Opinion
A152386
12-12-2017
A.M., SR., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DEL NORTE, Respondent. DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JVSQ 16-6215)
Petitioner A.M., Sr., father of A.M., Jr., challenges the juvenile court's September 1, 2017 order terminating Father's reunification services and setting a hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 on the ground that he was not provided reasonable reunification services. Father contends that he began to exhibit signs of extreme mental illness during the review period, however the Agency failed to provide him with mental health services. Thus, according to Father, the services he was offered were deficient. For the reasons given below, we deny his petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2016, the Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that A.M., Jr., born in September 2016, has suffered or is at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of his parents' failure to supervise or protect him adequately and due to their inability to provide regular care for him because of mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. The petition alleged that Father tested positive for methamphetamine in early November 2016, that he has a substance abuse problem that impairs both his judgment and his ability to provide proper care for A.M., Jr., and that he (together with the mother) would not allow A.M., Jr. to be tested for drugs. Furthermore, according to the detention report, the parents had a domestic dispute on or about October 10, 2016 and that during that dispute A.M., Sr. punched a hole in a window in A.M., Jr.'s presence. Department records revealed that the couple was the subject of seven investigations for general neglect by Child Welfare, which included allegations against Father. The report also described two of the seven allegations that were substantiated as follows: (1) on October 19, 2016, the Department was informed that Father has been unable to remain drug-free and that he would leave the baby with a caretaker to do drugs; and (2) on October 30, 2016, the Department was informed that there was on-going domestic violence between the parents, that Father had "been on a two-day run with methamphetamine," and that Father was stealing things to support his drug habit. In addition, the report indicated that as a juvenile Father had been arrested eight times between 2005 and 2011and had been sentenced to juvenile hall six times for charges ranging from resisting a peace officer to battery to vandalism.
The juvenile petition made allegations regarding both parents. Only Father, however, filed a petition challenging the juvenile court's decision; consequently, we focus on facts relevant to him.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations against Father. It ordered that A.M., Jr. remain detained in foster care and granted Father supervised visitation with the minor for a minimum of five hours per week. In its disposition report, the Department recommended that Father be given reunification services. Thereafter, the juvenile court conducted a disposition hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found A.M., Jr. to be a dependent of the court and ordered that he be placed with a suitable relative, emergency shelter, or in another suitable facility. Father was ordered to complete a mental health evaluation for depression and low self-esteem and past trauma. His assessment was scheduled for January 2017. The juvenile court also ordered, as a part of Father's case plan, that he participate in parenting education, random drug monitoring, undergo a substance abuse assessment—and follow any recommended treatment. The Department was also ordered to provide Father with services designed to address homelessness. The court set a status review hearing for June 30, 2017.
An interim review hearing was held in February, 2017. At that hearing, the Department maintained its recommendation that Father continue to receive services. With respect to the minor, the Department reported that A.M., Jr. was experiencing multiple medical problems that might require specialty medical care. Father, in turn, reported to the court that he had not attended all of his scheduled visitation with A.M., Jr., but that he visited with AM once or twice per week. He stated that he had been drug-free for 10 days.
A status review hearing, scheduled for June 30, 2017, was continued when the juvenile court was informed that Father was confined to a mental hospital and could not attend. A subsequent status review hearing scheduled for July 21, was also continued after jail officials informed the court that Father was in jail and could not be transported to the hearing for fear that he might harm himself or others. Before the hearing was adjourned, Father's counsel reported that he understood that, as of July 7, 2017, Father had just been released from an involuntary hold at the county jail due to concerns that he would injure himself or others. Counsel apprised the court that during his visit with Father, Father's pants were torn to the waist and he did not seem to be fully aware of his surroundings. In addition, counsel reported that Father did not respond to his questions or suggestions, but alternated between laughing and uncontrollable sobbing. Father was unable to attend the next hearing date set by the court. The July 28, 2017 court minutes stated that Father was exhibiting combative behavior, spreading fecal matter on himself, and refusing to shower or dress himself and that he refused to speak to the lawyer representing him in the juvenile proceedings. At the August 4, 2017 scheduled hearing, Father's counsel requested a continuance to allow him to read the mental evaluation prepared in Father's criminal case. At that same hearing, the juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem for Father, however Father assaulted the guardian ad litem and the court appointed a new guardian for him.
