In re Tiffany G.

Filed 7/25/07 In re Tiffany G. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Stephen Marpet, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const. art. VI,  21.) Petition denied.

Law Offices of Alex Iglesias and Pamela Rae Tripp for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

Rosendo G., the father of 20-month-old Tiffany G. and 10-month-old Bethany G., seeks extraordinary writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code,  366.26, subd. (l);^[1] Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile courts order, made at the six-month review hearing ( 366.21, subd. (e)), terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider selection and implementation of a permanent plan for his two children. We deny the petition, finding no merit to Rosendo G.s contention there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) had provided reasonable reunification services.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Detention of Tiffany

On April 3, 2006, when Tiffany was five months old, the Department received a child abuse hotline referral alleging she and her three older half siblings were suffering from parental neglect. The childrens mother, Mayra C., told the social worker that she and Rosendo G. had been living with Tiffany and her half siblings in the home of

Mayra C.s mother (the childrens maternal grandmother), but left to live alone with Rosendo G. because the grandmother complained of Rosendo G.s failure to work or provide for his family. The Department offered Rosendo G. and Mayra C. a voluntary family maintenance (VFM) contract. Mayra C. agreed to return to the grandmothers home to take care of her children and to keep Rosendo G. out of the home.

Rosendo G. admitted to the social worker he used marijuana, was not working and had an extensive criminal record. He agreed to sign a VFM contract, to remain out of the grandmothers home, to provide the social worker with a contact address and telephone number and to participate in drug testing and parenting education. On April 5, 2006 the social worker enrolled Rosendo G. in the Departments random drug testing program and gave him a list of referrals for parenting education, counseling and substance abuse programs. Rosendo G. thereafter failed to respond to telephone messages left for him by the social worker; Mayra C. told the social worker she did not know where

Rosendo G. was residing, adding that he had told her he would not cooperate with the Department. Rosendo G.s mother told the social worker she did not know where he could be located. Rosendo G. did not sign a VFM contract and failed to submit to scheduled drug tests in June of 2006.

On July 7, 2006, during an unannounced visit to the maternal grandmothers home, the social worker questioned Catarino T., a family member who was living in the home, about a bruise on his eye. Catarino T. told the social worker that Rosendo G. was back in the home and had attacked him when Catarino T. complained to Mayra C. about

Rosendo G.s presence. The next day Mayra C. confirmed Catarino T.s account and admitted she had allowed Rosendo G. to return to the home. On July 12, 2006, after Mayra C. was arrested on a drug charge, the Department detained Tiffany and her three half siblings and filed a petition under section 300 seeking to declare all four of them dependent children of the juvenile court. The petition included allegations that Mayra C. and Rosendo G. had a history of domestic violence; Rosendo G. had violently attacked Mayra C. and had violently assaulted Catarino T. in the presence of one of the children; Rosendo G. had a history of substance abuse and drug-related criminal activity; and he was a current user of marijuana. Rosendo G. did not appear at the detention hearing on July 17, 2006. The juvenile court ordered the children detained, found Rosendo G. to be Tiffanys alleged father, ordered that he have no visits with her until he contacted the Department and continued the case to August 31, 2006 for a pretrial resolution conference.

2. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings as to Tiffany

In a report submitted August 29, 2006, the Department indicated Rosendo G. had failed to submit to scheduled tests during July and August and his whereabouts remained unknown. Mayra C. had told the social worker she continued to have a relationship with Rosendo G. but did not know his address or telephone number. The Department gave Rosendo G. notice of the August 31, 2006 hearing at his last known address.

Neither Mayra C. nor Rosendo G. appeared for the hearing on August 31, 2006. The court found notice of the hearing had been properly given to them and the Department had provided reasonable services. The court sustained the petition and ordered reunification services for Mayra C. but not Rosendo G. Mayra C. and

Rosendo G. arrived in the courtroom after the case was concluded. The court appointed counsel to represent Rosendo G., and continued the matter to September 21, 2006 for a hearing to determine whether he was entitled to reunification services.

