Opinion
F062936 Super. Ct. No. 515346
02-15-2012
In re KAYLEE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN W., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
John W. (father) appeals from orders entered after an 18-month review hearing continuing placement of his daughter, Kaylee W., out of his care under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21. He contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he was provided reasonable reunification services, and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to order that all visits occur at father's home and to allow extended family to be present during visits. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dependency proceedings were initiated over five-year-old Kaylee in October 2008 after the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (Agency) received referrals from her school that she engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior, including asking a male student to put his hands down her underpants and touching her private area during class, and she disclosed that her mother's boyfriend, Ryan, had kissed her private parts and had intercourse with her. The court took dependency jurisdiction over Kaylee in January 2009, after finding she came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage) because, among other things, she exhibited severe sexual acting out, yet neither parent had taken her to counseling until court intervention, Kaylee accused both father and Ryan of sexually abusing her, and although the Agency determined the accusations were unfounded, Kaylee continued to act out sexually. The court removed Kaylee from mother's custody and placed her with father, ordering reunification services for mother and family maintenance services for father, which included completing a counseling program focused on the issue of sexual molestation. Kaylee was to complete a similar counseling program and participate in an emotional and developmental assessment through the Children's System of Care (CSC).
The Section 387 Petition
In June 2009, the Agency filed a section 387 petition seeking to remove Kaylee from father's custody after Kaylee's CSC therapist, Shanette Williams, reported Kaylee was the most sexualized child with whom she had ever worked, the clinical coordinator of the counseling program reported Kaylee was the most sexualized child in the group, and her behavior at school had deteriorated. Despite being informed that Kaylee's sexualized behavior was increasing at school and Williams thought Kaylee should begin sexual abuse counseling, father delayed in enrolling himself and Kaylee in counseling; he also denied Kaylee engaged in sexualized behavior in his home.
The Agency did not believe Kaylee's mental health needs would improve if she remained in father's care, as father had demonstrated a limited capacity to meet her very serious mental health needs and was ineffective in supporting her rehabilitation. The social worker believed Kaylee needed a parent who could be active and assertive in her mental health treatment, and father had not shown an ability to do that, instead demonstrating limited insight and extreme passivity. While he had consistently been presented with information about Kaylee's sexualized behavior, he only recently had made an effort to utilize resources to address the problem. The social worker questioned father's report that Kaylee did not exhibit sexual behaviors at home, since she exhibited such behavior in every other setting and, during one home visit, a social worker saw Kaylee engage in sexual behavior that father ignored and denied happened.
Kaylee was taken into protective custody during the contested hearing on the petition after testimony revealed she told both her CASA representative and day camp counselor that father was sexually abusing her. The Agency filed an amended section 387 petition which added Kaylee's allegations. The hearing on the amended petition concluded in October 2009. The juvenile court sustained the amended petition after finding its allegations true, removed Kaylee from the custody of both parents, and ordered reunification services for both mother and father. Father was given supervised visitation and ordered to complete a counseling program focused on the issue of sexual molestation, undergo a psychological evaluation, and participate in individual counseling to address issues related to personal accountability, insight and empathy regarding Kaylee's behavioral challenges and unique needs.
Six-Month Review Hearing
A contested six-month review hearing was held over four days, beginning on May 24, 2010 and concluding on July 19, 2010. The clinical psychologist who administered father's psychological evaluation found no evidence of any serious mental disorder or maladaptive characteristics or traits, although he did find father to be rigidly defensive, which he thought could lead to father's failure to be alert to troublesome information. Father completed a parenting education program in March 2010.
Licensed psychologist Cheryl K. Carmichael, Ph.D., completed a psychological evaluation of Kaylee in April 2010, which was focused on determining not whether abuse occurred, but whether Kaylee's symptoms were consistent with a mental disorder. In Dr. Carmichael's opinion, Kaylee suffers from a psychotic disorder of childhood, which is manifested by her preoccupation and obsession with sexual behaviors. Dr. Carmichael believed it was possible Kaylee's symptoms arose without any molestation having occurred, and while repeated sexual abuse could not have caused Kaylee's problem, it could have exacerbated it.
Dr. Carmichael recommended, among other things, that Kaylee be referred to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation, any outpatient treatment include the assumption she has a thought disorder that interferes with thoughtful behavior, and reunification with her parents be predicated on reduction or resolution of her thought disorder. Dr. Carmichael believed Kaylee could stay in a high level of foster care with a possible decrease in intensive counseling if medication impacted Kaylee's fixation and preoccupation, but it would be dangerous for either parent to take Kaylee into their home, as she inevitably would make another claim of molestation and would be a convenient victim of a molester. According to Dr. Carmichael, moving back into a parent's home would be the final step in a series of behavioral steps, including measured improvement in flexible and logical thinking, and trial visits could begin when the thought disorder diminished.
Dr. Carmichael opined Kaylee needed the high level of care available in a therapeutic home, which Kaylee's parents were not capable of providing as Kaylee was too disturbed and the parents uneducated to her multiple needs. Dr. Carmichael was concerned about returning Kaylee to father's home since he was a target of her molestation claims and her allegations regarding father were more graphic than her allegations concerning Ryan. Moreover, it was possible Kaylee believed the events she related regarding molestation actually happened, including molestation by father, which would make it more difficult to achieve stability through reuniting with him, since he is a huge part of her delusional system.
Kaylee had been in three foster homes since being removed from father. The third home was an intensive therapeutic foster care placement (ITFC), in which the foster parent has completed specialized training through the foster family agency. Although social worker Nancy Griggs had seen Dr. Carmichael's report and recommendations for further services, and intended to ask the court to order services consistent with her recommendations, she had not made additional service referrals for father. She had supervised father's visits with Kaylee, and they were very appropriate.
At the conclusion of the review hearing, the court decided not to return Kaylee to father's custody, finding that (1) Dr. Carmichael had opined it would be very dangerous for Kaylee to be returned to either parent's home, (2) Kaylee could not be returned home until her thought disorder was thoroughly addressed and evaluated, (3) it would be unsafe to return Kaylee to father, as the court did not know if he had "done something inappropriate" to Kaylee, who was vulnerable to being molested yet not being believed, and (4) while father had complied with his case plan, he was not capable of providing the care Kaylee needed due to her unusual issues and illogical thought processes.
