Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Terry Truong, Referee. Petition denied. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK62936
Eva E. Chick for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Liana Serobian, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, Abby Eskin and Sophia Ali for the Children.
KLEIN, P. J.
Maria G. (mother) seeks writ review of an order terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to Erika M., Abigail M., Martin M., Carolina M., Moises G. and Jonathon G. We reject mother’s contentions and deny mother’s writ petition.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This family came to the attention of DCFS in May of 2005, when a school psychiatric social worker helped mother report sexual abuse of then eight-year-old Erika M., seven-year-old Abigail M. and two-year-old Carolina M. by the husband of a maternal aunt. Thereafter, on August 24, 2005, a neighbor reported neglect of the children after one of mother’s children, a female toddler, fell down a flight of stairs on one occasion and crossed a busy street by herself on another.
On August 31, 2005, mother agreed to a voluntary family maintenance (VFM) plan. Pursuant to the agreement, mother agreed to place Carolina with a paternal uncle and his wife while mother attended the many doctor appointments 20-month-old Moises G. required. Mother also agreed to participate in a parent education class, pay attention to the children’s health, safety and well-being and continue counseling for Abigail and Erika. However, Mother failed to follow through at the Regional Center with Moises, even after a Regional Center worker telephoned mother repeatedly in February and March of 2006.
The children’s doctor advised the CSW that Abigail, four-year-old Martin and Moises arrived at the office for a consultation dirty and smelling poorly. Moises had a small lesion on his head that was difficult to pinpoint because he was so dirty. The children had walked barefoot to the doctor’s office.
Two-month-old Jonathon was born at seven months gestation. He remained fragile and was to be seen by a hearing specialist and a pediatrician on a weekly basis to follow his weight gain. During a home visit on March 29, 2006, the CSW observed Abigail remove Jonathon from a stroller and swing him around. The CSW asked mother to make Abigail stop, but Abigail continued swinging the child until the CSW made her stop. Mother believes Jonathan has a tendency to throw up because of the shaking.
Abigail and Erika’s school reported mother failed to attend scheduled appointments to discuss the girls’ progress in counseling. The CSW also received many telephone calls from the intern therapist at the girls’ school who disclosed school staff had made several attempts to help mother learn to care for her children. During a home visit, the therapist observed the apartment was filthy and Moises had feces on his bare feet. The therapist indicated it was difficult for Abigail to make friends because she was always dirty and smelled of urine.
Mother indicated Martin M. is the father of Erika; Carlos A. is the father of Abigail; Jose D. is the father of Martin; Neri D. is the father of Carolina and Jonathan; and, Leonel G. is the father of Moises. However, Neri D. refused to sign birth certificates for Carolina or Jonathan.
None of the fathers is a party to this writ proceeding. Only Neri D. remains involved in the case.
At a family team decision meeting (FTDM) on March 31, 2006, mother disclosed that prior to DCFS involvement, the children missed six months of school. Mother also admitted she used to slam the children on the wall and hit them with objects, but has stopped. Mother disclosed she was a victim of child abuse herself and was a dependent of the court for two years when she was a teenager. Mother also has been the victim of domestic violence with some of her partners. The FTDM coordinator felt 26-year-old mother was overwhelmed with the children and all the attention they required and believed mother should receive counseling or therapy to help her deal with past abuse in her own life.
Mother completed a parent education class but otherwise failed to comply with the VFM plan. Mother admitted she sometimes felt frustrated and tired because there are too many things happening at one time with the children.
On March 31, 2006, DCFS detained the children and prepared a dependency petition alleging the children were dependents within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (i), and (j).
On April 5, 2006, mother and Neri D. appeared at the detention hearing. The juvenile court declared the children a sibling group and found Neri D. the presumed father of Jonathan and Carolina. The Juvenile Court ordered DCFS to provide bus passes for mother and to follow up on the Regional Center referral for Moises. The juvenile court ordered Erika and Abigail to participate in individual counseling to address sexual abuse issues.
