L.C. v. Superior Court
Filed 7/6/12
L.C. v. Superior Court CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
L.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
D061610
(San Diego County
Super. Ct. No.
J517952A/B/C)
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS
in mandate after referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26
hearing. David B. Oberholtzer,
Judge. Petition denied. Request for stay denied.
L.C.
seeks review of a juvenile court
order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
that reasonable services were offered or provided to her. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
L.C. is the
mother of J.T., born March 2007, and twins G.T. and M.T., born March 2008
(together, the children).
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] The family came to the attention of the
Agency (the Agency) in 2008 after receiving reports that L.C. repeatedly
left the children unattended or with residents of the homeless shelter where
she and the children were living. L.C.'s
parenting skills were poor. The children
were often left in soiled diapers.
L.C.
participated in a voluntary services program from November 2008 to September
2009, including Regional Center and public health nurse services, respite care, counseling and
in-home support and services. After
receiving voluntary services, L.C.'s circumstances appeared to be more
stable. However, the social worker said
L.C.'s insight into the children's needs remained limited and she did not
address domestic violence issues.
On October 8, 2010, the Agency detained the children in protective custody after J.T.
was found to have multiple bruises to her abdomen and back consistent with
having been hit with a stick or cord.
L.C. acknowledged she hit J.T. with a sandal, and screamed at and hit
the children. The children had
developmental delays and behavioral issues.
L.C. said she
had epilepsy and was often ill. She was
taking anti-epileptic medication but suffered approximately two seizures a
month.
Approximately
two weeks before the March 2012 dispositional hearing, L.C.'s boyfriend
assaulted her. L.C. suffered abrasions,
swollen lips and other soft tissue injuries.
At
the dispositional hearing, the court removed the children from parental custody
and ordered a family reunification case plan.
L.C.'s case plan required her to participate in general counseling,
including a domestic violence prevention program, individual therapy with a
court-approved therapist and parenting education.
In
reports prepared for the six-month status review hearing, the social worker
reported that L.C. was hospitalized on August 27. She was transferred to the Behavioral
Psychiatric Unit on August 30 under section 5150 and released on September
28. L.C. was suffering from medical
issues, including seizures, and possible psychological instability. The social worker was unable to obtain more
specific information about L.C.'s physical and mental health conditions.
On September 14,
the court ordered L.C. to undergo a
with a TERM
title="">[3]
provider, and ordered that the evaluation report not be distributed to any
party without a court order.
L.C. met with
the social worker on October 4. L.C.
appeared confused. She misstated her
birthdate and said a man was always following her. She saw his shadow. L.C. refused to provide the social worker with
the medical documents she had with her.
She also refused to sign an authorization to release her medical records
to allow the social worker to initiate a referral for the court-ordered
psychological evaluation.
The social
worker asked L.C. to sign a medical release on October 7. L.C. refused.
L.C. signed a
release for her medical records on November 2.
The social worker completed the referral for the court-ordered
psychological evaluation that day. In
January 2012, after TERM provided the social worker with the name of the
evaluator, the social worker scheduled the evaluation for January 30, 2012.
At the end of
November, L.C.'s therapist discontinued services to L.C. The therapist reported that after the
domestic violence incident, L.C. progressively became psychologically and
socially unstable. She presented with
signs of disorientation and mental confusion and reported problems with memory
and concentration. L.C. would not sign a
release of information to allow her therapist to obtain medical records about
her psychiatric hospitalization. The
therapist, who had a doctorate in Psychology (Psy.D.), believed L.C. was
experiencing "Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features"
since approximately August 2011. Without
effective treatment, her mental health condition would likely render her
incapable of parenting her children. She
was not able to take care of herself and was incapable of utilizing services to
address the protective issues. The
therapist recommended L.C. receive adult social services.
L.C.
was hospitalized again on November 27, complaining of seizures and paralysis on
her left side. A physical examination
did not confirm L.C.'s report of weakness on the left leg. The neurologist recommended that L.C. have a
"psych consult." She was not
cooperative with the neurologic examination, which limited its diagnostic
utility. L.C. had an MRI, which was normal.
L.C.
appeared for the January 30, 2012 psychological evaluation on January 31. The social worker helped her reschedule the
appointment for February 6. L.C.
completed the evaluation that day.
The
contested 12-month permanency hearing was held on February 10 and
March 13, 2012. The court admitted
the Agency's reports in evidence. L.C.
offered a summary of her attendance at counseling services dated February 10,
2012, and a letter from the San Diego Justice Center, which the court
received in evidence. As relevant here,
the court heard testimony from the social worker and L.C.
The social
worker testified L.C. completed a parenting class but did not complete a
domestic violence treatment program.
L.C. did not maintain regular contact with the children. With respect to the court-ordered
psychological examination, the social worker requested the evaluation the same
day L.C. released her medical records.
The provider required the medical records because L.C. had been
hospitalized under section 5150. TERM
provided the name of an evaluator in January 2012, and the social worker scheduled
L.C.'s appointment. The social worker
acknowledged "it took some time to set up the appointment."
L.C. testified
she was currently living at a women's shelter and attending a domestic violence
prevention program.
The juvenile
court said L.C. never had any intention of taking responsibility for her mental
health treatment. Every time she had a
seizure or similar episode and was hospitalized, she did not follow up with
treatment. The court did not know what
the Agency could have done that the hospitals did not do, particularly with
respect to medication. The court found
that returning the children to L.C.'s care would be detrimental to their safety
and well-being, and terminated reunification services. The court further found that reasonable services
were offered or provided to L.C., and set a section 366.26 hearing.
