunification services. The social worker gave mother bus passes and drove or offered to drive her to appointments. The social worker drove brother and sister to maternal aunt's home for sibling visits. During the November 2018 to May 2019 review period, the social worker contacted or tried to contact mother 12 or more times. When the social worker learned of a domestic abuse concern, which could have both endangered mother and created another obstacle to reunification, the social worker provided mother with relevant referrals. The Department repeatedly tried to convince mother to authorize contact with her service providers, to no avail. The Department also tried to enable visitation after J.R. began to resist contact with mother by sharing his safety concerns with her and asking her not to bring weapons to the visitation sessions. Mother refused and persistently denied that J.R. did not want to see her.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determinations.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court according to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court. The temporary stay of the hearing scheduled pursuant to section 366.26 is hereby lifted.
WILEY, J. We concur:
BIGELOW, P. J.
GRIMES, J.