Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Jacqueline H. Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee. Petition is denied. L.A. Super. Ct. No. CK73709.
Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, Sophia Ali and Estaire Press for Petitioner.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Stephanie G. (mother), mother of minor child D.L., petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Mother seeks review of an order setting a permanent plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother asserts the trial court erred in terminating reunification services after 12 months and in finding that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided adequate services. We deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 1, 2008, DCFS received a report that D.L., then two months old, was being neglected by mother. An investigation revealed that D.L. was healthy and well-cared for, but that mother had left D.L. with D.L.’s maternal grandmother (grandmother), and was whereabouts unknown. Mother later contacted DCFS from a shelter. She claimed grandmother and one or two maternal aunts had emotionally abused D.L. in the course of physically and verbally abusing mother. Mother, then 16, was detained from grandmother by DCFS and was transported from the shelter to a foster home. D.L. was not detained from mother but was taken from grandmother’s home to mother’s foster home.
DCFS later filed a section 300 petition regarding mother. Mother’s dependency proceeding is not at issue here.
When interviewed by a social worker, the parties traded accusations as to who posed a true risk to D.L. Grandmother and maternal aunts denied assaulting mother. To the contrary, they asserted that mother had threatened to make false allegations as a way of causing trouble with DCFS. They further asserted mother was associated with gang members and drug dealers, witnessed a gang-related murder and was being sought by the murderers, had been disappearing at night, and was acting as if she were on drugs. They also reported that mother had returned home bruised as though beaten by her new boyfriend. Other maternal relatives stated that mother had pushed grandmother while grandmother was on the stairs holding D.L., but grandmother managed to hold onto the rail. Mother responded that, in fact, her family was trying to take D.L. away from her because they did not approve of her boyfriend, who was a gang member. Mother described several instances of physical and verbal abuse toward her while D.L. was present.
While mother initially did well in her foster placement, she ran away after a few weeks, claiming she did not like her foster parents. She took D.L. back to grandmother’s home and left her there. D.L.’s father was in detention, so he could not take the baby. Thus, DCFS determined D.L. was without an available parent and, given the allegations against grandmother and her home, decided to detain D.L. The juvenile court approved the detention on July 22, 2008. It ordered reunification services to begin, including drug rehabilitation with testing, individual counseling, and parenting classes. Over DCFS’s objections, the juvenile court also ordered that mother be placed in the same foster home as D.L., with unmonitored visitation in the home and monitored outside. Mother was directed to begin counseling “immediately.”
DCFS filed a section 300 petition regarding D.L. It alleged mother failed to protect D.L. by leaving her with caretakers whom mother claimed were abusive and by failing to provide for her daily needs. In anticipation of the adjudication hearing, DCFS prepared a report indicating that mother made conflicting statements as to whether she knew it was inappropriate to leave D.L. with grandmother and also stated grandmother was not dangerous to D.L. Mother was “apprehensive and uncouth” during her interview with DCFS and expressed resentment at being told how to care for D.L. Nevertheless, mother recognized she had to participate in individual and drug counseling, as well as parenting classes, in order to reunite with D.L. Mother also admitted past drug use but stated she had rehabilitated after attending a boot camp at age 15. DCFS determined that mother was, in fact, affiliated with gangs or tagging crews. Additionally, DCFS detailed 23 prior referrals it had received alleging mother or her siblings were physically or emotionally abused in grandmother’s home. Though all were closed as unsubstantiated, inconclusive or resolved, the referrals reflected a pattern of family infighting and domestic violence similar to that reported in D.L.’s case. The referrals also described mother’s past drug use, two suicide attempts, self-mutilating behavior, and her participation in counseling and drug rehabilitation as a result. D.L.’s father stated that, in his observation, mother was not responsive to D.L. Nor did he believe mother’s claims as to grandmother’s abusive conduct.
An amended petition was later filed adding allegations that D.L.’s father also failed to protect her. The father is not a party to this proceeding, and allegations referring to him are not at issue.
By agreement of the parties, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the section 300 petition, found jurisdiction over D.L., and ordered continued family reunification services. In addition to the counseling and parenting programs already ordered, mother was to attend an anger management class. Demonstrating an ability to maintain a stable home for D.L. was also stated as a condition of reunification. Mother and D.L. were to remain in the same foster home with unmonitored visitation for mother in the home but monitored visitation otherwise. Approximately three months after that order, DCFS learned that mother had been taking D.L. from the foster home without permission and had once stayed out overnight with D.L. As a result, mother and D.L. were placed in separate foster homes with the terms of visitation unchanged.
By the time of the six-month review hearing, mother was progressing in her case plan, having completed an anger management class, attended some parenting sessions, and begun individual counseling. After her placement in a new foster home, she had also regularly visited D.L. However, mother had not followed-up on referrals to new parenting classes and counseling near her revised placement. Moreover, mother told the social worker that while she wished to reunify with D.L., she would prefer to have D.L. remain in foster care for a while so she could concentrate on attending school and completing her case plan. Accordingly, though the standard period of reunification for children under three years is six months, the juvenile court found mother to be in partial compliance with her case plan and agreed to extend reunification for another six-month period.
