In re T.S.

Filed 10/20/06 In re T.S. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

T.S., Sr. (appellant), the father of T.S., Jr. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating appellant’s reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; further undesignated statutory references are to that code.) Appellant contends the juvenile court committed prejudicial error in terminating his reunification services. Disagreeing with that contention, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2005, Placer County Health and Human Services (HHS) filed an original juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the two-year-old minor. That petition alleged appellant, who lived in Union City, California, was involved in “a domestic violence situation in February 2004.” The petition also made various allegations pertaining to the mother of the minor, who is not involved in this appeal.

The juvenile court sustained the petition, adjudged the minor a dependent child, and approved a reunification plan for appellant. The plan adopted by HHS required appellant to participate in counseling, supervised visitation with the minor, parenting classes, and anger management sessions. Appellant also was required to contact the social worker within 48 hours of changing his address and telephone number.

During much of the reunification period, appellant was living in Union City. In April 2005, HHS sent him a referral letter containing information pertaining to services available for appellant in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Thereafter, the social worker mailed certified letters to appellant in May, June and July; unfortunately, all were returned undelivered. Moreover, efforts by the social worker to contact appellant by telephone were unsuccessful.

In August 2005, appellant moved to Placer County and established contact with the social worker. Appellant received a substance abuse evaluation and referral for drug testing. Unfortunately, on October 7, 2005, appellant was arrested by Roseville police on domestic violence charges involving the mother of the minor.

According to the social worker’s report, appellant remained in custody at the Placer County Jail. He did not visit the minor until late August 2005. HHS also noted that appellant did not begin to participate in reunification services until the third month of the reunification period. HHS recommended termination of appellant’s services.

At the December 13, 2005, six-month review hearing, social worker Edward Yang testified he made various referrals for services on behalf of appellant. Yang also had made a referral for appellant to receive counseling when the latter lived in Union City. When appellant was in jail, Yang arranged for visitation between appellant and the minor, spoke to appellant on the telephone, and visited appellant once. Yang admitted he did not contact the jail regarding services, but was aware of parenting classes available there and directed appellant to enroll in them.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that appellant had received reasonable reunification services, but failed to participate regularly in them. The court stated in part as follows: “The father did participate in those services for approximately six weeks until October 7, 2005 when he was arrested for the domestic violence incident that’s described in the report. The first finding the Court needs to make is whether reasonable services had been offered to the father. I note that the Department did send letters to father identifying the available services and a way in which to get a hold of the person to set up those services, that the father did refuse to sign for the letters or had moved and changed his mailing address without notifying the Court as he had been instructed at the detention hearing. Services were immediately offered to father when he resurfaced in August of 2005, and he was receiving services until he was arrested for domestic violence October 7. So I do find that the Department did make reasonable efforts to offer services to the father and that reasonable services were provided to the father. Now, the next finding the Court must look at is whether or not to -- the services can be offered to father beyond the six-month review. In order to do that, well, the Court may terminate the services if the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that, first of all, that the child is under three at the time of the removal, which has been established, and, two, when the parent has failed to participate regularly and to make substantive progress in the reunification plan. In [sic] regarding whether the parent has failed to -- whether the father has failed to participate regularly in the reunification plan, that is proved beyond clear and convincing evidence, because he only participated six weeks in a program and had gone more than three months without having any contact with the court, with the social worker in this case. The second thing is whether he had made substantive progress in the reunification plan, and once again, I think that the domestic violence incident that occurred on October 7, 2005 is clear evidence that there was no substantive progress made in the reunification plan.”

The juvenile court also found that appellant “failed to comply with the reunification plan, and the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence there is not a substantial probability the child will be returned to the physical custody of his father within six months. The reunification services therefore to father are terminated.”

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends HHS “failed to provide reasonable services to appellant in that [it] failed to include a domestic violence component in appellant’s case plan, failed to make reasonable attempts to contact appellant during the first three months of [the] reunification period, or to make proper referrals for services, and failed to contact the [jail] where appellant was incarcerated to inquire about services that might have been available to appellant.”

“The strong preference of the law in dependency matters, expressed both judicially and legislatively, is reuniting children with their natural families whenever possible.” (In re Joanna Y. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 433, 438.) “To effectuate this paramount goal of reunification, the law requires that reasonable reunification services, tailored to the parents’ individual needs be offered . . . . [Citation.] The agency supervising the children must identify the problems leading to the loss of custody, offer services designed to remedy these problems, and maintain reasonable contact with the parents to assist in areas where compliance proves difficult, such as transportation. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) A “reunification service plan should be well defined, specific, and tailored to provided services that will lead to the resumption of a family relationship.” (In re Mario C. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 599, 603-604.)

We must determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided. (In re Joanna Y., supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 439.)

Appellant’s complaint about the lack of a domestic violence component in his case plan constitutes a challenge to the composition of his reunification services plan. The difficulty with appellant’s claim is that the plan was adopted at the disposition hearing. A challenge now is untimely. (John F. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 400, 404-405.) In any event, appellant fails to explain why anger management classes would not be sufficient to encompass the domestic violence requirement.

The social worker must make “a good faith effort” to provide reasonable services responding to the unique needs of each family. (In re Kristin W. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 234, 254; In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.) The question is not whether more or better services could have been provided, but “whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)

Appellant asserts HHS failed to make referrals to service providers and failed to maintain reasonable contact with appellant. The record refutes the claim. At various times throughout the reunification period, the social worker made telephone calls and left messages with appellant, to no avail. Moreover, the social worker made numerous referrals to service providers on appellant’s behalf, including referrals in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the area where appellant lived.

By the terms of his reunification plan, appellant was required to notify HHS of changes in his address and telephone number, and he was asked to contact the social worker. Inexplicably, he failed to do so. Under the circumstances, with appellant living a considerable distance from the minor and from the offices of HHS, there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the efforts made by the social worker were reasonable.

Appellant argues that HHS failed to provide reasonable reunification services to appellant during his incarceration. An incarcerated parent may be required to attend various programs if they are available. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (e)(1).) Here, the social worker knew parenting classes were available at the jail, and directed appellant to enroll in them. The social worker also arranged for visits with the minor, spoke to appellant on the telephone, and visited appellant in jail. It is not unreasonable to expect that appellant could sign up for parenting classes while he was incarcerated. Moreover, appellant’s incarceration occurred only during the last month of the reunification period. On this record, the juvenile court properly found that HHS provided appellant reasonable services designed to assist him in reunifying with the minor.

Reunification is a two-way street, requiring the active, willing participation of the parent to overcome the problems which caused the loss of custody. “Reunification services are voluntary, . . . and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them. [Citations.]” (In re Mario C., supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 604.)

In this case, as the juvenile court found, appellant failed to maintain regular contact with HHS, participated only sporadically in services, and failed to make progress in ameliorating the conditions that led to the filing of the dependency petition. Substantial evidence supports the order terminating appellant’s reunification services.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NICHOLSON , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P.J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.