Maria R. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 6/5/08 Maria R. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. George W. Clarke, Judge. Petition denied.

Maria R. petitions for writ review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services regarding her daughter, Claudia G., and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.^[1] She contends the court erred because reasonable services were not provided to her and she participated regularly and made substantive progress in treatment. We deny the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of infant Claudia under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging she was at risk because of her father Juan G.'s substance abuse, her parents' failure to reunify with her older siblings, and Maria's inability to protect her.

Maria's eight older children were removed from her care in 2006 when Juan was arrested for selling methamphetamine. The children were returned to Maria, but then removed again because of neglect and allegations of physical abuse. The parents did not participate in services, and the court terminated services regarding these children.

On June 12, 2007, the court found the allegations concerning Claudia to be true, placed her in foster care, removed custody from the parents and ordered them to participate in reunification services. Maria's case plan included therapy, a psychological evaluation, parenting education and substance abuse testing.

Maria completed parenting programs and had a psychological evaluation. In July 2007 she enrolled in therapy, but then did not appear for appointments and was dropped from the therapist's calendar. She did not receive two drug testing referrals, but the social worker explained to her by telephone how to participate. However, Maria did not drug test because for two testing dates she was in custody and on two other dates she did not have valid identification.

The psychologist who evaluated Maria said she sees herself as vulnerable and weak, is apprehensive and highly dependent, uses defense mechanisms of repression and denial, and has low self esteem, poor social judgment and poor coping skills. He said Maria's low intellectual ability plus her impaired judgment causes concern that she cannot make informed decisions regarding her children.

On December 3, 2007, Maria reported she had been deported and was living in Ensenada. She asked to continue her services there. The social worker reported Maria had two therapy appointments in Ensenada and she had been referred for drug testing in Tijuana, but said she could not afford the tests, which cost about $20 each.

At the six-month review hearing on February 13, 2008, the social worker testified when Maria called him after she was deported, he advised her to contact the Mexican social services agency, and she began therapy there in January. He testified her therapist said Maria did not accept responsibility and blamed Juan for their problems.

Maria testified by telephone that the social worker told her she did not have to do all of her services at once, but that therapy was the most important. She said the psychological evaluator spoke only a little Spanish.

The court found reasonable services had been provided, but Maria had not made substantive progress with her case plan. It terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. This court has issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded, and the parties waived oral argument.

DISCUSSION

Initially, we consider the Agency's motion to dismiss Maria' petition on the basis that she did not personally sign the notice of intent to file the petition. Maria expressly authorized her attorney to file the notice and has subsequently provided to the court a notice of intent that includes her personal signature. We thus deny the motion to dismiss.

Maria contends the court erred by terminating her reunification services because the Agency did not provide reasonable services and did not show she did not participate regularly or make progress in her treatment plan.

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.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 337, 340.) 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.) 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.) 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.)

Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that Maria received reasonable services. Maria was told her reunification plan required her to participate in a parenting class, undergo a psychological evaluation, have drug tests and participate in therapy. She was in the United States for most of the reunification period, from May until November 2007, when she was deported. The services of her case plan were offered to her during this time. However, she did not follow through with attending therapy sessions or having drug tests, services that were readily available to her, and she often did not keep in contact with the social worker.

The first psychological evaluation was mistakenly scheduled with an evaluator who did not speak Spanish, but this problem was soon corrected and the psychological evaluation was conducted. Maria did not inform the social worker about any language problems with the second evaluator. She also did not tell the Agency she did not have the identification card required for drug testing, a problem the social worker said could have easily been solved. Substantial evidence supports a finding reasonable services were offered or provided.

Substantial evidence also supports the court's finding that Maria did not make substantive progress with her reunification plan. She completed a parenting class and had a psychological evaluation, but she did not participate regularly in therapy although she acknowledged she knew therapy was essential and the social worker had constantly told her it was the most important component of her services. She testified the first social worker immediately started the process to enable her to have therapy, yet she admitted she forgot to attend therapy appointments. Her therapist in Ensenada reported Maria continued not to take responsibility and blamed Juan for Claudia's dependency. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding Maria did not make substantive progress in services.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied. The request for stay is denied.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.