Jessica W. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 3/11/09 Jessica W. v. Super. Ct. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Jessica W. (mother) is the mother of D.D., who was detained by the Alameda County juvenile court shortly after her birth. Mother seeks review by extraordinary writ of the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother contends the order must be reversed because she did not receive reasonable reunification services. We deny the writ on the merits.[2]

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Section 300 Petition

In February 2007, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of D.D., who was six days old. The petition was filed pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), and alleged that the parents[3] were unable to care for D.D. based on (1) the lack of prenatal care; (2) D.D.s having tested positive for barbiturates at her premature birth; (3) mothers developmental delays; (4) the fathers interference with mothers receiving services and help from the Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB);[4] (5) domestic violence in the home; and (6) the fathers and paternal uncles status as registered sex offenders and their residing in the same home as mother.

B. Detention

The Agency filed its detention report on February 15, 2007. The Agency reported that D.D. was born prematurely and exposed to drugs and that mother was homeless, living mainly in the home of the father and the paternal grandmother. There was a history of domestic violence between the parents. Fathers brothers also lived in the home. Mother had been receiving services from the RCEB. Her RCEB case manager, Gina Rose Sass, opined that the father and his brothers abuse mother physically, emotionally and financially. They control mothers behavior to a large extent and bully her to get what they want. Sass also believed the paternal grandmother was a victim of abuse by father and his brothers. According to Sass, the brothers are sex offenders with criminal records. Sass had tried to arrange various services including prenatal visits, but the father prevented mother from participating. Mother had refused parent education, independent living services and other services from the RCEB. Previously, with assistance from the RCEB, mother had considered moving to a safe house, but did not follow through. The father was observed yelling and cursing at mother in the hospital.

When interviewed by the emergency response worker at the hospital, mother said she did not understand why the Agency was involved. She said father came to the hospital to be with her when she had the baby. Mother felt the worker was asking too many questions. According to Sass, mother did not seem to see the problem in the home.

Counsel was appointed for D.D. and each parent. The matter was submitted on the Agencys report. The court adopted the Agencys findings and ordered D.D. detained.

C. Jurisdiction and Disposition

The Agency filed jurisdiction/disposition reports on February 27 and April 23, 2007. D.D. had been placed in the home of Virginia M., a paternal aunt. Virginia M. suggested that mother stay in Virginia M.s home to care for D.D., but mother left after two days because father was released from jail. Virginia M. did not want the father to stay at her home overnight.

The Agency reported that mother and father were not married, but father acknowledged paternity. Father was released from jail in March 2007, and he returned to live at the paternal grandmothers home where mother was also living. He had no apparent legal means of earning a living. Father had a long criminal record showing numerous arrests and convictions from 1997 through 2007, involving possession and use of controlled substances, domestic violence, failure to register as a sex offender, theft, brandishing a deadly weapon, possession or manufacturing a weapon, resisting an officer, and criminal contempt. He claimed his arrest for sexual abuse involved a consensual relationship with a 17 year-old when he was a teenager.

Mother had been a client of the RCEB for many years and continued to receive Independent Living Skills (ILS) assistance. She has some cognitive limitations and is delayed in her everyday functioning.

Mother and Sass had been consulted by the Agency about the services that could be arranged for mother, and the Agency stated that its case plan would include services pertaining to parent education, independent living skills, domestic violence and other assessed needs.

On April 24, 2007, both parents appeared at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing with counsel. Mothers ILS worker and Sass also appeared. The Agency recommended that D.D. remain in the care of Virginia M. and that both parents receive reunification services. The matter was submitted on the Agencys reports. The court adopted the Agencys findings, declared D.D. a dependent of the juvenile court, and ordered the Agency to provide six months of reunification services for mother and father.

D. Three-Month Interim Review on July 24, 2007

In its July 24, 2007, interim review report, the Agency reported that the parents failed to maintain contact with their child welfare worker (CWW) and provided no documentation regarding compliance with their case plans. The CWW sent certified letters to both parents with a scheduled appointment time. The parents signed for the letters, but did not show up for the appointment or call to cancel or reschedule. The parents continued to live together.

Mother did not contact Sass, her RCEB case manager, during this time.

As of July 9, 2007, mother had not registered to attend parenting, anger management, or outpatient drug treatment at Terra Firma. Mother was scheduled for random drug testing and failed to test on May 1, June 14, June 22, June 26, and July 3, 2007. She provided a diluted test on June 19, 2007.

Mother was arrested in June 2007 for felony burglary; the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and she was released on her own recognizance.

Father tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. He started attending outpatient drug treatment at Terra Firma in June 2007. Father registered for a 52-week domestic violence counseling class but attended only once and never returned. He was terminated from the program.

