Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ, Super.Ct. No. J-228573. Barbara A. Buchholz, Judge.
Allen S. Remes for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Dawn M. Messer, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Q.M. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her child, J.M. (the child) and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother argues that: 1) she was not provided with reasonable reunification services; and 2) she participated regularly and made substantive progress in her case plan. We deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2009, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the child. The child was three months old at the time. The petition alleged the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition included the allegations that mother had anger management issues, that she had a mental health illness, and that she was placed on a mental health observation hold on August 12, 2009. Mother was a dependent herself, living in foster care with the child. She became combative and aggressive toward her foster mother, which resulted in the police being called and mother being placed on a section 5150 hold. The detention hearing was held on August 17, 2009, and the juvenile court detained the child in foster care.
The child’s alleged father is not a party to this petition. Mother refused to provide any information about the father.
Jurisdiction/disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report and recommended that mother be provided with reunification services. On October 19, 2009, the juvenile court found that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and ordered mother to participate in reunification services. Her case plan required her to participate in general counseling to address her anger issues, complete a parenting education program, and submit to a psychological evaluation.
Six-month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month review report on April 9, 2010, recommending that the juvenile court terminate services. The social worker reported that a psychological evaluation was ordered by the juvenile court on October 19, 2009, to assess mother’s ability to parent with regard to her history of unstable and volatile behavior. John S. Kinsman, Psy.D., conducted the evaluation on March 9, 2010. Mother told him that she was repeatedly molested by her older brother, as a child, and was removed from her mother’s custody at a young age. She lived, at times, with her grandmother, whom she described as physically and emotionally abusive. Mother had been placed in various group homes and foster homes throughout the years. She would become angry and exhibit erratic, impulsive behavior, which threatened her own safety and that of others. Dr. Kinsman found that mother experienced significant feelings of depression and anxiety, which could be attributed to a diagnosis of “Dysthymic Disorder” or “Major Depressive Disorder.” She also exhibited signs of “Bipolar Disorder” and “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Dr. Kinsman recommended that mother participate in individual psychotherapy and, when strong enough, group psychotherapy. Dr. Kinsman opined that mother was probably not capable of providing a consistent loving and stable relationship with her son, which was necessary to address his needs.
CFS provided mother with referrals for parenting and anger management services, as well as bus passes for the months of August 2009, and January, February, and March 2010. Mother completed a parenting program on March 17, 2010. The social worker reported that mother was generally nurturing, but was easily frustrated with the child when he was resistant to her. Mother appeared to have a minimal awareness of age appropriate responses and behavior for the child.
Mother received weekly individual counseling while placed with the California Family Life Center (CFLC) from August 17 to December 6, 2009. According to the therapist’s report, mother participated “‘at a superficial level.’” Mother admitted that, while at CFLC, she choked one of the staff members and fought with other residents.
The social worker reported that mother was also provided with individual counseling/anger management during her placement with Knott’s Family and Parenting Institute (Knott’s) from January 12 to March 16, 2010. Following the intake and initial assessment process, she attended two counseling sessions before being moved. The social worker reported that mother said she did not like talking to counselors or therapists and did not believe it benefitted her in any way.
The social worker concluded that there was no substantial probability of the child returning home by October 19, 2010. Mother demonstrated minimal competence with self-care and responsibility for her own needs. Her pattern of “explosive anger” impeded her relationships and her ability to make responsible decisions. The social worker opined that it would take a significant amount of time for mother to address her own history of abuse, abandonment, and victimization, in order to stabilize her mental health.
A six-month review hearing was held on April 19, 2010. Mother’s counsel informed the juvenile court that the child’s counsel and the social worker were willing to give mother six more months of services, with the juvenile court’s permission, as long as she participated in her general counseling and an anger management course. CFS requested that the juvenile court add the requirement that mother participate in psychotherapy. The juvenile court agreed.
12-month Status Review
The social worker filed a 12-month review report on October 8, 2010, recommending that services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. The social worker reported that mother demonstrated minimal progress with her case plan requirements. Mother had elected to continue general counseling and anger management services through Knott’s, because of her prior history with the therapist there, Ms. McFarlane. Ms. McFarlane reported that mother attended sessions regularly and completed homework assignments, but felt that mother needed to continue treatment.
