From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. G. P. (In re G.P.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 2, 2023
No. E080198 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023)

Opinion

E080198

08-02-2023

In re G.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. G.P., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. INJ2100193, Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed.

Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CODRINGTON Acting P. J.

I. INTRODUCTION

G.P. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services after she had received more than a year of services. The juvenile court found terminating services was appropriate because Mother had not made sufficient progress in her case plan and there was no substantial probability that her children would be returned to her care if she received six more months of service. We find no error and therefore affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Father (who is not a party to this appeal) had two children together, G.P. (born in October 2017) and J.P. (born in July 2019). In July 2022, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) filed a petition on behalf of the children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The petition alleged the Department had received a referral alleging general neglect of the children in June 2021. The reporting party said that Mother used "meth" and was "'doing off the wall stuff,'" and claimed that the family's house was dirty.

A Department social worker unsuccessfully tried to contact Mother, but made contact with the probation officer for Mr. G., Mother's boyfriend. Mr. G. was on probation and tested positive for methamphetamine on May 28, 2021. The probation officer said Mother and Mr. G. were in a "toxic relationship that includes domestic violence." Mother had obtained a temporary restraining order against Mr. G., but the order lapsed because she did not attend a hearing.

The social worker spoke with the children in June 2021. G.P., then three years old, reported that she lived with her mother and Mr. G. She said that her mother and Mr. G. would fight with each other, and law enforcement had come to the home multiple times due to their fighting.

The social worker also spoke with Father. He expressed concern that the children were living with Mother because he had heard from mutual friends that Mother was using methamphetamine and he had recently observed her to be extremely thin and missing her top front teeth. G.P. also had told him that Mother and Mr. G. both hit her.

The social worker spoke with Mr. G.'s probation officer again on July 6, 2021. The probation officer said Mother's home was filthy and had trash and dirty laundry all over.

The social worker visited the home on July 8, 2021, with Mr. G.'s probation officer. Mr. G. admitted to using methamphetamines the day before but Mother denied using drugs, and refused to drug test unless court-ordered. Mother denied the social worker's request to enter the home and her request to speak with G.P. Mother also denied the social worker access to G.P. to interview her. While standing at the front door, the social worker saw that the home was extremely dirty, with piles of boxes, trash, and debris on the floor, and a strong marijuana odor.

The probation officer had the right to complete a home search, and he took a video of the entire home. The video showed that the entire house was extremely dirty and had piles of dirty clothes throughout. The officer found a bowl of marijuana on the dining room table, an open can of paint, and a can of bug spray all accessible to the children. According to the probation officer, the entire house smelled strongly of marijuana.

The social worker contacted the Blythe Police Department to run a search on Mother and Mr. G. for any reports about them. The dispatcher knew the family because they constantly called for law enforcement assistance. The maternal family and the family's neighbors had called multiple times to request welfare checks on the family because they could hear Mother and Mr. G. fighting, which included yelling and screaming at each other while in the children's presence. But when law enforcement responded to these calls, the parents had stopped and denied the reports.

In July 2021, the children were removed from the parents' care and put in a foster home but were later placed with their paternal grandmother. Shortly afterward, the juvenile court found the Department had made a prima facie showing that the children came within section 300, subdivision (b), and ordered them detained.

About a month later, the social worker interviewed G.P. G.P. stated that Mr. G. would yell, hit, and push Mother, which led to law enforcement coming to the home. G.P. described the "'yelling' and 'scariness'" and would often cry and hide in the bedroom. G.P. said that Mother had "'owwies'" on her face, cheek, and arms from being "'slapped and hit'" by Mr. G.

G.P. also said that the home was dirty and unkept because Mother slept a lot. According to G.P., Mother was always asleep and shaking her to wake up did not work. Sometimes she and J.P. would go to bed hungry because there was no food. G.P. also reported that Mother and Mr. G. smoked cigarettes inside the home.

Mother stated that she and Father had approximately four to five incidents of domestic violence between 2015 and 2020, where she was the victim.

In September 2021, Mother reported that Mr. G. had threatened to kill her and destroyed her property, and that she had left a month earlier with only the clothes on her back. Even though Mr. G. lived 50 yards from her house, Mother declined to call a women's shelter or seek a restraining order because she was no longer in contact with him and she never left the house.