The minor remained placed with Virginia M. The parents did not call the CWW or Virginia M. regarding visitation during the reporting period. However, on June 23, Virginia M. brought D.D. to the paternal grandmothers house. The parents were present and visited with D.D. under Virginia M.s supervision.

The Agency requested that the court admonish the parents that if they continued to fail to participate in their case plans, the Agency would recommend termination of services at the six-month review.

At the hearing on July 24, 2007, mother was present with counsel, Sass, mothers ILS worker Felicia Victor, and her psychotherapist, Carol Menz. The matter was submitted on the Agencys report. The court admonished the parents of the legal time frame pursuant to section 366.25 and the need for full compliance with the case plan.

E. Six-Month Review on October 3, 2007

In its six-month review report dated October 3, 2007, the Agency reported that D.D. remained placed with Virginia M. She appeared to be developmentally on track. Virginia M. stated that she loved having D.D. in her home and that D.D. was easy to care for.

The Agency reported that, at the hearing on July 24, father requested a referral for services closer to his home in Fremont because Terra Firma in Hayward was too far for him to travel. On August 2, 2007, the CWW sent a referral to Second Chance in Fremont. Father continued to be non-compliant with his case plan. On August 1, 2007, father was arrested and booked into jail on an active bench warrant for failure to register as a sex offender, corporal injury on mother, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamines. He was incarcerated and remained so as of October 3, 2007. Father did not maintain contact with the Agency during the reporting period.

After July 24, 2007, mother began visiting the minor more frequently, but not on a regular and consistent basis. Mother had trouble with her transportation provider, the girlfriend of a paternal uncle, and Virginia M. agreed to bring D.D. to mother twice a month. During a four-day visit at Virginia M.s home, mother made no attempt to care for D.D. without prompting from Virginia M. When prompted, mother would at times be reluctant or would refuse to meet D.D.s needs. For example, one morning D.D. woke up at 6:00 a.m., and Virginia M. woke mother to care for her. Mother refused to get out of bed, saying that she was tired. Mother did not wake up until 10:00 a.m. every morning. Virginia M. cared for D.D. the majority of the four days.

After July 24, 2007, mother was in partial compliance with her case plan. She had contacted Sass and enrolled at Terra Firma in outpatient drug treatment, parenting and anger management classes. She contacted her individual therapist, Menz, and attended an appointment with her. On August 20, the CWW met with mother and Menz to discuss the progress of case plan activities. The CWW provided mother with a 30-day bus pass. Mother told the CWW that she would not leave father even though he abuses her. She understood that, if the father continued to make no progress on his case plan, reunification of D.D. with the parents as a couple was unlikely because of unresolved domestic violence and substance abuse problems. The CWW, mother and Menz met again on September 28.

Menz prepared a report dated September 27, 2007. Menz reported that she had been working with mother since mother was first referred by the RCEB in April 2007. Mother qualified as a regional center client due to cognitive delays and received numerous special services designed to help her attain the most independent life she can, given her disability. Menz reported that father has ongoing gang activity and drug abuse problems, and that when he is not in jail, he exerts a powerful influence on mother and pulls her into risky situations or behaviors. Mother is capable of staying off drugs if father is not present to encourage her use. Mother was torn between her connection to father and her wish to parent her daughter, a conflict exacerbated by the fact that father and his family were the only real support for mother. Menz further stated that, during the last court date, mother had begun to understand that if she did not visit D.D. and attend the required classes, she would probably be sacrificing her parental rights. She had begun attending the meetings and had drug-tested clean. With support and encouragement appropriate to her disability, mother came to two meetings with her CWW, stayed in touch with her RCEB case manager, worked with her ILS instructor, and attended two Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Menz observed that mothers limited understanding of the ramifications of her disability may at times limit her grasp of what she would need to do to reunify with D.D., in that it is relatively easy to plan to be a great mother and another thing entirely to actually demonstrate the skills, selflessness, and endurance that parenting a baby requires. Menz concluded the report by outlining the treatment goals and indicating that, with continued support and services, if mother continues to grow, acquire[s] parenting skills, stay[s] drug-free, and become[s] firm in her resolve to put the [minors] wellbeing first, there is a possibility for reunification.

Mothers case plan required that she cooperate, participate and maintain compliance with the RCEB and all other service providers; participate in a domestic violence program; complete a parenting education course; and complete an outpatient substance abuse treatment program, including counseling, relapse prevention planning, and drug-testing. The case plan provided that a missed test would be considered a negative result.

In its report, the Agency recommended termination of services for father and further services for mother.

At the hearing on October 3, 2007, mother appeared with counsel, Sass, Victor, and Menz. Father appeared in custody. Father requested a contested hearing.

