Jennifer G. v.
Filed 3/26/13 Jennifer G. v. Super Ct. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
JENNIFER G.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
D063314
(San Diego
County
Super. Ct.
No. EJ3459C)
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS
in mandate after referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26
hearing. Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Petition denied; request for stay denied.
Jennifer G.
seeks writ review of a juvenile court order terminating
case of her daughter, Charlotte G., and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Jennifer contends the evidence is
insufficient to support the finding she received reasonable
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jennifer
separated from Charlotte's presumed
father, Jon G., in August 2010, before Charlotte's
birth in January 2011. The divorce was
final before the commencement of this case.
Jennifer and Jon are the parents of twin boys, born in October 2001, who
are not subjects of this appeal. We
refer to Charlotte and the twins collectively as the children.
In
September 2011, the San Diego County
Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition
for eight-month-old Charlotte. The
petition alleged Jennifer hit one of the nine-year-old twins on the face,
causing a hand-shaped bruise, and also hit him on the neck. A medical expert believed Jennifer acted
intentionally. Jennifer initially denied
hitting the twin, but later admitted she scratched his face because he was
"choking" or "smothering" Charlotte.
Charlotte
was detained in a foster home.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] At the detention
hearing, the court ordered the Agency to provide services including crisis
intervention, case management, counseling and transportation services. The court advised Jennifer that her
reunification services might be limited to "no more than six months"
because Charlotte was younger than three years old (§ 361.5, subd.
(a)(3)). In November 2011, the court
entered a true finding on the petition; ordered Charlotte removed from
Jennifer's custody and placed in foster care; and ordered reunification
services. The court again advised
Jennifer that she would "have no more than six months" to reunify
with Charlotte (Id., subd.
(a)(3)). Jennifer's reunification plan
included individual therapy, a parenting class designed for perpetrators of
physical abuse, the Incredible Families program and parenting education
classes.
Jennifer
made limited progress in therapy and parenting education, causing the Agency to
question whether she "had the cognitive ability
to . . . understand . . . the concepts
that were being presented." The
Agency consulted with Jennifer's therapist and, in January 2012, the therapist
recommended a psychological evaluation.
The evaluation, which took place in April, revealed that Jennifer
suffered from a learning disorder and possibly a phonological disorder. Her intellectual functioning was in the
borderline range, and her academic performance was in the first to eighth grade
range. The evaluator determined Jennifer
needed "extensive interventions" to assist with chores "such as
managing finances, filling out paperwork correctly, and juggling multiple
tasks." The evaluator concluded
that "treatment should be modified to be more concrete, psychoeducational
goals should be clearly stated in simple terms, and a focus should be on
connecting [Jennifer] to various community resources in order for her to gain
the extra support she will need."
The evaluator stated that "it will take [Jennifer] longer than most
to achieve treatment goals," and noted "it is not unusual for someone
with the functioning level of [Jennifer] to take [two]-[three] times as long as
other adults." In addition to
therapy, Jennifer needed parenting classes, although she had already completed
the Incredible Families program with perfect attendance.
After
receiving the psychological evaluation, the Agency asked the Regional Center to
interview Jennifer. Jennifer said she
would follow through with the interview, declined the Agency's offer of
assistance and said a friend was helping her.
Jennifer did not follow through, and the social worker began the
Regional Center application process for her.
In late
April 2012, Jennifer informed the Agency she was moving to Fresno. On May 1, Jennifer stopped attending
therapy. By the time of the six-month
review hearing on May 2, she had decided not to move to Fresno. At the hearing, the court found Jennifer had
been provided reasonable services and continued her services. On May 29, Jennifer resumed therapy. By July 16, she had completed three
Incredible Families "booster" sessions. The Agency recommended Jennifer receive home
visits from a parenting educator, but the friend with whom Jennifer was living
would not allow it.
On July 25,
the twins began a 60-day trial visit with Jon.
That day, Jennifer and Jon announced "they wished to co-parent the
children." Although Jon had
previously showed little interest in Charlotte, he now assumed "a parental
leadership role" and gave Jennifer parenting advice. Jennifer responded positively to the
advice. Her therapist believed Jennifer
would be unsuccessful in "living independently and solely trying to manage
a household, working, and caring for her children."
The Agency
arranged for in-home services for Jon through New Alternatives, with the idea
that the services would also benefit Jennifer, although she was not living in
the home. Therapeutic Behavioral
Services from New Alternatives included family therapy, behavioral coaching and
parenting education. After the in-home
services began, New Alternatives notified the Agency that Jennifer was
consistently present for sessions and Jon was not. Jennifer made little progress. She had a limited ability to contain the
twins' behavior, which included throwing things and verbally threatening Charlotte.
