Jose G. v. Superior Court
Filed 10/24/11 Jose G. v. Superior Court CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| JOSE G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; | D060254 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. J517402) |
| SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. | |
PROCEEDINGS for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Carol Isackson, Judge. Petition denied; request for stay denied.
Jose G. seeks writ review of juvenile court orders removing him from his mother, Wendy A.'s, care, terminating Wendy's reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Jose contends the court erred by finding the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) had made reasonable efforts to prevent his removal from Wendy's care. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jose was born to Wendy and Eduardo G. in January 2009 when Wendy was 15 and Eduardo was 16. Jose stayed in the hospital for several weeks because of complications related to his premature birth. While he was in the hospital, Wendy and Eduardo did not fully comply with staff directions to spend time with him, provide feedings or attend a program on infant care.
The Agency petitioned on Jose's behalf under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging he was at substantial risk. The court ordered him detained and authorized supervised visitation. In March the court found the allegations of the petition true, removed custody and ordered reunification services.
Wendy enrolled in a school that is part of the San Diego Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting Program (SANDAPP) and participated in services. She lived with the maternal grandmother, then with Jose's paternal relatives and then with her (Wendy's) sister, Alejandra P., who obtained legal guardianship of her. In December 2009 Jose was placed with Alejandra. Eduardo was incarcerated much of this time. At the 12-month hearing in April 2010, the court terminated his services, continued services for Wendy and authorized unsupervised visits with her. At the 18-month hearing in August 2010, the court ordered Jose placed with Wendy.
One month later, in September 2010, the Agency petitioned under section 387 on Jose's behalf, alleging Wendy had dropped him off at a hospital and said she wanted him placed in a foster home. Wendy said she and Alejandra had had a physical altercation, and she accused Alejandra of using drugs. Alejandra denied this, but said she and Wendy had argued about some money that was missing. The social worker suggested she and Wendy talk with Alejandra, or she would take Wendy to the Polinsky Children's Center (Polinsky) with Jose. Wendy refused and said she would stay with a friend. The court ordered Jose detained.
Wendy then stayed with the W.'s, the family of a classmate. She resumed attending school and visited Jose. At the November 2010 hearings, the court granted the Agency's motion to dismiss the section 387 petition and ordered Jose placed with Wendy, and they lived together at the W.'s home. The social worker reported the SANDAPP social worker was planning to assist Wendy in petitioning for emancipation, and Wendy was scheduled to attend an orientation meeting for Take Wing, a transitional housing program.
In November 2010, Wendy was asked to leave the W.'s home. In December she missed a medical appointment for Jose. She said she was staying with Jose's paternal great-grandmother.
In February the court ordered Jose's continued placement with Wendy and ordered the Agency to support her in caring for Jose and to address her living situation. At another hearing that month, the court granted Wendy's request to be emancipated. Wendy told the social worker she had applied for CalWorks and MediCal and for a transitional housing program.
Wendy was offered services through Community Services for Families (CSF), but in March CSF stopped providing services because Wendy was not participating. Wendy said the services were not beneficial, she did not want anyone else involved in her life and she did not want to have to keep coming to court. In April she said she could not live with the paternal relatives anymore because Eduardo was being released from incarceration and he would be living here. She did not keep Jose's medical appointments or contact Jose's daycare program to say he would miss several days of daycare, and he was dropped from the program. Then, she telephoned the social worker and said she had nowhere to live with Jose, she had lost his place in daycare, and she had missed school and Jose's medical appointments. She said she no longer wanted the Agency to be involved in her life and would rather give up Jose.
The Agency petitioned again under section 387, and Jose was detained in relative care.
While the section 387 petition was pending, Jose's counsel moved to vacate the February 3, 2011 order emancipating Wendy and sought orders appointing a guardian ad litem for her, declaring her a dependent of the juvenile court and ordering family maintenance services. Wendy later decided she did not want the order of emancipation vacated. The court denied the motion.
