Filed 5/16/17 S.G. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


S.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MENDOCINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.



A150613

(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No.
SCUKJVSQ151727201)


Petitioner S.G. (Mother) seeks writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of an order of the juvenile court setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determination that she was provided reasonable reunification services. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2015, the Mendocino County Department of Social Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition alleging (1) Mother was unable to adequately protect N.G. (Minor), then ten years old, due to a “long-standing in-home romantic relationship with Curtis A. that involves serious domestic violence within the home,” and (2) Minor was suffering emotional damage as a result of the domestic violence. The petition was filed after law enforcement arrested Mother for allegedly cutting Curtis A. with glass. A Department social worker who spoke to Minor the day of this incident reported he “was visibly shaking, could not make eye contact and continuously kept his head down.”
Mother admitted to the Department that Minor’s father, now deceased, was physically and verbally abusive to her. Minor’s father had full custody of Minor from their divorce in approximately 2009 until his unexpected death in 2012, at which time Mother took custody. In 2013 and 2014, law enforcement investigated reports of domestic violence at Mother’s home. During one investigation, Mother told the police Curtis A. had left the house but police found him hiding in a bedroom; police also found Minor inside a closet, “pale and shaking.” The Department had received multiple referrals since 2013 alleging Minor was exposed to domestic violence. During these contacts, Mother denied any serious domestic violence, stated she would not expose Minor to domestic violence, and denied Curtis A. lived in or came to her home. The Department noted each time there was contact, Mother “appeared committed, and willing to follow through in obtaining services for her family” but then “chooses not to follow through with services” and “stay[s] involved with [Curtis A.].” Minor told the Department social worker Mother continuously lets Curtis A. into their home and hides him in their home; Mother and Curtis A. “fight every night until four and five o’clock in the morning” and Minor “was very worried about the safety of his mother.”
In September 2015, the juvenile court sustained the allegations, and in October it declared Minor a dependent of the court. Minor was placed with a paternal aunt and uncle. The case plan adopted by the court provided for Mother to engage in domestic violence, anger management, and family empowerment counseling, as well as “family therapy based on a treatment plan when all parties, including relevant service providers, deem it appropriate.” The court ordered a minimum of two one-hour supervised visits per week.
The Department’s six-month review report stated Mother “minimally complied” with her case plan. She was attending individual counseling and support groups, although she had missed several sessions and service providers expressed some concerns, such as “a significant difference between [Mother’s] accounts of what happened between her and her partner and [the Department’s] concerns about that incident.” Minor said he enjoyed his visits with Mother. At the April 2016 review hearing, the court ordered continued reunification services. The visitation order remained a minimum of two hours per week.
The Department’s 12-month review report stated Mother partially complied with her case plan. She had completed certain counseling programs, but one of the service providers noted Mother “continues to deny that [Minor] was exposed to domestic violence” and “remains vague about exactly what happened and what specific changes she needs to make.” Moreover, Mother did not have stable housing. Mother had missed three visits with Minor due to her college and work schedule, was warned about talking to Minor about the case, and had brought “a person under the influence” to one of Minor’s sports games, who said inappropriate things to Minor and the foster parents. Minor had begun weekly individual therapy in June 2016. The Department recommended continued services. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), appointed shortly after the six-month review hearing, also filed a report. The CASA report stated Minor asked the CASA advocate about reducing the visits to once per week and further asked, “ ‘what if I don’t want to visit her at all?’ ” CASA opined Mother was not likely to reunify and recommended terminating services.
At the September 21, 2016 12-month review hearing, the parties informed the court they had reached an agreement regarding an apparent dispute over visitation. The Department was willing to look at moving to overnight visits within the next six weeks, with certain rules about the visits. At the hearing, Mother’s counsel also inquired about the status of family therapy. The social worker indicated Minor’s therapist was going to integrate family therapy. A six-week review hearing was set.
