In re Naomi A.

Filed 1/27/10 In re Naomi A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Denise M. Hippach, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Y.A. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387^[1]removing her daughters Naomi A. and Vanessa A. from her care and custody and terminating her family reunification services. She contends the juvenile court erroneously sustained a supplemental dependency petition, removed Naomi and Vanessa from her custody and failed to extend family reunification services beyond the 18-month limitation due to the inadequate provision of such services by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Javier A. (Father)^[2]are married and have three children, Naomi A., Vanessa A. and Francisco A.^[3] Mother has mental health issues.

Early in September 2007, DCFS received an emergency response referral alleging emotional abuse, sexual abuse and substantial risk of sexual abuse regarding the children. In response to this referral, county social worker (CSW) Lola Mamadzhanova commenced her investigation at the West Valley Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, where she learned that police officers had responded to a mental health call. Mother had been taken into custody and placed in a mental health facility, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, on a 72- hour hold pursuant to section 5150.^[4] During the investigation, Vanessa, who then was 12 years old, revealed that Father had sexually abused her when she was four or five.

Armed with this information, CSW Mamadzhanova interviewed the children. Vanessa confirmed that Father had molested her sexually once when she was younger. Vanessa stated that her Father told her not to tell anyone, but she no longer wanted to keep it a secret. Naomi and Francisco denied that Father had touched them inappropriately. All three children stated that their parents fought a lot but explained that they yelled but did not hit one another. Father denied molesting Vanessa.

CSW Mamadzhanova also talked to Dr. Bloomingfield, a psychiatrist, at Olive View. Dr. Bloomingfield stated that Mother had not yet been specifically diagnosed but noted that she was displaying psychotic symptoms and was on anti-psychotic medication. Mother was going to be sent to inpatient services at Olive View.

After substantiating the allegations of sexual abuse and caretaker absence/incapacity by Mother, and in light of Mothers admission that she did not notify the authorities when Vanessa disclosed the sexual abuse by Father, the CSW concluded that the childrens safety could not be assured in the home of their parents. The children were taken into protective custody and placed in the home of their paternal aunt, Martha H.

On September 7, 2007, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children, alleging they were persons described in subdivisions (a) (physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse), and (j) (abuse or neglect of a sibling). The court ordered the children detained with Martha H.

In a letter dated September 21, 2007, Victoria Hendrick, M.D., Director of Inpatient Services of the Department of Psychiatry at Olive View, stated that Mother had been under her care since September 6, 2007, having been admitted for treatment of severe depression and anxiety, in the context of a highly conflictual relationship with her husband. Dr. Hendrick stated that Mother did not suffer from a psychotic condition and was not a danger to herself or others. Based on Mothers reports of domestic violence and her failed attempts to leave her husband, Dr. Hendrick opined that Mother suffered from depression and anxiety resulting from an extremely dysfunctional marital relationship. I see no evidence of a chronic psychiatric disorder, nor any reason to believe [she] would be an inadequate parent. On the contrary, she speaks with great fondness and concern about her children.

DCFS prepared a jurisdiction/disposition report in anticipation of a hearing scheduled for October 30, 2007. DCFS reported that on October 16, 2007, CSW Jeff Steinhart attempted to interview Mother at Olive View. Upon his arrival, CSW Steinhart learned that Mother had been transferred to Hillview Mental Health Center (Hillview). Steinhart made an appointment to meet with Mother on October 18. On October 18, Steinhart arrived for his appointment to learn that Hillview transferred Mother to an unknown location the previous evening because it could not care for her, in that she had become manic and unstable. The following day, Hillview contacted Steinhart to let him know that Mother had been transferred to College Hospital in Cerritos.

In a letter dated November 19, 2007, Darren Goodman (Goodman), a social worker and mental health counselor at San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center (SFV Center), confirmed Mothers enrollment and participation in [its] Adult Full Services Partnership (FSP) program. [Mother] was enrolled in the program on 10-31-2007. Services provided include individual and group counseling, mental health services, case management, and assistance with housing. [Mother] has been involved in this program and meeting with [her] case manager on a weekly basis, and keeping appointments with the staff psychiatrist. In a letter the same date, staff psychiatrist Alisa Land, M.D. (Dr. Land) of the SFV Center confirmed that Mother was under the care of a licensed psychiatrist and receiving treatment for her mental impairment.