The court ordered a physiological assessment of Kaylee to rule out any physical or genetic abnormality. The court terminated mother's services, but continued services for father, ordering that his case plan include (1) a support group to help him deal with Kaylee's needs, (2) the right to notice of all assessments and presence when results are given, with both parents to provide the practitioners with a complete medical and emotional history, (3) twice-monthly visits of two hours each, which could be increased at the Agency's discretion and (4) referral to a therapist to help him gain understanding about Dr. Carmichael's diagnosis. Any referrals for training for father would be determined based upon the physiological assessment.
Father appealed from the order at the six-month review hearing continuing Kaylee's out-of-home placement. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings that Kaylee would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to his care and that he was provided reasonable reunification services. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the placement order but reversed the reasonable services finding, concluding the evidence was insufficient to show that the services the Agency provided after it became aware of Dr. Carmichael's diagnosis of a thought disorder were tailored to meet the family's needs or the Agency did all it reasonably could to provide appropriate services. (In re Kaylee W. (Mar. 21, 2011, F060771).)
The 12-Month Review Hearing
The 12-month review hearing began in October 2010 and concluded on November 19, 2010. Kaylee was doing very well in her foster home; she had an excellent relationship with her foster mother, with clear boundaries and expectations. Kaylee had been found eligible for special education services under the primary disability of emotionally disturbed (ED). At the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team's recommendation, Kaylee was placed in a local non-public elementary school whose program provided opportunities to learn, practice and strengthen functional and acceptable behaviors through a therapeutic milieu. Since Kaylee began attending the school on August 23, 2010, she had displayed difficulty following directions, staying on task, and appropriately interacting with peers; her attitude was often rude and defiant, and she had difficulty maintaining appropriate personal boundaries. Nevertheless, she had been responding positively to the school's highly structured and therapeutic milieu. While Kaylee's behaviors and mental health needs had not changed substantially since the last court report, Kaylee's CASA worker, Steve Ashman, believed the increased services were having a positive effect on Kaylee's behaviors in an academic setting.
The Agency recommended that father receive an additional six months of reunification services. Kaylee was receiving weekly counseling with Williams and being seen by a CSC psychiatrist. With respect to father's services, father was working with Judy Schardijn on an individualized counseling program designed to address Kaylee's mental health needs, but as of September 15, 2010 he had attended only one session and failed to show-up for a second session. According to Schardijn, at the session he attended, father presented as frustrated with Kaylee's diagnosis and the fact she was not living with him. Father was to participate in a parenting program for parents of mentally ill children, but he said he was unable to attend the class due to his work schedule and the class was canceled due to a lack of staffing. The social worker directed father to an alternative class being offered by the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill (NAMI) entitled "Family to Family," but when father contacted NAMI, the class was full. The next class would not be held until January 2011. Both parents continued to visit Kaylee regularly. Kaylee did well during visits and was excited to have them.
Kaylee continued to make sexual allegations against father. At the end of July 2010, she told her camp counselor about her allegations of sexual abuse against father, and during an August 23, 2010 visit with mother, she asked if mother was mad at father because he touched her. On July 26, 2010, Kaylee alleged sexual abuse against a foster grandfather while in placement, but after several interviews by Agency personnel the allegation was not substantiated. On September 20, 2010, the foster parent told the social worker Kaylee said she had made up the story because she was mad at him. The social worker opined it would be detrimental to return Kaylee to father's home due to her continued allegations against him as well as her continued emotional instability. The social worker noted the question was whether father was capable or ready to manage Kaylee's complex needs in his home and whether he could protect her when she continues to state he engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with her. The social worker recommended father receive six more months of services, however, because he said he wanted to reunify with Kaylee and was willing to do whatever was necessary to that end.
Kaylee had been assessed by Dr. Brian Goldman at the Amen Clinic. The court was provided with both oral and written reports regarding the results of the assessment. As reported by Ashman, Dr. Goldman told him, mother and a social worker during a meeting that: (1) Kaylee had the worst case of bipolar condition in a child that he had seen; (2) her hypersexuality was directly related to a combination of her bipolar and reactive attachment disorder (RAD); and (3) while a child with RAD is totally unable to bond with anyone, in Kaylee's case she bonded too soon and inappropriately. Dr. Goldman thought the top priorities were to assess the cause and determine how to mitigate Kaylee's behaviors. With respect to Kaylee's PTSD diagnosis, Dr. Goldman opined that if Kaylee had been exposed to sexual behaviors, she was re-enacting the drama of those events and putting herself in a position of the perpetrator rather than the victim, which creates a very dangerous situation for both her and others. Ashman personally was concerned with Kaylee's well-being in the custody of either parent; he was distressed about father's lack of involvement, as he had not attended the IEP meeting or participated in the assessment at the Amen Clinic.
In Dr. Goldman's written report, it was stated that Kaylee, mother and Jayne Hardy LMFT were present when information concerning Kaylee's history was taken. Hardy reported that Kaylee's foster parents had discovered that Kaylee was going into her closet and urinating after masturbating. When Hardy first met Kaylee, Kaylee wanted to show her how she masturbated and would undress in front of her. Hardy also reported that Kaylee acted out sexually when she returned from visits with father. It was also reported that Kaylee exhibited bizarre or odd thoughts, and engaged in odd behaviors, such as conversing with an imaginary friend, that seemed more than normal childhood imagination. Kaylee had encopresis and enuresis, although both were occurring less frequently.
Dr. Goldman determined Kaylee's medical diagnoses included PTSD, bipolar disorder, RAD, mild head trauma, and sleep disorders. Psychiatric diagnoses on Axis I were attention deficit disorder, PTSD, bipolar disorder, mixed, without psychotic features, and RAD. On Axis II he found clinical indications of some borderline personality disorder/traits. Dr. Goldman opined there is hope for Kaylee to improve significantly with a combination of medication, diet, and exercise to properly optimize brain function. He made specific medication recommendations and set out a schedule for adjusting medications. He also recommended Kaylee continue with her current team of counselors and therapists.
