Filed 1/2/18 Guadalupe Z. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GUADALUPE Z.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY,

Respondent;

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

F076370

(Super. Ct. Nos. 15CEJ300218-1, 15CEJ300218-2, 15CEJ300218-3, 15CEJ300218-4, 15CEJ300218-5, 15CEJ300218-6)


OPINION
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Leanne L. LeMon, Commissioner.
Vanji R. Unruh for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Guadalupe Z. is the mother of three sons, 17-year-old Jose, 10-year-old Osvaldo and three-year-old Jose, Jr., and three daughters, 15-year-old A.Z., eight-year-old J.Z., and five-year-old Arianna, the subjects of this writ petition. In September 2017, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services as to A.Z. and Jose, Jr., after 24 months of reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.25) and removed Jose, Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna from her custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (§ 387) and denied her reunification services. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of legal guardianship for the children.
Guadalupe (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders. We deny the petition.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In August 2015, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took Jose, Jr., Arianna, J.Z., Osvaldo, A.Z. and Jose, then ranging in age from 13 months to 15 years, respectively, into protective custody because mother used methamphetamine and drank alcohol while caring for them and left them in the care of her elderly parents up to several weeks at a time. Mother, then 34, had been using methamphetamine since she was a teenager. The department placed the children together in foster care.
The juvenile court detained the children and ordered the department to offer mother parenting classes, substance abuse and mental health evaluations and random drug testing. In September 2015, she began drug treatment at WestCare California, Inc., a residential substance abuse treatment program.
The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and in November 2015, ordered a plan of reunification for mother comprised of the services previously offered plus domestic violence counseling and unsupervised visitation. The court did not order services for the fathers of the children.
By the six-month review hearing in May 2016, the children were placed in pairs in three foster homes; Jose and Osvaldo were placed together as were Jose, Jr., and A.Z. and J.Z. and Arianna. Meanwhile, mother completed a parenting program and was participating in her other court-ordered services. However, she tested positive for methamphetamine in January 2016. She explained that, after completing her mental health assessment, she felt depressed. She ran into a friend and used methamphetamine and drank alcohol. She tested positive for methamphetamine again in March but denied using the drug. A spot test the following day yielded negative results. She also tested positive for other controlled substances that were prescribed. In April 2016, the court ordered mother to submit a hair follicle for drug testing. The results were negative.
The juvenile court continued reunification services for mother at the six-month review hearing in May 2016 and set a 12-month review hearing for September 14, 2016.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services because, although she demonstrated she was capable of completing her services, she had not demonstrated the ability to provide for the children’s safety. The department cited several incidents that reportedly occurred in August 2016, while mother was a resident of a sober living facility; she violated curfew, had a male visitor at her apartment and offered another resident alcohol. Mother admitted violating curfew but denied having male company or offering alcohol to anyone.
The juvenile court combined the 12- and 18-month review hearings and conducted a combined, contested review hearing in January 2017. The court found the department failed to show it would be detrimental to return Jose, Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna to mother’s custody and ordered them returned to her with family maintenance services. As to A.Z. and Jose, Jr., however, the court found the department met its burden of establishing detriment, given A.Z.’s strong feelings about being neglected and mother’s need to develop a stronger relationship with Jose, Jr. The court continued mother’s reunification services as to them to the 24-month review hearing. The court set a family maintenance and 24-month review hearing for July 19, 2017, and ordered the department to meet with mother and develop an appropriate case plan. The court ordered the department to include conjoint therapy or attachment therapy as part of the case plan for A.Z. and Jose, Jr., as well as increased visitation and contact.
In mid-January 2017, mother failed to report for random drug tests. Within a month, she had eight “no shows” and the department had information that she relapsed and was using methamphetamine. The reporting party stated mother disclosed that she was using because her father was very ill and dying. Mother denied relapsing, claiming a sobriety date of January 28, 2016. The department filed a section 388 petition, asking the juvenile court to order mother to submit a hair follicle for testing. The court denied the department’s request as facially inadequate. Mother voluntarily participated in a hair follicle test on March 8, 2017, and the results were negative.
Mother continued to miss drug tests, failing to show nine times from late March to early May 2017. On May 10, social worker Lucero Rivera transported mother to the testing facility because mother stated she did not have transportation. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine at high levels. The next day, Rivera removed Jose, Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna, then 16, nine, seven and four, respectively, and filed a supplemental petition alleging family maintenance services in the home had proven ineffective.
Mother denied using methamphetamine knowingly. She said she and the children attended a party near her house where people were using drugs. She acknowledged she should not have been there but said the children were safe because her brother, Uriel, was watching them. She admitted drinking alcohol and may have had too much to drink. She said someone might have put something in her drink because there were people there that did not like her. She also said she took pills that were not prescribed for her but did not know if they contained methamphetamine.
On May 18, 2017, Rivera filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to terminate mother’s reunification services as to A.Z. and Jose, Jr., because of mother’s positive drug test results and reports that Jose, Jr., had dirty clothes and soiled pants after visiting her.
The juvenile court scheduled a hearing on Rivera’s section 388 petition on the day and time set for the 24-month review hearing (combined hearing). In its report for the combined hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate family reunification and maintenance services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of legal guardianship for the children.
On July 17, 2017, mother, then pregnant, entered Spirit of Women, a residential prenatal substance abuse treatment program for women and their children.
On August 21, 2017, the juvenile court convened the contested combined hearing. Rivera testified mother substantially complied with all of her case plan requirements. Rivera did not refer the family for family therapy, explaining only the children’s therapist could make that referral.
