Opinion
A130579
12-06-2011
In re B.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. H.B., Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J39445)
I. INTRODUCTION
H.B. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her reunification services with her 11-year-old daughter B.L., who was declared a dependent of the juvenile court in 2009. Mother contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to sustain the court's finding that reasonable services were provided because the Solano County Health and Social Services Department (the Department) did not tailor services to address mother's mental illness; and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion by refusing to extend services to mother beyond the 18-month statutory deadline set forth in section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. We reject these contentions and affirm the juvenile court's order.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Background and Petition
On May 21, 2009, mother was arrested after having an altercation with a roommate. B.L., who appeared tired and had a strong foul odor, was placed under protective custody and interviewed by a social worker. This friendly, talkative nine-year-old reported that mother had previously hit her on the back, arms and legs and that she once gave her a black eye. B.L. also reported that mother told her not tell anyone how she got the black eye, so she told her teacher and the school social worker that she fell off her bike. B.L. said that she did not always feel safe with mother, who frequently got mad and screamed, but that she was used to mother's behavior, which she attributed to mental illness. B.L. said mother hears voices in her head and argues with people who are not there.
The Department social worker interviewed mother who reported she had no problems with domestic violence, drugs, alcohol or discipline. She denied that she gave B. L. a black eye and accused the social worker of lying about what B.L. said about her. Mother said she had been arrested the previous day after calling police when a woman "waltzed" into her apartment and started arguing with her about a cat. Mother reported that she took medication in the past but could not recall what. The social worker reported that mother was confrontational and much of what she said did not make sense.
Mother asked for B.L. to be placed in the home of mother's grandmother and uncle. However, that placement was not possible because mother's uncle had a criminal record and grandmother reported that she was afraid of mother because she is aggressive, confrontational and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and that mother was not welcome in her home because she is a chain smoker. A maternal great aunt reported that she has observed mother respond to voices in her head, talk to people who are not there, and entertain delusions, that mother can be violent at times, and that mother is in denial about her mental illness.
The Department had received 14 prior referrals for B.L., which demonstrated a pattern of neglect and an inability to secure needed services, including stable housing due to mother's confrontational behavior. The social worker reported that the Department had been unable to locate B.L.'s father, R.L. (father), whom B.L. had not seen for several months. Mother reported that father is a drug addict with a criminal history and that she did not want B.L. placed with father.
On May 26, 2009, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), alleging that B.L. was at risk of physical and emotional harm because of mother's chronic serious mental health issues, mother's history of aggressive physical altercations including an incident in which she struck B.L in the face, father's significant criminal history, and the fact that father's current whereabouts was unknown.
After conducting a detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered that B.L. be detained without prejudice pending further consideration, and continued the matter for a contested jurisdiction hearing. The court further ordered that mother was to undergo a psychological evaluation and that visitation was to be supervised. B. Jurisdiction
On June 16, 2009, the Department filed an addendum report in anticipation of the contested jurisdiction hearing that was set for June 18, 2009. By that time, father had made contact with the social worker and reported that he was currently incarcerated, that he had not cared for B.L. since his relationship with mother ended four years prior, and that he believed mother was not mentally able to care for B.L.
According to the jurisdiction report, mother spent time at a behavior health facility called Telecare in 2006, which resulted in a temporary conservatorship. The Department also reported that three separate restraining orders had been filed against mother due to harassing behavior. During a June 4 interview, B.L. admitted to the social worker that she was a little scared of mother because she talked to and argued with herself, heard voices, got mad for no reason and screamed and yelled. B.L. said that mother would hit her for no reason and that when that happened, mother would say "stop," even though B.L. had not been doing anything. Mother would hit her with an open hand on her legs and arms, and she often said things that did not make sense.
On June 9, 2009, mother was interviewed at the Department office. She was "highly agitated and suspicious" and informed the social worker that the charges against her had been dropped. The social worker attempted to explain that the dependency proceeding was a different case, but mother repeatedly accused the Department of fabricating a story about her. She rejected the social worker's suggestion to go next door and request an assessment from Solano Mental Health, stating there was no concern about her mental stability. When asked about her 2006 stay at Telecare, mother reported that she stayed there because she was homeless. Finding herself homeless again, mother inquired about housing assistance but she told the social worker she could not stay at several of the local shelters (Heather House, Mission Solano, Opportunity House) because she had problems with staff and other residents when she stayed at those places in the past.