At a mediation hearing held on November 27, 2007, Mother and Father waived their rights and pled no contest to the section 300 petition, which, as amended, alleged as follows:

Count b-1: The child Vanessa recently disclosed sexual abuse by her father eight years ago. Further, the childrens parents have not demonstrated sufficient ability to respond to the childs needs for care, supervision and intervention. Such circumstances and the parents limited abilities to protect the child place Vanessa at risk of harm (including the risk of sexual harm) and create the risk of similar harm to Naomi.

Count b-2: The childrens mother [Y.A.] has demonstrated emotional problems including but not limited to depressive episodes and severe anxiety, including in the presence of the children, which have resulted in the mothers hospitalization for evaluation and treatment including for a three-week period in Fall 2007. Further, the childrens mother has at times engaged in erratic behavior and gone days without sleeping, which limits her ability to provide regular care for the children, placing the children at risk of harm.

Count b-3: The children Naomi, Vanessa and Franciscos parents . . . have a history of domestic violence and have exposed the children to ongoing discord and verbal altercations by their parents. Such unresolved domestic conflict by the childrens parents places the children at risk of physical and emotional harm.

The juvenile court thereafter sustained these counts and found the three children to be persons described by subdivision (b) of section 300. Turning next to disposition, the court placed the children with their paternal aunt, Martha H., and ordered family reunification services and monitored visitation for both parents. With regard to Mother, the court ordered her to participate in parenting classes, individual therapy, domestic violence treatment, and psychiatric care. The court specifically ordered that Mother receive treatment from a licensed therapist.

Mothers case plan specified that Mother was to attend a DCFS approved program of individual counseling to address core issues with a licensed therapist. The case plan made express reference to the parents mediation agreement.^[5]

In a report prepared for the sixth-month review hearing ( 366.21, subd. (e)), CSW Veronica Gutierrez stated that, effective January 10, 2008, the children had been moved to the foster care home of Maria M., who was licensed by the Penny Lane Foster Family Agency (Penny Lane FFA), because Martha H. was no longer able to care for them. Mother was engaged in therapy and psychiatric treatment as required by her case plan. She was being treated for Bipolar disorder type 1 and was stable on her medication. Mother also was looking for government subsidized housing. Mother and Father shared separate, monitored visits with the children twice a week. DCFS recommended that the children be returned to Mothers care once she secured appropriate housing.

In a letter dated April 7, 2008, Dr. Land explained that the Adult Full Service Partnership program . . . is a program created out of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and funds from Proposition 63. The program is designed to serve the underserved, unserved, and inappropriately served through intensive, field based, case management services. Staff assists clients in managing their mental health through medication monitoring, support, and ensuring safe functioning within the community in order to reduce recidivism in institutional settings such as Psychiatric hospitals and jails. Dr. Land further stated that she first met with Mother on November 5, 2007 for psychiatric and medication services and continues on a monthly basis. [Mother] is being treated for Bipolar disorder type 1 and continues to be stable with her regime of medication. [Mother] is prescribed Lamictal 100 mg every morning and Seroquel 200 mg at bedtime.

In correspondence dated April 10, 2008, Goodman confirmed that Mother continue[d] to participate in her mental health treatment at San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Adult Full Service Partnership program. [Mother] has been involved in this program, meeting with her case manager on a weekly basis, and keeping appointments with the staff psychiatrist.

On May 5, 2008, the date of the six-month review hearing, CSW Gutierrez provided the court with last minute information. In February, she asked Naomi if anyone had touched her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. Naomi began to sob and disclosed that Father had abused her. She expounded that when she was little, Father would come into her room and do things to her while she slept. Naomi could not remember what Father did to her and did not want to remember. She also did not remember how many times Father molested her.

CSW Gutierrez also reported that on April 28, 2008, Vanessa was visiting the FFA (foster family agency). While the FFA worker was questioning Vanessa, the child became upset, refused to talk and hid under the table. The worker attempted to get Vanessa to come out from under the table when Vanessa said she wanted to die. The worker called the police, after which Vanessa was placed on a 72-hour hold under section 5150. Naomi and Francisco told Maria M. that the worker kept asking Vanessa questions in an angry tone, causing her to become very upset.

At the six-month review hearing held on May 5, 2008, the court found Mother compliant with her case plan and Father partially compliant with his. The court continued family reunification services for another six months.

