M.A. v. Superior Court

Filed 12/12/08 M.A. v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Kenneth Fernandez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Petition denied.

Anastasia Georggin for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

M. A. (mother) challenges the decision of the juvenile court to terminate reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1]to consider a permanent plan for the minor. Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that the reunification services offered to her were reasonable and, also, that return of the minor would create a substantial risk of detriment to them. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with these contentions and, therefore, deny the petition.

FACTS

Mother gave birth to a baby boy in May 2007. A toxicological screen was negative and there were no health problems for the minor. However, the Department of Public Social Services (department) was alerted when the father was being verbally abusive towards mother and nurses and had to be excluded from the hospital.

When social workers investigated, it was learned that mother had recently lost custody of two children in dependency proceedings in Los Angeles County. That proceeding occurred following a physical altercation between mother and her sister. During the fracas, mother struck her 5-month-old nephew in the face. At the time the current dependency proceeding was instituted, the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court had terminated reunification services for mother in that proceeding and a section 366.26 hearing had been scheduled.

It also should be noted that mother was on felony probation for assaulting minors father and was ordered to complete 52 weeks of anger management.

In the current proceedings, the juvenile court made the requisite jurisdictional findings on September 26, 2007, and ordered that mother be provided family reunification services. The case plan required that mother participate in individual counseling, parenting classes, and an outpatient substance abuse program.

By the time of the 12-month status review hearing, the social worker reported that mother had been attending Alternatives to Domestic Violence. Her counselor in that program stated that mother had initially been very quiet and withdrawn but had made some progress and increased her communication.

Mother had graduated from the MOMs Program, which provided both parent education and substance abuse treatment and testing. All substance abuse testing was negative.

Despite extensive progress in her case plan, the social worker believed that mother had not benefitted from the services, noting that mother failed to understand the importance of complying with the probation department to remain out of jail. She did not support herself financially and was living with her grandmother. If minor were returned to mothers care, mother noted that she would need to move so as not to stress out her grandmother. Mother assumed that she could easily obtain section 8 housing in that event.

Mother also seemed incapable of making rational decisions about her sons medical care. When minor was hospitalized to monitor him for low oxygen saturation due to bronchitis and a rapid heart rate, mother requested that he be disconnected from his intravenous (IV) and oxygen tubing. When asked why she would make such a request before talking with medical personnel or the social worker, she stated, I dont like him to have it if he doesnt need it. I had the doctors at Childrens Hospital in San Diego remove his IVs when he was born with the same symptoms he is having now.

The social worker was also concerned that mother did not respond to high stress incidents or emotional circumstances in any way. Her affect remained flat and she spoke in a monotone voice. Because of mothers history of outbursts of extreme violence, the social worker recommended a psychological assessment be conducted.

The assessment reinforced these concerns. The psychologist expressed grave concerns about [mothers] over-control of emotions and intermittent explosive outbursts. She has a known history of hitting a 5 month old child in the face, extensive assaulting of an adult female and an adult male. One may argue that those are in the past, but her lack of emotional responsiveness is an indication that these issues have not been resolved. I would be extremely cautious in the reunification process. The other issue is her lack of judgment regarding the removal of the IV from her child before consulting medical advice. The impression I have is that she has gone through the motions, so to speak, in terms of complying with the reunification requirements. She made no mention of feeling remorseful about the separation from her older children and made no mention of missing or loving the child in the present matter. My impression is that her future is going to look very much like her past.

Following this assessment, mother was referred for clinical services. She attended an initial assessment and completed four of 17 sessions with a clinician prior to the review hearing on September 15, 2008. The therapist reported to the social worker that mother initially presented with a blunt affect but by the third session, improved and became more transparent with regard to her feelings. The therapist was unable to make a recommendation as to [mothers] ability to care for her child safely but would only state that she and [mother] have begun working on becoming more self sufficient, setting goals for how she would care for her child if returned to her care, and have explored some of the trauma [mother] experienced in her life. . . . [The therapist] would not provide a definitive recommendation and would only report [mothers] participation in therapy.

At the contested 12-month review hearing on September 15, 2008, the juvenile court found that reasonable services had been provided mother but she had not made substantive progress. It could not find a reasonable probability that the minor could be returned to her care by the time of the 18-month review hearing. It terminated reunification services and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that the reunification services offered to her were reasonable, in that the services offered failed to address and accommodate her special needs. The standard of review when a parent challenges the reasonableness of the reunification services provided or offered is whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts conclusion that such services were reasonable. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and the reviewing court must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court. (In re Albert B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 361, 375.)

The juvenile courts determination that the department had provided reasonable services is supported by substantial evidence. Mother was able to participate in many programs in an effort to improve her parenting skills and maintain a drug and alcohol free lifestyle. Mother argues, and we agree, that every reunification plan  must be appropriate for each family and be based on the unique facts relating to that family.  (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.) We also recognize that parents with mental difficulties may present unique challenges to the dependency process, and that care must be taken to afford the parent particularized assistance where required. (See In re Misako R., supra,2 Cal.App.4th at pp. 545-546; In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1329-1331.) However, we do not agree that the department failed to make reasonable efforts to accommodate her psychological disability. Those problems surfaced only during the course of mothers treatment. When the social worker realized the extent of mothers problems, a psychological assessment was performed confirming concerns about mothers mental health. At that point, she was referred for appropriate treatment; it does not appear that earlier treatment would have led to a different result. Based on the psychologists opinion and the therapists report, it is not clear when, or even whether, mother will be able to care for the minor in an appropriate and safe manner.

Mother also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that the return of the minor would create a substantial risk of detriment. Here again, the courts conclusion is amply supported by the evidence. Although mother may have completed certain aspects of her case plan, her psychological health is precarious and her judgment is poor. There would be considerable risk to the minors physical and emotional well-being if he were given over to mothers care under these circumstances.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING

J.

We concur:

RICHLI

Acting P. J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

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