Opinion
E073114
08-06-2020
In re J.C., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.G. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Joanne D. Willis Newton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.S. Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L.G. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.Nos. J275643-45) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Joanne D. Willis Newton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.S. Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L.G. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c) and (g) on the basis that defendant and appellant S.S. (Mother) allegedly engaged in domestic violence in front of her three children. Mother eventually submitted on these allegations and agreed to family reunification services and placement. After 12 months, the court terminated reunification services. Mother, along with one of the three children's fathers, appealed.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
On appeal, Mother alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that CFS provided her with reasonable reunification services. Father joins mother's arguments. We affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
S.S. is the mother of three children: M.W, age seven; T.H., age six; and J.C., age two. Each of these children has a different father. Only J.C.'s father L.G. (Father) has joined Mother in this appeal.
Mother is diagnosed with anxiety and depression which she believes stems from past sexual abuse. She had a child at age 17 when she herself was a dependent child. This child was removed from her custody in 2010 because she allowed her brother, a registered sex offender and one of Mother's sexual abusers, to be around the child. Mother has a substantiated history of absence, incapacity, and neglect as a parent.
On April 10, 2018, CFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (g), on the basis that Mother allegedly engaged in domestic violence in front of her three children. This petition followed the arrest of Father, who was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. This charge stemmed from a fight between Mother, Father, and Mother's boyfriend in which Father allegedly attacked Mother's boyfriend with a tire iron while all three minors were present. Mother and Father had a history of domestic violence, with at least four prior incidents involving law enforcement beginning in late 2016 while Mother was pregnant with J.C.
On April 3, 2018, Mother obtained a 10-year criminal restraining order against Father.
At the initial and contested detention hearings held on April 11 and 12, 2018, the juvenile court removed all three minors from their respective parents' care. The court made this decision on the basis that there were multiple incidents of mutual violence between Mother and Father while the children were present. The court also expressed concern that Mother had failed to obtain a permanent restraining order against Father after obtaining a temporary one in 2016. Accordingly, Mother informed the court of the 10-year restraining order she had obtained days before. However, Mother ultimately decided to withdraw her contest of the hearing. Minors' counsel requested and obtained an order from the court requiring Mother to submit to drug and alcohol testing within 24 hours. The court also ordered reunification services and one two-hour supervised visit per week.
On May 2, 2018, CFS amended its petitions to assert additional allegations that during Mother and Father's most recent fight, Father struck J.C.'s leg with his forearm while Father tried to take Mother's cell phone from her. The amended petitions added allegations that Father had a violent criminal history and anger issues. They also added allegations that Mother did not protect the minors from Father, that she had a history of substance abuse (primarily marijuana and alcohol), and a history of mental health issues. Finally, the petitions specifically alleged that the minors saw Father beat Mother's boyfriend with a tire iron.
CFS prepared a jurisdictional/dispositional report dated May 3, 2018. This report disclosed Mother's previous history with CFS and her admission regarding her mental illness diagnosis. It also disclosed that Mother tested positive for marijuana on the day of the contested detention hearing. Mother reported that she had stopped using marijuana. The report also disclosed that Mother agreed with the allegations as amended and "displayed the ability for insight development and accountability for her actions and inactions, and agreed that she could benefit from professional services." Mother claimed that she had sought psychiatric help, including individual therapy, for her depression and anxiety, and that she was taking medications to treat both. Mother was also in therapy to help her explore her choice of partners and her failure to protect her children and was seeking education regarding domestic violence, anger management, and parenting.
Mother completed her counseling and domestic violence classes and was still participating in anger management and parenting classes as of August 2018. At that time her therapist noted that she had "improved mood and med compliance," and a better understanding of the damage caused by her actions and how her own trauma influenced those actions. Mother was taking mirtazapine, sertraline, hydroxyzine, and pamoate daily.
However, Mother was not participating in random drug testing, missing eight such tests. She also failed to provide any documentation of psychiatric treatment compliance. As a consequence, her social worker reported that as of July 23, 2018, Mother was not compliant with her treatment.
The court held a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on June 26, 2018. The juvenile court referred the parents to mediation regarding the allegations in the petition. At the mediation, Mother agreed to submit on the allegations in the section 300 petition and agreed to family reunification services and placement.
