A.
Filed
3/19/13 In re Bryce A. CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re BRYCE A., et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY
SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
GARY A.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F065145
(Super.
Ct. Nos. 516285 & 516286)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court of
County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Konrad S.
Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John P.
Doering, County Counsel, and Robin McIver, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Gary A. (father) appeals an order
entered after a six-month review hearing continuing placement of his sons,
13-year-old Bryce A. and 12-year-old Cannon A., out of his care under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.21.
supporting the findings that (1) he was provided reasonable
would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to his care. We affirm.
In February
2010, then 11-year-old Bryce and nine-year-old Cannon (collectively the boys)
were living with their mother, Amber H., when they were detained from her due
to her substance abuse and their unsafe and unsanitary living conditions.
in Norco after being sentenced in March 2007 to a total prison term of six
years, eight months; he had not had contact with the family for a significant
period of time.
The
County Department of Social Services (Department) initiated dependency
proceedings. In March 2010, the Tuolumne
County Superior Court took dependency jurisdiction over the boys under section
300, subdivisions (b) and (g), based on mother’s history of substance abuse and
neglect, and father’s inability to care for the boys due to his incarceration. At disposition, the court removed the boys
from their parents’ custody, ordered reunification services for mother, and
denied reunification services for father.
The boys did not want any contact with father; mother had been their
sole caretaker for the past six years and the boys had only minimal contact
with father.
Father was released from prison in
December 2010 and ordered to complete an inpatient
drug and alcohol treatment program.
He had not maintained contact with the boys during his
incarceration. At the boys’ request,
father visited with them on December 12, 2010, while he was in treatment at
Nirvana in Modesto. In the meantime,
mother had made substantial progress on her reunification services. At the 12-month review hearing in February
2011, the boys, who had been in foster care, were returned to her custody and
she was given family maintenance services.
She was living with her boyfriend and his daughter in an apartment in
Sonora.
An 18-month review hearing was held
on July 26, 2011. The Department
reported that since the prior review hearing, father had visited the boys
several times, but the visits had not been consistent. Father had not contacted, or responded to
correspondence from, child welfare services.
He was last known to be in court-ordered inpatient substance abuse
treatment; the social worker was unsuccessful in her attempts to contact
him. Mother had ended her relationship
with her boyfriend, who moved out of the home.
Her housing situation was unstable as she needed to vacate her residence
within the next few weeks and had limited income to find a new one. The boys were having trouble adjusting to
being in mother’s care; they both threatened to run away. Cannon upset easily, had tantrums, and
threatened to hurt himself and others, while Bryce threw angry fits. Cannon had been hospitalized in April 2011
for suicidal ideation. The boys were
both receiving counseling services. The
Department recommended they remain in mother’s care and she continue to receive
family maintenance services. At the
hearing, the juvenile court adopted the Department’s recommendations and
ordered six more months of family maintenance services.
Within the next month, the
Department learned that mother had tested positive for Phenobarbital; she was
dishonest when confronted about the positive test. The Department also learned mother had tested
positive for opiates at a hospital emergency room and forged verification
signatures for 12-step meetings she had been ordered to, but did not,
attend. On September 2, 2011, the
Department filed a section 387 petition to remove the boys from mother’s
custody and place them in foster care based on mother’s behavior. The boys were detained and placed with the
foster care family in Calaveras County with whom they had been placed before
being returned to mother’s custody. When
social workers told the boys they were going back into foster care, Bryce began
crying hysterically and asked what his mother would do.
Father appeared at the September
27, 2011 jurisdictional hearing, submitted on the social worker’s
jurisdictional report, and requested reunification services. The juvenile court ordered the Department to
prepare a case plan. Mother requested a
contested jurisdictional hearing, which was held on October 5, 2011. After hearing mother’s testimony, considering
the Department’s reports and hearing oral argument, the juvenile court found
the section 387 petition’s allegations true.
In a report prepared for the
dispositional hearing, the Department recommended that reunification services
not be offered to mother, but that father be given services. The social worker obtained a social history
from father. He met mother when they
were teenagers. After mother became
pregnant with their daughter, Layla, they lived together, used drugs and moved
every few months. He and mother often
yelled and screamed at each other; sometimes the altercations became physical
and mother called the police several times.
