Richard L. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 6/11/08 Richard L. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 PROCEEDING; petitions for extraordinary writ. Robert M. Padia, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Petitions denied.

Dennis Moore for Petitioner Richard L.

David Goldstein for Petitioner C.J.

No appearance for Respondent.

Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Richard L. (Father) petitions for an extraordinary writ directing the juvenile court to (1) enter an order requiring the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) to continue offering him reunification services;^[1]and (2) vacate its order setting a hearing to consider terminating his parental rights to his son, T.L. (Welf & Inst. Code, 366.26).^[2] (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a).) Father essentially contends the juvenile court erred by ordering that his reunification services be terminated because (1) substantial evidence does not support the courts finding that it would place T.L. at a substantial risk of detriment to return him to Fathers custody; and (2) the court did not state a factual basis for its finding that T.L. faced a substantial risk of detriment if placed in Fathers custody. We deny the petition.

C.J. (Mother) also petitions for an extraordinary writ directing the juvenile court to (1) order the Department to continue offering her reunification services; and (2) vacate its order setting a hearing to consider terminating her parental rights to her two daughters S.J. and K.J., and her son, T.L. ( 366.26). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a).) Mother makes three contentions. First, Mother contends the juvenile court erred by not placing T.L. and K.J. in Fathers custody. Second, Mother essentially argues that substantial evidence does not support the courts finding that she was offered reasonable reunification services. Third, Mother asserts the juvenile court erred by not stating a factual basis for its finding that reunification services should be terminated. We deny the petition.

FACTS

1.

DETENTION

On July 19, 2006, the Department received an immediate referral for S.J., K.J., and T.L. At the time, S.J. was 10 years old, K.J. was five years old, and T.L. was four months old. Riverside Police Detective Llow informed a Department employee that Mother had placed multiple topless advertisements on a website. On July 19, 2006, Mother offered an undercover police officer sex in exchange for money, and gave the officer directions to her house. Police arrested Mother for prostitution at her house, while the three children were present.

Father reported that Mother was not a prostitute; rather, she was a model. Father said that Mothers modeling agency sent photographers to their house to take photographs of Mother. Mother denied being a prostitute and claimed to be a model. The house, in which Mother, Father, and the three children lived, smelled of cat feces. Dirty sheets and clothes were all over the floor, and there were many used condoms in the trashcan. The three children were taken into protective custody due to Mother being arrested for prostituting in the house and Father failing to protect the children.

On July 20, 2006, a Department employee interviewed S.J. S.J. appeared to have a speech deficiency. S.J. reported that photographers came to the house every day to take photographs of Mother, and the photography sessions took place in the master bedroom while the door was closed. S.J. said that Father watched television in the living room when the photographers worked with Mother. S.J. informed the Department employee that Mother breastfed T.L. once during the day, and the rest of the day T.L. drank fruit juice or cows milk. S.J. and K.J. said that S.J. often fed T.L. and K.J. S.J. reported that she was homeschooled.

Mothers mother, Linda, informed the Department that she could not care for Mothers children because she was already caring for Mothers firstborn son, K.H., who was removed from Mothers care in April 1999. Linda reported that S.J. and K.H. share the same father, Keith H. A paternity test conducted by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, when K.H. and S.J. were taken into protective custody, confirmed Lindas report. Keith H.s whereabouts are unknown. Mother said K.J. was conceived during a rape, and she did not know the assailant. The juvenile court found Father to be the presumed father of T.L.

On July 24, 2006, in regard to all three children, the court found (1) there was a substantial risk that the children will suffer serious physical harm or illness if placed in Mothers or Fathers care ( 300, subd. (b)); and (2) the children had been left without any provision for support ( 300, subd. (g)). The court ordered that the children continue to be removed from Mothers and Fathers custody, and that the Department provide the family with reunification services.

2.

JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION

On August 16, 2006, a Department employee interviewed K.J. K.J. said that Father is often upset with her and calls her a bitch. K.J. reported that Mother does not respond when Father calls K.J. a bitch. K.J. said that Father and Mother spank her buttocks with a belt or their hands. K.J. has witnessed Father hit Mother with an open hand. K.J. stated that Father works a lot and when he leaves Mother works in her bedroom. K.J. reported that Mother lays on the bed with big boys and shuts the door and locks it. K.J. said that she is able to hear Mother with the men. K.J. said that S.J. cares for her while Mother is working. K.J. stated that, during a bath, Father rubbed her vaginal area; K.J. told Mother, and Mother hit Father and told him to stop.