The report for the 12-month review hearing ( 366.21, subd. (f)) was prepared by CSW Rocio Pleitiz, who had taken over responsibility for this case. She reported that the children remained in the home of Maria M. and were well cared for. The children continued to receive individual and family therapy on a weekly basis. Since May 5, 2008, Vanessa had been receiving psychiatric services from Dr. Lenor Iversen. Vanessa was taking Prozac 20 mg/day to target depressed mood, suicidal ideation, energy outbursts, and high risk behaviors.

CSW Pleitiz learned from a social worker at Penny Lane FFA that Vanessa had been hospitalized on April 28 on a 5150 suicide attempt the previous day. Vanessa got under a table, began banging her head and threatened to hurt herself. Maria M. called a psychiatric emergency team (PET team) but was told it would take the team two hours to arrive. Maria M. then called 911. The police arrived and took Vanessa to Olive View, which then transferred her to Torrance Hospital.

On September 15, 2008, Maria M. notified CSW Pleitiz that Vanessa had again been hospitalized on September 11. During a visit, Mother gave Vanessa a new dress to wear at Naomis upcoming quinciera. Vanessa did not want the dress. She had a tantrum in the car and said she wanted to hurt herself. After trying unsuccessfully to coax Vanessa out of the car, Maria M. called a supervisor at Penny Lane FFA, who suggested that Maria M. call the PET team. Police quickly arrived at Maria M.s home and tried to persuade Vanessa to go inside the house. After one hour, the police called for an ambulance, which took Vanessa to Olive View. Vanessa was later taken to Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena. Following her release, Vanessa returned to her foster home.

CSW Pleitiz further reported that in August 2008, DCFS liberalized Mothers visits with her children. Mother began unmonitored weekend visitation with her children. The children were happy to see Mother and looked forward to their visits.

Mother was compliant with court orders. She was receiving mental health treatment, family counseling and has successfully completed a Parent Education class. CSW Pleitiz was in receipt of a letter from April Bullock, a social worker and mental health clinician at SFV Center. The letter, which was dated September 9, 2008, reiterated that Mother had been enrolled in the Adult FSP program through the SFV Center. It further stated that Mother receives regular case management and mental health services through this program, as well as medication evaluation and monitoring with a Psychiatrist. [Mother] attends all of her appointments as scheduled and has shown great progress in her treatments. . . .

Mother wanted to regain custody of her children. She was employed and had been successful in obtaining appropriate housing through the Section 8 program. Her apartment had three bedrooms and two bathrooms and was furnished and maintained. In addition, Mother consistently demonstrated that she was capable of securing a safe home environment for her children.

While CSW Pleitiz initially recommended that all three children be returned to the home of Mother, she later changed her recommendation with regard to Francisco after receiving a progress report from the childrens therapist. In light of documentation by the therapist that Francisco has been inconsistent [i]n his ability to manage his behaviors . . . continues to test limits being given to him and struggles with his academic performance . . . continues to struggle with his behavior and no longer complies when confronted, DCFS recommended that only Naomi and Vanessa be returned to Mother. Given Mothers mental illness, CSW Pleitiz did not want to overwhelm her.

At the 12-month review hearing held on November 4, 2008, the juvenile court ordered all three children to remain dependents of the court under section 300, subdivision (b). The court found Mother and Father to be in compliance with their respective case plans. Following DCFSs recommendation, the court placed Naomi and Vanessa in the home of Mother under DCFS supervision but ordered Francisco to remain suitably placed with Maria M. The court ordered family maintenance services for Mother as to Naomi and Vanessa, family reunification services for both parents as to Francisco and family reunification services for Father as to Naomi and Vanessa. Father was granted unmonitored visits with the children in a public setting; mother was granted unmonitored visits with Francisco.

On January 13, 2009, DCFS received a referral, alleging general neglect of Naomi and Vanessa by Mother. The caller reported that Father told her that Mother had kicked the girls out of the house and might be having a schizophrenic episode.

Around 11 p.m., a social worker from DCFSs emergency response command post, accompanied by police officers, went to Mothers home. Naomi and Vanessa were asleep and there appeared to be no chaos at home. Mother was uncooperative and defensive, however. She refused to discuss her mental state or to say whether she had been compliant in taking her medications. Questions regarding her diagnosis and treatment were met with resistance and a claim that such matters were private. Mother denied feeling depressed, hearing voices, or having suicidal ideation. Mother spoke rapidly and had difficulty staying focused on a single subject.

