Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Super. Ct. No. 06CEJ300211
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21).
Judith A. Sanders, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Janelle E. Kelly, Interim County Counsel and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Wiseman, J., and Cornell, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing issued at a contested 18-month review hearing as to her three children. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Dependency proceedings were initiated in December 2006 because of petitioner’s untreated mental illness (obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), depression, and anxiety) and resultant inability to care for her children, then two-year-old D.G., 15-month-old E.G., and five-month-old S.G. As a result of her disorder, petitioner was homeless and often left the children in the care of others for extended periods of time. When the children were taken into protective custody by the social services department (department), petitioner was desperate for help. Her OCD was out of control and she was suicidal. The children were placed together in foster care.
In February 2007, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered a plan of reunification requiring petitioner to complete programs in parenting and anger management as well as domestic violence and mental health assessments and participate in any recommended treatment. The court also ordered petitioner to complete an assessment for psychotropic medication.
Over the ensuing six months, petitioner completed a course in parenting and regularly visited the children under the department’s supervision. She was also participating in a victims of domestic violence group and individual therapy and taking and benefitting from medication. As a result, the department considered her prognosis for reunification to be good and recommended the court continue services for another six months.
However, the children’s therapist had reservations about continuing reunification efforts. She stated she rarely saw children as “profoundly psychologically damaged by lack of appropriate care giving” as petitioner’s children appeared. She opined the children would require five to ten years of therapy to achieve minimally healthy relationships and functioning and would need caregivers with a vast fund of psychological strength and emotional stability. She recommended the court order petitioner to complete a psychological evaluation and formal bonding study before continuing services.
The juvenile court adopted the therapist’s recommendations and, in August 2007, at the six-month review hearing, continued reunification services and set the 12-month review hearing for January 2008. In August 2007, petitioner was discharged from individual therapy as a result of budget cuts.
Petitioner completed a psychological evaluation, the results of which were reported in November 2007. The psychologist confirmed petitioner’s diagnoses but determined her depression to be in partial remission and her OCD to be in remission based on petitioner’s statement that her medication was helping her. The psychologist attributed petitioner’s psychological improvement to the medication and psychotherapy and concluded she could benefit from reunification services. Since testing revealed petitioner was socially isolated, the psychologist recommended the department refer her for a parenting or other social skills development group.
In January 2008, the children’s therapist reported that efforts to provide attachment-based therapy to petitioner and the children were unsuccessful. The children remained severely disturbed, especially in petitioner’s presence. Despite petitioner’s attempts to engage the children during therapy sessions, they became emotionally disorganized and agitated. The children screamed, grunted and aggressively attacked each other as well as petitioner and the therapist. The children either avoided or rejected petitioner’s attempts to comfort or engage them. The youngest, S.G., then 18 months old, banged her head and pulled out her hair. She turned her head away when petitioner approached and violently wrenched her body when petitioner picked her up. According to the therapist, petitioner seemed to care about her children but was unable to monitor and respond to their emotional or safety needs.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the department expressed its concerns about petitioner’s psychological instability and failure to establish stable housing. Consequently, it recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services at the 12-month review hearing and proceed to permanency planning.
Petitioner challenged the department’s recommendation and a contested hearing was set for February 2008. In an issue statement, petitioner’s attorney argued the department failed to provide reasonable services by referring petitioner for therapy after her discharge in August 2008 and providing her parenting classes tailored to her children’s special needs. Petitioner’s attorney however acknowledged petitioner was receiving counseling approved by the social worker at a women’s shelter where she was staying. The therapy was provided weekly by a therapist in training.
In March 2008, at the conclusion of the contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court found the department provided petitioner reasonable services and continued services to the 18-month review hearing set for May 2008. The court also ordered the department to contact the children’s therapist and discuss therapeutic intervention alternatives available to petitioner.
In May 2008, petitioner’s therapist trainee (trainee) at the women’s shelter informed the court petitioner received weekly counseling until mid-May when she was informed she needed to be under the treatment of a licensed therapist. The trainee stated petitioner was motivated to participate in therapy.
By the time set for the 18-month review hearing, the department still had concerns about petitioner’s unstable housing situation and her mental health. In addition to the seriousness of her diagnoses, she was having difficulty taking her medication as prescribed. Meanwhile, the children were well adjusted to their foster parents who wanted to adopt them. Consequently, the department again recommended the court terminate reunification services.
Reasonableness of mental health services was at issue at the contested 18-month review hearing conducted in August and September 2008. Petitioner faulted the department for its delay in referring her to a licensed mental health therapist.
