Filed 2/20/18 In re S.W. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE


In re S.W., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

C.W., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
Respondent,

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.




A152807

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1500339, J1500340)


C.W. (Mother) and C.W. (Father) have each filed a petition seeking extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to their children S.W. and D.W. (minors). Mother contends there was no substantial evidence supporting the finding that it would be detrimental to return the minors to her custody, and it would have been in the minors’ best interests to continue the 18-month review hearing for additional reunification services. Father contends the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) did not provide reasonable reunification services and the court erred in not considering the risks to each minor separately. We will deny the petitions.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father and Mother have two children in common, S.W. and D.W. Mother’s 13-year-old daughter from a prior relationship (half-sibling) also lived in the home. The Bureau previously became involved when the half-sibling disclosed that Father had sexually abused her multiple times and Mother verbally and physically abused her to the point that the half-sibling contemplated suicide. Father and Mother accused each other of having a drinking problem.
A. Dependency Petitions
In March 2015, the Bureau filed petitions under section 300, alleging that Mother and Father had substance abuse problems that impaired their ability to care for the minors, and the minors were at further risk of harm due to Father’s sexual abuse of the half-sibling.
The court detained the minors from Father, but allowed the minors to remain in Mother’s custody as long as the maternal grandmother lived in the home.
At jurisdictional hearings, the court found that the minors were described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), based on Father pleading no contest to allegations that he had a substance abuse problem and sexually abused the half-sibling, and finding true the allegation that Mother had a substance abuse problem.
B. Subsequent Petition
In February 2016, the Bureau filed a subsequent petition alleging that Mother’s continued substance abuse placed the minors at risk and requesting that they be detained from her. According to the petition, Mother had abandoned the half-sibling and said she did not want to care for her anymore, and S.W. advised that Mother had lied when she told the court that she consumed alcohol only on weekends. The court detained the minors from Mother.
Mother did not contest the allegations of the subsequent petition and agreed to participate in anger management services.
C. Disposition
The Bureau’s disposition report recommended reunification services for Mother and Father. The problems requiring intervention included Father’s sexual abuse of the half-sibling, the parents’ frequent alcohol consumption that resulted in physical altercations in the minors’ presence, and Mother’s verbal and physical abuse of the half-sibling.
The Bureau advised that Mother’s violent behavior had continued despite the Bureau’s intervention in 2008. In 2012, she was arrested when she tried to pick up the minors during Father’s court-ordered custody time. She failed to accept responsibility for her role in creating a chaotic home environment, blamed Father for her alcohol abuse and verbal and physical aggression, and denied that her alcohol abuse was problematic.
Father acknowledged he engaged in excessive alcohol abuse to cope with the stress of his marriage to Mother. He also acknowledged many verbal and physical altercations in the minors’ presence. The Bureau remained concerned that he asserted his conduct toward the half-sibling was not sexually abusive or inappropriate, despite credible evidence to the contrary.
Mother’s case plan required, among other things, that she complete a domestic violence program, regularly attend psychiatric appointments and take medication as prescribed, complete parenting education, drug test, complete substance abuse treatment, and notify the social worker of changes in her address. Father was required to attend general counseling, complete a sexual abuse assessment and follow its recommendations, and notify the social worker of any address change.
In March 2016, the court adjudged the children as dependents, removed them from their parents’ physical custody, and ordered reunification services.
D. Six Month Review
The Bureau reported that Mother had not provided the Bureau with her address. From March 14, 2016, to March 23, 2016, she had been placed on a 5150 hold and hospitalized for depression and suicidal ideation. She was then admitted to an inpatient treatment program, where she denied that alcohol had ever been a problem for her. Mother falsely told the Bureau that she attended the inpatient program for five weeks; the Bureau learned it was only a two-week program that monitored a patient’s medication. Mother was diagnosed with Mild Alcohol Abuse and Depressive Disorder, and her treatment plan included an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) and chemical dependency program, but she had not started the IOP program. She stopped attending anger management classes after four sessions, claiming she did not need them, and she was unable to articulate anything she learned from them. She missed four drug tests. She did not provide documentation of her participation in substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, or psychiatric appointments.
