Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Anthony Trendacosta, Commissioner, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK77191.
Livingston Bakhtiar and David M. Livingston for Petitioner.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
BIGELOW, P. J.
Petitioner S.R. (mother) is the mother of four-year-old I.H., who was detained from the home of her parents in 2009, along with her then 11-year-old half-sister, A.S. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) detained the two girls after receiving reports that I.H.’s father had sexually abused A.S. on numerous occasions over the previous two years, and that mother, who learned about the alleged abuse, failed to take action to protect her.
After the juvenile court sustained the abuse and failure to protect allegations, it ordered the Department to provide mother with family reunification services. Mother received numerous services, but failed to make sufficient progress to regain custody of either child. During this time, the juvenile court awarded A.S.’s father physical custody of A.S. and terminated jurisdiction over her. I.H. remained in foster care while mother continued to receive services.
At the conclusion of a contested 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for mother and scheduled a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) for I.H.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother filed a writ petition challenging the juvenile court’s decision. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) She claims the Department did not provide her with reasonable reunification services. We conclude the challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2009, the Department received a referral concerning allegations that then 11-year-old A.S. was sexually abused by her stepfather, M.H. (father). A.S. had told some classmates that she was afraid she was pregnant because father “did it to me.” A.S. also said her stomach was hurting and she had spotted her panties with blood. One or more of the classmates told a teacher. The school counselor spoke with A.S., who admitted making the statements, but claimed she had lied. The counselor later told the Department social worker who responded to the referral that although A.S. had lied in the past, she was concerned because A.S. seemed afraid. The counselor told the social worker that she called mother and told her about the situation. Mother felt A.S. was lying.
M.H. is the father of I.S., who was two years old when the Department received the referral. Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent references to father are to M.H. The father of A.S., J.S., will be referred to as father J.S.
The social worker who responded to the referral arrived at A.S.’s elementary school accompanied by two sheriff deputies. The three interviewed A.S., who seemed scared. Initially, she stated she had lied and claimed father had not done anything to her. However, she then admitted telling a classmate about her fear of being pregnant as discussed in the previous paragraph. When asked what “did it to me” meant, A.S. responded it meant “him taking off my clothes and he takes his clothes off.” She said father often tries to play with her as if “he is a kid like me.” She refused to say how father played with her. She also denied having started her menstrual periods.
A.S. stated that she was afraid each time mother would leave her and I.S. under father’s care because this is when the sexual abuse occurred. She stated that her stomach would often begin hurting whenever she knew father was about to return home from work.
A.S. told the social worker and Sheriff’s deputies that on several occasions, father attempted to enter her bedroom while mother was asleep, but he was not able to do so because the door was locked. A.S. stated that she reported this to mother each time it happened, but mother did not do anything.
A.S. also reported that several years earlier, a neighbor exposed himself and masturbated in her presence. She said mother contacted police, but did not know if the neighbor was arrested.
The social worker also spoke to mother at the elementary school. Mother told the social worker she had been living with father for three years and the two had been married for approximately nine months.
Mother stated she did not believe A.S. because she had been known to lie as she had once told her that a neighbor had exposed himself and masturbated in her presence, but she later said in court that the neighbor was only urinating. Mother said she often told A.S. that this was probably the case, but A.S. would not accept this until sometime near the end of the court process. Mother also said that A.S. had given her a note about one year ago in which A.S. wrote “don’t marry... him because he is not good.”
Mother did not believe father was capable of doing what was alleged. She acknowledged that A.S. had told her on several occasions that father had attempted to open her bedroom door, but mother thought this was because father wanted to make sure she was safe. Mother stated she never discussed the issue with father.
Mother stated that she and father were not sexually intimate very often because father had told her he was impotent. Mother said father is too old. He is 64 years old, while she is 33 years old.
During the last three years, mother has continuously allowed father to care for the girls while she attends night school.
Mother reported that a few weeks earlier, A.S. told her she had spotted her panties with blood, was nauseous and had stomach pain. Mother told A.S. “you must be pregnant.” Mother claimed she did so in a joking manner, but she now realized that was probably not the best things to say. Mother confirmed that A.S. had not started her menstrual periods.
A.S. was taken to the hospital for a sexual abuse examination. During the exam, A.S. reported: “It started when I was 9 years old. My mom was in school. My stepdad took my clothes off, he didn’t say anything. I tried to keep my clothes on but he was too strong. He tried to put his [penis] in my [vagina] but I wouldn’t let him. He also tried to put it in my butt. I wouldn’t let him. It hurt my butt a little bit.... He made me pull his [penis] up and down. Something white, transparent came out of his [penis]. Last time he touched me was 4 weeks ago.”
