Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Writ petition pursuant to rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK61330, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Law Offices of Alex Iglesias, Steven D. Shenfeld and Donna Bernstein for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Liana Serobian, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles and Ronnie Cheung for Minors L.M., M.M., N.G. and H.M.
FLIER, J.
Petitioner S.M. (mother) is the mother of four girls and one boy, ranging in ages from one to seven years. Mother’s four oldest children were detained after one of them suffered a fractured skull and other head injuries, and mother failed to provide a viable explanation for the injuries. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) also learned that the father of two of the children (father) had physically and emotionally abused mother over an extended period of time, and that he had held the children and other relatives at gunpoint on more than one occasion. Over the next 18 months, mother received family reunification services, during which time she repeatedly maintained that she had broken off her relationship with father and would never reunite with him. This turned out to be untrue. When confronted with the facts, mother professed her love for father and declared she would never leave him.
During what was a contested 18-month review hearing regarding the four oldest children and a contested six-month review hearing regarding the youngest child, mother maintained she did not have a relationship with father. However, there was considerable evidence to the contrary, which the juvenile court found credible. At the recommendation of the Department and counsel for all children, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for the children (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).
All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother filed a writ petition challenging the court’s decision. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) She claims (1) substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that returning the children to her custody would place them at risk, and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion in not ordering additional services with respect to the youngest of her five children because there was no substantial evidence she had only partially complied with her treatment plan. We conclude mother’s contentions lack merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In late October 2005, the Department received an “immediate response referral” after mother’s then youngest child, 11-month-old N.G., was brought by ambulance to Long Beach Memorial Hospital, suffering from what was later determined to be a linear fracture on the left side of her skull with overlying hematoma. Mother provided inconsistent explanations concerning the manner in which the injuries occurred, and doctors were concerned the cause(s) may not have been accidental.
This was the last of several referrals the Department had received about the family during 2005. In January of that year, the Department received a referral after father held his family hostage with a gun following an argument with mother. A SWAT team was called and father was arrested. Although mother had unexplained bruises on her body, she denied father had abused her. She also denied father had any guns in the house, though two were confiscated. The “[r]eferral was closed as loss of contact.” In May, the Department received another report following another incident of domestic violence, after which father was again arrested. Finally, in June, the Department received a referral alleging the children were victims of general neglect and emotional abuse due to domestic violence. However, the matter was closed after it was learned father was in jail.
As noted above, father is the father of only two of mother’s children (the third and fourth oldest). At the contested hearing resulting in the order at issue in this writ proceeding, mother testified she and father were married in church, but a marriage certificate was never filed. For simplicity, we refer to him as father and to him and mother collectively as the parents.
After the latest referral in October 2005 from Long Beach Memorial Hospital, the Department detained N.G. and her three siblings. The Department filed a dependency petition on the children’s behalf, alleging in essence that they were at risk because N.G. had suffered unexplained head injuries and because of incidents of domestic violence between mother and father.
At the conclusion of the detention hearing, the juvenile court found a sufficient basis to warrant detention. Three of the children were ordered detained in shelter care, while the fourth child (the sole boy) was ordered placed with father’s parents. The court appointed a medical expert to provide an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation of the cause of N.G.’s injuries, ordered the Department to provide mother and father with family reunification services, and authorized monitored visits for the parents.
In early December 2005, the three girls were placed with father’s aunt and the children’s godmother, F.L. (godmother).
In its jurisdiction and disposition report from early December 2005, the Department reported that father was in jail because of a domestic violence incident in April of that year. Father denied abusing mother. He claimed “I only have arguments with my wife.” He said he was in jail only because he took “a deal.” Father stated he took a similar “deal” after the incident in January of that year.
Mother stated that she had been in a three-year relationship with father and that he had been physically abusive during this time. She declared she no longer wished to be with father and claimed to have obtained a restraining order against him. Maternal grandmother confirmed that father abused mother. She stated that she had seen bruises on mother and that mother was scared of father.
