Stacy K. v. Superior Court
Filed 3/29/13 Stacy K. v. Superior Court CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
STACY K.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY,
Respondent;
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Real
Party in Interest.
B246299
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. CK73668)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for
Referee. Petition denied.
Frank
E. Ostrov for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
John F. Krattli, County
Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County
Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani,
Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
________________
Stacy K. (father) has filed a
petition for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) challenging
an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services with his four
children and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26.
title="">[1] Father
contends the juvenile court erred when it found that the
Children and Family Services (DCFS) had provided him with reasonable
reunification services because the court failed to provide services tailored to
the family’s special needs. We find
substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father’s
dependent children are a daughter, S., now age 11; two sons, J., age four and
JaC., age three; and a second daughter, H., age 22 months. Although the family had a prior history with
DCFS,
Riverside County
because the family was living there. On June 9, 2011, there was a domestic
dispute at the family home. Father was
placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold (§ 5150) after he threatened to
kill himself and the children. Father
was admitted to the hospital on June
10, 2011, after hospital personnel concluded he could not safely be
managed at a lower level of care. During
his hospital stay, father was “agitated, yelling, cursing and posturing to
fight with hospital personnel.†Father
said that he “still felt his mood changing and didn’t want to get
violent.†He was diagnosed as bi-polar
and manic. At the hospital, father was
prescribed four medications, but on discharge he refused medication and further
therapy.
In
a section 300 petition filed June 13,
2011, and amended on July 7, 2011,
the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) alleged that
the children were at risk because the parents had unresolved mental health and
controlled substance issues, engaged in ongoing acts of domestic violence, and
exposed the children to an unsafe and unsanitary home environment. It was further alleged that mother had failed
to reunify with other children. DPSS
also alleged that two-year-old J. was physically abused and “sustained multiple
looped scars on various planes of his body consistent with whippings.â€
The
juvenile court of Riverside County sustained a second amended petition on
August 17, 2011. In a report prepared
for the jurisdiction hearing, DPSS noted that father had been before the
juvenile court twice previously, but had failed to benefit from any of the
previous services offered. The juvenile
court nonetheless ordered that father receive family reunification
services. Father was ordered to “enroll
and actively participate in a domestic violence program which addresses anger
management and the roles of victims and perpetrators in domestic
violence.†Father was further ordered to
undergo a psychological
assessment and an evaluation to determine if he required psychotropic
medication. In addition, father was to
participate in counseling and “an intensive, hands-on, DPSS-approved parenting
education program that is age-specific to [the] children.†Finally, father was to be evaluated for
possible substance abuse issues with an approved substance abuse program, and
was prohibited from using marijuana for medical purposes unless he could
provide DPSS and the juvenile court with “proof that it is not being smoked and
is medically appropriate.â€
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]
In
accordance with the juvenile court’s order, father underwent a series of psychological
tests administered by Dr. Robert Suiter in early October 2011. Relating the incident that resulted in his
involuntary hospital commitment, father said that he ‘“caught’ his wife with
another man and became involved in a physical fight with the man.†Father was “quite dismayed at being
hospitalized†because he considered himself “mad not crazy.†Dr. Suiter’s testing revealed that father had
a propensity toward anger and mood swings.
Father’s profile on one test (the “Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventoryâ€) revealed that father “likely [had] very heightened and prominent
narcissistic traits. Such persons tend
to feel superior to others and have a tendency to exaggerate their abilities
and positive attributes.†Such
individuals also “have a need to be conspicuous and provoke affection and
attention. In that same regard, they may
have difficulty if they do not feel properly recognized or if they feel forced
to accept the opinions of others or to compromise.†Father “described himself as being rather
impatient and easily irritated as he is likely to be relatively quick tempered
at times.†Father’s self-assessment was
consistent with his profile on the “Personality Assessment Inventory,†the
results of which indicated that while father “likely views himself as being
active, outgoing and ambitious, others may perceive him as being impatient and
somewhat demanding.†Father’s profile on
the “State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-II†indicated that father “has a
fairly high predisposition to become angry, and he is likely to be chronically
temperamentally angry in a wide range of situations particularly when he feels
threatened. In the same vein, he is
likely to be chronically hostile and aggressive and to have major problems
sustaining relationships as other persons are likely to avoid him. In that regard, he tends to be thin-skinned,
hyper-vigilant and demeaning.â€
Based
on the results of father’s psychological tests, and various DPSS reports
concerning father’s interaction with its social workers
had “an unwarranted anger problem as he is prone to instinctively and quite
immediately respond with anger and threats of bringing lawsuits or requesting
to change doctors or evaluators in situations where he feels challenged or
threatened.†Father likewise had “a
number of traits and characteristics which quite significantly bring into
question his ability to adequately care for his children at this juncture.†Dr. Suiter recommended that father take
parenting and anger management classes.
