From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheila H. v. Superior Court of Fresno Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jun 12, 2012
F064504 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2012)

Opinion

F064504

06-12-2012

SHEILA H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

Sheila H., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. 10CEJ300216-1)


OPINION


THE COURT

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian Arax, Judge.

Sheila H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Sheila H. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter Katrina. Sheila contends the juvenile court erred in finding that she was provided reasonable services and that it would be detrimental to return Katrina to her custody. We deny the petition.

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

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Sheila H. and her husband (hereafter "the father") are the parents of Katrina, the subject of this writ petition. In February 2011, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over then 14-year-old Katrina after sustaining an allegation that her father caused her serious emotional damage by abusing and degrading her. The court ordered Katrina removed from her parents' custody and ordered the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) to provide them mental health evaluations, treatment, and supervised visitation. The court also appointed a court appointed special advocate (CASA). By this time, Katrina was in therapy with Jennell Casillas and consistently reporting that she did not want to reunify with her parents or visit with them unsupervised.

In April 2011, the juvenile court ordered therapeutic supervised visitation and conjoint therapy when recommended by Ms. Casillas, as well as the therapists for Sheila and the father. Therapeutic visitation was first attempted in May 2011, however, Katrina refused to participate. She told Ms. Exum, the visitation therapist, that she had memories of being beaten and felt physically ill seeing her parents.

On August 24, 2011, the juvenile court conducted the six-month review hearing and continued reunification services to the 12-month review hearing, which it set for November 2011. The court found that the department provided reasonable services and suspended visitation but set a visitation review hearing for October 12, 2011. At the October 12, 2011 hearing, the court ordered unforced unsupervised visitation and reset the 12-month review hearing, which was ultimately conducted in February 2012.

Meanwhile, Sheila appealed from the juvenile court's reasonable services finding and visitation orders issued in August and October 2011. We found no error in the juvenile court's reasonable services finding and affirmed its visitation orders (F063512/F063859).

In January 2012, social worker Justin Williams, CASA Leslie Cobb-Davis and other social workers met with Katrina and her parents to discuss the case. Katrina asked her father to leave the room and then read a letter addressed to Sheila expressing her feelings about Sheila and the abuse she (Katrina) suffered. As she read the letter, Katrina became visibly upset with Sheila. After Katrina read her letter, she stated that she did not want to visit with Sheila or participate in conjoint therapy with her. She said she wanted Sheila to admit to what happened in the home.

In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the department recommended that the juvenile court continue reunification services. The department reported that Katrina wanted a relationship with her parents but did not want to live with them again.

In February 2012, the juvenile court conducted the 12-month review hearing. Sheila and the father argued there was insufficient evidence that it would be detrimental to return Katrina to their custody and that the department had not provided them reasonable services.

Justin Williams testified that Katrina's emotional state was the biggest obstacle to making progress in the case. He said Katrina told him she did not want to visit her parents and was adamant that she did not want to go home. He testified that Sheila did not acknowledge that Katrina suffered the kind of abuse she alleged and that, as recently as December 2011, Sheila and the father stated that Katrina was lying about it.

Mr. Williams testified that there were no regularly scheduled visits after the juvenile court ordered unforced, unsupervised visits in October 2011. He said that therapeutic visitation and conjoint therapy was never included as part of the case plan.

In response to questions by the juvenile court, Mr. Williams testified that Sheila and the father were an intact couple and unlikely to separate to facilitate reunification with Sheila. He also conceded that it was unlikely that Katrina could be returned to her parents' custody by March 21, 2012, which marked 18 months of reunification.

Katrina testified that she loved her parents and wanted a relationship with them but did not want to talk to them because they accused her of lying. She said she needed them to take responsibility for their actions. She said she wanted to participate in conjoint therapy, not to reunify with her parents but to have a better and continuing relationship with her mother and possibly her father as well. She said she did not feel safe returning to her mother's care because she could not trust her mother.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that returning Katrina to Sheila and the father would create a substantial risk of detriment to her physical safety and emotional well-being, that Sheila and the father were provided reasonable services and that there was not a substantial probability Katrina could be returned to their custody by the 18-month review hearing. Accordingly, the juvenile court terminated Sheila and father's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.

The father did not file a writ petition.
--------

DISCUSSION

I. Detriment

Sheila challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that returning Katrina to her care would subject Katrina to a substantial risk of detriment. She argues the evidence supports a contrary ruling, citing her progress in therapy and her support of Katrina. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding.

A parent's compliance with a court-ordered service and conduct during the reunification period are important factors for the juvenile court to consider when assessing the detriment to return a child to parental custody. However, they are by no means dispositive. (In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141-1142.) Rather, the primary determinant is whether the child can be safely returned.

In this case, Katrina was still emotionally traumatized by the abuse she suffered in the care of Sheila and the father. The depth of that trauma is apparent throughout the record by Katrina's reaction to her parents and her own assertion that she did not feel safe with them and did not want to return home. Under the circumstances, there was compelling evidence in favor of finding that it would be detrimental to return Katrina to Sheila's custody.

II. Reasonable Services

Sheila contends that the department failed to provide reasonable services on several grounds, none of which have merit. First, she argues that services were unreasonable because the department did not modify her case plan to include conjoint therapy or therapeutic supervised visits. However, she never raised that issue either before the juvenile court via a section 388 petition to modify the case plan or by direct appeal. Thus, she forfeited the right to challenge the content of her reunification plan. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46-47.) Further, the juvenile court ordered the department to provide conjoint therapy and therapeutic supervised visitation and Sheila fails to show how the court's orders have any less force and effect just because they were not incorporated into the reunification plan.

Sheila further contends that reunification services were unreasonable because conjoint therapy was not initiated. However, Sheila does not address the facts that the order was for conjoint therapy when therapeutically advised and that, while Sheila may have been ready, Katrina was not.

Finally, Sheila contends that reunification services could not be reasonable when Katrina was allowed to make all the decisions. The record, however, does not support such a claim. What the record reflects is that the juvenile court closely monitored Katrina's case and dedicated many resources to try to reunify the family. In fact, even after terminating reunification services, the court ordered conjoint therapy for Sheila and Katrina. We find no error.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.


Summaries of

Sheila H. v. Superior Court of Fresno Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jun 12, 2012
F064504 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Sheila H. v. Superior Court of Fresno Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:SHEILA H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jun 12, 2012

Citations

F064504 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2012)