In re R.C.
Filed 5/15/13 In re R.C. CA1/5
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re R.C., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN
MATEO
SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ROBERT C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A136830
(
Super.
Robert
C. (Father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating his
R.C. (Minor) at the 12-month review hearing.
He contends the juvenile court erred:
(1) in finding respondent San Mateo County Human Services Agency
(Agency) provided him reasonable services to aid him in overcoming the problems
that led to Minor’s removal (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e));
and (2) in reducing the frequency of visitation. We reject those contentions and affirm the
juvenile court’s orders.
Background
In
June 2011, the Agency filed a section 300 juvenile
dependency petition on behalf of Minor, born in June 2001. A second amended petition was filed in
November, alleging jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to
protect) and (d) (sexual abuse).
The petition alleged the police had been to Father’s home numerous times
due to heated arguments; Father has a history of substance abuse and Minor
reported Father molested her after drinking alcohol in the summer of 2010;
Father’s molestation of Minor included touching her breasts and buttocks over
and under her clothing; Minor is unwilling to return to Father’s care; and
Minor’s mother had not provided care for or visited Minor since she was three
years old.
The
August 2011 jurisdiction/disposition report indicated that Minor had been
living with her paternal aunt (Aunt) since August 2010. Aunt reported that, on August 9, 2010, Father called and asked Aunt to
pick up Minor because he and his girlfriend were “having issues.†Later that month Father had a stroke; Aunt
kept physical custody of Minor and enrolled her in school.
According
to the August 2011 report, Minor told the Agency that “ ‘[Father] always hit
[his girlfriend], pushed her[, and] pulled hair.†Minor reported that she did not feel safe
with Father and did not want to live with him.
In June 2011, Father’s girlfriend obtained a temporary restraining order
(TRO) against Father based on allegations that he punched her, pulled her hair,
hit her in the head with his work boots, and ordered the family dog to bite
her. Father’s girlfriend stated in her
declaration for the TRO that the authorities had been to the house several
times due to reports of domestic violence, but she always denied the abuse
because she was “in denial and co-dependent†with Father. Subsequently, the girlfriend denied to the
Agency the allegations of physical abuse.
Father admitted to many heated arguments with his girlfriend but denied
physical abuse.
Although
Minor did not mention the sex abuse allegations in her statement as reflected
in the August 2011 report, she previously reported to Agency social workers
that Father had, in the summer of 2010, touched her on her “boobs†and “buttâ€
under her clothes. Father had been
drinking. Minor had reported the
touching to Father’s girlfriend; the girlfriend confirmed to the Agency that
Minor had told her about the abuse. At
the time, Father told the girlfriend that he thought it was her rather than
Minor in the bed; he denied the allegations to the Agency.
In
a November 2011 addendum report, the Agency reported that Minor was thriving in
Aunt’s care and that Minor’s mother had reestablished contact and wanted to
build her relationship with Minor.
Father had moved to San Francisco; he wanted Minor returned to his
care. Twice monthly visits between
Father and Minor had gone well, but Minor only felt safe if the visits were
supervised. According to a therapist
present at the visits, Minor “has fears of pas[t] behaviors, anger[,] and
aggression.â€
On
November 3, 2011, the juvenile court sustained the second amended petition,
declared Minor a dependent child, and approved the Agency’s case plan. Father’s case plan required him to complete a
domestic violence program, complete a substance abuse assessment and follow
treatment recommendations, complete a therapeutic assessment and participate in
recommended services such as therapy, participate in random alcohol/drug
testing, and abstain from alcohol and drugs.
The
May 2012 six-month review report indicated that Minor continued to do well in
Aunt’s custody. Minor’s therapist
reported that Minor did not want to live with Father because she does not trust
him, and that Minor found it too stressful to visit with Father twice a month
and wanted to decrease the frequency to once a month.
The
report indicated that Father tested positive for methamphetamines on January
12, 2012, and admitted relapsing into use of alcohol and methamphetamines. He was discharged for lack of compliance by
two outpatient drug treatment programs.
In May 2012, he had two more positive tests for methamphetamine, as well
as a missed test.
On
August 1, 2012, the juvenile court found that reasonable services had been
provided to the parents and that the parents had made only minimal
progress. The court continued
reunification services and visitation for both parents.
The
Agency reported that, on August 17, 2012, Father was arrested on domestic
violence and child endangerment charges after, according to a witness, Father
pushed his girlfriend to the ground and drove away with their daughter (Minor’s
half sister) in his truck. The
girlfriend reported to the police that Father regularly gets intoxicated and
that he had been very violent during their relationship.
The
Agency’s 12-month status report stated that Father was inconsistent in his
visitation since May 2012. An addendum
to the report stated that, during a visit on August 29, Father behaved
inappropriately by discussing with Minor the August 17 domestic violence
incident, despite being warned not to by the Agency social worker. According to the Agency, Father cried and
tried to convince Minor that the incident was not his fault, and he used Minor
“as a source of comfort and consol[ation].â€
Father missed another visit on September 26.
The
Agency recommended termination of Father’s reunification
services, based on a finding of no substantial probability of return of
Minor to Father’s care during the statutory timeline. On the other hand, the Agency recommended
that the court find a substantial probability of reunification of Minor with
her mother. The Agency recommended that
visits with Father be reduced in frequency to once every other month.
On
October 15, 2012, at the 12-month review hearing, the Agency reported that
there was no documentation that Father had completed any of the services to
which he was referred, including drug and alcohol treatment, therapy, an anger
management and domestic violence program, and parenting education. Father had been referred to a psychiatrist in
early 2012, but he stopped attending after a few sessions because he believed
the therapist was “against him.†On
appeal, Father does not contend that he actually completed any of those aspects
of his case plan.
