Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP012676, Caryl Lee, Judge.
Law Offices of Arthur J. LaCilento and Arthur J. LaCilento for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency.
Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Linda O’Neil for Real Party in Interest Eric E.
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
Petitioner, Kim N. (Mother), is the mother of Eric E., who was taken into protective custody in December 2005. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, Mother seeks a writ of mandate or prohibition ordering the respondent court (the juvenile court) to vacate its order of September 7, 2007 terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted). The section 366.26 hearing is set for January 7, 2008. Eric’s father, Ronald E., Jr. (Father), did not participate in family reunification services and does not challenge the juvenile court’s order.
Mother’s writ petition challenges the juvenile court’s order on two grounds. First, Mother contends Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) did not provide her timely and adequate psychiatric referrals as provided in her case plan and failed to prevent Eric’s paternal grandfather from interfering with conjoint therapy. Second, Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated her due process rights by denying her request to continue the 18-month review hearing. We disagree with both contentions and therefore deny Mother’s writ petition.
Facts and Procedural History
I.
Background and Facts Leading to Jurisdiction
Eric was born in April 1993. In December 2005, Westminster police officers placed Eric in protective custody at his own request. Eric had refused to continue to live with Mother. He reported he had been stealing food from the landlord in order to eat and had worn the same clothes for a week. The police officers noticed the room Eric had been sharing with Mother was unfit for him to live in.
The juvenile dependency petition, filed December 7, 2005, alleged failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) as count 1, and abuse of sibling (§ 300, subd. (j)) as count 2. On December 8, the juvenile court ordered Eric detained and placed in protective custody.
The jurisdictional/dispositional report, filed January 3, 2006, expressed concern over an unidentified mental health problem that impaired Mother’s judgment. The report noted Mother had a “long history with Social Services Agencies” and had received “numerous services and interventions from [SSA], which have not proven to be effective.” There had been 14 prior child abuse reports (many substantiated) against the family, and Mother had a criminal record. The social worker conducted a telephone interview with Ronald E., Jr., in which he stated he was Eric’s father.
The jurisdictional/dispositional report stated Eric has two siblings: Jacqueline E. (Jackie), born in 1986, and Alexandria E., born in 1989. All three siblings had been declared dependents in Los Angeles County in 1998, but, in November 2000, the case was closed and the children were returned to Mother’s custody.
Jackie, now an adult, was living separately from the family and working full-time. She told the social worker she wanted to have Eric placed in her custody “because the situation with their mother has been ongoing for years.” Eric’s younger sister, Alexandria, had been in protective custody since 2003.
The jurisdictional/dispositional report included the substance of the social worker’s interview with Eric: “The undersigned asked the child if he wished to return to the care [of] his mother. The child stated that he did not wish to return to the care [of] his mother. The undersigned asked the child why he no longer wishes to reside with his mother. The child stated that he is ‘tired’ of his mother and the way she lives. The child explained that he and the mother move frequently from one room in someone’s home to another and he does not want to go back to a foster home again. The mother does not provide him even ‘one meal a day’ on many occasions. The child admitted he was stealing food to eat. The undersigned stated that the child was now 12 years old and could make himself something to eat. The child stated, ‘There is no food in the house and there is not even a microwave to warm the food if there was any. I eat one meal a day at school.’ [¶] The child stated that the mother does not wash his clothes and he frequently wears dirty clothes to school and even has to wear the same dirty underwear for days. The child stated, ‘She is always yelling at me. She tells me I’m stupid or a fucking idiot or will threaten[] to take me to Arizona, because she knows I want to stay in school here and she has done things like that before. She does not let me see the other people in my family like my grandfather or my sister Jackie. I do not want to live with my mother again if I do go back with her this will just happen again. I’ll end up in Orangewood [Children’s Home] again. The house is never clean and when she gets kicked out of a place she does things like pour ice cream and water all over the carpet and plugged up the toilet on purpose. When Jackie and [younger sister] Alex lived with us she did not pick on me so much because she picked on them more, but now I’m the only one she has to take it out on.’”