On August 16, 2006, a Department employee interviewed S.J. S.J. reported that Father leaves for work in the morning and is never at home. S.J. stated that men come to the house to work with Mother every day. S.J. said that Mother will take one man in her room, while others wait for Mother by the door. S.J. reported that some of the men have looked at her funny. S.J. said that Father has come home while a man is in the room with Mother, and [Father] just waits in the den till shes done. S.J. stated that Father hits Mothers arms and the two argue in their room all the time.

S.J. informed the Department employee that Father often yells at S.J. and hits the side of her abdomen and her legs, leaving bruises. S.J. has told Mother about the physical abuse, but Mother does not try to prevent it. S.J. said Father has used a screwdriver to unlock the bathroom door and enter the bathroom while S.J. is bathing. S.J. has asked Father to leave the bathroom while she bathing, but he has told her to shut up. S.J. reported the bathroom incidents to Mother, and Mother said to S.J., I have already told him.

The Departments October 31, 2006, report reflects that S.J. and K.J. were tested and evaluated by their therapist, a school psychologist, and a Riverside Child Assessment Team. All of the treatment providers expressed concerns that the children had been neglected and possibly sexually abused. It is noted in the report that K.J. smears her feces on the walls of her foster home, which is a habit that began before she was taken into protective custody. Additionally, S.J.s school psychologist reported that S.J. is testing as if she is retarded, but that S.J. is not retarded.

On August 10, 2006, a Department employee interviewed Mother. Mother denied placing advertisements on the internet. Mother stated that she was a model. Mother said the condoms were in the room because K.J. was playing with them as though they were balloons. Mother said the house was in disarray because the police threw the familys belongings around the house.

Father also denied that Mother is a prostitute and claimed that Mother is a model. When asked about Mother propositioning an undercover police officer, Father explained that Mother is heavy sleeper and that she cannot recall propositioning anyone.

On September 9, 2006, the childrens foster parent contacted the Department and reported that Mother terrified the children during a visit by telling them that they were going to be adopted by another family. In response, the Department changed the visitation appointments, so that they would be supervised at the Departments offices.

On November 13, 2006, the juvenile court held a contested jurisdiction hearing in the matter. As to S.J. and K.J., the court found (1) there was a substantial risk that the children will suffer serious physical harm or illness if placed in Mothers care ( 300, subd. (b)); and (2) the children had been left without any provision for support ( 300, subd. (g)). In regard to T.L., the court found there was a substantial risk that he would suffer serious physical harm or illness if placed in Mothers or Fathers care. ( 300, subd. (b).) The court declared the siblings to be a sibling set.

3.

SIX-MONTH REVIEW

In the Departments six-month status report, it recommends that services for Mother and Father be terminated. The report reflects that on January 12, 2007, Mother pled guilty to charges of prostitution. Mother was placed on house arrest and granted three years probation. Mother and Father continued to deny that Mother was a prostitute. Mother and Father claimed S.J. and K.J. were brainwashed by the social worker and therapist. A psychological evaluation of Mother revealed that she displays symptoms of a personality disorder. During a clinical assessment, Mother did not express any recognition of how [prostitution] in the home could possibly endanger the safety of her children.

An evaluation of S.J. revealed that she cannot read, can barely write and is only capable of computing simple math calculations. S.J.s therapist noted that S.J. is doing well in her placement, but suffers from insomnia, which is common among people who are now safe after a long traumatic experience. S.J.s therapist recommended that S.J. not be returned to Mother. S.J. refused to have contact with Father; however, Mother tried to force S.J. and K.J. to see Father, and offered them money to do so. S.J. vehemently refused to participate in family therapy sessions with Father. Both S.J. and K.J. were prescribed Prozac for depression and Benadryl to help them sleep.

A report on K.J. revealed that when she was first referred to therapy, her behavior was so inappropriate that the therapist questioned whether K.J. would need to be institutionalized. K.J. explained to her therapist that she smears her feces on walls when she is angry. K.J.s extremely inappropriate behavior stabilized in foster care, which prevented the need for her to be institutionalized. K.J. has speech articulation problems. K.J.s therapist recommended that K.J. stay in foster care.

The Departments status report reflects that T.L. was a happy baby, bonded to his siblings, and well adjusted to his foster home. Mother and Father participated in counseling, psychiatric evaluations, visitation appointments, and parenting classes. Mother reported that she was earning income by selling items on eBay. Father stated that he worked as a sales representative for a company in Temecula. Additionally, Father had recently bought a house in Lake Elsinore.