The contested hearing was held on October 29, 2007. Mother appeared with counsel. Sass, Victor and Menz also appeared. Father was no longer in custody and appeared with counsel. A letter dated October 28, 2007, from Menz, was entered into evidence. In the letter, Menz explained her view that developmentally disabled adults need more and different therapy from adults of normal functioning in order to make solid and lasting positive change. Menz commended mothers efforts and requested whatever extra time the Court can give her while she continues in her struggle to incorporate the new behaviors she is trying so hard to master.

The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided to the parents, that mother had made minimal progress, and that father had made none. Services for father were terminated. Mother was again ordered to cooperate with the CWW and participate in all aspects of her case plan. The court ordered a caregiver competency evaluation for mother. The court also ordered a progress report for January 16, 2008, to determine whether mother would maintain compliance with her case plan activities now that father was out of jail. The CWW, Menz and Sass had serious doubts that mother would continue her progress with father back under the same roof.

F. January 2008 Progress Report

In the Agencys interim review report dated January 16, 2008, the Agency reported that, since the last court date of October 29, 2007, mother had made no progress on her case plan. Mother stopped attending domestic violence classes in October 2007 and did not return until January 7, 2008; when asked why, she stated that she had been sick. She failed to appear at Terra Firma for drug testing on nine separate occasions between October 2007 and early January 2008. Mother also failed to attend her appointment with Dr. Abraham for a psychological evaluation and caregiver competency evaluation in December.

Mother was referred to Second Chance in October 2007, so she could attend drug treatment closer to home. As of December 19, 2007, Mother had participated in treatment on only three dates in October and November despite numerous calls from her drug treatment counselor, Marge Bettis.

On December 20, 2007, the CWW met with mother and Menz. The CWW provided mother with a monthly bus pass because mother had stated that she did not have transportation to go to outpatient drug treatment, drug testing and domestic violence classes. According to Virginia M., mother was offered transportation by the paternal grandmother, who lived with mother, but mother refused to go to visits and meetings.

D.D. remained placed with Virginia M. Mother visited D.D. only once since the last reporting period. Virginia M. stated that she tried to teach mother how to care for D.D., but mother did not seem to understand the importance of learning about D.D.s needs or safety. During the visit, when D.D. cried, mother would not attempt to soothe D.D., but would hand her back to Virginia M. Mother did not feed D.D. or change her diapers unless prompted, and once gave her a bottle that had been left out for over five hours.

The Agency recommended that services to mother be terminated and the matter set for a section 366.26 hearing. At the hearing, mother appeared with counsel, Sass, Victor, and Menz. The court set a hearing for February 28, 2008.

G. February 28, 2008, Contested Hearing

The Agency prepared a memorandum report for the February 28 contested hearing. The Agency reported that on January 10, 2008, mother tested positive for methamphetamine and on January 24, she refused to test. On February 4, 2008, mother tested negative for all illegal drugs. Bertha Cuellar of Terra Firma reported that mother was consistently attending her domestic violence classes. Bettis of Second Chance reported that mother was not consistently attending parenting classes.

Virginia M. reported that mother had not visited D.D. since the last court date on January 16, 2008. When Virginia M. asked why, mother is reported to have said, I know. I was going to come. Mother never gave a reason. Mother requested a visit on D.D.s birthday in February, but she did not show up and did not call. Mother also requested a visit on her own birthday, but again mother did not show up or call to cancel. Virginia M. reported that mother claimed she couldnt call long distance. Virginia M. reported that she spoke to the paternal grandmother several times per week and mother has never attempted to speak with her despite knowing that Virginia M. was available to speak with her.

By February 15, 2008, father was incarcerated again for drug use and was not due to be released until May 4, 2008.

Attached to the report were two letters from Bettis at Second Chance to the CWW. In the letter dated January 28, 2008, Bettis stated that mother had been discharged from the Phoenix program at Second Chance on December 31, 2007, because of her poor attendance. Mother called in January and Bettis allowed her to return to the program. Bettis also reported that, on the date of the letter, Mother told her therapy group that she and father got into a fight and he hit her. Mother said she hits back to defend herself. She declined suggestions to call the police or go to a shelter, stating that she would be all right. Bettis asked her to drug test that day, but mother said she could not produce a sample. In the second letter, dated February 20, 2008, Bettis stated that mother ha[d] attended a few more days, and [was] still having difficulty accepting that her lifestyle [was] not healthy.

The Agency affirmed its earlier recommendation that services to mother be terminated and the matter set for a permanency planning hearing.

At the contested hearing on February 28, 2008, mother appeared with counsel, Sass, Victor, and Menz. The October 3, 2007, January 16, 2008, and February 28, 2008, Agency reports were admitted into evidence.

