Cynthia Q. v. Superior Court

Filed 3/27/06 Cynthia Q. v. Superior Court CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Joan Carney, Referee. Petition granted.

Marilyn Mordetzky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Judith A. Luby, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Lisa E. Mandel, Craig Schultz and David Estep for Minors.

Cynthia Q., mother of three minors, filed the instant petition for extraordinary writ to challenge the juvenile court's ruling that terminated reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, 366.26.)[1] The children have joined in the answer to the petition for extraordinary writ filed by real party in interest, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Finding DCFS failed to provide reasonable reunification services, we grant the writ.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Petitioner Cynthia Q. is the mother of six-year-old Cynthia C. (Cynthia), three-year-old Armando C., and two-year-old Gilbert R. Carlos C. is petitioner's husband and the presumed father of all three children. Gilbert R., Sr., allegedly is Gilbert's biological father.[2] DCFS received five referrals on the family beginning in 2000, alleging physical abuse, drug use, domestic violence, failure to provide medical care, and caretaker absence. Carlos C. fled to Mexico to avoid arrest for abuse he inflicted upon petitioner. Cynthia, the oldest daughter, stated that she had been beaten by petitioner, that she saw her father abuse petitioner, and that petitioner used drugs with her friends. Petitioner left the children with their maternal grandmother in December 2004 and disappeared. No one knew her whereabouts until February 2005, when she was discovered in a hospital's psychiatric unit because of drug use.

A social worker visited petitioner in the hospital. Petitioner refused to sign a voluntary services agreement or provide DCFS with an address. After her release, she failed to contact DCFS or her mother regarding the children. In February 2005, she was arrested and incarcerated in a Los Angeles jail for battery on a police officer. Petitioner remained incarcerated either in Los Angeles or Corona throughout the course of these proceedings.

DCFS filed a petition and detained the children in March 2005. The juvenile court placed the children with their maternal grandmother. In April, DCFS reported that the grandmother failed to provide adequate supervision and medical care (the children were locked out of the home during the day while grandmother was at work). Although six years old, Cynthia had not started school. The court placed the children in foster care. On May 11, the court ordered petitioner to have weekly five-minute collect phone calls to the children at the foster home.

The court sustained DCFS's petition on April 27, 2005. A dispositional hearing was held on May 27, 2005. The court ordered petitioner to participate in drug rehabilitation, domestic violence counseling, and parent education. The court also ordered monitored visits with the discretion to liberalize. Petitioner requested that she be allowed to make collect calls to the children at the foster parents' home, indicating that she could purchase a phone card to do so. The court assured her that the social worker would inform the foster parents about how to receive a call from her. Finally, the court gave DCFS discretion to release the children to any appropriate relative.

At the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) in December 2005, petitioner testified that it was impossible for her to comply with the reunification plan because she was housed in a section of the jail that did not offer classes. She stated that she would be able to participate in the plan now that she was in prison and had been classified to receive programs.

Petitioner attempted to communicate with the children. She claimed that she sent them more than 20 letters and tried to call, but the foster parents had blocked collect calls. Petitioner admitted she had spoken with a social worker but did not ask for help arranging the phone calls or visits. She requested that the court order the collect call block removed from the foster parents' phone line. At the time of the hearing, petitioner had been incarcerated for 11 months. She was transferred from the Twin Towers jail facility in downtown Los Angeles to a prison in Corona on October 6, 2005. She is scheduled to be released in October 2006. The court found petitioner had failed to comply with the reunification plan, terminated reunification services, and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.)

The petition for extraordinary writ was filed on January 23, 2006.

DISCUSSION

I

Petitioner's only contention is that DCFS failed to provide reasonable reunification services. Specifically, she argues that DCFS failed to facilitate court-ordered visitation, telephone contact, and petitioner's participation in drug rehabilitation, domestic violence counseling, and parenting classes. Petitioner asserts the juvenile court should be ordered to extend reunification services.

A trial court's finding that DCFS provided reasonable reunification services is reviewed for sufficiency of the evidence. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018.) We construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the juvenile court's findings regarding the reasonableness of DCFS's efforts. (Ibid.) The supervising agency is required to identify the problems leading to the loss of custody, offer services designed to remedy those problems, maintain reasonable contact with parents during the course of the service plan, and make reasonable efforts to assist parents when compliance is difficult. (Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554-555.)

Petitioner was entitled to six months of reunification services for Armando and Gilbert, and one year for Cynthia. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1), (2).) The court may extend the period up to a maximum of 18 months â€