The court held another jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on August 27, 2018, where Mother submitted on the basis of the CFS reports. The court made true findings regarding each of the allegations in the petition, maintained the children in foster care, ordered reunification services for Mother, a psychological evaluation of Mother, and a drug and alcohol test to be completed within 24 hours. The juvenile court approved a reunification plan that required Mother to participate in individual counseling, complete domestic violence and parenting education, remain psychiatric treatment compliant, and complete a drug treatment program if she tested positive on the ordered drug and alcohol test. Finally, the juvenile court permitted Mother at least one two-hour supervised visit per week.
1. Six Month Review
CFS prepared a six-month status review report dated February 27, 2019. This report indicated that Mother was participating in some reunification services but had not yet completed a psychological evaluation or otherwise shown she was psychiatric treatment compliant. Mother stated that she had an evaluation scheduled for a month later on March 29, 2019, and that she was seeing her psychiatrist monthly and diligently taking her medication. However, Mother missed five out of six of the random drug tests and tested positive for marijuana on the one she appeared for on September 17, 2018. Mother requested an inpatient substance abuse program, and the social worker provided contact information, but Mother had not followed up with her contact at the time the report was completed.
Mother was inconsistent about showing up for supervised visits. The foster mother noted that the children would exhibit more behavioral issues after returning from visits with Mother. The children reported that Mother instructed them to act out with the foster mother in the mistaken belief that this would expedite reunification. In one instance, after a visit with Mother, M.W. acted particularly aggressive and defiant and destroyed property. A police officer who responded to control the situation reported that M.W. told the officer she was acting out because her mother told her to do so. Mother denied ever instructing the children to be defiant.
There were multiple inconclusive referrals regarding sexual abuse and neglect during this time. One such referral alleged that M.W. was molested by her paternal grandfather and other relatives and male friends of Mother. Another alleged that T.H. was molested by his biological father. Investigation into these referrals substantiated the allegations of general neglect but were inconclusive regarding the sexual abuse allegations. Despite this investigation, Mother apparently continued to allow M.W. to be around her paternal grandfather.
M.W. and her siblings were placed in separate foster care placements on December 21, 2018. M.W.'s foster mother reported that her behavior improved somewhat after this change, though she continued to act out in school.
The court held a six-month review hearing on February 27, 2019. The court ordered six more months of reunification services.
2. Twelve-Month Review
On March 13, 2019, T.H. and J.C. were placed with a new foster family. That same month, Mother was referred to an outpatient treatment program. However, Mother never showed up to her appointment.
Mother failed to show for another drug test on May 13, 2019, and admitted to using edible marijuana. Mother also failed to appear for a court-ordered drug test on May 29, 2019.
CFS prepared a 12-month status review report dated June 12, 2019. The report noted that Mother was still seeking employment at the time. She also had not found suitable housing for the family. Nevertheless, Mother had completed 12 sessions of individual counseling, showed progress in her substance abuse program, and was taking her psychotropic medications in compliance with her treatment regimen. Mother also completed her psychological evaluation, though CFS did not have the report. Mother was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder. Mother still had to complete three parenting classes but required a new referral because her previous referral had expired.
The status review report disclosed that M.W. was diagnosed with depression, PTSD, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and that she was taking psychotropic medications. M.W. appeared to be doing well with her placement, especially after she began taking her medication.
Mother remained inconsistent with her visitation, at one point going a month without visiting her children. Moreover, T.H. and J.C.'s foster mother did not feel safe supervising the visits. Mother reportedly failed to adequately supervise the children, and snapped at the foster mother when she stepped in. Mother also brought a large number of family members with her, which intimidated the foster mother and made her fear for her own safety and the safety of her biological children. The children continued to claim that Mother told them to misbehave at their placements in order to be sent home, and T.H.'s foster mother reported that he was noticeably more aggressive and defiant after visiting Mother.
CFS recommended that reunification services be terminated as to J.C., but continued as to M.W. and T.H. It also recommended that all three remain in foster care.
In an additional information to the court form filed on June 12, 2019, the social worker disclosed that she spoke with Mother's therapist and confirmed Mother was participating in weekly counseling. However, Mother was still not attending the outpatient substance abuse program. The social worker reached out to Mother requesting an update on the status of her services but Mother had not responded.