In September 2021, the juvenile court found the petition's allegations true, found that the children came within section 300, subdivision (b), and adjudged them dependents of the juvenile court. The children were removed from parental care and the parents were provided reunification services. Mother's reunification plan required her to participate in counseling and domestic violence classes, parenting education, substance abuse treatment if she tested positive, and random drug testing.

Mother gave birth to A. (who is not Father's child) in February 2022. Mother reported that she was not in a relationship and lived by herself. Although Mother had consistent, positive visits with G.P. and J.P., she had not enrolled in any of her required services and had not contacted any service provider. When asked why, Mother remained quiet and did not answer the question.

Later that month, however, Mother texted the social worker pictures of three certificates of completion for courses she had completed online. She provided certificates of completion for a four-hour parenting skills class, a one-hour drug and alcohol awareness class, and a four-hour parent education and family stabilization course. She completed these online services to show the court that she "'did something.'" But the courses were not court-approved in that they did not meet Mother's need of addressing substance abuse and the cycle of domestic violence she had repeated with her serious partners. The social worker asked Mother what she learned from the classes, but she could not explain anything she had learned.

Mother denied drug use and claimed she last used in July 2016. She claimed that she submitted to a court-ordered hair follicle test in early November 2021, but admitted that she never got the results and assumed she did not need to complete a substance abuse program or testing. She claimed that she participated in 16 group sessions with "Eve's Place," but she had never disclosed this to the social worker before March 2022, and did not provide proof of her participation. According to the social worker, Mother minimized the domestic violence committed in the children's presence.

G.P. repeatedly told the social worker that she did not want to return to Mother's care. G.P. was afraid of Mother and Mr. G., who had hit her and put her in both a trash can and a dog kennel.

In March, 2022, the juvenile court continued reunification services for Mother. The children were placed with Father and he was provided with family maintenance services.

The Department filed a section 300 petition on A.'s behalf in April 2022. The Department alleged that A. came within section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). A month later, the juvenile court found the petition's allegations true and adjudged A. a dependent of the Juvenile court, but left A. in Mother's care.

Mother tested positive for methamphetamine in March 2022. She admitted to using methamphetamine, but claimed she had been sober for seven to eight months beforehand. She also reported that she enrolled in an inpatient substance abuse program while A. remained in her care. Although it was a 90-day program, Mother completed only 32 days before deciding to leave. During the 32 days, she completed criminal addictive thinking, dialectical behavior therapy, mindfulness, stop-the-chaos and women-in-recovery classes, four weeks of "Triple P" parenting, and three weeks of domestic violence and anger management. She was the "top of the house position as a women incharge for two weeks." For her efforts, Mother received certificates for completing four weeks of parenting courses and three weeks of domestic violence and anger management courses.

In June 2022, Mother admitted that Father went to her home and she allowed him inside. Mr. G. showed up, saw Father's car parked outside, and vandalized it, so Mother called the police. According to the police report, the children were present at Mother's home, but she would not tell the social worker whether the children were present. Mother later admitted that the children were at the home and that they and Father had stayed overnight multiple times in the recent past. According to the paternal grandmother, G.P. told her that she, J.P., and Father stayed the night at Mother's home on the Fourth of July.

In June 2022, Mother completed saliva drug tests, and the first two were invalid but the third was positive for opiates, methamphetamines, and amphetamines. Mother said that her substance abuse counselor told her that the positive results may be due to "residue left in her enamel due to dental work." Mother refused to do a hair follicle test in July 2022, and would only submit to a urine drug test. Shortly afterward, the Department filed a section 387 petition to remove A. from Mother's care.

G.P. and J.P. were detained from Father's care and placed with the paternal grandmother. The Department then filed a section 387 petition to remove G.P. and J.P. from Father's care. The Department alleged that the previous disposition had not been effective in protecting the children in that Father had knowingly and repeatedly violated court orders by allowing unauthorized contact with Mother, who actively abused drugs.

The Department also alleged that Father failed to benefit from family maintenance services given that he knew or reasonably should have known that Mother remained in contact with Mr. G. and Father continued take the children to her home despite her repeated domestic violence with Mr. G. The juvenile court found that the Department had made a prima facie showing that the children came within section 387 and ordered them detained.