The disposition report prepared for May 4, 2006, included mother’s clarification that she only hit Abigail on two occasions. Mother stated, “I was so stressed with [her] urinating everywhere and not listening. I took the sexual abuse she suffered badly and in my desperation I did not realize that my daughter was acting out because of what happened so I hit her twice.” Mother got sick while she was pregnant with Jonathon and Abigail, and had an appendectomy in January, so too many things were happening at once. Mother indicated the girls now were bathing every day and her apartment was cleaner. Mother indicated the sexual abuse occurred in May of 2004, not 2005, and she pressed charges against the perpetrator.
Neri D. indicated he was unaware of medical neglect of Jonathan. Neri D. questioned his paternity of Carolina and Jonathan. However, he has become attached to the children and is ready to continue to provide for them in all possible ways.
On April 20, 2006, mother indicated she speaks to the children by telephone on a daily basis, she was looking for employment and was trying to find a therapist. Mother indicated she was constantly going to school for Abigail’s emergencies and thus was unavailable to attend scheduled medical appointments for the children.
Mother and Neri D. have been provided bus passes for weekly visits with the children in Lancaster.
An addendum report prepared for June 8, 2006, indicated mother had married an eighteen-year-old named Adan, she was very much in love and was enjoying married life. Mother indicated she wanted to take advantage of the placement of the children and have fun by going to nightclubs. Mother asked the CSW if she would get in trouble with the court for having fun while her children were placed out of the home. Mother stated she did not want to be in more trouble. Erika and Abigail reported they were upset with mother because she had not telephoned them in a week. Erika and Abigail said they were afraid of Neri D. because he used to get angry easily and he hit them, particularly Martin, and yelled at Carolina, who did not like him at all. During monitored visits, Neri D. is nice to them and does not get angry because he knows people are watching and he does not want to get into trouble.
On May 30, 2006, Neri D. indicated he would like a paternity test before he agreed to take custody of Carolina and Jonathan. Neri D. stated he would like to care for the children if he is their biological father. If he is not, he would like to adopt Carolina only because his other four children are male.
On June 12, 2006, mother and Neri D. submitted to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The juvenile court sustained the dependency petition as amended, found the children were dependents within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and granted Neri D.’s request for a paternity test. The juvenile court ordered mother to attend individual counseling to address sexual abuse awareness, domestic violence issues, family care follow-through and appropriate discipline. The juvenile court referred Moises and Jonathan to the Regional Center and ordered individual counseling for Erika and Abigail to address sexual abuse issues. The juvenile court granted mother four hours of monitored visits per week.
As sustained, the petition alleged that Erika, Abigail and Carolina were sexually abused by an uncle and mother failed to obtain timely counseling services for the children, thereby endangering the children and their siblings within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j); Jonathan and Moises have special problems and mother has failed to follow through with their medical and Regional Center appointments, and Abigail, Martin and Moises were found to have poor hygiene, thereby placing the children at risk within the meaning of subdivision (b).
An addendum report filed August 2, 2006, DCFS indicated the paternity tests had revealed Neri D. was the biological father of Jonathan but was not the biological father of Carolina. Neri D. indicated he was surprised at these results because he felt strongly that Jonathan was not his child. Neri D. indicated a desire to adopt Carolina because everyone in his family thought Carolina is his child. During Neri D.’s visits with the children, the CSW observed on several occasions that Neri D. was accompanied by male friends or roommates. On one occasion, the CSW saw one of Neri D.’s friends pull Carolina’s shirt up and kiss her stomach. Neri D. appeared comfortable with his friends’ touching, hugging, kissing and talking inappropriately to Carolina. When the CSW questioned Neri D. about the manner in which his friends were handling Carolina, he responded she is used to that kind of treatment and they were only playing with the child. Neri D. stated Carolina sounded funny when she repeated Spanish phrases his friends would say, which translated as “I am a little bitch,” and “my mother is a bitch.” The CSW also observed that Neri D. did not pay attention to Jonathan during visits and did not attend to his needs. Rather, Neri D. focused his attention on Carolina.