On April 23, 2007, the juvenile court found returning the three children to Mothers and Fathers care would place the children at substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional well-being. The court found Mothers and Fathers participation in their case plans had been adequate but incomplete. The court ordered the Department to continue providing services for Mother and Father.

4.

SUSPENSION OF VISITATION

In April 2007, Mother tried to coerce S.J. into taking a photograph with Father during a visitation appointment. S.J. refused to be photographed with Father. A Department employee asked Father to leave.

On July 13, 2007, S.J. was aggressive and self-mutilating after a family therapy session. S.J. told a Department employee that during the therapy session she and Mother went to a vending machine; Mother told S.J. that she was coming home in September and S.J. needed to start seeing Father. S.J. told the Department employee, I hate my mom and she never stops talking to me about [Father] and going home. S.J. said that she no longer wanted to attend therapy and she did not want to visit Mother.

On July 24, 2007, S.J.s foster parent reported that S.J. hits herself with a belt, gives herself paper cuts, picks her toes until they bleed, and cannot sleep. S.J. stated that everyone hates her and thinks she is crazy. S.J. explained that she believes others think she is crazy because during a therapy session Mother said to S.J., You[re] crazy, and S.J. felt that the therapist believed Mother.

On August 7, 2007, the Department applied for an order to suspend visitation between Mother and S.J. S.J.s therapist agreed that visitation should be suspended until S.J. could be emotionally stabilized. The therapist also suggested that the family therapy sessions be suspended. S.J.s therapist asked to be removed from the case so that a female therapist could handle the matter due to S.J.s distrust of men. The court ordered that visitation be suspended.

5.

12-MONTH REVIEW

In the Departments 12-month status report, the Department recommends that Mother and Father receive an additional six months of services. The report reflects that Mother, Father, K.J., and T.L. were moving towards stability. It is noted in the report that [t]he main family conflict is with the child, [S.J.] On August 28, 2007, Mother and Father were granted a two-hour unsupervised visitation appointment with K.J. and T.L. On August 29, 2007, the childrens foster parent informed the Department that she could no longer manage the children; she was planning to move to another state; and she would be submitting her seven-day notice.

On October 17, 2007, the Department applied for an order authorizing S.J.s placement in a group home. The application notes that S.J. was unstable, refused to leave her group home, and might need police intervention. The application further reflects that S.J. was self-mutilating, threatening K.J., and not stabilizing in response to medication. The court ordered that S.J. be moved to a group home. S.J. was placed in a group home in San Diego County. Once at the group home, S.J. stabilized; she stopped cutting herself and ceased being physically aggressive. Additionally, S.J. began doing chores around the house and had no difficulty sleeping.

K.J. and T.L. were placed together at a foster home; however, the foster parents requested K.J. be removed from their home due to her disturbing behavior. After visits with Mother and Father, K.J. became physically aggressive. K.J. hit T.L. in his mouth, causing him to bleed, and on a separate occasion hit his stomach. The foster parents had to tightly hug K.J. to prevent her from harming herself or T.L. The foster parents reported that K.J. urinated and defecated on herself, and on one occasion went into a catatonic state where she did not respond to their voices. Additionally, K.J. had conversations with two other personalities. K.J. said one personality was a girl and the other was a boy; she stated that one was good and the other made her do bad things. On November 28, 2007, K.J. was moved to a different foster home. T.L. did well in the foster home, and bonded with his foster parents.

In the Departments December 2007 addendum report, the Department recommends that services be terminated. The report reflects that during an unsupervised visit, Mother and Father took K.J. and T.L. to Mothers and Fathers house, which was not authorized. As a result, the visitation appointments were moved back to the Departments offices. During the visits, Mother talked on the telephone and did not interact with the children until the last 20 minutes of the appointments. Father played with K.J. and T.L. K.J. appeared to be bonded to Father, but not to Mother.

On January 9, 2008, S.J. stated that she was ready to begin visiting Mother again. On February 12, 2008, S.J.s therapist reported that during a visit with S.J., Mother brought Father along, which upset S.J. Mother said to S.J., I hate [the Department employee working on the case], she is going to put your brother up for adoption and you will never see him again. S.J. began having panic attacks. After the visit, S.J. went to school. S.J. told a teacher, I use[d] to shoot cats with Bee Bee guns and my mother would take the brains out. S.J.s behavior deteriorated after the visit. The Department again suspended visitation between S.J. and Mother.