At the November 19 review hearing, the Agency's attorney informed the court that Dr. Goldman did not believe visitation with extended family would be in Kaylee's best interests, as she was already so emotionally overloaded that visits with extended family would be too emotionally intense. Ashman said Dr. Goldman was concerned that Kaylee was not in a position at that time to visit extended family, especially since she had not started her new medication regimen, and he thought such visits would be regressive, not beneficial. While Dr. Goldman initially thought Kaylee required a very restrictive placement, that opinion was based on the belief Kaylee was already taking some of the medications he wanted to prescribe. When he learned she was not, he thought it best to see how the medication affected Kaylee and her behavior before putting her in a more restrictive placement or allowing visits with extended family.
The court denied the section 388 petition, finding there was no evidence that granting the petition was in Kaylee's best interest. With respect to father's 12-month review hearing, the court amended father's case plan, which gave father visits of four hours per month supervised by a social worker, and gave the social worker discretion to progress to monitored visits and Agency-supervised in-community visits. The court continued Kaylee's out-of-home placement and found father had been provided reasonable reunification services. The court approved the updated case plan as amended, which for father consisted of the amended visitation plan, individual counseling to address issues related to personal accountability, insight and empathy regarding Kaylee's behavioral challenges and unique mental health needs, and completion of a parenting support program, approved by the social worker, which applies to Kaylee's unique mental health needs. The court set the 18-month review hearing for April 6, 2011.
Father appealed from the order at the 12-month review hearing continuing Kaylee's out-of-home placement. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings that Kaylee would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to his care and that he was provided reasonable reunification services. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed both the placement order and the reasonable services finding. (In re Kaylee W. (Jul. 27, 2011, F061627).)
The 18-Month Review Hearing
In a report prepared for the 18-month review hearing, filed on March 11, 2011, Griggs requested the court terminate father's family reunification services and establish a permanent plan of long-term foster care, with a specific goal of guardianship, with Kaylee's current foster mother with whom she had been placed since July 26, 2010.
Williams, Kaylee's therapist, reported that Kaylee had been receiving continuous therapy sessions at school, home and in Williams' office. Kaylee's functioning was the most stable Williams had ever seen. Many of Kaylee's symptoms had decreased, which Williams believed was due to Kaylee's developmental growth, specialized school environment, structured and consistent home environment, and the support and mental health services she was receiving. Treatment goals for Kaylee included maintaining her current stability, reducing impulsivity and anxiety, building attachment skills, and helping her to develop appropriate boundaries and healthy relationships. Kaylee was having success in school, was emotionally able to identify and verbalize her feelings, was more accepting of her role as an eight-year-old child, her level of insight had increased, and she no longer appeared to be preoccupied with sexualized behaviors and her sexualized themes of play had diminished. As reported by Kaylee and her foster mother, Kaylee appeared to be developing healthy relationships with her foster family and was having much success in the home environment. Kaylee, however, continued to struggle with behaviors that affect her daily functioning. Accordingly, Williams recommended ongoing mental health treatment to maintain stability and address ongoing symptomology.
Griggs noted Kaylee appeared to benefit from the high level of structure she received in her foster home and school, although she continued to engage in defiant and inappropriate behavior. On February 11, while on a school bus, Kaylee exposed herself to other children on the bus, talked about sex and physically attacked another girl because Kaylee believed a boy was her sole boyfriend. Kaylee's foster mother reported that Kaylee was often defiant and unable to follow directions.
According to Jennifer O'Geen, a clinician from Kaylee's school, Kaylee was responding positively to the structure of the school's daily therapeutic milieu. She had been receiving day treatment services, including individual and group therapy, and O'Geen provided collateral support to Kaylee's foster mother as needed. Kaylee required that level of school placement and needed the support of therapy in order to work towards her goals of decreasing the frequency and severity of emotional and inappropriate acting out behaviors, and increasing her ability to engage in cooperative and responsible behavior. As a result of the school placement and therapy services, Kaylee's acting out behaviors towards peers had been reduced. Staff closely monitored Kaylee during recess and other unstructured times, as well as during class, and O'Geen continued to work with her on using appropriate social skills and engaging in age-appropriate play. Kaylee had responded well to the limits and rules regarding appropriate interactions with peers, and appeared to enjoy coming to school.
Kaylee was receiving approximately 60 to 75 hours per month of in-home services through the ITFC team. Support counselors worked with the foster mother on Kaylee's behaviors, including maintaining appropriate boundaries, age appropriate behavior, anger management, decreasing defiant and sexually acting out behaviors, and positive peer interactions. According to the ITFC social worker, Kaylee responded to interventions, but she continued to need a high level of care and services given the severity of her behaviors. Kaylee was having difficulty sleeping, which caused negative behaviors in the home. Kaylee told Griggs she had nightmares about vampires and her father which frighten her. Dr. Gonzales, a CSC psychiatrist who was treating Kaylee, was requesting additional medication for Kaylee to address this issue.
Father consistently attended his weekly supervised visits with Kaylee, which took place both in an office setting and the community. The visits were positive. Maryann Cose, a clinician who observed three of father's visits, reported that at each visit, Kaylee was excited to see father, father engaged appropriately with Kaylee, and she appeared comfortable. Father responded appropriately when Kaylee mentioned wanting a boyfriend or to be a teenager. Cose was not concerned about their interaction or comments made during visits. Father told Griggs he appreciated the supervision due to his need to be protected from Kaylee's stories; he did not want to be left alone with Kaylee because of the risks involved. Kaylee appeared to be excited for the visits and told Griggs she liked them.
Dr. Gonzales told Griggs in his opinion Kaylee's main diagnosis is trauma, especially in light of her acting out sexually. He recommended limited visitation with extended family, as visitation was a potential trigger that could be a destabilizing force for Kaylee. Griggs noted his opinion was consistent with Dr. Goldman's opinion that Kaylee was too emotionally overloaded and it would be too emotionally intense for her to have visits with extended family.
Griggs was concerned with how thoroughly father understood the complexity of Kaylee's needs. He had been attending a weekly class with NAMI entitled "NAMI Family to Family Education Course," which focused on mental health issues, information about medications, communication skills, empathy and coping skills for caregivers, which he was scheduled to complete on April 26, 2011. Father told Griggs on March 7 that he felt as though he had accepted Kaylee's diagnoses and illnesses. He met with Dr. Gonzales that day to ask about the medication recommendation for Kaylee.