That same day, the Department social worker spoke with A.S. a second time, this time in mother’s home. A.S. told the social worker that father made her squeeze his penis until liquid came out. This occurred more than five times. She stated that the liquid never went inside her body. A.S. seemed to say that father penetrated her once, perhaps anally. That is when it hurt the most.
A.S. said she told mother about this “sometimes” because she was afraid. After she told mother about this or about father trying to open her door, mother would cry.
A.S. said that father would often change I.H.’s diaper. She never saw him touch I.H.’s private area. She would not watch how father cleaned or wiped I.H.
At the home, mother provided the social worker with the note A.S. had given her nearly one year earlier. Mother said she proceeded to marry father because she did not believe he was capable of hurting A.S.
The Department detained A.S. and I.H. and placed them in foster care. At the time, the whereabouts of A.S.’s father were not known. Mother claimed she had not heard anything about him since A.S. was a toddler.
One day after the children were detained, father was arrested for sodomy and lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14.
Concurrently with the filing of the detention report, the Department filed a dependency petition on the girls’ behalf, alleging among other things that the girls were at risk because father had sexually abused A.S. on numerous occasions and mother, who knew of the abuse, had failed to take action to protect her.
At the conclusion of a detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for the detention. The court directed the Department to provide reunifications services to mother, including counseling and parenting to address case issues. It also ordered that mother and A.S. be referred for child sexual abuse prevention services. The court approved monitored visits for mother and ordered that there be no discussion about the case during the visits.
The Department submitted its jurisdiction/disposition report in early June 2009. Father was still incarcerated and his attorney would not permit the Department social worker to interview him. The Department had been able to make contact with father J.S. who was living in Northern California and was willing to take custody of A.S.
A Department social worker had interviewed A.S. at her foster home. A.S. provided additional details about father’s sexual abuse. One instance of abuse occurred on mother’s bed, while I.H. was asleep on the bed. A.S. felt mother would believe her now.
A.S. also related that mother once found a note A.S. had written right after the first time father abused her. In the note, A.S. wrote that one day, mother would find out about the “raper [father].” When mother found the note, she was mad. Mother asked A.S. what it meant and A.S. responded that she did not want to tell her because she was scared to go through it again. She said she would not write the notes again. Mother told A.S. to tell her if it was true and to not write such notes again if it was not true because it might offend father.
The social worker also interviewed mother again. Mother told the social worker she came from Mexico with A.S. in 2000. Mother claimed she never knew about the abuse and never saw anything. She claimed A.S. never told her anything. Mother talked about finding the note A.S. had written. According to mother, when she asked A.S. if father had done anything, A.S. responded that he tried to corner her and she just pushed him away. Mother said she asked father and he denied it. Mother told the social worker she did not believe the abuse occurred. Mother said she had faith in father because she told him after finding A.S.’s note that if he ever did anything to her daughter, she would hurt him. Mother claimed A.S. is mad at father because he did not buy her a computer. At the same time, mother said she did not know if A.S. was lying. She claimed A.S. told her about a lot of things, including the incident involving the neighbor, but she never told her about father.
The Department’s report also described an incident that occurred during one of mother’s monitored visits with A.S. at the foster home. Mother described the incident to a Department dependency investigator (DI). Mother said that during the visit, she told A.S. that mother was going to be incarcerated and A.S. was going to be forced to live with father J.S. if A.S. did not tell the truth. A.S. began to cry and said she did not want to live with father J.S. Mother admitted knowing she was not supposed to discuss the case with A.S., but she needed to know what happened. A.S. broke down and fully disclosed the abuse to mother. Mother stated she now believes A.S. She claimed she was ignorant and blinded by father’s religious practices.
The DI also spoke to the foster mother about the incident. The foster mother said mother was harassing A.S. The foster mother tried to redirect mother, but she continued. Mother told A.S. she needed to tell the judge she was lying. Mother also told A.S. that mother would be arrested because of her accusations. Mother described A.S. as a dirty liar who was going to get mother in trouble. A.S. was crying hysterically. The foster mother told her to stop, but mother said she needed to talk to A.S. about the case because she was not permitted to do so when she sees A.S. at court. According to the foster mother, mother told A.S. she needed to communicate directly with the judge and not with her attorney or else she would be taken away and placed with father J.S.
The report also noted that A.S. was reluctant to visit with father J.S. because of all the things mother had said about him. She agreed to visit with him only if the visit was monitored.
In early July 2009, the Department reported that A.S. had been replaced several times in her placement. On one occasion, it was because she had instigated a fight with the foster mother’s child. A.S. was described as defiant, threatening to her foster parents, and obsessively protective of I.H.
According to the report, the Department social worker had confirmed with a case manager at Personal Involvement that mother had enrolled in a 10-week parenting program and was scheduled to complete the program by the end of August. Personal Involvement provided mother with auxiliary funds to assist her with rent. The case manager also advised that mother was receiving individual counseling with Lawndale Medical & Mental Health. The social worker left a message with the therapist, but the therapist had not responded. The case manager noted that she had provided mother with a list of low-cost counseling agencies.