Eric’s paternal grandfather, Ronald E., Sr. (Paternal Grandfather), expressed hope that Eric could be placed in his home or with Jackie, who, he said, always cared for her siblings. Paternal Grandfather stated there had been an “ongoing issue” between Mother and the children over several years and he did not understand “how the mother seems to get away with her behavior time after time when it involves the emotional and physical safety of the children.”
The jurisdictional/dispositional report noted, “mother’s judgment is impaired due to her mental health problems.” The proposed case plan recommended Mother participate in individual and conjoint therapy and obtain psychiatric counseling. The proposed case plan also recommended Mother participate in and complete an SSA-approved program of domestic violence counseling and complete an SSA-approved parenting course.
On January 18, 2006, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of count 1 of the petition (as amended by interlineation) and dismissed count 2. The juvenile court declared Eric a dependent child of the court, vested custody in Mother, and approved SSA’s recommended service plan.
On February 27, 2006, SSA filed a petition pursuant to section 387 seeking to remove Eric from Mother’s custody for noncompliance with the court-ordered family maintenance services. SSA asserted Mother had been dropped from her parenting course after missing three classes, and major concerns remained over Eric’s safety, supervision and living conditions in Mother’s care. When asked whether he wanted to continue living with Mother, Eric replied that he wanted to live with Paternal Grandfather. Eric said Mother “‘is crazy. I don’t like her. I never know what her mood is.’” On February 28, the juvenile court ordered Eric removed from Mother’s custody, and he eventually was placed with Paternal Grandfather. The court ordered SSA to prepare a family reunification services plan.
A counselor at Olive Crest stated, after an initial counseling session with Mother, “‘I am not qualified to diagnose the mother, but there appears to be a more significant mental health issue.’ . . . ‘The mother was so labile and emotional that I could not treat her in session. She requires a referral for other mental health services.’” The counselor referred Mother to two places for mental health services.
Father was located in Smoot, Wyoming. The social worker interviewed him by telephone. Father told the social worker he wanted Eric to live with Paternal Grandfather.
II.
Mother’s Mental Health Issues and Reunification Services
In the jurisdictional/dispositional report dated March 27, 2006, the social worker expressed concern that Mother’s mental health issues were impairing her parenting skills. The report stated: “The mother has a long history with Social Services Agencies and appears to have a mental health problem, which has not been identified. The mother has failed to follow up with referrals to mental health services. The mother has been involved in physical abuse of her children and domestic violence with the children’s alleged father and her ex-husband. The mother has stated she has left the child unsupervised on more than one occasion, including overnight. The mother acknowledges she never obtained a bed for the child as Court ordered. The mother acknowledges that she is unable to currently care for the child due to her current shelter and lack of employment. [¶] Further, the mother has limited ability to manage her own emotional needs, and this places the child at risk in the mother’s care. The mother’s behavior towards the child constitutes serious emotional abuse and places the child at risk with regard to the child’s health and safety.”
Mother’s case plan required her to participate in conjoint counseling with Eric and any individual counseling recommended by the therapist. The purpose of counseling was to address Mother’s “behavior, mental health problems, history of poor parental skills, anger management, domestic violence, emotional abuse of the child, not providing basic need for your child, issues regarding adult sister and grandfather.”
An SSA addendum report, dated April 10, 2006, noted Mother had not contacted either mental health provider referred to her by the Olive Crest counselor. Mother also had not scheduled an appointment for long-term conjoint counseling. The report stated: “Since the last hearing the mother has failed to visit the child consistently and has terminated a visit early. The mother demonstrates the inability to converse appropriately or constructively with the child and to refrain from discussing uncomfortable topics. [¶] The mother has failed to make follow up appointments for her mental health referrals, and she has not called her Individual Provider, Minh Anh Vo, for individual and/or conjoint therapy.”
In mid-April 2006, Mother was arrested on a felony stalking charge after she was caught on a former boyfriend’s porch. Mother was incarcerated from April 16 to May 4, 2006.
The SSA addendum report, dated May 22, 2006, reported that Mother had missed two parenting classes, but did appear for and participate in her parenting class on May 4. Eric had started counseling with a licensed clinical social worker, while Mother had not yet scheduled a counseling appointment. Eric was performing well in school. He expressed a desire to continue living with Paternal Grandfather and did not want to return to Mother’s care. The May 22 report recommended the juvenile court order an Evidence Code section 730 psychological evaluation of Mother to evaluate her mental health and ability to care for Eric. Mother’s case plan stated: “You will cooperate with any psychological evaluation ordered by the Court. You will follow any recommendations of the treating psychiatrist.”
