A.M. v. Super. Ct.






Filed 12/8/11 A.M. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

A.M. Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

E054602 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ120287) OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Gary Vincent, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Phillip Malisos for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, Katherine A. Lind, Assistant County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
INTRODUCTION
This petition is brought by A.M. (Mother) challenging the trial court’s termination of reunification services with respect to her son B.M. (Minor). Mother argues that the trial court erred when it found that real party in interest, the Department of Public Social Services (Department), had offered her reasonable and adequate services. We deny the petition.[1]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Almost immediately after the Minor’s birth, the Department was notified by the hospital that he had tested positive for benzodiazepine. It was also reported that Mother had received inadequate prenatal care, had “mental and physical health issues including being bipolar and anxiety disorder,” as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It was reported that she was “non-compliant with her mental health issues,” that Mother was transient, and that in 2003 Mother’s own mother had been granted legal guardianship of Mother’s daughter.
Interviewed by the social worker, Mother represented that she and the baby would be living with a friend, and discussed her mental health history with apparent candor. She claimed to have been drug free since 2003 although she reportedly tested positive for amphetamines in June 2010. However, when interviewed by the social worker, the friend decided it would be best not to have Mother stay with her. The Minor was detained and a dependency petition was filed.
In the detention report, the social worker’s primary expressed concerns were Mother’s mental health status and her history of drug use. In later interviews, Mother’s mother and aunt described a history of instability, drug use, and “hot and cold” personality; both described her as potentially “dangerous.” Mother was provided with referrals to Riverside County Mental Health and substance abuse counseling, as well as a parenting program. She was encouraged to contact her primary physician to discuss resuming medications for her mental issues. However, Mother appeared resistant to accepting the recommendations as to providers, insisting that she preferred to use providers she was familiar with.
Beginning in September 2010, before the jurisdictional hearing, Mother began making dozens of calls to the Department, many of them complaints about the social worker. Even after the social worker spoke with and listened to her, she continued to call and complain. The Minor’s foster mother also reported peculiar behavior and that Mother was making complaints against her concerning her care of the minor. (Complaints the Department found wholly unsubstantiated.)
At the jurisdictional hearing on October 5, 2010, the Minor was found to be a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).[2] Over the next few months, several addendum reports were filed by the social worker. Additional medical and mental health records reflected at least three mental health admissions, one of which resulted from Mother’s involvement in an argument and another during which she was psychiatrically evaluated as being paranoid and “gravely disabled.” She also voluntarily sought assistance (and medication) after a court hearing at which she reported that she had a “‘small break down.’” She also moved at least twice during the early fall. Up through the middle of November, she was not visiting the Minor consistently, telling the social worker that it wasn’t necessary because the Minor would be returned to her custody at the next hearing.
In November 2010, J.O. had contacted the Department and declared that he believed he was the Minor’s father; furthermore, he and Mother had married. J.O. had a criminal record that included a pending indecent exposure case. (Pen. Code, § 314.1.) Mother was scheduled for a psychological assessment, but broke it off and became angry because she thought the doctor was “‘rude.’” The evaluator was able to note that Mother’s reaction was “verging on paranoid,” and that Mother believed people were “conspiring against her.”
At the contested dispositional hearing on January 5, 2011, the Minor was ordered maintained in foster care, and the Department was ordered to provide reunification services in accordance with the proposed case plan. The latter required Mother to participate in counseling as directed, to comply with medication prescriptions, and to submit to random drug testing.
The addendum report prepared for a March 24, 2011 “review hearing re: Progress on Visitation” indicated that Mother’s visits had been spotty,[3] and that Mother complained that she was too “stressed” because the Minor was not with her. She worried about having a “‘psychotic break down while visiting.’” On one occasion in March, Mother cancelled “due to her being in an altercation.” She also later left a message indicating that she was trying to “‘distance’” herself from the Minor in case he was not returned to her custody.
Mother had received a new referral for counseling on December 1, 2010, but she told the social worker that she preferred to work with her pastor, which had not been verified. She was attending parenting classes, but the instructor reported that she seemed “manic. During class she is loud and asks bizarre questions [and] was very disruptive.” She also told the instructor that she was not taking her medications. Shortly after this contact, Mother dropped the parenting class because she felt the teacher “judged her” and “had it in for her.” She said she had found a new class that would begin in a few weeks.
Mother had declined to enter a drug program because she had completed one in 2003 and “‘it is a choice to do drugs and if she wants to stop she will stop.’” She had also not followed up with an anger management counseling referral. Just before the report was filed, Mother was assaulted by J.O. J.O. had been arrested for spousal abuse, although to the social worker Mother denied that her evident injuries had been inflicted by J.O. She had been evicted, apparently due to the landlord’s belief that either Mother or J.O. had been using drugs. Mother told the social worker that “if she wants to drink, she is over 21 and can drink beer.” She also theorized that this residence was full of carbon monoxide, which had made her ill.
A status review report was filed on June 23, 2011. Mother had moved four times since the first of February. In April, she had been briefly hospitalized for “stress.” She had expressed the belief that a parenting program recommended by the social worker was a “‘federal program’” apparently connected with the F.B.I., and also stated that she was in the “‘witness protection program.’” She inquired of the social worker as to what religion child protective services was “’affiliated.’” Mother was told that there was no religious affiliation; she then asked if that meant “‘witch craft.’”
After numerous referrals beginning in December 2010 (distinct from any referrals already described), Mother had completed an initial assessment with CHARLIE Family Care (CHARLIE) on May 20. Two weeks later, Mother asked for a new referral because CHARLIE personnel were “not professional.” On June 21 Mother told a CHARLIE representative that she was not going to comply with the requirement.