Mother was happy to hear Neri D. was not Carolina’s father. Mother did not want Neri D. to adopt Carolina only because he did not have a daughter. Neri D. is not patient with the child and he has never helped mother financially with the children. When Neri D. did give mother money, he expected sex in return. Neri D. abused mother sexually while she was pregnant with Jonathan to the extent she had to go to the hospital at least four times and Johnson was born prematurely. When Neri D. learned mother had married, he asked mother to return a bed he purchased for the children when they were living with her and said mother’s husband would now be the one buying things for the children.
Mother reported she was now having domestic violence problems with her husband and planned to leave him and move in with her mother. On July 13, 2006, mother had difficulty controlling the children during a visit at the foster family agency. The children ignored mother’s instruction and the older children, Erika, Abigail and Martin, were very disrespectful to her. Moises spent most of his time playing alone and Carolina cried. The CSW suggested that, at the next visit, mother start the visit with three of the children and end with the other three.
On June 30, 2006, Martin, Carolina, Moises and Jonathan were removed from their previous placement due to the caretaker’s lack of proper supervision. Moises and Carolina were placed together; Jonathan was placed with Erika and Abigail in the foster care of Evangelina E., and Martin was placed with Guadalupe V., who was Evangelina E.’s sister. Mother was complying with visitation orders but had not enrolled in therapy. Neri. D’s living situation was not appropriate for the placement of any of the children as he was sharing a small apartment with six male friends.
On August 2, 2006, the juvenile court found Neri D. was not the biological or presumed father of Carolina and was the biological father of Jonathan. On August 10, 2006, the juvenile court denied Neri D.’s request for presumed father status as to Carolina and ordered no family or reunification services for Neri D. as to Jonathan pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (a). Neri D. appealed this order and this court affirmed it in case No. B193093.
A review report prepared for December 19, 2006, indicated Carolina and Moises had been placed with Martin in the home of Guadalupe V. Erika’s foster mother indicated Erika is anxious and uncharacteristically defiant when she returns from monitored visits with mother. Foster mother reported Abigail’s enuresis continues and Abigail also had difficulty adjusting after monitored visits with mother.
The report noted mother had separated from her husband due to domestic violence. The last incident of domestic violence resulted in mother’s hospitalization. Mother began therapy at Valley Family Center on September 14, 2006, and attended 10 sessions. Mother’s therapist indicated mother’s individual counseling has emphasized awareness of child neglect and endangerment, anger management skills and ways to attend to the physical and emotional needs of her children. Mother also had been provided information related to domestic violence due to the abuse in her most recent relationship. Mother has participated actively and wants to reunify with her children but is unable to do so due to lack of employment or a stable living situation.
One of mother’s friends reported to the CSW in mother’s presence that mother has been drinking and partying a lot since she left her husband. Mother’s friend indicated mother told her she was thinking of marrying a guy she met at a party. Mother had a cellular telephone her new boyfriend purchased for her. Neri D. told mother he would help her with the monthly payments for the telephone. On several occasions, mother told the CSW she is afraid she will not be able to handle all her children at the same time if they are returned to her.
An information for court officer form filed January 3, 2007, indicated mother was two months pregnant and was unsure of the identity of the child’s father. Mother indicated Neri D. planned to rent an apartment for mother and himself.
A status review report prepared for June 19, 2007, indicated that, although Abigail’s hygiene and behavior had improved, Abigail remained angry and frustrated after monitored visits with mother and mother often canceled visits. Martin also can be aggressive after monitored visits or telephone calls with mother. Mother currently is attending therapy at Friends of the Family with Margarita Navar who reported mother attended on April 16 and 23, May 14 and 21, and June 4 and 11, 2006. Navar recommended continued therapy. Mother also attended therapy at Valley Family Center with Maria Rodriguez. However, after a session on December 7, 2006, mother missed five consecutive scheduled therapy sessions. Because mother is a victim of domestic violence, the CSW attempted to have her seen by the victims of crime representative to help mother apply for mental health related expenses. However, mother failed to contact the representative and, after mother failed to return to counseling, her case was closed. Mother has been living at Neri D.’s apartment but reports that every time she refuses Neri D. sex, he states he is no longer willing to pay for her therapy and wants her to move from his apartment. On May 19, 2007, mother reported she had moved to her mother’s home. On June 8, 2007, mother stated she continues to have a good relationship with Neri D. Mother indicated she had no family members willing to care for her children.
