In re Pedro O.

Filed 7/2/07 In re Pedro O. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Hideo Chino, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Julie W. (Julie), the mother of Pedro O., Jr. (Pedro), appeals the juvenile dependency court's 18‑month review hearing order that terminated her reunification services and found the appropriate permanent plan was another planned permanent living arrangement. Julie contends there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that reasonable services were provided to her in that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) did not facilitate any visits during Pedro's dependency. We affirm.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2005, when Pedro was nine years old, the Agency filed a dependency petition. The petition alleged that the home of his father, Pedro O., Sr. (Pedro, Sr.), was filthy and unsanitary; Pedro, Sr. drank alcohol to excess; he left Pedro with relatives in March, did not provide for his care, and did not visit him; and Julie was unable to protect and supervise Pedro. Pedro was detained in Polinsky Children's Center (Polinsky).

At the time the petition was filed, Julie's whereabouts were unknown. She appeared at the detention hearing, however, and twice visited Pedro in Polinsky. Fewer than two weeks after that hearing, she was in jail on a charge of receiving stolen property and said she would be there for about a year. She acknowledged that she left Pedro with Pedro, Sr. around July 2004 because she did not have stable housing.

In late July 2005 Pedro was moved to a foster home. On August 11, the court entered true findings on the petition, ordered him placed in a foster home, and granted the Agency discretion to place him with a relative. In late August, Pedro became extremely violent and his foster parent was unable to control him. She called the police, who took him to Polinsky. He was later detained in a group home, where his violent behavior continued. After he jumped out of a window and climbed over a fence, the staff called the police, who drove him back to the group home. He refused to get out of the police car and hit and kicked staff members; when they took him to his room, he tried to bite and hit them. They restrained him, but when they let him up he said he was going to kill himself and tried to choke himself with his shirt. He was taken to the hospital. Upon his release in late September, he went to live with a relative. After a month, the relative requested that he be removed from her care because his behavior was out of control. He was taken back to Polinsky. On November 1, he was detained in another group home. His poor behavior continued. On December 6, the court ordered him placed in a group home.

By February 8, 2006, Julie was incarcerated in the Central California Women's Facility State Prison in Chowchilla. At the February 22 six‑month review hearing, the court found reasonable reunification services had been provided and continued services to the 12‑month date. On April 20, Pedro was placed in a group home in Orange County, where his behavior finally improved.

On July 12, 2006, Julie was released from prison. After her release, she had telephone contact with Pedro, but no visits. After a July 13 telephone conversation with Julie, Pedro threw a tantrum  he bit himself and hit his head. He had to be restrained. At the August 29 12‑month review hearing, the court found reasonable reunification services had been provided and continued services, including supervised visitation, to the 18‑month review date.

By December 6, 2006, Julie was back in jail, and by the time the 18‑month review hearing took place on December 19, she was in prison. The court found reasonable reunification services had been provided or offered, terminated services, continued Julie's supervised visitation, and ordered Pedro placed in a group home, with a permanent plan of another planned permanent living arrangement.

II

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Julie challenges the juvenile court's factual finding that she was provided or offered reasonable reunification services. Specifically, Julie contends that as an incarcerated parent she was entitled to, but denied, visitation throughout the dependency, prejudicing her ability to reunify with Pedro. We review Julie's claims, after setting forth the applicable law.

A. Provision of Reunification Services to Incarcerated Parents

Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e) provides that a court must order reasonable reunification services for an incarcerated parent, unless it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that such services would be detrimental to the child. Services for incarcerated parents may include parent/child telephone contact, transportation services, visitation services, and reasonable services for extended family members or foster parents caring for the child of an incarcerated inmate. (Ibid.) Where the juvenile court orders reunification services for an incarcerated parent, section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) provides that the "[r]eunification services are subject to the [18‑month limitation] imposed in subdivision (a)." An incarcerated parent may be required to attend counseling, parenting classes or vocational training programs as part of the service plan, if these programs are available.

We now focus on the subject matter at issue in this appeal: the reasonableness of the reunification services provided to Julie due to the alleged lack of parent/child visitation during dependency. In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)

For purposes of this appeal, we note that the juvenile court made no finding that visitation would be detrimental to Pedro. We also accept Julie's assertion that no visitation occurred between mother and child while Julie was incarcerated. We nevertheless reject Julie's claims of error. Julie's challenge to the reasonable services finding made at the 18‑month review hearing is untimely for dependency periods prior to the six‑ and 12‑month review hearings. As to the period of the dependency between the 12‑ and 18‑month review hearings, we determine substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services, including supervised visitation, were offered to Julie.

B. Julie'sChallenge to the Court's Reasonable Services Finding Is Untimely for Periods Covered by Orders Made at the Six‑ and 12‑Month Review Hearings

An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed. (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.) Here, the court made a reasonable services finding at the February 2006 six‑month review hearing, and again at the August 2006 12‑month review hearing. These orders could be immediately appealed, but Julie, who was represented by counsel, did not do so. (In re Steven H. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1752, 1758; In re Elizabeth G. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1327, 1331.) It is therefore too late for Julie to challenge the reasonableness, adequacy or sufficiency of the reunification services, including visitation, that had been provided as of the dates those orders became final. (In re Cicely L. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1705-1706.)

We therefore need consider only whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding that Julie was provided or offered reasonable visitation following the August 2006 12‑month review hearing.

Because Julie was out of custody for all but the last 13 days before the 18‑month review hearing, we need not discuss whether Pedro should have been transported to jail and prison for visits. Instead, we review the reasonableness of services offered to Julie during this period under the usual rules relating to the provision of reunification services provided to nonincarcerated parents of dependent children.

C. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Finding Reasonable Services Were Provided to Julie After the 12‑Month Review Hearing.

The focus of reunification services is to remedy those problems that led to the removal of the children. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1464.) A reunification plan must be tailored to the particular individual and family, addressing the unique facts of that family. (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.) A social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parent's problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult. (Armando L . v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554-555.) "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., at p. 546.)

Reviewed under this standard, we conclude that services provided to Julie after the 12‑month review hearing were reasonable, and the trial court's finding to that effect at the 18‑month review hearing is supported by substantial evidence.

Julie had been released from prison seven weeks before the 12‑month review hearing. At that hearing, the juvenile court found Julie had made progress with her reunification plan and continued services, which included parenting classes, therapy, substance abuse treatment, and supervised visitation. Despite remaining at liberty until 13 days before the 18‑month review hearing, Julie failed to take advantage of services offered by the Agency. She never once visited with Pedro  even though supervised visitation was offered by the social worker. Instead, Julie resorted to drug usage and eventually was returned to custody.

The Agency was not required to force services on Julie. (In re Jonathan R. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1220.) Julie's "real problem was not a lack of services available but a lack of initiative to consistently take advantage of the services that were offered" after her release from custody. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763, quoted in Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 599.) Based on this record, we determine the juvenile court's finding that Julie was provided or offered reasonable reunification services is supported by substantial evidence.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.