On May 23, 2006, upon Mother’s no-contest plea, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the amended supplemental petition and ordered Eric to remain a dependent child. The court ordered a psychological evaluation of Mother and appointed Dr. Donald Smith to perform the evaluation. The court granted Mother reunification services.
In June 2006, Mother underwent an Evidence Code section 730 mental status evaluation. The social worker reviewed the evaluation and summarized the results in the interim review report dated August 22, 2006. The evaluation reported Mother “suffers from vast mood swings, anger, irritability, anxious moods, paranoia, and impulsiveness with excitable tendencies.” Mother displayed “excellent common sense, excellent social judgment, excellent reasoning, and excellent anticipatory planning and forethought skills,” but those appeared to “lie dormant” if Mother became “emotional and aroused.” The report stated the evaluation “appears to support the fact that [Mother] possesses a marked and significant propensity to physically and emotionally abuse her son, Eric.” In response to the question whether Mother had disabilities or psychiatric dysfunctions that would interfere with parenting abilities, the evaluation report noted Mother’s mental status to be “questionable,” her depression appeared to “significantly interfere with positive parenting,” her anxiety disorder appeared to be “debilitating in regard to parenting,” and “her general emotional mood, attitude, and disposition appears unstable.” The evaluation did not indicate Mother was schizophrenic or psychotic, but possibly suffered from delusional thinking that was a product of a paranoid disorder.
The evaluation report offered Dr. Smith’s “clinical judgment” that Mother “has been experiencing emotional and psychological disorders on a chronic basis, and such will not be ameliorated in three, six, or even 12 months. However, with some medical management strictly adhered to by [Mother], there would be a greater chance for successful family reunification within 12 months.” The evaluation report urged Mother to obtain a psychiatric consultation and “diligently follow the medical management prescribed thereafter.” The recommended treatment was twice a week for a minimum of six months.
On August 22, 2006, the juvenile court ordered SSA to incorporate the evaluator’s recommended treatment into Mother’s case plan.
III.
Mother’s Participation in Therapy and Failure to Follow Through on Psychiatric Referrals; Eric’s Refusal to Visit Mother; the Six-month Review Hearing
Mother completed her parenting course in early August 2006 and started therapy with a licensed clinical social worker in July 2006. Mother’s therapist wrote in the narrative statement for August 6, 2006: “‘[Mother] is cooperative in therapy. She is more aware of the need to receive therapy. [Mother] does not understand the need for mental health treatment. But she is willing to look into [the] possibility for this treatment. [Mother] has bitter feelings toward her children because she believed that they had falsely accused her of things that she did not do. [Mother] believed that her children only care about her when she had a lot of money. Nevertheless, she stated that she loves her children a lot and was willing to do anything necessary to build up bonding with them.’” Later, in a September 5 report, Mother’s therapist stated that Mother had made “‘positive progress’” toward achieving her therapy goals, had learned to better control her anger and handle stress, and had learned more about mental health issues. The therapist also noted Mother had stated that she had gone to a couple of mental health facilities, “and they told her that she did not have major mental health problem[s] so she could not receive treatment there.’”
A conjoint therapy session with Mother and Eric was conducted on July 22, 2006. The therapist reported to the social worker that the session “‘did not go well,’” Mother was angry with Eric about many things, the therapist often had to “‘redirect’” Mother, and Eric was “‘quiet and resistant.’” The therapist also reported she had referred Mother to a psychiatrist for medication management, but Mother had not followed through on the referral. In the status review report dated November 13, 2006, the social worker stated: “The undersigned has no knowledge of the mother’s compliance with formal psychiatric treatment and/or recommendations of a treating psychiatrist for psychotropic medication management.”
Eric’s individual counseling therapist reported “having to make significant efforts to gain the child’s trust, to illicit information from the child, and to motivate the child to participate fully in conjoint therapy.” Eric’s participation in conjoint therapy had been “at a minimal level.”
In September 2006, Mother pleaded guilty to the abuse charges leading to Eric’s detention and was placed on informal probation.