At
the 12-month review hearing, Father argued that reasonable services had not
been provided to him because he was not referred to sexual abuse
counseling. Minor’s attorney argued that
Father’s primary issues were domestic violence and substance abuse and, in
light of Father’s failure to take advantage of the services offered to him,
“arguing or finding that social services has dropped the ball here and hasn’t
referred him to enough services is not appropriate.â€
The
juvenile court followed the Agency’s recommendations, including termination of
Father’s reunification services. The
court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been
provided to Father, but his progress had been minimal. The court found that sexual abuse counseling
referrals “would not have been as productive†as the domestic violence and
substance abuse programs, which Father failed to complete. The frequency of Father’s supervised visitation
was reduced to once every other month, with Agency discretion to increase the
frequency of visits.
This
appeal followed.
Discussion
I. Reasonable
Services
At
issue in this appeal is the Agency’s duty to provide reasonable reunification
services to parents of minors in dependency proceedings. “To achieve the goal of preserving the family
whenever possible, the Legislature required the county child welfare
departments to develop and implement family reunification plans and required
the courts to monitor those plans through periodic review.†(In re
Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1211.)
“Typically,
when a child is removed from a parent, the child and parent are entitled to 12
months of child welfare services to facilitate family reunification. These services may be extended to a maximum
of 18 months. (§ 361.5, subd.
(a).) If, at the 12-month hearing, [the
Agency] does not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it has provided
reasonable services to the parent, family reunification services must be
extended to the end of the 18-month period.
(§§ 361.5, subd. (a); 366.21, subd. (g)(1); [citation].)
“The
adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of [the Agency’s]
efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case. [Citation.]
Moreover, [the Agency] must make a good faith effort to develop and
implement a family reunification plan.
[Citation.] ‘[T]he 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 . . . .’
[Citation.]
“The
applicable standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. [Citation.]
‘ “If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our
duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed.†’ [Citation.]â€
(Amanda H. v. Superior Court
(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345-1346.)
When
it appears a parent has not been afforded reasonable reunification services,
“the remedy is to extend the reunification period, and order continued
services. [Citations.]†(In re
Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 973-974.)
Applying
these principles, we conclude the Agency offered Father reasonable
services. (§ 366.21, subd.
(e).) The record supports an inference
that the most serious obstacles to reunification were the domestic violence and
substance abuse issues. Minor stated
that the sexual abuse occurred while Father was intoxicated, she expressed
continuing fear of Father’s violent tendencies, and there were incidents of
domestic violence and substance abuse during the course of the dependency
proceeding. Thus, it was not
unreasonable for the Agency to focus its referrals on those issues. In particular, if Father had taken advantage
of his referral to counseling, his therapist could have advised the Agency on
what type of sexual abuse referral would be of most assistance to Father and
there would have been an opportunity to make any additional appropriate
referrals.
was obligated to provide the full range of referrals immediately, rather than
adding additional services as Father made progress in the most pressing areas.
“[I]n
most cases more services might have been provided and the services provided are
often imperfect. [Citation.] ‘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.’ [Citation.]â€
(Katie V. v. Superior Court
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598-599.)
“It appears that [Father’s] ‘real problem was not a lack of services
available but a lack of initiative to consistently take advantage of the
services that were offered.’
[Citation.]†(
juvenile court’s finding that the Agency provided reasonable services to
Father.
II. Visitation
Father
contends the juvenile court abused its discretion (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356) by decreasing
the frequency of visitation to once every other month. “We will not disturb the order unless the
trial court made an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd
determination. [Citation.]†(Ibid.)
“During
reunification efforts, visitation generally must be as frequent as possible,
consistent with the well-being of the child.
(§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
At the same time, visitation orders must provide for ‘flexibility in
response to the changing needs of the child and to dynamic family
circumstances.’ [Citation.] ‘In addition, the parents’ interest in the
care, custody and companionship of their children is not to be maintained at
the child’s expense; the child’s input and refusal and the possible adverse
consequences if a visit is forced against the child’s will are factors to be
considered in administering visitation.’
(Ibid.)†(In re
Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356.)
Father
contends the juvenile court’s order was unreasonable because the court did not
make a finding that more regular visitation would be detrimental to Minor. However, he fails to cite authority that the
juvenile court was required to make such a finding where visitation was reduced
rather than terminated. (Cf.
Cal.App.4th at p. 1357 [“a court has the power to suspend visits when continuing them would be harmful to a child’s
emotional well-being†(italics added)]; In
re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 954 [“the juvenile court was
pending the section 366.26 hearing absent a finding visitation would be
detrimental to the minorsâ€].)
In
any event, the record supports the juvenile court’s implied finding that more
frequent visitation would be detrimental to Minor. Father behaved inappropriately at the most
recent visit and Aunt reported that Minor felt “somewhat troubled†and confused
after the visit. Moreover, Father had recently
missed scheduled visits, which brought into question his capacity to maintain
the visitation schedule. The juvenile
court noted that Father had a lot on his mind due to a separate dependency
proceeding involving the Minor’s half sister.
Finally, the court gave the Agency authority to increase visitation when
Father is “in that mental place where he can participate meaningfully in those
visits†and the court expressed its hope that the reduction in visitation would
be temporary. Father has not demonstrated
the juvenile court abused its discretion.
Disposition
The
juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
SIMONS,
J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
NEEDHAM, J.
the Welfare and Institutions Code.
appeal.