The social worker tried referring mother to a sexual abuse treatment program, but the program was not accepting new clients.
At a juvenile court hearing in early July 2009, the court ordered the Department to immediately locate a sex abuse awareness class because there is a waiting class for such classes. The court also gave the Department discretion to liberalize mother’s visits with the children.
In early August 2009, the Department reported that mother was on a waiting list for sexual abuse counseling at Richstone Family. Mother was instructed to enroll in individual counseling with a Spanish translator. The report also related that mother had recently told the Department social worker that she had doubts about A.S.’s allegations of abuse. She said she needed proof, but added that “the only people that know what really happened are... father, [A.S.] and God.” Mother stated that A.S. must have made up the allegations based on a conversation mother had with her about menstrual periods and sexual relations between cats.
In late September 2009, the Department reported that mother had completed her 10-week parenting program. She had also had an intake assessment for individual counseling, which would begin when a therapist became available.
According to the report, mother continued to act inappropriately while visiting A.S. On at least two occasions, mother brought pictures of father to show I.H. She also brought letters written by father. A.S. has expressed her unwillingness to visit with mother because the pictures and letters make her feel uncomfortable. A.S. feels mother does not believe her. When the social worker confronted mother about these incidents, mother responded that it was not fair for I.H. to be denied her father because of A.S. Mother told the social worker that A.S.’s allegations have disrupted the relationship between father and I.H. Mother continued to doubt A.S.’s allegations, saying she is not sure who to believe.
A.S. was developing a stronger relationship with father J.S. She expressed a willingness to live with him and his family. After receiving this report, the juvenile court ordered that mother’s visits with A.S. and I.H. take place separately.
At the end of September 2009, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition as amended. Among other things, the court sustained allegations that (1) father had sexually abused A.S. on numerous occasions since she was nine years old, including forcibly sodomizing her, and (2) mother learned of the abuse and failed to take action to protect A.S. The court continued the matter for a contested disposition hearing.
In early December 2009, the Department advised the juvenile court that it had agreed to permit a family friend suggested by mother to serve as the monitor for mother’s visits. However, mother allegedly “refused to comply” with an arrangement whereby the friend would first serve as the monitor only for mother’s visits with I.H. The social worker felt mother was trying to “control the situation and possibly deter [A.S.] from participating in the criminal case.”
According to A.S., after the foster mother notified the Department about mother bringing pictures of father to visits, mother “declared war” on her, insulting the foster mother and making several unwarranted allegations against her.
According to the report, A.S.’s relationship with her father was improving. She had spent a Thanksgiving weekend with father, who lived with his girlfriend, son and stepson. A.S. said she wanted to reside with her father.
The report also advised that the Department social worker had asked mother’s therapist, Karen Linares, on three separate occasions to provide a progress letter. After the last attempt, the social worker was informed that the letter had been provided to mother in late November and that a second letter would not be provided.
The DI contacted mother in an attempt to secure the progress letter. Mother refused to provide a copy, saying it was not her problem the social worker had failed to do her job. Mother claimed she had attended about eight therapy sessions. When asked what was discussed during the sessions, mother responded: “I don’t know what we talk about.” When asked if she would return to father if he was released, mother responded that she did not know what to say. Mother was angry, claimed she was the victim, and complained that the Department had kept information from her about the abuse.
According to the same report, the Department social worker spoke with A.S.’s therapist, who said she had no doubt the sexual abuse occurred. The therapist felt A.S. was doing well, all things considered. The therapist had some concerns about A.S. returning to mother because mother is not accepting A.S. disclosure. A.S. feels guilty and responsible for the family’s displacement.
In early December 2009, the juvenile court released A.S. to father J.S. on condition that she be made available to testify in father’s criminal case. After this occurred, mother stated she was not willing to travel to San Jose to visit with A.S., even though the Department had offered to provide transportation funding. She was also not willing to travel to a midway point. Mother also said she would not have any telephonic contact with A.S. because she was concerned father J.S. would make false allegations against her.
The disposition hearing took place one week after A.S. was released to father J.S. Before the hearing, the Department submitted a “Last Minute Information” form to the court. Attached was a one-sentence letter from the YWCA confirming that mother had attended eight counseling sessions between mid-September and late November 2009 at the YWCA Sexual Assault Crisis Services. A Department social worker spoke with mother’s therapist at the YWCA, who stated that mother appeared to be in denial about the sexual abuse, citing the lack of proof. The therapist agreed to provide a more thorough progress letter. When this did not happen, the Department DI spoke with the YWCA’s Clinical Coordinator, who stated the therapist was out for the rest of the week. The coordinator said she would review the therapist’s progress notes and would prepare a progress letter. Later that day, the coordinator provided a letter, which stated that mother had been attending individual counseling on a weekly basis and seemed very committed to learning how to keep her children safe. It noted that mother would benefit from continued counseling to develop insight into the issues that interfered with her fully protecting her children.
