Filed 9/28/18 J.B. v. Superior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Original proceedings; petitions for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. Keough, Judge. Petitions denied.

Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender, Kenneth Norelli, Assistant Public Defender, and Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender for Petitioner J.B.

Juvenile Defenders and Vincent Uberti for Petitioner E.B.

No appearance by Respondent.

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

Law Office of Harold La Flamme and Yana N. Kennedy for Minors.

* * *

Petitioners E.B. (Mother) and J.B. (Father) seek a writ of mandate challenging an order of the juvenile court finding that reasonable reunification services had been provided to them and setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing).[1] Petitioners ask that the juvenile court be ordered to return custody of their children to them or provide further reunification services. The issues in these petitions are whether substantial evidence supports the court’s findings at a 12-month review hearing that: (1) returning the children to the parents would be detrimental, (2) it was not likely the children would be returned by an 18-month review hearing, and (3) reasonable services were provided to Mother and Father. Mother and Father filed separate writ petitions. We deny the petitions.

FACTS

The Underlying Dependency Petition

The court found true the following allegations in a first amended juvenile dependency petition. Mother had left her son and daughter, the subjects of the petition, both under age three, with a caretaker for three weeks. She promised to pick up the children, but never did so, and did not give the caretaker provisions to care for the children. When Social Services Agency (SSA) was called in, the children were observed to be covered with bumps and scabs and were later diagnosed as having scabies. The children were often dirty, wore clothing for days at a time, and Mother failed to change the children’s diapers as needed, resulting in numerous diaper rashes.

Mother self-reported being diagnosed with depression and a learning disability. She reported feeling overwhelmed caring for two children and had suicidal thoughts. The children had developmental delays and had been receiving services through the Regional Center of Orange County (Regional Center), but those services were discontinued because Mother failed to follow through and maintain contact with the Regional Center. Mother used inappropriate physical discipline, resulting in bruises. As a result of inappropriate discipline with her older child, that child had been placed in legal guardianship with the maternal grandmother.

Father also reported feeling anxious and depressed. He had an unresolved problem with alcohol and marijuana. He was residing in a sober living home but admitted he was still using marijuana. Father reported he was unable to care for the children and believed adoption would suit them best. Father also suffered from a learning disability. Both parents, however, were deemed “high functioning” notwithstanding their learning disabilities.

At the detention hearing in March 2017, the court removed the children from the parents’ custody. At the jurisdictional hearing, the court found the allegations of the petition to be true.

The court approved a case plan for Mother that included counseling, a child abuser treatment program, and a parenting class. The case plan did not prescribe any services to address her learning disability.

The court approved a case plan for Father that included counseling, a parenting program, and drug testing. The case plan did not prescribe any services to address his learning disability.

The First Six-month Reunification Period

During the first six-month reunification period, Mother resided in five different locations. By the end of the reporting period, Mother was staying with a friend in Buena Park, California, and had no plans to move because she was unemployed and had no income. Mother had consistently visited the children 10 hours per week, and the visits were positive, with Mother demonstrating more patience and attentiveness to the needs of the children. With regard to her case plan, Mother had enrolled in an In Home Coach program through the Orange County Child Abuse Prevention Center. She had only recently begun anger management classes, but she was compliant with her requirements for counseling and drug testing. Mother had eight missed appointments, and 22 negative drug tests. Her therapist reported Mother was improving her anger management and self-esteem, but noted some cognitive deficits and opined that an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation (730 evaluation) “could help in determining if she is able to take care of her children independently. In home parenting could also help make this determination.”

Father was employed for part of the reunification period, but was unemployed at the time of the six-month hearing. Like Mother, Father had been consistent in his visitation and had demonstrated attentiveness and patience. Father was participating in one-on-one parenting mentorship with a mentor he had been working with since 2014 through the Regional Center. Father had been referred to the Regional Center to address his learning disability. Regarding his learning disability, Father’s mother (the paternal grandmother) “denied the father was diagnosed with retardation and indicated it is more of a developmental delay, in which he has no concept of money or counting but is very good at reading and writing.” Father also participated in individual counseling and was consistently drug testing, though the tests were always positive for marijuana. Father was living at a sober living home throughout most of the period, though he spent time living with Mother in August 2017.