Menz was qualified as an expert witness regarding mothers cognitive impairment and her ability to comply with the case plan. She testified that she had been mothers therapist since May 2007, and that mother had been referred to her by the RCEB. Mothers developmental disability was a mild cognitive impairment. Typically, it takes a person with such an impairment longer to process information and it may take that person longer to do what a person without that disability could do. Menz testified that part of her job is to help mother comply with her case plan. She had spoken with the CWW numerous times, had contacted people in the two different agencies where mother was taking classes, and had talked with the RCEB case manager and the ILS worker.

In psychotherapy with mother, Menz was addressing issues including self-esteem, communication skills, developing a social network, self care, depression, drug use and addiction, and general life functioning. Providing psychotherapy, in this case, was the same as helping mother pull her life together, access available services mother was not yet comfortable with, make safer decisions for herself and her child, talk about issues, and increase self-esteem. Menz was aware of mothers Individualized Living Plan (ILP) through RCEB. Menz stated that she was meeting the goals of making mothers life safer, helping her make better decisions, and helping her learn to trust and receive services from outside agencies.

Mothers compliance with the case plan had improved because of a calendar chart system for mother to keep track of her attendance at classes and mothers realizing that the court date was approaching and understanding the gravity of what was likely to happen if she did not comply. Menz also testified that mothers compliance with the case plan was better when father was incarcerated. Mother was also more likely to stay drug-free when father was incarcerated.

Although Menz talked about parenting with mother, Second Chance was the primary entity teaching mother parenting skills. Menz stated that she would like to see RCEB provide mother with individual in-home parenting training, but she did not know if such services were available when the child was not living with the parent.

Menz opined that for someone with a cognitive delay, mothers compliance with the case plan was good. She stated that obstacles to mothers compliance included transportation difficulties and being disorganized. Menz and mothers ILS worker provided services to help mother stay on track. As examples of mothers progress, Menz cited her keeping track of her class attendance, being more honest about classes she missed, taking the content of classes more seriously, stating that she would consider moving into a shelter, and beginning to talk about the idea that she might need to separate from father. Menz did not think mother needed a travel trainer to help her with public transportation. Mothers ILS worker helped her with things like with getting to appointments and grocery and other shopping.

The contested hearing was continued to April 10, 2008.

H. April 10, 2008, Contested Hearing Continued

The Agencys addendum report dated April 10, 2008, indicated that mother had begun complying with her case plan again. Her attendance at the domestic violence program at Terra Firma, parenting classes, and drug treatment at Second Chance was regular and consistent. She attended all drug testing and tested negative, and she completed the psychological testing and caregiver competency evaluation.

In the report, the CWW observed that mothers pattern of participation in services was that she participates when father is incarcerated and does not when he is out of jail. Dr. Abraham, who conducted the psychological/caregiver competency evaluation, reported that mother told her that she will not leave father even though he has another girlfriend and has no relationship with mother, and even though father and his girlfriend treat mother like hired help and have sex in the bedroom while mother is in the house. Mother said she did not care because she will keep other women away from father and will always be with him. Mother stated that she would stay with father regardless of the abuse, the lack of any relationship, and the fact that D.D. might not be returned to her as a result of her inability to protect herself and D.D.

As part of the evaluation, Dr. Abraham observed mother with D.D. Dr. Abraham concluded that mother would not be able to parent D.D. without the constant help of another adult to direct her. Dr. Abraham opined that mother needs guidance every step of the way and cannot problem-solve or understand what she needs to do next with regard to basic parenting.

Mother had an overnight visit with D.D. on February 28, 2008. The visit went well, but Virginia M. reported that she needed to direct mother on D.D.s moment-to-moment needs and how to meet those needs. Virginia M. brought D.D. to Second Chance on March 21 at mothers request for an Easter egg hunt and a brief visit. Mother and D.D. next visited on March 25 while Dr. Abraham observed their interactions. On March 26, mother called Virginia M. to request a visit that day, but it was not possible due to a scheduling conflict. On March 27, Virginia M. left several messages for mother regarding scheduling a visit; mother did not return the calls. On March 29, Virginia M. attempted to pick mother up for a visit, but mother was not home and no one knew where she was. On April 7, Virginia M. reported that mother had had a weekend visit with D.D. Mother played with D.D. without instructions, but did not recognize D.D.s need for cleanliness, food, or changing from pajamas. At one point, the paternal uncle had to remove D.D. from mothers bed to change D.D.s diaper which had soaked through her clothes. Mother was in the bed with D.D. at the time, yet did nothing. At another point, Virginia M. asked mother to give D.D. a bath. Hours later, mother had not done so. Virginia M. also reported that mother can become very upset with her or the paternal uncle for providing care for D.D. even though mother herself does not provide adequate care on her own.

The Agencys assessment was that mother would not be able to successfully participate in her case plan activities if she continued to live with the father. She would likely continue to engage in domestic violence with him and to continue using drugs. Mother was not willing to separate from father or protect herself from emotional and physical violence, and she therefore would not be able to protect the minor from the circumstances that led to removal of the minor from her care.

