Opinion
G032791.
10-24-2003
Law Offices of Charles E. Bergstrom and Lawrence A. Aufill for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Ward Brady, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency. Harold LaFlamme and Craig E. Arthur for the Minor.
* * *
In this writ proceeding, Stacy O. challenges the juvenile courts decision to set a permanent placement hearing for her one-year-old son Frank. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B.) She contends the hearing must be set aside because she was not provided reasonable reunification services. We disagree and deny the petition.
* * *
Stacy is a long-time drug addict. Over the years, her drug use has landed her in jail and cost her custody of three of her children. Although Stacy started out using illegal drugs, her addiction in recent years has centered on the use of prescription medications, particularly methadone. Frank tested positive for this drug when he was born and has shown signs of being developmentally delayed.
These three children are Franks half-siblings. They reside with Stacys grandmother, who is their legal guardian.
In September 2002, Stacy was arrested for reasons undisclosed in the record. Upon being taken into custody, she left Frank with her parents. A few days later her mother overdosed on pills and booze and authorities detained Frank because he was being neglected. A dependency petition was subsequently filed alleging failure to protect.
Nothing ever came of Stacys arrest. At the jurisdictional hearing, she pleaded no contest and was granted extensive reunification services. The case plan called for her to undergo drug testing, attend counseling and complete an outpatient substance abuse program. The main objective of the plan was to enable her to "live free from drug dependency." To this end, Stacys social worker was to provide her with referrals to appropriate resources. Frank, meanwhile, was placed in foster care.
Stacy struggled mightily with her plan. She was referred to a variety of drug treatment programs in Orange County, but most of them were only available to nonusers or people on low doses of methadone. Stacy tried to wean herself off methadone, or at least reduce her daily dosage, but she was unable to do so. At the start of the year, she married Franks father and moved to Riverside County to live with him. Although she attended some substance abuse meetings there, her attendance was sporadic. And because her methadone use continued unabated, she had trouble getting into a treatment program. This led to depression and anxiety, which only served to fuel her drug use and further destabilize her life.
Stacys life was so out of control that by April — only five months into the case plan — her social worker recommended that reunification services be terminated. Even though Stacy appeared highly motivated to regain custody of Frank, the social worker found she was having difficulty making decisions which would assist her in completing the case plan. The primary obstacle to Stacys recovery was her appetite for methadone. The social worker reported Stacy "has encountered a great deal of difficulty in obtaining court[-]ordered services due to her use of methadone." He did not believe Stacy had demonstrated the ability to overcome her addiction, which, by that time, had spanned many years. Despite this gloomy assessment, Stacy got a break at the six-month review hearing. Because Franks father decided to make his first appearance in the case at that time, the court continued Stacys services and set the matter for further review.
The reprieve did Stacy little good. In June, she tried to quit methadone "cold turkey," but she soon resumed her habit. During this period, she was driving on a suspended license and going around to different doctors to get whatever kind of prescription drugs she could get her hands on. Stacy told the doctors she needed methadone to alleviate the pain associated with an old motorcycle accident. However, she confided to her social worker she was really using methadone to mask her emotional and psychological ills. In hindsight, one of her doctors admitted it was a mistake to prescribe Stacy methadone because her life was "in chaos all the time" and she was incapable of caring for anyone, even herself. The doctor felt manipulated by Stacy but rationalized that if she hadnt prescribed her methadone, someone else would have.
At one point, Stacy checked herself into a Riverside mental hospital, but stayed there only a couple of days because she didnt like it. Stacy also enrolled in an outpatient clinic in Riverside. Although she was still on methadone and did not have insurance, her counselor at the clinic, Nathaniel Tollefson, was amenable to working with her. He even gave her substantial leeway in terms of attendance in order to accommodate her work schedule and transportation needs. Despite this, Stacy was eventually discharged from the clinic for having seven times the number of allowable absences.
According to Tollefson, Stacy tended to minimize her need for treatment and failed to take responsibility for her actions. Consequently, she made little progress toward positive change during the four months she was enrolled in the clinic. Tollefson felt Stacy would be best served in a residential treatment facility. However, he also believed she would have to be very motivated to overcome her addiction, and unless she was amenable to treatment, her prospects for recovery were dim. Tollefson had doubts about Stacys motivation in this regard, not only because she flunked out of his clinic, but also because she failed to follow up on many of the referrals he gave her.
