In re A.S.

Filed 10/10/07 In re A.S. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Petition denied.

Law Offices of Alex Iglesias, Steven D. Shenfeld and Donna Bernstein for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Owen L. Gallagher, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

_________________________________

Petitioner T.S. seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd.(l);^[1]California Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the juvenile courts order setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider selection and implementation of a permanent plan for her four dependent children. We deny the petition, finding no merit in T.S.s contention the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not provide her with reasonable reunification services.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2006 the Department received a referral alleging T.S. had left her twin daughters A.S. and D.S., aged three years and ten months, and her three-year-old son Antoine A., in the custody of a maternal aunt without making arrangements for their ongoing care. The referral also stated T.S. was two months pregnant and abusing drugs and alcohol.

On February 9, 2006 a social worker for the Department went to the address given by the referral and found the children in the custody of their maternal great grandmother, Stephanie R., who stated T.S. had been living in the home but had left on February 5, 2006 without making any provision for the childrens care, had stated she did not want to care for them, and had asked Stephanie R. to keep them while she gets herself together. Stephanie R. also told social worker T.S. smoked marijuana, may be involved in domestic violence with her boyfriend, and had recently come home with a bruise on her face stating it was inflicted by her boyfriend. A.S. and D.S. both told the social worker that T.hit them with a belt. D.S. stated Stephanie R. also hit her with a belt, and A.S. stated Rochelle S., the childrens maternal grandmother who also lived in the home, hit her with a belt and had gotten into a fight with T.S. When asked about this incident, Stephanie R. explained T.S. got in Rochelles face and the two women called each other names. Rochelle S. told the social worker T.S. seemed angry all the time, yelled at the children and called them names, and did not supervise them properly. Rochelle S. confirmed she and T.S. had engaged in a fight, which ended when T.S. left the house after Rochelle S. pushed her to the floor and threatened to call the police. The social worker later learned that Rochelle S. was on probation for welfare fraud and Stephanie R., who had a history of child neglect, had been involved in an automobile accident when A.S. and D.S. were eight months old. A.S. and D.S. were in the car without proper restraint and suffered injuries, and Stephanie R. tested positive for cocaine, marijuana and alcohol. On February 21, 2006 the Department took the children into protective custody and placed them with a maternal great aunt, Estelle P. The social worker also spoke with T.S., who admitted she was using drugs and had engaged in domestic violence with her ex-boyfriend, who had moved to another state.

On February 22, 2006 the Department filed a petition under section 300 seeking to declare the children court dependents. The juvenile court ordered the children detained and placed in the home of Estelle P., scheduled the jurisdiction hearing for March 22, 2006, and ordered the Department to provide family reunification services.

On April 19, 2006 the juvenile court sustained an amended section 300 petition upon T.S.s plea of no contest. The petition alleged T.S. used inappropriate physical discipline on A.S. and D.S.; engaged in physical altercations in the childrens presence; and used marijuana which limited her ability to provide proper care for the children. The court ordered the Department to provide family reunification services to T.S., ordered T.S. to attend and complete approved programs for drug rehabilitation with random testing, parent education, and individual counseling to address domestic violence and other case issues, and granted T.S. monitored visitation with the children three times per week. The court continued the case to October 18, 2006 for the six-month review hearing. (366.1, subd. (e).)

A progress report submitted by the Department on May 26, 2006 indicated the social worker gave T.S. a package of referrals for her court-ordered programs, enabling her to participate in all of the programs in one place (Shields for Families). The social worker also referred T.S. to The Disciples Training, Inc. for programs of parenting, anger management and domestic violence. T.S. signed a form acknowledging receipt of referrals for parenting, classes, drug counseling, and toxicology center for drug testing. The Departments report further stated the children had been removed from Estelle P.s home and placed with Stephanie R. A further progress report submitted by the Department July 25, 2006 indicated T.S. had failed to enroll in any of her court-ordered programs except for a parent education class. The social worker had contacted the director of The Disciples Training, who reported numerous attempts had been made to schedule an appointment with T.S., but T.S. always gave excuses for not scheduling an appointment. Nor had T.S. appeared for any of her scheduled drug tests.

On July 29, 2006 T.S. gave birth to her fourth child, S.A. The Department filed a petition under section 300 seeking to declare S.A. a court dependent, with the same allegations contained in the petition sustained as to the other children. On August 4, 2006 the court ordered S.A. detained and placed with her siblings in the home of Stephanie R., ordered the Department to provide family reunification services, and set the matter for a pretrial resolution conference on August 30, 2006. The pretrial resolution conference was later continued to October 18, 2006 to coincide with the six-month review hearing for the other children.

