In re Jennifer P.

Filed 1/22/07  In re Jennifer P. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, James Lauer, Jr., Referee.  Affirmed.

            Julian P. appeals the orders of the juvenile court made at a six-month dependency review hearing involving his minor children Jennifer P. and Anthony P. (together the minors).  Julian challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings he was offered reasonable reunification services.  We affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[1]

            In November 2005, two-year-old Jennifer and nine-month-old Anthony came to the attention of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) and were removed from the custody of their parents, Julian and A.C., because of allegations Julian had sexually molested the minors' four-year-old half-sibling N.C.^[2]  Although A.C. obtained a restraining order against Julian, she allowed him to remain in the home until he was arrested several weeks later.  Julian refused to talk to the social worker.

            Agency filed petitions on behalf of the minors under Welfare and Institutions Code^[3] section 300, subdivisions (d) and (j), alleging they were at substantial risk of sexual abuse based on Julian's molest of N.C.  On November 30, 2005, the court detained the minors in out of home care, ordered Julian to have no contact with Jennifer, but allowed liberal, supervised visits with Anthony.  The court ordered Agency to provide Julian with referrals for counseling and a parenting class.  The court informed the parents they must make substantive progress in their court-ordered treatment programs, and failure to cooperate with services required by their case plans could result in termination of reunification efforts after six months.

            In a report prepared for the jurisdiction and disposition hearings, the social worker recommended the minors remain in out of home care and the parents receive reunification services.  Julian still refused to discuss the case with the social worker.  He was being investigated by the police.  Julian's case plan recommended he participate in sexual abuse treatment (SAFE Paths), parenting classes, individual therapy, and a psychological evaluation.  As of March 2006, A.C. and Julian were still living together.

            After various continuances and delays, the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearings were held on May 16 and 17, 2006.  Social worker Johanna Firth testified Julian never denied molesting N.C.  In Firth's opinion, the minors were at risk of sexual abuse by Julian because of their young ages and limited language skills.  A.C. could not protect the minors because she was unwilling to acknowledge the sexual abuse and she had not followed through with obtaining a restraining order against Julian.  According to Firth, Julian had not yet participated in any services and he had not made himself available to Agency or the police for an interview.  Julian presented no affirmative evidence.

            The court sustained the allegations of the petition as to Jennifer under section 300, subdivision (d) and as to Anthony under section 300, subdivision (j).  At the dispositional phase of the hearing, the court accepted the parties' stipulation to Firth's testimony that the minors would be at substantial risk of serious harm if returned to their parents.  The court declared the minors dependents, removed them from parental custody, and placed them with the maternal grandmother.  The court ordered supervised visits for Julian and reunification services for both parents.  Julian unsuccessfully appealed the court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders.  (In re Jennifer P., supra, D048752.)

            In a report prepared for the six-month review hearing, social worker Betty Saavedra recommended the parents receive six more months of reunification services.  Julian had been visiting the minors since February 2006, and was affectionate and appropriate with them.  Saavedra requested Julian's visits remain supervised because he had not participated in sexual abuse treatment or individual therapy, and Saavedra could not recommend unsupervised visits without feedback from the service providers.  Although Julian continued to deny sexually molesting N.C., he recently said he was motivated " to participate in services and [had] taken initial steps to begin the reunification process."   However, Saavedra believed Julian remained a risk to the minors based on his continued denial of the molest and his failure to participate in services.  Saavedra testified that between the date the minors were removed from the home in November 2005 and the date the court declared the minors dependents in May 2006, Julian did little to address the issue of molest and he remained in contact with A.C.

            After conducting a social study with Julian, Saavedra deleted the requirement that Julian participate in a psychological evaluation.  She noted that Firth, the previous social worker, had been unable to conduct a social study with Julian because he refused to discuss the case with her.  Julian had not provided Saavedra with documentation to support his claim he completed a parenting class.

            Julian said he did not receive the list of therapists Firth sent him on May 12, 2006.  On June 28, he was given a new list of therapists as well as a referral to a new sexual abuse treatment provider.  Julian was instructed to contact Saavedra once he had arranged to begin therapy so Agency could authorize payment.  As of July 24, 2006, Julian had not telephoned Saavedra to confirm he had made a therapy appointment.