The juvenile court held a contested 12-month review hearing on June 12, 2019. Mother testified. Mother admitted she was not participating in the outpatient substance abuse program despite being referred four months earlier in February 2019, and that she had no excuse for not doing so. She also admitted to missing drug testing because she was using marijuana and because traffic prevented her from attending the May 29 drug test. Nevertheless, she claimed she had not used marijuana in two weeks.
Mother also testified that she missed visits with her children because of the distances involved. She said it was particularly hard to visit M.W. because of her separate placement. She admitted to only seeing M.W. five or fewer times since February 2019.
The court ultimately concluded that though Mother had made some progress, there was no substantial probability of reunification as the section 366.22 date was coming up in October 2019. In particular, the court noted that the children had experienced significant trauma while in Mother's care, and that despite over a year of dependency proceedings, Mother had only just recently decided to cease using marijuana. Mother had also failed to participate in outpatient substance abuse programs. In general, the court found that Mother was slow to benefit from reunification services and it could not "find that [Mother] could complete an outpatient program, show stability on her medication, stop using marijuana, test clean, and show a period of sobriety prior to the" section 366.22 date. Moreover, Mother's visits with the children were "inconsistent and problematic," and there were repeated concerns that the children's behavior dramatically worsened, possibly on Mother's encouragement, after such visits.
Section 366.22 requires, in relevant part, that at the 18-month status review hearing "the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for the children." (In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1788.)
Given the above, the juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services.
III. DISCUSSION
Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that CFS made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and her children. CFS argues that Mother waived her right to challenge the reasonableness and adequacy of reunification services by consenting to the reunification services plan. We disagree that Mother waived any right to challenge the reasonableness or adequacy of reunification services but affirm the trial court's finding that the services provided were reasonable.
A. Mother Did Not Waive Her Right to Challenge the Reasonableness or Adequacy of Reunification Services
"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." (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222.) " 'In dependency proceedings, the order entered at the dispositional hearing is a final judgment and thus is an appealable order. [Citations.]' [Citation.] As a general rule, 'any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.' (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395, subd. (a).)" (A.M. v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 506, 512.)
There is no evidence in the record that Mother objected to the reasonableness or adequacy of the reunification plan or the reunification services provided prior to the contested 12-month review hearing. More specifically, Mother did not appeal the dispositional order adopting the reunification plan nor the order at the six-month review hearing finding that reunification services up until that point were reasonable, despite both being appealable orders. As such, Mother has waived her right to challenge the reunification plan entirely and waived her right to challenge the reasonableness of reunification services during the period from the August 27, 2018 dispositional hearing through the February 27, 2019 six-month review hearing.
However, Mother has not waived her right to challenge the adequacy of the services provided between the six-month and 12-month review hearings. CFS relies on In re S.D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1077-1078 and In re Eileen A. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1253-1263 for the proposition that "[p]reservation of issues must be made by the filing of a petition for extraordinary writ except where the appellate record clearly demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel." But Mother rightly argues that both of these cases concerned appeals from section 366.26 hearings terminating parental rights, and, thus, do not apply here. An extraordinary writ is the appropriate procedural vehicle for appealing such orders under section 366.26, subdivision (l), but termination of reunification services may be appealed normally. (See In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 691-696 (T.G.); but Cf. Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1152-1156 [reasonable services finding at six-month review hearing not directly appealable where juvenile court also found parent complied with case plan and found a substantial probability the minor would be returned to parent during the next six-month period].) In this case, the court did not set a section 366.26 hearing so the requirement that Mother challenge the hearing through an extraordinary writ was not triggered.
Accordingly, because we find that Mother has not waived her right to challenge either the reasonableness or adequacy of reunifications services for the period between February 27, 2019 and June 12, 2019, we proceed to the merits.
B. CFS Provided Reasonable Reunification Services
When a parent challenges a determination that CFS did not provide reasonable reunification services, "[t]he applicable standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence." (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1346 (Amanda H.).) "A finding that reasonable reunification services have been provided must be made upon clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.] 'When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, even where the standard of proof in the trial court is clear and convincing evidence, the reviewing court must determine if there is . . . evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value . . . to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.)
When applying this test "[w]e review the evidence most favorably to [CFS], which is the prevailing party, and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the trial court's order." (Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 (Patricia W.).) "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine whether there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citation.] The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's findings. [Citation.]" (In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 14.)