Griggs was concerned, however, due to father's lack of engagement in meetings with the Amen Clinic, including failing to fill out paperwork about the family history and attending any of the three meetings at the clinic, and his failure to meet with Dr. Gonzales earlier. While Griggs had advised father of appointments Kaylee had with Dr. Gonzales on November 15, 2010 and January 3, 2011, father failed to show up for them. Moreover, while father had attended two counseling sessions with Schardijn on December 20, 2010 and January 24, 2011, he failed to show up for another appointment on February 22, 2011. According to Schardijn, father only contacted her once between September and December 2010. Father told Griggs he was not able to meet with Schardijn during that time due to Schardijn's "booked schedule," his meetings with Kaylee, and his work and schooling. He also told Griggs that he did not think Schardijn was a specialist in the diagnosis of Kaylee and he did not feel the sessions were productive, stating he was given a chance to vent which was "no more than sitting with a friend out fishing."
Schardijn reported that during the sessions, father presented as confused and frustrated with Kaylee's diagnoses, he disagreed with some of the information in the reports, and he wanted another psychological evaluation. He was also frustrated that Kaylee did not live with him. Father presented Schardijn with a plan for Kaylee's care if she were returned to his custody, which included always having another adult present with Kaylee in the home, installing a video surveillance system in the home, and continuing Kaylee's education at her current school, as well as her counseling and tutoring services. According to Schardijn, father's attendance in counseling services was limited due to his work schedule and college classes.
Griggs was concerned with father's lack of engagement in counseling, as well as his missing many important appointments regarding Kaylee's mental health, noting that prioritizing Kaylee's mental health needs was critical with such a high need child. While Griggs was available to father as a resource for information, father rarely utilized her to discuss Kaylee's case.
After filing its status review report, the Agency received this court's opinion in father's appeal from the six-month review order, in which we reversed the juvenile court's reasonable services finding. (In re Kaylee W. (Mar. 21, 2011, F060771).) In light of that decision, on March 28, 2011 the Agency filed an addendum report changing its recommendation from termination of reunification services to offering father an additional four months of services. Attached to the report was a new case plan which proposed adding the following services: (1) meet with Kaylee and her Sierra Vista support counselor in the community once per week to work on building Kaylee's positive peer interactions and social skills; (2) meet with Kaylee's school counselor and Kaylee once per week to become more familiar with current mental health needs; and (3) meet with Williams either in person or over the phone once monthly to discuss Kaylee's progress and treatment goals. It also recommended supervised visits of four hours per month, with discretion given to the social worker to progress to monitored visits.
The parties agreed to continue the review hearing to April 20 so the Agency could explore what services could be provided to father in light of the Court of Appeal decision. On April 12, Griggs sent an e-mail to the parties and the court which listed two additional service recommendations. When asked for comments about the e-mail at the April 20 hearing, father's attorney stated she thought the recommended services were appropriate, father confirmed to her he would participate in them, and the two services could be set up then. The only additional question the attorney had was whether it was still possible for father to speak to a medical professional such as Dr. Carmichael about Kaylee's diagnoses, but she agreed to discuss it at the next hearing since father was attending appointments with Dr. Gonzales. No one objected to putting the services in place immediately, which the court ordered. A contested review hearing was set to begin on May 3.
While the court stated that the e-mail which listed the two additional services would be attached to the minute order, the e-mail is not in the appellate record. It is apparent from later court proceedings that the two services listed in the e-mail were Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) and ITFC services.
--------
Before the review hearing, the Agency filed an April 21 update from Schardijn. According to Schardijn, father wanted to clarify that while he did not disagree with Kaylee's diagnoses, he did disagree with a statement in Dr. Carmichael's report that Kaylee was unable to recall people she had met before. Father had attended 11 of 12 NAMI meetings, as well as six individual sessions with Schardijn. Father believed, and Schardijn agreed, that he would benefit more from meeting with a psychiatrist who specializes in children's mental health issues since Kaylee has multiple diagnoses. Father was investigating the possibility of meeting with "Dr. Sadu," to whom the NAMI staff had referred him.
At the May 3 hearing, Kaylee's foster mother, Glenda O., testified that when Kaylee first came to her home in July 2010, she was sexually aggressive and explicit, and would expose and touch herself. She also had "serious dad issues," which Glenda described as constantly wanting to talk about things he had done to her and the allegations she had made against him. Kaylee had nightmares, she would wet the bed, and had difficulty sleeping. Kaylee also lied and was hostile. Since then, Kaylee's behaviors had improved. Her lying was almost extinguished, she no longer wet the bed, she slept through the night, the nightmares were in check and she no longer self-soothed by touching herself. About two months before the hearing, Dr. Gonzales placed Kaylee on medication to help her sleep. Kaylee was sleeping through the night, no longer had nightmares or wandered the house, and was not bedwetting. A support counselor from Sierra Vista, Tammy Cox, picked Kaylee up from school three days a week, spending five hours with Kaylee on each of those days.
Kaylee continued to tell Glenda that father had abused her. That morning, when Glenda and Kaylee were discussing the court hearing, Kaylee told Glenda that in the past, father had touched her in her private areas when she was in her bed at night, and she had seen father naked. Kaylee said she knew what sex was and that she learned about it from watching television with father. According to Glenda, father's abuse had been a "central theme" with Kaylee from the beginning about which Glenda continued to hear. Glenda said that when Kaylee returned from visits with father she went into "rages," which Glenda described as being a tyrant and mad at everything and everybody. This behavior had decreased after Kaylee's support counselor began to keep Kaylee out for awhile before bringing her home after visits.
On the second day of the hearing, May 4, Williams testified it was her understanding that the goal for Kaylee was to return her to father's care. In Williams' opinion, transitioning to father's home should be done slowly by working into longer visits. Kaylee updated Williams about her visits with father; she spoke in "mostly general" terms, such as that she had good visits and enjoyed them. Williams did not feel comfortable recommending that Kaylee be returned to father right then; she thought Kaylee needed to stay in the most stable environment possible.
