In re Robert G.

Filed 1/18/07  In re Robert G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(San Joaquin)

----

     Kristina G., mother of the minors Robert, Cody, Johnny, Timothy, and Eva, appeals from orders at an 18-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 366.26 hearing.  Appellant contends substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding that returning the minors to her care would create a substantial risk of harm.  Alternatively, she argues the court should have continued services to her past the 18-month limit because reasonable services were not provided to her.  We affirm.

FACTS

     The five minors, ranging in age from 1 to 11, were removed from appellant's custody in January 2004 due to appellant's mental health issues which led her to isolate the minors and resulted in a temporary involuntary hold to assess her mental health.  At a visit in February, appellant engaged in intrusive repetitive questioning of the minors and refused to obey visitation rules not to talk about the case; however, the minors largely ignored appellant.  At the jurisdiction hearing in March 2004, the court sustained the petition. 

     A psychological evaluation by Dr. Cavanaugh in April 2004 resulted in a diagnosis of both a mental illness and a possible personality disorder and noted that appellant was suspicious, guarded, minimized her faults, and denied any psychological problems.  The court adopted a reunification plan in July 2004 which required appellant to attend counseling and parenting classes and to secure a psychiatric evaluation for possible medication.  The court ordered weekly visitation. 

     Appellant had a second psychological evaluation in December 2004 with Dr. Anthony Urquiza.  According to the evaluation, appellant remained defensive and guarded, refusing to sign certain releases, and was reluctant to talk about many issues.  This evaluation also concluded appellant had severe mental health problems and a personality disorder and recommended long-term individual therapy, group therapy, and medication.  The evaluation stated appellant was unlikely to be able to parent her children at that time due to her unwillingness to be treated and her refusal to acknowledge her problems. 

     A review report filed in January 2005 stated appellant visited the minors weekly and, if not stressed, was able to interact appropriately with them, but if stressed, she became very emotional.  Appellant had completed a parenting class but was unable to demonstrate an ability to meet the minors' emotional needs in visits.  Appellant was also participating in substance abuse recovery support and had begun therapy. 

     In March 2005, the court set a contested review hearing and denied appellant's request for increased visitation.  The hearing was continued to May 2005, at which time the court admonished appellant not to discuss the case at visits. 

     A review report filed in June 2005, stated appellant continued to have weekly supervised visitation.  At visits, appellant had difficulty controlling the minors, expressed her concerns in the minors' presence about the care they received in the foster home, talked to them about coming home, and consciously extended visits as much as possible.  The social worker chose not to redirect appellant's comments to the minors during visitation because if she did, appellant would become upset in front of the minors.  Appellant was continuing in therapy but limited the information the therapist could share with the social worker and continued to deny any mental illness.  Appellant said she was still attending recovery support.  Appellant had completed her domestic violence program but continued to have inappropriate outbursts although less severe than before.  The father had made progress in his plan and was remaining clean and sober.  The report recommended termination of services for both parents. 

     The review hearing was again continued and, in October 2005, the court gave the social worker discretion to increase visits and place the minors with the father.  The court placed the two older boys with the father shortly thereafter and ordered that appellant's visits remain supervised.  In December 2005, the court gave the social worker discretion to expand appellant's visits. 

     A third status review report, filed in February 2006, stated that all the minors had been placed with the father.  Appellant continued to have weekly supervised visits which were changed to weekends to accommodate her schedule but she still disregarded visitation rules.  Appellant continued to attend individual therapy.  The social worker received a third psychological evaluation in December 2005 from Dr. Gary Howells, who diagnosed appellant with a personality disorder but noted her history was consistent with bipolar disorder and suggested a trial of medication.  Dr. Howells did not recommend increasing visitation unless appellant demonstrated changes in her current behavior as a result of ongoing therapy.  The review report recommended termination of appellant's services and dismissal of the dependency because the minors were doing well in the father's care. 

     The contested review hearing finally commenced in February 2006, more than two years after the minors were detained.  The social worker now sought an in-home dependency with supervision because the father had a recent relapse into alcohol abuse. 

     Dr. Urquiza testified that when he assessed appellant and sought information from other sources, appellant either refused to permit him access or restricted her releases to permit disclosure of only positive information.  He testified that the chronic mental health conditions he found in appellant affected her ability to parent because both conditions impacted her ability to correctly perceive reality and her ability to regulate her moods which decreased her ability to respond to the children and make judgments in their best interest.  Appellant minimized her negative characteristics when testing and appeared to be more impaired when stressed.  Dr. Urquiza believed it was fundamental to appellant's treatment that she recognize she had a problem. 

     Appellant's therapist testified she saw appellant weekly.  The therapist said it took time to get past appellant's defensiveness but that appellant now acknowledges some shortcomings and has taken steps to improve.  According to the therapist, appellant was less guarded and could now hear another point of view. 

     The social worker testified that in her experience, the minors get bored during the two-hour visits with appellant and would like fewer visits.  The social worker was concerned about appellant's ability to supervise all five children but had not split the visits by age because appellant did not want the minors separated.  When the social worker asked Robert about having unsupervised visits with appellant, he expressed fears that appellant would abduct them.  Appellant continued to talk about the case or make negative comments about the father during visits, often in whispered conversations if not closely supervised, and would get upset if the social worker reminded her of the visit rules.  Appellant would also badger the minors to say things favorable to her.  As a result, the social worker was not contemplating unsupervised visits and was no longer considering placing the minors with appellant.  Appellant's interaction with the social worker was calmer as a result of counseling but appellant's need for therapy remained as shown by her interaction with the minors. 

     The licensed clinical social worker who assessed appellant at the outset of the case and had a few therapy sessions with her testified that appellant denied any mental health problems and it was difficult to provide therapy to such a person. 

     Several friends and neighbors of appellant testified that in their experience, appellant had taken good care of the minors prior to their removal. 

     Appellant testified she had complied with the plan, including attempting to secure a psychiatric evaluation and was no danger to the minors.  She agreed that having all the minors at visits was a challenge but it was one that she could meet.  She believed the social worker was biased against her. 

     During the course of the hearing, the father again relapsed into alcohol abuse, placing the youngest child at risk of harm, and all the minors were removed on a supplemental (§ 387) petition.  The court gave the social worker discretion to release the minors to the care of the grandparents. 

     The review hearing resumed at the end of February 2006.  Robert testified that when the social worker walked away during visits, appellant began whispering to them about coming home.  He said he told appellant he wanted to come home at the beginning of the case, but no longer does because now he can see that she has a problem that she is not taking care of.  Robert further testified that when they lived with appellant, she was overprotective and would not let them go outside the house for two weeks.  He said there were times he had to tell appellant what to do because she did not know.  Robert also testified that appellant was very insistent in visits that the minors write statements that they wanted to go home or say things happened that did not and it bothered him.  He would rather have visits every other week and continue to have them supervised because supervision kept appellant from pressuring them and talking about coming home. 

     Cody testified that visits with appellant get boring after the first half hour and that appellant talked about â€