In a report submitted for the September 21, 2006 hearing, the Department stated that in an interview with the social worker on September 15, 2006 Rosendo G. had denied he had ever hit Mayra C., while admitting he hit Catarino T. but not in the presence of a child. The Department further reported that the social worker had provided Rosendo G. with a list of referrals for services, and Rosendo G. had failed to appear for scheduled drug tests on September 1 and September 20, 2006. At the hearing on September 21, 2006 the court found Rosendo G. to be Tiffanys father within the meaning of Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 [unwed natural father who demonstrates a commitment to his parental responsibilities entitled to presumed father status] and granted him reunification services, ordering him to participate in drug counseling with random testing, a 52-week domestic violence program, parenting education and individual counseling to address case issues, including anger management. Rosendo G. was granted weekly monitored visits with Tiffany.

3. The Detention of Bethany

In September 2006 Mayra C. gave birth to Bethany. On September 29, 2006 the Department detained Bethany after Mayra C. admitted she had used methamphetamine during her pregnancy and was not enrolled in a drug treatment program as required in her criminal case. On October 4, 2006 the Department filed a section 300 petition to declare Bethany a dependent child of the juvenile court. The petition named Rosendo G. as Bethanys alleged father and included allegations he had a history of substance abuse and drug-related criminal activity and was a current user of marijuana. In a report for the detention hearing, the Department stated Rosendo G. had not enrolled in a drug treatment program or appeared for drug testing as required in Tiffanys case. On October 4, 2006 the court ordered Bethany detained, found Rosendo G. to be Bethanys biological father, ordered the Department to further assess his paternity standing and continued the case to October 11, 2006 for a hearing regarding Bethanys possible release to Mayra C. at an inpatient drug treatment program. In a report for the October 11, 2006 hearing the Department stated Mayra C. had left the inpatient program and further reported

Rosendo G. had failed to address his domestic violence and drug problems and had not maintained contact with the social worker. Rosendo G. did not appear for the October 11, 2006 hearing. The court ordered Bethanys continued detention and set a further hearing for October 19, 2006. Rosendo G. did not appear on October 19, 2006. The court set a drug court hearing^[2] for November 2, 2006 as to all of Mayra C.s children but Bethany.

4. Drug Court and Mediation Hearings

On November 1, 2006 the Department filed an amended section 300 petition as to Bethany, adding an allegation that Rosendo G. and Mayra C. had a history of domestic violence. In a report filed November 1, 2006 for the pretrial resolution conference, the Department stated Rosendo G. denied having a domestic violence history or a history of substance abuse, he and Mayra C. were again living in the maternal grandmothers home and Rosendo G. had failed to appear for drug tests on October 3 and October 18, 2006. At a hearing held November 1, 2006 Rosendo G. denied the allegations in the amended petition, and the court set the matter for a mediation hearing on November 30, 2006.

The drug court hearing was conducted November 2, 2006 with participation by FSATP staff members, who discussed the parents progress in drug counseling programs. Further drug court hearings were held November 16, 2006 and December 7, 2006. Rosendo G. did not appear for either hearing.

The parties were unable to reach agreement as to Bethany at the mediation on November 30, 2006. (The Department reported Rosendo G. had failed to appear for scheduled drug tests on November 1, 2006 and November 16, 2006.) The court set the matter for a contested adjudication hearing as to Bethany on January 19, 2007.

5. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing as to Bethany

In a report for the contested adjudication hearing the Department indicated Rosendo G. had visited Bethany sporadically, and he failed to appear for drug tests on December 4, 2006, December 18, 2006 and January 4, 2007. Rosendo G. was not present at the January 19, 2007 hearing. The court sustained the amended section 300 petition on the basis of the Departments reports and found the Department had provided reasonable services. The court ordered Rosendo G. to participate in individual counseling to address case issues, including anger management, a 52-week domestic violence counseling program, a parent education program and drug counseling with weekly random testing. The court continued the matter to April 4, 2007 for the six-month review hearing and advised it would most likely terminate all reunification services and set a permanent planning hearing at the six-month date if the parents did not show substantial progress in their court-ordered case plans.

6. The Six-Month Review Hearing

In a report for the February 13, 2007 six-month review hearing as to Tiffany and the half siblings, the Department indicated Mayra C. and Rosendo G. continued their relationship, were not in compliance with their case plans, were unemployed and lacked stable housing. Rosendo G. had made no effort to visit Tiffany, had refused the FSATP drug court services, had not contacted the social worker or the foster mother to inquire about Tiffanys welfare and had not provided the social worker with any information regarding his attendance in court-ordered programs. The Department recommended termination of reunification services for both parents. On February 13, 2007 the court continued the matter for a contested six-month review hearing to April 4, 2007.

