Amber C. v. Superior Court

Filed 4/2/07 Amber C. v. Superior Court CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for writ of mandate. Stanley Genser, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI,  21.) Petition denied.

Pamela Rae Tripp for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. Da Vanzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Amber C. (the mother), challenges a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services with the child, Leanne J., and setting the underlying dependency proceeding for a hearing to consider the termination of parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  366.26.)^[1] The mother contends the juvenile court erred when it found the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the department) provided her with adequate reunification services. We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts order and deny the petition.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child was born in March 2006 at the Los Angeles County USC Medical Center jail ward. The mothers toxicology tests taken at the hospital were positive for amphetamines and opiates. The department detained the child, who was placed in foster care, because there were no family members who were able to care for her.

The department filed a section 300 petition on April 3, 2006. The juvenile court sustained the petition on May 23, 2006, after a contested adjudication hearing. The mother was incarcerated and did not attend the hearing. At the disposition hearing on July 11, 2006, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for the mother that required her to complete drug rehabilitation with random testing, parent education, and individual counseling. The mother was permitted monitored visitation with the child. The court set the matter for a six-month review hearing on December 4, 2006.

In a report prepared for the December 4, 2006, hearing, the department social

worker stated that the mother had not complied with the reunification plan. The mother had not contacted the social worker or visited with the child since June 26, 2006. The social worker gave the mother referrals for court-ordered parenting, counseling, and transitional housing programs. But the mother had not enrolled in any of the programs. The mother had signed up for drug testing but had failed to appear for testing. The mother did not return the social workers telephone calls.

The mother had violated her criminal probation and was sentenced to 180 days in the county jail on October 4, 2006. The detention facility where the mother was housed provided a parenting program for those inmates who wished to participate. But the facility had no record of the mother participating in the program. The mother had not responded to contact letters the department had sent her while she was incarcerated.

A contested permanency planning hearing was held on January 9, 2007. In its report prepared for that hearing, the department recommended that the juvenile court terminate the mothers reunification services. The mother testified that she had been incarcerated for five months, having been arrested on September 21, 2006. The mother claimed to have entered a drug program in October 2006 and a parenting program in November 2006. The mother did not have any documentation to support her claim that she was enrolled in these programs. The mother admitted receiving the social workers letters. But the mother said the letters made no sense to her. The mother admitted speaking with the social worker at a prior December 4, 2006, hearing. The mother, at that time, had promised to send the social worker follow-up information about the county jail program. The mother did not provide the follow-up information prior to or at the January 9, 2007 permanency planning hearing.

At the conclusion of the January 9, 2006 hearing, the juvenile court found that the mother had done nothing to comply with the reunification plan. The juvenile court found the department had made reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the mother, given the facts and circumstances of the case. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing on May 8, 2007.

III. DISCUSSION

We review dependency determinations for substantial evidence. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329; In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 859-860.) We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent courts findings. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Family preservation is the first priority when dependency proceedings are commenced. (In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472; In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1787.) The Court of Appeal has held: Reunification services implement the laws strong preference for maintaining the family relationships if at all possible. [Citation.] (In re Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1787 citing In re Rebecca H. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 825, 843.) Therefore, reasonable reunification services must be offered to a parent. (Ibid.;In re Brittany S. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1406-1407.) The reunification plan is a crucial part of a dispositional order. . . . (In re John B. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 268, 275; accord Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1165; In re Brittany S., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1406-1407; In re Terry E. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 932, 947.) The department must make a good faith effort to provide reasonable services responsive to the unique needs of each family. (In re Precious J., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1472; In re Monica C. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306; In re Kristin W. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 234, 254.) Moreover, the Court of Appeal has held, [T]he plan must be specifically tailored to fit the circumstances of each family (In re Michael S. [(1987)] 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1458), and must be designed to eliminate those conditions which led to the juvenile courts jurisdictional finding. (In re Rebecca H., supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. [837].) (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.) The effort must be made to provide reasonable reunification services in spite of difficulties in doing so or the prospects of success. (In re Elizabeth R., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1790; In re Brittany S., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1406-1407; In re Dino E., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1777.) The adequacy of the reunification plan and of the departments efforts to provide suitable services are judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362; Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554; Robin V. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164.) But in the final analysis, the assessment of whether adequate services were provided is evaluated under the following circumstances: In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. 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.[, supra,] 2 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 547[ ].) (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 48.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the reunification services offered to the mother were adequate. At the beginning of the reunification period, the social worker gave the mother referrals for parenting, counseling, and transitional housing programs. Also, the mother received monthly bus passes to attend the programs. The mother did not enroll in any of the programs. The mother did not return the social workers telephone calls. Nor did the mother respond to the social workers letters. The letters were sent once the department learned the mother had been jailed for violating her probation. There is no merit to the argument raised for the first time in the writ petition that the department should have made greater efforts to facilitate the provision of reunification services while the mother was incarcerated. The mother received letters from the social worker while incarcerated. The mother claimed to have enrolled in classes while she was incarcerated. But she never produced any evidence she completed the classes she purportedly enrolled in and allegedly attended. Accordingly, by reason of the mothers failure to complete the reunification plan, it is presumed return of the child would be detrimental and the matter was correctly set for a permanent plan hearing. ( 366.22, subd (a); In re Marilyn A. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285,___.)

IV. DISPOSITION

The mandate petition is denied. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.264(B)(3), this opinion is made final forthwith as to this court.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

TURNER, P.J.

We concur:

MOSK. J.

KRIEGLER, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.