His relationship with mother worsened.
Layla and the boys were in his care “on and off†due to mother’s
unstable living situation. Father fell
further into addiction, resulting in him going to prison, and the children went
back into mother’s care.
Father had a long history of
substance abuse. He began using alcohol
when he was 13 or 14 years old, and methamphetamine by the age of 16. After he and mother got together, they both
used drugs and he got “dragged down†into the lifestyle. Father had bouts of sobriety and attempted
treatment multiple times, but eventually he would relapse and end up in
prison. He had lost touch with the
children over the past four or five years due to being in and out of prison and
treatment programs. Father admitted his
substance abuse greatly affected the children, as it caused them to distrust
him and caused distance in his relationships with them. Father felt his children did not believe in
him anymore, due to his broken promises to them. He recognized that the domestic violence the
children witnessed opened them up to that lifestyle and likely caused their
depression. He also recognized that the
boys were particularly protective of mother and felt the need to take care of
her. Father was willing to participate
in any recommended services and eventually wanted to have the boys in his
home. Father reported always having
regular employment; he was working at a car wash approximately 35 hours per
week.
The boys were adjusting well to
being in foster care. The foster parents
did not have any behavioral concerns regarding Bryce, although Bryce worried a
great deal about mother’s well-being.
Cannon had not exhibited the behaviors he was having while living with
mother; he appeared to be relieved he was back in foster care. The social worker commented that the boys
were “very smart and outgoing,†but the constant chaos and instability to which
mother subjected them had a great impact on them.
The Department considered whether
to place the boys with father, as he was the non-custodial parent. While father appeared to be following the
conditions of his parole, and had secured housing and employment, the social
worker did not believe it was appropriate to place the boys with him as his
housing had minimal space and he had not had a consistent relationship with the
boys for the last several years. Father
had not yet received any visitation; the social worker was in the process of
arranging visitation around father’s “busy schedule.†Father, who was attending junior college full
time, told the social worker he was turning his life around for the better and
could benefit from reunification services.
At the October 18, 2011
dispositional hearing, the parties submitted on the social worker’s
reports. The juvenile court ordered the
boys remain dependents, removed them from their parents’ custody, offered
father reunification services and terminated mother’s services. In father’s case plan, which he signed on
October 18, 2011, he was ordered to (1) participate in a mental health intake
and any recommended treatment; (2) complete a parenting education program; (3)
comply with random drug and alcohol testing at the social worker’s discretion;
and (4) attend three AA/NA meetings per week and provide verification of
meetings he attended to the case managing social worker at least once per
week. Father was given once weekly
supervised visitation, which could be changed at the social worker’s
discretion. A review hearing was set for
April 10, 2012.
On March 14, 2012, the Department
filed a request to transfer the case to Stanislaus County, where father lived,
as the social worker was having difficulty managing the case and believed the
Stanislaus County social services agency would be able to better manage the
case and provide appropriate services.
In a report submitted with the request, social worker Emily Amoruso
stated that father was living in Modesto with his girlfriend, his daughter
Layla and his youngest son, Noah. Father
remained employed at the car wash and did not have reliable
transportation. He had relapsed and
voluntarily admitted himself into a 30-day residential treatment program at
Nirvana Alcohol & Drug Treatment center, which he successfully completed on
February 22, 2012. Amoruso reported that
Cannon’s mental and emotional states were stable at that time. Bryce also appeared to be coping well with
the situation and was not displaying mental or emotional concerns. The boys had developed strong bonds with
their care providers.
Amoruso reported that, as of March
2012, father had not complied with his case plan, as he failed to participate
in a mental health intake, a parenting class, or provide verification of
regular attendance at 12-step meetings.
Amoruso had provided father with information about service providers in
Stanislaus County to fulfill his case plan requirements, but father had not
complied. Father had been cooperative
with testing, however, and admitted relapsing on alcohol and methamphetamine in
December 2011. He voluntarily entered
the drug treatment center for 30 days, but failed to notify Amoruso of this, as
he was embarrassed to do so.
Father had once weekly two-hour
visits with the boys at the paternal grandmother’s house in Turlock. Visitation was going well and father
interacted appropriately with the boys.