At the jurisdiction hearing, father submitted on allegations in an amended petition. The court heard testimony from the social worker, mother and B.L. Ultimately, the court exercised jurisdiction over B.L after sustaining the following allegations in the amended petition:
"b-1) The mother [H.B.] has serious mental health issues that at present are not adequately addressed and which place the child [B.L.] at significant risk of physical and emotional harm. The mother's mental health issues have contributed to the mother and child having difficulty maintaining stable housing.
"b-2) The mother has a history of confrontations with others, which have periodically resulted in housing disruption and lack of stability for the minor. On or around March 2009, the mother [H.B.] struck the child [B.L.] in the face which resulted in bruising. Mother denies that she caused the bruising.
"b-3) The father [R.L.] has a lengthy and significant criminal history including but not limited to possession of controlled substances charges and violation of parole. The father is currently incarcerated and is unable to provide care for his child at this time. . . .
"g-2) The father [R.L.] has not provided support or care for his child since January 2007. He is currently incarcerated and unable to provide care and support for the child [B.L.]." C. Disposition
On August 6, 2009, the Department filed a status report in anticipation of the disposition hearing scheduled for August 11. The Department recommended that the court declare B.L. a dependent, order mother to undergo a psychological evaluation, and order that reunification services be provided to both mother and father.
Since the jurisdiction hearing, mother had secured temporary housing in the home of a family friend who was supportive of mother but unable to offer B.L. a home. On August 3, the social worker met with mother at the friend's home. In contrast to earlier meetings, mother was not agitated or defensive and asked appropriate questions about her case plan. When the social worker asked whether mother felt she needed mental health services, she responded "Not particularly," and stated "I have no proven mental illnesses." Nevertheless, mother agreed she could use assistance with stress she was experiencing as a result of B.L.'s removal and she also indicated she would like housing assistance. Mother continued to maintain that B.L. had been coerced into making false statements against her, and that B.L. should not have been removed, but she also expressed confidence in the court system.
Father was still incarcerated and there was a concern that he had unresolved substance abuse problems. The Department reported that both parents had support from extended family members. Father wanted B.L. to live with his mother who was being assessed as a possible placement. Meanwhile, B.L. was in counseling and doing well in her placement. However, the Department was concerned by the degree of anger B.L. exhibited toward mother and opined that the years of instability, unpredictability and volatility made it difficult for B.L. to trust mother.
At the disposition hearing, both parents submitted on the Department report and the court adopted the Department's recommendations. Mother was to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine appropriate services and the Department was to provide reunification services to both parents. D. Six-Month Review
On January 14, 2010, the Department filed a status review report in anticipation of the six-month review hearing scheduled for February 9, 2010. The Department recommended that the dependency continue, that B.L. remain in her out of home placement, and that reunification services continue for both parents.
Mother was still living at the home of a family friend but had been informed that she needed to secure alternative housing. The friend had several conversations with the social worker about mother's difficult behavior. She reported that mother would talk to herself, yell B.L.'s name while sitting on the front porch and loudly rap a song in the backyard. The friend had to ask mother to come into the house and be quiet after finding her outside making noise at 3:00 a.m. Twice, mother had turned on the stove and then forgot about it, which caused the house to become smoky. On another occasion, mother spent $100 buying spices at the grocery store because she said she was going to cook something for B.L.
The social worker reported that she had monthly meetings with mother during which she endeavored to discuss mother's case plan but that mother was resistant to efforts to assist her. Mother accused the Department of prejudice, fabrication and harassment and took the position that compliance with her case plan was optional.
The Department documented its efforts to assist mother in securing stable housing. Initially, mother was referred the Fairfield Family Resource Center. But, in October 2009, a staff worker reported that mother had already used several housing resources in the community and it was unclear whether those programs were still available to mother. In November, the social worker referred mother to three different programs for housing assistance but mother rejected these agencies, complaining that they were not run properly and that she did not approve of them. Mother told the social worker she would get her own housing. In December 2009, she reported that she had been in contact with Fairfield Family Resource Center. The social worker followed up and confirmed that agency had provided mother with a list of available apartments.
During this reporting period, mother refused to participate in treatment or services related to mental health and continued to maintain she did not have any mental health problems. By signing her case plan, mother agreed to complete a psychological evaluation and a mental health assessment. Although the social worker explained that both evaluations were necessary, mother viewed them as alternatives.