From
September to November 2011, father participated in a parenting and substance
abuse program called “Positive Steps†in Lakewood, near his home in Long
Beach. Father was allowed to complete an
“accelerated†program by meeting with a counselor in one-on-one sessions and
attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in the community. Although father completed a 16-week program
in eight weeks, he did not attend any classes, and his counselor was not a
licensed therapist.
On
November 14, 2011, father participated in an intake session at Coast Counseling
in Long Beach. According to the intake
counselor, father appeared for the initial session, vented about how he had
been wronged by Riverside County, and was discharged after he failed to attend
two subsequent appointments.
On
November 23, 2011, the juvenile court transferred the case to Los Angeles
County. Father participated in a
February 8, 2012, to discuss the case plan and DCFS’s recommendations for an
upcoming court hearing. DCFS was
concerned that father had participated in a parenting program that did not
actually provide him with any instruction.
DCFS asked that father participate in an anger management program, as
recommended by Dr. Suiter, and offered to provide father with funds for this
purpose. Father became irate and said
that he would not do anything beyond what the court in Riverside County had
originally ordered. Following the TDM
meeting, father remained in the building lobby and demanded to meet with an
administrator, even after being told repeatedly that he would have to make an
appointment, because no administrators were available to meet with him at that
time. Eventually a security guard asked
father to leave. Father said he would
return in an hour (which he did not).
DCFS administration and security staff decided that if father did
return, Lakewood Deputy Sheriffs would be called to circle the building because
father was acting in a threatening manner and the reception staff did not feel
safe. Although father had a monitored
visit with the children scheduled the next day, DCFS cancelled the visit due to
father’s behavior because the social worker felt unsafe.
The
above incident aside, DCFS reported on February 21, 2012, that father had been
having weekly monitored visits with the children, who were always happy to see
him and felt comfortable in his presence.
However, father stated that he was unwilling to participate in any
further services, and blamed the mother for the family’s current involvement
with DCFS. DCFS recommended that the
juvenile court continue reunification services, subject to Dr. Suiter’s
recommendation that father participate in anger management and parent
education, and comply with the Riverside court’s order that he undergo a
psychiatric medicine evaluation. At a
hearing on February 21, 2012, the juvenile court found that both DCFS and
father had complied with the case plan in making reasonable efforts to enable
the children’s safe return home. The
court continued the matter to August 21, 2012, for a 12-month review
hearing.
In
a report prepared for the 12-month review hearing, DCFS social worker Redina
Sheriff reported that although the children remained suitably placed and
physically healthy, S., and to a lesser extent J., had “ongoing behavioral
issues.†Specifically, S. exhibited
“extreme outbursts, lying and running away.â€
S. also had ongoing disciplinary issues in school, including “getting
off task, causing class disruptions, struggling in the area of peer
relationships, and disrespecting adult authority.†Ms. Sheriff believed father contributed to
S.’s behavioral problems because S. had been present when father had spoken
negatively about DCFS and court employees, and his court-appointed attorney in
particular. Many of Ms. Sheriff’s
contacts with father during the reporting period involved father “expressing
discontent about his case or disagreement with the case plan contents.†DCFS changed father’s visitation day at his
request to accommodate his attendance at a parenting group.
J.
also exhibited behavioral difficulties such as defiant behavior, temper
tantrums, difficulty following instructions, and scratching his face.
Father
was “resistant to accepting the case plan†and juvenile court orders from both
Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. When
DCFS confirmed the orders, father argued that some items were completed, some
were not ordered, and his attorney told him not to complete certain
others. Father continued to insist that
he had been unfairly treated in both Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. DCFS also reported that father had not
complied with a number of the courts’ orders.
For example, father enrolled in domestic violence classes, but the
classes were for victims, not batterers.
When informed that these classes were not compliant with the courts’
orders, father became angry and blamed Ms. Sheriff for failing to tell him that
he needed to be in batterers’ counseling.