On March 7, 2008, S.J. made the following statement to a Department employee, I dont want to live with my mother. When I was living with her she made me take care of my younger brother and sister all the time. I never had time for myself. She also would bring me around older men who she said liked me. She would try to get them to go to the bank to pull money out to give her so they could spend some time with me.

On March 12, 2008, during a visit with K.J. and T.L., Mother sat on the floor and assembled a train set, but did not ask the children if they wanted to participate. When Mother finished setting up the train, she put it away and ignored the children. Father played with T.L., but scarcely interacted with K.J. T.L. began throwing blocks, but Mother and Father did not instruct him to stop. K.J. pretended she had a gun, pointed it at the Department employee supervising the visit, and said that she wanted to shoot [the employees] head off. Mother and Father did not respond. After the visit, K.J. was quiet and non-reactive; T.L. was blank and appeared stressed.

On March 25, 2008, the court held a contested 12-month review hearing in the matter.^[3] At the hearing, the Department social worker testified that Mother and Father completed their service programs and classes, but neither parent appeared to have benefitted from the services. The social worker opined that Mother was not bonded to any of her children, based upon her conduct over the past year and a half. The social worker testified that Father was nurturing and caring towards K.J. and T.L. When the social worker was asked if she would consider placing K.J. and T.L. in Fathers care if the court ordered Mother and Father to stay away from one another, the social worker said she would consider placing T.L. with Father, but not K.J. The social worker went on to express concern with Fathers ability to follow a courts order to stay away from Mother, since Father had violated the Departments instructions to not take the children to Mother and Fathers house during visits.

Father testified that he participated in parenting classes, anger management classes, and counseling. Father described the various things he learned from the classes and counseling. Father testified that if K.J. and T.L. were placed in his care, he would attend more counseling sessions. Father also said that he would abide by any court order requiring Mother to stay away from the family residence; however, Father believed Mother was a good parent.

Mother testified that she participated in services and benefitted from the services. Mother testified that the services offered by the Department were not reasonable, because they should have been provided with family therapy sessions that included Father and S.J. Mother testified that S.J. expressed a desire to visit Father.

The court found that returning the children to Mother and Father would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children. The court concluded that the Department offered reasonable services to Mother and Father; however, the court found that Mothers and Fathers progress in alleviating or mitigating the problems that caused removal of the children had been unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the court terminated Mothers and Fathers services. The court scheduled a hearing to consider terminating Mothers and Fathers parental rights for July 23, 2008.

DISCUSSION

1.

FATHERS CONTENTIONS

A. Substantial Evidence

Father essentially contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that T.L. would be at a substantial risk of detriment if placed in Fathers care. We disagree.

At a 12-month permanency hearing, a juvenile court must order that a child be returned to his or her parent unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. ( 366.21, subd. (f).)

We review the trial courts findings for substantial evidence. [Citation.] We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] The judgment will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a differed result had it believed other evidence. [Citation.] (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)

At the hearing, the Department social worker testified that she trusted Father with T.L.; however, she did not trust Mother with T.L. The social worker testified that Mother was detached from her children, and not capable of nurturing them. The social worker stated that she was unsure that Father would follow a court order to stay away from Mother if T.L. were placed in Fathers custody, because Father had previously violated directives given by the Department. While testifying, Father admitted violating the Departments directive to not take the children to his house during visitation appointments. When Father was asked if he would comply with a court order to stay away from Mother, Father said, Absolutely. Nonetheless, Father also testified that Mother would be a great mother. Father also stated that Mother loved the children and that she [w]as a good mother in the past.

The court could reasonably infer from the foregoing evidence that Father would not obey a court order to stay away from Mother. The evidence supports a finding that Mother posed a substantial risk to her children, because Mother was detached from her three children; Mothers two daughters are emotionally disturbed; and Mother continued to deny that she worked as a prostitute, despite pleading guilty to prostitution. Accordingly, placing T.L. in Fathers care would place T.L. at substantial risk of detriment. In sum, we find substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding.

B. Findings

Father contends the juvenile court failed to state a factual basis for its finding that T.L. would be at substantial risk of detriment if placed in Fathers care. We disagree.

At the 12-month permanency hearing, the juvenile court must specify the factual basis for its decision to either return or not return the child to his or her parents care. ( 366.21, subd. (f).)

