M.V. v. Superior Court
Filed 3/29/13 M.V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
M.V.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real
Party in Interest.
E057868
(Super.Ct.No.
SWJ001172)
OPINION
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary
writ. John N. Monterosso,
Judge. Petition denied.
David
A. Goldstein for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
No
appearance for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner
M.V. (mother) challenges the decision of the juvenile court to terminate
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26
son. 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 him.
For the reasons explained post,
we disagree with these contentions and, therefore, deny the petition.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
H.H.
(minor), who was born in January 2009, was first detained when social workers
from Riverside County Department of
Public Social Services (the “departmentâ€) received reports of domestic
violence involving both parents. Mother
had several injuries, which she said she had sustained as a result of an
earlier altercation with the father.
out of the house she shared with father because she said she did have anywhere
to stay and refused to move to a shelter.
Both
parents tested positive for marijuana use.
Mother insists that she uses this drug legally as she has a medical
marijuana card. She states she smokes
marijuana twice a week to treat her insomnia and anxiety, as well as to help
her appetite because she is so thin. She
informed the social worker that she typically smokes in the garage after the
minor has gone to sleep and she does not view her use of marijuana to be a
problem.
Both
parents also have rather lengthy criminal histories for theft and drug
crimes. In addition, father had
convictions for domestic violence.
In
2002, mother’s oldest child was made a dependent child when allegations of
general neglect were substantiated.
Mother received family reunification services and that child was
returned to her in 2003. However, the
father of that child currently has sole physical custody of him, as well as a
younger sibling.
At
the November 2010 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the
allegations of the amended petition to be true, and physical custody of the
minor was removed from the parents. The
court also ordered that reunification services be provided to mother that
included, pursuant to the case plan:
substance abuse assessment, random drug testing, substance abuse
treatment program, parenting class, individual/conjoint therapy, and a domestic
violence program.
The
social worker stated in the status review report of May 10, 2011, that mother had received referrals
for services. Because mother had
previously participated in counseling services for over a year, she needed to
undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if she could benefit from
counseling services. The social worker
observed a visit and found that both parents appeared loving and nurturing to
the minor, who appeared to be well bonded to them. The social worker concluded, however, that
mother had made only minimal progress toward the completion of her plan, and
that she was uncooperative and unwilling to communicate with the social
worker. Mother had received positive
feedback from her anger management counselor, completed parenting education,
and had been faithful in visitation.
In
an addendum report filed June 9, 2011,
it was recommended that reunification services be terminated. Mother had refused to participate in random
drug testing. She had refused to leave
the home owned by the father’s parents, even though the father had been
incarcerated, and his parents reported she was renting out rooms without their
consent.
In
another addendum filed in July 2011, it was reported that mother remained
defiant in her refusal to participate in random drug testing. She had not been assigned to a therapist
because she failed to demonstrate 30 days of sobriety. Also, she had participated in a psychological
evaluation and was diagnosed with a personality disorder with narcissistic,
antisocial and borderline traits. The
psychologist, Dr. Suiter, suggested that mother would require extensive
psychotherapy that was beyond the scope of the mental health services that
could be provided in a six- to 12-month time frame.
At
the review hearing in July 2011, the juvenile court continued reunification
services for the mother, ordering therapy and randomized and on-demand drug
testing for her.
The
department filed a report on September 27, 2011, informing the court that the
mother had been arrested for driving under the influence of a controlled
substance, methamphetamine, and a probation violation. Mother admitted to police that the
methamphetamine and pipe were hers. She
also stated that she provided sexual favors to obtain the drugs, and that she
sold methamphetamine to supplement her income.
The
department also became aware of a “You Tube†video mother had posted entitled
“Judges, Public Defenders and Foster Homes.â€
Mother discusses her experiences with the dependency court system and
the injustice of having her son removed from her. She ended the video with a statement that
read “all this for a plantâ€â€”apparently referring to her use of marijuana. Pictures of the minor and his caregiver were
featured on this Internet site, although mother had not received permission of
the caregiver or the department to do so.