Eric did not interact well with Mother during their visits. During a visit on August 2, 2006, Eric refused to respond when Mother asked how he was doing and refused to hug her at the end of the visit. On August 8 and 15, Eric refused to be transported to visits with Mother, telling the social worker, “‘I will tell you the same thing each week.’” He refused to visit Mother at all in September and October 2006. The social worker encouraged Eric to visit Mother, emphasized the need for visits, and asked him if anything could be done to make visits more comfortable for him. Eric replied, “‘[n]o,’” and told the social worker that if SSA were to come to his school to transport him to visits, “‘I won’t get in the car.’”
The six-month review hearing was conducted on November 29, 2006. Upon the parties’ stipulation, the juvenile court found Mother was being provided reasonable reunification services and services should be continued to January 2007. The court authorized releasing Mother’s Evidence Code section 730 evaluation to a psychiatrist who would be treating Mother. The court found SSA had complied with the case plan by making reasonable efforts to return Eric to a safe home.
IV.
Mother’s Failure to Follow-through on New Psychiatric Referrals; the 12-month Review Hearing
On November 29, 2006, Mother’s counsel requested a new psychiatry referral. On December 7, the social worker sent Mother a referral to the Orange County Health Care Agency outpatient clinic. In the status review report dated January 18, 2007, the social worker wrote, “[t]o the knowledge of the undersigned the mother has failed to make contact with this agency.” The social worker also wrote: “The undersigned has no knowledge of . . . [M]other’s compliance with formal psychiatric treatment and/or recommendations of a treating psychiatrist for psychotropic medication management.” Mother failed to make her monthly contact with the social worker, as required by Mother’s case plan, for the months of October, November, and December 2006.
Mother’s younger daughter Alexandria died unexpectedly on December 17, 2006. Alexandria had been in protective custody since February 2003. On the day she died, Eric declined the social worker’s offer for him to see and speak with Mother. After Alexandria’s death, Mother was more cooperative and open in speaking with the social worker.
In the status review report dated January 18, 2007, the social worker wrote: “The mother’s perceptions to reunify with the child have fluctuated over the course of the child’s dependency as referenced in earlier Court reports submitted to this Court as evidence. In June of this year, the mother stated she ‘was unsure she wanted to do this (reunify).’ Currently, the mother has stated on January 4, 2007 that she understood she needed to discuss ‘the doctor thing’ to reunify.” The social worker commented that Mother “deserves credit” for participating in individual therapy sessions with her counselor and expressed hope that Mother, with continued therapy, “will attain the necessary parenting skills, insight into her own behavior, the insight into the long involvement the family has had with the Social Service Agency, to modify her behavior when she communicates [with] her children.” The social worker also commented, “[t]his history and the mother’s mental health issues appear to [be] the reason why the child, Eric, will not visit his mother and does not want to reunify with her.”
With regard to Eric, the January 18, 2007 report stated: “The child has thrived and remained well cared for, loved, and given the necessary stability by his paternal grandfather. The child’s emotional and basic needs are being met and the child continues to choose this placement as his preferred placement should reunification efforts fail. The child has developed a supportive relationship with his older sibling and has some contact with his father. [¶] The undersigned believes that the child has benefited from his earlier therapy with Ms. Vo, and has equally benefited from living outside the care of the mother. [¶] The risk to the child should he be returned to the mother’s care during the reunification process is currently high. The mother has not met the burden of addressing her mental health issues, obtaining adequate housing, obtaining employment, nor learning to meet the emotional needs of the child and showing in non-therapeutic settings that she can control her anger and actions.”
At the 12-month review hearing on January 18, 2007, the juvenile court found, on the parties’ stipulation, that Mother had been provided reasonable services and that SSA had complied with Mother’s case plan. The court ordered reunification services be continued and set the 18-month review hearing for June 7, 2007.
The social worker met with Mother on January 29, 2007 to review her case plan objectives. When the social worker asked Mother whether she had received psychiatric care and treatment, Mother replied, “‘I have not. I’m too busy. I don’t think I need that. Dr. Weinstein said I was fine.’” The social worker reminded Mother the objective of receiving psychiatric treatment was crucial to reunification. Mother agreed to contact the psychiatric referral previously given her.
