Opinion
G055791
04-17-2018
CHRISTINA S. et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Lawrence A. Aufill, for Petitioner Christina S. Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender, Kenneth Norelli, Assistant Public Defender, Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner D.N. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency. Camden Polischuk for the Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16DP0516) OPINION Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Katherine E. Lewis, Judge. Petition and request for stay denied. Lawrence A. Aufill, for Petitioner Christina S. Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender, Kenneth Norelli, Assistant Public Defender, Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner D.N. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency. Camden Polischuk for the Minor.
* * *
Christina S. (mother) and D.N. (father) seek extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452) from the juvenile court's December 2017 orders terminating reunification services concerning their child Darius S. (born September 2012) at the 18-month permanency hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.22; all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted), and scheduling a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing for April 18, 2018. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's finding Darius would be at risk if returned to her care, and both parents contend reasonable services were not provided or offered. Our review discloses no basis to overturn the court's orders and therefore we deny the requested relief.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts and procedural history of the case through the November 2016 disposition hearing are contained in our prior opinion affirming the juvenile court's judgment removing Darius from parental custody. (In re Darius S. (Aug. 3, 2017, G054316) [nonpub. opn.]).) In brief, the court sustained a petition filed in May 2016 by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) alleging Darius had suffered, or there was a substantial risk he would suffer serious physical harm or illness resulting from the failure of his parents to supervise or protect him, the parents' willful or negligent failure to provide him with adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical treatment, and the parents' inability to provide regular care due to their mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)). Specifically, in July 2014, father left Darius, then age one, unattended in a vehicle on a hot day for at least 40 minutes while he shopped. Father was convicted of child endangerment, served a jail term, and was placed on probation. In May 2016, father reported to authorities Darius had run off and could not be located. After Darius was located, police officers observed father struggling to supervise Darius, and found herbicide and sharp tools within Darius's reach. He was very thin and had dirt on his face and under his fingernails. Darius had unaddressed medical, psychological, and developmental needs. He had not received routine pediatric care or immunizations, and had never seen a dentist. A psychologist believed he had major developmental delays. Both parents had significant mental health issues.
Only father appealed from the disposition judgment.
SSA initially intended to allow Darius to remain with father under an intensive supervision (CRISP) plan, but after father's therapist witnessed a visit between father and Darius, she concluded Darius's verbal ability was much lower than she had been led to believe, and despite father's positive interaction with the child, the therapist believed father must become better educated about how to communicate with Darius before he could be safely returned. She also was unsure whether father understood the level of supervision required to properly care for Darius. Father told court appointed evaluators he believed he had been treated unfairly and minimized the severity of the incident with Darius. Father also asserted Darius did not have autism and he felt he could meet Darius's needs.
At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing in November 2016, the court found Darius would be at risk in parental care based on the totality of the circumstances, including Darius's special needs, father's admitted difficulty in supervising Darius, father's inclination to minimize the seriousness of past incidents, and his therapist's belief it would be inappropriate to return Darius until father received further education on how to safely supervise the child.
The court approved the case plan contained in SSA's October 2016 report. Among other things, the plan required the parents to participate in counseling and parenting education for children with special needs, to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Darius's needs, and to obtain any specialized care deemed necessary. It required mother to submit to an evaluation for psychotropic medication as deemed appropriate by the court-appointed evaluator. The court ordered SSA to refer mother to appropriate psychological and psychiatric professionals for evaluation and treatment. The court ordered SSA to provide father with "appropriate hands-on parenting," to assist "father with learning about the kind of control of the environment that has to occur in order to maintain the child safely." The court scheduled a six-month review for May 2017, and conducted several progress reviews.
In late December 2016, the social worker made an unannounced visit to the maternal grandmother's home and learned mother did not live there as she had claimed. The social worker met with mother later that day and assisted mother in attempting to make appointments with various service providers and provided mother with a list of shelters. Mother also expressed difficulty with income and housing stating her disability left her unable to work.
