Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, No. 515737, Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Mari Anita Torres, 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.
OPINION
Kane, Acting P.J.
V.S. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating family reunification services as to her son J.P. at the 12-month status review hearing. Mother contends the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (the agency) and the juvenile court erred by failing to consider the sibling bond interest as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 16002. We will affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Mother had two sons and one daughter. K.C. was born in May 1998, J.P. was born in October 1999, and R.Q., the girl, was born in September 2000.
In November 2008, the agency received a referral regarding mother’s home after law enforcement had been to her home on four occasions to arrest parolees. The home contained drug paraphernalia, old food, and trash. On one occasion, mother tested positive for methamphetamine and stated it was her drug of choice. The children reported the presence of various adults who would go into mother’s bedroom, where they would laugh and talk. The children witnessed fights between the adults and the arrests of parolees. Mother accepted voluntary services, made good progress, and was drug-free for one year. The case was closed in December 2009.
But in March 2010, mother was arrested when methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found on her person. Drugs were later found in her home. In late April 2010, she admitted using methamphetamine daily, but denied using drugs in the home. Parolees and probationers, however, continued to frequent the home. In addition, a mandated reporting party informed the agency that R.Q. had bruises on her arms, back, and legs that she said were inflicted by her brothers. The agency took the children into protective custody and placed them with maternal grandfather, who agreed to trade homes with mother and care for the children. But the next day the children were moved to a foster home because mother’s boyfriend, not maternal grandfather, was found caring for the children and the home was determined to be inappropriate. The social worker concluded that mother’s continual drug use and the presence of people with criminal histories who were using drugs placed the children at risk of harm.
The three children were originally placed together in foster care, but after two months, J.P. was moved due to his behavioral issues.
Mother was referred to treatment in May 2010, at which time she completed the application process. She was scheduled for intake on May 25, 2010, but she failed to show. She again contacted the facility and was scheduled for intake on June 14, 2010, but again failed to show. She made no further contact with the facility.
In July 2010, mother made various efforts to enroll in drug and alcohol assessment, but was rejected due to positive methamphetamine tests.
In September 2010, the social worker called maternal grandfather to ask if mother would be attending a visit with the children. Maternal grandfather said mother was in jail for drug possession.
When mother got out of jail, the social worker referred her again to drug and alcohol assessment. Mother completed the assessment and was admitted to a 30-day residential program in November 2010. Mother completed the program in December 2010, but failed to contact the social worker or the facility regarding the after-care services. Since her discharge, she apparently had not been drug tested.
In early February 2011, the social worker sent mother a letter informing her of an educational meeting for J.P. Mother did not call or attend. J.P. was determined to be emotionally disturbed and plans were made to place him in an appropriate class. A court-appointed child advocate (CASA) acted as surrogate parent at J.P.’s educational meetings. J.P. received weekly mental health counseling and took various drugs for Attention Deficit Disorder and to help him sleep.
In mid-February 2011, the social worker spoke to mother on the telephone, then sent her a letter regarding her scheduled visit with the children on February 16, 2011. Mother was scheduled for unsupervised visits with the children weekly, but she failed to appear. Her last visit was on December 15, 2010. The children would come for the weekly visits with mother, but would end up visiting only with each other. After several failed visits, the parties agreed that the children would visit each other on a weekly basis as arranged by their caretakers.
On May 24, 2011, when the social worker wrote the report for the 12-month hearing, the children were in three different homes. K.C. had been in three placements, R.Q. had been in three, and J.P. had been in five. The placements of K.C. and R.Q. had good prospects for permanence.