In August 2017, the children were placed with foster parents. The children were well-adjusted to their placement. The son was in physical therapy to address concerns regarding motor development.

At the six-month review hearing in September 2017 the court found Mother and Father had made moderate progress toward alleviating the conditions necessitating placement of the children. The court found there was a substantial probability the children could be returned to the parents by the 12-month mark and continued the case for a 12-month hearing in April 2018. Neither parent objected to the services being offered them.

The Second Six-month Reunification Period

Between October 2017 and February 2018, Mother resided in an apartment with her “street mom,” where she reported there were frequent bedbugs and lice. She was evicted from her street mom’s home and thereafter moved into a shelter. During this period, Mother elected not to work in order to focus on her case plan, though she obtained a job in March 2018. She was consistent in her visitation and compliant with her case plan requirements, including meeting consistently with her in-home coach. She continued to express some self-doubt, however, about her ability to meet the children’s needs, particularly in light of their significant developmental delays. At one point she stated, “I want the kids to have stability and it is in the best interest for the children to get adopted, but I may change my mind when we go to Court.” Moreover, she failed to meet the objective of obtaining a stable and suitable residence.

Mother’s therapist reported that Mother showed improvement in her anger issues and improved her self-esteem. However, “She had difficulty admitting her part in what happened regarding her children being removed. She continued to associate with her homeless friends. She would stay with them whenever they got a place to stay.” The therapist also further commented on Mother’s learning disability, stating, “Unfortunately, there will not be much expected improvement in this area.”

Father had continued living in the sober living home through January 2018, at which point he had to move out because he could no longer afford rent. He moved into a shelter. Father was employed for two months from January to March 2018, at which point he quit. Father’s visitation had faltered somewhat while he was employed as his work hours conflicted with visitation. During the second observation period, Father’s drug tests resulted in six negative, 13 no shows, and 17 tests positive for marijuana. Father acknowledged that his marijuana use was negatively affecting his life, including making it more difficult to get a job, and potentially jeopardizing his shelter at the sober living home. Nevertheless, Father expressed unwillingness to stop using. One of Father’s case objectives was to “live free from drug dependency,” which he failed. Father was referred to a pain specialist to provide an alternative to marijuana, but he did not follow up on the referral. Although Father had expressed a desire to reunify with the children, “the father often questioned his ability to care for the children and meet[] the children’s needs. Like the Mother, the father felt that adoption may be the best option for the children given his circumstances.”

The social worker also observed that “mother and father’s on-and-off-again relationship was a priority for the father often placing a greater . . . importance in their relationship instead of focusing on the children. The father often verbalized a desire to marry the mother and move in together.” In October 2017, Father made plans to move into an apartment with Mother along with someone named James, who was a registered sex offender, and who was then in jail, but would be moving in when he was released. By the end of the reporting period, their relationship had soured and Father no longer attended visitation when Mother was present.

The social worker followed up with Mother regarding James, but Mother assured the social worker that James would not be moving in with her. Mother acknowledged that Father had discussed moving in with her, but Mother questioned the wisdom of that, given their tendency to argue.

During this reunification period, both children did well with their caregivers, who were attentive to the needs of the children. Both children were diagnosed with various significant developmental delays. The children had a busy schedule of services to address those delays on a daily basis. Additionally, the daughter had recently been diagnosed with epilepsy. The caregivers were committed to providing permanency for the children, including adopting them if reunification failed.

In anticipation of the 12-month hearing, the social worker prepared a report recommending termination of reunification services and the setting of a .26 hearing. The social worker expressed concern, echoed by Mother’s therapist, that Mother was incapable of meeting the children’s needs. Mother expressed similar self-doubt. The children had several services they were attending to address their developmental delays. The children had service appointments most mornings as well as therapy services in Cypress slated to begin in the evenings. “[T]he mother’s housing and income are not stable at this time. It is the undersigned’s belief that the mother’s unresolved mental health issues and developmental delays will significantly impact her abilities in ensuring that the children’s needs are being met. The children are at a very young age and they need permanency, which cannot be provided by the mother.”