With regard to the required psychological evaluation, the Department made two appointments for mother, and provided her with reminder notices and transportation to the appointments. Mother attended the first session on October 5, but refused to participate after approximately 15 minutes, telling the doctor that she had no problems, the dependency case had been dropped and that her participation in the evaluation was optional. Mother refused to return for the second appointment. The doctor who attempted to conduct the evaluation reported that she did not have sufficient data to provide a diagnosis but that it appeared that mother experienced delusions and needed medication. The doctor opined that mother likely would not benefit from services unless her mental health problems were addressed first.
The Department also referred mother for a mental health assessment. Mother attended her appointment at Solano County Mental Health. On November 3, 2009, the evaluator, Ms. Gerson, sent a letter to the Department stating "Based on my brief assessment, I do not feel [mother] meets our target population for specialty mental health services." When the Department social worker called to request clarification, Gerson opined that mother is not severely and persistently mentally ill, but also agreed she could return for a second assessment by a different clinician. Upon further inquiry, the social worker was advised that she could accompany mother to a drop-in clinic to insure that the assessor received all pertinent information because a client with severe problems who does not report all symptoms might not qualify for services. The social worker then met with mother, expressed her concerns about mental health issues and advised that mother needed a second mental health assessment. The social worker offered to make the arrangements and accompany mother to the appointment. Mother responded that the social worker was " 'harassing and prejudice,' " that she did not want the worker's assistance, that she disagreed that there were concerns about her behavior and that she would get her own counseling.
During this reporting period, mother enrolled in a parenting course and attended five of seven classes. The instructor reported that mother stated that she was attending the classes because they were required but that she did not feel she needed them because her daughter does not have discipline or behavior issues.
Mother's case plan called for weekly one-hour visits with B.L., but the Department recommended that visits be reduced to half hour bi-monthly sessions. Already, the visits had been moved to a special room outside the visitation center because mother's behavior was disruptive of other family visits that were taking place at the same time. The reported behavior included demanding physical contact with B.L. even when B.L. pulled away, talking about things that made no sense like a revolution and voice recordings, shouting out random phrases like "Sponge Bob" and "Orphan rage," and singing.
B.L. was doing well in school and was physically healthy during this reporting period. She attended therapy, but was reluctant to talk about mother or express her feelings. She told the social worker that she did not want mother to know where she attended school because she did not want mother to try and pick her up there. B.L. did not want to participate in therapy with mother and requested that visitation be reduced. Observers noted that, during visits, B.L. resisted physical contact, refused affection and refused items of food mother tried to offer. After observing one session, B.L.'s therapist opined that the visits were not productive.
Father was still incarcerated but was participating in services and programs available to him in prison. His scheduled release date was March 15, 2010, and his plan was to transition to a residential program/half-way house. The Department continued to focus on the paternal grandmother as the best alternative placement if reunification could not be achieved.
At the six-month review hearing, mother requested a contest and the matter was continued to February 22, 2010. At the contested hearing, mother submitted on the Department recommendations and the juvenile court adopted the proposed findings and orders. The court authorized an out-of-county placement with the paternal grandmother and ordered that visitation with mother would be changed to two visits a month for a total of four hours of visitation. The court also ordered mother to complete her psychological evaluation. E. Interim Changes
On March 16, 2010, B.L. was placed in a relative placement home with her paternal grandmother.
On March 18, 2010, the Department filed a Request to Change Court Order. According to that request, on March 9, the Department had received a copy of mother's psychological evaluation which had been completed by Dr. Salazar. In light of that report, the Department asked the court to temporarily suspend visitation between mother and B.L. until mother's mental health issues were addressed by medication.
According to Dr. Salazar's report, when mother appeared for her psychological evaluation, she was mentally alert and oriented, she did not have any memory problems or cognitive difficulties that could have interfered with testing, and she denied delusions or hallucinations. However, Salazar concluded that mother's perceptions, thinking and judgment were not within normal limits. Furthermore, although mother tried to be cooperative, she was guarded, anxious, defensive and exhibited paranoid thinking.
Dr. Salazar diagnosed mother with schizoaffective disorder, bi-polar type and personality disorder not otherwise specified with obsessive compulsive, histrionic and narcissistic personality features. According to the report, mother denied any clinical syndromes and tried to "present herself favorably with no emotional or parenting difficulties." However, current testing and collateral information indicated that mother suffers from depressive, manic or mixed episodes, delusions, auditory hallucinations and disorganized speech. Dr. Salazar's recommendations included a psychiatric medication evaluation, individual psychotherapy, family therapy once medication was stabilized, independent living skills training, and parenting classes.