For the contested six-month hearing, the Department prepared one report as to Tiffany and the half siblings and a separate report as to Bethany. In the first report, the Department indicated the social worker had met with Rosendo G. and Mayra C. on

March 6, 2007 to discuss their compliance with their case plans and had learned that

Rosendo G. had completed a parenting education program but had not attended any Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, had not enrolled in a domestic violence program and had not appeared for any of his scheduled drug tests. Rosendo G. had made an initial appointment at a domestic violence counseling program, but did not appear for that appointment, and was scheduled to attend his initial session of the 52-week program on April 5, 2007. Rosendo G. had made no attempt to schedule a visit with Tiffany, nor had he telephoned to inquire about her welfare.

In its report as to Bethany, the Department noted Rosendo G. had refused drug court services and had seen Bethany fewer than five times since her birth six months earlier.

At the contested six-month review hearing on April 4, 2007, the court admitted the Departments reports into evidence. Rosendo G. called as a witness Martha Valenzuela, the Departments social worker for the previous six months. Valenzuela testified she gave Rosendo G. referrals for various programs beginning in July 2006. Valenzuela also gave Rosendo G. the telephone number for Lupe Fletes, a representative of the drug courts treatment provider, for enrollment in parenting, domestic violence and drug treatment programs. Rosendo G. contacted Fletes and received referrals, but did not enroll in the drug court program. Valenzuela explained she knew Rosendo G. had received the referrals because she was in daily contact with the treatment provider and prepared a weekly drug court progress report for the court. Valenzuela was aware from the case file that Rosendo G. was already enrolled in a drug testing program when she began her participation in the case. However, Rosendo G. had not appeared for a single drug test during the pendency of the case. The previous social worker had provided Rosendo G. with a referral for individual counseling. Valenzuela had been unable to meet with Rosendo G. on a regular basis because his telephone was often disconnected and, when it worked, he did not respond to her numerous telephone messages. When she managed to reach Rosendo G., Valenzuela had stressed the importance of enrolling in his programs.

Rosendo G. testified he completed drug and alcohol programs in 2004 and 2005 as required for drug- and alcohol-related criminal convictions. The court asked counsel to focus on the period commencing with Rosendo G.s first appearance in the dependency case, pointing out the record showed Rosendo G. had received referrals for testing but had failed to appear for a single drug test since this case came into the system. Period. Never. Rosendo G. testified he had attempted to test every week for a while, but was turned away about 20 times. When asked by the court whether he had enrolled in a drug treatment program, Rosendo G. first claimed he did not receive a copy of the courts order requiring him to do so until relatively recently. When the court reminded him he was present when the court ordered him to participate in drug treatment, Rosendo G. attempted to justify his failure to enroll by noting a stand-in lawyer and not his regular lawyer was in court that day. When reminded that in September 2006 he had signed a document acknowledging he was required to enroll in a drug program, Rosendo G. testified he did not know what he was signing and thought it was a waiver form or something for the attorney fees.

At the conclusion of testimony, counsel for the children requested the court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing, stressing that Rosendo G. and Mayra C. had chosen drugs over their children and had done nothing to reunify with them. Counsel for Rosendo G. requested services continue to the 12-month date, urging the Department had not provided reasonable services because it delegated its responsibility to provide referrals to the drug courts treatment provider.

After hearing argument the court found the Department had provided reasonable reunification services, observing that the referral to the drug court and its treatment provider was a proper method for delivering services to the parents, encompassing all of the requirements of their case plans. The court then set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.

CONTENTION

Rosendo G. contends the Department did not offer him reasonable reunification services because the social workers failed to make sufficient efforts to establish contact with him and to provide him with guidance, leaving him confused and unable to navigate the reunification process.