According to the report, mother had been participating in parent education and domestic violence counseling for approximately one month. Mother had had three monitored visits with the children and they reportedly went well.
In mid-December 2005, the medical expert appointed under Evidence Code section 730 completed his report. He opined that N.G.’s head injuries were likely accidental.
Pursuant to a mediation agreement in January 2006, the juvenile court sustained allegations in the petition that the children were at risk because of the domestic violence involving mother and father, and because N.G. had sustained head injuries for which mother had provided inconsistent explanations and which ordinarily would not have occurred but for “unreasonable, neglectful or deliberate conduct by the child’s mother or other caretaker.” The agreement also provided for mother and father to receive family reunification services. Mother was ordered to complete a parenting program and participate in individual counseling that included issues of domestic violence. Mother’s visits with the children were to be monitored, except that the visits could be unmonitored in the caretakers’ homes.
At a March 2006 hearing, the court found mother to be in partial compliance with the case plan.
In preparation for the six-month review hearing, the Department reported in July 2006 that mother had recently completed a parenting class and was participating in individual and domestic violence counseling through the Office of Samoan Affairs (OSA). Mother’s OSA counselor reported in late June that mother “still has issues” relating to domestic violence and father, and she expressed concern about permitting the children to have overnight weekend visits with mother. After father was released from incarceration, participants at a Team Decision Making (TDM) in June saw bruises on mother’s arm and neck, which she attributed to a fall on a table. Mother admitted she still loved father. The godmother (with whom three of the children were placed) stated that mother continued to have a relationship with father. Mother stated she was afraid of father, but she recently dropped a restraining order against him. The maternal grandmother, however, continued to have a restraining order against father, and the paternal grandparents (who were caring for one of the children) were interested in obtaining one because father had threatened to break into their house and take his child. The Department also reported that mother was pregnant and was afraid father would find out the baby was not his.
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found mother was in partial compliance with the case plan. The court ordered the Department to continue providing mother with reunification services and authorized the Department to liberalize mother’s visits with the children, beginning with unmonitored visits in a public setting, but only if mother had a restraining order in place against father.
Shortly after the six-month review hearing, mother gave birth to her fifth child, H.M. At the hospital, mother lied to a social worker, stating she did not have an open case with the Department and denying any history of domestic violence. She also stated that father was the father of all five children. When the social worker learned of the open case, mother responded: “I guess I do have an open case.” Another social worker clarified that father was the father of only two of the children, was not the father of H.M, and should not be in the hospital room with mother and the maternal grandmother as the latter had a restraining order against him. Mother stated she did not reinstate the restraining order against father because it was too much work.
Mother stated she did not know the name of H.M.’s father; she knew only that he went by the name “Spider.” According to mother, Spider was married, and he “took off” after learning mother was pregnant. By the time the juvenile court entered its order terminating reunification services for mother, the name and whereabouts of Spider had still not been established.
The Department detained H.M. and filed a dependency petition on her behalf. The petition’s allegations were similar to the sustained allegations in the original petition, but included an allegation that prior services had failed to resolve mother’s problems in that she continued to be involved with father. The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining H.M. and placed her with the godmother with whom mother’s three other girls were residing. The court ordered the Department to provide mother with reunification services.
The following month, the Department reported in its jurisdiction/disposition report regarding newborn H.M. that mother claimed she had reinstated the restraining order against father. Mother promised to stay away from father. The godmother with whom the four girls were placed stated that mother and father arrived together for visitation. Mother claimed father sometimes visited the children while she was also visiting, but she denied the two had ever visited the children together.
After mother pled no contest to the allegations relating to H.M., the juvenile court sustained the petition that had been filed on H.M.’s behalf and ordered the Department to provide mother with reunification services. Mother was ordered to complete a parenting class and participate in individual counseling to address case issues, including domestic violence.
In September 2006, the Department advised the juvenile court that father had recently visited the boy placed with his parents. At some point, father became angry and his stepmother asked him to leave. He began screaming and threatened to kill his parents. Father left after his stepmother called police. After the police left his parents’ home, father returned with a gun, but his stepmother refused to let him enter and he left. She wanted to obtain a restraining order against him.