Dr. Salazar also recommended that visitation be reevaluated and possibly suspended in light of recent negative reports about the impact of those visits on B.L. The social worker contacted Dr. Salazar to discuss this recommendation and provided the court with the following summary of that conversation: "Dr. Salazar explained that she thought after meeting with [mother] and [B.L.] individually that visitation should stop until [mother] has complied with medication and individual therapy. Dr. [Salazar] expressed that [mother] is actively delusional and hallucinating which needs to be address[ed] with medication and therapy. Dr. Salazar stated that after meeting with [B.L.], she observed that [B.L.] seemed fearful of her mother and was concerned that her mother is still 'sick.' Dr. Salazar told this worker that she thinks that once [mother] has had one month of medication and therapy compliance then supervised visitation should gradually begin again. Dr. Salazar recommended that visits start off supervised one time per month, and gradually increase overtime. Dr. Salazar stated that she does not believe that [mother] and [B.L.] should participate in therapeutic visitation or family therapy until [mother] is stabilized on her medication and individual therapy."
At an April 13, 2010, hearing on the motion to change visitation, the parties advised the court that they had reached an agreement to reduce visitation to one hour, twice a month for the time-being, to give mother time to complete a mental health assessment with the county to determine her eligibility for services, and then to reevaluate visitation at the end of the month. Counsel for the Department noted that the assessment was scheduled for April 15 and that it was "critical" that mother attend. In light of the parties' agreement, the matter was continued.
On April 15, 2010, mother completed her mental health assessment through Solano County Mental Health and was found to be eligible for services based on the results of the psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Salazar. The Department social worker followed up with the county to confirm that a medication evaluation would be scheduled as soon as possible.
At a May 4, 2010, hearing, the parties advised the court regarding the status of mother's mental health evaluation and requested that the visitation agreement remain in place for the time being. The court granted that request and also granted the Department discretion to increase mother's visitation depending on her progress with programs and medication. F. 12-Month Review
On June 18, 2010, the Department filed a status review report in anticipation of the 12-month review hearing scheduled for July 13, 2010. The Department recommended that B.L. remain in the placement with her paternal grandmother, reunification services to father continue, and reunification services to mother terminate.
At the time this status report was prepared, mother was considered by the Department to be homeless because she had been asked to leave her friend's home on June 14, 2010, and she had failed to provide the Department with any information about where she was living. The friend reported that mother was asked to move out after she lied about taking car keys and cigarettes from the family's car. The friend reported that there were many other problems, including that mother continued to talk loudly and use profanity while standing outside the home in the early morning hours. The friend also expressed concern about mother's anger and paranoia toward the social workers and attorneys involved in her case.
Upon learning of mother's eviction, the social worker provided mother with referrals to two agencies that provide emergency shelter. Mother did not contact those agencies, but instead told the social worker that she had a job at a restaurant and would be able to be " 're-established' in her own living environment by the end of June 2010." The social worker advised mother to contact a case manger at Fairfield Family Resource Center about rental assistance programs that might be available to her.
On June 15, 2010, mother completed a medication evaluation with Dr. Lowe who prescribed medications to treat depression and obsessive compulsive disorder. Lowe advised mother to call the Solano County Mental Health Access line to get referrals to an individual therapist. A second appointment with Dr. Lowe was scheduled for July 13, 2010. Mother was also referred to attend two weekly support groups run by Solano County Mental Health. She told the social worker that she was attending the weekly sessions and found them helpful. The social worker provided mother with a log to track her attendance at those programs.
The Department expressed concern that mother's compliance with the mental health evaluation requirements of her case plan came so late that it was unlikely that mother could stabilize her mental health situation if services were provided for 18 months. The Department also expressed concern that mother was simply going through the motions without acknowledging her problems or really benefiting from the services that were provided.
During this reporting period, the criminal case against mother that precipitated this dependency case was finally resolved. Mother was granted summary probation and ordered to complete a 52-week parenting class.
Mother fully complied with visitation and appeared to enjoy her time with B.L., although B.L. did not always enjoy her visits with mother. The Department was concerned that mother did not act like a parent during these sessions. She did not always engage with B.L., and some of the conversations she initiated were inappropriate, which required a social worker to intervene and provide redirection.
