Opinion
H043997
01-10-2017
R.R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY, Respondent; MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. J48290)
Petitioner is the father of H.R., a four-year-old child. Father brings this petition for writ of mandate following the court's termination of reunification service and setting of a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to determine the permanent plan for H.R.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Father argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that the Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services (Department) provided him reasonable reunification services and that there were not extraordinary circumstances in this case justifying extension of services to 24 months.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On January 15, 2015, the Department filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) regarding then two-year-old H.R. alleging neglect and caretaker absence. H.R.'s mother had left him in the care of her elderly and infirm parents, and she had moved to London, England. Mother refused to provide the Department with information about Father, and his whereabouts were unknown. Mother's parents, with whom H.R. lived, also did not provide the Department with Father's contact information.
At the initial hearing on January 16, 2015, the court ordered H.R. detained. Father did not appear in court. The Department recommended that the court deny reunification services to Father. The Father was not provided reunification services at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on March 17, 2015, as reflected in the report filed on March 12, 2015.
The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on April 7, 2015. The court sustained the petition finding the allegations to be true and adjudged H.R. a dependent of the court. The court adopted the Department's recommendations, ordering the mother to participate in six months of reunification services, and placing H.R. in a foster home. The court denied reunification services to Father, whose whereabouts continued to be unknown. The court further ordered that if Father was located within six months of H.R.'s foster care placement and requested services, Father would be entitled to receive services.
The Department located Father in Jamaica in May 2015. The social worker assigned to the case at the time attempted to call Father in May 2015, but he hung up on her. Brianne Walker, the current social worker, was assigned to this case in June 2015. On August 12, 2015, Ms. Walker called and talked to Father by phone. Father told the Ms. Walker that he had not seen H.R. for two years because the mother would not allow him to.
The contested six-month review hearing was held on September 28, 2015. The court terminated reunification services for the Mother. Because Father had been located and he expressed interest in having custody of his son, the court ordered reunification services be provided to Father.
As part of reunification services, the Department set up a home study for Father in Jamaica. Father completed a parenting workbook that the Department had provided to him. Father also completed paternity testing. At the Department's request, Father set up a Skype account for visitation, but the first visit between Father and H.R. did not occur until January 1, 2016 due to Father's schedule. Father told the Department that he was unable to come to Monterey County at the time because he lacked the necessary travel documents to travel internationally, including a valid passport and travel visa.
At the 12-month status review hearing on March 8, 2016, the Department recommended that continued reunification services be provided to Father based on a finding that reasonable services had not been provided to date. In the Department's report, it stated that "[t]here have been systematic issues with funding the international services that made execution of the case plan services difficult." Despite being located in Jamaica, the Department reported that Father continued to be committed and determined to have custody of H.R.
Father was able to obtain a travel visa and arrived in California on March 15, 2016. He immediately contacted Ms. Walker to begin participating in the reunification services available to him in Monterey County. He participated in a Family Mental Health Assessment, enrolled in the Parent Education Group and made himself available for all services requested by the Department.
Father participated in supervised visitation with H.R. once per week and then increased to twice per week. The visits were supported therapeutically by H.R.'s therapist Dr. Nancy Adams and Monterey County Children's Behavioral Health Therapist Hope Griffin-Ortiz. Dr. Adams diagnosed H.R. with Reactive Attachment Disorder as a result of the neglect he suffered in his early life. Father met with H.R.'s treatment team in order to be educated about H.R.'s diagnosis and learn skills to better parent him.
Visitation between Father and H.R. was very challenging due to H.R.'s attachment disorder. Father's lack of a relationship with H.R. prior to the Department's involvement in the case had a severe impact on H.R.'s ability to trust Father and to develop a father/son bond. The visits were moved from the Department to the park to be more natural, but were eventually moved back to the Department at Father's request because he was having difficulty controlling H.R. at the park. Father remained patient, and continued to participate in visits with H.R. and avail himself of the services provided to him by the Department.
A contested 18-month review hearing was held on September 19, 2016. Ms. Walker testified regarding the services provided to Father, including supervised visitation with H.R., education on reactive attachment disorder and therapeutic support to help Father better parent his son. Father testified that he was unable to come to Monterey County sooner than March 2016 due to travel difficulties that he said were outside of his control. Dr. Adams testified that H.R.'s reactive attachment disorder might cause him to have challenging behaviors throughout his life.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court noted that Father had done a very good job participating in the services provided by the Department, and that it believed that Father loved H.R. and wanted to regain custody of him. However, due to H.R.'s severe attachment disorder and the inability of Father to develop a relationship with H.R. during his visitation, the court found that returning H.R. to Father would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The court noted that this was a "six-month case," and found that reasonable services had been provided to Father. The court also found that and that there were no extraordinary circumstances to extend services to 24 months.
The court terminated family reunification services to Father and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26 on January 24, 2017. Shortly thereafter, Father filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition under rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court.
DISCUSSION
Father asserts that the court erred in finding that the Department provided him reasonable reunification services, and that there were not extraordinary circumstances in this case that would justify extension of services to 24 months.