The children’s therapist testified she treated the children from July 2007 to April 2008. Initial treatment was with the children and their foster mother. Although the children continued to show signs of behavioral problems, they also showed improvement and a connection with their foster mother. Subsequently, however, petitioner joined therapy sessions with the children who exhibited a high level of anxiety in her presence, consistent with trauma and post trauma symptoms. Some of them screamed and laughed a kind of hysterical laugh. One immediately defecated and made growling noises. Another started acting out sexually. Petitioner’s presence triggered this behavior even though her behavior with the children was appropriate. According to the therapist, the children acted like they were experiencing terrifying experiences in petitioner’s presence even though they were not. In order to parent her children, the therapist believed the children would have to perceive themselves as safe in her care. The therapist was unaware of any parenting skills petitioner could be taught to accomplish that.
The therapist further testified the children were still severely disturbed and she expected more mental illness to emerge. She concluded it would be detrimental to continue family therapy with petitioner because they did not make any progress in therapy. Consequently, she terminated family therapy in April 2008.
The social worker testified that, after petitioner was discharged from therapy in August 2007, she met weekly or biweekly with her case manager and participated in group and individual sessions with her psychiatrist on a monthly or 90-day basis. From mid-January to mid-May, 2008, petitioner participated in counseling at the women’s shelter and the department did not have any problem with that arrangement. The social worker subsequently discovered petitioner was participating in therapy with a trainee and told petitioner she needed to see a licensed therapist. In April 2008, petitioner completed a mental health assessment. She began individual therapy in August 2008. The social worker testified she told petitioner a couple of times she could possibly lose her children but also advised her she could avoid that by taking her medication as prescribed and following the court’s orders.
Petitioner testified she felt much better as a result of therapy and medication and no longer experienced OCD symptoms. She attributed her improved mental status to her counseling sessions with the trainee at the women’s shelter. She still felt depressed but considered that a normal response to being separated from her children. Petitioner stated she stopped taking her medication for three or four months beginning in October 2007 because she believed she was being drugged. However, she was encouraged to resume taking medication, which she did in February 2008. She subsequently missed taking medication for several days because she was asked to pay cash at the pharmacy and she did not have the money.
Petitioner also testified she advised her social worker when her therapy was discontinued in August 2007 and requested a new therapist. She also asked for assistance while at the women’s shelter and in January 2008 began meeting with the trainee. She also started participating in group therapy. She denied the children cried and screamed in her presence and did not believe they were difficult for her to control. She also said they were affectionate with her. She also testified she had little contact with the social worker and that the social worker responded harshly to her one time when she needed assistance figuring out which bus to take to attend an appointment with the children’s therapist. She also said the social worker told her several times she was not going to get her children back. However, on cross examination, she stated her social worker had regular contact with her and assisted her with getting her medication and applying for Section 8 housing. Petitioner was told however they were not accepting applications for Section 8 housing and decided to remain in the women’s shelter even though the children could not live with her there.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found petitioner was provided reasonable services and it would be detrimental to return the children to her care. Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in finding she was provided reasonable services, citing the one-year break in therapy from August 2007 to August 2008 and the department’s failure to provide parenting instruction for special needs children. She also contends the social worker did not maintain contact with her and was hostile to her. Our role on a challenge to the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding is to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) On the record before us, we conclude that it is.
Petitioner’s children were removed from her because her mental illness, then untreated, prevented her from safely caring for them. The department devised and the juvenile court approved a reunification plan designed to stabilize her psychologically with a view toward returning her children. To that end, she was provided medication management, psychotherapy, and parenting classes. After 18 months of services, petitioner had, by her own testimony, stabilized because of the therapy and medication. She no longer suffered symptoms of OCD. She was depressed but no more than would be expected under her circumstances. She further testified she had uninterrupted contact with her psychiatrist and was participating in group therapy. Consequently, even if the social worker were remiss in not promptly referring petitioner for psychotherapy, petitioner fails to show how that rendered her mental health services unreasonable.
Further, petitioner fails to show how additional parenting classes would have assisted her. The children’s therapist testified she was unaware of any parenting skills petitioner could acquire that would help the children perceive themselves as safe in her care. The problem was not that the right services were not offered or that petitioner did not fully participate in them. The problem was that the children were so psychologically damaged while in petitioner’s care that, by the time petitioner stabilized, no manner of parenting instruction was going to help her prevent the emotional trauma they experienced in her presence. Therefore, petitioner has failed to show how the parenting instruction she received was inadequate.
Finally, petitioner’s claim the social worker did not regularly communicate with her is not supported by her own testimony. Further, one instance of perceived harshness on the social worker’s part is not evidence that the social worker was hostile to her. We find no error on this record and affirm the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.