Abigail commenced weekly therapy sessions and had responded well to counseling. Martin began attending counseling due to his oppositional and defiant behavior at school. Carolina also began to attend counseling to address sexual acting out behavior. Mother continued to have difficulty dealing with the children during monitored visits. The CSW indicated it would be detrimental to return the children to mother due to her lack of stability.
An addendum report prepared for August 2, 2007, recommended termination of family reunification services based on mother’s inability to secure employment or a stable living arrangement. On July 16, 2007, mother reported that she randomly lives with her mother and with Neri D. The CSW indicated that at monitored visits the children pay no attention to mother and mother struggles to control them. During a monitored visit on July 12, 2007, all of the children cried for some reason and stared at the door, hoping their foster parents might arrive. The children did not appear to enjoy the visit and mother stated she was unable to handle the children. The report indicated that Erika, Abigail, Martin and Jonathan are placed with Evangelina E. and Carolina and Moises are now placed with Ana G.
On August 2, 2007, the juvenile court directed DCFS to assess maternal uncle and maternal grandmother as monitors for mother’s visits so the visits could be conducted outside the DCFS office. The juvenile court also ordered mother’s visits not be with more than two or three children at the same time.
A status review report prepared for October 5, 2007, indicated all six of the children were in foster care with Nancy H. Mother gave birth to Esmeralda; DCFS did not detain the child. Navar reported mother attended additional individual counseling sessions on July 2, 9 and 16, August 13 and 20, and September 18, 2007. However, mother again was living with Neri D. in a small apartment with six other men and was financially dependent on him. Mother is not employed and she is not eligible for financial benefits because she is an undocumented immigrant. Further, mother has no family support. Mother indicated she was thinking about living with a new boyfriend who was willing to live with her and support her seven children.
On September 12, 2007, maternal grandmother told the CSW she was unavailable to monitor mother’s visits because neither she nor her son has the time. Maternal grandmother stated she does not understand mother’s behavior and did not approve of mother’s relationship with Neri D., who has been abusive to mother for a long time. Maternal grandmother preferred mother’s new boyfriend to Neri D. and expressed hope mother would end her relationship with Neri D. Maternal aunt told the CSW she was unable to care for the children because she frequently travels to Mexico and lives in a one bedroom home. Maternal grandmother and maternal aunt told the CSW the children had a better future and more stable life style in foster care than they would in mother’s care.
On September 11, 2007, mother’s best friend, Leticia L., told the CSW that mother is immature and adventurous, and the children were better off in foster care. On numerous occasions, mother has advised the CSW she sometimes regretted being reunited with her mother because she would have had a better life had she remained in foster care. However, mother did not want her children to blame her in the future for leaving them in a foster home.
In an addendum report filed for November 14, 2007, DCFS reported that after a team decision meeting on October 3, 2007, mother agreed to move from Neri D.’s apartment for the safety of Esmeralda. Mother began to live temporarily at the apartment of Carolina’s godparents where she slept on the floor in the living room. On November 1, 2007, Neri D. rented a one-bedroom apartment for mother and Esmeralda. Neri D. paid the first month’s rent on condition mother get a job and pay the rent of $950 per month thereafter. Mother states she is looking for a job. Mother has been inconsistent in her attendance at therapy and visitation.
On October 6, 2007, the CSW monitored a visit between mother and all of the children at a park on Abigail’s birthday. The children were happy to see mother but they looked to the CSW or their foster mother when they needed something. At the end of the visit, mother observed a rash on Moise’s leg and the foster parents said they would take him to the doctor on Monday.