In August 2022, the social worker spoke with therapist, Ms. Alvarez, who reported she met with Mother once. Mother never followed through with her services and was sent a discharge letter on June 30, 2022, for no shows/no calls.

Mother submitted to the Department a letter dated August 16, 2022, which stated that she enrolled in the Riverside County Substance Use Program in May 2022. The letter stated that she was active in the Recovery Services Program and she was in compliance with all program requirements, rules, and regulations at that time.

About a week later, the social worker directed Mother to complete a hair follicle test by 4:00 p.m. Mother did not respond and did not complete the test. The social worker texted Mother a week later and informed her to drug test that day. Mother responded that it was against the law and that she had notified her attorney.

A few days later, Mother refused to submit to a saliva drug test because she was taking Norco for dental work and she would be positive for opiates, but she never showed proof of the alleged prescription. The social worker reviewed a copy of Mother's dental records, which showed that the last time she received dental work was in 2015.

The social worker later spoke with Mother's substance abuse counselor. The counselor thought Mother had benefitted from her services, but he was unable to provide specifics, such as her having a relapse prevention plan, identifying triggers, and identifying support people. The counselor stated that Mother attended NA/AA, but did not have proof of attendance. The counselor was not aware of Mother's recent relapse in September 2022, and did not feel confident about Mother's sobriety or her ability to meet the needs of the children, knowing that she had relapsed.

In October 2022, the social worker again asked Mother to provide a picture of the Norco she stated was prescribed for dental pain. Mother never did so.

The juvenile court held a combined 12-month review and section 387 hearing on November 7, 2022. After hearing testimony from Mother and the social worker, the juvenile court found that returning the children to Mother's care would put them at a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, and physical and emotional wellbeing. The court then found by clear and convincing evidence Mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her court-ordered treatment plan, and there was no substantial probability that the children would be returned if given another six months of services.

The juvenile court therefore terminated Mother's reunification services, placed G.P. and J.P. in Father's care, and ordered continued family maintenance services for him. A. was removed from Mother's care and Mother was provided with reunification services as to A. Mother timely appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erroneously terminated her services as to G.P. and J.P. at the 12-month review hearing instead of continuing them for another six months. We disagree.

Mother does not challenge the services as to A.

At the 12-month review hearing, "a heightened showing is required at the time of the 12-month review in order to continue services to the statutory maximum of 18 months." (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 695.) "[T]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).)

Two subdivisions of section 366.21 guide the juvenile court's analysis in deciding whether to continue services to the 18-month review hearing. Under section 366.21, subdivision (f), the juvenile court must first decide "whether reasonable services . . . have been provided . . . to the parent," and whether the parent has "'availed himself or herself of services provided ....'" (A.H. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1059.) Next, the court must decide whether there is a substantial probability the children will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent and safely maintained in the home within 18 months of the date the children were physically removed from parental custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)

To find a substantial probability of return, the juvenile court must make three findings: (1) the parent consistently and regularly contacted and visited the children, (2) the parent made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the children's removal, and (3) the parent demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the treatment plan and provide for the children's safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).)

We review the juvenile court's decision not to continue services to the 18-month review hearing for substantial evidence. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688-689.) "'In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the [juvenile] court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.'" (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)

We first address Mother's argument that the juvenile court was unaware that it could not order services beyond the 12-month review hearing. Mother argues the juvenile court's statement that it "[did] not have the ability to extend [her] services beyond today's hearing" shows that the court incorrectly thought it could not order additional services for her. We assume without deciding that Mother is correct because any error was harmless under any standard given that the juvenile court properly found that Mother failed to show that the circumstances warranted continuing her services for another six months.

Even though Mother had regular contact with G.P. and J.P., the juvenile court reasonably found that she did not make significant progress in resolving problems that led to their removal. The court also reasonably found that Mother did not show a capacity to complete the objectives of her case plan or to provide for the children's safety, protection, or their physical and emotional wellbeing.

To begin with, Mother did not start any services for six months after the juvenile court ordered them. When she did start services, she completed only nine hours of online classes that were not court-approved. And when the social worker discussed what she had learned from the classes, Mother had no answer.

