Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ Super.Ct.No. J215254A. Rex Victor, Judge, Petition denied.
Gloria Kim-Chung for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and Jeffrey L. Bryson, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.
Petitioner S.G. (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.R. (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) the court erred in finding that there was not a substantial probability the child would be returned to her care within the statutory timeframe. We deny the writ petition.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother was 15 years old when she gave birth to the child prematurely in April 2007. The child was “‘missing part of his brain,’” and his prognosis for survival was “‘guarded.’” A social worker from the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (the department) called the social worker at Pomona Valley Hospital, where the child was born, regarding the child’s prognosis. The hospital social worker stated the child was still not ready to be discharged and that there was “great concern” about mother’s ability to provide care to a special needs child. Mother appeared to be in denial about the child’s condition. The hospital staff tried to train Mother on the apnea and oxygen machines, which the child would need upon discharge, but mother was very resistant to the idea of using the machines at home.
The whereabouts of the child’s father were unknown at that time.
Mother told the social worker that she was currently residing at a friend’s home and had been there for approximately the past month. Mother also said she had not attended school since prior to becoming pregnant with the child. On June 1, 2007, the child was taken into protective custody due to mother’s inability to provide adequate care and supervision.
On June 5, 2007, the department filed a petition on behalf of the child. The petition alleged the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support). Essentially, the petition alleged that mother was unable to provide adequate care and supervision for the child due to the child’s severe birth defects, which rendered him medically fragile.
The record shows that the petition made allegations under section 300, subdivision (f), which states that a child’s parent caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect. However, the written allegation states: “g-4 The current whereabouts of the child’s alleged father, [M.R.], are unknown. The alleged father’s ability and willingness to provide adequate care and supervision for the child is also currently unknown.” Thus, the social worker apparently made a mistake by including in the form an allegation under subdivision (f) rather than subdivision (g).
The detention hearing was held on June 6, 2007. The court detained the child at Pomona Valley Hospital. At the hearing, the social worker informed mother and the maternal grandmother that the department could issue monthly bus passes that could be used as many times as needed.
Jurisdiction/disposition Report and Hearing
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on June 22, 2007, recommending that reunification services be provided to mother. The social worker reported that mother had made no effort to maintain contact with her since the detention hearing, despite the social worker’s request that mother do so. Mother had also failed to retrieve the monthly bus pass offered to her. The social worker noted the child was discharged from the hospital on June 6, 2007, and placed in a home for medically fragile children. However, mother had visited the child only once since he was put in his new placement.
The social worker attached a case plan to the report. The case plan required mother to participate in general counseling and a parenting education program. The court also ordered mother to attend the child’s medical appointments.
The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on June 27, 2007, but mother failed to appear. She also failed to appear at the contested hearing on July 11, 2007, which her counsel had requested. The court found that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and declared the child a dependent of the court. The court approved the case plan and ordered mother to participate.
Six-month Status Review Report and Hearing
The social worker filed a six-month review report recommending that a section 366.26 hearing be set. The social worker who filed the report began working with mother in July 2007. He met with mother on July 17, 2007, to review her case plan. Mother agreed with the plan, signed it, and was given a copy of it. The social worker arranged for mother to visit the child any day of the week from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The manager of the facility where the child was staying also gave mother a schedule of the child’s future medical appointments.
On July 26, 2007, the social worker again met with mother. Mother said she recently attended a court hearing regarding her being on probation for a petty theft charge. Her probation conditions required her to drug test, attend narcotics meetings, participate in an anger management class, attend counseling and complete 40 hours of community service. At the end of their meeting, the social worker provided mother with a bus pass and gas scrip and requested mother to contact Bilingual Family Counseling Services to initiate parent education services and counseling.
The social worker noted that in September 2007, mother failed to pick up the bus pass and gas scrip at the department office as requested.