Father visited with Darius at SSA's offices. He generally acted appropriately, engaged with the child, and showed affection. But he also had to be redirected to not engage in conversation with the monitor and parenting coach about "his case and problems with [] mother." Father complained his counselor had been unhelpful and he accepted the social worker's offer for another referral. The social worker and father discussed father's pain and psychotropic medications, and he agreed to provide a list of his medications and prescribing physicians. He also agreed to a referral for a parenting class. Father asserted Darius should not have been removed from his care and "continued to blame external sources," including mother and the foster agency, "for his troubles." But he was open to engaging in services and displayed love for Darius.
The social worker recommended liberalizing visits to supervised, and allowing the parents to visit Darius together. The court adopted the recommendation and directed SSA to facilitate weekend visits.
In an interim report dated March 2017, the social worker reported Darius was doing well in the foster home and enjoyed preschool. He remained essentially "non-verbal" and had a tendency to gag himself by stuffing food in his mouth.
Mother had received a bipolar disorder diagnosis with psychotic features, but as of January she had not connected with a psychiatrist. She had two sessions with her therapist, but put therapy on hold because "things 'got weird.'" She believed "sessions were going 'to a deep, dark place'" and felt her therapist was "'working with people who are trying to keep her down.'" Mother agreed to continue with therapy at the social worker's urging. She had not enrolled in a parenting class or a behavioral management workshop through Regional Center. The social worker requested she call both providers and observed her attempt to make contact. The social worker also supplied a list of autism support groups and mother agreed to keep a log of attendance. Mother had cancelled a visit with Darius because she was uncomfortable "due to the child receiving immunizations that she did not agree with, as well as actions by the father such as changing the child's diaper in the middle of the room."
In February 2017, mother reported she remained unemployed and had not found a shelter from the list the social worker provided. Mother had resumed seeing her therapist, but believed she did not require medication. She had been attending the parenting class and behavioral management workshop, but she had not attended any autism support groups, and continued to make comments suggesting she did not "fully believe" Darius had autism.
Father's parenting coach stated father had completed eight weeks of parenting courses, but did not grasp the concepts. He failed to set boundaries or redirect Darius, and often delegated supervision to the coach or visitation monitor. Father's therapist stated father "needs work understanding the requirements in supervising a child with autism who has limited verbal communication." Father continued to insist Darius was wrongfully taken from him and resented being made to participate in services.
The social worker noted concerns with visitation as to both parents. Mother continued to end visits early, and cancelled other visits. Mother also made unfounded accusations that father touched Darius inappropriately during visits. As noted, father did not set boundaries or redirect Darius, and often delegated supervision to the coach or visitation monitor. Father also missed a few visits.
In an interim report dated April 2017, the social worker noted mother continued to cancel visits and end visits early. Father also missed a visit. He had improved somewhat with redirecting Darius, but still needed reminding by Orangewood visitation center staff not to allow the child to run around with his eyes closed or to jump off furniture.
In the initial report for the May 2017 six-month review, the social worker recommended continuing reunification services and scheduling a 12-month review. Darius was thriving in the maternal relative caretaker's home. The social worker reported mother still had not met with a psychiatrist to obtain an evaluation for psychotropic medication. She was terminated from therapy in late March 2017 after a third absence, but was subsequently reinstated. The parents had not supplied certificates of completion for parenting education and other services. Mother had not followed up on shelter referrals or sought a source of income such as disability. Nor had mother followed through on a psychiatric referral. She continued to question the validity of Darius's autism diagnosis. Father became highly agitated when the social worker advised him she was recommending six more months of services, insulted the worker, and stormed out of their meeting. The social worker concluded father had participated in his case plan, but continued to deny wrongdoing in the incident where Darius ran off while under his supervision.
Mother continued to cancel visits, and acknowledged on one occasion she lacked the means to care for Darius. Mother disagreed with returning Darius to father, and stated she would like additional time to obtain adequate housing and financial resources.