This appears to be the letter mother had previously refused to provide to the Department DI.
At the start of the disposition hearing, counsel for the Department stated the Department would not be opposed to mother having unmonitored visits with I.H. Although mother was not present, counsel for all parties stipulated to her counsel’s statement that she would testify she believes A.S. was sexually abused and will obtain a restraining order against father if he is released.
Mother’s counsel asked the court to return I.H. to her custody, a request both counsel for the Department and counsel for I.H. opposed. The court found that returning I.H. to mother would place her at risk. The court ordered the Department to continue providing mother with reunification services to include individual counsel, parenting, and some sort of group program focused on sexual abuse awareness and understanding. The court also permitted mother to have two-hour unmonitored visits with I.H., with Department discretion to liberalize. The court found it would not be in I.H.’s best interest to have reunification services with father.
In February 2010, the juvenile court granted an application by the Department requiring that mother’s visits with A.S. take place at a police station in Coalinga. The Department had sought the order because both mother and father J.S. had requested that the visits take place at a police station, the Coalinga station was approximately midway between their respective homes, and the officers at the station said they required a court order. In the application, the Department also related that mother had brought two strange men to a visit with A.S., and A.S. felt uncomfortable around them. Finally, the application stated that the criminal case against father had been dismissed under circumstances that were not clearly explained. This happened sometime after A.S. testified at what was described as an “arraignment.” According to the Department, the prosecutor told the Department social worker that she had no doubt the abuse occurred.
Minutes from the criminal case which were provided to the juvenile court at a later date reflect that the case against father was dismissed midway through the preliminary hearing. A.S. began her testimony, but the People were unable to proceed after the lunch break.
Before the scheduled six-month review hearing regarding I.H., the Department submitted a report in June 2010, which was prepared by a social worker who had been assigned to the case three months earlier. Father had been released from custody with the dismissal of the criminal case against him, but his whereabouts were unknown. The attorney who represented him in the criminal case left a message for a Department social worker inquiring whether there was a restraining order against father or whether father could move back in with mother. “Due to confidentiality, ” the social worker did not return the call. Mother claimed she was not in contact with father because she did not want to have problems with reunification, and she did not know father’s whereabouts. She noted that father attempted to contact her through a mutual friend. Mother stated she was not sure if she would permit father to have contact with I.H. if I.H was returned to her. Mother said she would do whatever the Department told her to do. When asked if she believed A.S. was abused, mother responded in the affirmative, but added that she could not really say if it happened. She then noted that there must be a reason why father was not convicted and she did not understand why the dependency case remained open after the criminal case was closed.
According to the report, A.S. was doing well in father J.S.’s home. Mother had not visited A.S. in more than four months. She had also failed to make contact by phone. A.S. said she was not interested in having visits or phone contact with mother because mother had not made any effort to contact her, even by phone.
I.H. was reportedly doing well in her foster home. She was verbal and told the social worker she had two mothers, a reference to mother and the foster mother. Mother was visiting with I.H. twice per week for at least two hours each visit. According to the foster mother, I.H. enjoys her visits with mother and wants to return to mother. The foster mother also reported some behavioral problems by I.H., which lasted for about two weeks after mother told I.H. that she will be coming home soon and that mother will have a party for her when this happens. The social worker addressed this matter with mother, telling her not to make any promises to I.H.
According to the report, mother told a social worker in April 2010 that her sexual abuse counseling would be ending because she had successfully met her therapeutic goals. However, when the social worker contacted the therapist at the YWCA the following day, the therapist stated that counseling was being terminated within the next two weeks because the therapist was transferring to another site and because of funding cuts. The therapist stated that mother had been compliant in her attendance and she recommended that mother continue in sexual abuse counseling. The therapist stated she had provided mother with referrals to other agencies.
Shortly after the social worker spoke with the therapist, the therapist sent the social worker a letter stating that mother had been attending weekly individual counseling sessions since September 2009 and those sessions would conclude in mid-April 2010. In counseling, mother addressed issues relating to the molestation of her daughter, as well as her own personal experiences with domestic violence. According to the letter, mother had “gained understanding of the effects of sexual abuse and has worked towards changing negative beliefs about herself and strengthening her self esteem. She has always been open to the counseling processes and has actively participated during sessions.... Although client has reached her desired goals through counseling, she will benefit from continued counseling to develop her insight into the issues that interfered with her fully protecting her children.”
When the social worker again spoke with mother, mother stated that she was unaware her therapist had recommended that she have additional sessions. She claimed she had not received any referrals. The social worker told mother she would refer her to the sexual abuse treatment (SAT) program. A couple days later, the social worker referred mother to the SAT program, but was advised the program was no longer available and would likely be terminated soon. The social worker then provided mother with referrals to four different agencies.