B.L. had successfully transitioned to her placement with the paternal grandmother and continued to do well in school and socially. She was no longer participating in therapy because she did not have the desire and there was no medical necessity for it. B.L. reported that she would like to live with father and that she loved mother but did not want to live with her.
Father, who was released from prison in March, was living in transitional housing in San Francisco. His case manager there reported that he was doing well in the program, which included a random monthly drug test requirement, and that he was utilizing services. Father reported that he kept in regular contact with B.L. and that he tried to visit with her at his mother's home at least twice a month. Father expressed a desire to have B.L. live with him. Although he had consistently utilized services available to him in prison and after his release, father had not yet stabilized his employment or housing situation.
At the review hearing, father submitted on the Department's recommendations and mother requested a contest, which was conducted on August 9, 2010, before the Honorable Garry T. Ichikawa. Virginia Davis, the Department social worker, was the only witness at the hearing. Davis testified that mother had continuously resisted efforts to address her mental health problems, failed to secure stable housing for herself and her daughter and failed to substantially comply with her case plan. Davis also testified that mother's mental health history was documented in reports which reflected prior instances of failing to take medications or comply with mental health recommendations.
During closing argument, mother's counsel acknowledged that mother's resistance to treatment was a factor during the first six months of the case, but maintained that individuals with mental health issues often have this problem and that, in the present case, this problem was exacerbated because Ms. Gerson told both mother and the Department that mother was not mentally ill. Beyond that, counsel maintained that mother had become compliant during this reporting period, she had participated in the necessary evaluations and now that she finally had her medication, it was unjust to tell her she was out of time and no longer entitled to services that could actually benefit her.
On August 12, 2010, after taking the matter under submission and reviewing the files again, the court ordered that both mother and father receive additional reunification services and continued the matter for an 18-month review. The court made a detailed statement on the record to explain its decision to provide mother with an additional six months of services. The court stated that this was an unusual case because, although the Department had made reasonable efforts to offer services to mother, the court believed that mother had not been able to benefit from those services until she started receiving her medication in June 2010. The court found evidence in the record that there had been a delay in getting mother an appointment and medication because of "cut-backs with respect to the Department of Mental Health." Ultimately, the court concluded: "I think that that delay interfered with her being able to participate in the case plan, so I'm going to continue to offer services to her. But at the same time I think it should be clear that I think the Department has made reasonable efforts." G. 18-Month Review
On October 29, 2010, the Department filed a status review report in anticipation of the 18-month review hearing scheduled for November 16, 2010. Again, the Department recommended that B.L. remain in the relative placement with her paternal grandmother, reunification services to father continue, and reunification services to mother terminate.
For most of this reporting period, from July until October 2010, mother lived in a car that was parked on property owned by her grandmother (A.B.). In September, A.B. had complained to the social worker that mother was "out of control." A.B. reported that mother swore, called her names, and made false accusations that grandmother had abused her when she was a teenager. A.B. reported numerous behavior problems, including that mother wanted to shower three to five times a day, refused to wash her clothes or let A.B. wash them, threw away plates and utensils because they were dirty and she did not understand they could be reused, and made false police reports that A.B. was abusing her. According to A.B., mother misused money she received from the county by, for example, stocking grandmother's home with 230 spices, and buying food, opening it and then throwing it away without eating it. She also threw away food that A.B. prepared for her.
On October 14, 2010, A.B. asked mother to leave her property after the police arrived at the house at 3:00 a.m. because mother was standing on top of a car in the front yard screaming and yelling. The officer who came to the house told A.B. that he had been there on three prior occasions because mother had called the police for no reason. A.B. told the social worker that mother's mail came to her home but mother threw it away without opening it.
During this reporting period, the social worker made several referrals to housing assistance programs and to housing shelters. However, mother reported that she was working several days a week and intended to rent her own apartment. A.B. reported that mother did have a job but that she only worked one day a week, and that A.B. was under the impression that mother had lost that job. As of the preparation of the 18-month report, mother reported that she was "staying with a friend."
During this reporting period, mother failed to comply with the requirement that she attend individual therapy. In July 2010, the social worker urged mother to call the county mental health access line to obtain a referral to an individual therapist. Mother resisted, claiming she already had a psychiatrist. Mother was advised about the different roles of the psychiatrist and therapist and she was repeatedly reminded that she was required to see both. On September 28, 2010, the social worker sent a letter again referring mother to the Solano County Mental Health access line, so she could get a referral to a therapist. Mother acknowledged receipt of the letter and said would call soon.
