In re Natasha H.

Filed 3/9/07 In re Natasha H. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

At issue are two writ petitions seeking extraordinary relief from a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a date for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Petitioners Denise V. and James H. (collectively, parents) seek the writ on the ground that no clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that real party in interest, the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (the department), provided them reasonable reunification services. They also request a stay of the permanency planning hearing, scheduled for March 26, 2007, should this matter not be resolved by that date. We deny the writ petitions and the related requests for a stay.

Procedural and Factual Background

Denise is the mother of Natasha H., born in September 2004, and Felicia O., born in June 2003 (collectively, dependents). James is the presumed father of Natasha. David O. is the presumed father of Felicia, and is not a party to these proceedings.[2]

On January 3, 2006, the department filed separate petitions for Felicia and Natasha under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), alleging they (1) had suffered or faced a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of their parents failure to adequately protect or supervise them, or their parents willful or negligent failure to provide them with adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical treatment; and (2) had been left without provisions for support. The petitions, among other things, alleged that dependents had been staying in an unheated, trash- and insect-filled room at a hotel with approximately six adults without adequate clothing, bedding or food. Natasha, wearing only a dirty diaper, had a cough and a previous ear infection for which Denise had failed to schedule a follow-up appointment. Felicia, also wearing only a diaper, had a cough and matted, dirty hair.

When approached by social workers, Denise took no responsibility for dependents living arrangement, responding that it was not her home so she could not be blamed for its condition. Denise had twice before been offered voluntary services by the department, but had consistently failed to utilize those services or to keep in contact with the assigned social workers.

The juvenile court, considering the petitions together, found the allegations to be true, removed dependents from parents custody, and adopted the departments recommendations for reunification services.[3] Based on the departments case plan, the juvenile court ordered parents to: (1) obtain a stable and suitable residence for dependents; (2) complete a mental health evaluation and comply with medical or psychological treatment; (3) successfully complete a parenting class; and (4) attend court-ordered visitation and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills to the Family Connection Center staff.

In January, April and September of 2006, the department filed reports with the juvenile court raising several issues of concern with respect to parents compliance with the case plan. Among other things, social workers observed during visitations that parents lacked basic parenting skills. In particular, they observed that James often used inappropriate language in front of dependents, and engaged in rough play that appeared to scare them. One or both parents often appeared lethargic or distracted. Denise appeared overwhelmed. Parents often became defensive and, in Jamess case, combative when social workers attempted to critique or improve their parenting skills. On one occasion, the social worker on duty called for back-up from another social worker when James became very angry and argumentative after being told he was playing too roughly with Felicia. He also brought a knife to a visit, and did so again even after being told such conduct was forbidden. At the time of case plan completion, James was incarcerated for a felony conviction, but was still receiving some reunification services.[4]

The department also expressed concern that Denise failed to maintain regular contact with social workers or to provide them with her current contact information. In fact, parents failed to return social workers phone calls on more than one occasion, and could not be located for extended periods of time. And despite being offered two-hour visits three days a week, parents failed to visit dependents between February and May 2006. Starting in May 2006, the frequency of parents visits increased, but remained sporadic.

Further, as of September 5, 2006, Denise had yet to complete the mental health assessment ordered by the department in January 2006 (although she had scheduled one), had not attended a parenting class, and continued to reside with friends at the hotel.

The statutorily required 6-month review hearing ( 366.21, subd. (e)) was held November 2, 2006. After hearing testimony from parents and from social worker Donnie Sanches, the juvenile court found that, despite being offered reasonable services by the department, parents had made no substantial progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes behind dependents removal. Accordingly, the juvenile court adopted the departments recommendation to terminate reunification services for parents. The juvenile court also scheduled a permanency planning hearing ( 366.26) for both dependents on March 26, 2007. These writ petitions and requests for a stay of the permanency planning hearing followed.

Discussion

Parents seek reversal of the juvenile courts order to terminate their reunification services and to set the case for a permanency planning hearing. They claim the juvenile court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence the department provided them reasonable reunification services. Specifically, Denise contends the department knew she had mental health problems that affected her ability to take advantage of the services offered to her, but failed to take steps to assist her in obtaining medical treatment for her problems. James contends the department failed to inspect his housing arrangement and to explain why it was inadequate, and failed to address parenting issues raised by the agency that supervised his visits with dependents. James also contends his attorney failed to inform him of his obligation to complete a psychological evaluation.

We review for substantial evidence a juvenile courts finding that reasonable reunification services have been provided to a dependents parent or legal guardian. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) A juvenile court is required to base its finding of reasonable reunification services upon clear and convincing evidence. (Ibid.) Accordingly, in reviewing the juvenile courts finding, we must bear in mind the heightened burden of proof and determine whether any substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesupports it. (Ibid.; In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) In doing so, we draw all legitimate inferences in support of the juvenile courts finding. (In re Alvin R., supra, at p. 971.)

California courts have previously concluded a proper plan for reunification services must be tailored to the specific needs of the dysfunctional family. However, to make the requisite findings, the record should show that the supervising 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 (such as helping to provide transportation and offering more intensive rehabilitation services where others have failed). (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414; see also In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 971.)