Rivera further testified that mother had twice weekly, supervised visits with Jose, Jr., and acknowledged that approximately 11 visits were cancelled from January to June 2017 for a variety of reasons, including illness and mother’s positive drug tests. Rivera attempted to make up the visits.
Phai Nameesei, mother’s therapist, testified she treated mother for depression for over a year. Mother was meeting her treatment goals and Nameesei saw progress in mother’s willingness to admit she relapsed in May 2017, even though mother did not admit relapsing until their last session in August. Prior to that, mother maintained that her sobriety date was in January 2016.
Melissa Reed, mother’s substance abuse counselor from Spirit of Women, testified as an expert in substance abuse counseling and treatment. Mother was halfway through Spirit of Women’s three-month program and had grown a lot through treatment. She appeared more focused in her recovery and was starting to understand the nature of addiction and what she needed to do to overcome it and move forward in life. Reed believed the death of mother’s father was a “huge” trigger for mother. Reed also believed mother was ready for unsupervised visits and Spirit of Women’s policy allowed any of the children under the age of 12 to live with her.
Mother testified she attended a bachelorette party where she drank alcohol just before she tested positive for methamphetamine. She did not remember using methamphetamine but took responsibility for her conduct. She said Rivera told her in late 2016, that she could drink alcohol because the children were removed from her because of her drug use, not alcohol use. She attributed her relapse to her father’s imminent death. Mother also testified she asked Rivera about attachment therapy but Rivera told her there was no such thing. She also asked Rivera why she had not arranged any visits with A.Z. since December 2016 and why she missed so many visits with Jose, Jr. Rivera told her A.Z. did not want to see her and had no explanation for the missed visits. Rivera also told her the children could not live with her at Spirit of Women. Rivera, recalled to the stand, acknowledged that mother’s case plan included the possibility of family therapy and testified that family therapy included attachment therapy and conjoint therapy. However, she had no control over whether mother received family therapy because the children’s therapist created the family therapy plan. Rivera also testified she did not set up one-on-one visits with mother and A.Z. She denied telling mother she could use alcohol.
The juvenile court granted the department’s section 388 petition and terminated mother’s reunification services as to A.Z. and Jose, Jr. The court ordered Jose, Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna removed from mother’s custody and denied her further services. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing as to all six children.
DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the juvenile court’s various rulings, alleging: (1) her methamphetamine use in May 2017 was a mere relapse; (2) the children under age 12 could have been placed with her at Spirit of Women; and (3) the department failed to facilitate visitation with A.Z. Based on those three points, she contends the juvenile court erred in not placing Jose, Jr., with her at Spirit of Women, in removing Jose, Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna from her custody and in finding she was provided reasonable services (family therapy and visitation) as to A.Z. and Jose, Jr.
We begin by noting that while the juvenile court was expressly applying section 366.25, the 24-month review statute, and section 387, the supplemental petition statute, at the combined hearing, section 361.5, subdivision (a)(4)(A) was also at play. Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(4)(A) sets the maximum period of reunification services at 24 months after a child is physically removed from parental custody. Mother’s children were removed from her custody in August 2015, making August 2017 (the month in which the combined hearing was conducted) the 24th month and cutoff date for services. Further, though the court was required to make a reasonable services finding, its order setting a section 366.26 hearing was not conditioned on a finding that reasonable services were provided. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(3).) Consequently, the juvenile court had no choice but to rule as it did, as we now explain.
I.
Section 366.25
A. Detriment
At the 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court must return the child to parental custody unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child’s return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection or physical or emotional wellbeing. In deciding whether to return the child, the court must consider whether the parent is enrolled in a substance abuse treatment facility that allows the child to live with the parent. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(1).) We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding of detriment as to Jose, Jr.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s detriment finding, as mother’s circumstances had not changed in the two years of reunification. Specifically, she continued to use methamphetamine. As the court stated,
“[T]his case arose over two years ago—we’re past the 24 months—that this case arose due to [mother] being under the influence of methamphetamine and alcohol while providing care for her children. She had stated she was using drugs since she was a teenager and her drug of choice was methamphetamine. There were disclosures from various people that she left her children for up to four days at a time. The reason I bring that up is because we’re dealing with the same issues two years later—over two years later.”
Further, her methamphetamine use in May 2017 pointed to more than a mere relapse, as the juvenile court explained,
“[Mother] made a decision and did not have great insight when she went to a party, got drunk to the extent that she cannot remember the evening, admitted that there were drugs present at the party, chose to remain at the party with her children, by her own description, very close by. To me, that’s exactly the same circumstances that brought her to court back in August of 2015.”
Having concluded Jose, Jr., could not be returned to mother’s custody, even in the structured environment of Spirit of Women, the juvenile court had no choice but to set a section 366.26 hearing.
B. Reasonable Services
Mother contends the department did not comply with the juvenile court’s direction to provide her conjoint or family therapy and increased visitation for A.Z. or Jose, Jr. According to the record, however, A.Z. refused to participate in family therapy with mother or visit her and mother fails to show what more the department could have done to mediate the situation. Mother asserts the department’s failure lies in its delegation to the children’s therapist to decide whether visitation occurred. However, she does not point to any evidence in the record that the department delegated that decision.
As to visitation with Jose, Jr., the juvenile court noted that “visitation was not perfect,” but that there was an increase beginning in January 2017 when the other children were placed with mother under family maintenance. The court also found there was “more one-on-one visitation” with Jose, Jr.
While there is always more the department could have done to promote reunification, the standard is not perfection, as the court pointed out. Rather, the question is whether the department’s efforts were reasonable under the circumstances. We conclude there is substantial evidence on this record that they were.