The Department filed a report prior to the interim review hearing. The report attached logs describing visits and communications with Minor since the 12-month review hearing. At the beginning of a September 21 visit, Minor told Mother and the social worker that he wanted to cancel the visit. Department social workers asked if anything would make Minor feel more comfortable but he said no. The same day, Minor contacted a Department social worker and said he did not want to have visits anymore. The social worker asked Minor if he would like visits in different locations, or doing different activities like playing basketball, but he said no. On September 22, Minor and Mother had a supervised offsite visit. At the beginning of the visit, Minor was not talking much, but spoke more after he and the social worker began to play basketball. On September 27, Minor again told the Department social worker he did not want to have visits, saying they were not “comfortable.” The social worker asked Minor whether he would like to do a different activity on visits, such as bowling, skating, or playing baseball, but Minor rejected each idea. On September 28 and 29, when a social worker arrived at Minor’s foster home to take him to a visit, Minor stated he did not want to go and on both days the visits did not occur. On October 3, Minor told a Department social worker, “ ‘I feel scared everytime I’m around my mom’ ” and said he did not want to participate in family therapy with Mother. The social worker asked Minor if he would like visits to a museum, to the arcade, bowling, painting, or other activities. Minor said no to each possibility. The social worker asked Minor if he would go on a visit if a specific social worker assistant, Brett, was there. Minor said maybe. On October 5, Brett came to Minor’s foster home to pick him up for a visit. Minor initially said he did not want to go, but agreed after being told he could end the visit at any time. Minor and Brett played basketball for a bit and Minor began to talk to Mother. When Minor wanted to leave the park, Mother asked to be dropped at the bus station, but Minor said they had 30 minutes left of the visit and he did not want her to leave yet.
At the October 27, 2016 interim review hearing, Minor’s counsel told the court, “We have all been struggling with this . . . . As the social worker’s report indicates we have been trying to be a little creative, a little different.” Minor’s counsel noted a family team meeting was scheduled and suggested the hearing be continued until after that meeting. Mother’s counsel agreed to that proposal. The juvenile court continued the hearing until after the family team meeting.
At the November 17, 2016 continued hearing, Minor’s counsel updated the court: “[T]he parties had a family team meeting on Monday where we brain stormed ideas on how to make visits work, because [Minor] is reporting to everybody that he can report to that he does not want visitation. He refuses to get into the car with the social worker assistant, who he likes, who is there to pick him up to take him to the visit. He expresses to the social worker, to myself, to the foster family that he does not want to visit. So we tried brainstorming various ideas. We have tried to get [Minor] into therapy with his mother and he has refused to attend that. He will attend therapy with his own therapist, which he is doing. His own therapist is working on these issues, but sometimes that’s a slow process. [¶] We came up with some ideas that maybe the foster family could . . . go on the visit, but [the] social worker is writing me a note that he wouldn’t do that yesterday. I mean, we will keep trying. We will have his therapist continue to work. You know, we have tried brainstorming with [Minor] about what ideas, what would be fun for him to do. The social worker assistant has gone out to play basketball with mother and him. Really, everybody has tried very hard to figure out what’s going on and to make visits palatable in some way. . . . [P]hone calls were suggested. [Minor] doesn’t like to talk on the phone, so even that’s going to be a challenge because that is something he never liked anyway.” Minor’s counsel also represented that Minor’s therapist “does not want to be part of the visitation and/or therapy with his mother . . . because that would compromise her relationship with [Minor].”
Mother’s counsel noted Minor had not refused visits earlier in the case, voiced concern “about why he has stopped exactly,” and requested family therapy be set up: “At this age I think he would be more amenable to following instructions by people . . . that he respects and that he gives authority to . . . . [¶] I just want all the adults to try to use their directive capacity to assist in having him start some of these things.” Mother’s counsel asked that phone calls be attempted.
The juvenile court directed the parties to try weekly calls, either by telephone or video: “I would like the message to be to [Minor], that the judge has ordered weekly phone calls. . . . I don’t want anybody to say, frankly, say this to [Minor], if he doesn’t participate, I am not going to ask that anybody coerce him into that. In other words, he has got the right to back off from it, but I don’t want him to be aware that he’s got that right.” The juvenile court offered the parties the opportunity to respond to its order, and Mother did not voice any objection.
In December 2016, the Department filed a report informing the court about visitation since the last hearing. After the November interim hearing, a Department social worker told Minor the judge ordered visits and the visit would be over Skype. Minor told the social worker he did not want the visit. When the Skype call came in, the social worker told Mother Minor did not want the visit. Mother asked to hear Minor say it, and the social worker asked Minor if he could tell Mother. Minor agreed and the social worker handed Minor the phone. Mother told Minor she loved him, and Minor “started to physically shake all over his body, tears rolled down his face and he started hitting himself with his fists.” The social worker ended the visit.