For simplicity, the stepmother and her husband are referred to collectively as the paternal grandparents or as father’s parents.
In anticipation of the 12-month review hearing for the four oldest children, the Department reported in late December 2006 that mother was receiving domestic violence and individual counseling. In mid-November, mother had her first unmonitored visit with the children (apparently, only the girls). The visit was supposed to take place in a public place and mother was told to stay with the children at the location selected. However, the Department social worker arranged for an intern to make an unannounced visit at that location. The intern did not find mother and the children at that location. The Department social worker went to the home of the children’s godmother and waited until mother arrived with the children. When asked why she had not remained at the designated location, mother responded: “[I]f I knew you were going to check up on me, I would have not left.” Following this incident, the Department suspended unmonitored visits. Mother was still permitted to have monitored visits, but the Department social worker learned that mother had not had any visits with the girls following the one unmonitored visit. Mother claimed the godmother had told people at their church that mother was not a good mother and would not get her children back, and that the godmother puts her down in front of her children. Therefore, mother did not want to visit the children’s at the godmother’s home. Mother stated she was afraid to disclose this problem to the Department social worker. Although the godmother denied mother’s claims, the social worker arranged for the visits to take place in the social worker’s office.
In late December, mother told the Department social worker that father came to her house in late November, but she called police. He was arrested and remained in jail until late December. She claimed she was no longer involved with him. However, the children’s godmother stated that mother was still seeing father. The godmother claimed she was at her brother’s home one evening in late December and mother spent the night with father at that location.
The 12-month review hearing was continued to await results of a TDM meeting that was scheduled for mother. That meeting took place in early January of this year. On several occasions during the meeting, mother denied having a relationship with father. However, the caretakers of both children confirmed that mother was still involved with father and had never left him during the previous year. Mother finally admitted: “I love [father] and I will never leave him.” Mother said she wanted to complete the court-ordered programs so she can get her children back and be a family again with father. The Department reported this information to the juvenile court. In the report, the Department social worker opined that mother had been dishonest throughout the reunification period. The social worker recommended that the court terminate services for mother at the upcoming 12-month review hearing. The court continued the review hearing for a contested hearing.
In early February, the Department submitted a report for the six-month review hearing concerning H.M. H.M. was doing well with the godmother. Mother was participating in her court-ordered programs. After not visiting with the children between mid-November 2006 and the first week of January 2007, mother began visiting the girls on a regular basis at the godmother’s home. Mother stated she now felt comfortable visiting the children at the godmother’s home and at church. The Department maintained the children would be at risk in light of mother’s continuous relationship with father and her dishonesty about that relationship. The Department recommended that reunification services be terminated and that the court schedule a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan.
The six-month review hearing for H.M. was continued for a contested hearing.
In mid-April, the Department reported that mother had completed domestic violence counseling offered through the OSA. However, the OSA counselor reported that mother had not attended individual counseling “the past few weeks” and “there is no excuse.”
The contested review hearings for the four oldest children and for H.M., respectively, were continued several more times.
According to an 18-month status review report the Department submitted in early May 2007, mother’s brother admitted driving mother several nights a week to spend the night at father’s residence. The children advised the Department social worker that they see mother and father together at church. Mother had completed 13 out of 28 individual counseling sessions. Mother’s OSA counselor attempted to take mother for a psychological evaluation, but mother did not show up for the appointment.
The godmother caring for the four girls and the paternal grandmother caring for the boy both stated they wanted mother to reunify with the children, but they were concerned mother could not handle all the children together. The Department social worker concurred with this assessment. The two caregivers stated they were willing to adopt or accept legal guardianship if mother failed to reunify with the children.
A combined and contested 18-month review hearing concerning the four oldest children and six-month review hearing concerning H.M. took place over five days in June 2007. Five witnesses testified.
Because H.M.’s six-month review hearing had been continued several times, it concluded less than two months before her 12-month review hearing was scheduled to take place. (See § 361.5, subd. (a).)