Initially, Mother would not allow the social worker to speak to her daughters. In the face of the social workers and police officers persistence, however, Mother relented. Both girls appeared healthy. Naomi related that Mother is very defensive, but is not violent. Naomi denied any acts of violence on the part of Mother directed toward her or her sister. Naomi also stated that Mother did not lock her or her sister out of the house. Naomi felt safe at home and was not afraid in Mothers care.

Vanessa, too, felt safe at home and was not afraid of Mother. Vanessa did not feel Mother was a danger to herself and noted that [s]hes just upset because she does not like anyone invading our privacy. Vanessa denied that Mother locked her or her sister out of the house. In fact, it had been Naomi who refused to come inside the house.

The emergency response social worker asked the police officers to contact the PET team. They refused, in that they did not believe Mother was suicidal or met the section 5150 criteria.

The social worker consulted with his supervisor and it was assessed that the girls did not appear to be at imminent risk in Mothers care. The possibility that Mother was experiencing mental health problems as a result of not taking her medication was a concern, however. The referral was forwarded to the regional office for follow-up services.

On January 14, 2009, DCFS received another expedited referral regarding the family. The police had been called to Naomis school. Mother was at the school and was displaying erratic, paranoid, and hostile behavior. For no apparent reason, Mother grabbed things from the school office and was unable to calm down. The officers arrested Mother and decided to hospitalize her involuntarily pursuant to section 5150. The referral to DCFS was generated because there was no one else to care for the girls.

Police officers picked up Naomi and Vanessa from school and drove them to the DCFS office in Chatsworth. Naomi explained that Mother, who started acting different since the night before, tried to take her out of school around lunch time. Mother told Naomi they had to leave right away and pick up Vanessa. Naomi immediately noticed that Mother was not feeling well. Mother appeared to be sleepy and unaware of her actions. Naomi did not argue with Mother but did not leave with her either. Rather, Naomi walked back into the school. DCFS took Naomi and Vanessa into protective custody and placed them back into the foster home of Maria M., where their brother Francisco remained.

Katy Phillips (Phillips), Mothers Adult FSP case manager, advised DCFS that Mother had been placed on a 72-hour hold. Phillips also related that Mothers mental diagnosis was Bipolar disorder with psychotic features. Mother was currently prescribed Seroquel, Lamictal, and Zoloft. She also was taking Vicodin, Valium and Motrin for pain.

On January 20, 2009, DCFS filed a section 387 supplemental petition on behalf of Naomi and Vanessa, who then were 15 and 13, respectively. The petition alleged that Mother has mental and emotional problems, including depressive episodes and severe anxiety, and a diagnosis of Bipolar disorder with psychotic features, which render the mother unable to provide regular care for the children. On 01/14/2009, the mother was involuntar[ily] hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of her psychiatric condition. Such mental and emotional problems on the part of the mother endanger the childrens physical and emotional health and safety and place the children at risk of physical and emotional harm and damage. The court detained the girls and ordered that their visits with Mother revert back to being monitored.

In a jurisdiction/disposition report, CSW Pleitiz reported that Naomi felt Mother got sick because she was under a lot of pressure with her car messing up, [her] car accident, her injuries, and [she] recently saw people in the apartments selling drugs at the laundry mat. Naomi was not afraid of Mother and wanted to return to Mother once she recovered. Vanessa also wanted to return home when Mother got better.

CSW Pleitiz further reported that Mother stated that she is taking her medication and is receiving mental treatment through Adult Full Service Partnership. Mother claimed that she was fully capable of caring for her children despite her mental condition. Mother enjoyed monitored visits with her daughters twice a week. Although Mother at times was emotional, the visits went well. There was positive interaction and good communication.

CSW Pleitiz observed that Mother had received almost 18 months of reunification services but was unable to maintain custody of her children. The CSW further observed that Mothers deteriorating mental stability caused her recent psychiatric hospitalization and that her mental and emotional instability limits her ability to provide regular care for her children, placing the children at risk of emotional and physical harm. DCFS recommended that the court sustain the section 387 supplemental petition, terminate Mothers reunification services, and schedule a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26.