Williams had spoken with a social worker about providing TBS to father as an additional service, which was one of the services the social worker had mentioned in the e-mail to father's counsel. Williams explained that in TBS, "they" work primarily with the caregiver in the home on behavioral medication and teaching the parent how to redirect the child when dealing with specific behaviors. A referral needed to be made for father to receive TBS. Father, however, had not been referred for TBS because TBS would not go into the home until Kaylee was actually present there. Williams could not think of any other service that could be implemented if Kaylee were to have only day or overnight visits at his home. While Williams' primary role was to work with Kaylee, she was willing to talk with father regarding Kaylee's progress, symptoms, behaviors and interventions that might be helpful. Williams did not know of other interventions to offer father at that time; she would need to see the two interact before suggesting anything.
Williams did not have an opinion regarding visits with extended family because she had never met them. If increased visits were provided to father in his home, Williams wanted to see Kaylee and father "wrapped around a ton of services." Williams needed more information, such as seeing the two interact and Kaylee's reaction, before expressing an opinion on whether extended visits should be attempted. If there was any change in visitation between Kaylee and father, Williams recommended it be done gradually, so Williams could ensure visits did not have a negative effect on her.
Father testified on the second, third and fourth days of the hearing, May 4, 11, and 16, 2011. Father claimed he could not attend appointments with Dr. Gonzales that were scheduled for November 15, 2010 and January 3, 2011, or attend the appointments at the Amen Clinic, because he started a new job at the end of August or beginning of September 2010, and did not start accruing leave time that would allow him to take time off from work to attend appointments until January 2011. Father did not remember whether he asked Griggs if he could get information from Dr. Gonzales in a way other than attending appointments. Father did meet with Dr. Gonzales twice, on March 7 and April 25, 2011, and thought the appointments were very valuable. Father understood Dr. Gonzales' role was to prescribe medication for Kaylee.
Although father had received a letter from Griggs, dated December 7, 2010, which instructed him to go to a NAMI class that began February 3, 2011, and advised him to register soon because the class fills up quickly, he did not call about the class in December because he thought he was on a waiting list. He did not call NAMI until sometime in January or even the beginning of February to determine whether he actually was enrolled. At the beginning of February, Griggs attempted to get father into a NAMI class in Modesto, but was unable to do so. While Griggs told father he could attend a class in Turlock, he responded that he could not make it because he had school and it was past the date to drop the course. Ultimately father attended the Turlock NAMI class, which was a 12-week class that he completed on April 26, 2011. He found the class very beneficial in helping to understand Kaylee's mental health issues.
Between September 2010 and March 8, 2011, father attended only two sessions with Schardijn, and only contacted her once during that period. He claimed he did not attend more often because Schardijn was booked out a couple of months, he was not able to take time off from work, and he was taking college classes. By the time of the review hearing, father had begun attending counseling with Schardijn. At their last meeting, he wanted to schedule another session, but she did not want to do so. Schardijn told him he would benefit from meeting with a psychiatrist who specializes in children's mental health issues. According to father, his sessions with Schardijn were very general; he did not get much more out of them than having a conversation with a family member or friend. Father thought counseling was to give him more insight into Kaylee's particular issues and needs, but that did not seem to take place. Schardijn went over Kaylee's diagnoses "very briefly," but she did not explain what the diagnoses entailed or what he could do to help her.
Father admitted he had not demonstrated during the past six months that Kaylee was his number one priority, but claimed that to him, she was in fact his number one priority. Father was asking the court to return Kaylee to his home, with services in place, sooner rather than later. Services he envisioned included safety plans, in-home services and more communication between service providers. Father was willing to do "[w]hatever it takes" to make sure Kaylee remained a priority in his life.
Father had spoken with Dr. Gonzales about visits with extended family members. Father believed Kaylee should have contact with those family members Kaylee had asked to see and who had been involved significantly in her life. While father acknowledged that in general visits with any person could be a destabilizing force, he thought visits with extended family would be good for Kaylee. He agreed with Dr. Gonzales, however, that visits should be on a limited basis. Father did not know if visits with extended family could have a triggering effect on Kaylee. Father described his visits with Kaylee, which typically occurred at a park, as "good." At the end of visits, Kaylee asked for additional time. No one told him there were concerns about Kaylee's behavior after visits.
Father admitted that before Kaylee was removed from his care, he did not address Kaylee's mental health counseling needs as well as he should have. While he claimed that he never personally witnessed Kaylee acting out sexually while in his care, he was aware that Kaylee had been acting out sexually at school, yet he did not address this behavior as well as he could have. One of father's thoughts when he received the March 2011 social worker report recommending termination of his reunification services was that he better do more for Kaylee, including getting more involved in her psychiatric medical care.
Father was informed after the April 20 court hearing that the social worker had tried to find him some new services to assist in reunification with Kaylee. Griggs told him about getting ITFC one-on-one training, similar to what foster parents are given. At Griggs' instruction, father called Cordia Lehn, and set up an appointment for the following Monday. Father had not been told how to get TBS in his home to help with Kaylee's transition home. ITFC was the only thing Griggs told him to do.
When asked if he would follow the recommendations of Kaylee's psychiatrist if she were returned to his care, father responded, "Whatever the case plan is, the court order, yes, absolutely. I don't want anything that can jeopardize her being removed again." When the court asked him directly if he would follow the psychiatrist's recommendation if Kaylee were returned to care, father asked, "Not a court order, you are just saying his recommendation alone?" The court responded that it was "a simple question really." Father then responded with: "I couldn't say." Father planned on consulting with another psychiatrist, Dr. Sidhu, who was referred to him through NAMI, sometime after the conclusion of the hearings. While he had not seen Dr. Sidhu, he had talked with his staff about scheduling an appointment. Father wanted to consult with Dr. Sidhu because he did not think Dr. Gonzales was available for a one-on-one consultation and he felt Dr. Sidhu could provide additional insight, since he was a psychiatrist who dealt with children's mental illness. Father wanted the Agency's help with seeing Dr. Sidhu, but if he was not an available resource, he was willing to talk to another doctor, including Dr. Gonzales.
Father thought it was important to be able to collaborate with Kaylee's caregiver, clinician and support counselor to help him gain a better understanding of Kaylee's current behavioral issues. Father did not believe he was able to talk openly with Tammy Cox outside of his visits. He never asked anyone if he could speak with Cox; he assumed important information would be relayed to him and that he was being told what to do. While father previously had difficulty attending appointments due to his work schedule, he had "time now" to do so since he had started accruing vacation and sick time that he could use to attend appointments.