Regarding Father, the social worker was concerned that his unwillingness to stop using marijuana would interfere with his ability to meet the children’s needs. Father also continued to express doubts about his own ability to meet the children’s needs.

Shortly after the report was prepared, in a conversation with the social worker, Mother dropped a proverbial bombshell: six months earlier, she married the convicted pedophile, James. She did not report it to the social worker because she was “worried on how it would affect her reunification case.” In that conversation, Mother reported she did not live with James, nor had she ever. Subsequently, in May 2018, Mother reported that she filed for divorce from James.

The 12-Month Review Hearing

A contested 12-month review hearing was set and continued until June 2018.

At the hearing the social worker testified concerning Mother’s learning disability. The social worker made no attempt to look into Mother’s possible developmental delays or to provide resources to Mother for those delays after Mother disclosed the issue, and recalled Mother’s therapist suggesting an Evidence Code section 730 mental evaluation. The social worker did not request any such evaluation, nor did she know what Mother’s delays specifically were. The social worker further noted that Mother’s therapist raised the issue of Mother’s delays on numerous occasions. But the social worker had not been concerned as to Mother understanding her questions, nor had Mother requested additional services. Mother had been provided one-on-one parenting assistance, as opposed to a parenting class, to ensure her understanding and to allow her to ask questions.

The social worker was concerned about Mother’s marriage to James, given the possibility that the children could be left alone with him. The social worker performed a Megan’s Law search and discovered James was a registered sex offender who had been convicted of a lewd and lascivious act with a minor under age 14. Once Mother divulged the marriage, she was up front about James’s sex offense. Mother knew James was a sex offender when she married him. However, Mother did not share the social worker’s concern about James, and minimized his offense, describing it as a “wrong place, wrong time situation.” Mother’s visits with the children were still supervised in large part because of her association with James. The social worker testified that even if Mother divorced James, her concern would not be completely allayed because Mother concealed the marriage for so long, and thus the social worker did not trust Mother to keep James out of the children’s lives.

Regarding Father’s developmental delays, the social worker testified that she had not discussed with Father or with those affiliated with the Regional Center why Father was receiving such services. The social worker had not reviewed any Regional Center medical records, had no further information as to Father’s delays except for Father’s representations, and recognized that such information was relevant. The social worker had not confirmed how long Father had received counseling through the Regional Center nor the goals and focus of that therapy. But she had no concerns during the case about Father understanding her instructions, nor had Father’s counselor expressed such concerns.

Father had generally been consistent in visiting the children before April 2018, at which point Father told the social worker he was not comfortable visiting while Mother was present. The court had ordered SSA to attempt to accommodate the parents’ visitation needs, but the social worker had not addressed Father’s concern.

Father testified the children could not be returned to his care immediately because of his housing situation, and he needed two to three months to secure housing sufficient for placement. Father was aware of the daughter’s physical therapy as well as her therapy for neurological issues, and was aware of her medication, though he could not recall the frequency she took her medication, her doctor, or the hospital at which her neurologist was located. Father was not sure of the son’s needs, though they were “a lot more than what [the daughter] needs.” Prior to the dependency case, Father lived with Mother for “a couple months,” but after he moved out, he would see the children approximately once per week, and always with Mother present.

Mother testified, contrary to her prior statements, that she was still married to James and had lived with him when they married in November 2017. She did not live with him at the time of the hearing because he was incarcerated for living in a house where a three-year old resided when, as a registered sex offender, he was not supposed to be around children. She testified she began dating James in June of 2017 and hid the relationship from the social worker because she was scared of the impact the relationship would have on the dependency proceeding. Mother had also hidden the relationship from her therapist. Mother knew of James’s conviction, but was not concerned about it because she “didn’t judge him about what his past was.”

