Arlene R. v. Superior Court

Filed 1/27/09 Arlene R. v. Superior Court CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Carol Isackson, Judge. Petition denied.

Arlene R. seeks writ review of orders terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing regarding her daughter, S.D. She argues she was not provided with reasonable reunification services. We deny the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of one-year-old S.D. under section 300, subdivision (j), alleging she was at substantial risk of sexual abuse because her father, Marlon D., had sexually abused her sibling L.R., and Arlene knew Marlon had been sexually inappropriate with L.R., but continued to allow him to live in the family home.

Marlon denied molesting L.R., but L.R.'s paternal grandmother said L.R. had been telling her about the abuse for three years. The court made a prima facie finding on the petition and ordered S.D. detained.

Arlene and Marlon said they believed L.R. had lied about the allegations. Arlene participated in parenting classes and group therapy, but her therapist said Arlene did not take responsibility for the reason her children had been removed from her care. On November 15 the court found the allegations of the petition to be true.

The social worker reported Arlene's parenting class teacher temporarily suspended her from classes because she felt threatened by Arlene's behavior. In a letter dated November 16, 2007, Arlene's group therapist reported Arlene tended to blame the Agency for its involvement with her family, questioned the allegations of sexual abuse and was defensive in group sessions, but she was beginning to examine protective issues and accept her role.

Arlene began individual therapy in December 2007. The therapist expressed concern that Arlene was reluctant to blame Marlon and that her anger toward the Agency and dependence on Marlon appeared to prevent her from developing insight. On March 4 the court declared S.D. a dependent child of the court. In February 2008 the group therapist had reported Arlene was making minimal progress, but by June she said Arlene's continued anger impeded her progress. Arlene's individual therapist said she still was unable to take responsibility and wanted contact with Marlon.

At a hearing on September 22, 2008, Arlene's counsel informed the court Arlene had attempted to attend an individual therapy session that week, but the social worker had told the therapist not to continue Arlene's therapy because there was confusion about the court's previous ruling. The court ordered the social worker to reinstate Arlene's therapy immediately. Subsequently, the social worker reported that on September 25, Arlene's individual therapist agreed to restart therapy.

At the six-month review hearing on October 10, 2008, the social worker testified Arlene had been dropped from group therapy because of her minimal progress. The social worker said there had been a lapse in Arlene's individual therapy related to financial authorizations.

Arlene testified she had completed a parenting education course and attended 36 group therapy sessions over a nine-month period, but had been terminated from participation in September 2008 because she missed sessions. She said she had been in individual therapy until August, but when she arrived for a therapy session, she was prevented from attending when the therapist said the social worker had called and said she "was not to attend because it would confuse the courts." Arlene said it took about six weeks for her to restart therapy.

The court found the lapse in therapy was not damaging to Arlene's case in light of the fact she had had nearly one year of services by the time of the present six-month review hearing, and the therapist had not indicated that Arlene could accomplish her goals in only a few more weeks. It found Arlene had not made substantial progress, returning S.D. to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment and there was no substantial probability she could be returned home by the 12-month date. It terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

Arlene petitions for review of the court's orders. ( 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) This court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral argument.

DISCUSSION

Arlene contends reasonable services were not provided to her because the social worker interfered by telling her therapist not to provide therapy. The court did not err by finding that reasonable services were provided.

A six-month review hearing should be held no more than six months from the date of the jurisdictional hearing or the date that is 60 days after a child is first removed from his or her parents, whichever is earlier. (Jessica A. v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 636, 643, fn. 3; In re Christina A. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1157.) Thus, the six-month review hearing in this case should have been held in April 2008. However, it did not occur until October 2008. The lapse in Arlene's services was not until September, well after the April six-month date. At that time, Arlene's therapist

reported Arlene was not taking any responsibility for what had happened to L.R. and she lacked insight.

By the time of the six-month hearing in October, Arlene's therapist reported Arlene was continuing to express great anger toward the Agency and to blame others for her family's situation. At the time of the hearing, Arlene had been having therapy for well over six months. She began group therapy in the fall of 2007. In December 2007 she started individual therapy. She had made little progress in therapy toward the goal of being able to better protect her daughters. By the time of the October 2008 hearing, she had been dropped from participation in group therapy because of her poor attendance. Her individual therapist reported in August 2008, just two months before the October hearing, that Arlene had a long way to go in therapy and had only a "superficial understanding, empathy, or insight about the long-term effect of the sexual abuse and non-protection upon her children."

Arlene received extensive services over several months, including individual and group therapy, a psychological evaluation and parenting education. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that she was provided with reasonable reunification services.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.