L.C.
petitioned for review of the court's order under California Rules of Court,
rule 8.452. She requests this court
reverse the order setting a section 366.26 hearing. This court issued an order to show cause, the
Agency responded, and the parties waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
A
L.C.
contends she did not receive reasonable reunification services between
September 14, 2011, when the court ordered her to undergo a psychological
evaluation, and March 12, 2012, the date of the completion of the 12-month
permanency review hearing. L.C. asserts
the Agency did not take reasonable steps to help her complete the court-ordered
evaluation and therefore she, the Agency and the juvenile court did not obtain
critical information about her mental health in a timely manner. She argues the lack of information about her
mental health condition resulted in a case plan that was not commensurate with her
needs.
B
Family reunification services
play a critical role in dependency proceedings.
(§ 361.5; In re Alanna A.
(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 563 (Alanna
A.); In re Joshua M. (1998) 66
Cal.App.4th 458; see 42 U.S.C. § 629a(a)(7).) Services "may include provision of a
full array of social and health services to help the child and family and to
prevent reabuse of children."
(§ 300.2.) At each review hearing, the court is required to determine the
"extent of the agency's compliance with the case plan" in making
reasonable efforts to return the child to a safe home. (§ 366, subd. (a)(1)(B).) If reasonable services are not provided or offered to
the parent, the court is required to continue the case for the period of time
permitted by statute. (See
§ 366.21, subds. (e) & (g)(1).)
Reunification
services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family. (David
B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 793 (
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.)
To support a
finding reasonable services were offered or provided, "the record should
show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of
custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable
contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable
efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved
difficult . . . ."
(In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) The "adequacy of reunification plans and
the reasonableness of the [Agency's] efforts are judged according to the
circumstances of each case." (
Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.)
We
review a reasonable services finding to determine if it is supported by
substantial evidence. (
Cal.App.4th 404, 414.) We review the
evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulge in all legitimate
and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling. (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at
p. 545.) The burden is on the
petitioner to show the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's
findings. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
C
L.C. complains
the reunification case plan was not adequately tailored to meet her needs
because the Agency delayed implementing a court-ordered psychological
evaluation for her and therefore did not have critical information about her
mental health needs. (
Cal.App.4th at p. 793.) We are not
persuaded by her argument.
The record shows
that the social worker worked diligently to persuade L.C. to authorize the
release of information needed to obtain her medical records and make a referral
for the court-ordered psychological evaluation.
L.C. signed the medical release authorization approximately six weeks
after the court ordered a psychological evaluation. According to the social worker, it took TERM
approximately two months to find an evaluator for L.C.
social worker, she promptly set up the appointment and assisted L.C. in
rescheduling the appointment when L.C. appeared for the evaluation on the wrong
date.
L.C.'s therapist
noted L.C.'s mental health condition started deteriorating in August 2011. L.C. was hospitalized under section 5150 from
August 27 to September 28, 2011. We infer
her physical and mental health conditions
were evaluated and treated by appropriate medical personnel and she was advised
of any necessary or recommended treatment, including evaluation of any side
effects of her anti-seizure medication.
Despite the social worker's requests, L.C. chose not to release any
information concerning her physical or mental health condition to her. When L.C. was hospitalized again in November
2011, medical personnel recommended a "psych consult." L.C. had another opportunity to obtain an
evaluation. The social worker attempted
to learn whether that evaluation had occurred, without success.
L.C. cannot
prevail on her complaint the family reunification case plan was not narrowly
tailored to her needs. The social worker
made reasonable efforts to obtain additional information about L.C.'s physical
and mental health and reasonably developed a case plan with the information
that was available to her.
Significantly, the record shows that L.C. had access to comprehensive
medical care, including mental health consultations. She had spent four weeks in a Behavioral
Psychiatric Unit, and chose not to provide information about her health
condition to the social worker. Thus,
L.C. had the critical information she now asserts was necessary to tailor her
case plan to her needs and declined to provide it to the social worker. She cannot now complain that the social
worker lacked critical information about her mental health condition.
L.C. received
voluntary services from October 2008 to September 2009. When the Agency initiated
the social worker developed a case plan for L.C. L.C. was offered or provided services from
approximately October 2010 to March 2012.
She completed a parenting class in March 2011. Although services were offered, she did not
participate in a domestic violence treatment program or maintain consistent
contact with the children. Before her
August 2011 hospitalization, L.C. saw a well-qualified therapist on a weekly
basis for eight months. She received
medical care, including psychiatric care.
The record permits the reasonable inference L.C. received
assessments during her month-long hospitalization and was offered
appropriate treatment tools by medical personnel to help stabilize her physical
and mental health conditions. It is an
unwise use of scarce public resources to require the Agency to duplicate
services a parent is readily able to access through other providers. (Cf. Alanna
A., supra, 135
Cal.App.4th at p. 566 ["Resources available to the juvenile court are
not unlimited."].) Under the
particular circumstances of this case, there is substantial evidence to support
the finding that the services offered or provided to L.C. were reasonable. (In re Misako R.,
supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p.
547.)
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
The request for stay is denied.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER,
Acting P.J.
McINTYRE, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">
[2] The children's
father, J.T., notified this court that a petition for writ of mandate under
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, will not be filed because he had no
viable issues for review. This court
dismissed the case. J.T. is mentioned in
this opinion only where relevant to the issues raised in L.C.'s petition for
writ of mandate.