The social worker met with mother on October 12, 2007, to review her case plan again. Mother said she had completed the parenting education course at Bilingual Family Counseling Services and would be participating in counseling soon. Mother also informed the social worker that she had not attended any medical appointments with the child since June. The social worker further reported that mother visited the child inconsistently. The social worker encouraged mother to visit the child regularly, attend counseling, and follow the conditions of her probation. He also gave her another monthly bus pass.
On October 26, 2007, the social worker wrote mother a letter with a list of the dates and times of the child’s next four medical appointments. Mother failed to attend any of them.
On November 20, 2007, the social worker met with mother. Mother said she had still not participated in individual counseling. The social worker gave her another monthly bus pass.
The social worker reported that the services offered to mother included a public health nurse, Inland Regional Center services, Early Start services, California Children’s Services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, supervision, visitation, gas scrips, monthly bus passes, consultation, parenting education, counseling, home visits, and monitoring. However, mother failed to utilize the services made available to her. She was inconsistent in attending services at Bilingual Family Counseling Services. She cancelled one scheduled appointment and then failed to appear for another. By the end of the reporting period in December 2007, mother had failed to attend any medical appointments with the child, despite being provided with transportation assistance. The social worker concluded that mother failed to make substantial progress in participating in and completing her case plan. She continued to struggle with several issues, including a strained relationship with her mother, substance abuse, truancy, and failing to provide herself with a structured lifestyle.
The six-month review hearing was held on January 10, 2008. Mother contested the matter, and the case was referred to mediation. As a result of mediation, the department agreed to six more months of services, and mother agreed to attend all medical appointments, engage in individual counseling, provide proof of completion of a CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) class, engage in an educational program, follow her probation conditions, and participate in training at the child’s placement facility to gain more insight into care for the child.
12-month Status Review Report and Hearing
The social worker filed a 12-month status review report on July 11, 2008, recommending that reunification services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. The social worker reported that mother had made no progress during this review period. Mother had been living in an apartment with her mother, brother, and one or two unknown male adult roommates, but moved in May 2008. She then failed to inform the social worker of her exact whereabouts and living arrangements. Mother left occasional voicemail messages for the social worker but always failed to leave a contact number. Mother did visit the child one to two times per week at his placement facility; however, the visits often lasted only 15 to 30 minutes, and mother often appeared to be in a hurry to leave.
The social worker reported that on January 17, 2008, he provided mother with a list of the dates, times, and addresses for the child’s upcoming medical appointments. However, mother failed to attend any of them. In March 2008, the social worker mailed to mother an updated list of medical appointments. He also requested that mother contact him if she needed further information or assistance. Mother failed to attend any of those appointments or contact the social worker for assistance. In sum, despite being offered monthly bus passes, mother failed to attend any medical appointments since June 2007 to receive information pertaining to the child’s medical conditions and care.
Regarding the counseling services made available to mother at Bilingual Family Counseling Services, the agency diligently attempted to work with mother by accommodating her schedule and reassigning her therapists. Nonetheless, as of February 2008, mother’s case was closed due to lack of attendance. Mother was then referred to New Day Recovery Center for individual counseling. She was seen there four times but also missed four appointments. The staff opined that mother lacked the insight to fully understand the responsibility the child would present and the support services he would require. The child had “brain anomalies and severe developmental delays,” and he was prone to seizures in the future. The child required a structured home environment that would provide him with medical care and specialized training to meet his needs. Mother admitted to the social worker that she had no concrete plan for how she would properly care for the child and meet all his medical needs. Furthermore, mother still struggled with the same issues, including her relationship with her mother, substance abuse, truancy, and having a structured lifestyle.
At a contested 12-month review hearing, the social worker and mother testified. The social worker testified that he talked to mother about attending the child’s medical appointments, and he offered her transportation assistance. He also testified that mother never called him to tell him she had any problems getting to the appointments. The social worker admitted that he did not give mother a referral for a CPR class because he was mainly focused on her attending counseling on a regular basis and being able to maintain contact with her. He said there was a period of two or three months where he had no idea where she was living. The social worker opined that mother was very immature, and that it would not be safe to place the child with her. He further testified that the child was mentally retarded, did not have use of his arms or legs, and he had brain damage. The child required a lot of medical attention and needed consistent care concerning his medical appointments. The social worker further opined there was nothing he could offer mother within the next six months that would make it possible for the child to be placed with her. He added that mother’s visits with the child appeared to be “by rote,” and that she did not try to bond with the child or understand his needs.