The Departments report for the six-month review hearing for A.S., D.S. and Antoine indicated T.S. had completed a parenting program, had twice tested negative for drugs after missing her previous eleven tests, and was having appropriate visits with the children. At the hearing, the court found the Department had provided reasonable reunification services and T.S. was in compliance with her case plan, but the childrens return to T.S.s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to their well-being. The court ordered the Department to continue to provide reunification services to T.S. and continued the case to April 10, 2007 for the 12-month review hearing. (366.21, subd. (f).)^[2]

The pretrial resolution conference as to A.S. was continued several times and finally set as an adjudication hearing for January 3, 2007. In a report submitted January 3, 2007 the Department stated T.S.s visits with the four children were going well, but T.S. was not in compliance with her case plan. She had not appeared for several drug tests, was not attending her drug treatment program regularly, and told the social worker she was looking for a job and would start attending after she obtained employment. At the hearing, the court sustained the dependency petition upon T.S.s plea of no contest. The court ordered the Department to provide family reunification services, ordered T.S. to participate in a drug treatment program with random testing, parenting education, and individual counseling to address anger management and domestic violence, and continued the matter to April 4, 2007 for the six-month review hearing.

In its report for the six-month review hearing for S.A., the Department indicated T.S. had been terminated from her drug treatment program for failure to attend, she had failed to appear for drug tests, and the social workers attempts to contact her had been unsuccessful. On March 12, 2007 the social worker had received a telephone message from T.S.s landlord advising that she had observed T.S. smoking marijuana in the presence of children. The landlord had gone to T.S.s apartment with police, and when they entered the apartment T.S. admitted she had been smoking marijuana.^[3] On April 4, 2007 the six-month hearing as to A.S. was continued to April 27, 2007 to coincide with the twelve-month hearing for the older children.^[4]

In its report for the 12-month hearing as to the three older children, the Department indicated T.S.s visits with the children had been inconsistent, she was not attending a drug treatment program, she had failed to appear for drug testing, and she had not returned the social workers numerous telephone calls. The Department recommended termination of reunification services for T.S. In a further report the Department stated T.S. had failed to contact the social worker, who did not have an address or phone number for T.S. On April 27, 2007 the court continued the six-month review hearing as to S.A. and the 12-month review hearing as to the three older children to June 20, 2007, to be heard as contested hearings.

In a report submitted June 20, 2007 the Department stated T.S. was not in compliance with her case plan and had not disclosed her current whereabouts to the social worker or to Stephanie R. The social worker had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact T.S. since April 27, 2007.

The contested hearing commenced on June 20, 2007. T.S. testified she lacked housing and was staying at a friends house or at a hotel. In August of 2006 the social worker had given her a referral for a drug treatment program and she enrolled, but she dropped out two or three months later and although the social worker told T.S. she would provide further help, its hard to get in touch with [the social worker and] I havent received anything. T.S. further testified she appeared for a drug test in January of 2007 but did not test again until April because she was homeless. T.S. added that although she had a cellular phone and a prepaid phone card and could have called the social worker and the drug testing facility, she did not do so because she only used the cell phone for the social worker to contact her. T.S. also testified she dropped out of her treatment program because it required daily attendance, and was currently attending a new treatment program but had not provided the social worker with information about the program. At the request of T.S.s counsel, the hearing was continued for the appearance of a counselor from the new program T.S. had testified she was currently attending.

The counselor did not appear when the hearing resumed on June 27, 2007. Instead, T.S.s attorney introduced into evidence a letter dated June 10, 2007 purportedly written by a counselor at T.S.s current program. In the letter, handwritten on lined paper with no letterhead and without disclosing the name of the facility, the counselor stated that on April 18, 2007 T.S. had enrolled in a treatment program which offered drug testing, and T.S. was showing improvement although she had missed three classes and one drug test.

After hearing argument, the court found it would be detrimental to the safety and well-being of the children to return them to the custody of T.S. The court further found that the Department had provided reasonable reunification services, finding T.S.s whole testimonyso lacking in credibility. The court proceeded to terminate reunification and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.

DISCUSSION

We reject T.S.s contention the Department did not provide reasonable reunification services. We review the juvenile courts finding that reasonable reunification services were offered under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.) When we review a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we inquire whether there is evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the courts determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings, and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.) We also recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided and that the services that were provided are often imperfect. The standard, however, is whether the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the services offered to T.S. by the Department were reasonable under the circumstances of her case. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416-417; In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 424-425.) The record, as summarized above, shows that the social worker immediately identified the problems that led to the loss of custody, and promptly provided T.S. with referrals for all of her court-ordered programs. The record further reflects that throughout the pendency of the case the social worker repeatedly attempted to contact T.S., but was unsuccessful because T.S. did not disclose her whereabouts and would not respond to the social workers numerous messages. Notwithstanding the social workers referrals to programs and other efforts to assist her, T.S. failed to take advantage of the services offered to her, refused to maintain contact with the Department, and evaded the social workers attempts to contact her. T.S. suggests it was the social workers responsibility to ensure [her] enrollment in counseling, but this is not the law. Reunification services are voluntary, and the social worker is not required to take the parent by the hand and escort [her] to and through classes or counseling sessions. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.) In this case, the record reflects that the Department fully complied with its obligation to provide services, but T.S. was indifferent or unwilling to participate and failed to take advantage of the services offered to her.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied on the merits.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P.J.

WOODS, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

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

^[2] The six-month hearing was not completed on August 18, 2006 as to Antoine because his father had not been given proper notice. On January 3, 2007 the court ordered family services terminated for Antoines father.

^[3] The children in T.S.s apartment were the children of a cousin of

T.S.

^[4] The 12-month hearing had been continued to April 27, 2007.