Noah and Layla were often present for visits and enjoyed spending time
with the boys. Father, however, did not
consistently attend visits. He cancelled
visits at least five times, citing transportation issues. He also missed visits while in residential
treatment.
At the March 27, 2012 transfer-out
hearing, the juvenile court ordered the case transferred to Stanislaus
County. Stanislaus County juvenile court
accepted the transfer-in at a hearing held on April 24, 2012, ordered the Stanislaus
County Community Services Agency (Agency) to prepare and file a transfer-in and
section 366.21, subdivision (e), report, and set a date for a review hearing.
In its report prepared for the
hearing, the Agency recommended that father continue to receive services and
the social worker be given discretion to allow overnight visits. The boys were doing well in foster care. They were not participating in counseling and
did not wish to have counseling services.
They liked the foster home and considered themselves part of the family,
but did not want to be adopted as they wanted to live with father. The foster parents supported the boys’
relationship with father and enjoyed a friendly relationship with father, which
led to the boys being happy and well-adjusted.
Agency social worker Nichole
Cunningham reviewed father’s case plan.
She stated that father had not been provided any referrals for a mental
health intake. Cunningham provided
father with referrals for (1) a drug and alcohol assessment, which father
completed on May 3, 2012, (2) a domestic violence assessment, which was
scheduled for June 7, 2012, and (3) a 12-week parenting class, which he was
participating in with Sierra Vista Resource Center. Father had completed two of the 12 weeks of
classes. At the alcohol and drug
assessment, father tested positive for THC.
Father admitted to relapsing on methamphetamine and alcohol in April,
explaining that he lost his job after Easter and “partied†as a way to
cope. It was recommended that father
attend outpatient treatment at the Stanislaus Recovery Center. Father reported attending AA/NA meetings
before the transfer, but he did not have a signed card to verify his
attendance. On April 25, 2012,
Cunningham instructed father to attend one AA/NA meeting per day until his “AOD
assessment.†Father provided
verification of his attendance.
The boys visited father once per
week for two hours. They enjoyed seeing
him; Bryce counted down the days until each visit and considered it the best
day of the week. Cannon wanted to see
father more and really liked spending time with him. Father also wanted the visits increased.
Cunningham recommended that father
receive an additional six months of reunification services. She stated it appeared that father “was not
provided with appropriate referrals for services in Stanislaus County.†While father attempted to complete his case
plan by locating available services, he was unable to address some of the
concerns due to the lack of referrals.
Since the case was transferred, Cunningham provided referrals, and
father was cooperative and eager to work on his case plan. He promptly scheduled appointments with
service providers and appeared dedicated to reunifying with the boys. The Agency was in the process of assessing
father. He and his girlfriend had been
fingerprinted and a home inspection completed on May 7, 2012. While the home appeared appropriate, the
Agency was waiting for the fingerprint results and court approval before
deciding whether to start overnight visits.
Such visits appeared appropriate due to father’s cooperativeness,
engagement in services and his bond with the boys.
The review hearing was continued
twice, first to May 18, 2012, and again to June 8, 2012. At the May 18 hearing, the court issued an
order giving the social worker discretion to allow overnight visits. The Agency filed an addendum report, in which
the Agency social worker explained she had contacted Tuolumne County
Department’s supervising social worker, Emily Amoruso, who had worked with the
family. Amoruso reported father’s case
plan included counseling (substance abuse/recovery services), parenting,
12-step meetings and drug testing.
Amoruso said she provided father with referrals for services in
Stanislaus County, which included parenting at the Parent Resource Center or
Sierra Vista, and recovery services at Behavioral Health and Recovery Services
(BHRS). Amoruso wrote the places and
numbers of the service providers on a paper for father. Father had gone into treatment at Nirvana
without her knowledge, but she approved of the service provider. Amoruso said father drug tested several times
and submitted one positive test for THC on September 30, 2011. Father did not provide Amoruso with
verification of NA/AA meetings he attended.
From this information, the Agency
social worker stated it appeared father had been provided referrals, including
drug treatment, drug testing and parenting classes/program, and that father
engaged in several services. Both
Amoruso and father reported he attended Nirvana, which met the component of
recovery services on his case plan. When
the Agency social worker received the case, father already had begun
participating in parenting classes at Sierra Vista, which indicated he was
aware of the need for such a service.
