In re Lourdes S.

Filed 2/13/07  In re Lourdes S. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Zeke  Zeidler, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Deborah Dentler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant county Counsel, and Owen L. Gallagher, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

            Miriam S. (mother) appeals from the order made on July 3, 2006, at a 12-month review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f),^[1] terminating reunification services for Lourdes S., born in 1988, and Oscar S., born in 1992, (the children).  The children's father did not appeal.  Mother contends the order terminating reunification services was an abuse of discretion because substantial evidence does not support the finding that reasonable services were provided.  We hold the finding is supported by substantial evidence and reject the contention.  We affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            The children lived with both parents.  Mother suffered from auditory hallucinations which caused her to believe an imaginary person told her what to do and say, and prevented her from nurturing or bonding with her children.  She refused many attempts to give her help, because she believed she was not mentally ill.  The children were negatively affected by her condition.  She mistreated and emotionally abused them.  Father was the children's primary caretaker.  In February 2005, father excessively physically disciplined Lourdes on one occasion.  The children were detained from the parents on April 11, 2005, and placed in foster care.  A dependency petition was filed.  Antipsychotic medication was prescribed for mother in May 2005.

            On July 13, 2005, the petition was sustained and the children were declared dependents of the court under section 300, subdivision (b) (substantial risk of serious physical harm by the parent's failure to protect and inability to provide regular care due to mental illness).  Custody was taken from the parents and reunification services were ordered.  The court-ordered reunification plan required mother, inter alia, to participate in individual counseling and ongoing psychiatric treatment, and to take any prescribed medication. 

            On November 16, 2005, the dependency court released the children to father on an extended visit.  Because mother was compliant with her treatment plan, she was allowed to live in the home.  On December 14, 2005, at the six-month review hearing, the suitable placement order was terminated and the children were placed in the home of father, family maintenance services were ordered, reunification services for mother were continued, and mother was granted permission to reside in the family home on condition she comply with her treatment plan.  The dependency court found reasonable services were provided to mother.  The matter was continued to May 30, 2006.  The dependency court stated the May 30, 2006 hearing would be for a judicial review hearing under section  364 as to father and under section 366.21, subdivision (f) as to mother. 

            However, mother refused further services.  She stopped taking her medication and did not participate in therapy.  Her symptoms returned.  Mother's presence in the home in her condition was very difficult for the children, especially Oscar, who began suffering severe emotional problems in December 2005.  His functioning and ability to learn were severely impaired.  He could not leave the house or attend school.

            The Department provided services to help the family stay together.  On December  14, 2005, the social worker referred the family to the Family Preservation Program, a program which assists families in obtaining needed services.  On January  3, 2006, the director of the Family Preservation Program met with an in-home counselor, a social worker, mother and father, and the children concerning providing services to the family under the program.  Mother rejected the services.  The social worker made frequent contact with the family in person and by telephone.  Mother was inconsistent in participating in meetings with the social worker.  During a meeting with the social worker in March 2006, mother had her own private conversation, insisted she had no mental health problems, and vowed she would not take medication.  Mother stated she would rather move out of the family home than have to deal with the dependency court and the Department.  Father and the children wanted mother to move out.  In March 2006, the social worker investigated whether the family could receive Wraparound Program services, including mental health services for mother, and learned the family did not qualify because it had private insurance.  The social worker sought an exception for this family.  In March 2006, even though mother was resistant, the social worker again referred the family to the Family Preservation Program to provide father with support in handling the children and mother.  A service plan was created to insure the children's safety in the home.  When mother no longer wanted mental health services, her therapist referred mother to El Pueblo Services to obtain in-home outreach visits. 

            The section 364 hearing as to father was held on May 30, 2006.  The home-of-father and family maintenance orders were continued.  The dependency court ordered mother to not live with father and the children.  Mother's section 366.21, subdivision (f) hearing was continued to July 3, 2006, for a contest regarding the Department's recommendation to terminate reunification services.  Mother refused to move out of the home.  Oscar continued to suffer from crippling psychiatric problems. 

            On July 3, 2006, mother testified she did not take her medication or go to counseling because she was not crazy and the medication was a â€