The Department concluded its report with a recommendation that the court terminate jurisdiction over A.S. with a family law order awarding father J.S. sole legal and physical custody over A.S. With respect to I.H., the Department recommended additional reunification services for mother.
The six-month review hearing began in June 2010. Father was in court and his counsel provided an address for him. Counsel for mother asked the court to permit her to have overnight visits with I.H. The court continued the matter to early August. In the meantime, it directed the Department to submit a proposed visitation plan for father, which would provide for monitored visits.
In mid-July, the Department advised the juvenile court that the social worker had visited A.S. in her father’s home. A.S. stated she did not want to have any visits with mother, but she had no objection to speaking to mother by phone. Two monitored phone conversations took place in June.
The Department also reported learning that mother had returned to the YWCA for sexual abuse counseling. However, the new therapist stated she would be leaving the agency in the near future and referrals were provided mother so she could continue counseling.
At the end of July 2010, mother obtained a restraining order against father, barring him from having contact with her, A.S. and I.H. A subsequent report reflects that mother stated she obtained the order because she had been directed by the juvenile court to do so.
In early August, the Department reported that mother was having unmonitored visits with I.H. and they were reportedly going well. Mother’s relatively new therapist at the YWCA confirmed that mother had returned to the YWCA to continue counseling services. In a progress report, the therapist stated she would be leaving the agency at the end of July and mother was in the process of contacting referrals the therapist had provided her. Mother stated she had contacted two agencies and was waiting for responses. The social worker also provided mother with a packet of referrals.
The six-month review hearing for I.H. continued in early August. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the Department to continue providing mother with reunification services. At the same hearing, the court terminated jurisdiction over A.S. Father J.S. and mother were awarded joint legal custody, but father J.S. was awarded physical and primary custody. Mother was permitted to have monitored visits with A.S. The court scheduled the 18-month review hearing for late November.
In anticipation of the 18-month review hearing, the Department reported in late November that mother had been seeing a new therapist since late July and was scheduled to complete therapy by the end of October. However, it appears this was for parenting and domestic violence awareness. The social worker told the therapist that mother needed counseling for sexual abuse and the therapist said mother would receive a referral to such a therapist. In early October, the therapist promised to fax a verification and progress letter to the social worker, but she had not done so. In late October, the social worker gave mother three referrals for sexual abuse counseling.
Mother was still not sure whether A.S. was abused. Father had begun having monitored visits with I.H., and I.H. seemed to be comfortable with him.
At the beginning of October, mother told the social worker that I.H. told her that the foster mother had put a rag in her mouth. The social worker told mother to call the child abuse hotline to report the matter and to call the social worker back with a referral number. Nearly three weeks later, the social worker contacted mother and learned that mother had not contacted the hotline. Mother told the social worker that the therapist had told her it was not her responsibility. Rather, it was the responsibility of the Department. The social worker proceeded to call the child abuse hotline.
The referral to the hotline was ultimately determined to be unfounded.
In late October, the social worker also learned that I.H. was having tantrums after an unmonitored visit with mother because mother had again told her she would be coming home soon. I.H. also told the foster mother that mother had retained a new attorney who will get her back home, noting that the prior attorney was not good because A.S. was not returned to mother. Because mother was again telling I.H. she would soon be home, the Department changed mother’s visits to monitored.
The Department recommended that the court terminate reunification services and schedule a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for I.H.
Mother appeared for the 18-month review hearing in late November with new, privately-retained, counsel. Counsel requested that the matter be set for a contest. The court continued the matter to January. With the consent of mother’s counsel, the court formally changed mother’s visits with I.H. to monitored.
In early January, the Department reported that mother had advised the social worker in mid-December that she had enrolled in therapy. The social worker spoke with the agency providing the therapy and requested a progress report.
On the January date when the contested 18-month hearing was set to resume, mother filed a section 388 petition for modification, seeking an order returning I.H. to her custody. Mother claimed she had complied with the case plan, had “benefitted greatly from her counseling and therapy” and, was willing and able to protect I.H.
Mother also provided documentation reflecting that, in September 2010, she petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to father. She stated she has come to realize father was capable of sexually abusing A.S.
Mother stated that she enrolled in individual therapy and completed the therapy course in late October. She provided a certificate showing she had completed a parenting skill classes and domestic violence awareness. A letter from the agency stated that mother had attended 14 group and individual sessions. According to the letter, mother stated “that she’s aware of the signs and negative impact domestic violence caused her family.”
