Opinion
F078985
10-09-2019
In re V.S., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR S., Defendant and Appellant.
Gino de Solenni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena R. Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. JVDP18000027, JVDP18000028, JVDP18000029)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Gino de Solenni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena R. Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found that the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) had provided Victor S. (father) with reasonable services and ordered continued reunification services be provided for another six months. Father appeals, contending the finding that reasonable services had been provided is not supported by substantial evidence. Father's failure to appeal from the disposition order forfeits the issue for purposes of appeal and we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Because father is the only appellant, we focus on those facts relevant to him and the issue raised in this appeal.
Father is the father of V.S, Jr., F.S., and J.S. (the minors). Apparently, father had been married to mother's aunt for 25 years. Mother lived with her aunt and uncle after her parents passed away. At some point, mother began a relationship with father and had several of his children. After dependency proceedings began, the aunt passed away and father and mother married.
On October 26, 2000, a report of child sexual abuse was substantiated in San Joaquin County. Mother, then a minor, reported that father and she "went all the way" on two occasions.
In 2006, mother and father had a nine-month-old child removed from their care in Arizona. They failed to reunify with the child and parental rights were terminated. A permanent plan of adoption for the child was approved in 2008.
In May 2018, the agency became involved with the family. Mother, father, and the three minors were living in a van in a nursing home parking lot. Mother appeared to have some developmental delays that affected her ability to adequately parent the minors. The nursing home staff had been feeding the minors, allowing them to bathe in the facility, and had provided them with new clothes. The minors' shoes were too small and had given them blisters. J.S. was nonverbal, but her parents had not sought services for her.
Mother reported being diagnosed with ADHD and depression. She acknowledged she and father both used marijuana. Mother had left a homeless shelter and sought emergency housing but did not accept the assistance because father was not allowed to stay with her in the shelter or emergency housing. In 2013 in Stanislaus County, mother reported that there had been domestic violence perpetrated by father in front of the minors. On September 25, 2013, mother obtained a domestic violence restraining order against father.
The three minors were taken into protective custody on May 15, 2018, in Stanislaus County. Father signed a protective custody waiver. Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions were filed on the minors' behalf on May 17, 2018, alleging the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b) and were at substantial risk of harm due to general neglect and domestic violence between the parents. It also was alleged the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (j), abuse or neglect of a sibling, based upon the 2006 Arizona dependency case.
References to code sections are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At the initial detention hearing on May 18, 2018, counsel was appointed to represent father. At the continued detention hearing on May 21, 2018, the public guardian was appointed to protect mother's interests in the dependency proceeding. The juvenile court found the agency had established a prima facie case the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).
In the combined jurisdiction and disposition report prepared by the agency, it was noted the minors remained in foster care and both parents were still homeless. The two older children had no observable developmental delays. The youngest child was not verbal and the agency treated this as a developmental delay and referred the child for services.
Father completed a substance abuse assessment; no treatment was recommended. Father acknowledged having a medical marijuana prescription. Father had been referred for parenting classes and started participating in them. Father was participating in visits with the minors and no concerns were reported.
Father's proposed case plan provided that he was to keep the social worker informed of his address and telephone number; attend and complete a domestic violence program; attend and complete a course of individual counseling that would address domestic violence and coping skills; complete a clinical assessment to determine if other services should be made available to him; complete a parenting program; submit to random drug testing; and complete a substance abuse assessment.
A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on July 6, 2018. Father was present for the hearing and represented by counsel; a Spanish language interpreter also was present. Father's counsel had questioned whether all services were being provided to father in his native language, Spanish. The agency committed to ensuring that services were provided to father in Spanish.
Counsel for father questioned some statements included in the allegations of the petition, which were resolved. Father's counsel then made an offer of proof that father was committed to reunifying with his children, desired services to be offered in Spanish, and would be participating in the services. The offer of proof was accepted. No further comments were made by father's counsel and there was no request for additional services, other than as contemplated in the proposed case plan.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and found the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The minors were declared dependents of the juvenile court; it was found the minors were at substantial risk of harm if returned to parental custody; and reunification services were ordered for both parents.
In the status review report, the agency noted that father was participating in services, but denied needing domestic violence counseling or sexual abuse counseling for perpetrators. Father attributed the removal of the minors from his care to the agency's inability to assist him with obtaining housing, and had not "taken accountability" for his actions that led to detention of the minors and removal from his custody. The agency had referred father to an organization that provided a "Parent Partner" for further assistance in reunification. The Parent Partner reported that her work with father had focused on employment and housing, however, father's permanent resident card (green card) had expired and father needed to renew it in order to obtain employment and stable housing.
On January 10, 2019, the parties requested a contested six-month status review hearing. Father apparently was referred to California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) for help with his immigration status on January 29, 2019. CRLA provided legal services to "individuals who are not in legal immigration status."
At the contested six-month review hearing on March 12, 2019, father's counsel represented that father was not contesting the agency's recommendation. Father's counsel made an offer of proof that father reviewed the six-month report with counsel; father agreed with the recommendation to continue reunification services, was "worried about his bond with his children," and requested more visitation time. The offer of proof was accepted.
Later in the contested hearing, father's counsel requested again that father be given more visitation time. In addition, father's counsel stated, "our office would still be entering an objection as to a finding of reasonable services. And it would be in respect to issue — to resolve issues of immigration issues that my client has, employment issues and housing." Father's counsel also noted, however, "our office understands the county may not be equipped to assist my client in that ...." Father's issues with employment and housing stemmed from his immigration status.
When the juvenile court asked if father's counsel had any evidence to present that there had been a "lack of reasonable services," father's counsel responded, "we would have no evidence to present." The juvenile court opined that the agency did not have funds to hire immigration attorneys and did not provide this service, and that if the agency was able to provide more assistance with housing, it would do so. Father's counsel noted that employment was an issue and the juvenile court opined, "that presents the same problem that we have already discussed with regard to immigration."
