Filed 5/17/18 M.A. v. Superior Court CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


M.A.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,

Respondent;

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.






G056067

(Super. Ct. No. 16DP0514)

O P I N I O N
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Petition denied.
Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender, Kenneth Norelli, Assistant Public Defender, and Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency.
Law Office of Harold LaFlamme, Harold LaFlamme and Yana Kennedy, for Real Party in Interest the Minor.

* * *

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that the minor would be at risk if returned to his mother, and that the mother received reasonable reunification services. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err when it denied the mother’s request for a continuance of a hearing so that she could receive additional services. The petition is denied.
I
FACTS
Jesse A. (the minor) was born in 2008. He has Down Syndrome and receives special education services. Although the current incident is the minor’s first contact with Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), there were 12 referrals to SSA involving the minor’s siblings.
The petitioner herein, the minor’s mother, M.A. (the mother), has multiple sclerosis (M.S.) and dementia. The mother cannot walk, wears diapers and requires ongoing care. She also has stage II breast cancer and has undergone surgery to have a tumor removed. According to a social worker’s report, the mother “is fully dependent on her adult daughter for everything.” The mother has an extensive criminal history.
The whereabouts of the minor’s father, A.H., are unknown. A.H. has not maintained a relationship with the minor nor provided for his safety, protection or support.
The mother attempted suicide by cutting her wrists with a knife while the minor and three other children were in the home. One of the children, age five, walked into the bedroom and observed the mother laughing as she was cutting her wrist. The mother was transported to the hospital with eight superficial cuts on her left wrist, and sent home the same day. The mother’s eldest daughter told a social worker her mother has a history of suicide attempts and “‘always says she wants to kill herself.’”
After the mother was released from the hospital, she changed her mind several times about how to care for the minor. First, she decided that since she was not getting along with one daughter, she and the minor would move into another daughter’s home. Then, while the mother did move in with the other daughter, she arranged for the minor to live with his aunt. The mother’s plan was to move the minor to the home of the other daughter, but not until the other daughter was able to rent a larger apartment. The idea of moving the minor into his aunt’s home was abandoned when it was discovered the aunt’s husband has an extensive criminal history. The notion of moving the minor into the other daughter’s home was also abandoned when the other daughter said she would not be able to care for both the mother and the minor, who has tantrums and requires help with going to the toilet. Thus, the mother decided to move the minor back into the home of the daughter with whom she does not get along, despite the fact that the daughter self-reports she has a history of crimes and drug abuse.
SSA reported to the juvenile court: “There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parents’ or guardians’ physical custody.” On May 17, 2016, the court ordered the minor detained and placed him in Orangewood Children’s Home under the care of SSA. Six days later, the minor was placed with nonrelative caregivers. On September 21, 2016, the court declared the minor a dependent of the Orange County Juvenile Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 360, subdivision (d). (All subsequent statutory references are to this code.)
SSA was able to arrange a parent consultant on Mondays, but the mother said that in order to have transportation, the parent consultation would have to occur on Saturdays. SSA was unable to provide that accommodation. The mother cancelled her monthly compliance visit with her caretaker, even though it was arranged for a Saturday. A family resource center to which the mother was referred informed SSA that “it was out of their scope of competency to provide counseling for the mother.” The minor’s applied behavior analysis therapist requested the mother’s presence at therapy sessions to create consistency in parenting, but the mother was unable to make arrangements to attend. The mother had been attending a M.S. support group, but the facilitator had an accident, so the only Spanish speaking group in Orange County was unable to hold meetings.
Before the 18-month review hearing, SSA recommended services should be terminated, stating in its report to the juvenile court: “The mother has demonstrated some progress in her Court ordered case plan as she has maintained a relationship with the child via visitation. However, the mother has been unable to become involved with the child’s special needs, as she was unable to contact the child’s school or [the Orange County] Regional Center’s [(Regional Center)] case manager to become involved with the child’s specialized care and services. More specifically, the mother has not been able to show concrete ways in which she would be able to care for the child should the child be returned to her.”