The continued hearing was also to address appointing a guardian ad litem for Father.
Father attended the six-month review hearing on August 29, 2017. In its report the Department recommended that Father's reunification services be terminated. The report noted that Father had not completed any of the elements of his case plan. In addition, the Department reported that between February and the date of the report, June 26, 2017, Father did not visit A.M., Jr.
The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing as a result of the Department's recommendation. A.M. Jr.'s paternal grandmother ("Grandmother") testified that she noticed Father having some behavioral issues, i.e., that "he kind of shut down, wasn't really talking" and did not seem aware of certain things in his environment at the end of 2016. However, Grandmother did not notice any further behavioral abnormalities until mid- to late May 2017, when she observed that "[Father's] whole body was doing — like contorting" and Father exhibited "weird hand symbols" upon returning home after an evening out with a friend. Over the next few weeks his behavior became increasingly bizarre—not talking, seeming not to really be there, and having paroxysms of laughter. Grandmother notified social services about Father's behavior, telling them he seemed "possessed." As far as Grandmother knew, aside from recording what she told the Department, social services took no action. Grandmother also reported that Father had seen a psychiatrist when he was a juvenile, but had never previously exhibited symptoms similar to his current symptoms. She stated that Father had been discharged from the hospital on July 3, 2017 with prescriptions for four psychotropic medications. Despite her efforts to take Father to obtain mental health services, she could not say whether Father continued to take his medications after being discharged.
Father's girlfriend—A.M., Jr.'s mother—testified that she was worried that Father was having cardiac and respiratory issues and as a result, he was hospitalized during the review period. According to his girlfriend, upon Father's release from the hospital, he was diagnosed as "coming down off methamphetamine."
The social worker assigned to Father's case testified that she did not consider Father to have mental health issues per se. On the other hand, she learned from Grandmother sometime after mid-June 2017, that Father was "acting crazy" and had set his bed on fire. She also knew, based on a police report, that he carried a diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenia." However, the social worker testified that "his drug use led to [his strange] behaviors; when he wasn't using, he didn't display these behaviors." Moreover, the social worker opined that "[when Father] was institutionalized, he seemed to be almost stabilized." Father failed to follow through with his mental health assessment or fill his prescriptions. Although she believed that county mental health could not provide effective services for him, she, nonetheless, referred him there and would have provided transportation, if necessary, so that he could be assessed and establish himself with a therapist. After she referred him for a mental health assessment, Father never requested assistance to engage with mental health. Rather, as Father explained to the social worker, " his main issue was substance abuse."
After presentation of the evidence, the juvenile court entertained argument from counsel. Father's counsel argued that the services provided by the Department were not reasonable because Father had not been taken to a mental health facility for treatment. He further argued that the services were not adequate to address Father's actual needs. However, counsel acknowledged that it was only in hindsight that he considered the services to have been inadequate.
The Department maintained that at the time services were offered, it was reasonable to believe that Father's symptoms were due to his drug use, rather than a mental health issue. Furthermore, the Department made a mental health referral at the beginning of the case to investigate the possibility of an underlying mental health issue, and it offered ancillary services to facilitate Father's getting to the mental health assessment. Thus, it contended, the Department fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable services.
In finding that the services were, in fact, reasonable, the court indicated that it had not previously been aware that Father had any mental health issues.
To support its decision to terminate services, the juvenile court noted that the purpose of providing services is to help the parent overcome the problem that led to the initial removal—and all the information here suggested that Father's problem was "a very significant, ongoing illicit drug problem." The court stated it had searched the record to determine whether there were indications that mental health issues might have prevented Father's participation in services, but found no such evidence. It noted that the case plan included a mental health examination. While the court acknowledged that the Department might be criticized for being passive, it found that reasonable services had been offered to Father because the Department's obligation is to make services available, designed to overcome the initial problem, and then to deal with identifiable problems that might arise in accessing those services.