"The paramount goal in the initial phase of dependency proceedings is family reunification. [Citation.]" (In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1113.) "Until services are terminated, reunification is the goal and [a parent] is entitled to every presumption in favor of having [his or her child] released to his [or her] custody." (David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 788.)
Accordingly, CFS " 'must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification plan. [Citation.] "[T]he record should show that the supervising agency 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.] '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.' " (T.G., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.)
Mother contends that CFS failed to provide reasonable services in four different ways: (1) that CFS failed to maintain reasonable contact with Mother; (2) that it failed to provide reasonable visitation services; (3) that it failed to provide reasonable services to treat Mother's use of marijuana; and (4) that it failed to provide reasonable services to treat Mother's mental illness. We will address each contention in turn.
1. Sufficient Evidence Exists that CFS Maintained Reasonable Contact
First, we address whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court's implicit conclusion that CFS maintained reasonable contact with Mother during the relevant time period from February 27, 2019 to June 12, 2019. Prior to this period, CFS referred Mother to parenting education on October 11, 2018, a psychological evaluation on November 27, 2018, and a substance abuse treatment assessment on February 13, 2019. CFS referred her to further mental health services and substance abuse services on February 22, 2019, after an evaluation found she did not qualify for an in-patient substance abuse program. The intake appointment for the substance abuse services was scheduled for March 12, 2019. Mother rescheduled the initial psychological evaluation from February 8, 2019 to March 29, 2019, but did not complete it on that day. Sometime thereafter, CFS prompted her to complete the evaluation, which she did on April 18, 2019.
CFS also followed up with Mother on May 11 for an update regarding her mental health services, education services, and substance abuse services. Mother responded by obtaining an appointment for mental health services on May 16 and informing CFS that she was unable to get ahold of her parenting class provider. On May 14, Mother "reported that [her parenting class provider] informed her that her referral expired in February and that she need[ed] to be re-referred." CFS told Mother "to obtain a letter from the agency indicating the number of classes that she still needs to complete so that [CFS] could make another referral."
On May 14, CFS learned Mother had not appeared for her outpatient substance abuse services intake appointment. CFS spoke to Mother the same day, and Mother told CFS that she planned to go the following week. On May 15, Mother reported to CFS that she missed her May 13 random drug test. CFS stated that on May 16, Mother "reported that she went for her [mental health services] appointment," and "that she has an appointment for psychotropic medication on June 8, 2019." CFS contacted the mental health services agency on May 21, 2019, who informed them Mother's appointment was actually scheduled for June 5, 2019. CFS then "sent [M]other a text message with the correct Psychiatrist appointment date." Finally, CFS contacted Mother on June 10, 2019, in response to a court request for additional information.
Mother fails to demonstrate how or why more contact was necessary or would have been helpful. While CFS's efforts were not ideal, it acted reasonably in contacting Mother and prompting her to complete the necessary services. Though CFS is required to stay in reasonable contact with a parent during reunification services, CFS does not have "a duty to track [her] continually throughout the dependency process even after [s]he had been identified, contacted by a social worker, apprised of the proceedings, provided with counsel and participated in hearings. . . . Once a parent has been located, it becomes the obligation of the parent to communicate with [CFS] and participate in the reunification process." (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441.)
Mother relies in part on Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1012 to argue that CFS did not meet its duty to stay in reasonable contact with Mother. However, this case is distinguishable on its facts. In Mark N., the reviewing court reversed the trial court's finding that the relevant department maintained reasonable contact, in part, because the father attempted to contact the department via four letters over the course of seven months, and did not receive any response to any letter but his last one. (Ibid.) Subsequently, the department did maintain some communication with the father for three additional months, before ceasing all contact with him for the following six months. (Ibid.) "In sum, during 13 months of the 17-month reunification period, the department failed to contact the father." (Ibid.) No such large gaps in contact exist here, nor is there any evidence that CFS failed to respond to Mother's affirmative attempts to contact them. Indeed, there is little evidence that Mother made affirmative efforts to contact CFS during those periods where she now claims they did not make reasonable efforts to contact her.
Accordingly, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's implicit finding that CFS maintained reasonable contact with Mother.