II.
Section 387
A supplemental petition under section 387 is the means by which the department seeks the removal of a child from parental custody when the department determines that placement with the parent was not effective in protecting the child. In deciding whether to remove a child, the juvenile court must apply the procedures and protections of section 361. Thus, before a child can be removed from the parent’s custody, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the [child] if the [child] were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the [child’s] physical health can be protected without removing the [child] from the [child’s] parent’s ... physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
“A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of (1) parental inability to provide proper care for the [child] and (2) potential detriment to the [child] if he or she remains with the parent. The parent need not be dangerous and the [child] need not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163, citations omitted.) We review the juvenile court’s removal order for substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 1161.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal orders for the same reason it supports its detriment finding, i.e., mother’s continuing methamphetamine use. Mother, nevertheless, contends the department failed to prove that placing Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna with her at Spirit of Women was not a reasonable alternative to removal. In other words, it failed to show that they would not be safe with her there. The juvenile court, however, can consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case in determining whether removal is appropriate. Here, mother’s continuing drug use left the children unprotected even in the confines of a treatment facility and placing them in her care had already proven ineffective. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court did not have to wait for the children to suffer harm or neglect in mother’s care and properly ordered the children removed.
Having decided to remove Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna from mother’s custody, the juvenile court had no choice but to set a section 366.26 hearing.
We find no error on this record.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.