By this time, the social worker had not been able to contact mother for months. In his report, the social worker concluded that mother’s behavior over the past 12 months made it “obvious that [she was] not interested in reunifying with her children.” The situation did not “paint a pretty picture in the [social worker’s] mind” and mother “continue[d] to be a detriment as to any of her children being returned to her care.” Mother had not pursued the initial plan of reuniting with her children, and she had not convinced the social worker she was willing to do what was required of her to reunify. The initial meetings had been encouraging, but her continued drug use, failure to comply with her case plan, and failure to visit the children convinced the social worker “that she [was] nowhere near completing her case plan and reunifying.” The social worker explained that mother’s “visits with the children have been so inconsistent it is beyond belief. Yet, during those sporadic visits she would report to the [social worker] and her children that she [was] doing what she need[ed] to do to reunify and in reality she was doing nothing. Based on the lack of effort/progress on the part of [mother, the social worker could] only make the recommendation to terminate services to [mother] and establish a permanent plan for these children.”
At the 12-month review hearing on June 3, 2011, held pursuant to section 366.21, mother did not appear. Her attorney moved for a continuance, explaining she had not had contact with mother for many months and did know how to find her. The court denied the motion.
The children’s attorney reported that J.P. was doing very well in the placement, and wanted to see his siblings. The social worker explained that K.C. and R.Q. were in stable placements with the possibility of adoption. J.P. was in a good placement that provided hope for his stabilization, in concert with his medication and educational program.
Mother’s attorney questioned whether the children were in fact visiting each other on a weekly basis. She also saw no efforts since the original placements to put the children together in a home. She believed the sibling relationships could be an issue affecting mother’s rights. She said she thought there was a “lack of reasonable services in placing these children together and with sibling visits without more evidence to this report.”
The court noted that the children’s attorney did not object to the placement recommendations, to which that attorney stated:
“No, not at all. As a matter of fact, especially with the two that are in current homes, they’re very stable homes. They’re happy, they want to stay there, they want to be there. [¶] And certainly I understand it would be nice if they could all be placed together. That hasn’t been able to happen for whatever reason. That would have been certainly preferable, but I don’t want to take these other two children out of the homes that they’re in now. [¶] And after talking to the foster mother last night in [J.P.’s] case, things seem to be progressing pretty well in that home at this juncture, so I don’t want to disrupt any of that. And I am in favor of setting a [section 336].26 [hearing] so that we can move on, especially with the [other two children].”
The social worker then stated:
“I’m going to stand pat by my recommendations as far as what’s in the report. And, again, [K.C. and R.Q.] are stable, have been stable for a while, and the current plan and the recommendation is for adoption for those two. [¶] And the only concern, as I indicated in the report, is that we don’t have any real clear idea what’s going to happen with [J.P.] at this time. [He] needs to be in a stable home, and I’ve been trying. This has been going on since day one. [¶] And so hopefully [J.P.] in this particular home-that’s why I placed him there in this particular home. I think that they can work with [him] with all the issues going on, that he can be stable and stay there long enough to the point where everyone is comfortable, and this could be a permanent home for him down the way.”
The CASA added:
“Well, I think there’s separate issues here. [¶] One, I think that the children, you know, especially [J.P.], who I know very well, he’s been incredibly damaged by his mother’s behavior and her just-her lack of involvement and promises of involvement. And he’s really borne the brunt of her choices. He’s been the most affected of the three children. And, in fact, it’s really impacted his own self-efficacy and his relationship with his siblings in a very negative way. [¶] … [¶] In addition, I think that he and his siblings would benefit from some group work so that they can potentially reestablish their relationships with each other and address whatever issues the three of them have with each other and-because I think that one-while I’m happy for these other two kids, you know, once these other two children are adopted, potentially [J.P.’s] relationship with them may cease, and that would be unbelievably damaging for him. [¶] All of that notwithstanding, I don’t think, you know, the mother’s involvement in this case would benefit any of the children. [¶] … [¶] So I think that-as I elaborated in my report, I think that [J.P.] needs some significant counseling. I think his placement is fine…. [¶] But in regards to his relationship with his mother, there hasn’t been one, and the hope that there will be one is damaging him. He doesn’t understand why he’s been told a number of things and none of those things have occurred.”