The social worker reported that CFS provided mother referrals for individual psychotherapy services on three separate occasions. Two referrals were sent to Catholic Charities on April 21 and August 18, 2010, and one referral was sent to Bilingual Family Services on July 26, 2010. Both of these agencies attempted to establish contact and schedule services to commence throughout the reporting period. Mother changed her cell phone number five times in the reporting period, making it difficult for providers to reach her for appointments. The social worker noted that mother did not take the initiative to contact service providers to ensure receipt of services. The social worker stated that mother had been unwilling to address her history of mental illness and appeared to be in denial regarding her bipolar diagnosis, and she refused to accept responsibility for her actions.
The social worker reported that CFS had also provided mother with referrals for counseling, housing and employment services, and that it had provided her with bus passes beginning in May through September 2010. CFS also arranged for visitation. The social worker noted that, after 12 months of supervised visits, mother should have been able to assess the child’s basic needs, understand his language, and respond appropriately to him. Instead, mother still required a lot of assistance managing the child. The social worker noted that mother did not fully comprehend why the child was removed from her. Additionally, mother had two unplanned pregnancies during the reporting period. Each time she was pregnant, mother inquired as to whether or not the unborn child would be removed by CFS. Mother stated she would rather terminate each pregnancy rather than have another child in foster care. The social worker opined that mother had made insufficient progress toward stabilizing her mental health, and the prognosis for reunification was poor.
A hearing was held on October 19, 2010, and the juvenile court set the matter for contest at mother’s request.
In a letter dated December 28, 2010, Ms. McFarlane reported that mother was consistently attending counseling sessions, but was making “very little progress” concerning the goals of her treatment plan.
On March 4, 2011, pursuant to a request by the social worker, the juvenile court ordered mother’s visitation reduced to one hour each week. The request was made because mother had displayed erratic and threatening behavior toward the social worker and the foster mother during previous visits.
On March 11, 2011, the social worker filed an addendum report. The report indicated that mother began individual therapy sessions with a licensed therapist at Catholic Charities on January 12, 2011. After she cancelled two sessions with one therapist, due to conflicts with her schedule, mother was assigned a different therapist. As of March 10, 2011, mother had completed only four out of eight sessions. However, the therapist reported that mother did not believe she had any mental illness, and she was angry that CFS did not think she was a capable parent. The social worker opined that mother was “merely going through the motions with regards to counseling services and visitation, ” with no motivation to address the issues that had been identified.
The contested 12-month status review hearing was held on March 14, 2011. The social worker testified that mother had been participating in general counseling, but, according to Ms. McFarlane, mother was not attending her sessions as often as she used to. The social worker testified that mother was referred to Catholic Charities for individual psychotherapy on April 21, 2010, but did not begin treatment there until December 2010 for various reasons. The social worker explained that mother met with another social worker on May 21, 2010, and asked if she needed to go to Catholic Charities. Then, on June 23, 2010, the first social worker confirmed that mother did need to go to Catholic Charities, but since it was the end of CFS’s fiscal year, the referral process was switching to a different policy. The social worker then referred mother to Bilingual Family Services on July 26, 2010. Bilingual Family Services contacted mother and asked if she wanted to receive services in Riverside or San Bernardino County. Mother decided she wanted services in Riverside County. Thus, a referral had to be made to Catholic Charities again on August 18, 2010. Catholic Charities attempted to reach mother on August 25, 2010, but her cell phone was turned off. The social worker gave Catholic Charities another phone number for mother, and they called and were told she did not live there. Catholic Charities called another number on September 23 and September 24, 2010, and left voicemail messages. Mother returned their calls on September 24, 2010, and completed an intake interview. The first counseling session was scheduled for October 5, 2010. Mother missed the appointment and did not schedule another one. Therefore, she did not begin services until December 2010.
The social worker noted that mother told her she was doing the services because CFS told her to, not because she believed it was best for the child. The social worker opined that mother did not show any benefit from her services, since she had not developed any greater insight as to why the child was removed. Mother still blamed CFS for his removal, and she did not believe she bore any responsibility. Mother told the social worker she believed that, no matter what she did, everyone was against her; she thought there was a plan, from the start, to keep the child in foster care. Mother also said she did not know why she had to participate in services, since she felt she was a good parent. The social worker gave numerous examples of mother’s responses to the child and to the social worker, during visitation, which showed she had not benefitted from her services. For example, during visits, mother would taunt the child with toys, he would scream for them, and she would refuse to give them to him, thinking that the situation was funny. At times, mother’s phone would ring during visits, and she would wander away to talk on the phone, even though it was her visiting time. Moreover, she would just assume the foster parents would watch him. The social worker believed the child would be at risk of harm if returned to mother.