By October
19, 2012, Jennifer had not met with Regional Center personnel to determine her
eligibility for Regional Center services.
Jennifer and Jon told the social worker they did not need the Agency's
services and viewed the Agency's involvement as intrusive and
inappropriate. On October 22, Jennifer's
therapist recommended in-home services in lieu of therapy. On October 30, the Agency recommended
Jennifer's reunification services be extended for six months, to the 18-month
date, and that she be permitted to move into Jon's home.
In late
November 2012, the social worker asked Jennifer about the status of her
Regional Center application. Jennifer
said she was unaware of the status and a New Alternatives behavioral coach was
assisting her with the application. On
December 3, the social worker contacted the Regional Center and learned
Jennifer had not been assigned an intake social worker. On December 4, the Agency determined that
Charlotte could not be safely returned to Jennifer's care and recommended that
Jennifer's reunification services be terminated.
On December
6, 2012, a New Alternatives representative informed the Agency that New
Alternatives was terminating in-home services because the goal of obviating a
higher level of care for one of the twins had been achieved. The representative said that when a
behavioral coach asked Jennifer how things were going in the home, Jennifer
said "fine," although one of the twins had been suspended from school
for hitting the other twin. New Alternatives
had offered Jennifer and Jon further services, but they had declined. On December 10, the Regional Center informed
the Agency that Jennifer did not qualify for Regional Center services.
The
12-month review hearing took place on January 15, 2013. Social worker Kimberly Lawhead, who had been
assigned to the case on January 1, testified that she visited Jennifer's home
on January 4. The twins were there and
were yelling, swearing and ignoring Jennifer's request that they stop
swearing. Jennifer said Jon planned to
move. Jon confirmed this, and said he
was not sure if the boys would move with him.
Jennifer had completed her services and said she did not need further services. Lawhead knew of no additional services that
would help Jennifer address the protective issues and make it safe for
Charlotte to be returned to her care in the next six months.
Jennifer
testified that if Charlotte were returned to her care, they would live with Jon
and the twins. She believed it would be
safe for Charlotte to live in the same home as the twins, but was willing to
live apart from the twins if the Agency believed the twins presented a
danger.
The court
found Jennifer had participated in services and made some progress. In finding that reasonable services had been
provided, the court stated "all reasonable alternatives were
explored" with regard to Jennifer's "information
processing." The court concluded
that returning two-year-old Charlotte to Jennifer's custody would create a
substantial risk of detriment to Charlotte's physical and emotional well-being
and there was not a substantial probability she would be returned by the
18-month date. The court continued
Charlotte's foster care placement, terminated Jennifer's services, and set a
section 366.26 hearing.
Jennifer
petitioned for review of the court's orders.
(§ 366.26, subd. (l);
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) This
court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded, and the parties
waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
Jennifer
contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding she received
reasonable reunification services. She argues that aside from the Regional
Center referral, the Agency made no attempt to help her with her developmental
disabilities, developmental delays and special needs.
her to an anger management program or related resource, did not provide
unsupervised visitation and did not include Charlotte in the in-home services
provided for the twins.
"Reunification
services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family. [Citation.]
The juvenile court and child welfare agency must accommodate the special
needs of disabled . . . parents." (Tracy
J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1425-1426.) " '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.' " (Katie
V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598-599, quoting
538, 547.) "The 'adequacy of
reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Agency's] efforts are judged
according to the circumstances of each case.'
[Citation.] To support a finding
reasonable services were offered or provided, 'the record should show that the
supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody,
offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained
during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance
proved difficult . . . .' " (Tracy
J., at p. 1426.) In determining
"whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's [reasonable
services] finding, [we review] the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prevailing party[,] and [indulge] in all legitimate and reasonable inferences
to uphold the court's ruling." (
Jennifer
received services including individual
therapy, a psychological evaluation, more than one parenting program and
parenting instruction during supervised visitation. She also participated in services provided to
Jon and the twins, including family therapy and behavioral coaching. She refused further services. Jennifer was ineligible for Regional Center
services, and social worker Lawhead knew of no additional services that would
help Jennifer. Considering the danger
the twins posed to Charlotte, and Jennifer's inability to control their
behavior, it was reasonable not to include Charlotte in the New Alternatives
program with the twins. Furthermore,
during supervised visits, Jennifer needed prompting to ensure Charlotte's
safety. Before the six-month review
hearing, the Agency intended to refer Jennifer to an anger management class,
but when her cognitive deficits were recognized, the Agency concluded that
class would not benefit her. Substantial
evidence supports the court's finding Jennifer received reasonable services.
DISPOSITION
The
petition is denied. The request for stay
is denied.
McDONALD,
J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Further statutory references are
to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
The twins were detained in a
separate foster home and lived apart from Charlotte throughout this case.