In early June 2017, the court accepted the parties' stipulation authorizing father to have six hours of unsupervised visits in a public setting and three hours of supervised visits. The court also directed SSA to refer father to another parenting coach.
In an addendum report dated July 12, the social worker stated father had attempted to transport Darius without a car seat in the front seat of his two-seater car in violation of the social worker's directives. Darius was at risk if the air bag deployed. He also apparently allowed mother to attend the visit in violation of a court order, and attempted to deceive the social worker about the incident. The social worker recommended reimposing supervision and filed a request (§ 388) to change the visitation order.
Mother now stated she would let the social worker know by July 12 if she was going to attend the psychiatric appointment. She again admitted she could not provide for Darius's basic needs of food and water, and did not want unsupervised visits.
At the combined six- and 12-month review held on July 12, 2017, the court found that returning Darius to either parent would create a substantial risk of detriment, and scheduled an 18-month permanency review for November 15. The court ordered two hours of unsupervised visits for father in a public location, and mother was not to be present. Father was granted an additional seven hours of supervised visits.
In August 2017, the court approved an amended case and visitation plan. The court directed SSA to refer father to a parent mentor, and authorized funding.
In early September 2017, SSA filed another request (§ 388) to change the visitation order to reimpose supervision for father's visits. Father disclosed to the foster parents Darius ran away from him at a shopping center during an unsupervised visit and he could not locate him. Father contacted a security guard, conceded "[i]t was a miracle we found him." The court granted SSA's request pending a hearing.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered visitation to be supervised. The court directed SSA to complete a safety assessment of father's home, and authorized visits at father's home once the home was declared safe.
In her report for the 18-month review dated November 15, 2017, the social worker recommended terminating reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing. The social worker concluded that despite 18 months of services, including parenting classes, counseling, autism workshops, and parent coaching for father, the parents had not demonstrated an ability to provide a safe and stable home environment for Darius. Darius still did not speak, received educational accommodations including speech therapy, and was a client of the Regional Center. Despite Darius's difficulties, the parents continued to express skepticism concerning Darius's autism diagnosis. Mother did not believe he required educational accommodations or intervention services.
Mother's therapist reported mother required "further progress in stabilizing her mental health and in ruling out any psychiatric/substance abuse concerns." Mother had not cooperated with her case plan requirement of seeking a psychiatric evaluation despite the social worker's repeated efforts. Mother did not believe she required mental health treatment, and stated she did not intend to follow up with mental health services until she receives her "'basic needs.'" She felt she should be receiving "'social services benefits.'"
Neither parent had stable or appropriate housing. Father was now living with the paternal grandmother in a seniors-only mobile home park. Father stated he would keep Darius indoors to avoid being caught violating park rules. Mother reported staying with the maternal grandfather because he needed assistance with the activities of daily living. Mother did not have a plan where she could live with Darius, and she remained unemployed with no source of income because she had been rejected for disability benefits.
Father continued to believe SSA had overreacted when he lost Darius. Neither parent had supplied certificates showing they had completed parenting classes. The parents also did not attend behavior management, workshops, or support groups for parents of children with special needs suggested by the social worker.
Father began counseling with a therapist experienced in working with autistic children in September 2017. Father appeared unfocused, rambled, and frequently minimized things, especially when speaking about his son's developmental issues and father's actions leading to removal. Father falsely represented to the therapist that Darius spoke in full sentences. The therapist stated it was hard to convince father to take the necessary steps, and it would take months for him to set goals.
Father's parent mentor reported father did not respond to the mentor's calls and messages. When they eventually connected and scheduled appointments, father failed to show up and did not call to cancel.
Mother continued to cancel visits. When visits did occur, she was attentive and appropriate. Father was generally consistent with visits, but had failed to show up for three recent visits without contacting the visitation center to cancel. He later stated he was too busy moving and there was "'no sense'" in contacting the visitation center. He had allowed mother to visit with Darius during his unsupervised visitation time in violation of the court's orders. He was affectionate toward Darius, but continued to have difficulty redirecting Darius and in accepting guidance from monitors.