Mother testified that she attended a few of the child’s medical appointments, but did not attend more because she “lost the papers.” She stated she called the social worker to get the information again, but he never answered. She did not leave him messages. She also testified that the social worker did not give her a referral for a CPR class, and that she tried to fulfill that requirement on her own. She went to the American Red Cross, the YMCA, and Pomona Valley Hospital to check out their programs, but she was not able to pay for the classes. She said she contacted the social worker one time to see if he could assist her, but she said “it wasn’t really, like, a big discussion about it.”
Mother further testified that she contacted the social worker to let him know about her transportation problems, and he gave her bus passes. When asked if she would have the ability to take the child to medical appointments, she said she did. Her main modes of transportation were walking and taking the bus. She added that her boyfriend just bought a car two weeks prior, and he could take her to the appointments. Mother testified that she was employed at home with a commission job packaging compact disks. Mother also said she “just stopped calling” the social worker because he would say negative things about her, such as telling her she was not doing anything.
The court found that reasonable services were offered to mother and acknowledged that mother had frequent contact with the child. However, the court stated that it could not find a substantial probability that the child could be returned to mother within the statutory timeframe. The court found that mother’s progress toward alleviating the cause necessitating placement was minimal. The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for December 3, 2008.
ANALYSIS
I. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Court’s Finding that Reasonable Services Were Provided to Mother
Mother complains the department did not provide her with reasonable services. She claims that the services offered to her “should be found unreasonable based on the fact that the department totally ignored and failed to consider [her] age and situation.” Mother’s complaint is meritless.
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.)
B. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Court’s Finding
We have reviewed the record and find mother’s argument unavailing. The record reveals that mother was offered a plethora of services, including a public health nurse, Inland Regional Center services, Early Start services, California Children’s Services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, supervision, visitation, gas scrips, monthly bus passes, consultation, parenting education, counseling, home visits, and monitoring. However, mother failed to utilize the services made available to her. Additionally, the social worker met with mother regularly to discuss services, and also consistently provided her with a list of the child’s upcoming medical appointments. Nonetheless, she failed to attend the appointments. Mother claims that her attempts to attend medical appointments “were constantly thwarted by her lack of transportation.” However, mother admitted that when she contacted the social worker to let him know about her transportation problems, he gave her bus passes. The record shows that the social worker consistently offered her bus passes and gas scrips, but she failed to pick them up or use them.
Mother claims the “real issue is what constitutes reasonable services when you are dealing with a minor mother who bore a child with significant birth defects at the tender age of 15 years old.” However, she fails to explain or substantiate her claim. Instead, she goes on to complain that she was not given a referral for a CPR class. At the outset, we note that the record does not reflect any requirement for the department to provide her referrals for a CPR class. It shows only that as a result of mediation, mother agreed to “[p]rovide proof of completion of CPR class.” Mother apparently understood the agreement, as she testified that she went to the American Red Cross, the YMCA, and Pomona Valley Hospital to check out their CPR programs. She was not able to pay for the classes and said she contacted the social worker one time to see if he could assist her, but she said “it wasn’t really, like, a big discussion about it.” Therefore, the record shows that mother was trying to fulfill the CPR requirement on her own, as was the apparent agreement.