Mother finally went to the psychiatric referral (Orange County Health Care Agency) on April 2, 2007. When Mother met with the intake coordinator of the Orange County Health Care Agency, she did not provide a copy of her Evidence Code section 730 evaluation, as she had been instructed to do. Since, by that time, Mother was living in Los Angeles County, the Orange County Health Care Agency was not able to treat her unless she privately paid.
On May 24, 2007, the social worker referred Mother to Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services in Los Angeles County for psychiatric consultation and assessment. Mother told the social worker she would not go there because it reminded her of her deceased daughter Alexandria and that, due to her work schedule, she could not go there unless they took Saturday appointments. The SSA addendum report, dated August 20, 2007, states, “[a]s of this date, to the knowledge of the undersigned, the mother has failed to make her appointment for psychiatric services at Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health as directed on May 24, 2007.”
V.
Eric’s Participation in Therapy and Refusals to Visit Mother
Eric continued to refuse all visits with Mother despite the social worker’s encouragement that he see her. He graduated from middle school in June and did not want Mother at the graduation ceremony. Nevertheless, Eric and Mother had begun conjoint therapy during the week of April 30, 2007. The therapist described one session as “‘rough’” but believed “‘they will make progress.’” The therapist described Eric as “‘resistant.’” He told the therapist, “‘I don’t want to be here. I will answer everything in Court’” and told Mother, “‘I don’t want to live with you.’” On June 21, 2007, the social worker asked Eric if he would like to visit Mother, and he emphatically responded, “‘no.’ . . . ‘[T]here’s no way I want to see her[.] . . . No way I want to get back with her.’” Eric told the social worker he did not want to continue therapy.
Mother did not believe Eric’s statements about his feelings toward her. She stated in one conjoint therapy session that she previously had a good relationship with Eric and told the social worker he “‘is just brainwashed.’” The therapist also reported that Mother had been making progress in learning to build positive relationships with her children and had expressed a desire to have a good relationship with them.
Paternal Grandfather expressed a desire to adopt Eric if reunification failed. Paternal Grandfather believed, however, Eric did not need therapy and expressed his dislike for Eric’s therapist. When the social worker asked Paternal Grandfather to keep his thoughts to himself because he appeared biased, Paternal Grandfather replied: “‘Yes, I am 100% biased, I’m 63 years old, and I don’t like this character. I have been helping these kids for 8 years now and Eric just needs a normal life.’”
Eric’s therapist told the social worker that Paternal Grandfather had “‘cross[ed] the line of verbal abuse to me’” and was “‘possibly influencing the child against therapy.’” The social worker had no concern about the appropriateness of Eric’s therapist, and believed Paternal Grandfather’s outbursts were the result of frustration with the dependency process and the desire for Eric’s life to return to normal.
Paternal Grandfather died on June 25, 2007. Eric continued to reside in Paternal Grandfather’s home with his paternal stepgrandmother and his sister Jackie. Eric’s paternal stepgrandmother expressed a desire to have Eric remain in her care. Eric told the social worker, “he is comfortable and feels safe” with Jackie and his paternal stepgrandmother jointly adopting him.
On June 30, 2007, Mother summoned the police and a Los Angeles County social worker to the paternal stepgrandmother’s house, claiming Eric had been riding in a car with a drunk male. The police and the social worker went to the house and found Eric “‘to be safe, well nourished, well cared for with good family support, in a clean house, no marks or bruises, and the allegation was unfounded.’” The family members told the police they were gathered to prepare for Paternal Grandfather’s funeral.
Mother tried to attend Paternal Grandfather’s funeral but had to be escorted away. In an addendum report dated August 20, 2007, the social worker wrote about that incident: “The mother’s behavior has caused undue emotional stress on the child and the caretakers as they were attempting to arrange for the paternal grandfather’s funeral. The mother’s unwelcome action by attempting to attend the paternal grandfather’s funeral only to be escorted out of the area is troubling and indicates that she lacks any regard for the needs of the child. The mother previously had harsh words and feelings towards the paternal grandfather so it appears odd to the undersigned why she would attempt to attend a funeral where she may have known she was unwelcome.”
Jackie sought a temporary restraining order against Mother, asserting she had made threatening telephone calls and had behaved in a “stalking manner” outside Jackie’s former residence. The court did not issue a restraining order.