            At a six-month review hearing on July 24, 2006, Julian submitted on Agency's reports.  The court continued the minors as dependents, found the parents had been offered reasonable services, but found Julian had not made substantive progress with his case plan.  The court set the matter for a 12-month review hearing and ordered Julian to participate in additional services.

DISCUSSION

            Julian challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding he received reasonable services.  He asserts Agency did not provide him with any referrals until six months after the detention hearing.  Thus, he claims, his lack of compliance with services is directly attributable to Agency's dilatory efforts in providing him with appropriate referrals.

A

            Whenever a minor is removed from parental custody, the court must order reunification services for the parents.  (§  361.5.)  The purpose of reunifications services is to remedy the problems that led to the minor's removal.  (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362.)  Each reunification plan must be appropriate to the particular individual and based on the unique facts of the case.  (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)

            Services are considered reasonable if the child welfare agency 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 re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972, quoting In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)  The reasonableness of Agency's efforts is judged according to the circumstances of each case.  (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.)  " In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect.  The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances."   (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.)  We review the court's findings as to the adequacy of a reunification plan and the reasonableness of Agency's efforts for substantial evidence.  (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)

B

            Here, the minors became dependents because Julian had sexually abused their sibling.  Julian's case plan, which required him to participate in sexual abuse treatment, parenting classes and individual therapy, was tailored to fit the family's unique problems.  (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.)

            Julian asserts Agency did not make a good faith effort to implement his case plan.  However, Julian knew in November 2005 that he needed to participate in the services outlined in his case plan in order to regain custody of the minors.  Nevertheless, for the next six months, he refused to communicate with the social worker about anything other than visitation and he did not make himself available for an interview.  The record also shows Agency had difficulty locating Julian because he failed to keep his contact information updated.  If Julian had an interest in reunifying with his children, he had an obligation to communicate with Agency and participate in the reunification process.  (In  re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 442.)  Under these circumstances, Agency could not readily facilitate reunification services for an unwilling participant.  (See In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5 [social worker not required to " take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions" .].)

            Julian further asserts services were unreasonable because Agency did not provide him with referrals until one or two months before the review hearing.  However, if Julian believed Agency had unduly delayed in making these referrals, he had the assistance of counsel to bring it to the court's attention.^[4]  (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416 [party may not be silent as to objections until it is too late to obviate them].)  Even after receiving referrals to therapists, Julian had not made arrangements for therapy after nearly a month.  Thus, contrary to Julian's position, his lack of compliance with services is neither directly nor solely attributable to Agency's delay in providing him with referrals.  Rather, by his own volition or lack of motivation, Julian avoided accessing services until just before the six-month review hearing.  (See In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 48 [delay in making referral for individual counseling did not make services unreasonable]; cf. In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 972-975 [father did everything possible to reunify with minor, but child welfare agency unreasonably delayed getting minor into individual therapy].)  If a parent of a dependent child " in no way seeks to correct his or her own behavior or waits until the impetus of an impending court hearing to attempt to do so, the legislative purpose of providing safe and stable environments for children is not served by forcing the juvenile court to go 'on hold' while the parent makes another stab at compliance."   (In  re Michael S., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1463, fn. 5.)  Substantial evidence supports the court's finding Julian was offered or received reasonable services.^[5]

DISPOSITION

            The orders are affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

                                   McINTYRE, J.

                                         AARON, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

^[1]           A more detailed account of the facts and procedure is set forth in our unpublished opinion in Julian's prior appeal, (In re Jennifer P. (Nov. 17, 2006, D048752)).

^[2]           Julian is not N.C.'s father.  N.C. is not a subject of this appeal.

^[3]           Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

^[4]           Julian was present at 11 of 15 hearings between the detention hearing in November 2005 and the six-month review hearing in July 2006, yet never objected to not having received referrals for services.

^[5]           Even if Agency's delay in providing Julian with referrals for therapy and sexual abuse treatment resulted in services that were less than perfect, the court ordered six more months of services for Julian, allowing him additional time to reunify with the minors.