Mother also complains that reasonable services were not provided to her since she was not given a referral for general counseling until March or April 2008, even though the court ordered further services for her on or about January 25, 2008. This contention is belied by the record. The court originally ordered mother to participate in general counseling on June 27, 2007. On July 26, 2007, the social worker met with mother and asked her to contact Bilingual Family Counseling Services to initiate parent education services and counseling. By November 20, 2007, mother still had not participated in individual counseling. Then, as a result of a mediation hearing in January 2008, the department agreed to six more months of services, and mother agreed to engage in individual counseling. The social worker subsequently reported that Bilingual Family Counseling Services diligently attempted to work with mother by accommodating her schedule and reassigning her therapists. Nonetheless, mother’s case at Bilingual Family Counseling Services was closed in February 2008 “due to ‘non-compliance with her attendance.’” She was then given another counseling referral at the New Day Recovery Center. However, mother was inconsistent in her attendance at the counseling sessions there. Thus, contrary to mother’s claim that she was not given a counseling referral until March or April 2008, the record clearly establishes that she was provided with one referral in July 2007 and second one in February or March 2008. The record also shows that mother failed to fully take advantage of the counseling services offered to her.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the department, as we must, we conclude that the department provided mother with reasonable services.
II. The Court Properly Concluded there Was Not a Substantial Probability of Return of the Child to Mother
Mother argues the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services at the 12-month review hearing and contends that it should have instead extended her services to the 18-month hearing. We disagree.
At the 12-month hearing, the court can terminate reunification services and maintain the child in out-of-home placement when it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the child to the offending parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) The parent’s failure to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs is prima facie evidence of detriment. (Ibid.) Services may be extended to 18 months only if the court finds that there is a substantial probability the child will be returned to the parent at the end of the extended period. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) In order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his parent, the court must find that the parent has consistently and regularly visited the child, that the parent has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home, and that the parent has demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of his treatment plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
Here, the court properly concluded there was no substantial probability the child could be returned to mother by the end of the 18-month period. The only requirement that mother met was consistent visitation. We note, however, that even though mother was visiting the child weekly, she only stayed at each visit for 15 to 30 minutes, and she often appeared to be in a hurry to leave. The social worker opined that mother’s visits with the child appeared to be rote, and that she did not try to bond with the child or understand his needs. Thus, the visits did not appear to achieve their obvious purpose, which was to develop the mother-child bond.
Furthermore, mother had not made much progress in resolving the problems that led to the child’s removal. Mother admits in her writ that she completed only four out of 12 sessions of her parenting class. (This admission is contrary to her earlier claim with the social worker that she had completed the parenting education course at Bilingual Family Counseling Services. Mother also admits that she attended only four counseling sessions prior to be terminated by her last counselor. Ultimately, the most she could claim was that she “had participated to varying degrees in every aspect of her case plan.” (Italics added.) Mother’s assertion is unfortunately true. The record does not contain any evidence demonstrating substantive progress on mother’s part.
More significantly, mother has not demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete her treatment plan or provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. The child has brain damage and severe developmental delays, no use of his arms or legs, and he is prone to seizures in the future. He requires a structured home environment that will provide him with medical care and specialized training to meet his needs. The staff at New Day Recovery Center opined that mother lacked the insight to fully understand the responsibility the child would present and the support services he would require. The evidence fully supports that opinion. Despite being given information about the child’s medical appointments, as well as transportation aid, mother failed to attend any medical appointments since June 2007. Consequently, she did not receive essential information pertaining to the child’s medical conditions and care. She testified that she attended a few of the child’s medical appointments but did not attend more “because [she] lost the papers.” Mother’s testimony reflects her lack of responsibility, maturity, and understanding of the seriousness of her child’s condition. She even admitted to the social worker that she had no concrete plan for how she would properly care for the child and meet all his medical needs.
Moreover, mother did not have a structured home environment or the financial stability to care for the child. She had just moved in with her mother in Pomona one month prior to the hearing. Furthermore, mother had a history of a strained relationship with her mother. In addition, mother did not appear to have a steady income, since she worked only on commission packaging compact disks at home.
We conclude that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the court’s finding that there was no substantial probability that the child would be returned to mother’s custody within the extended timeframe. The court properly terminated reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied.
We concur: GAUT, J., KING, J.