Father reported in mid-October his home had been sold at auction. The social worker inspected the mobile home of the elderly and mobility-limited paternal grandmother, and spoke with her and the paternal aunt. The aunt was minimally communicative and it was not clear she could understand and follow rules concerning supervising visits. Father stated the aunt had not spoken until she was 10 years old. The paternal aunt's developmentally delayed 19-year-old daughter, who the aunt cared for full time, told the social worker that father used to beat her when she was a child. Father claimed his niece was lying and the aunt did not attempt to de-escalate the situation. The social worker did not believe the aunt was an appropriate monitor for father's visits given she was a full-time caregiver for the developmentally-impaired niece, interactions between father and the niece would not be conducive to a healthy visit with Darius, and the aunt did not demonstrate she could comfort her own child.
The social worker concluded several safety factors weighed against returning Darius to a parent. Neither had adequate housing, and the parents had not progressed in counseling. The parents apparently did not accept the child's autism diagnosis and special needs, and the social worker doubted whether Darius would continue to receive intervention services in the parents' care. Mother had not cooperated in obtaining psychiatric mental health services, and she repeatedly cancelled visits.
Father consistently minimized his actions in placing Darius in danger, and had not demonstrated an ability to provide adequate supervision, evidenced by losing Darius at the shopping center when he had unsupervised visitation. Visitation center staff continued to express concern father did not redirect Darius from disruptive and hazardous behaviors during visits. Father could not articulate anything he had learned from parent mentors. Father's mentor described father as "'scattered,'" "'all over the place'" "'loses track' of things easily" and "'can't focus.'" The mentor stated father had a childlike mindset, and it was "like he can't do two things at the same time, like if he's on the phone, he can't watch the child." Father had recently skipped visits without cancelling stating he was too busy, which suggested Darius was not a priority in his life. The social worker also noted neither parent had an appropriate support system. Additional reunification services were unwarranted because of Darius's young age and the parents' lack of progress over the previous 18 months.
The 18-month review commenced December 11, 2017. The court admitted SSA's reports, and the social worker and father testified. Following the hearing, the juvenile court found there was a substantial risk of detriment to Darius if returned to the parents' care. The court found reasonable services had been provided or offered. The court terminated family reunification services and scheduled section 366.26 hearing for April 18, 2018. The parents petitioned for writ relief.
II
DISCUSSION
A. Return to Mother Detrimental
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in determining there was a substantial risk of detriment in returning Darius to her care. (See § 366.22 [at 18-month permanency review court shall order return of the child unless it finds return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the well-being of the child].) We review the court's detriment finding under the substantial evidence standard. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 619, 625; see In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924 [reviewing court determines whether juvenile court's order is supported by evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value]; In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400-1401 [reviewing court must consider the evidence favorably to the prevailing party and resolve all conflicts in support of the juvenile court's order].)
Mother complains the court erred in failing to specify the factual basis for its detriment finding. (See § 366.22, subd. (a)(2).) The court however, stated mother failed to make substantial progress in the court-ordered treatment plan, which was prima facie evidence of detriment the parents did not rebut. Moreover, mother failed to object in the juvenile court to the failure to specify a factual basis, which would have allowed the court to remedy any omission. Regardless, any error in failing to specify a factual basis was harmless because a different result was not reasonably probable. (See In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1218 [failure to make finding harmless where it is not reasonably probable finding would have been in parent's favor].)
Mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the case plan, which constituted prima facie evidence of detriment. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) As recounted in the factual portion of this opinion, despite considerable "handholding" by social workers, at the time of the 18-month review mother still had not followed through on a psychiatric evaluation and possible treatment and medication as recommended by the court evaluators. She provided largely incoherent responses to the social worker on the subject, citing stress and her "'financial, bureaucratical, unlawful ongoing clerical libel situation.'" Mother's therapist reported mother required "'further progress in stabilizing her mental health and in ruling out any psychiatric/substance abuse issues.'"