Based on this information, the Agency requested the court make a finding
of reasonable services.
At the June 8, 2012 contested
review hearing on the issue of reasonable services, the Agency submitted on the
reports. Father testified that his
October 18, 2011 case plan ordered him to receive counseling for substance
abuse, domestic violence and parenting; to attend NA/AA meetings; and to
complete a parenting course. About a
week before Christmas, Amoruso gave him two telephone numbers, which were
written on a piece of paper, and told father to contact them; one was for
Behavioral Health Center and the other for Parent Resource Center. Father could not reach anyone at these
numbers until January. When he did reach
someone, both places told him he needed medical insurance to use their
services; when he told them he had an open case in Tuolumne County, he was told
to have his social worker contact them.
On January 14, 2012, father sought
substance abuse treatment on his own by turning himself into Nirvana; he was
aware of Nirvana because he had gone through them before. His first week there was a blackout period in
which he could not contact the social worker.
Within a week and a half of being at Nirvana, Amoruso learned he was
there and had contacted him; Amoruso approved of him being there, but did not
provide him with any referral or contact information regarding a parenting
class or domestic violence.
Once father left Nirvana on
February 14 after completing the program, he again contacted Behavioral Health
and was told they required insurance.
Father was able to schedule an appointment for an evaluation at the
Parent Resource Center and within a month of his release from Nirvana he began
a program there. He started attending
the parenting class the first week of April and had attended six or seven
sessions.
Father said he attended AA or NA
meetings, he kept attendance slips for February, as well as for April and May,
but he did not have any slips for March.
Father did not know why he did not get signed slips for March. Father admitted Amoruso told him he was
required to attend NA/AA meetings and she asked him to get signatures verifying
his attendance. Between October 2011 and
March 2012, Amoruso never asked him to provide her with the signatures.
Initially father testified he had
telephone contract with Amoruso once or twice between October and December, and
he had no contact with her from her contact with him while in treatment until
the review hearing in Tuolumne County at the end of March. He testified on cross-examination, however,
that he had contact with Amoruso, whether by seeing her in court, talking to
her face-to-face or by telephone, or by letter, about 20 times between October
18, 2011 and May 2012, during both the boys’ and Layla’s dependency cases. Father further testified that between October
18, 2011 and December 2012, when he received the telephone numbers, he asked
his social worker for referral information more than once. Amoruso responded by saying “next week, not
right now, no funds,†and once said she was not familiar with what Stanislaus
County provided.
After hearing oral argument on the
issue of reasonable services, the juvenile court found from father’s testimony
that he was provided access to and visits with his children, and the Tuolumne
County social worker had numerous contacts with him on at least a monthly
basis. The court was concerned because
it did not think services that were provided were perfect, but it recognized
that some of the services ordered were offered.
The court thought it was slow for the social worker to take two months
to provide referrals, and it took longer than it should have, but it also did
not think this was an extraordinarily long time. The court noted that father had only been
drug tested once in Tuolumne County, but stated this could have been because
father had not given the social worker any reason to require drug testing. The court was concerned about the failure to
give a mental health assessment, which could have led to counseling as
recommended by the assessment. The court
recognized the case plan did not say that there was to be a specific domestic
violence program; instead, it said that substance abuse, domestic violence,
parenting and other issues would be determined by the clinician, but father was
not provided the referrals he needed for that to occur.
The court found that, under the
totality of the circumstances and based upon clear and convincing evidence,
father was provided reasonable services based on the fact that the components
of the case plan were basically, but not entirely, met. The court explained that if father is doing
well but needs additional time to complete his case plan when the case reaches
the 12-month review hearing, it would remember there were some issues in
Tuolumne County and that Tuolumne County did not provide the services it
believed he would have received in Stanislaus County, and consider giving him
additional time if needed. The court
found that returning the boys to father’s custody would create a substantial risk
of detriment to their safety, protection or physical or emotional wellbeing,
found the extent of father’s progress was good, ordered father’s services
continue and set a 12-month review hearing for September 20, 2012. The court further ordered that the social
worker would have discretion to begin a trial visit in father’s home when
deemed appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Father
contends the juvenile court erred in finding he was provided reasonable
services, claiming the Tuolumne County social worker did not make reasonable
efforts to assist him in accessing services.
