Filed 9/7/18 In re N.D. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re N.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
F.D.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E070008
(Super.Ct.No. RIJ1601030)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and Prabhath Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant F.D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her daughter, N.D. (the child). Mother contends the court’s finding that reasonable services were provided should be reversed because the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) did not comply with the court’s order to facilitate conjoint counseling. She requests that the matter be remanded for the court to ensure that DPSS complies with the order for conjoint counseling. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
On December 13, 2016, DPSS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the child, who was 16 years old at the time. The petition alleged that she came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition included the allegations that mother neglected the mental health needs of the child, and the child had not attended psychiatric appointments, which resulted in poor medication compliance. The petition further alleged that mother neglected the child’s medical and educational needs.[2]
The social worker filed a detention report and stated that DPSS received a referral that the child reportedly disclosed she was hearing voices and was suicidal. A social worker contacted mother by telephone, and mother indicated her life was extremely busy with going to school. She expressed that she needed help with the child, who was misbehaving and getting worse. Mother said the child needed a psychologist, psychiatrist, and medication, not a therapist or family counseling
At a detention hearing on December 14, 2016, the court detained the child in foster care. The court ordered supervised visitation for mother at a minimum of twice a week.
Jurisdiction/disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on January 10, 2017, recommending that the court declare the child a dependent and offer mother reunification services. The child was placed in a group home.
The social worker reported that during previous referrals, mother and the child had conflicts that resulted in physical altercations. The child had a history of suicidal ideations and attempts, and her therapist recommended that the family participate in family counseling. Mother continuously refused to attend family counseling.
Mother continued to minimize the importance of the child’s mental health needs and medication compliance. The child expressed that she did not want to live with mother until she saw whether mother was willing to participate in family counseling. The child did not want to talk to mother on the telephone, and mother had yet to attend the scheduled visits with the child, citing reasons such as lack of financial support and wanting DPSS to provide gas money or bus passes. On December 20, 2016, mother agreed to participate in services such as counseling, family counseling, and parenting classes. She was given referrals, but did not enroll in any services.
On January 13, 2017, the court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing. Mother was present with counsel. The court continued the hearing and made orders, including that DPSS facilitate conjoint counseling between mother and the child with the therapist.
On February 10, 2017, the court held the continued jurisdiction/disposition hearing. County counsel filed an amended petition and recommended that the court provide mother with reunification services. The amended petition alleged that mother was unable to provide adequate medical, mental, and educational care for the child, due to the child’s severe mental health needs. It deleted the other allegations concerning mother.
Mother’s counsel asked the court not to follow the recommendation of family reunification, but asked for family maintenance. Counsel stated that mother did not necessarily want the child returned to her home, but wanted the ability to make educational, medical, and mental health decisions for the child under family maintenance. Counsel then stated that mother was asking for the order to return the child to her under family maintenance. Counsel further said mother was willing to do counseling, but she did not want to be asked to do a psychological evaluation, since had already done one through a workers compensation claim. The court sustained the amended petition, adjudged the child a dependent, and removed the child from mother’s custody. The court also ordered mother to participate in reunification services.
Six-month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month status review report on July 26, 2017, recommending that mother be provided with six more months of reunification services. The social worker reported that mother and the child agreed to participate in conjoint counseling. The social worker stated that once conjoint counseling began and the therapist recommended increased visitation, DPSS would assess for increased contact. The social worker further reported that DPSS attempted to contact mother on a monthly basis to discuss case plan goals and deliver services. Mother said she wanted to develop a plan for the child to return to her home prior to the next court hearing, and mother wanted her fiancé to participate in conjoint counseling with her and the child. The social worker also reported that the child would turn 18 on June 1, 2018. She was living in a group home, and the social worker stated that the appropriate plan was for a planned permanent living arrangement (PPLA), with the goal of transitioning into independence.
The social worker further reported that the extent of progress mother had made on her current case plan was poor. She had not participated in counseling, a psychiatric evaluation, or a parenting program. The social worker stated that mother was resistant to services, but agreed to participate in conjoint counseling with the child once she returned from being abroad.