On October 11, 2007, all of the children were placed with Guadalupe V. They continue to receive therapy. Guadalupe V. and her husband would like to become the legal guardians of the children.
On November 1, 2007, the CSW visited mother at her new apartment. Neri D. was present and told the CSW he has informed mother that if his friends see mother with another man, he will remove mother from the apartment.
On November 15, 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested review hearing. Neri D. testified he does not live with mother in the one bedroom apartment he rented for mother because the CSW forbids it. Neri D. goes to mother’s apartment about four days a week after work and on Saturdays to have dinner and get his clothes washed. Neri D. stated he was involved in counseling, he had a good relationship with the children and he believed mother is a good mother to the children. In addition to the rent, Neri D. pays all of mother’s bills. Neri D. eventually would like to live with mother and the children. If the children were released to mother, Neri D. would abide by an order that he not frequent the apartment.
Mother testified she believes there is sufficient room for all of her children at her new apartment and mother would be able to care for all the children because four of them will be attending school and only three children will be at home. The children’s doctor and their school are only two blocks from mother’s apartment. Mother indicated she and Neri D. currently are a couple and, although they have had problems in the past, it is mother’s goal to live with Neri D. and the children. Mother admitted she is unable to control the children during visits but claimed she is able to spend time with each child individually. Mother has learned in counseling and parent education how to discipline the children. Mother has tried to read the children a book during visits but they get restless and want to play. During visits, mother asks the children how they are doing in school and how the foster mother is treating them. Erika and Abigail have told mother they do not wish to remain in foster care but want to be placed with mother. Mother indicated she and Neri D. have talked about his previous abuse and mother does not believe it will happen again because Neri D. “has changed a lot.” Mother admitted Neri D. also has a family in Mexico that he supports.
The juvenile court found mother had failed to make significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the removal of the children and has not demonstrated the capacity or ability to complete the treatment plan and provide for the well-being of the children within the next period of review. “We are at the [eighteen] month date, and time has run out for the mother.” The juvenile court noted the letter from mother’s therapist dated September 18, 2007, did not indicate whether sex abuse awareness or domestic violence had been addressed in counseling and the letter makes no mention of whether mother is ready to reunify with her children. With respect to a comment by counsel for Neri D. that some of the children be returned to mother, rather than all six, the juvenile court indicated it would be difficult to determine that some children are at risk and some children are not and which ones are at risk and which ones are not.
The juvenile court found mother’s failure to participate in and make substantive progress in court ordered treatment constituted prima facie evidence that return of the children to mother would be detrimental. The juvenile court also indicated concern about mother’s housing situation. Although mother has had an apartment since November 1, 2007, it was unclear what would happen if all six children were returned to mother. Mother and Neri D. testified their relationship was going well at the present time. However, “that has not been always true in this case. [¶] And [it is] still unclear to me what abuse it was that she suffered at the hands of [Neri D.].” Further, it was unclear whether mother had discussed Neri D.’s abuse in therapy and whether that issue had been resolved. Also, mother and Neri D. have never been involved in joint counseling to address their past abuse issues. The juvenile court found DCFS had provided reasonable family reunification services but there remained a substantial risk of harm to the children if they were returned to mother. The juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a hearing under section 366.26 on March 12, 2008.
After a discussion of mother’s visitation, the juvenile court indicated it wanted to determine whether mother could handle three of the children at a time and suggested that separate visits commence immediately. The juvenile court indicated that, if mother can handle three children at a time, she could file a section 388 petition.
CONTENTIONS
Mother contends there was no evidence she currently is incapable of caring for the children, the juvenile court’s findings did not support the order terminating family reunification services, DCFS failed to provide reasonable family reunification services and the juvenile court should have offered mother additional family reunification services.
DCFS has filed an answer opposing each of mother’s contentions. Counsel for the children have joined in DCFS’s answer to mother’s petition.