The Department’s 18-month review report recommended reunification services be terminated. The Department stated Mother was in partial compliance with her case plan: she had attended some therapy, but continued to be homeless and had a 70 percent attendance rate in a family empowerment support group. The report also noted Mother “has expressed on numerous occasions that she does not have a clear understanding of why she has a case . . . .” The report noted Minor’s repeated refusals to visit with Mother. The Department submitted a letter from Minor’s therapist reporting Minor “has made progress in reducing his irritable and angry outbursts” but “continues to avoid talking about past traumas or troubling issues and has great difficulty with emotional expression,” and “continues to appear depressed and anxious and to have feelings of low self-esteem.”
At the January 2017 18-month review hearing, Minor wanted to speak to the court and testified in chambers that “I don’t want visits with my mom and I want to stay with my [foster parents].” Minor testified he did not “feel safe or happy” during visits with Mother because it brings up memories of “a lot of arguing and fighting” when Minor lived with Mother. During questioning by Mother’s counsel, Minor testified the CASA advocate told him once or twice that Mother was still with Curtis A., and a Department social worker also “once maybe” told him the same. Minor testified that was the main reason he did not want to live with Mother. He also testified that if he found out Mother was not still with Curtis A., he still would not want to see Mother anymore and would not feel less scared about having visits with her.
Mother urged the court to continue services: “There really isn’t any evidence to say that [Mother] has continued a relationship with her ex-boyfriend, and I think it was clear from [Minor’s] testimony that his biggest fear in seeing his mother came from hearing from some of the official people in this case that she was still seeing him,” and this information “directed the course of this case and his decision not to want to visit or return home.” Mother contended Minor was therefore “inappropriately influenced” and continued services were appropriate to “maybe have [Minor] realize that she hasn’t continued a relationship with this person . . . .” Mother also pointed to the failure to provide family therapy: “I think the Court has let that decision be up to the therapist and [Minor] . . . and I think that could have also made a big difference in this case and . . . it’s really not appropriate I believe legally to have the child or the therapist make that decision.”
The CASA advocate represented to the court that she “didn’t talk to [Minor] about his mother or the situation from the September hearing until January at all about the boyfriend, anything. . . . Beginning of January I read to him from the [CASA report] . . . and I read on there alleged boyfriend[ ] and he asked me what alleged meant and I said so-called because I don’t know and it wasn’t known. [¶] So I never said that she was still with or they were still together because that’s not something I know of for sure.”
Minor’s counsel agreed with the Department’s recommendation to terminate services. Minor’s counsel disputed Mother’s argument regarding family therapy: “[Minor] refused to attend, refused to go. He’s old enough we cannot physically pick him up and put him into the therapy room. [¶] So although it was attempted by the social worker to be set up, it’s not that we left it in [Minor’s] discretion. It’s that he indicated and was adamant that he would not attend and that nobody could make him go.”
The juvenile court terminated services. The court found the Department provided reasonable services to Mother, and noted “I don’t find that [Minor’s position] was prompted by third parties making comments to [Minor] about Mr. [A.] still being in [Mother’s] life.” A section 366.26 hearing was set for May 25, 2017.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided lacks substantial evidence. We disagree.
I. Visitation
Mother first contends she was denied reasonable visitation services. “Visitation is a necessary and integral component of any reunification plan. [Citations.] ‘An obvious prerequisite to family reunification is regular visits between the noncustodial parent or parents and the dependent children “as frequent[ly] as possible, consistent with the well-being of the minor.” ’ ” (In re S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) “[T]he parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of their children is not to be maintained at the child’s expense; the child’s input and refusal and the possible adverse consequences if a visit is forced against the child’s will are factors to be considered in administering visitation.” (Ibid.) “In no event, however, may the child’s wishes be the sole factor in determining whether any visitation takes place.” (Id. at p. 319.)