Reasonable Reunification Services
Section 361.5, subdivision (a), generally mandates that reunification services are to be provided whenever a child is removed from the parents' custody. (See In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 (Luke L.).) "Only where there is clear and convincing evidence the [Department] has provided or offered reasonable services may the court order a section 366.26 hearing." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1165 (Robin V.); § 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(ii).) In a case such as this, where the child is under three years of age at the time of removal, reunification services are provided for a limited period of "six months from the dispositional hearing . . . but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care . . . ." (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
"Reunification services must be 'designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.' (§ 362, subd. (c).) Accordingly, a reunification plan must be appropriately based on the particular family's 'unique facts.' [Citation.]" (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 696.) " ' "[T]he record should show that the [Department] identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . ." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 697.)
"Among its components, the reunification plan must include visitation. (§ 362.1.) That visitation must be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the minor. (Ibid.)" (Luke L., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 679; § 362.1, subd. (a)(1).) However, "[n]o visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child." (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
"The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Department's] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164.) That additional services might have been possible, or that the services provided were not the services the parent thought were best for the family, does not render the services offered or provided inadequate. " 'The standard 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 T.G., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.)
On appeal, the applicable standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688.) "In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [Department]. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the [juvenile court's findings]. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed." (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.) "We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
Here, Father argues that the Department did not provide reasonable reunification services in part based on the fact that it did not provide "any services to help him learn about the American child welfare system until July 2016." In addition, Father asserts that the Department did not assist Father and instead, "blamed [him] for living internationally." The evidence in the record belies this point.
While it is true that at the 12-month review hearing the court found that the Department had not offered reasonable services to Father due to the logistical difficulties associated with Father living in Jamaica at the time, this finding does not impact the subsequent time following the hearing that the Department worked with Father and provided him visitation and other means to bond with H.R. Following the 12-month hearing when Father returned to the United States, he began visitation with H.R. His first visitation with H.R. was on March 31, 2016, and continued on a once-a-week basis until April 2016. At that time, due to the time sensitive nature of this as a 6-month case, visits were increased to two times per week to help facilitate the father/son bond. In addition, by August 2016, visitation had been moved from the Department to the more natural settings such as a park and a bowling alley.
In addition to visitation, the Department provided resources for Father to better understand his son's reactive attachment disorder diagnosis. Specifically, Father worked with Dr. Adams and Hope Griffin-Ortiz weekly, while also participating with the MCSTART treatment team and the social worker, Ms. Walker to learn about H.R.'s reactive attachment disorder, and how that disorder impacted H.R.'s development. During visits, when faced with the significant challenge of parenting a child with a severe attachment disorder, Father was taught hands-on methods to help H.R. feel at ease and eventually bond with him.
We find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided to Father in this case. Father was provided visitation with H.R. (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A).) In addition, the Department provided services to support and assist Father to develop a parental bond with H.R., by helping Father better understand his son's severe attachment disorder, and teaching Father better parenting skills to address H.R.'s special needs.
Extraordinary Circumstances to Extend Reunification Services
Father argues that extraordinary circumstances support an extension of reunification services to 24 months because he was living in Jamaica and was unable to travel to the United States during most of the period of the dependency.
Father cites In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (Elizabeth R.) for the proposition that reunification services may be extended beyond the 18-month statutory period in a case where "extraordinary circumstances" prevented a parent from participating in the case plan. In Elizabeth R., the court allowed an extension of reunification services beyond 18 months for a mother who was mentally ill and was hospitalized for a significant period of the reunification time, but had otherwise complied with the reunification plan. The court found that the mother's mental illness and resulting hospitalization made her a "special needs" parent who was entitled to additional reunification services beyond 18 months. (Id. at p. 1787.)
Father attempts to analogize his case to Elizabeth R., arguing that because he was living in Jamaica during most of the reunification period, and was unable to come to the United States due to passport, visa and transportation difficulties, he should be classified as "special needs" allowing the court to extend reunification services beyond 18 months. He points to the fact that H.R.'s mother withheld information about H.R., and he did not know about H.R.'s foster care immediately. In addition, when Father learned about the dependency case, he attempted but was unable to come to Monterey County because of logistical challenges. When he finally did arrive in the United States in March 2016, he was consistent in following his case plan.
The court correctly found that there were not extraordinary circumstances in this case to warrant an extension of reunification services beyond 18 months. Father was not "internationally displaced," as he asserts; rather, he chose to live in Jamaica away from H.R. at the beginning of H.R.'s life, leaving H.R. in the sole care of his mother. Although H.R.'s mother deceived Father about H.R. and the dependency case, this fact does not support an extension of services. Had Father had more contact with H.R. during his young life, he likely would have known about H.R.'s living environment, mother's change of location, the fact that H.R. was living with the maternal grandparents and H.R.'s overall well-being. While the evidence shows that once he learned of the dependency, Father attempted to but had difficulty traveling to the United States quickly, Father is not like the mother in Elizabeth R. who suffered a mental illness and was hospitalized for a majority of the reunification period. Father is not a "special needs" parent warranting an extension of reunification services based on extraordinary circumstances.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
/s/_________
RUSHING, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
PREMO, J. /s/_________
ELIA, J.