The court held a six-month hearing on August 10, 2017. Mother’s counsel submitted on the reports and recommendations. She also informed the court that mother was having visits, which were going well; however, visitation had not increased because mother and the child had not gone to conjoint therapy yet. Counsel stated she believed the child had not completed enough of her case plan to participate in conjoint therapy. Counsel added that mother wanted to do conjoint therapy. The court continued mother’s services.
Twelve-month Status Review
The social worker filed a 12-month status report on January 26, 2018, recommending that the court terminate services and order supportive transition and emancipation as the permanent plan for the child. The social worker reported that mother completed an online parenting class and was told to contact National Association for Mental Illness to attend a specialized parenting program, however she had not done so. Mother was referred to individual counseling by a previous social worker, but did not comply and the referral expired. Mother was referred again on October 17, 2017, and completed an intake with a therapist. The therapist informed the social worker that mother said she did not know why she was attending therapy.
The social worker further reported that the child had been provided with mental health services, and a child family team meeting was held on November 29, 2017, to discuss ongoing mental health and services with mother and the child. The child was encouraged to participate in trauma focused therapy, but refused. The social worker stated that the child would “be encouraged to participate in conjoint therapy once she has made progress in her individual therapy.”
The social worker contacted mother at a minimum of once a month to discuss case plan compliance and services. Mother showed erratic behaviors when interacting with DPSS staff and the child’s caretakers. The social worker stated the extent of progress on her case plan was poor. Mother had made minimal effort to participate in counseling, a psychiatric/medication evaluation, or appropriate parent education for the child’s mental health needs. Moreover, mother said she was financially unable to provide for herself unless the child returned to her home, which would allow her to qualify for government housing.
The social worker stated that the child was currently in a family reunification service plan to reunite her with mother, until services were terminated or she turned 18. The social worker opined that it was not in the child’s best interest to return to mother’s home. She continued to have self-harming behaviors. The child would be 18 years old on June 1, 2018, and she would then be eligible to continue in care as a nonminor dependent, in order to complete her high school diploma. She would have to decide if she wanted to remain in extended foster care. The child informed the social worker she was unsure if she wanted to continue as a nonminor dependent.
The social worker filed an addendum report on February 6, 2018, and recommended the court find by clear and convincing evidence that there was a compelling reason to determine a section 366.26 hearing was not in the child’s best interest, since she was not a proper subject for adoption and no one was willing to accept legal guardianship. The social worker also recommended the permanent plan of a PPLA, with a goal of independent living with identification of a caring adult to serve as a lifelong connection for the child.
The court held a 12-month status review hearing on February 9, 2018. Mother appeared, represented by counsel. She submitted on the recommendation to terminate reunification services. Mother’s counsel stated that mother always wanted her daughter back in her care, but acknowledged that the situation had not changed much since the initial detention. Counsel added, “She would very much like to participate in conjoint counseling with her daughter. Her daughter is placed in a group home in Ventura. She’s been unable to get a [w]hole lot of visits . . . . We would like to set up visitation with her daughter.” Counsel for the child also submitted on the recommendation for termination of services. The court continued the child as a dependent in her current placement. The court found that DPSS had provided reasonable services, but mother failed to make substantial progress or complete her case plan. The court terminated services because there was no substantial probability of return if given additional services. It then found that a section 366.26 hearing was not in the child’s best interest, noting that she was almost 18 years old, and no one was available for legal guardianship or adoption. The court ordered a PPLA with the goals of independent living and the identification of a caring adult to serve as a lifelong connection for the child. The court also set a nonminor dependent review hearing for August 9, 2018, in the event the child wanted to stay as a nonminor dependent.
ANALYSIS
Mother Forfeited Her Claim on Appeal
Mother argues that DPSS did not provide reasonable services since it did not make any effort to comply with the court’s order to facilitate conjoint counseling for her and the child. Thus, she asks this court to reverse the juvenile court’s finding of reasonable services and remand the matter to ensure that DPSS complies with the order for conjoint counseling. We decline to do so since mother forfeited her challenge to the court’s finding of reasonable services.
In the 12-month status review report, the social worker recommended the court find that DPSS had provided reasonable services, mother failed to make substantive progress or complete her case plan, and the court terminate reunification services. Mother appeared at the 12-month review hearing, represented by counsel. After county counsel submitted on the review report and recommendations, mother’s counsel stated: “I’m going to be submitting on the recommendation to terminate family reunification services today.” The court read, considered, and admitted into evidence the social worker’s reports filed on January 26, 2018 and February 6, 2018. It then followed the findings and recommendations and terminated reunification services, finding no substantial probability of return.