In a status review report prepared in March 2009, CSW Pleitiz stated that on November 18, 2008, Vanessa had been hospitalized under section 5150 for a suicide attempt. According to Mother, Vanessa wanted to go out to the movies at night. When Mother would not give her permission to do so, Vanessa became frustrated. She stated that she felt like a caged animal and then reached [for] her Prozac medication and began putting the bottle in her mouth. Mother took the pills away and called for an ambulance. Vanessa was released from the hospital on November 24.

DCFS held a team decision meeting to discuss the familys needs. CSW Pleitiz referred all three children to WRAP Around Services, in that Vanessa had been hospitalized three times in five months and was exhibiting behavioral problems such as depressed mood, suicidal ideation, and high risk behaviors. Naomi, too, had been exhibiting trauma and anxiety behaviors as she was having trouble sleeping and reports that she dreams of her sister Vanessa dying. Francisco was referred for wrap around services to assist with reunification issues and to address his behavioral issues. Francisco acted out and was defiant with Mother. He also continually refused to reunify with her.

Both parents were compliant with their case plans. DCFS noted, however, that Mother was about to exceed 18 months of services and had not been able to maintain custody of her children. Termination of family reunification services was recommended, and legal guardianship was suggested.

In April 2009, the childrens court appointed special advocate (CASA) reported that Naomi was happy living with her foster mother but stated she would live with Mother if it were safe. Vanessa was not sure what to think about the options of adoption, returning to live with her mother or father or continuing with her foster mother. Francisco liked living with his foster mother but wanted to live with Father.

The CASA also reported that the chidrens therapist said that Naomi and Vanessa had become functionally stable in the last few months. Mother wanted her children returned to her and did not want them to be adopted. If they could not be with her, it was o.k. if they lived with Father.

According to Phillips, who had been working with Mother at SFV Center since December 2008, Mother saw a psychiatrist at two-week intervals and a mental health clinician weekly and attended domestic violence classes. Mother maintained her job, remembered her appointments and kept her home clean. Phillips noted that Mother is doing well but it will be a constant struggle.

The CASA also reported that Amy Scott, a mental health clinician, had been working with Mother for three months, meeting with her for one hour each week. Scott was helping Mother cope with her mental health symptoms and access community resources.

In an interim report filed on April 8, 2009, CSW Pleitez reported that the children stated they would like to be adopted if a prospective family were identified. Their foster mother, Maria M., was unable to provide the children with any type of permanency. Father, too, was about to exceed 18 months of services. Despite his desire to reunify with his children, he had been unable to do so. The CSW recommended that his services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing set.

On April 8 and 13, 2009, the juvenile court called the matter for a contested hearing on the section 387 supplemental petition and a review hearing pursuant to section 364 as to Naomi and Vanessa. Also on calendar was an 18-month review hearing ( 366.22) as to Francisco.

During the contested hearing on the section 387 petition, evidence was elicited demonstrating that Mothers current therapist, Amy Scott, was not licensed to practice in California. She was only an intern. In addition, CSW Pleitiz had never heard of Scott and had not looked into whether Mothers therapist was county-approved.^[6]

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found both parents compliant with their case plans and further determined that DCFS had provided them with reasonable reunification services. The court sustained the section 387 supplemental petition, removed Naomi and Vanessa from Mother and terminated Mothers reunification services. The court placed Francisco in the home of Father under DCFS supervision and ordered family preservation services for Father and wrap around services for Francisco. With regard to Naomi and Vanessa, the court, finding extraordinary circumstances, extended the reunification period for Father to enable him to have conjoint counseling with his daughters. Finally, the court granted Mother monitored visits with all three children and gave DCFS discretion to liberalize.

DISCUSSION

Overview of Section 387 Proceedings

Section 387 authorizes the filing of a supplemental petition, seeking [a]n order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a child from the physical custody of a parent . . . and directing placement in a foster home. ( 387, subd. (a).) The petition shall contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child . . . . ( 387, subd. (b); accord, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(a)^[7].) A section 387 petition is ordinarily required when the petitioner (usually the relevant social services agency) seeks to modify a dispositional order by establishing the need for a more restrictive level of custody. [Citation.] (In re Jonique W. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 685, 690; rule 5.560(c).)