In
addition, mother had tested positive for marijuana three times and had “no
showed†four other times since June.
Mother admitted that on July 26, 2011 she was under the influence of
Klonopin (or Clonazepam) and had passed out.
This drug had apparently been prescribed to reduce anxiety in place of
marijuana.
After
this report was filed, mother made an almost complete turnaround in her
behavior. She was immediately enrolled
in the “Family Preservation Court†program, and as of December 2011 she was in
full compliance. She tested negative for
all substances as of October 27, 2011, attended 12-step meetings, and
participated in anger management classes, as well as individual counseling. Based on mother’s compliance, at the 12-month
status review hearing in January 2012, the juvenile court ordered the minor
returned to her care and custody and the department was ordered to provide
family maintenance services.
However,
prior to the status review hearing, mother had relapsed, and the department
filed a supplemental petition under section 387. In the accompanying report, the social worker
stated that on August 14, 2012, she had talked with mother’s case manager in
the Family Preservation Court who said there was concern that clients in this
group were consuming baking soda within two hours of testing so that they would
not test positive. The case manager said
she would be requesting mother to drug test on that date. Within two hours of this conversation, mother
called the social worker and admitted that the day before she had taken two
hits of marijuana and smoked “a bowl of meth.â€
Mother stated she had been in a “funk†the last couple of weeks and was
scared to graduate from Family Preservation Court and lose her support.
In
a face-to-face meeting two days later, mother told the social worker that she
was “triggered†to use methamphetamine due to her current living
arrangements. She indicated that her
current roommates abused methamphetamine and she began to use it within one
week after moving in on July 20, 2012.
She expressed concern about parenting her son due to his
and that she was in a romantic relationship with a man from her group.
An
initial decision was made that the minor would remain in the mother’s care with
continued court involvement. Mother
signed a relapse prevention plan from the court and new living arrangements
were found for her and her son. As part
of the plan, mother was to have no romantic relationships or unneeded contact
with men for a minimum of 30 days.
Soon,
however, the case manager received an anonymous report that mother had not
stayed the previous night in the new residence but had spent the night with a
man who was a known drug dealer. Mother
appeared in court the same day as this report was received and confirmed she
had not stayed the night at the new residence.
She said she had been with a friend, and denied it was the person who
was of concern to the court program and the department. When asked why she had used, mother
responded, “You don’t understand. It has
been so stressful lately. [The minor] is
a handful. You just don’t understand how
hard it is to take care of him.†At this
point, she was being terminated from the court program. Mother left the courtroom and attempted to
leave the courthouse, refusing to inform social workers of her son’s
whereabouts. Only after deputies
intervened did mother reveal the minor’s whereabouts, and he was taken into
protective custody later that day.
At
the detention hearing in August 2012, it was ordered that mother be provided
reunification services, including alcohol and drug testing, substance abuse
treatment, parenting education, and counseling.
The court authorized minor’s return to mother upon a suitable home
evaluation, and mother being clean and following all steps in program.
Mother
enrolled in Gibson House, which is a 45-day residential substance abuse
treatment program. She did not complete
the program and left it on September 19, explaining to the counselor that she
was “unable to sit around and complete substance abuse treatment as she had
other legal issues that she had to take care of.†She had positive drug tests on September 5,
and October 28, 2012.
Mother
entered MFI Recovery Center’s residential program in late October 2012, and
completed the program on December 9, 2012.
Thereafter, she participated in its outpatient program receiving aftercare
services.
Because
three of mother’s appointed attorneys declared a conflict in succession, the
contested jurisdictional hearing on
the supplemental petition was not heard until January 2013. Mother testified at this hearing on January
9, 2013, that in addition to participating in MFI’s aftercare program, she had
obtained employment, maintained a residence, regularly attended 12-step
meetings, and maintained contact with her sponsor and her son.