Mother has forfeited her challenge to the court’s finding that reasonable services were provided by acquiescing to DPSS’s recommendations that the court find reasonable services had been provided and order services to be terminated. Such circumstances are analogous to those in In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580 (Richard K.), in which the mother submitted at a disposition hearing to the social worker’s recommendation of out-of-home placement for her children. The court held that by submitting to the social worker’s recommendation, the mother waived her challenge to the dispositional orders removing her children from her custody. The Richard K. court reasoned that submitting to the social worker’s recommendation amounted to “acquiescence in or yielding to the social worker’s recommended findings and orders.” (Id. at p. 589.) The court held that “[t]he mother’s submittal on the recommendation dispels any challenge to and, in essence, endorses the court’s issuance of the recommended findings and orders.” (Ibid.)
The Richard K. court further noted that “the mother was not disputing that the court should adjudge her children dependents, order them removed from her custody and provide a reunification plan.” (Richard K., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 589.) It added that, if a court makes the recommended orders, “the party who submits on the recommendation should not be heard to complain. As a general rule, a party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court. Any other rule would permit a party to play fast and loose with the administration of justice by deliberately standing by without making an objection of which he is aware. [Citation.] Similarly, in this case, by submitting on the recommendation without introducing any evidence or offering any argument, the parent waived her right to contest the juvenile court’s disposition since it coincided with the social worker’s recommendation. He who consents to an act is not wronged by it. [Citation.]” (Richard K., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 590.)
Similarly, in In re Rebekah R. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1638 (Rebekah R.), the court held that the mother waived her challenge on appeal to the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services. The Rebekah R. court explained that “counsel for the mother voluntarily informed the court that due to the length of the mother’s prison sentence, ‘[t]here isn’t any real possibility [mother] will be able to reunify with [Rebekah] in eighteen months.’ . . . The mother, who was present at the disposition hearing, did not voice any opposition to her attorney’s statements. Based on counsel’s remarks and without requesting any comment from the department, the juvenile court made its disposition orders, including the provision which denied services to the mother.” (Id. at p. 1649.)
In the instant case, the social worker recommended that the court find DPSS had provided reasonable services, and mother failed to make substantive progress or complete her case plan. She further recommended that the court terminate reunification services. At the hearing, mother’s counsel acknowledged that the situation had not changed much since the initial detention. Counsel added that mother “would very much like to participate in conjoint counseling with her daughter,” but she ultimately submitted on the recommendation for termination of services. Mother, who was present at the hearing, did not voice any opposition to her attorney’s statements. The court then ruled, in accordance with the social worker’s recommendations, that DPSS had provided reasonable services and that mother failed to make substantive progress or complete her case plan; it then terminated mother’s reunification services.
Under these circumstances, mother forfeited her right to challenge on appeal the reasonableness of her services by submitting on the social worker’s recommendations. (Richard K., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 590.) As the court in Rebekah R. stated, “In the absence of fraud, the admissions of an attorney in open court are binding upon the client.” (Rebekah R., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1649.) Mother’s counsel submitted on the recommendation for termination of services in the presence of her client, without opposition. Mother cannot now complain about the reasonableness of services. (Id. at pp. 1649-1650; Richard K., at p. 590.)
We further note that mother is requesting that we remand the matter to the juvenile court to ensure that DPSS complies with the order for conjoint counseling. Any such action would be futile since there is no possibility of reunification. Mother was resistant to services, and it is undisputed that she failed to make substantial progress or complete her case plan. The court terminated services because there was no substantial probability of return, and it found that a section 366.26 hearing was not in the child’s best interest, noting that the child was almost 18 years old. The court ordered a PPLA with the goal of independent living. At this point in the proceedings, the child is set to decide if she wants to remain a nonminor dependent. In view of these circumstances, there is no reason to remand for conjoint counseling.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
SLOUGH
J.
FIELDS
J.
[1] On the court’s own motion, we incorporated the record in case No. E068514, in the record of the instant case, case No. E070008.
[2] The petition also included allegations regarding the child’s father, who is not a party to this appeal.