A section 387 petition requires a bifurcated hearing. (Rule 5.565(e); In re Jonique W., supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 691.) The first phasei.e., the jurisdictional phaseis a fact finding proceeding that must be concluded in accordance with the procedures applicable to the original jurisdiction hearing. At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court must determine (1) whether the factual allegations of the supplemental petition are or are not true, and (2) whether the allegation that the previous disposition has been ineffective is or is not true. (Rule 5.565(e)(1); Jonique W., supra, at p. 691.) If the court finds the allegations to be true, it then proceeds to the second phase and conducts a dispositional hearing, which must be conducted in accordance with the procedures applicable to the original disposition hearing. (Rule 5.565(e)(2); Jonique W., supra, at p. 691.)

Unlike an original petition, a section 387 supplemental petition does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. However, the supplemental petition can have the same drastic result of removing the dependent child from his or her custodial parent. (Kimberly R. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1077.)

Jurisdictional Findings

Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile courts determination that the allegations of the section 387 supplemental petition were true. In addressing this challenge, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. (Kimberly R. v. Superior Court, supra,96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1078; see In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393-1394.)

Despite the family reunification services and maintenance services Mother received, including mental health services, Mother was unable to maintain the mental stability required to maintain custody of and care for her daughters. The evidence was undisputed that on January 14, 2009, just two months after the court placed Naomi and Vanessa back with their Mother, Mother had a serious mental health setback. As a result of this setback, Mother was involuntarily hospitalized. Inasmuch as Naomi and Vanessa were left without a caregiver, DCFS was compelled to take them into protective custody.

Particularly troubling is the absence of an explanation for Mothers setback. Was it caused by stress? Did Mother stop taking the medications prescribed by her psychiatrist? The record is silent on this critical factor. As the trial court aptly noted, the problem is we do not know what causes the mother to have these episodes . . . . Thats why theres a risk because we dont know what really brings it on and it seems to be brought on. The juvenile court was fully justified in finding true the allegation that Mothers mental condition endangered Naomi and Vanessa and placed them at risk.

Removal

Next, Mother challenges the order removing Naomi and Vanessa from her custody made during the dispositional phase of the section 387 proceedings. The standard for removal from a parent on a supplemental petition filed pursuant to section 387 is the same as removal on an original petition filed pursuant to section 300. (In re Paul E. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 996, 999, 1000-1003.) Thus, a dependent child may be removed from the physical custody of the parent or parents with whom the child resides if the court finds clear and convincing evidence that [t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if left in parental custody and there are no reasonable means by which the minors physical health can be protected without removing the minor from minors parents . . . physical custody. ( 361, subd. (c)(1); accord, Kimberly R. v. Superior Court, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077; Paul E., supra, at p. 1002.) On appeal, the juvenile courts decision to remove a child from his or her parent is reviewed under the substantial evidence test. In applying this test, [w]e view the record in the light most favorable to the order and decide if the evidence is reasonable, credible and of solid value. (Kimberly R., supra, at p. 1078.)

In Mothers view, the court should have pursued less intrusive disposition alternatives and left Naomi and Vanessa in her care with continued family maintenance services. We disagree.

Mothers mental health became unstable purportedly while in full compliance with court orders. Without an explanation for Mothers psychiatric setback, the court was justified in concluding Naomi and Vanessa were at risk due to the instability of Mothers mental health and removing them from Mother.

Reunification Services

The failure of a social services agency to provide a parent with reasonable family reunification services warrants the extension of such services beyond the 18-month limit set forth in section 366.26. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.) Relying on this principle, Mother contends the juvenile court should have extended her family reunification services beyond the 18-month date because DCFS failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services. In advancing this contention, Mother relies on the testimony of Scott and CSW Pleitiz.

Scott testified that she was a mental health clinician at SFV Center. Scott received her masters degree in social reporter work from the University of Southern California in 2006. During the time she had sessions with Mother, Scott was an intern, who was working toward obtaining her clinical license.^[8] At all times, Scott provided counseling under supervision of a licensed clinician. Scotts supervisor was Anita Patterson, the program manager.

According to Mother, her sessions with Scott did not begin until after her mental health setback in January 2009. Scott confirmed this fact, testifying that her first session with Mother took place on January 22, 2009. Their sessions took place once a week for 50 minutes.

Scott explained that DCFS did not refer Mother to her or to SFV Center. Mother already was an existing client of the center and had been receiving case management services. When Mother requested individual therapy, the center assigned Mother to Scott. Scott did not perform a psychological assessment of Mother but noted that Mothers treating psychiatrist had performed a psychiatric assessment of her. When asked about the diagnosis, Scott stated she was unable to comment on it in court because she was not yet licensed. Later, Scott noted that a letter written by Mothers case manager listed Mothers diagnosis as Bipolar disorder. A licensed clinician reviewed the letter and confirmed its accuracy. Scott also acknowledged that she had been able to determine the medications Mother was taking.