In the August 20, 2007 addendum report, the social worker commented that Eric “has had a difficult seven months with the death of his sister in December 2006 and now his parental grandfather.” Individual therapy for Eric was discontinued because he never developed a therapeutic relationship with the therapist. Instead, Eric was referred to grief therapy to address the losses of his sister and of Parental Grandfather. Mother’s therapist stated conjoint therapy was not progressing and believed Eric would not bond any time soon, if at all, with Mother. In the August 20 addendum report, the social worker wrote: “The mother’s therapist and the child’s therapist were unable to provide any evidence of improvement in the relationship between the child and the mother, leading the mother’s therapist to characterize their relationship as no identifiable bond by the child towards the mother.”
VI.
The 18-month Review Hearing
After several continuances, the 18-month review hearing was held on September 7, 2007. Mother was not present. Her counsel announced Mother had instructed her to request a continuance for the reason that Mother’s father was ill and Mother had flown to Thailand the previous day to be with him. Mother’s counsel stated: “I must let the court know that I have been advised that my client supposedly is in the country and has not left the country. I did try to contact my client and have not been able to do so. I did leave a message on her answering machine. So that is all I can tell the court at this time. So my request is based on what my instructions are from my client, to request a continuance to after October the 12th[, 2007]. I have no evidence of whether or not she is here or not here myself.”
The juvenile court called the social worker, Kelly Burnett, to testify about her contact with Mother and Jackie. Burnett testified she spoke with Jackie earlier that day, and Jackie told her that Mother’s father died many years ago. Burnett testified she telephoned Mother at her workplace at 9:30 a.m. that morning. Mother answered the telephone and confirmed her identity. Burnett asked Mother whether she would be present in court that day. Mother replied she was going to Thailand “this weekend.” Burnett asked if Mother was leaving the next day, and Mother said yes. Mother told Burnett: “I’m going to see my father. He’s very ill. That’s why the court already knows I won’t be there.” When Burnett told Mother she was expected to be in court, Mother hung up.
The juvenile court believed Mother had attempted to mislead the court, had not been forthright with her counsel, was still in the United States, and was “more than capable, as far as this court can glean, of being here in court.” The court concluded, “[t]his is not good cause to continue the matter. Mother’s simply received notice and has elected not to come to court. . . . [¶] And the court is denying the request to continue this matter.”
Over the objections of Mother’s counsel, the court received in evidence the SSA reports dated June 7, July 9, and August 20, 2007. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had been provided reasonable reunification services and ordered those services terminated. The court scheduled a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for January 7, 2008.
Discussion
I.
Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s Finding That Mother Had Been Provided Reasonable Reunification Services.
Mother contends SSA did not provide her reasonable reunification services in two respects. First, Mother asserts SSA did not provide her timely and appropriate psychiatric referrals as required by her case plan. Second, Mother asserts SSA “did not adequately intervene and prevent the paternal grandfather from interfering with Conjoint counseling between [Mother] and [Eric].” We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding at the 18-month review hearing that Mother was provided reasonable reunification services.
We therefore do not address SSA’s contention Mother forfeited her challenge to the adequacy of reunification services by failing to raise objections to those services in the juvenile court.
A. Was a Finding of Reasonable Reunification Services Necessary?
SSA suggests it was unnecessary for the juvenile court to make a finding of reasonable reunification services in order to terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. One line of authority holds that at the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court need not make a finding of reasonable services in order to set a section 366.26 hearing. In Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1511-1512, the court explained: “At the critical juncture of the 18-month hearing, the authority of the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing is not conditioned on a reasonable services finding. In mandatory, unequivocal terms, section 366.22, subdivision (a) states that if the minor is not returned to parental custody at the 18-month review, ‘the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 . . . . The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent . . . . The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent . . . .’ (Italics added.) [¶] As explained in Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1015-1016 . . .: ‘Section 366.22, subdivision (a), does not give the juvenile court the option to continue reunification services nor does it specifically prohibit the court from ordering a section 366.26 hearing even if it finds reasonable reunification services have not been provided to a parent.’ This analysis reflects a change in the law based on a 1991 amendment enacted with the purpose, as set forth in the Legislative Council’s Digest, of requiring the court to determine whether reasonable services had been offered or provided, but deleting ‘“that requirement as a precondition for developing a permanent plan.” (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen. Bill No. 475 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) Summary Dig., p. 352, italics added.)’ (Mark N. v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016, fn. 9.) Therefore, even if a finding of reasonable services were a prerequisite to ordering a section 366.26 hearing under the prior law, as so construed, ‘the 1991 amendment makes it clear the finding is no longer a precondition to moving to the permanent placement stage.’”