Specifically, father contends reasonable efforts were not made because
the social worker only gave him two referrals two months after services were
ordered, and while she had ongoing contact with him, did nothing else to assist
him with accessing services, such as contact Behavioral Health to authorize a
mental health evaluation. He reasons it
was impossible for the trial court to find services were reasonable when the
case was transferred to Stanislaus County precisely because the Tuolumne County
social worker was having difficulty managing his case plan.
We review the juvenile court’s
reasonable services finding for substantial evidence (In re
Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971), bearing in mind that in “almost
all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more
frequently and that the services provided were imperfect.†(In re
Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
“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.†(
The
Department has a duty to devise and implement a services plan based on a goal
of reunification. (In re Mario C. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 599, 603-604.) To that end, the Department is required to
make a good faith effort to help the parent access services. (In re
Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403,
414.) However, reunification services
are voluntary and the Department cannot force an unwilling parent to
participate in the case plan. (
1352, 1365.) The Department is not
required to “take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through
classes or counseling sessions.†(
1448, fn. 5.) Therefore, in assessing
the reasonableness of reunification services, the juvenile court evaluates not
only the Department’s efforts to assist the parent in accessing the services,
but also the parent’s efforts to avail him or herself of those services. On appeal, father bears the burden of
demonstrating error. (
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632.)
In this case, we conclude
substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s reasonable services
finding. Father’s case plan consisted of
(1) completion of a mental health evaluation and participation in any
recommended treatment, (2) a parenting class, (3) random drug and alcohol
testing at the social worker’s discretion, and (4) attending three AA/NA
meetings per week. Father admitted being
aware of these requirements. Tuolumne
County social worker Amoruso provided father with referrals to both a mental
health evaluation and a parenting class.
While it took her two months to do so, given that Amoruso needed to
locate services in another county with which she presumably was not familiar,
the delay was not unreasonable. Father
did not require a referral for AA/NA meetings, as he was able to, and did,
attend such meetings on his own. While
father only recalled being drug tested once, Amoruso reported that he drug
tested several times and was cooperative with testing.
Father asserts he should have received more assistance with accessing
the mental health evaluation and parenting class. He testified he contacted both programs in
January, before his admission to inpatient treatment, and was told he needed
medical insurance to participate in them and the social worker should contact
each program. While this may have been
true regarding the mental health evaluation, the evidence shows that father
could access the parenting class without social worker help or medical
insurance, as he was able to do so by entering the parenting class after he was
released from inpatient treatment.
Around this time, father relapsed.
To his credit, he voluntarily admitted himself into a 30-day treatment
program at Nirvana, where he had received inpatient treatment after his release
from prison. But father neglected to
tell Amoruso of his plan to enter treatment, which prevented her from tailoring
father’s case plan to his circumstances.
Once she learned that he had entered treatment, Amoruso approved the
provider. Inpatient treatment, however,
delayed his ability to attend a parenting class or complete a mental health
evaluation.
On his release from the treatment program, father was able to sign up
for parenting and began attending classes.
He again contacted the mental health provider and was told he needed
medical insurance. While the record
shows that Amoruso knew father had not completed a mental health intake, the
record is silent on whether father ever told her why he was unable to do
so. It reasonably could be inferred from
Amoruso’s report that father did not, as father had numerous opportunities to
tell Amoruso she needed to contact the program, yet Amoruso did not report any
problems with access.
Father argues the mere fact that Amoruso requested transfer of the case
to Stanislaus County because she was having difficulty managing the case shows
that the Department’s efforts were unreasonable. That Amoruso found it difficult to manage
from Tuolumne County services provided in Stanislaus County, however, does not
necessarily mean that she did not attempt to locate services, inform father of
them, and then follow up with father on his progress. She did all of these things. This is not a situation where the social
worker was unavailable to father or refused to assist him. Instead, the evidence shows the opposite.
In sum, father was aware of his case
plan components, Amoruso provided referrals to services in Stanislaus County,
and she remained in contact with father so he could report any difficulties he
had in obtaining services. Once
Stanislaus County accepted the case, father was referred to a drug and alcohol
assessment and a domestic violence assessment.