The court terminated reunification services, finding that (1) Father had not made significant progress in resolving the issues that led to A.M., Jr.'s placement and (2) returning the child to him would create a substantial risk to the child's safety, protection and physical and emotional wellbeing; it, thus, set a section 366.26 hearing.
On September 7, 2017 Father filed a timely notice of intent to file writ petition in the juvenile court. After being granted an extension of time, Father filed his petition on October 27, 2017. The Department filed its response on November 6, 2017 and the parties waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
Father raises a single argument in his petition: that the Department failed to provide him with reasonable reunification services because, despite the fact that he was suffering from severe mental health issues, it did not provide services to address those needs. Our role is to determine whether "substantial evidence" supports the juvenile court's findings. (See Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1328, 1341.) All conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate and reasonable inferences necessary to uphold the juvenile court's order should be made. The evidence must be reasonable, credible, and solid. (In re Lynna B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 682, 695.) Where more than one inference can be drawn from the facts, we may not substitute our deduction for those of the juvenile court. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Finally, speculation or conjecture does not constitute substantial evidence. (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424.)
In supporting his argument, Father relies primarily on Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, a decision in which Division Two of this court found that the juvenile court's terminating reunification services was erroneous. There the minor was detained as a result of mother's diagnosis of schizophrenia and her disclosure that she was experiencing violent hallucinations of harming and killing her child. (Id. at p. 401.) The social worker expressed doubt that the mother was taking her medication properly, but did nothing to investigate that issue. (Ibid.) Furthermore, there was "no evidence the agency offered services to either parent designed to help them improve mother's ability to take her medication as prescribed." (Ibid.) Patricia W., in our view, is readily distinguishable from the matter before us. In Patricia W. the mother's diagnosis of schizophrenia and hallucinations associated with her diagnosis caused the minor's detention. Moreover, despite repeated indications that she was not taking her prescribed medications, the agency did nothing to investigate or help the parent ameliorate her compliance problem. Thus, the agency in Patricia W. failed to provide services designed to allow the parent to safely care for her child and stay on the necessary medication. (Id. at p. 422.) Unlike the circumstances giving rise to the minor's detention in Patricia W., here it is Father's substance abuse that necessitated juvenile court intervention. In addition to comprehensive services and testing for substance abuse and homelessness, Father's case plan also provided that he undergo a mental health evaluation. The Department social worker also testified that Father's problems were primarily substance-abuse related: his mental instability occurred when he engaged in drug use and did not manifest when he was drug-free. The worker's opinion in this regard was corroborated when Father was hospitalized with psychiatric symptoms during the review period, but upon release, those symptoms were ascribed to drug withdrawal. Moreover, during the period in which reunification services were available to Father, neither his attorney nor his guardian ad litem ever indicated that he required more intense mental health services. In fact, Father's counsel also conceded that it was only in hindsight that he suspected that mental health problems ought to have been addressed more than they were.
Ultimately the court criticized the parent's imprecise mental health diagnosis, which various authorities suggested was bipolar disease, obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. (Patricia W. v. Superior Court, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 423.) Regardless of her exact condition, however, she clearly had some mental health diagnosis which led to her child's being detained. --------
We acknowledge that during the review period the Grandmother informed the Department that father had engaged in strange behavior. Yet, the social worker, Father's girlfriend, and reports of the assessment of trained medical professionals all stated that Father's odd behavior was related to his drug abuse.
Here, Father's primary problem was identified as substance abuse. To help him resolve that issue, the case plan required him to undergo drug testing, have a substance abuse assessment, and follow its recommendations. The information about Father's possible mental health symptoms reported by the Grandmother was not ignored; the Department simply interpreted them, as the medical professionals reportedly did, as arising from Father's well-established substance abuse issues. In all events, the Department reasonably believed his problems were as a result of his drug use and it tailored a case plan that addressed his sobriety, while at the same time, attempted to discover whether Father had any ancillary mental health issues. Thus, on this record, we conclude that the Department met the standard of providing Father with reasonable services under the circumstances. (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547 ["The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances"].)
DISPOSITION
For the reasons given above, the petition for an extraordinary writ is denied. Our decision is immediately final as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
/s/_________
Jenkins, J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Siggins, J.