At the section 387 hearing in July 2011, Wendy testified she did not remember some of the services the Agency had offered, but said the Agency had not done enough to help her. She said she became emancipated so that she could apply for welfare for Jose on her own.
The social worker testified the Agency had provided Wendy with housing referrals, talked with her SANDAPP worker and offered her services through CSF. The social worker agreed she had not arranged housing for Wendy, offered her assistance with paying rent, helped her get welfare or food stamps or helped her enroll Jose in childcare. She said Wendy had not taken advantage of many services that were available to her.
After considering the evidence and argument by counsel, the court found the allegations of the petition to be true and that Wendy had been offered or provided reasonable reunification services. It removed custody from Wendy, terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Jose petitions 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
Jose contends substantial evidence does not support the court's finding the Agency provided reasonable services to Wendy to prevent his removal from her care. He argues the Agency did not do enough to assist Wendy to find stable housing.
A supplemental petition under section 387 is used when a dependent child must be removed from a parent and placed in out-of-home care. (§ 387; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560(c); In re Javier G. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1200.) The court conducts a hearing to determine the truth of the factual allegations of the petition as well as the allegation that the previous disposition has not been effective in rehabilitating or protecting the child. (In re Javier G., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.) If both allegations are found to be true, the court then determines whether removal is required. (In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 542.) Section 361, subdivision (d), provides the court must determine whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal. If a parent has already received 18 months of services when the court removes custody, it may terminate the parent's reunification services. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '. . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' [Citation.]" (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
In determining the sufficiency of reunification services, the role of the appellate court is to decide "whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) A service plan must take into account the specific needs of the family. (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) The standard is not that the best possible services were provided, but that reasonable services were provided under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
There is no " 'requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions.' " (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233.) " 'It is . . . well established that "[r]eunification services are voluntary, and cannot be forced on an unwilling or indifferent parent. [Citation.]" ' " (Ibid.) "[S]ome capacity to achieve the reunification goals is presumed." (Angela S. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 762.)
Substantial evidence supports the court's finding Wendy received reasonable reunification services. In September 2010, when Wendy became overwhelmed and decided she could no longer care for Jose and dropped him off at the hospital, the social worker suggested they meet with Alejandra so that Wendy and Jose might return to Alejandra's home or that the social worker take Wendy to Polinsky with Jose, but Wendy refused.
Between September 2010 and April 2011, the Agency social worker offered Wendy housing referrals, suggested she enroll in Take Wing, and tried to help her communicate with her SANDAPP worker. But Wendy said she had not been able to reach the SANDAPP worker, and, although the social worker suggested she contact the worker's supervisor, Wendy did not do so. Wendy did not apply for housing through Take Wing, giving the excuse that she did not want to go to Point Loma, where it was located, and she said she would not work with the CSF worker who was to help her find housing. Wendy had a pattern of abruptly leaving places she was staying without warning or asking for help from the social worker or her counsel. She did not keep in good contact with the Agency or other service providers and the social worker had difficulty reaching her. In April 2011, when she decided she could no longer care for Jose, she said she would rather give him up than have the juvenile court involved in her life anymore.
The social worker took into account Wendy's age and lack of experience when trying to help her. She repeatedly telephoned Wendy to remind her to take Jose to the doctor, make him available for Regional Center services and let his daycare know when he would not be attending.
As the court stated:
"As one looks at the evidence, it appears there is really no failure to provide appropriate or reasonable help or efforts. She had plenty of helpers, and she had plenty of offers of help when one goes through, objectively, the events. There were many, many individuals involved with her.
"Here, striking is the consistent lack of responsibility and initiative that [Wendy] has demonstrated in dealing with the [A]gency and the service providers at least since Jose was placed with her 11 months ago."
In view of the many months of services Wendy received and the numerous attempts the Agency made to provide assistance and connect her with services that could help her, we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's finding reasonable reunification services were offered or provided to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Jose from her custody.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for stay is denied.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