Mother also stated that shortly before completing the therapy referenced in the previous paragraph, the Department social worker provided her with three referrals. She contacted one agency and was placed on a waiting list. She attended one therapy session at a second agency, though she offered no details concerning follow-up, if any. Mother began attending individual therapy sessions at the third agency in late November. The agency provided a letter stating mother had been consistent in her attendance and had completed five weekly sessions. Mother stated she elected to continue with this agency as she was told that they had sexual abuse classes.
The juvenile court set mother’s section 388 petition for a hearing in late February, and it continued the contested 18-month review hearing to the same date. It also directed the Department to file a response to mother’s section 388 petition.
In late February, the Department filed its response to mother’s petition. The Department advised that the agency mother selected because it offered sexual abuse classes did not, in fact, offer such classes. Although mother learned this fact three weeks ago, she has continued to go there for therapy. According to the Department, the agency at which mother attended parenting and domestic violence counseling was supposed to provide a referral to an agency that offered sexual abuse awareness never provided the referral.
On the day scheduled for the combined 18-month review and section 388 hearing, mother’s counsel submitted a letter from a counseling agency, stating that mother had begun individual counseling with a focus on sexual abuse awareness.
At the combined hearing, the court admitted a few exhibits and took judicial notice of its file. The only witness to testify was mother. She claimed she completed all the requirements of which she was informed by the social workers. She had recently registered in a sexual abuse awareness class. She attended one session. She did not know how many would be necessary to complete the program, but she intends to do all that is required. Mother confirmed she had filed for divorce from father and claimed she could protect I.H. if she were returned to her custody.
On cross-examination, mother claimed she did not go to sexual abuse classes sooner because the places to which she was referred by the social worker “were wrong.” The social worker would tell her when she was about to complete a program that it was not where she was supposed to be. She acknowledged that sexual abuse was discussed at these various places.
After mother testified, the court heard arguments. Counsel for the Department claimed mother had not complied with the case plan. She was specifically advised she needed to address sexual abuse awareness, yet she elected to continue receiving therapy in places where such counseling was not offered. Mother did not start to address the issue until last week. Counsel for the Department argued that mother still does not understand the issues that brought this matter to the court’s attention. She asked the court to terminate reunification services for mother and to schedule a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for I.H.
Counsel for I.H. joined “wholeheartedly, completely” in the arguments of counsel for the Department. She noted that the case has been going on for 21 months and it was time for I.H. to move on with her life.
Counsel for father stated she would join in the argument mother’s counsel was expected to make, namely, that I.H. should be returned to mother.
Mother’s counsel claimed counsel for the Department and I.H. were overly harsh in their interpretation of mother’s statements regarding whether she believed father had abused A.S. He also claimed mother had been given conflicting information. She was told to attend a sexual abuse awareness class and was given referrals to places she believed offered such classes. He claimed the Department never gave her a referral to a sexual abuse awareness class. Mother’s counsel never claimed mother did not receive reasonable reunification services, though he may have been suggesting such an argument when he concluded his argument by asking the court to “do the 24-month date.”
The court then offered some comments. It stated that mother went everywhere she was told to go by the Department. However, the court also had some credibility issues with mother. The court stated it was difficult for it to find that I.H. could be safely returned. It was concerned mother had not come to grips with the allegations. The court expressed its belief mother could reunify with I.H. if she received the right services, but it was also struggling with mother’s credibility, an issue it did not believe it could “get over.” The court noted there could be an argument that mother did not receive reasonable services. The court also expressed its displeasure that the Department social worker did not immediately call the hotline after mother claimed the foster mother had placed a rag in I.H.’s mouth. The court found it “appalling” that the Department would use the issue to “test” whether mother could protect I.H. by directing mother to make the call to the hotline.
The court elected to take the matter under submission and continued the matter to mid-March. However, due to the judicial officer’s illness, the matter was continued again to early April.
In early April, the court announced its decision to deny mother’s section 388 petition, to terminate reunification services for mother, and to set a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for I.H. The court found that mother “hasn’t really been complying with the case plan until very recently.” The court observed that it was not enough to attend programs; there is a need to make substantive progress. The court found that the Department had provided mother with reasonable reunification services.
Mother filed a writ petition challenging the juvenile court’s decision. Her sole contention is that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the Department provided her with reasonable reunification services. The Department filed an answer opposing the granting of relief.
DISCUSSION
1. The Standard of Review.
We review the juvenile court’s finding that mother received reasonable reunification services under the deferential substantial evidence test. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Under this test, 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.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supports The Juvenile Court’s Finding That The Department
Provided Mother With Reasonable Reunification Services.
“A social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parent’s problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598.) A reunification plan must be tailored to fit the circumstances of each family and designed to eliminate the conditions that led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding. (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.)