The agency reported that it had printed out information about CRLA, which assisted with immigration status, provided that information to father, and notified him to follow through with CRLA on immigration issues. Mother's guardian reported that she had contacted El Concilio about father's immigration issue and was told "where there is an expired green card, the only resolution is to return to Mexico for eight years."
The juvenile court found that reasonable services had been provided to the parents and ordered continued reunification services be provided.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal. The notice states that father is appealing the March 12, 2019, finding that he had been offered reasonable services.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the order from the contested six-month review hearing must be reversed because the finding that father was offered reasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, he argues the case plan should have addressed his immigration status, which posed an obstacle to obtaining employment and stable housing.
I. Issue is Forfeited
The reasonableness of reunification services is judged according to the circumstances of the particular case and assessed by its two components — content and implementation. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362.) The content of the plan or, in other words, the nature of the services offered, is reasonable if it properly identifies the family's problems and offers services targeting those problems. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414 (Riva M.).) The implementation of the services plan is reasonable if the supervising agency maintains reasonable contact with the offending parent and makes reasonable efforts to assist in areas where compliance is difficult. (Ibid.) We review a juvenile court's reasonable services finding for substantial evidence. (T.J. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1229, 1238.)
The content of the reunification plan is set forth at the disposition hearing and may be subsequently modified. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) A parent seeking to challenge the content of the reunification plan must do so by direct appeal from the court's order approving the case plan or by filing a section 388 petition to modify it. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 47 (Julie M.).) Failure to do so forfeits the issue for appellate review. (Ibid.) A parent seeking to challenge the agency's efforts to implement the case plan may do so by a timely appeal from the juvenile court's finding services were reasonable.
In this case, father did not appeal from the disposition hearing, when the original case plan was ordered into effect. That case plan did not specifically address father's immigration status and did not require services be provided to address immigration status. Although father was provided with appointed counsel at the detention hearing and represented throughout the dependency proceedings, there was no request to add addressing father's immigration status to the case plan.
Reunification is a collaborative effort and a parent is presumed capable of complying with a reasonable services plan. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 415 (Christina L.).) Consequently, the parent is responsible for communicating with the agency and participating in the reunification process. (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441.) If father felt during the reunification period that his services were inadequate, he "had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a better plan." (Christina L., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 416.) A parent may not "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." (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children etc. Services v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1093.)
Father's claim of error — that the case plan did not require services be provided to address his immigration status — deals directly with the content of the case plan adopted at the disposition hearing. As such, the issue is not cognizable in this appeal. (Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 47.)
II. Reasonable Services Provided
Father maintains that he was "aggrieved" by the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided to him, even though he was afforded an additional six months of reunification services at the six-month review hearing. We disagree.
Family reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings. At the dispositional hearing, the court is required to order the agency to provide child welfare services to the child and his or her parents. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) Services may include provision of a full array of social and health services to help the child and family and to prevent reabuse of children. (§ 300.2.) To support a finding that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent, " 'the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult ....' " (In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 14 (M.F.).)
Even without a specific provision in the case plan addressing immigration status, employment, and housing, there is substantial evidence that the agency provided reasonable services to deal with employment, housing, and immigration. Father's immigration status was not known at the inception of the dependency case. When the agency was made aware that father's green card had expired, it immediately began the process of searching for a resource to assist father with his immigration status. The agency also made housing referrals. After being referred by the agency to a Parent Partner, the Parent Partner completed an intake to assist in securing employment for father.
The agency reported that it had printed out information about CRLA, provided that information to father, and notified him to follow through with CRLA on immigration issues because that organization provided assistance on immigration status. Furthermore, the agency had referred father to an organization that provided the Parent Partner to further assist father with reunification. The Parent Partner reported that her work with father had focused on employment and housing; however, father's green card had expired and father needed to renew it in order to obtain employment and stable housing.
The agency has no control over father's immigration status, or his taking the necessary steps to renew his green card. The agency provided father with a referral to legal counsel for assistance on immigration and to an organization that provided assistance with housing and employment, although efforts in this regard were adversely impacted by father's immigration status. " 'The standard is not whether the services . . . were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.' " (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1166.)
Father's counsel acknowledged at the contested six-month review hearing that father's immigration status and its impact on housing and employment may be beyond what the agency, or county, can address. The agency acknowledged that addressing father's immigration status was outside of the agency's scope. Despite no specific requirement in the case plan, the agency did address father's immigration status, housing, and employment. Services are reasonable when the supervising agency identifies a family's problems, offers services targeting those problems, and makes reasonable efforts to assist in areas where compliance is difficult. (Riva M., supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 414.) The agency did so here.
Additionally, father's immigration status was not the reason the minors were the subject of dependency proceedings. Immigration status was not the reason the minors were continued in foster care and not returned to his custody at the six-month review hearing. The status review report prepared for the six-month review hearing noted that father was participating in services but denied needing domestic violence counseling or sexual abuse counseling for perpetrators. Father had not "taken accountability" for his actions that led to detention of the minors and removal from his custody. Mother had obtained a domestic violence restraining order against father, and father had engaged in sexual relations with mother while she was a minor, which was why father needed to complete these services and accept responsibility.
"In determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's reasonable services finding, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's finding and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine whether there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citation.] The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's findings." (M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 14.)
Father has failed to meet his burden. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that father was offered reasonable services.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's finding at the contested six-month review hearing is supported by substantial evidence. The order dated March 12, 2019, arising from the section 366.21, subdivision (e) hearing directing the agency to provide father an additional six months of reunification services is affirmed.