Robert O. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 2/7/07  Robert O. v. Sup. Ct. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Petitioner Robert O. (father) is the father of Eva O., a dependent child of the juvenile court.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court  8.452, (former rule 38.1), father filed a petition for extraordinary relief seeking review of the trial court's order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1]  Father contends the trial court erred in finding he had been provided or offered reasonable reunification services.  We conclude that the order setting the section 366.26 hearing is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore deny the petition. 

Background

            Eva O. was born in April 2004.  On April 28, 2005, a petition was filed in Monterey County Juvenile Court, alleging Eva came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b).  Specifically, the petition alleged that Eva was living with father on April  26, 2005, when father was arrested for kidnapping his girlfriend; that Eva's mother suffers from mental health issues; that, at the time of Eva's birth, both parents accepted services from Santa Clara County, but later refused those services; Eva's father and mother have a history of domestic violence; in September 2004, father threw a television remote control at mother, hitting her in the head, was arrested on domestic violence charges and violation of a stay-away order; that in November 2004, mother gave Eva to father; that both parents have CPS histories, as minors and parents; and that mother was 6-7 months pregnant at the time.  The petition also alleged that father was incarcerated at the time and could not care for Eva under section 300, subdivision (g).      

     Following a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court sustained the allegations of the petition.  The court ordered reunification services pursuant to the case plan prepared by the Monterey County Department of Social Services (Agency).  In the case plan father was ordered, among other things, to obey all laws, clear up any outstanding warrants, complete domestic violence counseling, take responsibility for his actions and ensure the absence of domestic violence in his life, complete a program of parent education, and complete a psychological evaluation. 

At the six-month status review hearing, the court ordered modifications in the case plan, including a requirement that father complete a second psychological evaluation, and participate in and regularly attend family counseling.  The court found that father had failed to participate regularly in court-ordered treatment programs and had not made substantive progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating Eva's removal from his custody.  The matter was continued for a 12-month permanency review.

At the 12-month permanency review hearing, in response to some of Eva's ongoing health problems, the social worker recommended additional services for father, including an amended case plan.  The new plan required father to provide for and cooperate with Eva's medical and dental needs, attend Eva's doctor's appointments, provide all prescribed medications, and meet with a public health nurse to follow any recommendations the nurse might make.  The court followed the social worker's recommendations and continued services for father. 

A contested 18-month permanency review hearing was held in November 2006.  After hearing testimony from the social worker and father and arguments of counsel, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided or offered to father.  The court also found that returning Eva to father would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's physical and/or emotional well-being, and that there was no substantial probability that the child could be safely returned within six months.  The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for February 23, 2007.

Discussion

            In his writ petition, father argues the court erred in finding reasonable services had been provided or offered to him.  The question before us is whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding.  (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)

     The adequacy of a reunification plan and the reasonableness of the social service agency's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.  (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.)  Generally, the case plan here included reunification services designed to assist father in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal of his daughter.  By addressing areas such as father's issues with domestic violence and anger management, the plan was appropriate and tailored to the unique circumstances of this case.

The specific requirements of father's case plan were directly related to the reason Eva was removed from his custody:  domestic violence and anger management.  The plan required father to obey all laws, clear up all outstanding warrants and notify the social worker of any consequences of that effort, complete domestic violence counseling, attend parenting classes, complete two psychological evaluations, and participate regularly in family counseling.  The case plan also required father to provide for Eva's medical and dental needs, attend Eva's doctor's appointments, provide all prescribed medications, and meet with the public health nurse.

            In this case, in order to facilitate father's case plan, the Agency was required to provide him with all necessary referrals for domestic violence counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluations and family therapy.  Additionally, the Agency had the responsibility to assist in father's visitation with Eva, and meet with father to determine his level of participation in the case plan and provide whatever support was necessarily to facilitate that participation. 

By our review of the evidence, it appears by the time of the 18-month permanency review hearing, the Agency had made all the necessary referrals for the requirements of father's case plan.  At times during the reporting periods, father was participating in his required case plan, including participating in domestic violence and parenting classes, and meeting with the social worker regularly.  However, father was subsequently terminated from both the domestic violence program and the parenting program for failing to participate satisfactorily, and missing sessions.  Father's visitations with Eva were also curtailed due to father's failure to participate in his case plan, and Eva's ongoing behavioral and emotional problems. 

            On this record, substantial evidence supports the Agency's argument that it provided reasonable services to assist the father with his case plan requirements.  Although the Agency gave father all the necessary referrals, and father did, in fact, participate in some of the case plan, he ultimately failed to adequately complete the requirements.  Father's failure to succeed in his case plan under the circumstances is not the fault of the Agency; rather, the Agency appears to have provided all reasonable services necessary for father to complete his case plan successfully. 

     After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that reasonable reunification services were provided to father.  Despite these services (and father's efforts with some areas of the case plan, such as visitation with the child), the issues underlying the dependency were not resolved.  The court thus appropriately terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

Disposition

            The petition is denied. 

                                                                        ______________________________________

                                                                                                RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

PREMO, J.

____________________________________

ELIA, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

            [1]  All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.