Opinion
D041911.
7-25-2003
Z. W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Z. W. (the Guardian) seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services and her appointment as C.L.s legal guardian. She contends the court abused its discretion in terminating the guardianship and its findings and orders were not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Guardian was appointed nine-year-old C.L.s guardian under the Probate Code in 1995. On September 26, 2001, C. L. was removed from the Guardians home after an eight-month-old foster child there was discovered to have arm and hand fractures in various stages of healing and bruising on her back, suspicious for inflicted trauma. The Guardian could not explain the injuries. C.L. reported being hit with a belt when she was five and when she was eight. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on C.L.s behalf under section 300, subdivision (a). The court ordered C.L. detained, and ordered supervised visitation and therapy referrals for the Guardian.
On March 27, 2002, the court found the allegations of the petition true, declared C.L. a dependent, removed her from the Guardians care and ordered the Guardian to comply with a case plan that included counseling, supervised visitation, a psychological evaluation, and parenting and homemaking education. At the July 22 six-month hearing, the court found the Guardian had made some progress, continued C.L. a dependent and continued services.
For the next review hearing, the social worker reported a previous therapist had stopped the Guardians therapy because she was not making progress. The Guardian refused to go to a new therapist, not starting therapy again for more than three months. The social worker recommended terminating services. The Agency moved to terminate the guardianship.
At the review hearing on April 3, 2003, the social worker testified the Guardian had completed a parenting class and had attended some therapy sessions. The Guardian testified she wanted to continue therapy and believed she could complete her case plan in six more months.
The court observed the Guardian had been preoccupied with legal issues at the expense of making progress in therapy. It found C.L.s return to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment and, although reasonable services had been offered or provided, the Guardian had not made substantive progress. It terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. After further argument, it terminated the guardianship. The Guardian petitioned for review of the courts orders. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B.) This court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
I
The Guardian contends the court abused its discretion in terminating the guardianship before the section 366.26 hearing. Broad discretion rests with the juvenile court to determine what is in the best interests of a dependent child. (In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 996, 1005, 235 Cal. Rptr. 22.) That discretion should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415, 878 P.2d 1297.) A child has the right to a stable, permanent home. (Id. at p. 419.)
Here, there was no abuse of discretion. The record indicates the Guardian did not place C.L.s best interests as her primary concern. Throughout the case she challenged legal decisions, rather than addressing the issues that caused her to lose custody of C.L. As the juvenile court commented, the legal issues became a preoccupation "much to the injury of [the] case." The Guardian continued to deny that there had been any abuse in her home. Although C.L. expressed fear after one visit, saying she was afraid the Guardian would take her into the bathroom and give her a "whooping," and saying she was afraid of the Guardians teenage son because he had hit her in the past, the Guardian denied this could be so. The psychologist who evaluated the Guardian in April 2002 commented on her excessive use of repression and denial. He stated: "Until she acknowledges some wrongdoing and seeks to overcome the factors that resulted in it, she will not likely reunify with the child whom she undoubtedly loves." The Guardian participated in therapy from July to September 2002, but it was stopped because she failed to deal with the protective issues. She resisted starting therapy again until January 15, 2003, and her new therapist reported although the Guardian had started to make progress, she continued to want to discuss the legalities of the case. The Guardian had been offered and provided services to help her to reunify, but she resisted taking advantage of those services and dealing with the problems that led to C.L.s removal. The court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the guardianship before the section 366.26 hearing.
II
The Guardian asserts the court erred in terminating services at the 12-month hearing. The Agency argues the hearing should be denominated the 18-month hearing because by the time it occurred C.L. had been out of the Guardians custody and services had been ordered for 18 months. Whether the hearing is called the 12-month or the 18-month hearing, the Guardian has not shown error.
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile courts findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 1031, 1036-1037, 177 Cal. Rptr. 783.) "We must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also . . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court. " (In re Luwannna S. (1973) 31 Cal. App. 3d 112, 114, 107 Cal. Rptr. 62, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 337, 340, 94 Cal. Rptr. 519.) It is the appellants burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the courts findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal. App. 3d 412, 420, 159 Cal. Rptr. 460.)
Here, extensive services were offered for more than 12 months. The Guardian, however, denied having problems, and the social worker concluded she had not addressed the risks that led to C.L.s removal from her custody. The Guardian refused to discuss with the social worker what she had learned in parenting classes and, although she had made some progress in therapy, she continued to concentrate on protecting her rights, rather than focusing on C.L.s best interests. The Guardian has not shown error in the court not extending services for six more months.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, Acting P. J., OROURKE, J.