Schardijn testified on the fourth and fifth days of the hearing, May 16 and 18, 2011. Father had completed six individual sessions with her, which took place on August 31 and December 20, 2010, and January 24, March 24 and 31, and April 21, 2011. The two had agreed that he needed more technical information from a psychiatrist who specialized in children's mental health issues. Schardijn had helped father with things like coping, adjusting and being realistic about what it would be like to raise a child like Kaylee. When father brought up the opportunity to see Dr. Sidhu at their March 31 session, she encouraged him to pursue that. While Schardijn discussed Kaylee's diagnoses with father, she lacked personal experience working with children like Kaylee. Schardijn did not think father needed to continue to see her as long as he had other resources. Father told Schardijn in sessions that he wanted to attend appointments with Kaylee and Dr. Gonzales, and obtain any other help he could get, such as visiting counselors and teachers. Since their first session on August 31, 2010, father consistently told Schardijn he wanted to be more involved in Kaylee's life.
Between September 2010 and February 2011, Schardijn had late appointments available on Mondays until 6 p.m. and Wednesdays until 5:30 or 6 p.m., and there was no problem with her scheduling during the fall and winter of 2010. Between August 31 and December 20, 2010, Schardijn had tried to reach father at least twice, but had difficulty reaching him as he had changed jobs. She received one message from father on October 12, 2010; she did not remember him asking to schedule a late afternoon appointment. Schardijn believed it was father's school and work schedule, as well as his therapeutic supervised visits, which prevented him from setting up appointments with her.
Griggs and Melissa Hale also testified on May 18. Hale, a clinician with Sierra Vista Child and Family Services, conducted the therapeutic supervised visits between father and Kaylee. Since writing the March 15 letter regarding visits, eight visits had occurred with no concerns. Kaylee did not appear to be afraid of father and asked for more time with him at the end of visits. Kaylee had mentioned her paternal grandmother before, saying she wanted to see her.
Griggs testified that she first referred father to individual counseling on July 21, 2010. On the two occasions father attended an appointment with Dr. Gonzales, he was able to speak with Dr. Gonzales outside of Kaylee's presence and ask him questions. On March 7, father told Griggs that he had not attended many individual counseling appointments due to his visits with Kaylee, his school and work schedules, and he could not get appointments with Schardijn because of her booked schedule.
Griggs sent father information about the NAMI class on December 7, 2010, which told father to call and register for the class that was to be held in Modesto starting February 3, 2011, as soon as possible because the class fills up, and reminded him in person about the class on December 23, 2010. Father did not contact Griggs about the letter, tell her he was on a waiting list, or express concerns about getting into the class. Griggs left a telephone message for father on January 18, 2011 asking if he had signed up for the NAMI class and why he had not been more consistent with Schardijn, and sent father a letter the following day reminding him of these requirements. Father did not call her back or respond to the letter.
Griggs left a telephone message for father on February 2, inviting him to a TBS meeting with Williams that was scheduled for February 7, which father attended. Father told Griggs after the meeting that he thought he was on a waiting list for the NAMI class and asked Griggs to help him get into the class. Griggs could not get him into the class but NAMI suggested another class that would begin the next day in Turlock. When Griggs told father, he said he could not attend because he had a class at "MJC" that he would have to take an incomplete in if he were to attend the Turlock class. Griggs acknowledged that father had completed the NAMI class, which took place in Turlock and started on February 8.
As far as additional services for father, Griggs recommended he get more involved in the school by talking to the school counselor, as well as working with support counselor Tammy Cox and continuing counseling with Schardijn if the need arose with the new services in place. She also recommended that father continue to be involved in appointments with Dr. Gonzales and have regular contact with Williams. With respect to visits, Griggs recommended they remain supervised on a weekly basis in a therapeutic setting. Griggs agreed with Dr. Gonzales' recommendation for limited contact with extended family. Griggs did not include meeting with Dr. Sidhu in the case plan because she did not believe it would be helpful to meet with a psychiatrist who did not have any history with Kaylee.
Since testimony was not completed on May 18 and the hearing needed to be continued almost a month to accommodate everyone's schedules, the court and parties discussed, with the agreement of father's counsel, whether adjustments needed to be made to father's case plan pending completion of the review hearing. The court was concerned about another reasonable services argument and wanted to move forward with father's case plan since there had already been numerous delays. When asked what additions father wanted to the case plan, his attorney responded that, at a minimum, he wanted one-on-one counseling, either ITFC or an equivalent program, so he could get some training. County Counsel explained that Sierra Vista initially told the Agency it would provide ITFC services, but Sierra Vista was no longer willing to do so. Cox, however, was willing to meet with father and discuss her concerns and things she does that are effective. The court stated there was no sense ordering something that could not occur and asked if anyone had other options.
After discussion with County Counsel and father's attorney, the court ordered, on a temporary basis and without prejudice, the following additional services: (1) father was entitled to meet with Williams and Dr. Gonzales once a month; and (2) father was to be involved in Kaylee's school to the extent it was open, and allowed to meet with the school counselor twice a month if the counselor is available. The court modified its order of April 20 by deleting ITFC as a service and, in its place, ordered the Agency to contact Sierra Vista to see if it could obtain ITFC training materials and give them to father. The court continued the review hearing to June 15. Father's attorney asked for increased visits. The court set a hearing for May 26 so the parties could argue whether visitation should be modified pending the June 15 hearing.
At the May 26 hearing, the court ordered visits of two hours per week in a therapeutic setting to be supervised by Sierra Vista, which were to take place at either Sierra Vista, the park, or another location approved by the social worker. Father's attorney agreed to the change. Father's attorney asked whether the Agency could look into supervision by another person, such as relatives who are foster parents. The court advised father's attorney to notify the other parties and bring it up at the next hearing. County Counsel stated the Agency was concerned that whoever supervised visits should be someone who believed father could have molested Kaylee. The court agreed, stating that while it believed something "very inappropriate" had happened, since it did not know what happened to Kaylee or who the perpetrator or perpetrators were, whoever supervised visits must believe father could have done it.