At the April 10, 2008, hearing, mother appeared in court with counsel. Sass, Victor, and Menz also appeared. Trial was continued to May 12, 2008 to coincide with the 12-month review.

I. Twelve Month Review and Contested Hearing on May 12, 2008

The Agency prepared a status review report dated May 12, 2008. The Agency reported that D.D. remained placed with Virginia M. D.D. was assessed on May 7, 2008, as adoptable and likely to be adopted. Virginia M. was willing to adopt D.D.

Terra Firma reported that mother was making satisfactory progress in her domestic violence counseling class. In addition, Mothers attendance at the Second Chance drug treatment program increased dramatically in March and April 2008. Mother tested negative for drugs on ten occasions, and missed only one test.

The Agency reported that father was released from jail on May 4, 2008, and returned to the paternal grandmothers home.

In the status review report dated May 12, the Agency reported that, on May 6, mother appeared for her class at Second Chance but refused to drug test. Terra Firma reported that mother had been consistently attending her domestic violence class but did not attend on May 6. Mother still had not completed her 15-week parenting program. Dr. Abraham, who conducted the psychological evaluation and caregiver competency evaluation, opined that placing the minor with mother would amount to placing her in an abusive home because mother does not want to move away from father.

Trial continued on May 12, 2008. Mother appeared with counsel. Sass, Victor, and Menz appeared, and Menz continued her testimony. According to her, Mothers compliance decreased in May because it is extremely difficult for her to stay on track when father is around. Mother feels that being with father does not make it more difficult for her to comply. Menz testified that mothers current living situation is not beneficial, and that living in a shelter for victims of domestic violence or for people with disabilities would be helpful. With respect to visitation, Greyhound bus passes are the real issue. Mothers exceptional progress showed that she was now serious about getting her life in shape.

Trial was continued to June 24, 2008.

J. Contested Hearing on June 24, June 26, and September 4, 2008

The Agency filed a memorandum report dated June 24, 2008. Mother had not regularly and consistently appeared for outpatient drug treatment. Her program required her to attend three classes per week, but she had somewhat consistently missed classes on Mondays, which was her drug-testing day. Bettis reported that although mother wanted her daughter back, she was not focused on her recovery and instead was focused on father.

Mother had not been randomly drug testing. Second Chance was only testing mother twice a month on Mondays after her class. The CWW reported that, when mother found out her testing day was Monday, she began to miss class on that day. The CWW requested that mother test on June 16, but mother failed to appear. On June 23, the CWW requested that mother test the next morning, but mother refused, saying she was only required to test twice per month and had already tested in June. The CWW responded that mother had not tested in June and reminded mother that she was required to test any time Second Chance or the CWW request that she do so. Mother continued to argue. She then ceased talking to the CWW and talked to father instead. Mother did not appear for testing on June 24.

Mother stopped attending her Monday night domestic violence class as of April 28 and was terminated from the program on May 28 due to excessive absences. She appeared for class on June 2, but had not returned since.

In May, the CWW mailed a monthly bus pass and a replacement Greyhound check to mother. In June, Victor reported that mother had a problem when she tried to use the check at the Greyhound station in Oakland. The CWW contacted Greyhound and then followed up with mother and Victor. As of June 24, mother had not used the check or contacted the CWW with any further problems.

On June 24, Gina Rose Sass, mothers RCEB case manager, testified. She met with mother about every two months. Mother was receiving independent living services and psychotherapy through RCEB, both of which were assisting her in complying with her case plan. Mother had made big improvements over the past year.

When mother was pregnant, Sass had discussed parenting support provided by Through the Looking Glass (TLG), but mother did not want the service. After D.D. was detained, mother was no longer eligible for RCEBs parent support services because the child was in out-of-home placement. In Sasss opinion, it would be difficult for mother to fully understand parenting classes that were not hands-on and directly working with her child. Sass also believed that agencies such as TLG or Apple would provide parenting support to mother even though D.D. was not placed with her.

One of Sasss responsibilities was to help develop mothers independent living plan and to review it quarterly. The ILS worker assists mother with housing, money management and budgeting, transportation, and other goals. Sass was aware of problems mother had been having with transportation to get to visits with D.D..

Trial continued on June 26, 2008. Virginia M. testified that she had had D.D. since she was three weeks old. Virginia M. offered mother visits at her home and brought D.D. to mother for visits. She lives an hour and a half driving time away from mother. Mothers last visit was three or four months ago. Mother told her she had a bus problem. Mother called once in awhile to see how D.D. was doing. The calls were not consistent. Mother would sometimes call once or twice in a month, sometimes not at all.