DISCUSSION

1. Partial Forfeiture of Appellate Challenge

The record shows Rosendo G. made no claim of lack of reasonable reunification services in the juvenile court prior to the date of the six-month review hearing. Nor did Rosendo G. appeal from the courts jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders regarding Tiffany made August 31, 2006 and September 21, 2006, which included a finding of reasonable services, or from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders regarding Bethany made January 19, 2007, which also included a finding of reasonable reunification services. Rosendo G. has thus forfeited his right to assert error with respect to the juvenile courts findings as to the adequacy of services provided to him regarding Tiffany prior to September 21, 2006 and regarding Bethany prior to January 19, 2007. (In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338-1339; In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.)

2. Adequacy of Reunification Services

We review the juvenile courts finding that reasonable reunification services were offered under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.)^[3] We recognize in most cases more services might have been provided and the services that were provided are often imperfect. The standard, however, is whether the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding the services offered to Rosendo G. by the Department for Tiffany during the period from September 21, 2006 to April 4, 2007 and for Bethany from January 19, 2007 to April 4, 2007 were reasonable under the circumstances of his case. (In re Christina L., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at pp. 416-417; In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 424-425.) The record, as summarized above, establishes that as of September 21, 2006, the date of the dispositional hearing for Tiffany, the Department had enrolled Rosendo G. in its random drug testing program and given him referrals for parenting education, counseling and substance abuse programs. The record further reflects that from the date of Tiffanys disposition hearing until the six-month hearing date, the social worker repeatedly attempted to contact Rosendo G., but was unsuccessful because he had disconnected telephone numbers or would not respond to her messages. Rosendo G. also failed to appear for drug court hearings in November and December of 2006 despite meeting with a drug court representative on October 3, 2006; failed to submit to drug tests; and did not enroll in a substance abuse program. Nor did Rosendo G. visit Tiffany even once between September 2006 and April 2007, and he made no attempt to contact the social worker or the foster mother to inquire about Tiffanys welfare. The record also shows that Rosendo G. appeared in court on February 13, 2007, the date originally set for Tiffanys six-month review hearing, was reminded he was required to participate in counseling and weekly random drug testing and was ordered to meet with the social worker to provide information regarding his compliance with the case plan. The court expressly advised Rosendo G., if he failed to communicate with the social worker and demonstrate compliance, it would terminate reunification services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing. Notwithstanding the courts orders and warning, as of April 4, 2007 Rosendo G. had failed to submit any drug test results; he did not enroll in domestic violence counseling until March 29, 2007 with his initial participation scheduled to start April 5, 2007. The record thus demonstrates the Department initially identified the problems leading to Rosendo G.s loss of custody of Tiffany G., offered him services designed to remedy those problems and thereafter endeavored to maintain contact with Rosendo G. to assist him with compliance with his case plan requirements. Despite the Departments efforts, Rosendo G. failed to take advantage of the services offered to him, refused to maintain contact with the Department, was consistently absent at court hearings and evaded the social workers attempts to contact him.

As to Bethany, at the January 19, 2007 adjudication and disposition hearing the court ordered Rosendo G. to participate in various programs and undergo weekly random drug testing. Later, at a hearing on February 13, 2007, the court reminded Rosendo G. he was required to participate in counseling and weekly random drug testing, ordered him to meet with the social worker and provide information regarding his progress with the case plan and warned him that reunification services would be terminated if he failed to communicate and show progress by April 4, 2007. Despite the courts warning and a meeting with the social worker on March 6, 2007, Rosendo G. failed to submit to drug tests, did not enroll in domestic violence counseling until the eve of the April 4, 2007 hearing, and, as of April 4, 2007, had seen Bethany no more than five times since her birth.

The record thus completely belies Rosendo G.s claim his lack of compliance with his court-ordered programs resulted from confusion caused by the Departments disorganization and failure to communicate with him. Rather, Rosendo G. was generally uninterested in and uncooperative with the Departments efforts to assist him and failed to avail himself of the numerous services he was offered.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied on the merits.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

JOHNSON, J.

WOODS, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2] The dependency case for Mayra C.s children was part of a dependency court pilot program (Family Substance Abuse Treatment Protocol or FSATP) for support and services to enable parents whose children have been removed to become drug and alcohol abstinent and thus to increase the likelihood of family reunification. This court takes judicial notice of the FSATP (draft document dated May 2, 2006). (Evid. Code, 452, subd. (d), 459.)

^[3] When we review the juvenile courts findings under the substantial evidence standard, we inquire only whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the courts determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.)