At the June 15 hearing, Griggs testified that Sierra Vista agreed to allow her to take their ITFC training materials, which included a training book, pamphlets and handouts given to ITFC parents, and give them to Schardijn so she could review them with father. Griggs gave the materials to Schardijn about a week and a half before the hearing, but did not know if any sessions with Schardijn had been scheduled. As part of helping with the training on the ITFC information, father could meet with Cox at Sierra Vista to engage in directed interaction.
Griggs agreed that the TBS mentioned in her April 12 e-mail could not be set up for father in his home at that time, and she had not found an alternative service in which father could participate instead. She did find out from Williams that father could participate in PCIT training, which is parent/child interactive therapy in which father could observe a counselor working with Kaylee. Since the last hearing, Griggs had not looked into alternative supervisors of visits. Griggs believed that occasional visits in father's home could be accommodated, which Hale could supervise, but probably not on a weekly basis. Visitation supervisors from Sierra Vista, including Hale, were not able to supervise visits in community settings other than father's home, the park or their own offices. Griggs, however, could supervise visits in other community settings, such as movie theaters or pizza parlors. Griggs agreed that the next logical step in visitation was to allow Hale to supervise visits in father's home.
Cox testified that, since the end of November 2010, she had worked with Kaylee one-on-one about 13 to 16 hours per week and transported her to visits with both parents. Kaylee talked to Cox about her visits with father while Cox transported her from the visit to the foster home. Kaylee did not express sadness for having to leave visits, though she appeared to enjoy them. Her demeanor, however, was sometimes "flat" after visits with father. Cox kept Kaylee out in the community after visits with either parent for about 30 minutes so Kaylee could talk about the visit if she wanted to, as Glenda told Cox that Kaylee was having problems when she was taken straight to the foster home. While she did not always need to do this after visits with Kaylee's mother, she always did it after visits with father. Kaylee talked about her family after visits, but never said anything about going home. Cox had not been directed to do any work with father on any material through her agency.
During closing argument, father's attorney objected to the Agency's recommended findings and orders, and (1) requested an immediate transition into father's home, as he had completed the two services that had been ordered, namely the NAMI class and individual counseling, (2) requested that if Kaylee were not returned home, father should receive six more months of reunification services, (3) objected to a reasonable services finding, and (4) requested that visits be increased and held in father's home.
The court decided not to return Kaylee to father's custody, finding that (1) Kaylee continues to claim father touched her inappropriately, (2) Kaylee needs consistency which the court was not convinced father could provide given his failure to attend appointments, his delay in completing services, and his excuses, (3) the safety plan was not sufficient to protect father from claims of abuse or to provide consistency and stability, (4) Kaylee still needed a high level of care and services, and (5) father admitted that he had not demonstrated Kaylee was a priority during the last six months of services and that he could not say whether he would follow the psychiatrist's recommendations without a court order. The court found that the Agency provided reasonable services.
The court continued services for father, setting a review hearing for October 26, 2011. A lengthy discussion ensued about the services to be provided. Ultimately, the court ordered the following services: (1) father will meet with Kaylee and her Sierra Vista support counselor at the Sierra Vista office once per month to work on building Kaylee's positive peer interactions, social skills, setting boundaries and hygiene issues; (2) father will participate in individual counseling as offered by Sierra Vista to address issues related to personal accountability and insight and empathy regarding Kaylee's behavioral challenges and unique mental health needs and review ITFC materials with the counselor as provided by the foster care agency; (3) father will meet with Kaylee and her school counselor twice per month while school is in session to become more familiar with current mental health needs, including any progress and concerns regarding her behavior; (4) father will meet with Williams either face-to-face or over the telephone once monthly to discuss Kaylee's progress and treatment goals regarding her mental health; (5) father will meet with Kaylee's psychiatrist at each of Kaylee's appointments, at which he can ask the psychiatrist questions, and also be able to access the psychiatrist individually; and (6) father will be referred to the PCIT program to be assessed and will follow all recommendations if admitted to the program.
With respect to visitation, the court ordered two-hour visits each week to occur in the community, park or in the counselor's office, to be supervised by the social worker, Hale or another approved individual. The court further ordered visitation in father's home a minimum of once per month, and ordered that no one be present except father's wife and the supervisor of the visit. In making these orders, the court encouraged the Agency to explore whether it was possible for Kaylee to have a short visit with her elderly grandmother. The court denied father's attorney's request for visitation with other extended family, including Kaylee's grandparents, as it was concerned that if too many factors were involved, it would be difficult to gauge how Kaylee was doing during visits in father's home. The court set a review hearing on the issue of visitation for August 3, 2011, with the expectation that at least two home visits would take place before then.
DISCUSSION
Reasonable Services
Father contends he was not given reasonable reunification services because the defined services constantly changed and consequently he never received a period of accessing those services to make sufficient progress. Father asserts, based on the various changes to his case plan during the course of the 18-month review hearing, that reunification was "an undefined moving target" which showed that neither the Agency nor the court could identify the problems or provide services designed to remedy them. Father argues the court erred in finding reasonable reunification services were offered when nothing was provided that could lead him to regain custody of Kaylee, and the Agency and court did not tell him what he needed to do for her return. Finally, father asserts the Agency did not make a good-faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification plan.
The juvenile court must review reunification services at intervals of no less than six months and determine, among other things, whether reasonable services have been offered. (§§ 366.21, subds. (e), (f), (g)(1); 366.22, subd. (a).) In making its determination, the juvenile court considers not only the appropriateness of services offered but also the extent to which the department facilitated utilization of the services and the extent to which the offending parent availed him or herself of the services provided. To be reasonable, the services provided need not be perfect. The "standard is not whether [they] were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances." (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) Services are reasonable when the supervising agency identifies the family's problems, offers services targeting those problems, maintains reasonable contact with the offending parent(s), and makes reasonable efforts to assist in areas where compliance is difficult. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
On a challenge to the juvenile court's reasonable services finding, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent, indulging all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 (Misako R.).) If substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding, we will not disturb it. (Ibid.) As father bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632), he must show that the juvenile court's finding that the Agency made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence.