Regarding her learning disability, Mother testified that she had no problem understanding everything she was told during the dependency proceeding from her parenting service, her therapist, and her social worker. In high school, Mother was given an Individualized Education Plan that consisted solely of being given more time on homework. Mother testified her learning disability was never specifically diagnosed. She graduated from high school by passing an exit exam.

Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that reasonable services had been provided, that returning the children to the parents would create a substantial risk to the children, and that there was no substantial probability that the children would be returned to the parents by the 18-month mark, which would be the beginning of September 2018, less than three months after the hearing. Accordingly, the court terminated reunification services and ordered a .26 hearing.

With regard to the services provided, the court commented that they were not “perfect,” but reasonable. Regarding whether a 730 evaluation should have been done, the court noted that Mother’s therapist commented that, even if a learning disability were diagnosed, there is little to be done about it. The court found the purpose of a 730 evaluation would be to determine whether Mother should be offered services at all. Since she was given services, she was essentially granted the benefit of a favorable 730 evaluation. The court found that the services provided to Mother were consistent with the accommodation made to Mother in high school: more time to learn. The court also noted that Mother’s therapist suggested a parenting coach as an alternative, which was provided to Mother.

In evaluating whether the children could be safely returned to Mother, the court was troubled by Mother’s choice of James as a husband. The court found that James’s explanation of what happened, that kids walked in on him masturbating (which Mother uncritically accepted), was not credible. The court also questioned whether Mother genuinely intended to divorce James, given that she had not served him with the papers.

With regard to Father, the court expressed concern about his marijuana use, and how that would impact his ability to meet the children’s needs. The court also faulted Father for failing to explore alternate pain-management techniques.

More generally, with regard to whether the parents could actually meet the substantial needs of the children, the court found “there’s a hole in the center of reality. Despite what the court undoubtedly accepts as both Mother and Father’s deep affection, fondness for the children, there’s an inability to meet these children’s needs.”

Mother and Father separately filed writ petitions challenging the court’s order.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Framework

The first question the court must address at a 12-month review hearing is whether to return the children to the parents. The court must return the children to the parents “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. (f)(1).) We review a court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400-1401.)

If the court decides not to return the children, the court must then decide whether to continue reunification services. “The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Whether to continue reunification services, therefore, devolves into two separate questions: (1) Is the child likely to be returned by the 18-month mark? (2) Were reasonable services provided?

In order to find that a child is likely to be returned by the 18-month mark, the court must make the following findings: “(A) That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child. [¶] (B) That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home. [¶] (C) The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).) We review the court’s findings of likelihood of return for substantial evidence. (Armando D. v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1024.)

If the court finds there is not a substantial likelihood of return, the court must then assess whether the parents were offered reasonable services. The burden of proof is on the social worker to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the services were reasonable. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(4).) “A social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parent’s 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.” (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598.) “The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the SSA’s efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.” (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) “[I]n reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services provided by the Department, we must also recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which are provided are often imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances.” (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969 (Elijah R.).) We review a court’s finding that services were reasonable for substantial evidence. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.)

II. Substantial Risk of Detriment

We have little trouble concluding substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that returning the children to Mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children. Mother married a pedophile. She rationalized his behavior and accepted a patently incredible story about the facts underlying James’s conviction for violation of Penal Code section 288. Clearly, returning the children to a family unit that includes a convicted pedophile creates a substantial risk of detriment to the children.

For his part, Father acknowledged at the hearing that he did not then have suitable housing for the children, and he does not contest the court’s decision not to return the children to him at the time of the 12-month review hearing.

III. Likelihood of Returning the Children by the 18-month Mark

A. Mother

In assessing the three-part test for determining whether the children were likely to be returned by the 18-month mark, we recognize that Mother had her strengths. Her visitation was consistent and generally positive. She and the children shared a bond. And Mother made significant progress in some of her case objectives; namely, anger management and parenting skills.

Ultimately, however, her marriage to James furnished substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that Mother had not “demonstrated the capacity and ability . . . to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).) On the contrary, by marrying a convicted pedophile, she created an even greater risk of harm than what initially instigated the dependency petition: leaving the children with a caregiver for three weeks. Certainly, she had not demonstrated the capacity and ability to ensure the children’s safety.