The CWW, Cindy Evans, testified on June 26 and September 4. She was assigned to mothers case in June 2007. Her job was to provide referrals, answer questions, make sure the service providers keep up with mother, and help with any kind of assistance mother needed, including making sure mother understood the proceedings and the significance of her decisions. Twice a month, Evans monitored whether visits occurred and contacted either Sass or Menz at RCEB to find out how mother was doing. Evans also checked with the agencies providing classes to monitor mothers attendance and called to check in with mother.

The first time Evans met with mother, she also met with Sass and Menz, provided them with a copy of mothers case plan and went over it with them. Each time Evans met with them, she asked them if mother understood her case plan and what was being said. They both said mother understood, as did mother herself. Evans also asked Sass and Menz whether mother understood what she was learning in classes because they worked directly with mother and Sass had worked with mother for years. They responded that they believed mother did understand. Mother never indicated to her that she did not understand the classes.

Evans believed mother understood the case plan, in part because when mother needed something, mother asked for it. In addition, mother was engaging in case plan activities part of the time and had four people working with her on an ongoing basis.

Evans was asked about the suggestion by the minors counsel on June 26 that someone should check into TLG or Apple to provide individual parenting services. The Agency no longer worked with TLG, but Evans was told that RCEB offers services through Apple. She contacted Apple and learned on September 4 that RCEB needed to make the referral. Evans spoke with Sass about it; Sass told her RCEB only offers the service if the child is placed in the parents home.

Evans also testified regarding transportation assistance the Agency had provided to mother. In early October 2007, mother requested transportation for visits, and Evans submitted a request for a Greyhound bus check. Evans sent the check, which was valid for six months, to mother with instructions for using it. Prior to April 2008, Evans did not hear of any problem with the check from mother, Sass or Menz. Mother told Evans in court on April 10, 2008, that she was having trouble using the check. By this time, the check had expired. Evans told mother she needed the expired check back in order to issue a new one. Evans issued a new check to mother in May 2008. Greyhound refused to accept the new check because it did not have mothers name on it. Evans testified that the Agency could have issued a new check. Mother wanted a check she could use at the Hayward depot so she would not have to go to Oakland. Evans explained that the Hayward depot does not accept the checks; to get a ticket to use in Hayward, mother had to exchange the check for a ticket in Oakland.

Mother had been offered rides to visit D.D. by the paternal grandmother and Virginia M. Mothers ILS worker, Victor, had given mother rides part-way, and then Virginia M. would pick her up. Evans told mother the Agency would reimburse her upon presentation of a receipt if mother used her own money to buy tickets. The bus costs $40 or $50. Victor handles mothers money and mother has told Victor that mother could use her money to buy a Greyhound ticket. Evans opined that the lack of a bus ticket was not a significant hurdle to visitation.

Evans testified that the Agencys concern regarding mothers participation in her case plan was her absolute refusal to break away from father. Mother was willing to discuss moving out of the paternal grandmothers home, but the only way she would move out was if father moved with her.

Evans noted that, when father is incarcerated, mother works on all aspects of her case plan except visitation. Since May 2008 when father was released from jail, mother had not been participating in her case plan activities on a regular and consistent basis.

At the continued hearing on September 4, 2008, mother appeared with counsel. Sass, Victor, and Menz also appeared.

In its memorandum report dated September 4, 2008, regarding drug testing, the Agency reported that mother refused to drug test several times and twice in July tested positive for methamphetamines. The CWW spoke to mother about the drug test results on August 5. Mother stated that she kinda messed up. She stated that she uses just about every weekend and that it was hard not to use. She said she frequently missed Monday classes because she used over the weekend.

Terra Firma reported that mother did not attend the Monday night domestic violence classes regularly and consistently. She was required to attend every week, but averaged only twice a month.

Regarding transportation, the CWW reported that she mailed certified letters to mother that included 30-day bus passes in June, July and August. Second Chance had also been giving mother monthly bus passes. In June, the CWW also mailed to mother a certified letter which included a replacement Greyhound check. Victor took mother to Oakland to exchange the new check for a bus ticket. The check did not have mothers name on it, so Greyhound would not accept it. As of September 4, mother had not returned the check so it could be reissued. In July, the CWW spoke with Victor, mothers ILS worker, who reported that mother did not want to go to Oakland to take the bus for visits with D.D., as required to use the Greyhound check, but would prefer to leave from Hayward and use her own money.

Regarding visitation, mother visited D.D. on the weekend of July 18-21, 2008. On August 5, Sass suggested that mother contact Virginia M. to see if she could visit for a few days. Victor drove her part of the way, and Virginia M. picked her up. Virginia M. reported that mother played with D.D. and changed her, but that mother still needed direction to feed and change D.D. Virginia M. reported that D.D. was becoming more independent and mother appeared to become frustrated, did not know what to do, and would hand D.D. to Virginia M.

The matter was submitted.

