Opinion
B309463
11-15-2021
In re S.F., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.F., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 19CCJP04164A-B Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.
Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, P. J. 1
Father D.F. challenges the juvenile court's finding at the six-month review hearing that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided him with reasonable reunification services. Mother does not appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother L.E. and father are parents to twins S.F. and D.F., born 2018. When the twins were eight months old, DCFS received a referral alleging mother's daily marijuana use rendered her unable to properly care for them. Both had asthma, required twice-daily breathing treatments, were cross-eyed (which required surgery), had a heart murmur, and the side of each of their heads was flat. Mother was the primary caregiver at the time.
In the course of DCFS's investigation, mother reported to the social worker that father shook then-10-month-old S.F. Mother pushed father to make him stop and physically took S.F. from father. She brought S.F. to a doctor, who examined her and said she looked fine. Mother and father were not in a relationship but mother stated he began to help care for the twins when they were seven or eight months old. Father often became frustrated when the twins cried. Father admitted he shook S.F., causing her to whine, because he was angry with mother. Mother also reported escalating verbal and physical altercations with father.
1. Dependency Proceedings Are Initiated
On July 1, 2019, DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). 2 Counts a-1, b-1, and j-1 alleged father physically abused S.F. by shaking her. Counts a-2 and b-2 alleged the parents' history of violent altercations in the presence of the twins placed them at risk of harm. Counts b-3 and b-4 alleged mother and father, respectively, have a history of substance abuse and are daily abusers of marijuana, which renders them incapable of providing regular care and supervision to the twins. It was further alleged as to each count that one parent failed to protect the twins from the other's conduct.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining the twins and placed them with the maternal uncle. The court granted father's request for voluntary referral services, transportation assistance, and housing assistance. It further ordered monitored visits for the parents to occur separately.
At the September 24 and 27, 2019 adjudication hearing, mother and father pleaded no contest to the allegations. The court sustained the a-1, b-2, b-3, and b-4 counts with amendments not relevant to the appeal. It dismissed the a-2, b-1, and j-1 counts. At disposition, the court ordered reunification services and monitored visitation for the parents. Father was to participate in drug testing, a parenting program, and individual therapy.
2. Father's Contacts with DCFS
Prior to the September 24 and 27, 2019 adjudication and disposition hearings, DCFS had contacted father at least seven times. Father advised DCFS he was living with the paternal grandmother but refused to give her address.
On August 5, 2019, the social worker provided father with information about visitation. Although the social worker arranged for father to visit the twins on their first birthday, he 3 failed to show. Aside from attending their second birthday party, father failed to visit the twins at all during the dependency proceedings.
On August 19, 2019, DCFS provided father with a referral to be drug tested. Father did not appear for any of his scheduled drug or alcohol tests during the period of DCFS supervision.
Shortly after the adjudication and disposition hearings, Mother informed the social worker father came by her home to ask for marijuana. He told mother to inform DCFS that he did not want anything to do with the case and he refused to do what was asked of him. During the proceedings, Mother stated father told her on multiple occasions he did not want to have anything to do with the twins and became upset at mother's participation in services.
DCFS did not contact father between August 2019 and February 2020. On February 10 and 11, 2020, the children's social worker left voice messages for father. The phone calls were not returned.
On March 3, 2020, DCFS held a child and family team meeting with mother. Father happened to be at her house. When the social worker questioned him about his whereabouts, father stated he was extremely busy working and had been unable to contact DCFS. The social worker observed father to be "disengaged and very minimally committed to the plan by stating he would 'try' to follow the plan." Father indicated he would contact DCFS regarding visitation once he established a set schedule at work. He also planned to enroll in individual counseling and a drug or alcohol program. DCFS indicated it would refer father to a substance abuse navigator. 4
At a second meeting at mother's home, father was again unexpectedly present and told the social worker he had "been busy working and working on himself." He claimed he had completed seven or eight parenting classes. The social worker later confirmed father attended three parenting classes. On April 30, 2020, the children's social worker left a voicemail for father and sent a contact letter to his address. Father did not contact DCFS or enroll in services as he planned as promised.
3. The Six-Month Review Hearing
Due to COVID-related delays, the juvenile court continued the six-month review hearing several times. The hearing took place on October 27, 2020, 13 months after the adjudication and disposition hearings.
DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate father's reunification services because he appeared uninterested in reunifying with the twins. DCFS pointed out he had visited the children only once since their detention, he had failed to maintain contact with DCFS since August 2019, and he had not participated in the ordered services. The twins' attorney joined DCFS's recommendation.
Father acknowledged he had failed to do everything he could to fulfill the case plan but argued DCFS had the burden to provide reasonable services and it failed to contact him from August 2019 to February 2020. Father excused his failure to visit the twins, claiming friction with the maternal uncle. 5
The record reveals maternal uncle reported father contacted him once regarding visitation but failed to follow up. He denied preventing father from seeing the children.
The juvenile court acknowledged DCFS could have done more but observed it eventually made contact with father. The court found reasonable services were provided. It declined to "completely absolve" father of any responsibility to comply with the case plan and found father "abdicated responsibility." The court terminated reunification services for father.
Father timely appealed from the juvenile court's order of October 27, 2020, that DCFS provided reasonable services.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Father argues insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's reasonable services finding. He contends he is entitled to continued services, even if it is beyond the statutory time limit for children of the twins' age.
We review the juvenile court's reasonable services finding for substantial evidence, taking into account the "clear and convincing evidence" standard applied below. (Serena M. v. Superior Court (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 659, 674 (Serena M.); see also Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010.)
When children under three years old are removed from their parent's custody, the family is entitled to a minimum six months of reunification services from the date of the dispositional hearing, but not more than 12 months from the date the children entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
"The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of DCFS's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case," and DCFS must make good faith efforts to develop and implement a family reunification plan, including offering services designed to remedy the problems leading to lack of custody, "maintain[ing] reasonable contact with the parents during the service plan," and making "reasonable 6 efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance prove[s] difficult." (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345; accord, In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 14.) "Reunification services are voluntary . . . and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them. [Citations.]" (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365.) Reunification services are thus not legally inadequate simply because the parent is unwilling or indifferent. (In re Jonathan R. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1220.)
"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.)
Prior to adjudication, DCFS met with father at least seven times to offer him visitation, drug testing, and parenting class referrals. Reunification services had been offered for 13 months, beyond the time period set out in section 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B). During the 13 months between adjudication and what was technically the six-month review, DCFS attempted to contact father via voice message or mail four times. Father did not return the calls or otherwise contact DCFS. The DCFS social workers met with father twice at the child and family team 7 meetings at mother's home, where father was "disengaged" and "very minimally committed."
The record does not disclose when or if DCFS provided father with a referral to parenting class. DCFS urges us to infer it made the referral to father because father completed three parenting classes. Given father's lack of interest in complying with the case plan, the juvenile court reasonably could have found that father would not have attended any parenting classes without a referral. (Serena M., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 674 [appellate court may indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold ruling].)
For his part, father completed three parenting classes out of ten and visited the twins once in 13 months. That was the extent of father's attempt to reunify with his daughters. He did not otherwise visit them, participate in any other services, drug test, or communicate with DCFS. He also refused to supply DCFS with the paternal grandmother's address when he was residing with her. On the contrary, shortly after the adjudication and dispositional hearings, he told mother to inform DCFS he did not wish to comply with the court-ordered case plan.
Father does not deny his lack of participation. He places the burden entirely on DCFS to show it provided reasonable services, faulting it for failing to contact him from August 2019 to February 2020. Father tellingly does not argue or point to anything in the record that suggested he would have complied with the case plan but for DCFS's failure. "While it is true the social worker is charged with maintaining reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the reunification plan, he or she cannot do so without some degree of cooperation from the parent." (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 698.) Given DCFS's efforts and father's expressed lack of interest, the trial court properly found reasonable services were provided.
Father's efforts are unlike the mother's in T.J. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1229, 1233 (T.J.), a case on which father relies. In T.J., the mother was "prompt and engaged" in her visitation, found a therapist on her own initiative, never refused to receive services, and never ignored referrals. (Id. at pp. 1236- 1247.) On those facts, the court found insufficient evidence to support a reasonable services finding because there 8 were significant delays in providing services to the mother. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's October 27, 2020 order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BAKER, J. MOOR, J. 9