We conclude that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the
juvenile court’s order, there was substantial evidence to show that both
Tuolumne and Stanislaus Counties offered reasonable services to father.
Father
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that the boys
would be at risk of detriment if returned to his care. Once a child has been removed from his or her
parents’ custody under section 361, the juvenile court is required to review
the child’s status every six months. (
890, 897 (Joseph B.).) At the first review hearing held six months
after the initial dispositional hearing, “the court shall order the return of
the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless
the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the
child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of
detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the
child.†(§ 366.21, subd. (e).) We review the court’s finding to see if
substantial evidence supports it. (
Cal.App.4th 758, 763.)
As a preliminary matter, we consider the
Agency’s argument that father forfeited his appellate challenge to the juvenile
court’s detriment finding. While
generally issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal,
“[t]he contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence,
however, is an obvious exception to the rule.†(Tahoe National Bank v.
Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17.)
“In other words, when the merits of a case are contested, a parent is
not required to object to the agency’s failure to carry its burden of
proof.†(In re Javier G. (2006)
137 Cal.App.4th 453, 464.)
Here, father contested the evidence presented at trial, as he did not
submit on the Agency’s recommendations.
Therefore, the juvenile court was required to “weigh evidence, make
appropriate evidentiary findings and apply relevant law to determine whether
the case has been proved.†(In re
Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.) Unless a parent submits on the
Agency’s recommendation, the parent preserves the right to challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a particular legal conclusion. (Ibid.) Father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s
reasonable services finding is not forfeited on appeal. (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th
616, 622-623.)
Father asserts there is insufficient evidence to support the detriment
finding because he had completed most of his services, he had stable housing,
he was extremely bonded with the boys and the boys wanted to live with
him. He reasons that because he
substantially complied with services, he posed little risk of harm to the boys,
and while he admittedly relapsed in May 2012, there was no evidence his drug
use would harm the boys.
While the court must consider the extent to which the parent has
cooperated with the services provided and the efforts he or she has made to
correct the problems that gave rise to the dependency, the decision to return
the child depends on the effect that action would have on the child’s
well-being. (Joseph B., supra, 42
Cal.App.4th at p. 899.) Here, the record
shows that the boys had been in and out of foster care over the past two
years. They were emotionally stable
during their first year of foster care, but after they were returned to
mother’s custody, they had trouble adjusting to living with her. They threatened to run away and Cannon
threatened to hurt himself. Both were
angry – Cannon had tantrums and Bryce threw angry fits. Bryce was protective of mother and feared for
her when they were removed again. When
the boys returned to their former foster care family, they stabilized. Although the social worker described the boys
as smart and outgoing, she noted the constant chaos and instability mother had
subjected them to impacted them greatly.
At that point, the boys’ contact with father had been minimal. Father had a long history of substance abuse
and had attempted treatment multiple times, only to relapse. This pattern continued during the dependency,
as he relapsed twice during the first six months of services – first in
December 2011 and, despite inpatient treatment, again in May 2012, when he used
methamphetamine and alcohol to cope with losing his job. Father also had a history of domestic
violence with mother. Father’s visits
with the boys had been going well and the boys enjoyed seeing father, but
father’s attendance was inconsistent.
While the boys wanted to live with father, their relationship with him
had not been firmly established.
Given the boys’ experience of being moved in and out of foster care,
their volatile and self-destructive behavior while living with mother in
chaotic circumstances, and the improvement of that behavior while living in a
stable foster care situation, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude that
it would be detrimental to the boys’ emotional well-being to return them to
father until father could establish stability in his own life. Otherwise, the boys could be placed with father
only to require removal once again should father relapse and require further
inpatient services. Under the
circumstances, the juvenile court reasonably concluded, albeit impliedly, it
would not be safe to return the boys until father further benefited from
intensive services, and the boys developed a stronger relationship with father
through the overnight and trial visits the court authorized.
DISPOSITION
The six-month review orders are
affirmed.
_____________________
Gomes, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________
Levy, Acting P.J.
_____________________
Franson, J.
Welfare and Institutions Code.
who was detained at the same time as the boys.
Layla, who was 14 years old at the time, ran away from the placement. Her whereabouts remained unknown until October
18, 2011. Eventually Layla was returned
to father’s care. She is not a subject
of this appeal.