Mother contends the Department impermissibly allowed Minor to decide whether visits would occur. We disagree. When Minor began stating he did not want to visit with Mother, the Department did not simply terminate visitation. Instead, social workers permitted Minor to skip individual visits, but continued to attempt subsequent visits. The Department made significant efforts to determine why Minor did not want to visit and made numerous suggestions for changes to encourage Minor to participate. These efforts were at times successful, as when the Department assigned a social worker assistant who Minor particularly liked to pick him up for a visit. Mother does not identify any other steps the Department could have taken to facilitate visitation and we see none (other than physically forcing Minor to attend visits, an effort Mother does not suggest should have been made). The juvenile court’s finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to provide Mother with visitation services is supported by substantial evidence.
To the extent Mother also challenges the juvenile court’s November 2016 order that Mother be provided with weekly phone visits but that Minor not be coerced into attending those visits against his will, we reject the claim. Mother did not object to this order below, and has therefore forfeited the challenge. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) Moreover, the juvenile court’s order established a minimum visitation frequency, indicating that, should Minor refuse one visit, another would be attempted the following week. (Cf. In re S.H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 319 [“[W]hile the juvenile court may allow the child to refuse to attend a particular visit, to prevent the child from exercising a de facto veto power, there must be some assurance that, should that occur, another visit will be scheduled and actually take place. The simplest . . . way to accomplish this would be for the juvenile court to order a minimum number of visits per month . . . .”].) Finally, the order did not in fact deprive Mother of visitation services: Minor did have a brief video visit with Mother after the order, which the Department appropriately terminated when Minor began shaking and hitting himself.
II. Family and Individual Therapy
Mother next argues the Department failed to provide reasonable therapeutic services. We disagree.
Minor began weekly individual therapy in June 2016, after the six-month review hearing. Mother points to a letter from Minor’s therapist submitted prior to the 18-month review hearing and argues that, because the letter does not specifically discuss Minor’s relationship with Mother, “[i]t appear[s]” the therapy was focused solely on the death of Minor’s father. This contention is mere speculation and we reject it. (In re B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685, 691 [“ ‘inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding’ ”].)
Mother next argues the Department failed to provide family therapy. Family therapy was part of the case plan “when all parties, including relevant service providers, deem it appropriate.” Mother did not request family therapy until the 12-month review hearing. At that time, the Department indicated Minor’s therapist was going to integrate family therapy. At an interim review hearing two months later, however, Minor’s counsel represented that Minor refused to participate in family therapy.
Contrary to Mother’s contention, this case is not akin to In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962. In that case, at the jurisdiction hearing the court ordered conjoint therapy with the father and the minor, but only after the minor attended eight sessions of individual therapy. (Id. at pp. 966–967.) Five months later, the minor had received only one therapy session and was refusing to visit with his father. (Id. at p. 967.) The juvenile court noted the minor apparently would not be willing to visit until conjoint therapy started, and directed it begin as soon as the minor’s therapist deemed it appropriate. (Id. at p. 968.) The social worker apparently was unaware of the order, and by the time of the six-month review hearing four months later conjoint therapy had still not occurred and the minor had only had five individual sessions. (Id. at pp. 968–969.) The Court of Appeal concluded reasonable services were not provided: “reunification was not going to be accomplished without visitation, and the social worker knew that [the minor] would be unlikely ever to consent to visitation without conjoint therapy. And conjoint therapy was not going to be accomplished unless some effort were made to get [the minor] into individual therapy,” yet “the Department submitted no evidence of having made a good faith effort to bring those sessions about.” (Id. at p. 973.) Here, in contrast, Minor received weekly individual therapy for eight months, the Department attempted to set up family therapy sessions around the time there began to be concerns about visits, but Minor refused to attend the family therapy. “Reunification services need not be perfect.” (Id. at p. 972.) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable therapeutic services were provided.
III. Improper Influence
Mother’s final contention is that the CASA advocate and Department social worker improperly influenced Minor by telling him Mother was still dating Curtis A. The juvenile court rejected this argument below, finding Minor’s position regarding Mother was not prompted by these statements. Substantial evidence supports this finding, as Minor testified that even if Mother was not still with Curtis A., he would not want to see her and would not feel less scared about having visits with her.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for a stay of the May 25, 2017 section 366.26 hearing is denied. This decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)







SIMONS, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




NEEDHAM, J.