In anticipation of the 12-month review, DCFS reported that mother’s progress in her case plan had crumbled. During a medical examination in April 2009, mother had tested positive for drugs. On four occasions in August 2009, DCFS requested another drug test from mother, but she missed them all. Finally, on September 1, 2009, mother submitted to another drug test and had another positive result. Mother claimed the positive drug tests were from contact highs that occurred when her friends smoked marijuana, thereby revealing that she was associating with drug users. There was also information that mother was acting out in her foster placement, including stealing and running away. Mother had ceased participating in individual counseling approximately two months before DCFS’s report. Her regular visits with D.L. had also ceased for approximately six weeks prior to the report.
Three days before the 12-month review hearing, mother enrolled in another individual counseling program and a drug counseling program. She had also “re-enrolled” in high school and reported that she was visiting D.L. again. Because mother requested a contested hearing, the 12-month review was continued for a total of approximately 11 weeks, to December 3, 2009. In the interim, DCFS supplied information that mother had been assaulted by D.L.’s father but resisted advice to make a police report and seek a restraining order. However, mother was consistently participating in her new counseling programs, had received a clean drug test, and was also taking a second parenting course. No further testimony was offered at the contested hearing, but mother’s counsel asserted that mother had, in fact, obtained a restraining order as to D.L’s father, though it had already lapsed. She further asserted that DCFS should have acted more diligently to have mother retest after her positive April drug test and should have pressed mother to go into drug counseling. Mother’s counsel acknowledged that because mother had already received almost 17 months of reunification services from the time of D.L.’s detention, she was only statutorily eligible for another 6 weeks of services. However, she asserted that because DCFS did not push mother to take the efforts she had recently demonstrated, mother should be allowed the additional 6 weeks in which to reunify with D.L.
Noting that for children under three years of age reunification is normally limited to six months, the juvenile court found that mother was not entitled to another six weeks of reunification. The court found the conditions that necessitated D.L.’s detention remained. There was no substantial likelihood that D.L. could be safely returned to mother in the remaining reunification period. While it acknowledged mother was in partial compliance with her case plan, her compliance had deteriorated as reunification went on, and only resumed on the eve of the 12-month review. The fact that mother had added drug use to her earlier failures did not warrant extending the reunification period. The court also found DCFS had made reasonable efforts at reunification. Thus, the court terminated family reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition followed.
DISCUSSION
In this petition, mother argues the juvenile court erred in finding that she did not substantially comply with her case plan and could not successfully reunite with D.L. by the 18-month limit of reunification. As mother’s counsel acknowledged, that limit would arrive a mere six weeks after the final review hearing. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) As counsel further acknowledges, when considering a juvenile court’s conclusions as to whether a parent has made sufficient progress to suggest reunification with the child is likely, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763; In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.) After reviewing the record here, we find there was, in fact, substantial evidence in support of the juvenile court’s finding.
To begin, contrary to mother’s assertion, the juvenile court did not find that she had not made substantial progress in her case plan. The court simply found that her progress was partial. Although mother had completed parenting and anger management classes as directed by the court, and had participated in individual counseling for a time, her participation in counseling was spotty. More importantly, the point of counseling was to remedy the issues that lead to D.L.’s detainment from mother, such as mother’s instability, running away from home, and repeatedly leaving D.L. with grandmother without an adequate plan of her care, and in contravention of mother’s own claims that grandmother was abusive. Instead of establishing a stable home for D.L., as required by the case plan, until the eve of the final review hearing, mother continued with her inconsistent behavior, disappeared from home, and undertook drug use or at least associated with drug users. There was also evidence she was involved in continuing domestic violence. Mother had been given 17 months under the continuous supervision of DCFS in which to demonstrate her ability to take custody of D.L., but by the end of that period, she was moving away from that goal rather than toward it. And this is a situation involving a child under three years of age, in which the regularly permitted reunification period is six months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) The court was therefore justified in concluding it was not substantially likely that an additional six weeks of reunification would result in a safe home for D.L. with mother.
Mother further argues that the juvenile court erred in finding DCFS provided her with reasonable reunification services during the final reunification period. Specifically, she contends that because she had resumed using drugs, or associating with drug users sufficient to cause a positive drug test, DCFS should have been more diligent in determining whether she was, in fact, using drugs and made greater efforts at drug rehabilitation for her. But the evidence shows that DCFS routinely followed up with D.L.’s case and monitored mother’s case plan compliance. It did pursue the issue of mother’s apparent drug use, despite being told the first positive test was simply from a contact high after mother was around other drug users, and repeatedly tried to get her to submit to a test. By the time mother submitted to a drug test, and was again found to have a positive result, mother was already re-enrolled in a counseling program that included drug rehabilitation. Thus, the court’s finding of reasonable services was supported by substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 762 [adequacy of reunification reviewed for substantial evidence].)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary relief is denied.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Actin P.J., WEISMAN, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.