Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Ct. No. 09CEJ300255-1, Mary Dolas, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Susan M. O’Brien, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Franson, J.
Sierra F. and Nicholas F. (the minors) were placed in protective custody and adjudged dependents of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) At the six-month review hearing in August 2010, the court found the Department of Social Services (the Department) had provided reasonable reunification services to the mother, Amanda F. (appellant), and also ordered reunification services to continue. Appellant appeals from the court’s finding, asserting insufficient evidence demonstrates the Department provided reasonable mental health services. We agree and reverse the reasonable services finding.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2009, the minors were removed from their parents’ home due to general neglect and substantial risk of sexual abuse. The parents had an extensive prior child welfare history involving the minors’ two half brothers, beginning in 1995, including separate claims that two of the parents’ friends sexually abused the minors’ half brothers.
At the October 20, 2009, detention hearing, the court ordered the parents to undergo parenting classes, a mental health assessment and recommended treatment, and counseling to address issues of sexual abuse. Appellant received a mental health assessment on November 18, 2009, and the recommended next step was a psychological evaluation “to assess her cognitive capacity to safely raise her children.”
At the disposition hearing on January 26, 2010, reunification services were ordered, and a six-month review hearing was set for July 20, 2010. As part of the reunification plan, appellant was ordered to participate in parenting classes, a mental health evaluation and recommended treatment, and a psychological evaluation. Although recommended over two months before, appellant had yet to receive a psychological evaluation, despite her willingness to participate. The court questioned the Department as to the status of the psychological evaluation, but the Department had no information on the matter. The court ordered the Department to follow up and to “put into place the referrals so [the psychological evaluation] can get scheduled as soon as possible.”
Two months later, at the post-disposition mediation hearing on March 30, 2010, appellant still had yet to receive the psychological evaluation, since the social worker had belatedly put in a referral in mid-March requesting both a second mental health assessment and a psychological evaluation. The Department requested the issue be continued so they could investigate the delays in the psychological referral. The matter was continued to May 18, 2010.
On April 5, 2010, appellant finally received a psychological evaluation. The psychologist recommended various treatments, including individual therapy, counseling, and an evaluation for psychotropic medications.
At the May 18, 2010, status review hearing, the psychological evaluation was reviewed and the court ordered a second mental health assessment to authorize the recommended therapies. The social worker at that time assured the court the parents would “get into those services that they need.”
The six-month status review hearing was held on July 20, 2010. However, appellant had still not received referrals for the mental health evaluation or the recommended therapies. Because of this, the court ordered the Department to provide, within a week, an update on appellant’s mental health services progress. The Department failed to offer any reason for the delay except that there “may have been a breakdown within [the mental health services agency].” After the hearing, the Department submitted a new referral for a mental health evaluation, as recommended by the April 5, 2010, psychological evaluation and ordered by the court on May 18.
The continued six-month status review hearing was held on July 28, 2010. The Department submitted a Status Review Report, recommending that reunification services continue for appellant and that a finding be made that the Department had provided or offered reasonable services to appellant. Appellant’s counsel objected to the proposed finding that reasonable services had been provided to his client, because of the lengthy delays for the psychological evaluation, referrals for individual counseling and a second mental health assessment. The matter was continued to August 10 for the court to consider an updated report on appellant’s mental health services.
At the August 10, 2010, status review hearing, the court found reasonable services had been provided to appellant. At that time, appellant had yet to receive or begin any of the recommended treatments arising from the April 5, 2010, psychological evaluation. Reunification services were continued and the 12-month review hearing was set for December 2010.
The court stated, “I think reasonable services have been offered. They need not be perfect. But a mental health assessment was provided. The recommendation was a psych evaluation. A psych evaluation was scheduled and completed and since then, further services are being recommended as well as other options for the parents to participate in. [¶] So I think the Department is identifying through these different evaluations what, if any, services are being recommended or suggested by the therapist and by these evaluations and I think at this point, they need to follow up to make sure that the appropriate referrals are being made. [¶] And the fact that the Department is acknowledging that the parents are progressing and participating in things thus far and are recommending further time for the parents to continue to participate in recommended treatment, I don’t see that there’s any adversity to the parents by going forward. [¶] So I agree the Department needs to follow up and continue to make appropriate referrals based on the assessments that have been completed. And I will direct that the Department do that expeditiously. And I’ll set a further status review to make sure that these referrals have been made that have been found appropriate.”