DISCUSSION
1. The evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings, which in turn supports the order terminating family reunification services.
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence that she failed to participate regularly and make substantial progress in the case plan. Mother further contends there was no evidence she currently was unable to care for the children. Mother notes she substantially complied with the case plan, completed a parenting class, made substantial progress in individual counseling and had a home for the children. Mother argues she has learned to be more watchful of her children and less prone to neglect them based on the counseling she had received. Although the juvenile court found no showing that mother’s individual counseling had addressed sexual abuse awareness, mother notes she pressed charges against the maternal uncle who abused her daughters and she demonstrated sensitivity to the emotional issues her children faced in that she noted the reason they were moved from one placement to another was that they were “sad, not well take[n] care [of].” Mother further argues the fact baby Esmeralda has remained in mother’s care demonstrates mother’s ability to be a capable parent. Also, mother pointed out a rash on Moise’s leg at Abigail’s birthday party. Mother claims she is seeking support through therapy and her testimony demonstrates she understands the issues faced by each of her children and how to care for them. Thus, there was substantial evidence which showed that some or all of the children could be returned to her.
Mother also disputes the therapist’s recommendation that mother continue counseling because mother “continues to process the consequences of the outcome of [her] healthy vs. unhealthy choices.” Mother compares her case to In re Heather P. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1214, disapproved on another point in In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857, 866, fn. 5, and concludes the matter must be remanded for further proceedings.
We review a juvenile court’s finding there is substantial risk of detriment to a child if he or she is returned to a parent under the substantial evidence test. (Sheila S. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872, 880-881.) Here, although mother may have gained insight into the problems that led to the dependency of her children, she had not advanced beyond monitored visitation and she continued to engage in an unstable lifestyle, as evidenced by her relationship with Neri D. Mother was provided referrals to counseling as early as March 31, 2006, but did not commence counseling until September of 2006. Even then, mother attended only until December of 2006. Mother resumed counseling twice a month in April 16, 2007, but had failed to address the issues identified in the case plan. Although mother and Neri D. stated they were in counseling, there was no evidence mother or Neri D. had addressed Neri D.’s abuse of mother in their counseling sessions.
Based on the foregoing, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude mother had made insufficient progress to warrant return of the children to her. Mother’s ability to care for infant Esmeralda does not demonstrate mother could care for six additional children, ages 10 through 2 years, each of whom has demonstrated special needs of one kind or another.
In re Heather P., the case relied upon by mother, is inapt. In Heather P., the juvenile court refused to return a child based on the mother’s failure to obtain a positive evaluation from her therapist. Here, mother’s therapist did not recommend against reunification. Rather, the juvenile court found return of the children would be detrimental because mother’s therapy had failed to address the issues that caused the dependency of the children. Thus, In re Heather P. is not analogous to this case.
With respect to the other specific points raised by mother, it is unclear whether it was the mother or the school psychiatric social worker who reported the sexual abuse of the children. In any event, mother failed to address the sexual abuse issues in individual counseling. Mother’s observation of a rash on Moise’s leg during visitation, while commendable, does not suggest the children would be safe in her care. Indeed, mother admitted she was unable to control the children during monitored visits.
In sum, the record before this court amply supports the findings of the juvenile court and reveals no abuse of discretion in the order terminating family reunification services.
2. Substantial evidence supports the finding DCFS offered mother reasonable reunification services.
Mother contends DCFS failed to provide reasonable family reunification services in that the CSW did not give mother referrals for housing, did not assist mother to avoid visitation at the DCFS office, did not help mother obtain employment or pay for therapy and did not help mother obtain legal immigration status. Mother notes the CSW investigated use of the maternal uncle and maternal grandmother as monitors only after the juvenile court ordered such investigation. Mother concludes DCFS did not offer reasonable family reunification services to remedy any of these problems.