Mother responds by contending that because she had filed for divorce, “that issue was taking care of itself.” The court, however, was not required to credit Mother’s claim. Not only had Mother not served James with the divorce filing at the time of the 12-month hearing, but Mother’s duplicity in hiding her relationship with James for the specific purpose of misleading the court betrayed any trust the court might have otherwise reposed in her claim. Even if she had actually divorced James once the implications of her relationship became clear, moreover, what was to stop Mother from maintaining the relationship in a less formal capacity? Ultimately, Mother failed to demonstrate the ability to provide a safe home for the children, and thus substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the children were not likely to be returned to Mother by the 18-month hearing.

B. Father

Unlike Mother, who had a single glaring risk factor torpedo her case, Father’s case has no single risk factor that would disqualify his prospects for return, but the totality of the circumstances affords substantial evidence to support the court’s ruling. We begin by noting Father’s strengths. He visited consistently, the visits were positive and showing improvement, and the children were bonded with him. Also, he satisfied his case requirements for counseling and parenting classes.

However, Father failed to fulfill other case objectives. One objective was to “[h]ave and keep a legal source of income.” Although Father was receiving $722 per month in Social Security benefits, he was unable to successfully hold down a job during the reunification period.

Another objective was to “[o]btain and maintain a stable and suitable residence for yourself and your children.” At the time of the 12-month hearing, Father was living in a shelter that could not accommodate children. Although he claimed at the hearing that, given two or three months, he could find a shelter that would accommodate the children, he offered no corroboration for that claim, nor did he offer any explanation as to why he could not have obtained such housing in the prior 12 months. Moreover, when pressed, he acknowledged that the people helping him find housing stated it could take up to six months. Due to various continuances of the 12-month hearing, the outer 18-month limit was only two and a half months away. (See § 361.5, subd. (a)(3)(A).) Thus, Father could only offer the court an uncorroborated aspiration that at the last possible minute he might obtain suitable housing for the children in a shelter.

Next, we note that Father had never independently parented the children. Although he had lived with Mother and the children for a couple of months shortly after their birth, he never independently cared for them and had largely abandoned the family by the time the petition was filed.

Then there was Father’s marijuana use. At the outset, we recognize a parent’s right to consume marijuana responsibly under California law. Marijuana use, in and of itself, is not a sufficient basis upon which to keep children detained. (See In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 766-768.) Here, however, there was evidence in the record that Father’s marijuana use was impairing his ability to parent. His therapist had identified his marijuana use as a problem and reported that “it did not appear that the father understood the effects and consequences of the use of marijuana with respect to the role of a parent.” Father’s parenting mentor testified that she was concerned about the impact of Father’s marijuana use on his ability to parent, and in particular his ability to provide assistance if the children are in danger. Moreover, Father reported at one point that he was having trouble obtaining employment—another case plan requirement—because he could not successfully pass a drug test.

We must measure all of these shortcomings against the heightened needs of the children due to their developmental delays and young age. The evidence showed that, between the two children, there were service appointments nearly every day.

Putting all of these circumstances together, Father was unemployed, homeless, dependent on marijuana, without any real parenting experience, and he would have to care for two toddlers (already a tall task) with special needs (now made taller) on his own.[2] There was no solid evidence that any of these circumstances were likely to change in two and a half months. Thus, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that Father had not “demonstrated the capacity and ability[, in the two and a half months remaining,] both to complete the objectives of his . . . treatment plan and to provide for the [children’s] safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).)

III. Reasonable Services

With regard to the reasonableness of services, both Mother and Father advance variations of the same argument: that the services provided were not reasonable because the social worker did not develop the case plan with their developmental delays in mind. Both cite the following language in Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 420: “[W]hen a parent or guardian has a mental illness or a developmental disability, that condition must be the ‘starting point’ for a family reunification plan which should be tailored to accommodate their unique needs.” SSA agrees that the social worker should have paid more attention to the developmental delays but contends the services were, nonetheless, reasonable. We agree with SSA.