The
social worker supervising the case admitted during her testimony at this
hearing that mother was then currently in compliance with her case plan.
At
the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court made the requisite
jurisdictional findings and denied reunification services to the mother. The court commented that mother’s entire
history with dependency proceedings going back 10 years had to be considered in
order to evaluate her substance abuse problem and determine whether the minor
could be safely returned to her care. In
view of her history, it opined that the department would have been justified
when mother relapsed in August 2012 not to attempt to keep the minor in her
care by devising a safety plan. This
plan was devised based on mother’s input as to what her temptations were. However, mother did not comply with the plan,
resulting in termination from Family Preservation Court.
From
late August to late October, mother continued to use drugs. Eventually, she did get into the MFI program
and had been clean for 77 days, but the court noted that mother seems to do
well when there is intense scrutiny and oversight, but does not do so well when
she is on her own and must deal with stressful situations. It concluded that there still exists a
substantial risk of harm to the minor if he were placed back in mother’s care.
The
juvenile court indicated that the minor had been originally removed September
26, 2010, and had been out of the home for over 18 months. The total number of months of services
provided exceeds 28 months. The court
found that the department had provided reasonable services. Although there had been some concerns about
the minor’s development, the court commented that his behavior was really no
different from almost any other three or four year old as confirmed by an
assessment by the Inland Regional Center.
Thus, contrary to mother’s suggestion, the department had not simply
placed an extremely troubled child in her care without adequate support and
instruction. Mother complained that the
department did not prepare her, but the court pointed out that it was not the
department’s job to prepare her, but only to provide her the tools and
opportunity to help her prepare herself.
DISCUSSION
Mother asserts that the juvenile
court erred in two respects. First, it
erred in finding that there was a substantial risk to the minor if he were
returned to her care. Second, she claims
that she was not provided reasonable reunification services. Neither contention is well taken.
First,
mother contends that since she completed her drug treatment program and had
been clean for 77 days, the juvenile court’s finding regarding substantial risk
is necessarily not supported by substantial evidence. No so.
Even though she was in compliance with that component of her case plan
at the time of the hearing, the juvenile court properly considered her entire
history and concluded that she had not demonstrated an ability to refrain from
drug use when she was in stressful situations.
By her own admissions, the difficulties she encountered in trying to
parent the minor were a significant factor that contributed to her
relapse. Mother, however, still fails to
recognize that there is a link between her sobriety—or lack thereof—and her
ability to parent. Weighing her
relatively brief period of sobriety against her long history of drug abuse,
particularly when confronted with stressful situations, the juvenile court
could well find that the minor faced a substantial risk of harm if returned to
mother’s care.
The
standard of review when a parent challenges the reasonableness of the
reunification services provided or offered is whether substantial evidence
supported the juvenile court’s 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 court’s order is supported by substantial evidence. Mother complains about the department’s
failure to provide services after the supplemental petition was filed and the
minor detained, asserting that the services she did receive, she secured on her
own or through the Family Preservation Court program. However, the department was not obligated to
provide services in addition to those provided as part of the latter
program. For instance, there was no need
for the department to make arrangements for housing or drug testing when those
arrangements had already been made.
It
is true that after she was terminated from Family Preservation Court, mother
made her own arrangements for residential programs, but this was the result of
her own decisions rather than lack of effort by the department. We believe it is not particularly significant
that a social worker did not visit her while she was in the residential
treatment program since it was obvious that she was receiving treatment for her
primary problem, substance abuse, and counselors in that program were
monitoring her progress.
Overall,
while the services provided may not have been ideal, they were reasonable.
DISPOSITION
The
petition is denied.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2] Father was arrested in January 2011 for a
domestic violence incident. He pleaded
guilty to a charge of violating Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), and
is currently incarcerated. The juvenile
court terminated reunification services for him at the contested review hearing
in July 2011. He is not a party to this
petition.
