In re L.M.

Filed 6/18/07 In re L.M. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

G.M., mother of the minor, appeals the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 358, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts order denying her reunification services.^[1] We affirm.

FACTS

The newborn minor was removed from appellants custody in May 2006 due to appellants emotional and psychological problems which interfered with her ability to care for the minor. Appellant was not taking her medication and was reportedly hallucinating. The minors half-sibling was detained in 2003 for the same reasons. Appellants inability to care for the half-sibling resulted in the half-sibling being diagnosed as failure to thrive. Appellants parental rights as to the half-sibling were terminated in September 2004.

The emergency response worker interviewed appellants case manager and found appellant had been receiving mental health services since September 2005. Appellant was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been prescribed medication to treat the disorder. Appellant was placed on involuntary mental health holds in February 2006 and again in April 2006 based upon allegations of grave disability. Prior to the second admission, appellant was not eating or taking her medication and was reportedly hallucinating and delusional. When interviewed, appellant disagreed with her diagnosis and with the purpose of her medication and blamed her attorney for her failure to reunify with the minors sibling.

The jurisdiction/disposition report stated appellant continued to deny her diagnosis and minimized her psychiatric hospitalizations. Appellant stated she was taking her medication and was not experiencing hallucinations. The social worker referred appellant to services. Appellants case manager confirmed appellant was currently medication compliant and participating in intensive treatment and a crisis line was available to her. The case manager believed appellant was capable of parenting a child with a lot of community support, and support of the paternal grandmother who was, according to the case manager nurturing and attentive to appellants needs. The case manager expressed concerns about the maternal grandparents whom she described as having delusional episodes. The social worker reviewed the siblings file which disclosed the half-sibling had been removed from appellant due to appellants serious mental health problem, including psychiatric hospitalizations, hallucinations and failure to take medication. Three psychological evaluations in 2003 found appellant would not be able to benefit from services and the half-sibling was currently pending adoption. The report recommended the court deny services to appellant pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(11).^[2]

At the dispositional hearing, counsel argued that subdivision (b)(11) did not apply because appellant had made reasonable progress to treat the problems which led to the half-siblings removal. The paternal grandmother, who did not understand English, testified she was unaware of the allegations which led to the minors removal.

The court found by clear and convincing evidence that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11), applied in that appellants parental rights as to the half-sibling had been terminated and appellant had not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems which led to the removal of the sibling. The court, in addressing the opinion of appellants case manager that appellant was capable of parenting with a lot of support from the community and the grandmother, stated that the evidence showed that appellant was not attentive to the minor or to the minors half-siblings needs and did not recognize she had mental health issues so that the availability of help was of questionable value. The court ordered services for the minors father and set a review hearing.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the court erred in denying her services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11), because she had made reasonable efforts to treat the problems which previously led to the removal of the minors half-sibling.

At the disposition hearing, the court determines whether it is necessary to remove the child from the parents and whether reunification services should be provided. ( 361, subd. (c), 361.5.) The court may decline to provide services to a parent if specific circumstances are shown. ( 361.5, subd. (b).) One of those circumstances, applicable here, is [t]hat the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half-sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half-sibling of that child from the parent. ( 361.5, subd. (b)(11).) The reasonable effort to treat standard found in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11), is not synonymous with cure. (Renee J. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1464.) The statute provides a parent who has worked toward correcting his or her problems an opportunity to have that fact taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings. (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 843.) To be reasonable, the parents efforts must be more than lackadaisical or half-hearted. (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 99.)

The evidence before the court was that appellant had been in treatment since September 2005 for her mental health issues. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was taking psychotropic medication to treat this illness. However, appellant was noncompliant with her medication regimen twice in the four months preceding the minors birth and removal. When interviewed thereafter, appellant maintained, despite her case managers evidence to the contrary, that she was being treated only for depression and was to be tapered off the medication. It is true that in the three months prior to the hearing, appellant apparently maintained her treatment regimen. However, given the severity of her problems, the history of neglect of another child as well as her multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, this period of compliance did not constitute reasonable efforts to treat her problems, particularly since appellant was still unable to acknowledge the severity of her illness, which surely should be the first step.

Appellants case managers opinion that appellant was capable of parenting rested upon appellants ability and willingness to continue to access available services and the paternal grandmothers understanding of the problems. Neither premise was supported by the evidence before the court.

Substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts findings. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) The juvenile court did not err in applying section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11), to deny appellant reunification services.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of disposition is affirmed.

SIMS , Acting P.J.

We concur:

HULL, J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.

^[1] Appellant originally argued there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq. However, after the record was augmented with the relevant notice documents, appellant conceded the notice was adequate.

^[2]Section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(11), provide as follows:

(b) Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following:

[] . . . []

(2) That the parent or guardian is suffering from a mental disability that is described in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7820) of Part 4 of Division 12 of the Family Code and that renders him or her incapable of utilizing those services.

[] . . . []

(11) That the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half-sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half-sibling of that child from the parent.