K. Juvenile Courts Order of September 30, 2008

On September 30, the court found that reasonable services had been offered or provided to mother, including services through the RCEB, and that mother had made minimal progress on her case plan. The court noted several factors that were particularly significant in this case. First, mother had a lot of support, more than in almost any other case the court had seen. Those assisting mother included Evans, the CWW; Menz, her psychotherapist; Victor, her ILS worker; and Sass, her RCEB case manager. Second, notwithstanding all of the services that were provided, mothers continued drug use prevented her from achieving the goals of her case plan. Third, the court observed that, although mother suffered from a minor cognitive disorder, she was selective in her compliance with the case plan. She chose not to attend classes on Mondays and would not drug test on Mondays, and she argued that she did not have to test on a particular day, all of which showed that mother understood she was supposed to drug test. She acknowledged that she messed up when she lapsed into drug use. Mother also went through phases of compliance, clearly based on whether father was in or out of custody, which indicated to the court that she had the ability to comply with the case plan when she wanted to, but that certain outside factors would influence her. The court terminated services for mother and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

On October 6, 2008, mother filed her Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition challenging the September 30 order. We issued an order to show cause and a temporary stay of the section 366.26 hearing.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Scope of Review

Initially we observe that our review is properly limited to the juvenile courts order of September 30, 2008, which set the matter for a hearing under section 366.26. Mother does not challenge the courts earlier disposition order of April 24, 2007, the interim order of July 24, 2007, or the six-month review order of October 29, 2007. Nor could she. The statutory time for filing an appeal from these earlier orders has passed and they have become final and binding. (In re Liliana S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 585, 589; In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150.) The finality of the prior orders in this matter precludes any contention that the case plan or services provided through October 29, 2007, were not reasonable.

B. Reasonableness of Reunification Services

Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in concluding that the Agency provided reasonable reunification services after the first six-month reunification period. We apply the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services provided. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971 (Alvin R.); In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1467.) Under that standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the courts order. If the courts finding is supported by substantial evidence, it must not be disturbed. (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 (Misako R.).)

Services will be found reasonable if the Department has 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 . . . . [Citation.] (Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 972-973.) [I]n reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services provided by the Department, we must also recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which are provided are often imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances. (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969, citing Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547; see also David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 793-794 [reasonable services should be provided for all parents in light of their own particular problems, even though the services, like the parents, cannot always be perfect.].)

Mother argues that the reunification services provided by the Agency were not reasonable here because they were not adequately tailored to meet mothers special needs related to her developmental disability. Reunification services which fail to consider or address a parents special needs or disabilities are not reasonable. (In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1329-1330 (Victoria M.); see also In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1790 [reunification services for a mentally-ill mother must be responsive to the familys special needs and designed to eliminate the particular problems that led to the dependency].)

In Victoria M., the appellate court reversed the finding that reasonable services had been provided to a developmentally delayed mother. The court observed that nothing in the plan itself or the provision of services was tailored to the mothers special needs. (Victoria M., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 1329.) Despite the agencys awareness of the mothers cognitive limitations, it offered no services geared toward alleviating the health and hygiene concerns that had been a key factor in the childrens removal; it provided no direct assistance in finding housing; and it did not include regional center services in her case plan. (Id. at p. 1328.) Regional center services, the court noted, are specifically designed to assist persons with developmental disabilities, and a referral should have been made for the mother at the outset of the case. Eventually, the mother became a regional center client, but it was not at the request of the agency, nor did it appear that any of the social workers knew what services the regional center was providing and whether those services would help her in overcoming the problems that had led to the loss of custody of her children. (Id. at pp. 1329-1330.)

Mother relies on Victoria M. in arguing that the services she was provided were not reasonable, but Victoria M. is easily distinguishable. Here, the RCEB was involved with this case from the outset. Mother had, in fact, been a client of the RCEB long before the minor was removed. Sass and Menz were consulted about services; they received a copy of the case plan; and the CWW went over the plan with them. Sass and Victor were present in court on April 24, 2007 at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing when mother submitted on the reports, was granted services, and was ordered to comply with the case plan. Unlike Victoria M., the Agency was aware of mothers developmental disability and the services she was receiving through the RCEB. Mothers case plan required that she cooperate, participate, and maintain compliance with RCEB services.