The social worker did not refer mother to family counseling during this reporting period because mother failed to participate in individual counseling which was necessary to stabilize her mental health before family therapy could occur.
During this reporting period, mother missed appointments with her psychiatrist. She also missed appointments with the social worker, claiming afterward that she forgot. Mother was instructed to bring medications to her appointments with the social worker but often failed to do so. On August 12, 2010, mother showed the social worker two bottles for prescriptions that had been filled on June 21, 2010. Both bottles appeared to be full. A.B. reported that mother did not take her medication because she did not like it and she said it made her feel sick.
During this reporting period, mother had nine scheduled supervised visits with B.L. and she attended them all. The social worker attempted to direct mother to take on a parental leadership role during visits. During a visit in October, mother corrected B.L. when she responded "yeah" to a question instead answering "yes." During that same visit, mother made the inexplicable observation that "some people speak in tongues and 7 years ago something happened but I don't want to talk about that now." B.L. reported that her visits with mother were fine, but she did not want to increase those visits or to have them be unsupervised.
Father continued to live in transitional housing in San Francisco. He was participating in services, was in full compliance with the terms of his parole, and had tested clean on all random drug tests. He worked full time as a welder for several weeks until he was laid off, and was looking for other work. Father had frequent unsupervised visits with B.L. at the home of his mother. Both father and B.L. reported that the visits went well.
At the conclusion of 18-month report, the Department summarized the reasons that B.L. could not be safely returned to mother: She had not followed through with services to stabilize her mental health issues or to obtain safe and stable housing; she was still experiencing active mental health symptoms; she was unable to care for her own daily needs, missed appointments, and did not take advantage of referrals; she had failed to commence individual therapy; and the Department suspected she was not taking her medication. Furthermore, although mother appeared to enjoy her visits with B.L., it did not appear that B.L. reciprocated those same feelings. Under these circumstances, the Department concluded, "[t]here are no extenuating circumstances that warrant extending services to the 24-months as to [mother], and within the last 18-months [mother] has not shown that she is willing to fully cooperate with all services offered to her especially related to her mental health treatment."
With regard to father, the Department advised the court that B.L. could not be returned to his custody at the 18-month review hearing because he was living in a transitional program in San Francisco. If not for that fact, "the Department would be prepared to return [B.L.] back to his care." The Department requested that father be afforded an additional six months of services so that he could find stable employment, save money and secure a stable home for himself and B.L. The Department noted that father had been compliant with his program since he was released from prison and was also in compliance with the terms of his parole, he had maintained regular contact with B.L., and they appeared to have a significant relationship. Furthermore, extending the service period for father would not jeopardize permanency for B.L. because she was already living with her paternal grandmother who had agreed to keep the child permanently if reunification efforts failed.
At the 18-month review hearing, father submitted on the recommendations and mother requested a contest. The court ordered that father was to receive additional services and scheduled a 24-month review hearing, and then continued the matter for a contest as to mother.
On November 27, 2010, Fairfield police responded to a report of a battery outside the home of mother's grandmother, A.B. Mother's uncle reported that mother had caused a disturbance in the street and he attempted to subdue her. Mother struck and hit him and, although he attempted to hold her until police came, mother got away. The officer subsequently contacted mother who claimed that her uncle was the original aggressor.
A contested hearing was held on December 2, 2010, before the Honorable Donna M. Petre. Again, social worker Virginia Davis was the only witness. Davis testified that mother had not substantially complied with her case plan. Although she did participate in some components, she resisted others. When mother stated she would participate, she failed to follow through and then made excuses. For example, initially mother maintained that she did not need therapy, but then when she said she did need it, mother refused to allow Davis to help her make phone calls and get things started. Davis also testified that reports from relatives and witnesses indicated that mother had failed to control her mental health problems, including in particular her involvement with verbal and physical altercations which was the factor that led to this dependency in the first place. Furthermore, mother still did not have stable housing and the Department had recently been notified that she was living on somebody's porch.
Davis also testified that she did not believe that providing an additional six months of services would enable mother to reunify with B.L., explaining: "She still has a lot of work to do. It would be different if she had started her individual therapy and she was engaged in that service because we could see if there was some progress made from the individual therapist's opinion. Her daughter still is resistant to increasing visits. We still haven't moved from unsupervised visits. We haven't even began to explore the possibilities of family therapy, which I think are imperative prior to the child being returned home."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that reasonable services had been provided to mother, mother had made only minimal progress on her case plan and B.L. could not be safely returned to mother's physical custody. Services to mother were, therefore, terminated. The court also limited mother's educational rights over B.L. and appointed the paternal grandmother as B.L's education surrogate. This timely appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Reasonable Reunification Services Were Provided
Mother's first claim of error on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court finding that reasonable reunification services were provided to her.