Under this line of authority, the juvenile court has discretion to continue an 18-month review hearing when reasonable reunification services were not provided to a parent. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1017.)
Another line of authority holds, in contrast, that “[c]ourts may not initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights unless they find adequate reunification services were provided to the parents.” (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164; see also In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214.) We need not decide which line of authority to follow because, as we discuss in the next subpart, Mother was provided reasonable reunification services.
B. Mother Was Provided Reasonable Reunification Services.
Reasonable reunification services must be provided a parent when a child is removed from the parent’s custody. (§ 361.5, subd. (a); Mark N. v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1010.) The social services agency must make a good faith effort to provide reasonable services tailored to fit the circumstances of each family and designed to eliminate the condition that led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding. (Mark N. v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1010.)
The juvenile court’s finding that reasonable reunification services have been provided to the parent is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (Mark N. v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1010.) “[I]n reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services provided by [SSA], we must . . . recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which are provided are often imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances.” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)
1. SSA Provided Mother Timely and Adequate Psychiatric Referrals.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to SSA with all reasonable inferences drawn to uphold the juvenile court’s order (Mark N. v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1010), supports the juvenile court’s finding SSA provided Mother reasonable reunification services. As to Mother’s contention SSA did not provide timely and adequate psychiatric referrals, the record shows that in December 2006, before the 12-month review hearing, the social worker provided Mother a psychiatric referral to the Orange County Health Care Agency outpatient clinic. To the social worker’s knowledge, as of January 5, 2007, Mother had not contacted the agency. At the 12-month review hearing on January 18, the parties stipulated that SSA had complied with the case plan. Mother made no objection to or expressed any dissatisfaction with the reunification services provided her.
On January 29, 2007, the social worker reviewed the case plan with Mother and asked her whether she had received psychiatric care and treatment. Mother replied, “‘I have not. I’m too busy. I don’t think I need that. Dr. Weinstein said I was fine.’” The social worker reminded Mother the objective of receiving psychiatric treatment was crucial to reunification. Mother agreed to contact the psychiatric referral previously given her.
When Mother finally met with the intake coordinator of the Orange County Health Care Agency on April 2, 2007, she did not provide a copy of her Evidence Code section 730 evaluation, as she had been instructed to do. Since, by that time, Mother was living in Los Angeles County, the Orange County Health Care Agency would have been able to treat her unless she privately paid.
On May 24, 2007, the social worker referred Mother to Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services in Los Angeles County for psychiatric consultation and assessment. Mother contends Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services is in Fullerton. That contention is based on a misreading of the SSA August 20, 2007 addendum report. That report stated: “On May 24, 2007, the undersigned asked mother to comply with her case plan objective for psychiatric consultation and assessment for treatment by making an appointment at Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services. The undersigned learned that the mother actually resides one street into Los Angeles County making her ineligible for services through the Adult Mental Health Clinic in Fullerton.” Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services is not the same as the Adult Mental Health Clinic in Fullerton.
Mother would not receive treatment at Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services, claiming it reminded her of her deceased daughter Alexandria. Although Mother also claimed she could only receive treatment on Saturday due to her work schedule, there is no evidence Mother contacted Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health Services to learn whether it accepted weekend appointments. The SSA addendum report, dated August 20, 2007, stated, “[a]s of this date, to the knowledge of the undersigned, the mother has failed to make her appointment for psychiatric services at Rio Hondo Adult Mental Health as directed on May 24, 2007.”
From this record, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude Mother was provided timely and adequate psychiatric referrals, but Mother refused or unreasonably delayed seeking treatment.