Before considering the merits of mother’s contention, we note that mother never complained about the reasonableness of the services she received during the nearly two years in which the case was pending. Although the court held a contested six-month review hearing between June and August 2010, mother did not complain about the adequacy of the services she received. Moreover, even during the contested 18-month review hearing, mother never claimed the services she received were unreasonable. She claimed only that she did what was asked of her. If mother felt during the reunification period that the Department was not providing adequate services, she “had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a better plan.” (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.) Mother cannot sit idly by and wait until the close of the reunification period to challenge the adequacy of services provided. Otherwise, a parent could “ ‘ “be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.” [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.; see also Los Angeles County Dept. of Children etc. Services v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1093 [“Neither may a parent wait silently by until the final reunification review hearing to seek an extended reunification period based on a perceived inadequacy in the reunification services occurring long before that hearing”].)
As noted above, mother’s counsel may have alluded to the issue at the end of his argument at the 18-month review hearing when he asked the court to “do the 24-month date.” We do not construe this to be a proper reasonableness of services argument.
The dissent excuses mother’s failure to complain about the reasonableness of services by noting that the Department did not claim mother was not in full compliance with the court’s order and did not recommend termination of services until November 2010. However, mother and her counsel were present in court in July 2009, and again in December 2009, when the court ordered her to attend sexual awareness classes. Thus, mother and her counsel knew what was required. If mother believed she was not receiving adequate services, she had an obligation to speak up and not wait until the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing. And as noted, the issue was not properly raised even at the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing.
Even when considered on the merits, mother’s contention that the services she received were unreasonable does not withstand analysis. Mother claims “the case plan and instructions provided her were not clear and unambiguous regarding her attendance in a Sexual Abuse Awareness program.” However, there is no question that mother was clearly and repeatedly advised by the court, as well as by the Department, that she needed to attend a sexual abuse awareness program. The court told mother about this requirement in open court at the detention hearing. The court repeated this requirement at the disposition hearing. In addition, the Department repeatedly advised mother of the sexual abuse awareness requirement and occasionally advised her that she was obtaining services from a provider who did not offer sexual abuse awareness classes.
While it is true there were some problems finding a provider who offered sexual abuse awareness programming, and a Department social worker occasionally made a referral to a place that turned out not to offer such programming, mother knew what was required of her and she received a host of services, including counseling that dealt with sexual abuse awareness issues. Thus, between September 2009 and April 2010, mother received therapy at the YWCA. The therapist sent the Department social worker a letter stating that mother had addressed issues relating to the molestation of her daughter, among other things. According to the letter, mother had “gained understanding of the effects of sexual abuse and has worked towards changing negative beliefs about herself and strengthening her self esteem.” Later that year, mother returned to the YWCA for sexual abuse counseling, though it was only for a short time because the therapist was leaving the agency.
While the Department could have been more proactive in ensuring that mother received more sexual abuse awareness counseling, the standard for assessing the adequacy of services “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.” (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547; see also Katie V. v. Superior Court, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 598 [“in most cases more services might have been provided and the services provided are often imperfect”].)
We also note that when the 18-month review hearing began in late February, mother’s counsel advised the juvenile court that mother had recently begun counseling sessions with a focus on sexual abuse awareness. The contested hearing did not conclude until April. If in the intervening six weeks mother had made meaningful progress in those sessions, she was free to bring that fact to the juvenile court’s attention before it rendered its decision. However, she made no attempt to do so.
In this case, mother knew what was required of her. The Department was not required to “take the parent by the hand and escort... her to and through classes or counseling sessions.” (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5; see also In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365 [“ ‘Reunification services are voluntary... and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them’ ”].)
When the reunification services mother received are considered in their entirety, we cannot say the juvenile court’s finding of reasonableness is not 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 8.490(b)(3).)
I concur: RUBIN, J.
FLIER, J., Dissenting.
Because I conclude the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to provide reasonable reunification services, I respectfully dissent.
1. Relevant Background
The petition was filed May 11, 2009. Allegations sustained against mother indicated that she failed to protect A.H. from serious sexual abuse and that I.H. was at risk of harm or danger because of mother’s failure to protect. DCFS regularly opposed mother’s requests to have I.H. returned to her custody based on mother’s denial of the abuse of A.H., a ground the trial court found persuasive. Even when mother appeared to acknowledge the abuse, DCFS reported that “mother does not fully understand the significance and the effect of such horrific abuse.” Therefore, mother’s ability to reunify with I.H. depended on her awareness of the abuse of A.H. and the steps necessary to protect I.H. from similar abuse.
To achieve that goal, on July 8, 2009, the court ordered “DCFS to immediately locate a sex abuse awareness class for the mother as the court is aware there is [a] waiting list.” (Italics added.) The court again recognized mother needed to attend a sex abuse awareness class and so ordered on December 10, 2009, as part of the case plan. The court explained: mother was still in denial “which quite honestly [is] understandable. I don’t fault the mother so much for that because... it is very, very hard to accept that someone that you share a life with, share a home with, share a child with, would engage in this activity. And as we go through the various stages of anger, denial, et cetera, we ultimately get to acceptance. But she’s not there yet. And it’s going to take her a while....”