Except under circumstances not present here, "whenever a child is removed from a parent's or guardian's custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the child's mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians." (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) When reunification services have been ordered, the juvenile court is required to make a finding at each subsequent hearing as to whether reasonable services have been provided during each review period. (§§ 366, subd. (a)(1)(B); 366.21, subds. (e) & (f); 366.22.)
"Reunification services need not be perfect. [Citation.] But they should be tailored to the specific needs of the particular family. [Citation.] Services will be found reasonable if the Department has '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 (such as helping to provide transportation . . .).' [Citation.]" (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972-973 (Alvin R.).)
"In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed. [Citations.] ' " '[W]hen two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts,' either deduction will be supported by substantial evidence, and 'a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.' [Citations.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
Applying this standard, we affirm the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were afforded to mother in this case. Mother's service plan was tailored to address her specific needs for mental health services, housing assistance, and parenting education. Furthermore, the record shows that, throughout the course of the 18 months of services that were provided, the social worker maintained reasonable contact with mother notwithstanding mother's frequent resistance to that contact. Finally, the social worker's efforts to assist mother were unwavering despite repeated rebuffs from mother.
On appeal, mother contends that the services provided were inadequate because "mother needed the social worker's active assistance in complying with taking her medication as prescribed, keeping appointments with the psychiatrist and obtaining an appointment with a therapist in order to stabilize enough to complete the reunification plan on her own." Instead of that "active" assistance, mother complains, the social worker did nothing more than provide mother with "reminders," which were obviously ineffectual in light of mother's mental health issues.
First, we reject mother's contention that the social worker did no more than provide mother with reminders. The Department reports, supporting documentation and social worker's testimony constitute substantial evidence that the social worker actively and consistently supported mother throughout the case. Second, mother's vague demand for more "active" assistance is telling; she defeats her own argument by failing to articulate any specific action that the social worker allegedly could or should have taken. Third, mother provides neither sound reasoning nor relevant case authority to support her attempt to shift responsibility for mother's noncompliance to the social worker in this case. In other words, we reject the argument that the social worker was required to force mother to take her medication and attend her appointments.
Mother's contention that she was incapable of remembering to attend appointments and to take her medications is not supported by any evidence in this record. In this regard, we note that mother's psychological evaluation expressly states that mother had no memory problems or cognitive issues which could have interfered with the evaluation process. Furthermore, the fact that mother consistently appeared for visits with B.L., an activity she enjoyed, is evidence that mother's memory functioned when she wanted it to.
Mother contends that attending appointments with her psychiatrist was critical because it was not possible for her to make any progress on her case plan until she stabilized on her medication. Despite this fact, mother complains, "[t]here is no evidence the social worker offered to take mother to the critical early appointments when mother was not yet stabilized on psychotropic medication." This argument begs the question why mother was not taking her medication. The reunification period had already been extended from 12 to 18 months for the express purpose of giving mother time to stabilize on her medication. And yet, there is substantial evidence that mother made the conscious choice not to take her medication because she did not like the way it made her feel and because she was in denial about her mental health issues and resistant to treatment. Although we do not "blame" mother for these problems, we will not join her in blaming the social worker, who appears to have gone above and beyond her job description in this case.
Mother reminds us that the social worker did offer to take mother to get a second mental health assessment after Ms. Gerson reported that mother was not mentally ill. Without explaining how this fact is relevant to the question whether services were reasonable during the period between the 12 and 18-month reviews, mother implies that the social worker had some improper motive for offering to take mother for a re-evaluation. Frankly, we are perplexed by this notion. After Ms. Gerson made an erroneous eligibility determination, the social worker followed up with the provider, advocated for mother, made all of the arrangements for a second interview, and offered to accompany mother to that interview to ensure that she received a full and fair assessment of her needs. Despite all that work, mother refused to accept the assistance that the social worker offered.
Mother attempts to analogize her case to other cases in which the appellate court found that reasonable services were not provided to the parent of a dependent child. (See, e.g., Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340 (Amanda H.); Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 962.)