One of the Department's main concerns was Mother's substance abuse issues. But by the time of the 12-month review hearing in November 2022, the issues remained unresolved. Mother never completed any court-ordered substance abuse programs, and she refused to participate in court-ordered random or on-demand drug testing throughout the dependency proceedings. Mother tested positive for illegal substances in March, June, and July 2022, and she refused a hair follicle test in August and September 2022. Although she claimed her September test was positive because of a dentist-ordered prescription, she never provided proof of the prescription and her records reflected she had not seen the dentist since 2015.

Another principal reason for the Department's involvement was Mother's domestic violence issues. Although she participated in some domestic violence-related services, the social worker believed that Mother had not learned the warning signs of domestic violence and she continued to minimize the trauma that the domestic violence inflicted on G.P. and J.P.

All of this evidence supports the juvenile court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to show that she made "significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child's removal" (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(B)) and failed to "[demonstrate] the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of [her] treatment plan." (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).) For this reason alone, the juvenile court properly declined continuing Mother's services beyond the 12-month reviewing hearing. (See § 366.21, subd. (g)(1) [juvenile court is "required to find all of" the factors in section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1)(A)-(C) have been met before extending services].) The court therefore reasonably found that there was no substantial probability that G.P. and J.P. would be returned to Mother's care if services were continued for another six months. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)

Mother argues otherwise, relying on the mother's experience in In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555. That case does not support her position for two main reasons.

First, the facts of In re Alanna A. differ significantly from Mother's case here. The juvenile court declined to continue services for the father past the 12-month review hearing because he did not visit his dependent child and his compliance with his 12-month case plan was "marginal" for the first few months but "nonexistent" for the rest. (In re Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 566.) The mother, on the other hand, made "great progress" in the first six months and made "determined efforts to reunify" with her child up until the 12-month review hearing. (Id. at p. 565.) Despite her best efforts, however, the mother had only made "'some progress' with her case plan" because she suffered from post-partum depression. (Id. at p. 561.) Because of her mental health issues, the social services agency believed reunification was unlikely. (Ibid.) But because the mother "consistently visited" her child, "consistently participat[ed] in her 'entire case plan,'" and "consistently work[ed] with service providers," the juvenile court continued her services until the 18-month review period. (Id. at pp. 560, 561, 566.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at p. 567.)

The mother's circumstances in In re Alanna A. thus are distinguishable from Mother's circumstances here. While the mother in In re Alanna A. made "great progress" during the first six months, Mother completed no services for six months. When pressed about her lack of participation, Mother completed only nine hours of unapproved online services that did not appear to benefit her. The mother in In re Alanna A. completed all court-ordered services and consistently worked with service providers, but Mother's participation in services was lacking, particularly with regard to her substance abuse issues. And while the mother in In re Alanna A. was not ordered to drug test, Mother was, and she repeatedly tested positive or refused to test.

By all accounts, the In re Alanna A. mother tried her best to participate in her case plan and completed all services she was ordered to complete, but her mental health issues made "the prognosis for reunification . . . poor." (In re Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 561.) Mother, however, either did not participate in her case plan services at all, participated minimally or incompletely, or refused to participate.

Second, In re Alanna A. concerned only the issue of first impression of whether a juvenile court can terminate services at the 12-month review hearing for one parent while continuing them to the 18-month review hearing for the other parent. (In re Alanna A., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 561-562.) That issue is not present here, so In re Alanna A. does not apply. (See People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1268, fn. 10 ["[C]ases are not authority for propositions not considered."].) In re Alanna A. also does not apply because the juvenile court there continued services for the mother, and that order was not challenged on appeal, whereas Mother appeals the juvenile court's order terminating services. (See ibid.)

In short, the juvenile court permissibly terminated Mother's services at the 12-month review hearing instead of continuing them for six more months. We therefore affirm.

IV. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's order terminating Mother's reunification services is affirmed.

We concur: RAPHAEL J., MENETREZ J.


Summaries of

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. G. P. (In re G.P.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 2, 2023
No. E080198 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023)
Case details for

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. G. P. (In re G.P.)

Case Details

Full title:In re G.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. G.P.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Aug 2, 2023

Citations

No. E080198 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023)

Citing Cases

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. G.P. (In re G.P.)

This section is drawn mostly from our prior opinion with non-substantive revisions made for consistency with…