Throughout the dependency proceedings, both parents were making good faith efforts to comply with the case plan, remained in contact with the children, attended regular visits which improved from supervised visits to unsupervised visits, and expressed a continuous desire to reunite with the children and a willingness to undergo any classes, programs, or treatments offered so as to reunite with the minors. The goal throughout had been for reunification. The court found the parents had made “moderate” to “significant” progress throughout the proceedings.
We requested, sua sponte, the most recent orders of the trial court with respect to this matter and notified the parties of our intent to augment the record on our own motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Respondent objected to augmenting the record on grounds we should not consider post-judgment evidence. While we agree post-judgment evidence may not be considered in determining the reasonable services issue, we did consider the orders solely on the issue of mootness and conclude the issue is not technically moot. (See In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488-1489; §§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2) & 366.22, subd. (a))
DISCUSSION
Appellant challenges the adequacy of the reunification services the Department provided her leading up to the six-month review hearing. Respondent contends reasonable services were provided, and even assuming they were not, any such error was harmless given the Department’s recommendation and the court’s order for continuation of reunification services.
Reunification services are generally limited to a total of 18 months. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3) & 366.22, subd. (a); see also Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1015.) At each status review hearing, the court must determine “[t]he extent of the agency’s compliance with the case plan in making reasonable efforts... to return the child to a safe home....” (§ 366, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The court must also determine whether reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (e); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.708(e).) “The finding that reasonable reunification services have been offered must be supported by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ [Citation.] The applicable standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. [Citation.]” (Robert L. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 619, 625-626.)
“The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of [the Department’s] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case. [Citation.] Moreover, [the Department] must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification plan. [Citation.] ‘[T]he 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....’ [Citation.]” (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345 (Amanda H.).) 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. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
In Amanda H., the appellate court found that the Department failed to provide reasonable reunification services when the social worker neglected to inform - and ultimately misled - the mother and the court that the particular type of counseling mother was enrolled in would not satisfy her requirements for reunification, resulting in mother’s reunification services being terminated. The appellate court commented, “it was the social worker’s job to maintain adequate contact with the service providers and accurately to inform the juvenile court and mother of the sufficiency of the enrolled programs to meet the case plan’s requirements. [Citations.]” (Amanda H., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347.)
Here, appellant received similar treatment from the Department leading up to the six-month status review hearing. The Department failed to maintain contact with the service providers and inform appellant of programs to meet the case plan’s requirements. Despite inquiries by counsel and the court at a handful of hearings, the Department failed to submit a referral for the psychological evaluation until March 2010, four months after it was recommended. After the psychological evaluation took place, appellant received further recommendations for treatment. The Department failed to submit referrals for those recommended treatments (which were recommended in early April) until late July 2010, after further prodding once again from counsel and the court.
The recommended mental health services and counseling addressed the specific needs of the mother in her attempts to reunify with her children. The psychological evaluation noted, “It is unclear if [appellant] played an active or passive role in her children’s exposure to high-risk individuals, situations, and pornography.… If her role was active, she requires intensive training on how to ensure the safety needs of her children and appropriate adult/child boundaries.” Failing to provide the appropriate referrals in a timely manner hindered appellant from reuniting with her children. The Department failed to provide reasonable services to appellant in the period leading up to the six-month status review hearing. Assuming the minors’ dependency has not been dismissed, the Department could file a subsequent petition and appellant will have lost several months of reunification services under the erroneous reasonable services finding. (See In re Joel T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 263, 267-268.)
DISPOSITION
The reasonable services finding of the six-month review of dependency status hearing on August 10, 2010, is reversed.
WE CONCUR: Wiseman, Acting P.J., Detjen, J.