In his report of August 7, Stacys social worker acknowledged Stacy had encountered many "institutionalized road blocks" on her path to recovery. However, he was also quick to point out that this was primarily because she failed to control her drug use. The social worker also noted that this wasnt Stacys first go at rehabilitation. Including the period when her other children in the dependency system, she had proven resistant to over 12 years worth of treatment. Finding her prognosis for recovery to be poor, the social worker recommended that her reunification services be terminated.
On August 26, the court held a hearing on the matter. During her testimony, Stacy admitted she had made little progress on her case plan. However, she said this was not her fault. She insisted, "I had no help. I was never offered any kind of help, through Orange County or anywhere else. . . . I did the very best I could with what I had, which was zero." She said she was rejected by several outpatient programs because of her continuing methadone use, and the one residential treatment program she applied for rejected her because she did not have insurance.
Stacy also testified that she had made some recent changes in her life. Having just learned she was pregnant, she had separated from Franks father, moved back to Orange County and stopped using methadone. At the time of the hearing she had only been off the drug for 10 days, yet she was optimistic about the prospect of quitting for good. She said her pregnancy was a "reality check" and she did not want her baby to be born addicted to drugs or placed in the dependency system. Asked why, after so many failed efforts, she believed she could kick her habit this time around, she said, "I dont know why. I dont have a reason for it, except that its working for me every day . . . ."
Stacys social worker testified he devoted a substantial amount of time to helping Stacy with her case plan. In fact, he made Stacy a top priority because she seemed genuinely interested in regaining custody of her son. Toward the beginning of the case, he made sure she was on the list to get into a residential treatment program in Orange County. He told Stacy shed only have to wait a few weeks for an opening, but that opportunity vanished when she moved to Riverside County. Despite this, the social worker continued to offer Stacy services. Knowing she did not have insurance, he gave her the requisite information to apply for state aid. However, she failed to complete the application process. In the end, the social worker believed the biggest hurdle to Stacys recovery was not fiscal woe but the fact she elected to stay on methadone. He saw her as being resistant to treatment and having failed to take advantage of the many services she was afforded.
The trial court agreed. Preliminarily, it noted Stacy has been an addict for over a decade, she has had four children in the dependency system, and this was the third time she had been offered social services. The court felt "that probably the only kind of program that will, at some point in the future, hopefully, succeed for [Stacy] is a residential treatment program. But she first has to really, really be motivated first, to get to the point where a residential program will accept her, then to stay in it once she gets there. They dont lock the doors. People can walk away. And she has walked away, sometimes gutter stepping, but she has walked away from every program which has been offered to her, one way or another. Probably not intentionally. But the one characteristic of addicts . . . is a refusal to accept responsibility."
Speaking directly to Stacy, the court then said, "Im sorry . . . but youre not there yet. Youre not accepting the responsibility for who you are and what you are, where your children are and why they are where they are. Some day, hopefully, you will. But youre not there yet." With that, the court terminated Stacys reunification services and scheduled a permanency hearing for December 15th. In so doing, the court determined "that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents."
* * *
Stacy contends the court erred in finding she had been provided reasonable reunification services. We disagree.
Franks father does not dispute the courts ruling. He has stated his intention to relinquish his parental rights over Frank.
"[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile courts finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) In making this determination, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge in all reasonable inferences to uphold the courts ruling. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
Stacy argues she was not provided reasonable services because the drug treatment programs her social worker recommended were not only too expensive, but also too rigid in that they required her to reduce her methadone use as a prerequisite to admission. Stacy claims this was not feasible because she suffered serious withdrawal symptoms when she reduced her dosage below a certain level. In her view, it was her social workers responsibility to ensure she was enrolled in a residential treatment program, and his failure to do so necessitates reversal of the trial courts order.
We do not share this view. Although Stacy has limited financial resources, her social worker provided her with the necessary information to obtain state aid, which she failed to do. She also failed to make a good-faith effort to control her methadone use. She claims she was not given adequate assistance in this regard, but she received several months worth of treatment at the clinic in Riverside County. During this period, her drug counselor did everything he could to reduce Stacys usage so she could get into a residential program. Nonetheless, Stacy still could not get her act together. She refused to accept responsibility for her situation, she failed to change her behavior and, eventually, she was discharged for missing an inordinate amount of sessions. This suggests a lack of motivation and effort, not a lack of opportunity.
The record amply supports the trial courts conclusion that help was there for Stacy if she really wanted it. However, as the judge rightly observed, she failed to take the necessary steps to get onto the path to recovery. That is not the fault of the social worker or the county, but of Stacy alone. Because she failed to avail herself of the many services she was afforded, the court properly terminated her services and scheduled a permanent placement hearing.
The petition for a writ of mandate is denied.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J., and FYBEL, J.