Father was undergoing a sexual abuse assessment by a psychologist, Dr. Alexandra Schmidt, who reported that Father denied having any inappropriate sexual contact with the half-sibling. Dr. Schmidt concluded that Father was not taking responsibility for his actions, which placed the minors at further risk. The social worker and her supervisor met with Father on October 17, 2016, and went over the case plan with him; Father claimed not to know the purpose of the sex abuse assessment.
The court found reasonable services had been provided and continued reunification services.
E. Twelve Month Review
According to the Bureau’s review report, Mother informed the social worker that she relapsed with alcohol and naproxen pills on January 7, 2017, and was placed on a 5150 hold, but after her relapse she attended her case plan services. As to Father, Dr. Schmidt and the Bureau had recommended (in light of the results of the sexual abuse risk assessment) that he participate in an alcohol cessation program such as Alcoholics Anonymous twice per week, 90 days of random drug testing, counseling to address anger management, sex offender specialized treatment, and a polygraph test specifically addressing his abuse of the half-sibling. The Bureau repeatedly tried to contact Father by phone and email to initiate a referral for sexual offender treatment; he was unable to provide documentation of his participation in AA groups and anger management.
The Bureau nonetheless recommended that reunification services be continued for Father and Mother. The court continued reunification services to both parents to the 18-month review.
F. Eighteen Month Review
The Bureau reported that Mother relapsed again in April 2017 but continued to participate in her case plan. In June 2017, the social worker met Mother at an apartment she claimed to be subletting. The social worker deemed the apartment to be appropriate, and the Bureau then requested (and the court authorized) an extended 30-day overnight visit for Mother and the minors, which began on June 27, 2017. Unbeknownst to the Bureau, however, Mother did not stay with the minors in the approved apartment, but took them instead to a number of other locations including various motels. Even though the Bureau explained its duty to assess the circumstances of the visitation to assure the minors’ safety and stability, Mother became contentious when questioned about her activities and whereabouts with the minors. While she claimed she had gone to different places to meet clients for business, the minors reported that Mother did not see clients but just stayed in the motel room and watched television or was “on her Facebook.” D.W. was tearful in describing how they moved from place to place.
Meanwhile, in April 2017, Father completed a polygraph test addressing his sexual abuse of the half-sibling; the results showed that he was not being truthful, and his therapist reported that he was still denying his offense. The Bureau expressed grave concern in light of Dr. Schmidt’s assessment that Father’s denial would have a profound negative impact on the minors.
At the end of the contested 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services as to both parents and ordered a section 366.26 hearing for February 22, 2018.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Substantial Risk of Detriment if Minors Returned to Mother
At an 18-month review hearing, the “court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent . . . unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).)
“In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations . . . ; [and] shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . ” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) We review the court’s finding of a substantial risk of detriment for substantial evidence. (James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1021.)
As is readily apparent from our discussion of the evidence before the juvenile court, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that returning the minors to Mother would create a substantial risk of detriment. Mother’s only argument to the contrary in her petition is that she complied with her case plan, including therapy and an anger management and parenting class, and made such progress that the Bureau had recommended the 30-day overnight visit with the children. Mother overlooks what happened, however, when she was given that opportunity.
Once Mother had convinced the Bureau and the court to allow the extended visit, she did not stay in the apartment she had shown to the social worker; instead, she took the children to numerous motels, failed to tell the Bureau where she was living, became defensive and angry at the social workers when she was caught, and offered an excuse that the minors contradicted. While the extended overnight visits had given Mother a chance to show she had made the behavioral changes necessary for the minors to be safely returned to her care, she proved instead that she could not be trusted, had not benefitted from her anger management class, and lacked awareness of how her actions affected the minors’ well-being. (See In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143 [“[S]imply complying with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy sessions and visiting the children is to be considered by the court; but it is not determinative. The court must also consider the parents’ progress and their capacity to meet the objectives of the plan; otherwise the reasons for removing the children out-of-home will not have been ameliorated.”].)
B. Continued Reunification Services to Mother
Mother contends the juvenile court should have continued the 18-month review hearing under section 352 so the Bureau could find out why Mother was moving from place to place and allow Mother to obtain a permanent residence.