Mother had finally submitted to a psychological assessment in December 2010, and was diagnosed bipolar with attention deficit disorder (ADD). She insisted that the benzodiazepine found in the Minor’s system was due to drugs administered during childbirth. She told the evaluator that the Department was “incompetent,” and that she had been in an “‘incompetent hospital.’” The evaluator noted that she refused to take any responsibility for the removal of either the Minor or her older child, and had “very limited insight and objectivity about her own situation.” Mother also insisted that there was “no point” to taking a parenting class because parenting could not be taught. The evaluator found “no reasonable likelihood” that Mother would benefit from further services “and would even be overtly resistant to doing so.”
Mother had also not complied with the requirement that she participate in anger management classes, even going so far as to falsely tell the social worker that a supervisor told her she did not need to do that. Mother’s visits remained sporadic. Although visits twice a week were authorized, Mother’s last three visits at the time the report was prepared were on June 6, April 18, and March 14, 2011.
Interviewed by the social worker on June 14, 2011, and asked what she felt she needed to do to overcome her current circumstances, Mother responded, “nothing.” Most alarmingly, there was a report from an anonymous caller, claiming to be a former roommate of Mother’s, who said that Mother had told a mutual friend that she planned to drown the Minor to “get the demon out of him.”
A final addendum report prepared in September 2011 reflected no improvement in visitation (Mother did not visit at all in August) and no other participation in her case plan.
Mother testified at the September 19, 2011 hearing, and stated that she had been counseling with “a few pastors” and a “place [in] downtown Riverside,” but she could not remember the name of the place. Mother felt that she “absolutely” benefitted from the services provided and, ironically considering the thrust of this petition, that the “resources given . . . were satisfactory to address the reasons that the case came to this court.” She asserted that she had been visiting with the Minor, and confided that she was concerned that he seemed “under nourished.” She testified that she took her psychiatric and other medications regularly and benefitted from them. She blamed the social worker for being biased, and said she was “disgusted actually.”
On September 21, 2011, the trial court terminated services, making the required findings by adopting the recommendations in the social worker’s numerous reports. This included the finding that reasonable services had been offered.
DISCUSSION
There is no dispute that unless reasonable services have been offered to a parent, the trial court cannot terminate reunification efforts. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e); In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1787.) Reunification services must be designed to address the conditions that led to the court’s intervention and must be based on each family’s particular facts. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 454.) As Mother argues, the parent’s developmental issues may be critical in determining how to structure the offered services. (In re Elizabeth R., at p. 1790; In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1320.)
Mother argues that the Department did not assist her in obtaining the psychological evaluation, and that because the results were not actually submitted to the court until the review hearing, there was no opportunity for the court to fashion appropriate services. We disagree.
As summarized above, the record reflects that the social worker was attempting to persuade Mother to have a psychological evaluation from the beginning of the case. In September 2010, referrals were sent but Mother indicated she wished to use her own providers. On September 23, she was advised to provide proof of participation but did not do so. She did keep an appointment for an evaluation in October, but walked out because she thought the evaluator was “‘rude.’” In November 2010, Mother was again contacted specifically about obtaining a psychological evaluation and, at that time, she reported, apparently falsely, that she had done so with an outside provider. On the same date, she was mailed information and referrals, specifically for a psychological evaluation, to which she eventually submitted six weeks later.
Although Mother argues that the court never had the opportunity to tailor a plan specifically for her after reviewing the psychological evaluation, in fact, the evaluation merely indicated that she was bipolar with ADD. Given that the initial reports had noted previous diagnoses of bipolar disorder and ADHD, it is illogical to suppose that the report, if filed sooner, would have triggered a new approach in planning and offering services. Indeed, the only new information in the report was the evaluator’s opinion that due to Mother’s resistance, services were highly unlikely to result in any favorable changes. By the time the trial court reviewed the report, Mother had already been offered almost a year of services. If anything, Mother had benefitted by any delay in presenting the report to the court.
Although Mother complains now that the social worker was insufficiently active in checking or monitoring her medication, recall that at the September 19, 2011 hearing Mother testified that she had been “stable” on the same medications for 10 years. Whether or not this was true, the record strongly suggests that any problems were due not to inadequate diagnosis or prescription (which the social worker could hardly affect) but simply to Mother’s noncompliance. (As noted above, the March 2011 addendum report notes that Mother told her parenting instructor that she was not taking her medications at that time.)
Mother argues that it is “abundantly clear that the department simply went through the motions . . . .” On the contrary, it is Mother who is more properly the subject of such a comment. She was recalcitrant at every step. When she did participate (such as briefly in parenting classes), she behaved inappropriately and soon quit due to perceived slights. And nowhere was her refusal to make the necessary efforts more obvious, and sad, than in her failure to visit with the Minor with any consistency whatsoever. It has long been recognized that frequent, regular visitation is a critical element of reunification. (See, e.g., In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972.) Unfortunately, Mother failed to take advantage of her opportunities in this respect as well.
Insofar as Mother may be arguing that she should have received services which, in some unspecified manner, were more appropriate for her limitations, we refer once again to the psychological evaluator’s opinion that Mother was unable or unwilling to acknowledge any deficiencies that needed remedying. We also would hesitate to adopt a rule that would lower the standard of compliance and success to whatever was achievable by the parent; while the parent’s interest in custody is significant, the primary focus must be on whether the parent can provide objectively adequate care for the child.

DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:



RAMIREZ
P. J.



McKINSTER
J.

---