Also before the hearing, the mother moved to continue the hearing for six months with additional services provided to her. In denying the motion, the juvenile court gave a lengthy explanation for its ruling. It stated the minor is “at a very high level needs position.” The court’s explanation also included the following: “The circumstances of this case are unique and very specific. They involve a child that has special needs with Down Syndrome who needs the services of Regional Center, who needs day-to-day, minute-by-minute care. Combined with that, mom has high needs due to her health problems, which include M.S. As a result mom is limited to a wheelchair and suffers from incontinence and now suffers from cancer as well. Mom herself needs assistance, not just transportation to and fro [sic], but assistance with self-care. That is a set of unique circumstances. And to add to that, mother is a Spanish speaker. [¶] However, the agency has provided and the social worker has personally intervened in order to negotiate between Regional Center services and mother to find an M.S. support program to help mom understand what it takes to be a mother to a high-needs Down Syndrome child. [¶] And it’s not through anyone’s fault that mom is unable to participate in the services through Regional Center for her child because mom is at the mercy of third parties for something as simple as transportation.”
At the 18-month review hearing, county counsel informed the juvenile court the minor’s sisters both declined placement, a maternal aunt’s husband had been deported, and that the support system for the minor was less than it had been earlier. Additionally, the minor hides under a table when the maternal aunt comes to pick him up. The minor’s counsel pointed out to the court that the minor’s condition requires extra care, the mother has both physical and mental health issues, the minor’s safety is in jeopardy with her and that the mother caused problems when visiting at the caretaker’s home.
At the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court gave a lengthy statement that included: “Because of the high needs of this child who has exhibited tantrums sometimes after a visit, has demonstrated difficulties in therapy, the child himself needs physical constraining by an adult if needed to protect [the minor] from himself, these all place the child at a very high level needs position. Simultaneously, mother has very high physical and health care needs herself. [¶] Therefore, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that return of the child to the mother would create a substantial risk to the child both physically and emotionally. With that, the court is going to terminate services and set a permanency hearing.”
Thereafter, the mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ review and request for stay, arguing substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that returning the child to her would create a substantial risk of detriment, the finding that SSA provided reasonable services was in error and the court further erred when it denied her request to continue reunification services.
II
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence
The mother contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that returning the minor to her would create a substantial risk of detriment. County counsel argues the court’s finding that the child would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to the mother’s custody was supported by substantial evidence.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court “shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) “The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) “The issue of sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the same rules that apply to other appeals. If there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings.” (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
Under the circumstances we find in this record, where, as the juvenile court noted, the child needs adult constraining and the mother is unable to provide the needed
care, we cannot find error. The court’s finding that the minor would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to the mother’s custody is supported by substantial evidence.
Reasonable Services
The mother also contends the juvenile court erred when it found that SSA provided her reasonable services. County counsel argues the court was compelled to set a section 366.26 hearing irrespective of its finding as to reasonable services, “though that finding was supported by substantial evidence in any event.”
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court “shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) The reasonableness of SSA’s efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) “The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
SSA tried to facilitate services but the mother was simply unable to avail herself of them. We have no doubt the mother did her best, but was limited from doing more due to her physical and mental health issues. Here, we conclude the mother was provided with the assistance of numerous people and agencies, and the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances.

Denial of Request to Continue Reunification Services
Lastly, the mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it did not continue the 18-month review hearing so that she could receive an additional six months reunification services. She cites to In re J.E. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 557, 564, which states that when a court exercises its discretion whether or not to continue a hearing under section 352, it “‘should consider: the failure to offer or provide reasonable reunification services’” and that the court has the discretion to extend the reunification period in a special needs case.
On a showing of good cause and “provided that no continuance shall be granted that is contrary to the interest of the minor,” the juvenile court may continue a hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a) & (b).)
The juvenile court carefully considered the high level of the minor’s needs and the limitations of the mother in meeting those needs. Under the circumstances we find in this record, we do not conclude the court abused its discretion when it did not continue the hearing in order to provide additional reunification services.
III
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.



MOORE, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:



ARONSON, J.



FYBEL, J.