At the permanency hearing, the juvenile court noted that it read the reports submitted by the Department and listened to and considered testimony. The court stated, The extent of progress that has been made by the parents toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement has been unsatisfactory in that the parents have failed to benefit from the Court-ordered case plan.

The court cited Fathers failure to progress in resolving the issues that led to removal of the children, and Fathers failure to benefit from the court-ordered services. We conclude the courts statements are a sufficient explanation of the factual basis for its finding.

2.

MOTHERS CONTENTIONS

A. Termination of Fathers Rights

Mother essentially contends the court erred by not placing the children in Fathers custody. Mothers argument does not contain a cognizable claim of error or any legal analysis; rather, Mother reargues the facts of the case. To the extent Mother is contending substantial evidence does not support the courts decision to terminate Fathers services as to T.L., we have addressed that argument ante. To the extent Mothers argument is meant to include S.J. and K.J., we note that Father is of no relation to S.J. and K.J.

B. Reasonableness of Services

Mother essentially contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that reasonable services had been provided to her and Father. At the outset, we note that Mother does not have standing to raise an argument concerning the services provided to Father. (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 [a parent cannot raise issues on appeal from a dependency matter that do not affect her own rights].) Accordingly, we limit our discussion to the courts finding that reasonable services were provided to Mother. We disagree with Mothers argument.

At a 12-month permanency review hearing, if a court rules that a child will not be returned to her parent, then the court must specify the factual basis for why it concluded returning the child would be detrimental. ( 366.21, subd. (f).) When the court makes its determination of detriment, one factor to consider is whether reasonable services were offered to the parent. ( 366.21, subd. (f).) Reasonable services are services that aid the parent in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal. ( 366.21, subd. (f).) The reasonableness of services is judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554.) In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. 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. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547 (Misako R.).)

An appellate courts sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile courts finding that reasonable services were provided or offered. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) When determining whether substantial evidence supports the courts finding that reasonable services were provided, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge all reasonable inferences to uphold the courts ruling. (Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.) If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed. (Ibid.)

The problems that caused S.J., K.J., and T.L. to be detained from Mothers care included Mothers prostitution in the home and neglect. In order to address those issues, Mother and the children were provided individual and joint therapy, and Mother was offered parenting classes. Mother was also provided visitation appointments with the children. We conclude that these services were reasonably designed to address the issues that caused the children to be detained, because they are directly related to the issues that caused the children to be removed from Mothers care.

Mother contends the services were not reasonable because joint therapy with the entire family was not provided. We conclude that it was reasonable not to provide such a service because S.J. was vehemently opposed to seeing Father, and S.J.s therapist recommended joint therapy sessions not take place, because S.J. was unstable. In support of her argument that the joint therapy would have been reasonable, Mother cites her own testimony claiming that S.J. wanted to visit Father. We reiterate that we do not resolve conflicts in the testimony and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the courts order. (Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.)

Next, Mother argues the Department should have allowed T.L.s paternal aunt to visit T.L. Mother provides no analysis regarding how visitation with T.L.s aunt relates to the argument concerning the reasonableness of services offered to Mother. Accordingly, we conclude this argument is unpersuasive.

C. Findings

Mother contends the juvenile court failed to state its reasons for its finding that the children would be at substantial risk of detriment if placed in Mothers and Fathers care. We disagree, and again we note that Mother does not have standing to raise this argument on behalf of Father, who raised the same argument in his own petition. (In re Frank L., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 703.)

At the 12-month permanency hearing, the juvenile court must specify the factual basis for its decision to either return or not return the children to their parents care. ( 366.21, subd. (f).)

At the permanency hearing, the juvenile court noted that it read the reports submitted by the Department and listened to and considered testimony. The court stated, The extent of progress that has been made by the parents toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement has been unsatisfactory in that the parents have failed to benefit from the Court-ordered case plan.

The court cited Mothers failure to progress in resolving the issues that led to removal of the children, and Mothers failure to benefit from the court-ordered services. We conclude the courts statements are a sufficient explanation of the factual basis for its finding.

DISPOSITION

The petitions for extraordinary writs are denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ McKinster

J.

We concur:

/s/ Ramirez

P.J.

/s/ Gaut

J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]Fathers petition requests that services be provided; however, we infer that Father meant to request services be continued.

^[2]All further references to code sections are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.

^[3]Although occurring approximately 20 months after the initial detention, this is the actual date of the 12-month review hearing.