As SSA notes, at the time of disposition mother had scattered speech patterns and made nonsensical, bizarre, and paranoid allegations. She maintained Darius had been conceived when she was drugged and raped by multiple men, and complained the child was getting infections from the food given to him by his caretakers. She claimed father had murdered his roommate and had put opium in Darius's bottle, yet she left the child in father's care despite these beliefs.
Mother had not progressed beyond supervised visits, and continued to cancel, or abruptly terminate those visits. Indeed, she stated she did not want unsupervised visits because she could not provide food and water for Darius. She did not have housing or financial stability, and admitted she could not provide for her own or Darius's basic needs because she remained unemployed with no source of income. She bounced between residences and failed to follow through on shelter referrals, and did not have a plan where she could live with Darius. She made unfounded accusations against father of child sexual abuse, yet continued to allow father to transport her to visits, and stayed with him occasionally. She had not supplied certificates showing she had completed parenting classes.
Despite extensive counseling, she resisted the idea Darius was autistic, had special needs or required educational accommodation, claiming assessments Darius may be autistic did not have "facts behind them." She declined to attend support groups for parents of children with special needs suggested by the social worker. The social worker expressed concern mother would not be able to provide for Darius's basic needs, and would not follow up on intervention services he would require, such as in-home behavior modification.
Although mother was attentive and appropriate with Darius in a supervised setting at the visitation center, the record supports a finding mother could not provide a safe and stable home for a special needs child such as Darius at the time of the 18-month review. Before SSA intervened, mother had left Darius with father for extended periods even though she believed he posed a risk of harm to him. She had not obtained necessary medical, dental care, and developmental care for the child. As Darius's caretakers noted, when Darius came into their custody in June 2016 at age three years and eight months, he was nonverbal, in diapers, unable to use the bathroom on his own, and unable to dress himself. Darius to that point ate a diet consisting mainly of formula, was unable to use any eating utensils, and was in pain due to cavities and lack of dental hygiene. Darius would not make eye contact, had tantrums, and had received little if any medical or dental care. Darius, who had not been evaluated for autism, required speech therapy and prompting with daily activities such as using the bathroom and brushing his teeth. The caretakers feared that absent a good support system, structure, and consistency Darius would stop making improvements and perhaps regress. Mother's mental health issues, failure to follow through with a psychiatric assessment and treatment, failure to acknowledge Darius's special needs, precarious living situation, and absence of a support system provided ample evidence supporting the court's finding that returning Darius to mother's care would create a substantial risk of detriment to his physical or emotional well-being. B. Reasonable Services as to Mother
The parents contend the juvenile court erred when it found reasonable services had been offered or provided. (See § 361.5, subd. (a) [juvenile court shall order social worker to provide child welfare services where child is removed from a parent's custody unless parent is ineligible for reunification services]; § 366.22, subd. (a)(3) [at 18-month permanency review court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent].) Reasonableness of services are judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547 [services must be "reasonable under the circumstances"].) The record should reflect the 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. (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426.) The question is whether substantial evidence supports the court's finding. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.)
As SSA notes, although the court is required to determine at the 18-month permanency review whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent, the court must nevertheless order a section 366.26 hearing unless the conditions in section 366.22, subdivision (b), apply. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3) ["Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26"].) Section 366.22, subdivision (b), authorizes extension of the reunification period to 24 months for specified categories of parents under certain circumstances. The parents here do not fit within those categories. (See § 366.22, subd. (b) [parent making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing, or parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, etc.].) The court therefore did not err in scheduling a section 366.26 hearing.
Mother's claim concerning reasonable services also fails on the merits. Mother primarily complains SSA did not follow through with mother's therapist's request around July 2017 to observe mother parenting Darius. She states this would "have provided critical information as to how extensive Darius' Autism is, and whether mother needed any additional services to parent Darius." The therapist stated she would like to do a therapeutic monitored visit to assess mother's progress with parenting skills and attachment. Mother notes she provided appropriate parenting during supervised visits and asserts SSA did not tailor services to her particular limitations and disabilities. (In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1320, 1327 [developmentally disabled parent entitled to services tailored and responsive to the family's special needs in light of the parent's particular disabilities].)
