In re Jose V.
Filed 6/27/12 In re Jose V. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 SIX
In re JOSE V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law.
2d Juv. No. B236726
(Super. Ct.
No. J067368)
(Ventura
County)
VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
L.G. et al.,
Defendants and
Appellants.
L.G. (Mother) and R.V.
(Father) appeal a judgment of the juvenile court declaring that their son Jose
V. is adoptable and terminating their parental
rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
366.26.)
FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother and Father are
the parents of four children, A.V., U.V., J.V., and Jose V. Prior to residing in the
States, the family lived in Mexico
where A.V. was sexually assaulted by a neighbor who mutilated his
genitals.
On February 23, 2009, the
(HSA) filed a dependency petition alleging that the children, including
three-month-old Jose V., were at substantial risk of abuse because 10-year-old
A.V. was sexually abusing his seven-year-old brother U.V. (§ 300, subd. (j).) In the report prepared for the detention
hearing in juvenile court, HSA stated that U.V. reported that his brother sexually
abused both him and his sister J.V. when his parents were absent. Mother stated to the HSA social worker that
she did not believe U.V. because he "tend[ed] to lie about many
things." The detention report
concluded that Mother and Father have limited financial resources and little
education and lack appropriate parent skills.
The social worker recommended that A.V. be detained from the home and
that the family receive reunification and
maintenance services.
On February 24, 2009, the juvenile court detained
A.V. in shelter care and ordered HSA to provide maintenance services to the
family. The court then set the matter
for a jurisdiction and disposition hearing.
On March 25, 2009, HSA filed a jurisdiction and
disposition report with the juvenile court.
A HSA social worker interviewed Mother and Father in the Spanish
language. They agreed to participate in
family reunification and maintenance services, although they stated that they
believed their son U.V. was lying regarding the sexual abuse. HSA assigned an in-home parent aide to the
family to assist Mother and Father with parent education and arranged for
Mother and Father to commence individual and group sexual abuse therapy with
PETSA (Program to Evaluate and Treat Sexual Abuse) later in the year. HSA noted that the services to Mother and
Father would be provided in the Spanish language.
On March 25, 2009, the juvenile court held a
jurisdiction and disposition hearing.
Mother and Father were advised of and waived their right to a trial, and
submitted the matter on the basis of the HSA report. The court sustained the allegations of the
dependency petition, continued A.V. as a dependent child, and ordered that the
family receive maintenance and reunification services.
Approximately one month
later, HSA filed a supplemental petition
pursuant to section 387 alleging that a boarder in the family home sexually
abused (attempted rape) six-year-old J.V.
Mother and U.V. saw J.V. sitting on the boarder's penis and J.V. and the
boarder were undressed. Police officers
arrested the boarder, who confessed to committing three sexual acts against
J.V.
The juvenile court
detained the three children, placed them in the care and custody of HSA, and
set the matter for a jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The jurisdiction and disposition report filed
with the court on June 16, 2009,
stated that Mother reported that she was raped by an uncle when she was six
years old. Mother also stated to an HSA
social worker that the boarder's daughter had warned her before the incident
that he sexually abused children. The
reunification services plan prepared by HSA stated that "[t]he family
shall participate in a PETSA and/or a counseling program approved by the Human
Services Agency to treat sexual abuse within the family. The parents shall focus on accepting the
children's disclosure of the sexual abuse that has been occurring within the
home and shall focus on how to help their children through this trauma."
On June 16, 2009, the
juvenile court sustained the allegations of the supplemental petition,
continued the four children as dependent children, and ordered HSA to provide
reunification services to the family.
HSA continued to provide
parent education services to the family through a parent aide. Mother and Father also participated in
through California Lutheran University.
Mother and Father began receiving individual counseling in the Spanish
language through PETSA on September 17, 2009.
counseling included "reviewing the PETSA curriculum . . . in
preparation for the group" and "learning . . . the signs of
sexual abuse, the effects and dynamics of sexual abuse, denial, boundaries,
triggers, perpetrator behavior, and safety planning." Mother and Father diligently attended
counseling sessions and consistently received parent education visits.
During the reunification
services period, HSA discovered that U.V. suffered from serious psychological
and behavioral problems, including suicidal ideation, and that J.V. and Jose V.
suffered from developmental and speech delays.
The children began receiving specific services for their medical and
psychological problems. U.V., J.V. and
Jose V. lived in English language foster homes following their detention.
In February 2010, Mother
and Father commenced participation in the PETSA group program and attended 16
group sessions. The group facilitator
reported to HSA that Mother appeared to have difficulty relating the concepts
to her children and that Father did not participate in group discussions and
seemed to have difficulty comprehending the material. The facilitator also reported that Father
denied or minimized the sexual abuse of his children. The therapist translated all the materials
verbally and provided written handouts in the Spanish language.
On June 11, 2010, the
children's therapist reported to HSA that Mother and Father "do not
understand the gravity of the sexual abuse that the children have suffered and
they continue to rationalize it or minimize it."