As Mother acknowledges, however, neither Mother nor Father asked the juvenile court to continue the review hearing under section 352. Mother waived her right to argue that a continuance should have been granted. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339.)
At any rate, Mother fails to establish any basis for a continuance. Section 352 specifically mandates that “no continuance shall be granted that is contrary to the interest of the minor,” and “[i]n considering the minor’s interests, the court shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” (§ 352, subd. (a).)
Here, the Bureau had been working with Mother on her significant issues with alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and depression for years. Mother’s recent behavior confirmed that little substantive had changed, suggesting a continuance would be for naught. If Mother had a good reason for her instability in lodging and her deceptions toward the Bureau, she could have disclosed it by the time of the 18-month review hearing. Mother points to nothing in the record suggesting a continuance would have benefited the minors. In light of their need for a prompt resolution of their custody status, Mother’s petition discloses no justification for continuing the 18-month review hearing.
C. Reasonable Services to Father
The juvenile court was required to determine whether reasonable reunification services had been offered or provided to Father. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.708(e).) “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. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) Here, the court found that reasonable services were provided. In fact, the court stated: “The notion that father didn’t get reasonable services is really – it bears no weight in this courtroom, because he’s had more than reasonable services by this Department.” We review the court’s finding for substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)
Father acknowledges that services were offered and paid for by the Bureau. Nonetheless, he contends the services were not reasonable because the Bureau did not meet with him to discuss his case plan, did not begin to monitor his services until placement with Mother failed, and had at best made “cursory check-ins.”
Father’s argument is meritless. In the first place, Father does not cite to the record to support his argument. We generally disregard factual allegations and arguments not supported by adequate citations to the record. (Provost v. Regents of the University of California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294 (Provost).)
Moreover, Father’s argument is belied by the record. The social worker and the social worker’s supervisor met with Father “face to face” on October 17, 2016, and went over his case plan. Father’s attorney acknowledged that Father had read and signed his case plan. In his testimony, Father acknowledged that he communicated with social workers roughly several times each month by phone and email during the review period. As the court observed, the Bureau “tried to communicate with [Father] in a way that didn’t take him away from his job. So there were constant phone calls, e-mails, communications – more communications in this case than, quite frankly, I see in a lot of cases. And this is so [Father] wouldn’t miss work.” Father fails to establish a lack of substantial evidence.
D. Risk of Detriment in Returning Minors to Father
Substantial evidence supported the finding that the minors faced a substantial risk of detriment if they were returned to Father. Although Father participated in the recommended reunification services, by the 18-month review hearing he still had not accepted responsibility for his actions towards the half-sibling. Dr. Schmidt reported that Father had an unusually aggressive way of interacting with the world, was verbally dismissive and hostile, and his personality corresponded to Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder with Histrionic and Narcissistic Personality Features. Based on these facts and the evidence discussed ante, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial risk of detriment to the minors if returned to his care.
Father asserts: “The court in this case erred because it did not consider the safety risk to each child separately. There was no safety risk to DW at the time of the 18th month hearing. No one questioned that father was sober and had a safe and appropriate home. No one suggested that father would be sexually inappropriate [with] his son and the return of the children should have been determined separately.”
Father does not cite to any evidence in the record to support his assertions, or to any point in the juvenile court proceedings when he raised this argument. (Provost, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294.) Furthermore, Father fails to establish a lack of substantial evidence. At the 18-month hearing, it became clear that Father had failed to tell the Bureau that he moved into the home of another woman who had a daughter the same age as the half-sibling he had abused, even though his case plan required the disclosure. The court specifically noted that Father was “deceptive,” “manipulative,” dishonest, placed blame on everyone but himself, and “disingenuous,” and his “level of deception is what tells me [Father] is risky to these children, that they would not be safe in his care at all.” (Italics added.) The record supports the court’s view.
III. DISPOSITION
The petitions are denied. This decision is final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).



NEEDHAM, J.



We concur.




SIMONS, ACTING P.J.




BRUINIERS, J.