The social worker testified mother refused an in-home coach. --------
SSA concedes it did not arrange for mother's therapist to observe a visit between mother and Darius, but it explains this omission did not establish "her otherwise comprehensive reunification services unreasonable under the circumstances." We agree. SSA provided or offered extensive counseling, parenting education, mental health, shelter referrals and visitation services to mother. As noted above, reunification failed because mother refused to follow through on a psychiatric evaluation and treatment as recommended by the court-appointed evaluators, resisted the idea Darius had special needs or required educational accommodation, could not obtain housing or financial stability, and admittedly could not provide for Darius's basic needs. She repeatedly cancelled visits during the most recent period of supervision. The social worker testified she did not need to have the therapist observe a visit between Darius and mother to make a recommendation regarding reunification. Given mother's myriad difficulties, SSA's failure to have mother's therapist observe a visit did not render the services offered and provided in this case unreasonable and did not prejudice the outcome. C. Reasonable Services as to Father
Father argues SSA did not provide him with reasonable visitation services. He faults SSA for offering him only monitored and supervised visits at the visitation center for over a year, which did not prepare him for "the sudden increase to unmonitored visits" at an outdoor shopping center. This led to the incident where he lost Darius in September 2017, echoing the May 2016 incident triggering the dependency case. Father states, "visits remained monitored until June 6, 2017, at which time he was approved to have 3 hours of supervised visits and 6 hours of unsupervised visits. [] Thus, for the duration of almost 13 months, Father had no more than 6 hours a week of monitored visits with his son. Though concerns about Father may have warranted against return, the Agency should have allowed Father's visitation to progress. The Agency failed to implement such intermediate steps toward its reunification goal."
Father's focus on SSA's failure to take "intermediate steps," namely in-home visits, before the current period of supervision beginning after the 12-month review in July 2017, is misplaced. (See In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150-1151 [appellate court in a dependency proceeding may not inquire into the merits of a prior final appealable order when reviewing a later reviewable order].) In any event, father stipulated in June 2017 to six hours of unsupervised visits in a public setting. He apparently suggested or at least agreed the outdoor shopping center was an appropriate venue for visits and declined a more sedate venue such as a park or a library. Not long after being granted unsupervised visits, he attempted to transport Darius without a car seat in the front seat of his two-seater car in violation of the social worker's directives. He also allowed mother to attend a later visit in violation of the court's order, and contrived to deceive the social worker about the incident. He received a reduction in unsupervised visitation time and additional restrictions. Then he lost Darius at the shopping center in early September and visits reverted to supervised at the visitation center. SSA later assessed father for supervised in-home visits, but he lost his home through foreclosure, and the paternal grandmother's home with the aunt as supervisor was an unacceptable option.
SSA provided or offered father more than 18 months of services, including parenting classes, counseling, parent coaching and mentoring, and various autism workshops. It also offered and provided him visitation services commensurate with his demonstrated abilities. Unfortunately, father apparently could not grasp the lessons from his classes and other services, nor accept instruction and redirection from visitation center staff. The record reflects it was unsafe to return Darius to father at the 18-month review, but this was not attributable to SSA's lack of effort. Ample evidence supports the conclusion father received reasonable services. D. Extension of Services
The court noted it had discretion to continue the reunification period, but could not "conclude that within six months we would be at a place where the court would feel it was safe to return" Darius to the parents. (See § 352.) The court did not abuse its discretion is determining there was no good cause justifying extension of family reunification services for an additional six months.
III
DISPOSITION
The petition seeking extraordinary relief from the juvenile court's orders terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing for April 18, 2018, is denied, as is the request for a stay of that hearing.
ARONSON, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. BEDSWORTH, J.