The Department social worker testified about mother’s admission at the January 2007 TDM that she still loved father and always would. She believed mother’s admission because mother was very emotional and because several other people had reported that mother and father were still together. Mother’s brother confirmed that he drove mother to see father at night. The paternal grandparents and the godmother confirmed after the January 2007 TDM that mother and father were still together. Mother’s oldest child told the social worker that mother and father went to church together. The godmother reported mother and father often sat together in church during the past six months. The godmother’s daughter brought food to father where he was staying (in his uncle’s garage) once or twice a week, and would see mother there with father. This happened most recently a couple weeks ago.
The godmother testified that she last saw mother and father together at the godmother’s uncle’s garage. They were alone. The godmother delivers food to father two or more times a week and mother is typically there. The godmother testified mother and father are presently together. She has seen them hug and hold hands. On one occasion in May 2007, mother, father, godmother and the girls went together to a restaurant.
Mother’s counselor from the OSA testified that she has provided services to mother for almost one year. In August 2006, she felt mother was ready for unmonitored visits, but the Department social worker felt this was premature. Shortly before this, when H.M. was born, mother lied to hospital staff about not having an open dependency case. Shortly after the counselor thought mother was ready for unmonitored visits, mother disclosed at a TDM that she had dropped the restraining order she had against father. The counselor was alarmed by this admission. In addition, at around this time and after mother had just reinstated the restraining order against father, the counselor saw mother and father walking together. Mother initially denied she was with father, but later cried and asked for another chance.
Although we refer to her as a counselor, mother’s OSA counselor testified she was a para-professional counselor. She is not a licensed therapist.
The counselor was shocked when mother stated at the January 2007 TDM that she loved father and always would. Mother later told the counselor that what she said at the TDM was not true, and that she said it only because she was afraid of the godmother, who was present at the meeting. Although the counselor believes mother, she conceded that if mother was still seeing father, she had not made any progress in counseling. She also testified that mother had lied to her before about her relationship with father. The counselor referred to the entire period before August 2006 when counselor saw mother and father together as a “whole lie.”
According to the counselor, mother was very submissive, lackadaisical, and in denial about father when she began counseling. The counselor believes mother is no longer very timid, weak, and in denial. She is no longer afraid of father and knows what to do, as evidenced by her calling the police when father came to her residence in November 2006. The counselor believes mother has resolved the issues that brought the case into the dependency system--especially the domestic violence issues--and that the children would not be at risk if returned to mother. She conceded that mother still needs a “lot of help” with the children. The counselor does not believe mother will ever reunite with father, nor does she believe the godmother is credible.
Mother testified that she had lied to the Department social worker in the past. Mother claimed she was not in a relationship with father. She had a restraining order against him. However, she conceded she “violated” the most recent restraining order shortly after obtaining it. She explained that she was not thinking at the time.
Mother let her original restraining order against father lapse, thinking it would be okay to do so. However, after it became a big issue at the TDM in June 2006, she renewed it.
Mother claimed she never loved father and has no intention of ever getting back together with him. She said what she did about her love for father at the January 2007 TDM because she was afraid of the godmother, who was sitting across from her, giving her “that evil look.”
Mother testified she has always been afraid of godmother and her family. She stated that in 2000 or 2001, godmother and her family beat up mother and mother’s mother outside of church. Mother claimed police arrived while mother was still being beaten, but they did not prepare a report.
Mother admitted that when H.M. was born, she lied to hospital staff about not having an open dependency case. She lied because she was afraid of the godmother and was not thinking.
Mother did not remember going to a restaurant recently with father, the children, and the godmother. She stated that when she arrived for a visit at the godmother’s home, father was upstairs. When mother learned of father’s presence, she asked everyone not to say anything to him and she went to the restaurant with only the godmother and the children.
Mother denied ever going to see father at his uncle’s garage where he was living, and claimed that her brother has not driven her to see him. She did not recall her brother saying something to the contrary at the January 2007 TDM.