The juvenile court inquired as to what else mother had to do to complete her case plan. Counsel for CFS said that she needed to have three more psychotherapy sessions. As to the general counseling requirement, there was no specific number of sessions required; the sessions had just been ongoing. Counsel for CFS then pointed out that the real issue was that mother was not benefitting from the services she was participating in. Counsel also pointed out that if mother finished her psychotherapy in three weeks, it would be three weeks past 18 months from the time of removal, even though the child was under the age of three.
Mother testified at the hearing and admitted that she needed to continue working on her anger management skills, parenting skills, and dealing with depression.
After considering all the evidence, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the case plan. It also found that reasonable services were provided to her. The juvenile court further found that return of the child to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety and well-being. The juvenile court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
ANALYSIS
There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Juvenile Court’s Findings That Mother Was Provided with Reasonable Services and That She Failed to Participate Regularly and Make Substantive Progress in Her Case Plan
Mother claims the juvenile court erred in finding that CFS provided her with reasonable services, and in finding that she failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her case plan. Specifically, she claims that, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court erred in assuming that the services being provided were reasonable, since there were allegedly no references to a psychiatric evaluation, a psychological evaluation, or the assignment of a mental health practitioner. Mother argues that the services provided were not reasonable, since there was a delay in the provision of services, which resulted in her not being able to complete them on time. She further claims there was no clear and convincing evidence that she did not benefit from the services. We find no error.
A. Standard of Review
“[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided or offered. [Citations.]” (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) “We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the department and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the order. [Citation.]” (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.) “The adequacy of the reunification plan and of the department’s efforts to provide suitable services is judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1011.) We review the juvenile court’s finding of a failure to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered case plan under the same substantial evidence test. (See In re Heather B. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 535, 563-564.)
B. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Juvenile Court’s Findings
At the outset, we note that at no point in the juvenile court proceedings did mother raise the issue of the reasonableness of services provided. “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. [Citations.]” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222.) Accordingly, mother has forfeited her claim that the services provided were not reasonable.
Notwithstanding the forfeited claim, we find mother’s arguments unavailing. The record reveals that appropriate services were provided to her. Her initial case plan required her to participate in general counseling to address her anger issues, complete a parenting education program, and submit to a psychological evaluation. CFS provided mother with referrals for parenting and anger management services, housing and employment services, bus passes, and psychotherapy. CFS also arranged for visitation. Mother received general counseling, and she completed a parenting program on March 17, 2010.
In her petition, mother contends there was a delay in her receiving a psychological evaluation, counseling services, and psychotherapy services. However, the record shows that the juvenile court ordered a psychological evaluation on October 19, 2009. The social worker submitted a request for a psychological evaluation with Dr. Kinsman on February 3, 2010, and Dr. Kinsman conducted the evaluation on March 9, 2010. Any delay in the psychological evaluation was inconsequential. Dr. Kinsman conducted the psychological evaluation prior to the six-month hearing, which was held on April 19, 2010.
Furthermore, the record shows that mother received weekly individual counseling while at CFLC from August 17 to December 6, 2009. Subsequently, at Knott’s, she had a 30-day assessment and two individual counseling sessions.
As to psychotherapy services, the juvenile court did not add that requirement until the six-month hearing on April 19, 2010. Mother was referred to Catholic Charities on April 21, 2010. She was also referred to Bilingual Family Services on July 26, 2010, and to Catholic Charities again on August 18, 2010. She did not begin psychotherapy services until December 2010. However, the delay appears to have been caused by mother herself. The social worker noted that mother did not show any initiative to contact service providers to ensure the receipt of services. The agencies attempted to establish contact and schedule services to commence throughout the reporting period. Mother changed her cell phone number five times in the reporting period, making it difficult for providers to reach her for appointments. Mother missed her first counseling session at Catholic Charities in October 2010, and she did not bother to schedule another appointment.
As of March 10, 2011, mother had completed four out of eight psychotherapy sessions. However, the therapist reported that mother still did not believe she had any mental illness, and that she was angry that CFS did not think she was a capable parent. Ms. McFarlane similarly reported that, while mother had been attending her general counseling sessions, she had made very little progress concerning the treatment plan goals. The social worker concluded that mother was “merely going through the motions with regards to counseling services and visitation, ” with no motivation to address the issues that had been identified. The social worker opined that mother’s continual denial regarding her need for psychological treatment would impede her progress toward safely and appropriately parenting the child. Thus, despite completing a parenting class and months of general counseling and psychotherapy, mother still failed to even understand why the child was removed from her care. It is clear that mother failed to benefit from her services.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to CFS, as we must, we conclude that mother was provided with reasonable services, and that mother failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress in her case plan.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
We concur: KING J.CODRINGTON J.