In Amanda H., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, the social worker made statements at the six-month review hearing which gave both the mother and the juvenile court the "distinct impression" that mother was enrolled in all the required court-ordered programs, and the social worker did not inform mother she was required to enroll in a separate domestic violence program until just before the 12-month review hearing at which services were terminated. (Id. at p. 1346.) In this case, by contrast, mother was never misled about the requirements of her case plan and there is no question that the social worker made more than a reasonable effort to ensure that mother understood those requirements.
In Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 962, the father "had done all that was required of him under the plan." (Id. at p. 973.) The only service which "stood in the way of all measures remaining under the reunification plan" was for the child to participate in eight sessions of individual therapy, and yet "the Department submitted no evidence of having made a good faith effort to bring those sessions about." (Ibid.) In this case, mother did not do all that was required of her under the case plan, and there is substantial evidence that the Department did make a good faith effort to assist mother in accessing the services that were made available to her. B. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by refusing to extend services to her beyond the 18-month statutory deadline.
The circumstances under which the juvenile court may continue a dependency case for up to six months beyond the 18-month deadline are set forth in section 366.22, subdivision (b) (section 366.22(b)).
Under this statute, the court has discretion to provide services beyond the 18-month deadline only if it "determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration or institutionalization and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return . . . ." section 366.22(b) also provides that the "court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian."
To find a substantial probability the child will be returned to the parent or guardian, the court must find: "(1) That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child. [¶] (2) That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home. [¶] (3) The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration or institutionalization, and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs." (§ 366.22(b).)
--------
In the present case, the court continued this dependency case based on a finding that father satisfied the requirements of section 366.22(b). However, mother has not and cannot establish that the juvenile court even had the discretion to extend services to her beyond the 18-month deadline. Mother does not fit the description of a parent who may be entitled to an additional six months of services. Furthermore, there is no evidence in this record to support a finding that extending the service period to mother would be in the best interest of B.L. or that there is a substantial probability that B.L. could be safely returned to mother if additional services are provided.
Ignoring the specific requirements of section 366.22(b), mother contends that the juvenile court did have discretion to provide mother with an additional six months of services because this is a "special needs case." (Citing In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (Elizabeth R.); In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Daniel G.); In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768 (Dino E.).) However, the cases that mother cites to us are factually inapposite, were decided under a prior version of section 366.22, and do not carve out a distinct category of cases for parents with "special needs," as mother appears to contend.
In both Daniel G. and Dino E., the juvenile court expressly found that the parent was not provided with reasonable reunification services but nevertheless terminated services to that parent based on a mistaken belief that the version of section 366.22 that was in effect at that time did not afford the court any discretion to continue the case beyond the 18-month statutory deadline. (See Daniel G., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1209; Dino E., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1774-1775.) Here, by contrast, the juvenile court expressly found that mother was afforded reasonable services and we have already affirmed that finding.
In Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, the mother was institutionalized because of her mental illness during most of the 18-month reunification period. The juvenile court found that mother had made tremendous progress during the period she was not hospitalized, but also concluded that the version of section 366.22 that was in effect at that time did not permit the court to continue the case beyond the 18-month deadline. (Id. at pp. 1782-1783.) The Elizabeth R. court reversed, finding that the statute provides "an emergency escape valve in those rare instances in which the juvenile court determines the best interests of the child would be served by a continuance of the 18-month review hearing." (Id. at pp. 1798-1799.)
To the extent the escape value that was invoked in Elizabeth R. exists under the current version of section 366.22, it would serve no function here. Mother was not institutionalized or otherwise physically prevented from participating in services in this case. Rather, she was afforded services which she elected not to utilize. Furthermore, and equally important, section 366.22(b) now expressly requires that services be extended beyond the 18-month deadline only if it would be in the best interest of the child, and the record before us does not satisfy this statutory requirement.
Mother attempts to characterize her case as one in which "extraordinary circumstances" prevented her from reunifying with B.L. and justify extending the 18-month deadline so that mother can have the opportunity to stabilize on her medication. Assuming there is a legal basis for this theory, we reject it on the merits. Mother's noncompliance, refusal to take her medication and decision not to access the mental health services that were offered to her are not extraordinary circumstances which entitle her to an additional period of services beyond the statutory deadline.
IV. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court order terminating reunification services to mother is affirmed.
Haerle, Acting P.J.
We concur:
Lambden, J.
Richman, J.