In addition, mothers case plan service objectives and client responsibilities were designed to address the problems that were identified in the petition. For example, case plan objectives such as showing ability and willingness to have custody of the minor, maintaining a relationship with the minor by following the visiting plan, learning to budget and shop within your means, showing you know age-appropriate behavior for the minor, paying attention to and monitoring the childs health, safety and well-being, and the client responsibilities of cooperating, participating, and maintaining compliance with RCEB and all other service providers and enrolling, participating and successfully completing an Agency-approved parenting education course are all designed to address the identified problem of mothers uncertain ability to care for the minor due to her developmental delays.[5]

The record contains numerous examples of efforts to accommodate mothers special needs. She received psychotherapy with Menz that was designed to help mother pull her life together, access services, make safer decisions, and comply with the case plan. Mothers ILS worker, Victor, helped her with life skills including managing her money and transportation. Sass, who had worked with mother for years, helped mother sign up for classes and met regularly with mother to help her stay on track. Evans stayed in touch with mothers service providers and mother, and repeatedly checked with mother, Menz, and Sass to be sure mother understood her case plan, her classes, and the status of her case.

Mother argues that the Agency failed to afford her reasonable services to assist her with parenting skills. She claims that the parenting class through Second Chance was too advanced and that she needed individualized parenting instruction to accommodate her learning style. Mother contends that, although Evans and Sass discussed a referral to TLG or Apple for one-on-one parenting instruction, as a result of confusion over funding and lack of communication between the Agency and the RCEB, no referral was ever made.

Although it appears from the record that there was confusion over the availability and funding of individual parenting instruction, we disagree with mothers claim that the service provided was unreasonable. There is evidence that efforts were made to accommodate mothers learning style, including testimony from Menz and Sass that they helped mother with written materials when she did not understand them. Although the parenting class was not designed for persons with developmental disabilities, mother was also receiving parenting support from Menz in their individual sessions. Menz reviewed paperwork with mother, as did other RCEB providers, including Sass. Moreover, although Menz testified that individual instruction was better for mothers learning style than a large group, Sass testified that the Second Chance parenting class was several people in a classroom setting. The record contains no information from which we could conclude that the class format or size prevented mother from benefitting from the class. Whether the Agency could have done more to help mother learn to parent is not the appropriate inquiry. Based on the record before us, we find the juvenile courts conclusion that the Agency provided reasonable parenting services, including reasonable measures to address mothers special needs, was adequately supported.

Mother also contends her substance abuse treatment and drug testing services were not reasonable. In support of this contention, mother relies on Menzs testimony that switching programs from Terra Firma to Second Chance in the fall of 2007 caused mother a problem in meeting the requirements of that component of the case plan because it was difficult for mother to start over and make connections with a new group of people. The contention is belied by the record. As Menz acknowledged, mothers program was switched to Second Chance by agreement between Menz and Evans because mother had difficulty getting herself to Terra Firma, and Second Chance was closer to mothers home. It is clear from the record that mothers participation in drug treatment and testing was sporadic, both before and after the change of services to Second Chance. The pattern of increased participation and progress when father was incarcerated is unmistakable. The evidence amply supports the juvenile courts finding that the drug treatment and testing services provided were reasonable.

Finally, mother argues the Agency failed to afford her reasonable services to assist her with transportation to visit D.D. Mother cites the difficulties she had with obtaining Greyhound bus tickets and having to leave from Oakland rather than Hayward.

Reunification services need not be perfect to be reasonable. (Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 972.) Even if the Agency could have provided more services, this fact alone does not necessarily render the services that it did offer unreasonable. (See id. at p. 973.) Mother had two problems with the Greyhound checks: first, in April 2008 when she tried to redeem the check issued in October 2007, and second, in June 2008, when Greyhound apparently refused to accept the replacement check because it did not contain mothers name. Both times, mother had support in addressing the problem. On the first occasion, Evans explained that the Agency would issue a new check when mother returned the expired one. On the second occasion, Victor accompanied mother to the Oakland Greyhound station to help her exchange the replacement check for a bus ticket and called Evans when Greyhound rejected the check. Evans informed mother and Victor that if mother returned the check, the Agency would issue a corrected check. Evans also explained to mother that she could buy the bus ticket herself and the Agency would reimburse her. This was a viable option for mother, and would eliminate the need to go to Oakland. Moreover, the bus was not mothers only source of transportation to visits. At various times, mother got rides from the paternal grandmother or Victor would drive mother part of the way, and Virginia M. would pick her up. Virginia M. also brought D.D. to the paternal grandmothers home and Second Chance for visits. Under the circumstances, we find sufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that the Agency provided or offered reasonable transportation assistance to mother.

IV. DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits, the stay is dissolved, and the case remanded for further proceedings. The decision is final in this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)

_________________________

Haerle, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Lambden, J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[2] Respondents request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

[3] The father, Raymond D., has not filed a petition in this matter.

[4] RCEB provides services and support to persons with mental disabilities and their families. Individuals with developmental disabilities, children under age three who are at risk for a developmental disability/delay and parents of eligible children qualify for services.

[5] The case plan also contains service objectives and client responsibilities designed to address the identified problems of substance abuse, domestic violence, the criminal/sex offender status of father and his brothers, and fathers control over and interference with mothers regional center services.