In fact, the Riverside court’s order clearly provided that father was to
participate in a program for victims and perpetrators. Father also failed to comply with the court’s
order that he undergo a psychotropic medicine evaluation, claiming he was unable
to obtain an appointment. Ms. Sheriff
commented that father “does not acknowledge that he has any mental or emotional
issues that warrant medication.†Father
did comply with the court’s order that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation,
which was conducted by Dr. Suiter, and partially complied with the order that
he participate in anger management and parenting classes, by enrolling in
“Project Fatherhood,†a group under the auspices of Children’s Institute,
Inc. Father did not comply with the
order that he undergo random drug testing.
DCFS
also reported that father had disregarded the juvenile court’s orders in other
ways. He acted aggressively with the
children’s caregiver demanding that she not speak Spanish in front of the
children, and that H. wear only those shoes that father provided. Father brought additional visitors to visits
with the children, stating that he did not care what Ms. Sheriff had to say on
the matter. Father tended to
“rationalize his non-compliance [with] court orders.†During another visit, S. tried to tell father
that she was not doing well in her foster placement, but father said “he was
only present at the visits for the fun time with his children†and he “didn’t
want [S.] to tell him anything that has to do with bad things.†Father did tell S. that if she wanted to
address him with any other matters, it would have to be after the visit.
Although
DCFS recommended that father’s family reunification services be terminated at
the 12-month hearing that was to occur on August 21, 2012, the juvenile court
continued the matter and ordered DCFS to submit a supplemental report. The court also ordered a mental health
assessment for S.
DCFS
prepared an interim review report in anticipation of the continued 12-month
hearing on October 24, 2012. Several
major changes had occurred. First, the
younger three children’s caregiver requested that the children be removed from
her home. J. and JaC. had become more
aggressive. JaC. was pinching and
hitting the caregiver; J. told the caregiver that “You’re not my daddy, and my
daddy says I don’t have to listen to you.â€
JaC. was replaced alone in a foster home.
Second,
S. had been prescribed the medication Abilify when she was at Del Amo
Hospital. Father insisted that S. not be
administered any psychotropic medication and ordered that the medication be
discontinued. Without the medication, S.
became “very physically aggressive toward others,†and she constantly
threatened to hurt others. DCFS arranged
a meeting between father and S.’s doctor so the doctor could explain to father
why S. needed the medication. Father
said he would attend the meeting, but did not.
The
juvenile court conducted a contested
12-month hearing on December 7 and 10, 2012.
At the time of the hearing, the children had actually been detained from
the father for 16 months. Father
testified that he was doing individual
counseling with Dr. Grant Seo through Project Fatherhood. Father testified that he would cooperate with
doctors or other professionals who might recommend some intervention, such as
medication for his children. The court
noted there were concerns that when father and the children were together, the
children were “kind of out of control†and father was not able to “draw them
back in control.†Father assured the
court that he was willing to “accept the fatherhood classes continually†so he
could get the children back in control.
When asked on cross-examination what issues had brought his family
before the juvenile court, father said he had made “some really dumb choicesâ€
and, against the advice of family members and others, had stayed in a marriage
that was “just not good for me.†Father
believed the children were having behavioral issues because they were not used
to being separated; because they had seen only him; and their mother had not
visited them in almost two years. Father
believed he was stable enough to have the children returned to his custody, and
stated “I would do anything the judge asked me to do to have my kids.â€
S.’s
caretaker Latanya G., who had been monitoring father’s visitation with all the
children for nearly five months, was called as a witness by father’s counsel at
the juvenile court’s request. Ms. G.
testified that the children were bonded to their father and appeared
comfortable with him “sometimes.†When
asked by the court whether the father was able to redirect the children’s
behavior when needed, Ms. G. likewise responded “sometimes.†When asked by father’s counsel whether father
was “very caring of his kids,†Ms. G. again response was “[sometimes yes] and
sometimes no.†Responding to further
questioning, Ms. G. explained that father sometimes became emotional and upset,
but was “quite rational†and attentive to the children when he calmed
down. However, a one-hour visit did not
afford father that much time to calm down.
On one occasion, father had what Ms. G. considered to be an “over the
top†reaction to a scratch on JaC.’s head, repeatedly accusing Ms. G. of
hurting JaC. and insisting that she report the matter to DCFS. Father also took the opportunity at his
one-hour visits to discuss case issues with J. and JaC., telling them that “he’s
going to court and he hopes that . . . they get to come back
home with him.†Ms. G. monitored
father’s telephone calls with S. because S. had mental and emotional issues and
father’s behavior provoked these issues.