The court said:
“And it seems like, even though he’s not the oldest, that he feels a responsibility to look after his other two siblings. I mean, it’s really an extremely sad case. And I hate to see children split up, especially at this age when they’ve got to have a connection with each other. [¶] But mother has not done what she needs to do, either, which is most unfortunate, and we wouldn’t be in this position if she had. [¶] I am going to make an order that I want the siblings to have a minimum of two visits per month. And it’s fine if the foster parents can arrange that, but I want to be guaranteed they’re going to have a minimum of two times per month, and if that has to occur at the agency in order for it to happen, then that’s what’s going to occur, because I don’t want to just rely on the foster parents and then I find out that, well, we couldn’t work it out.”
Mother’s attorney again requested placement of the children together because they would never see each other after adoption. The social worker commented that the current foster parents knew each other well and would undoubtedly ensure contact would continue between K.C. and R.Q.
The court interrupted, saying, “You know what? It’s not a good situation. [¶] … [¶] It’s just not a good situation, because having contact is not the same thing as growing up with your siblings. And it’s bad enough, especially for [J.P.], who has basically lost his mother and lost his siblings, and to have minimal contact with them, it’s just not the same as growing up day in and out with them …. It’s just unfortunate. But it’s kind of like a no-win situation here.”
The court adopted the social worker’s recommendations, including the termination of reunification services to mother, and set the time for a contested section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
We review the juvenile court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its decision to terminate reunification services for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319; In re Marina S. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 165.)
Mother contends section 16002, which promotes and protects the sibling interests of dependent children, was not satisfied in this case. But our review of the record demonstrates that the agency and the juvenile court did consider the children’s interest in being together. The social worker explained that the children had been placed together initially, but behavioral issues required their separation. J.P., who had serious behavioral problems, had been moved repeatedly in an effort to find stability for him. The court voiced its dismay at the children’s separation.
Section 16002 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to maintain the continuity of the family unit, and ensure the preservation and strengthening of the child’s family ties by ensuring that when siblings have been removed from their home, either as a group on one occurrence or individually on separate occurrences, the siblings will be placed in foster care together, unless it has been determined that placement together is contrary to the safety or well-being of any sibling. The Legislature recognizes that in order to ensure the placement of a sibling group in the same foster care placement, placement resources need to be expanded. [¶] (b) The responsible local agency shall make a diligent effort in all out-of-home placements of dependent children, including those with relatives, to place siblings together in the same placement, and to develop and maintain sibling relationships. If siblings are not placed together in the same home, the social worker shall explain why the siblings are not placed together and what efforts he or she is making to place the siblings together or why making those efforts would be contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings. When placement of siblings together in the same home is not possible, a diligent effort shall be made, and a case plan prepared, to provide for ongoing and frequent interaction among siblings until family reunification is achieved, or, if parental rights are terminated, as part of developing the permanent plan for the child. If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings, the reasons for the determination shall be noted in the court order, and interaction shall be suspended.”
But even if the agency and the juvenile court failed to adequately satisfy the requirements of section 16002, any error in that regard was harmless because of mother’s own failures. Her efforts to reunify with her children were ultimately nonexistent-indeed, she had abandoned all contact with her children and she could not be located-and the court would undoubtedly have terminated her services even if the children’s sibling interests had been further considered and addressed. In other words, there is no reasonable probability that the result would have been more favorable to mother in the absence of any such error. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [test for nonconstitutional error]; see also Patricia O. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 933, 943 [juvenile court’s error in not considering certain factors to determine whether reunification services should have been denied under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) was harmless].)
Section 366.21, subdivision (f) provides in relevant part: “The court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment…. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian…. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.”
We conclude the juvenile court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the court’s order terminating reunification services for mother was not an abuse of discretion. Any failure to satisfy section 16002 was harmless.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Poochigian, J., Detjen, J.
Because the juvenile court set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26, the court’s order is not appealable (§ 366.26, subd. (l)). But for the sake of judicial economy, this court will address the merits of mother’s argument.