At the November 4, 2010
contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court determined that Mother
and Father had not received reasonable reunification services. The court ordered that they receive an
additional six months of specific services.
include additional therapy regarding sexual abuse, additional parent education
services, and housing referrals. On
January 24, 2011, Mother and Father began therapy with "The
Coalition" regarding child abuse, including sexual abuse.
On May 19, 2011, HSA
filed a status review report with the juvenile court and recommended that the
court terminate reunification services to Mother and Father. HSA concluded that following 24 months of
services, Mother and Father had not benefitted and were unable to provide a safe
home for their children. In particular,
HSA relied upon the conclusions of the parent aide that Mother and Father had
difficulties implementing the parent education and lacked good judgment
regarding care of their children. For
example, Father stated to the aide that if the children are returned to his
care, he will "lock A.V. in at night" to prevent his sexual access to
his siblings. Parent aide Lupe Garcia
concluded: "This worker has worked
with [Mother and Father] for a total of nine months and there has been no
eviden[ce] of change in their parenting style nor their understanding of their
children's needs. Both parents have
failed to demonstrate the ability to effectively parent their children . . .
."
On May 19, 2011,
following a contested 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated
reunification services to Mother and Father and set the matter for a permanent
plan hearing. In ruling, the juvenile
court expressly found that reasonable services had been provided and that
returning the children to Mother and Father's care would present a substantial
risk to the children's safety and physical and emotional well-being. The juvenile court judge stated that although
reunification services were not perfect, "[t]here are only so many things
that we can do short of having somebody move into the parent's home and
co-parent with them."
On October 4, 2011, the
juvenile court held a contested permanent plan hearing. It received evidence of HSA reports, the
dependency file, and testimony from the HSA social worker and Mother, and heard
brief argument from the parties. The
court then determined by clear and convincing evidence that Jose V. is
adoptable and it terminated parental rights.
In ruling, the juvenile court judge stated that her decision was
"the right decision," but that she was not as "comfortable"
with the decision as she would like, "for lots of different reasons,"
including the placement of the siblings in separate foster homes or
shelters.
Mother and Father appeal
the juvenile court's orders terminating their parental rights regarding their
son Jose V. and contend that they did not receive sexual abuse therapy and
other services in the Spanish language.
DISCUSSION
Mother and Father argue
that the family reunification services were inadequate resulting in structural
error requiring reversal of the juvenile court's order terminating their
parental rights. They point out that
they are illiterate, have little education, speak only the Spanish language and
required the assistance of court interpreters during juvenile court
hearings. Mother and Father add that
they participated fully in the services offered and attended all visitations
with their children.
There is sufficient
evidence that HSA offered sufficient and adequate services to Mother and Father
to remedy the problems leading to the loss of custody of their children. (Amanda
H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345 ["The adequacy
of reunification plans and the reasonableness of [the social services agency's]
efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case"].) Within one month of A.V.'s detention, an
in-home parent aide began working with Mother and Father. Mother and Father began individual and couples
counseling several months later at California Lutheran University with Ms. Guzman,
a counseling intern. On September 17,
2009, they began individual counseling in the Spanish language with PETSA
therapist Diana Velasco. At an October
2009 review hearing, Father's counsel acknowledged the social worker's efforts
in obtaining Spanish-language PETSA services for the parents. Counsel for HSA also remarked that PETSA
agreed to "tailor" their program for Mother and Father who are the
only Spanish-language participants in the program ("[it's] set up just for
them"). Individual PETSA counseling
continued until the PETSA group program commenced on February 11, 2010.
Mother and Father
completed 16 out of 16 group PETSA sessions with Ms. Velasco, who translated
and provided many written materials in the Spanish language. Following completion of the group program,
PETSA recommended additional therapy for the parents. (They were not eligible to continue with
PETSA because they had already received 9 months of individual and group PETSA
services.) Mother and Father then began
counseling regarding child abuse at The Coalition. Parent aide Garcia worked with Mother and
Father for nine months to teach them to become effective parents.
Despite these services,
Mother and Father did not benefit sufficiently to provide a safe home for their
children. For example, Father's plan for
the return of his children involved locking A.V. in a room at night to prevent
his sexual access to his siblings.
During a visit with the children in March 2011, Mother and Father fed
U.V. seven "hot dogs" and 14 tortillas, then laughed as he was too
satiated to participate in the visit. On
another visit, Mother and Father instructed one child to use a public park
restroom alone and ignored another child riding a bike too close to a
pond.
"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. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Tari L. Cody, Judge
Superior Court County
of Ventura
______________________________
Joseph
D. Mackenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and
Appellant L.G.
Deborah
Dentler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
R.V.
Leroy
Smith, County Counsel, Linda Stevenson, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references
are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Father's counsel later
stated to the juvenile court that "the social worker did a lot of work and
got‑‑incredible bureaucracy to get started with Spanish-language
PETSA programming for the parents, who've already gone."