2. Sufficient Evidence Exists that CFS Provided Reasonable Visitation
Next, we turn to whether CFS provided reasonable services in terms of visitation. The juvenile court ordered that Mother be permitted at least one two-hour supervised visit per week. This visitation scheme continued until reunification services were terminated; the court never expanded or limited visitation throughout the relevant period.
"As courts have explained, '[v]isitation between a dependent child and his or her parents is an essential component of a reunification plan, even if actual physical custody is not the outcome of the proceedings.' [Citation.] In addition, section 362.1, subdivision (a) explains visitation is important '[i]n order to maintain ties between the parent . . . and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of his or her parent.' [¶] A disposition order granting reunification services must provide for visitation between a child and parent 'as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child.' (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A).)" (In re T.M. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1218.)
Mother first argues that once weekly two-hour supervised visits were unreasonably limited because prior to the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on August 27, 2018, there is no evidence in the record that Mother's interactions with her children were inappropriate, Father was detained following his arrest, and Mother had a restraining order against Father. Mother further argues that she made significant progress after the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing where this visitation schedule was set, and that visitation should have been liberalized.
As discussed above, Mother waived any objection to this plan when she failed to appeal the trial court's adoption of the plan at the August 27, 2018 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. However, we conclude that even if we were to reach the merits, sufficient evidence supports the determination that CFS provided reasonable visitation services.
For instance, Mother's arguments downplay the abundant evidence in the record that Mother was inconsistent with visitation, that she was using the visits to encourage her children to act poorly, and that these visits may have placed the children in physical danger. It is uncontested that Mother failed to appear for every scheduled visit, at one point missing an entire month of visits. This fact alone indicates that a more liberal visitation schedule may not have helped. Moreover, the children consistently reported throughout the relevant period that Mother instructed them to act out at their placements in a misguided attempt to be reunited with Mother. This claim was corroborated by the children's foster parents, who reported that the children had more behavioral issues after visits. Multiple referrals also alleged general neglect and sexual abuse, and the record indicates that Mother continued to allow M.W. to be in the presence of her paternal grandfather despite M.W.'s report that he sexually abused her. Finally, Mother was combative towards T.H. and J.C.'s foster mother and reportedly failed to adequately supervise the children during visits.
Mother contends that her missed visits were caused in part by CFS's failure to provide more than $15 a month for gas, despite visits occurring 45-50 minutes away from where Mother lived. The record shows that the court ordered Mother to follow up with CFS regarding this issue and does not reflect that Mother actually did so. Mother only brought up the issue of transportation costs at the 12-month review hearing, in which she said that this was contributing to her failure to make visits with M.W. since she was moved to a separate placement and visits were set in San Bernardino or Yucaipa. However, Mother was inconsistent with her visitation even when all the children were housed together. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence in the record that more transportation money or more visitation would not have rectified Mother's visitation inconsistency. Even if it did, the problems which arose from her visits indicate that the frequency and duration of visits at that time may not have been in the best interest of the children.
Accordingly, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's implicit finding that CFS provided reasonable reunification services with respect to visitation.
3. Sufficient Evidence Exists that CFS Provided Reasonable Substance Abuse Services
Next, Mother argues that CFS failed to provide reasonable reunification services with regard to her substance abuse issues. Mother argues that the ordered substance abuse services were not tailored to address the problems leading to her loss of custody, and that even if they were the services provided were inadequate.
Again, Mother has waived any objection to the reunification plan's requirement that she participate in substance abuse services. Nevertheless, we conclude that even on the merits Mother's arguments fail to establish that the reunification plan was not tailored to address her issues.
Mother's alleged substance abuse issue appears to revolve around marijuana, which she tested positive for on every drug test she took, and which she admitted she used to self-medicate for anxiety. "[I]t is true that the mere use of marijuana by a parent will not support a finding of risk to minors," unless there is further evidence that this use places the minors at risk of harm. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 452.) "That being said, '[c]ases finding a substantial physical danger tend to fall into two factual patterns. One group involves an identified, specific hazard in the child's environment—typically an adult with a proven record of abusiveness. [Citations.] The second group involves children of such tender years that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an inherent risk to their physical health and safety. . . . [I]n cases involving the second group, the finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm." (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 766, italics omitted.)