The Agency had a duty to provide services designed to treat the problem that necessitated Kaylee's removal. As we explained in our prior opinion on the appeal from the 12-month review hearing, ordinarily services focus on helping the parent remedy specific conduct that was deemed harmful to the child, but this case is unusual in that it is not father's conduct, but Kaylee's, that requires modification. The reasons for this are several: (1) Kaylee has a very severe mental illness that was unknown at the inception of dependency proceedings and took many months to diagnose; (2) Kaylee's mental illness manifests itself in a belief that father has sexually molested her; and (3) there is evidence that contact with father exacerbates her disordered behavior. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Agency and juvenile court were unsure of how to proceed.
Father's case plan during this review period was to complete a parenting education class and attend individual counseling, both of which were designed to address father's need for education and training on Kaylee's mental illness. Due in part to father's delay in participating in both services, the Agency initially recommended termination of reunification services at the 18-month review hearing. After receiving this court's opinion reversing the six-month reasonable services finding, however, the Agency proposed additional services. Rather than wait until the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing to order such services, in April 2011 the court ordered father be provided with TBS and ITFC services. The Agency learned, however, that neither service was available to father, as TBS services could not be provided unless Kaylee was in his home and the provider of the ITFC service decided not to participate. Accordingly, in May 2011, the court ordered services on a temporary basis pending completion of the review hearing that included meeting with Williams, Dr. Gonzales, and Kaylee's school counselor. At the conclusion of the June 15 hearing, the court ordered these components as part of father's new case plan, which also included reviewing ITFC material with Schardijn, an assessment for the PCIT program, and meeting with Cox.
The record shows that instead of providing a moving target, as father characterizes it, the Agency and court were providing father with resources through which he could learn to meet Kaylee's needs. The services father was given were consistent as they were designed to address father's ability to understand Kaylee's mental illness and to safely parent her. That the services changed through the course of the 18-month review hearing does not mean they were unreasonable. Father does not contend that the services he was given were conflicting, inappropriate or did not address the problem.
Father appears to assert that because Kaylee was not returned to his care at the 18-month review hearing, the services must have been unreasonable. There is no guarantee, however, that reunification will result if a parent completes his or her case plan. (See, e.g., In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141-1142 [technical compliance with court-ordered services is not conclusive in determining detriment; rather, the court must also consider the parent's progress toward eliminating the conditions leading to the child's removal from the home].) Here, Kaylee was not returned to father's care in part because Kaylee continues to believe father sexually molested her. It is entirely possible that no amount of services to father will alleviate this belief or allow her to return safely to his care. As we pointed out in our prior opinion, there are some cases, and this may be one, where there are no services that will correct the problem, despite the best efforts of the Agency and parent.
Father contends the services he was given, such as meeting with Kaylee's service providers and participating in various training regimes, appear contrary to the law because these components "do not pose any particular danger to Kaylee," citing In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394 (Yvonne W.). Father misunderstands the purposes of these services, however, which are to enable him to learn more about Kaylee's mental illness and provide effectively for her needs. These services are necessary to assist father in eliminating some of the conditions that led to Kaylee's removal, namely his inability or unwillingness to ensure Kaylee's mental health needs were met and to accurately report problems that might arise in the home. (See, e.g., Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400 [in evaluating detriment, the juvenile court considers the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement].)
On a challenge to a reasonable services finding, father bears the burden of establishing that the Agency was unreasonable in its efforts to assist him in accessing services. Other than declaring the services unreasonable, he does not identify specific services the Agency could have procured for either him or Kaylee that would have alleviated her belief. Moreover, the record reflects that while Kaylee was progressing in treatment under the Agency's auspices, she still maintained father had molested her.
Father contends the Agency did not make a good faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification plan. The record shows, however, that the Agency attempted to identify and provide services to father. We cannot say on this record the Agency's efforts to assist father in reunifying with Kaylee were unreasonable.
Visitation
Father contends the court abused its discretion in denying his requests that all visits take place in his home, that visits be monitored rather than supervised, and that Kaylee's grandparents be allowed to be present during visits. We disagree.
In a dependency proceeding, the juvenile court has the power and responsibility to regulate and define a parent's right to visit his or her children who have been removed from parental custody. (In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1373; In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 756-757 (Jennifer G.).) "The definition of such a right necessarily involves a balancing of the interests of the parent in visitation with the best interests of the child. In balancing these interests, the court in the exercise of judicial discretion should determine whether there should be any right to visitation and, if so, the frequency and length of visitation. The court may ... impose any other conditions or requirements to further define the right to visitation in light of the particular circumstances of the case before it." (Jennifer G., supra, at p. 757.)
Because the nature, frequency, and length of visitation are matters within the sound discretion of the juvenile court, the court's visitation orders will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the court exceeded the bounds of reason. (Id. at pp. 318-319.) Here, the court did not exceed the bounds of reason in denying father's requests for all visits to take place in the home and that other family members be allowed to be present.
As our statement of facts shows, by the 18-month review hearing Kaylee finally had begun to obtain stability in her foster care placement and school. While her behavior had improved, she continued to struggle to maintain control. Although visits with father had been going well, the transition had not yet been made to extended visits in father's home. Williams believed if longer visits were to take place in the home, the transition should be done gradually so she could assess the effect of the visits on Kaylee. Both Drs. Goldman and Gonzales cautioned against visits with extended family, although Dr. Gonzales believed there could be limited visitation, as visits could emotionally overload Kaylee and be a potential trigger and destabilizing force. Based on this evidence, the court reasonably could conclude that visits in father's home should take place gradually, allowing those working with Kaylee to assess their effect on her behavior, and give the Agency discretion to increase the frequency of visits in father's home, setting a hearing six weeks out to review the visits.
Father points to other evidence that supports his request for more visitation in his home, such as Kaylee's enjoyment of their visits, Hale's lack of concern about father's interaction with Kaylee during visits, and that Kaylee never stated she feared father or was uncomfortable in his presence. Father, however, ignores the evidence cited above from which the court reasonably could conclude that visitation in father's home should be implemented on a gradual basis and extended family should not participate, since their presence could have a negative effect on Kaylee and it would be difficult to assess the cause of any negative behavior that might arise from such visits.
In sum, the court did not abuse its discretion in making its visitation order.
DISPOSITION
The eighteen-month review orders are affirmed.
_________________
Gomes, Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________
Poochigian, J.
_________________
Detjen, J.