In
closing argument, father cited a letter from father’s therapist to the effect
that father had made “significant progress†as a result of his individual
counseling sessions, and had complied with “certain of†the Riverside juvenile
court’s orders. Counsel requested that
the children be returned to father that day, or, if the court was not so
inclined, that father be given an additional 60 days of reunification
services.
The
juvenile court was not inclined toward either option. First, the court pointed out that father had
not had a single unmonitored visit with the children, nor had DCFS increased
the length of father’s visits or liberalized them to be unmonitored. Although father’s therapists had said “he’s
doing better. He’s working better,†they
had not recommended sending the children home.
The court commented that although father had “said good things on the
stand. . . . But the fact of the matter is when asked
to show up at a doctor’s appointment, he didn’t. When asked to talk to his children about things
that are going on, he didn’t. Every
little thing becomes a big thing. Every
big thing becomes a mountain, but only as it affects [father] and what he’s
looking at for his children.†The court
acknowledged that the children loved father, and recommended that father “keep
doing what he’s supposed to be doing and keep doing it well.†However, the court found by a preponderance
of the evidence that, as of the hearing date, return of the children to
father’s care would create a substantial risk of harm to them. The court stated that although it could find
“regular and consistent contact for the father,†it could “not find that
[father] made significant progress in resolving the problems which led to
removal or that he demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the
objectives of the treatment plan and provide for the children’s safety,
protection, physical or emotional well-being and special needs.†The court terminated father’s reunification
services, and stated it could “not return the children
. . . never having any unmonitored contact, and I do not believe
that there is a substantial probability of return in 60 days.â€
DISCUSSION
Father
contends the juvenile court erred when it found DCFS had made reasonable
efforts to reunify him with the children, because DCFS did not consider the
family’s special needs or tailor its services to the father’s “special mental
health needs.â€
It
is evident that father perceives “the family’s special needs†and his own
“special mental health needs†to be one and the same. We note first of all that there is no
evidence in the record of father having raised this issue at any time during
the 16-month reunification period.
Father did not request any additional services tailored to his “special
mental health needs†but instead complained that DCFS was making him do more
than he believed the court had ordered.
For example, Dr. Suiter recommended, and the juvenile court ordered,
that father participate in parenting, anger management and domestic violence
programs. Father chose a domestic
violence program tailored to victims, claiming that the children’s mother, not
he, was the aggressor. When DCFS
informed him he had to attend a program for batterers, he asserted that the
court had not ordered him to participate in such a program. Likewise, father enrolled in “Positive
Steps,†a parenting program that did not comply with the case plan because it
did not require him to attend any classes, and his counselor was not a licensed
therapist. Father also attended an
intake session at Coast Counseling, spent the entire session complaining that
he had been wronged, and was discharged from the program when he failed to
attend two subsequent appointments. It
is clear father approached the case plan as something he could do as he saw
fit, and his view did not necessarily comport with the juvenile court’s
orders.
Substantial
evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that DCFS provided adequate
reunification services. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545; In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.)
As
the juvenile court in this case recognized, the real issue it had to address at
the 12-month hearing was whether the children could be returned to father at
that time, and, barring that, whether they could be returned within the 60 days
remaining until the end of the 18-month reunification period.
Section
366.21, subdivision (f), provides that a permanency
planning hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after a child enters
foster care. The section further
provides that “[T]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical
custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her
parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.â€
The
juvenile court in this case found that the children would be at risk if
returned to father at the 12-month hearing.
Father does not, and could not, dispute that finding. Even if father had complied with all other
aspects of the case plan, he had never had even one unmonitored visit, let
alone an overnight visit with the children.
Although father visited with the children consistently, he spent a great
deal of his limited visitation time complaining about the way the children’s
foster parents were caring for his children.
In fact, father spent so much time complaining that he had little time
to develop the interactive parenting skills necessary for him to reunify with
his children. Although father testified
at the hearing below that he would do whatever was required to have his
children returned to him, he had failed to do so during the 16 months that DCFS
provided him with reunification services.
The juvenile court properly terminated those services at the 12-month
hearing.
The petition for
extraordinary writ is denied. This
opinion is made final forthwith as to this court.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS.
_______________________,
J.
ASHMANN-GERST
We concur:
________________________, P.J.
BOREN
________________________, J.
CHAVEZ
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are
to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
title="">[2] In In re S.K. (June 8, 2009, B211705) [nonpub. opn.], Division Five of
this court affirmed a jurisdictional order involving S. and J. We take judicial notice of Division Five’s
opinion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd.
(d).)