2. SSA Intervened with Paternal Grandfather and Encouraged Eric to Participate in Therapy and to Visit Mother.
Mother also asserts SSA failed to intervene to prevent Paternal Grandfather from interfering with conjoint counseling. The record shows the social worker did intervene. When Paternal Grandfather admitted he was “100% biased,” did not believe Eric needed therapy, and did not like Eric’s therapist, the social worker asked him to keep his thoughts to himself. The social worker believed, understandably so, that Paternal Grandfather was frustrated with the dependency process and the court system and wanted Eric’s life to return to normal. The social worker noted Paternal Grandfather “has not harmed [Eric] in any way,” and indeed, Eric was thriving in his care.
Even after Paternal Grandfather died, Eric did not want to visit Mother or attend conjoint therapy sessions with her. Although, from the outset of the dependency proceedings, Eric’s relationship with Mother was strained, the record shows the social worker continually encouraged Eric to visit Mother and to “show some positive regard for her.” Nonetheless, Eric persistently refused to visit Mother, and Mother’s therapist conceded Eric would not bond “‘any time soon, if at all’” with Mother.
From this record, a reasonable inference could be drawn that SSA made reasonable efforts to facilitate conjoint counseling between Mother and Eric, to prevent Paternal Grandfather from interfering with conjoint counseling, and to encourage Eric to visit Mother and form a loving bond with her.
II.
The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Mother’s Request for a Continuance.
At the outset of the 18-month review hearing, Mother’s counsel requested a continuance for the reason that Mother’s father was ill and Mother flew to Thailand the previous day to be with him. Mother contends the juvenile court deprived her of due process by denying her request for a continuance of the 18-month review hearing based on Jackie’s supposed hearsay statements.
Under section 352, subdivision (a), a juvenile court may continue a dependency hearing at a parent’s request for good cause and only for the time period shown to be necessary. (In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 179.) “Courts have interpreted this policy to be an express discouragement of continuances.” (Ibid.) The juvenile court’s denial of a request for a continuance is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and, therefore, may be overturned on appeal only if the denial was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd, and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (Id. at p. 180.)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s request for a continuance of the 18-month review hearing. Mother’s counsel offered no evidence in support of the request, stating the request “is based on what my instructions are from my client, to request a continuance to after October the 12th[, 2007]” and conceding, “I have no evidence of whether or not she is here or not here myself.” Burnett, the social worker, testified she spoke with Jackie earlier on the day of the hearing, and Jackie told her that Mother’s father died many years ago. While that statement is hearsay, Burnett also testified she telephoned Mother at her workplace at 9:30 a.m. that morning. Mother answered the telephone and confirmed her identity. Burnett asked Mother whether she would be present in court that day. Mother replied she was going to Thailand “this weekend.” Burnett asked if Mother was leaving the next day, and Mother said yes. Mother told Burnett: “I’m going to see my father. He’s very ill. That’s why the court already knows I won’t be there.” When Burnett told Mother she was expected to be in court, Mother hung up.
In her writ petition, Mother does not challenge the admission of Burnett’s testimony regarding the telephone conversation with Mother. Burnett’s testimony supported a finding that Mother had not flown to Thailand, was still in the United States, and had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing.
After filing her writ petition, Mother submitted a motion to augment the record with, and for judicial notice of, her section 388 petition pending before the juvenile court. Neither SSA nor minor’s counsel opposed the motion to augment or request for judicial notice. We grant them, but conclude they do not alter the outcome. In support of the section 388 petition, Mother submitted a declaration stating: “On September 7, 2007, I did not personally appear in court because I reasonably believed the court and my attorney were continuing the contested W.I.C. Section 366.22 hearing. It was my understanding because I had travel plans to Thailand to see my father who is ill from Cancer this case would be continued by my attorney and the court.” In the declaration, Mother does not state she had already left for Thailand at the time of the 18-month review hearing. Nor does Mother deny she received a telephone call from Burnett on the morning of the hearing.
Mother’s declaration also presents no facts supporting her contention she was not provided adequate and timely referrals for psychiatric treatment. Rather, Mother merely states as a conclusion she was never provided such referrals.
Thus, the juvenile court neither abused its discretion nor deprived Mother of due process by denying her request to continue the 18-month review hearing.
Disposition
Mother’s petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition is denied.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, ACTING P. J. ARONSON, J.