Scott did not know about Mothers hospitalization on January 14, 2009 and had very limited information about the reasons Mothers children were in the dependency system. Scott explained that she [doesnt] have any interaction with [DCFS]. We do not work with families or children.

When the court inquired whether Scott had been treating Mother without any information about Mothers recent hospitalization, without a psychological assessment and without having the result of her psychiatric assessment work up, Scott explained that [t]he therapy that we provide through our Agency is overall to increase the clients coping skills in order to help them . . . deal with stress or symptoms. Scotts treatment of Mother was based upon the limited information Mother shared with Scott. Mother asked for help in utilizing resources in the community.

CSW Pleitiz testified that she never heard of Scott and she never referred Mother to a licensed psychotherapist. According to CSW Pleitiz, when DCFS got this case Mother was already receiving mental health services through adult service partnership. CSW Pleitiz did not determine whether the person providing Mother with therapy was approved by DCFS. CSW Pleitiz agreed that Mothers therapist should be a licensed therapist rather than an intern.

While we are troubled by Scotts revelation that she was just an intern and by CSW Pleitizs admission that she did not ascertain whether Scott was a DCFS-approved therapist, the fact remains that Scott only saw Mother for a limited time and only after the events warranting the filing and sustaining of the section 387 supplemental petition transpired. Other than Scott, Mother does not challenge the qualifications of any other therapist or mental health care provider with whom Mother met prior to or after January 22, 2009.

As the court observed in Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, [a] social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parents problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult. [Citation.] However, in most cases more services might have been provided and the services provided are often imperfect. (Id. at p. 598.) The applicable standard is whether the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances, not whether they were the best that could have been provided in a perfect world. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)

DCFS provided Mother with more than 18 months of services. At all times, Mother received mental health care from psychiatrists and therapists, and she took the medication she was prescribed. Mothers genuine desire to reunify with her children was reflected in her consistent efforts to comply with the juvenile courts orders as embodied in her case plan.

As a result of the services provided by DCFS and Mothers own efforts, Naomi and Vanessa were returned to her at the 12-month review hearing. Mother was on the road to reunification. Mother hit a bump two months later, however, when she suffered a psychiatric setback and her daughters once again were removed from her. Shortly thereafter, Mother commenced her therapy with Scott.

It is important to note that Scott met with Mother for a limited purpose. Scotts sole focus was increasing Mothers coping skills and helping her access community resources. At all times, Scott was supervised by a licensed therapist.

The bottom line is that despite more than 18 months of reunification and maintenance services, Mother was unable to maintain custody of her daughters. Ultimately, it was Mothers inability to care for her daughters resulting from her unstable mental condition that endangered the girls and resulted in their removal. Inasmuch as mother continuously received mental health care services from psychiatrists and other mental health care providers at the time she met with Scott, we are compelled to conclude there is no basis for disturbing the trial courts determination that the services DCFS provided Mother were reasonable.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

JACKSON, J.

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

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

^[2] Father is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly, we intentionally omit most details regarding his efforts toward reunification.

^[3] Mothers contentions on appeal do not pertain to Francisco. Facts pertaining to Francisco also will be limited.

^[4] Section 5150 provides in pertinent part that [w]hen any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.

^[5] In the mediation agreement, Mother agreed to participate in mental health treatment including regular psychiatric consultations, taking any psychotropic medication as prescribed, regular individual therapy with a licensed therapist to address case issues including mothers mental health, parents domestic conflict, sexual abuse issues and other family issues, Mother will participate in conjoint/family counseling with the children as recommended by the childrens therapists. If mothers therapist and fathers therapist so approve after sufficient progress in each parents individual therapy, the parents will participate in conjoint counseling to address their history of conflict and co-parenting issues. Mother will sign any necessary release of information forms so that DCFS can confirm her continuing participation in mental health treatment.

^[6] Additional facts will be incorporated into the legal discussion below.

^[7] All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

^[8] By the time of the contested hearing, Scott believed she had completed, or was close to completing, the number of hours required to apply for her license and study for and take the required examination.