Mother admitted making a mistake when she did not stay at the designated place when she had her one unmonitored visit with the children in November 2006. Mother said she would not have left the area if she had known someone would check.
Mother testified that she understood how dangerous her relationship with father has been and why the Department was skeptical about returning the children to her in light of her lying.
Mother said she was not afraid of father and will call police if he tries to see her. Mother claimed she will be able to stand up to father, though she admitted she could not stand up to the godmother.
Mother admitted missing half of her four monthly individual counseling sessions in February, March and April 2007.
Mother claimed she started being truthful with her OSA counselor when the counselor caught her together with father in August 2006. She asked the court to give her one more chance.
The last witness to testify was mother’s therapist, who saw mother from November 2006 until May 2007. Mother came to resolve issues relating to domestic violence and some parenting. The therapist said mother was more mature, had better coping skills, a better understanding of domestic violence issues, and a better support system than when she began therapy.
The therapist never felt mother was being untruthful with her. The therapist opined that the children would not be at risk if returned to her (though they would need family preservation services). However, the therapist was unable to explain the basis of her opinion. The therapist also stated that her recommendation would be different if mother had lied about her relationship with father.
After all witnesses testified, counsel for the parties argued. Mother’s counsel asked the court to return the children to mother because she had overcome the issues that brought the case into the dependency system. She said that if the court did not believe mother, “then obviously the court is not going to return the children.”
Three attorneys argued against return of the children--counsel for the four girls, counsel for the boy, and counsel for the Department.
The court then announced its decision, beginning with the four oldest children for whom the hearing constituted an 18-month review. The court found that returning the children to mother’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to their physical and/or mental well-being. The court also found that mother had only partially complied with the case plan. She had missed approximately half of her counseling sessions, and the court believed she was still in a relationship with father. It stated that it did not find mother to be credible and that no one was able to corroborate any of mother’s factual representations. The court found the godmother to be credible and noted that others had corroborated her statements. The court terminated services for mother and scheduled a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for the four oldest children.
The court then proceeded to hear additional argument regarding the youngest child, H.M. Mother’s counsel asked the court to order additional services through the 12-month review (which would have been due to take place less than two months later). Counsel noted that mother had completed the court-ordered parenting course and was participating in individual counseling. Counsel claimed mother was making substantive progress and asked for more time to demonstrate to the court that she has been honest when claiming she was not seeing father.
Both counsel for the Department and for H.M. asked the court to terminate reunification services.
The court then found that returning H.M. to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to H.M.’s physical and/or mental health. It also found that mother had not regularly participated in, or made substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plan. The court noted that mother had missed approximately half her individual counseling sessions and was still in a relationship with father. By her own testimony, she is not able to assert herself with relatives. The court also found there was no reasonable probability H.M. could be returned to mother’s custody within the next six months. The court terminated reunification services and scheduled a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for H.M., to take place on the same date as the hearing scheduled for mother’s four older children.
Mother filed a writ petition challenging the juvenile court’s order. She claims substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s findings that (1) returning the children to her custody would place them at risk, and (2) mother had only partially complied with the treatment plan and had not made substantive progress in her treatment plan.
The Department filed an answer opposing the granting of relief. Counsel for the four girls filed a joinder in the Department’s answer.
Counsel for the fifth child did not file a response to the petition. As noted above, however, at the conclusion of the contested hearing, counsel for this child joined in the Department’s recommendation that reunification services be terminated and that the court schedule a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan.
DISCUSSION
1. The Standard of Review
We review the juvenile court’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence test, which requires us to determine whether there is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value to support the order. (In re Brian M. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1398; Curtis F. v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 470.) In so doing, we must resolve all conflicts in support of the court’s determination and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold the court’s order. If substantial evidence exists, we must affirm. (James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1020-1021; In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820; In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547; In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.) The substantial evidence standard also applies to findings that must be made by clear and convincing evidence. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 422-423; In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.) Whether the court made the correct decision based upon its findings of fact is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Brian M., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401, fn. 4; In re Brequia Y. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1068.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Finding That Returning the Children to Mother’s Custody Would Create a Substantial Risk of Harm to Them
Section 366.22, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part that at the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing, “[t]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.”