This case involves children of tender years, as young as two and no older than seven, such that the juvenile court's initial finding that Mother suffered from substance abuse issues is prima facie evidence that this substance abuse posed a risk to Mother's ability to adequately supervise and care for her children. Even if this were not the case, Mother submitted to all of the allegations against her, including the substance abuse allegations. This means the court's finding did not rest entirely on its own assessment of the truth of the allegations, but on Mother's admission that they were true. Accordingly, we disagree that requiring Mother to engage in substance abuse treatment as a component of her reunification services was unreasonable or that substantial evidence did not support such an order.
There is also sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's implied finding that the substance abuse services provided were reasonable. Mother largely points to CFS's delay in referring her to inpatient substance abuse counseling, which admittedly took five months from Mother's first failed drug test in September 2018. However, when the social worker followed up with the inpatient program and learned that Mother did not qualify, the social worker immediately referred Mother to an outpatient treatment program.
Mother caused every subsequent delay. Mother failed to keep her first appointment and did not actually enroll in the outpatient treatment for another four months. Throughout this entire time period, Mother missed five out of six of her drug tests and tested positive for marijuana on the one she appeared for on September 17, 2018. Indeed, Mother admitted that she missed at least one drug test during this time frame because she had been using marijuana.
Given this evidence, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to conclude that Mother had been provided reasonable substance abuse treatment, but that she was not serious about pursuing it. Accordingly, we find there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's implicit finding that reasonable reunifications services were provided with regard to Mother's substance abuse.
4. Sufficient Evidence Exists that CFS Provided Reasonable Mental Health Services
Finally, Mother argues that CFS failed to provide reasonable reunification services with regard to her mental health issues.
"[W]hen a parent or guardian has a mental illness or a developmental disability, that condition must be the 'starting point' for a family reunification plan which should be tailored to accommodate their unique needs." (Patricia W., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 420.) Because Mother had a possible mental health issue, CFS "was required, first, to identify [her] mental health issues and provide services designed to enable her to obtain appropriate medication and treatment that would allow her to safely parent . . . and also, second, to provide services designed to help her stay on her medication." (Id. at p. 422.)
Mother suffers from depression and anxiety. Prior to the dispositional hearing, Mother reported that she took mirtazapine, sertraline, hydroxyzine and pamoate daily for these conditions. At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing the court ordered Mother to remain compliant with her psychiatric treatment and to "sign a release for exchange of information from her psychiatrist and to allow CFS to get a copy of [M]other's psychiatric evaluation." She was also ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation.
CFS referred Mother to her psychological evaluation three months later, but Mother pushed the appointment back 49 days. This meant the evaluation could not take place before the six-month review hearing. The evaluation was not actually completed until April 18, 2019, nearly eight months after it was ordered and nearly five months after Mother was referred to the evaluation. This evaluation eventually revealed new diagnoses for Mother, indicating she suffered from bipolar disorder and PTSD, and resulted in a new treatment plan.
Prior to the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, CFS reported to the court that Mother had failed to provide documentation showing her compliance with the treatment plan that existed at the time, and that she was no longer treatment compliant. During the first six months of services, Mother reported being compliant and taking her medications but failed to provide her psychiatrist's contact information, name, a list of her medications, or a release to allow CFS to contact the psychiatrist and confirm her compliance. Mother was eventually referred to a new psychiatrist and therapist, but CFS was unable to obtain updated information from them prior to the 12-month hearing because the psychiatrist was not available.
Thus, although there was some delay on CFS's part, this delay occurred between the six-month and 12-month review hearings and is thus waived. Moreover, the record demonstrates that throughout the pendency of reunification services Mother failed to take advantage of or otherwise fully participate in her mental health treatment plan despite the efforts of CFS. CFS referred Mother to a psychological evaluation which Mother put off for nearly five months. Mother refused to provide any information that would have allowed CFS to confirm her treatment compliance until it referred her to new mental health professionals. At every step, CFS attempted to provide services or otherwise ensure compliance with the existing treatment plan, and at every stage Mother delayed or failed to provide critical information to CFS. Given Mother's continual delays, it was impossible for CFS "to maintain adequate contact with the service providers and accurately to inform the juvenile court and mother of the sufficiency of the enrolled programs to meet the case plan's requirements. [Citations.]" (Amanda H, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347.)
Accordingly, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's implicit finding that CFS provided reasonable mental health services.
IV. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. MENETREZ
J.