“The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the DCFS's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case. [Citation.] The DCFS is required to 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.]” (Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554-555.) “[W]e must also 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. [Citation.]” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) We review a juvenile court’s determination that reasonable family reunification services have been provided under the substantial evidence test. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)
Here, DCFS assisted mother with visitation, transportation and counseling referrals to address the problems that led to the dependency of the children. Mother delayed commencement of individual counseling until more than six months after the children were detained. When she did attend individual counseling, she failed to address the critical issues in counseling, she failed to seek employment or stable housing and, most importantly, she continued to exercise questionable judgment in her personal decisions, thereby continuing to place the children at risk in her care. Any delay in the CSW’s inquiry as to whether maternal relatives would monitor mother’s visits must be seen as irrelevant in that none of mother’s family members was willing to act as a monitor. In sum, the failure to reunify was caused by mother’s failure to make progress in the case plan, not DCFS’s failure to provide services.
3. Mother did not request an extension of family reunification services and, in any event, there was no basis for extending services beyond the 18-month limit.
Mother contends she should have been offered additional family reunification services in the form of unmonitored contact with the children. Mother argues that if Esmeralda was not at risk in mother’s care, at least some of the children should have been permitted unmonitored contact with mother. Mother compares this case to In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, where the social worker assumed the mother could not supervise her children, either as a group or individually, without giving the mother a chance to try. Mother contends this is an unusual case in that mother was prevented from completing the case plan due to the CSW’s failure to allow mother proper visitation with the children individually or in smaller groups. Because mother was making progress in the case plan, it was an abuse of discretion to deny further family reunification services.
Putting aside mother’s failure to request an extension of family reunification services in the juvenile court, mother received family reunification services for the statutory maximum period of 18 months. Section 366.22, subdivision (a) provides that if a child is not returned to parental custody at the 18-month review hearing, “the court shall [also] order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26,” and “shall order termination of reunification services to the parent.” (Italics added.) A juvenile court may extend services beyond the 18-month statutory period if it finds there are “extraordinary circumstances ‘involv[ing] some external factor which prevented the parent from participating in the case plan.’ [Citation.]” (Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1510; Renee J. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1465-1466.) The extraordinary circumstances required to extend services beyond the 18-month deadline generally involve a complete failure of the social agency to provide reasonable reunification services. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1014-1015 [no reunification services offered]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1213-1214 [agency failed to provide reasonable services]; In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777 [no case plan ever developed for parent].) Reunification services also may be extended if a parent is prevented from complying with the case plan. (In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th at 1774, 1797-1799 [mother was hospitalized during most of the reunification period and had otherwise substantially complied with the reunification plan].) However, absent such “extraordinary” situations, “the juvenile court’s extension of services beyond 18 months [is] an abuse of discretion and in excess of its jurisdiction, as limited by statute.” (Denny H. v. Superior Court, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511.)
In the present case, DCFS offered mother reasonable family reunification services and there were no “extraordinary” circumstances that warranted an extension beyond the statutory limit. Mother’s reliance on In re Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, is misplaced. In that case, the juvenile court mistakenly believed it could not extend reunification services beyond the 18-month period even though it was optimistic that the mother might reunify with her children if additional services could be offered. Also, the social agency attempted to restrict the mother’s visitation.
The record in this case does not disclose the juvenile court harbored any optimism the children could be returned to mother, a mistaken belief on the part of the juvenile court that family reunification services could not be extended or any indication that DCFS restricted mother’s visitation. With respect to the visitation issue, it was the CSW who initially recommended that mother visit with only some of the children at any one time. The juvenile court adopted this suggestion in August of 2007.
Notwithstanding the CSW’s suggestion and the juvenile court’s order, for reasons that do not appear in the record, mother continued to visit with all six of her children. The failure to implement the juvenile court’s order between the date of the juvenile court’s order in August of 2007 and the review hearing in November of 2007, without any indication the failure was attributable to DCFS, does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an extension of family reunification services. Thus, no error appears in the order terminating family reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied. This order is final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)
We concur: CROSKEY, J., KITCHING, J.