Here, the juvenile court found parents had been offered reasonable reunification services by the department for a period of at least eight months, from the time of disposition until the six-month review hearing. Among other things, the evidence established that the department had: (1) given parents bus tickets for transportation to services; (2) arranged and supervised child visitation at Family Connection Center and Environmental Alternatives; (3) provided transportation and coordinated with dependents for visits; (4) consulted with parents about services available to help them successfully complete the case plan; (5) attempted to maintain regular contact with parents and with dependents regarding dependents needs and progress; (6) consulted with service providers; (7) made social workers available to parents to answer questions, discuss concerns, and provide parenting tips; (8) conducted a home study of relatives to facilitate dependents placement; and (9) referred parents to Family Intervention Team and Environmental Alternatives. We conclude this evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile courts finding.

Reunification Services For Denise

In concluding Denise was offered reasonable services, we reject her claim that the department disregarded mental health problems, including problems remembering times and dates, that prevented her from taking advantage of the services. For one thing, the case plan, which the department first prepared in January 2006, specifically addressed Denises mental health. It directed her to complete a mental health evaluation, and to comply with all medical or psychological treatment recommendations, including medication, following the evaluation. It also directed her to sign a release so the department could monitor her progress. Denise, however, failed to even schedule a mental health evaluation until September 7, 2006, nearly nine months after dependents were removed and after the six-month review hearing had been set.

Denise explains she delayed completing the mental health evaluation because she kept forgetting to call due to her mental problems. But Denise admitted eventually making the appointment herself, as the six-month review hearing approached, because she knew it was a case plan requirement. Denise also admitted that, at least starting in May 2006, she was able to keep many scheduled visits with dependents. Those facts suggest Denise was capable of taking advantage of services the department made available to her, and that her failure to do so was due at least in part to her unwillingness or indifference. (In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 971 [all legitimate inferences must be drawn in support of the juvenile courts finding of reasonable services].) Reunification services are voluntary, and cannot be forced on an unwilling or indifferent parent. (In re Jonathan R. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1220.)

Moreover, while Denise claimed not to remember whether social worker Donnie Sanches ever asked questions regarding her mental health, she acknowledged meeting with Sanches at the mall and discussing her bipolar disorder. Sanches also met with parents several times to address areas of concern with respect to their parenting skills, and offered them referrals to parenting classes and to a housing program, which parents apparently failed to accept. In all, the record thus reveals substantial evidence the department identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with [Denise] during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist [Denise] in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . . (In re Riva M., supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 414, italics omitted.)

Reunification Services For James

We likewise reject Jamess claim that the reunification services provided to him were unreasonable because (1) the department failed to inspect his housing at the hotel and to explain why it was unsuitable for dependents; (2) he was unaware of the departments requirement that he complete a psychological evaluation; and (3) the department failed to address issues raised by the agency supervising his visits with dependents regarding his parenting skills.

Regarding his housing, James no longer lived at the hotel at the time of the six-month review hearing; rather, he was incarcerated. As such, it is unclear why James condemns the department for failing to inspect his former hotel room. Moreover, the evidence reveals a substantial basis for the departments conclusion that dependents housing arrangement with parents was inadequate. Social workers initially found dependents living with parents and other adults in a trash- and insect-filled room, without proper clothing, bedding or food. Later, social workers determined parents were living in separate rooms at the hotel, each with several other adults. Based on those conditions, the department informed parents the hotel was not appropriate housing for dependents, and ordered them to find a suitable alternative. Sanches offered to refer parents to MAC, a program to help them find alternate housing, but they apparently did not accept her help. We conclude those efforts by the department to improve parents housing were reasonable.

Further, we dismiss Jamess claim that he was unaware of the case plans requirement that he complete a psychological evaluation. The original and updated case plans, both of which clearly laid out the requirement that James complete the evaluation, were mailed to him.

Finally, regarding Jamess claim that the department failed to adequately address parenting issues raised by the agency supervising his visits with dependents, we conclude the evidence proves otherwise. For example, one social worker who observed parents visits highly recommended they receive parenting skills and coaching. When asked about the social workers recommendation, Sanches testified she did in fact refer parents to a parenting program. Another social worker noted that parents need more structured supervision. Sanches responded by moving the visits from Environmental Alternatives to the Family Connection Center, where parents would be more closely supervised. And another social worker expressed concern that parents appeared unfamiliar with the visitation centers parent protocol. Sanches, in turn, responded by reviewing the protocol with parents several times. She also arranged to personally observe parents visits.

We conclude the departments efforts to improve Jamess parenting skills were reasonable. Moreover, the fact that James could have received more services or assistance to improve his skills does not render its efforts unreasonable. (In re Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 972-973 [reunification services need not be perfect, and are not unreasonable merely because more could have been provided].) As such, Jamess writ petition and request for a stay, like Denises, must be denied.

Disposition

Denises and Jamess petitions for an extraordinary writ and requests for a stay are denied. This opinion is final in this court immediately.

_________________________

Parrilli, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P. J.

_________________________

Pollak, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

[2] When Felicia was born, David signed a declaration of paternity at the hospital. During these dependency proceedings, David was incarcerated in San Quentin State Prison. James requested a determination that he is the presumed father of Felicia. The juvenile court denied Jamess request, but ruled he would be considered her de facto father.

[3] Like the juvenile court, we consider the matters of Felicia and Natasha together.

[4] While incarcerated, James received supervised visitation and, at least until he was transferred to a new housing unit for engaging in misconduct, had access to parenting and domestic violence programs.