Although the court ordered DCFS to locate a sexual abuse awareness program, it appears that DCFS located only sexual abuse programs. In July 2009, DCFS “attempted” to refer mother to a sexual abuse program, but the program was not accepting new clients. In August 2009, DCFS placed mother on a waiting list for sex abuse counseling at Richstone Family. In May 2010, DCFS referred mother to a sexual abuse treatment program, but later learned that the program was “no longer available and the only program that’s available at this time is a 6 week counseling program.” DCFS gave mother additional referrals including Richstone Family Center. In June 2010, DCFS informed mother’s therapist that mother “needs counseling for sexual abuse.” On October 22, 2010, DCFS gave mother three referrals to a program for sexual abuse counseling. As of November 16, 2010, mother was still on a wait-list at Richstone Family Center. Notwithstanding the numerous referrals DCFS provided, DCFS does not show that any of these referrals were for sex abuse awareness counseling as ordered by the trial court.
On February 21, 2011, mother began counseling with a focus on sexual abuse awareness at San Martin Counseling Center.
On February 23, 2011, the court found that if mother had completed her sexual abuse awareness class “she might have completed her program and come to grips [with the abuse] because the reports say that she was moving in the right direction.” The court found that circumstances “may be changing in the sense that she’s now accepted in the last few months the fact that her daughter was molested. She’s now gotten herself into counseling.” However, the juvenile court ultimately concluded that mother’s progress was not sufficient to return I.H. to mother’s custody.
2. Analysis
In determining the sufficiency of reunification services, we must decide “whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided or offered.” (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) The question is whether reasonable services under the circumstances were provided, not whether the best services possible were provided. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) A service plan must be tailored to the specific needs of the family. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
Here, DCFS never provided services to address the specific needs of mother, i.e. a sexual abuse awareness program. The court ordered DCFS to enroll mother in such a program, but DCFS referred her only to sex abuse counseling and placed her on a waiting list, from which she was never removed. Mother cannot be faulted for relying on the court order that DCFS find a sexual abuse awareness program and the representation that DCFS had placed her on a waiting list for an appropriate program. Mother also cannot be faulted for her delay in enrolling in a sexual abuse awareness program, when even DCFS apparently could not locate an appropriate program that accepted new clients.
The court found that if mother had completed her sexual abuse awareness class “she might have completed her program and come to grips [with the abuse] because the reports say that she was moving in the right direction.” DCFS should have timely provided the necessary program. Mother’s participation in numerous counseling programs and parenting classes demonstrated that an effort by DCFS to enroll her in a sexual abuse awareness program would not have been futile. Mother was not an unwilling or indifferent parent.
Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340 (Amanda H.) supports this conclusion. In that case, a mother’s reunification services were terminated after the mother failed to enroll in domestic violence counseling. In a petition for extraordinary relief, mother argued that the social worker “allowed her to spend almost a year in individual counseling which included but was not devoted exclusively to domestic violence issues without telling her or the juvenile court that that counseling did not satisfy the case plan.” (Id. at p. 1345.) The appellate court found that the mother was justified in believing she was attending the correct programs, and DCFS could not show that it had provided mother with reasonable reunification services. (Id. at p. 1347.)
As in Amanda H., here mother was justified in believing she was attending the correct programs. Indeed, the juvenile court found that “mother went everywhere that the department told her to go.” Within three months of DCFS’s report that mother failed to attend a sexual abuse awareness program, mother enrolled in such a program. Under such circumstances, DCFS failed to show that it provided mother reasonable reunification services. (See Amanda H., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347.) I would therefore grant mother’s petition.
During the reunification period, mother attended individual counseling, parenting classes, classes on sex abuse, as well as classes focused on domestic violence. In June 2010, DCFS reported that mother “has complied with the parenting class order and sexual abuse counseling” though mother did not inform the social worker of her therapist’s recommendation that mother continue with therapy. In August 2010, DCFS reported that mother contacted agencies recommended by DCFS in order to continue counseling. DCFS did not mention any deficiency in mother’s efforts to attend programs consistent with the case plan. It was not until November 2010, that DCFS reported mother was “not in full compliance with the Court orders...” and recommended terminating her reunification services. In February 2011, mother enrolled in sexual abuse awareness program.
In addition, when mother began attending therapy sessions at a new agency in November 2010, she was specifically told that the agency did not offer sexual abuse classes. However, she elected to receive therapy with that agency.
Mother did not forfeit the challenge to the reasonableness of the reunification services by failing to raise it earlier. It was not until November 2010 that DCFS reported mother was not in compliance with the case plan and mother raised the issue at the next hearing. (See In re Amanda H., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347, fn. 5; see also Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157-1158.)