We begin with the standards governing SSA’s obligation to provide reasonable services. “It must make a good faith effort to provide reasonable services responsive to the unique needs of each family, and the plan must be ‘“‘specifically tailored to fit the circumstances of each family’”’ and ‘“‘designed to eliminate those conditions which led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding.’”’ [Citation.] Specifically, the record must show the agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the duration of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents when compliance was difficult. [Citation.] The adequacy of the plan and the agency’s efforts are judged according to the specific circumstances of each case. [Citation.] And ‘“[t]he effort must be made to provide reasonable reunification services in spite of difficulties in doing so or the prospects of success.”’” (Patricia W., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 420.)

Mother testified that her developmental delay resulted in her needing additional time to complete homework in high school. It did not, however, prevent her from graduating. She also testified that she had no problems understanding all that was required of her from the various individuals involved in her case plan. The social worker testified that she never felt Mother struggled to understand what she was saying. Mother was given a one-on-one parenting coach, and thus, to the extent she might have struggled in a classroom setting, her services accommodated that. But in fact, there is no evidence she struggled in a classroom setting: Mother did quite well in her anger-management classes.

Perhaps more importantly, Mother’s learning disability is not what led the court to exercise jurisdiction in the first place. Both parents had essentially abandoned the children. That decision had nothing to do with a learning disability. In this regard, the present case is distinguishable from the case Mother relies on most heavily, In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323.

There, the father’s case plan specifically identified a possible mental illness “‘that can negatively impact your ability to parent appropriately’” and ordered the father to take a psychological evaluation. (In re K.C., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 326.) He did so and was diagnosed various mood and personality disorders. (Ibid.) The evaluator recommended offering reunification services, but only on the condition that the father took advantage of various psychological and psychotropic aids, including medication. (Ibid.) Thereafter, however, the social worker made little effort to get the father the resources that were recommended. In finding the services offered to be unreasonable, the court specifically commented that “[t]he ‘“problems leading to [his] loss of custody”’ [citation] all appeared to stem from his mental health issues.” (Id. at p. 330.) That simply is not the case here.

Mother also relies on Patricia W., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th 397, but it is similarly distinguishable. That court’s opening remarks summarized the case as follows: “This is a sad tale of a family broken up by mental illness. A local social services agency, acting with commendable speed, removed a toddler from his parents’ custody when mother ran out of her medication and, a week later, experienced a relapse of schizophrenic episodes that involved violent hallucinations of harming and killing their child.” (Id. at p. 401.) “Here, the problem that led to the child’s detention was the mother’s failure to properly take her medication. But there is no evidence the agency in this case even sought to diagnose [the] mother’s mental illness and her medication needs as part of a case plan, much less help [the minor’s] parents ascertain whether and how they could more effectively manage and monitor her medication to avoid another relapse.” (Ibid.)

The present case is not primarily driven by mental illness or Mother’s learning disability. It was driven by her abandonment of the children due to feeling overwhelmed, coupled with her inappropriate physical discipline, which was thought to stem from anger-management issues. Both of those issues were directly addressed by the services offered to her, and she seemed to make excellent progress in those areas. When the case plan was developed, and at the six-month review hearing, Mother had no objection to the services offered.[3] And even now, Mother does not articulate any particular service she feels she should have been offered. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that reasonable services were offered to Mother.

Essentially the same reasoning applies to Father, with one additional point: Father was receiving services for his learning disability through the Regional Center. Father’s mother (the paternal grandmother) reported that he was receiving services through the Regional Center for his learning disability. She “denied the father was diagnosed with retardation and indicated it is more of a developmental delay, in which he has no concept of money or counting but is very good at reading and writing.” The present case has nothing to do with Father’s ability to count, and, in any event, Father was receiving services for that particular deficit. Like Mother, Father did not object to the services offered at the time his case plan was developed or at the six-month review hearing. Nor has Father identified any particular service that he should have been offered. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that Father was offered reasonable services.

DISPOSITION

The petitions are denied.

IKOLA, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

THOMPSON, J.