Mother challenges the juvenile court’s finding that returning the children to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to them. However, she does not directly challenge the juvenile court’s finding. Rather, she takes issue with the juvenile court’s finding that she only partially complied with the case plan. However, while the extent of mother’s compliance with the case plan may be a relevant consideration in determining whether the children would be at risk if returned to her custody, it is not dispositive.
“The fact [a parent] satisfied the requirements of the reunification plan does not mean she was entitled to custody of the minor regardless of the substantial risk of detriment that reunification would have on the minor’s emotional well-being.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 901; see also In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143 [“simply complying with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy sessions and visiting the children . . . is not determinative”].)
Here, there was more than enough evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the children would be at substantial risk if returned to mother’s custody. Indeed, mother’s counsel essentially conceded as much when she declared that “obviously the court is not going to return the children” to mother if the juvenile court did not believe mother’s claim that she was no longer with father. With good reason, the juvenile court did not believe mother. Mother admitted lying (1) when she told hospital staff when H.M. was born that she did not have an open dependency case, (2) when she told her OSA counselor in approximately August 2006 that she was not together with father, (3) when she told the Department social worker on numerous occasions that she was not in a relationship with father. And although mother claimed she had not been together with father since approximately August 2006, there was considerable evidence to the contrary, including (1) testimony from the godmother that mother and father were together, (2) statements from mother’s brother about driving mother to see father, (3) statements from the paternal grandparents, and (4) mother’s statements at the January 2007 TDM that she loved father and always would.
Father has a history of violence and has not hesitated to draw a gun on family members and his own children. Mother, maternal grandmother, and father’s parents feared him. This is not the type of atmosphere to which mother’s young children should be exposed.
We therefore conclude that the juvenile court’s finding that the children would be at substantial risk if returned to mother is supported by substantial evidence.
3. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Additional Services to Mother with Respect to H.M.
As a general rule, when a child less than three years old is removed from a parent’s custody, reunification services may not exceed six months from the date the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2).) The court may, however, extend this period to a maximum of 18 months (in total), but “only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian.” (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).)
Under section 366.21, subdivision (e), at the six-month review hearing, the court may terminate services and schedule a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that “the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan.” The juvenile court made such a finding and refused to order additional services for mother and H.M. Mother claims the juvenile court’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
It is true that mother completed the court-ordered parenting class. However, insofar as individual counseling was concerned, the juvenile court observed that mother had missed approximately half of her sessions. This is supported by a statement in the Department’s 18-month review report that mother had “completed 13 out of 28 sessions as of 4/27/07.” Moreover, both mother and the therapist conceded at the contested hearing that mother had missed half of her four monthly individual counseling sessions in February, March and April 2007. These were the critical three months following the January 2007 TDM, when participants reported that mother and father were together and when mother proclaimed her love for father. The months after this meeting were precisely the months when mother should have been doing everything in her power to persuade the juvenile court that she was fully complying with the case plan, especially when she knew the Department was recommending the termination of reunification services.
Mother notes in her petition that the “few” missed sessions were due to transportation problems and that the therapist explained the sessions were rescheduled. The record does not support this assertion. While mother claimed she missed sessions because of transportation problems--she admitted taking the bus and receiving bus passes from the Department social worker--the therapist testified that she was unable to reschedule any missed sessions.
Insofar as substantive progress is concerned, the facts described above demonstrate that mother has not made substantive progress in her treatment plan. Indeed, her OSA counselor--who testified at the hearing that the children should be returned to mother--conceded that if mother was still seeing father, “then she’s really not made any progress in the counseling.”
In light of the above, the juvenile court’s finding that mother had only partially complied with the treatment plan and had not made substantive progress is supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
The writ petition is denied on the merits. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)
We concur: COOPER, P. J. KITCHING, J.
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.