Q.L. v. Superior Court CA4/1 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Q.L. v. Superior Court CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 2015 No. D068601Unpublished
Filed 11/30/15 Q.L. v. Superior Court CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Q.L., D068601
Petitioner, (San Diego County v. Super. Ct. No. J518948A-C)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS in mandate after referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.261 hearing. Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Petition denied; request for stay
denied.
Dependency Legal Group of San Diego and Amanda J. Gonzales for Petitioner.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
No appearance by Respondent.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Dana C. Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest San Diego
County Health and Human Services Agency.
Dependency Legal Group of San Diego and Beth Ploesch for Real Parties In Interest,
Kenneth S., D.T., and K.T., Minors.
Q.L. seeks review of juvenile court orders setting hearings under section 366.26. She
asserts that she was not provided with reasonable services. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
Q.L. is the mother of five children. This proceeding concerns her three oldest children,
Kenneth S., D.T., and K.T. (collectively, the minors), who are now ages 16, 14, and 13 years
old, respectively.3 Q.L.'s husband, Sean L., is the father of her two youngest children
(siblings). Q.L. suffers from serious health problems, including a significant seizure disorder,
lupus, impaired mobility, blood clots, and colitis.
Q.L. was hospitalized in November 2011 and the children were sent to stay with a
maternal aunt in Los Angeles County. Another relative contacted the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) alleging that Q.L. had neglected the
children and that Sean had physically abused the children and had hit Q.L.
2 Because the issue on review is narrow in scope, we have abbreviated our statement of the facts of this lengthy dependency proceeding. (See In re Holly B. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1263.) Additional relevant facts are included in the discussion section of this opinion.
3 Kenneth's father is deceased. D.T. and K.T.'s father is not a party to this proceeding. 2
Fourteen-year-old Kenneth S. told a DCFS social worker that Sean regularly hit him in
the chest with his fist as punishment. Kenneth described an incident in which Sean punched
him in the face, smashed him into a light fixture, struck him with a piece of plastic, and
stomped on him while he was on the ground. Because of his mother's poor health and frequent
hospitalizations, Kenneth often was responsible for caring for his younger siblings.
D.T., then 12 years old, reported that his mother had been very ill during the past few
months, and that he and his siblings were often left home alone. D.T. said that approximately
four to six months earlier, Sean had punched him in the face for drinking juice. Sean had hit
D.T. with a belt or switch on multiple occasions, and once had kicked both him and Kenneth in
their private parts, hurting them "real bad."
Eleven-year-old K.T. told the social worker that conditions in the family home were
stressful because of his mother's illness. K.T. had a history of running away from home. K.T.
said that the first time he tried to run away, Sean slammed his face into a wall. K.T. said that
approximately six months earlier, Sean had used an electrical cord to whip K.T. on his legs,
resulting in bleeding, bruising and scarring.
Eight-year-old P.L. and seven-year-old S.L. confirmed that Sean hit their older brothers.
S.L. said that his father had punched him in the stomach on one occasion, knocking him into a
dresser. S.L. told the social worker that he was afraid of his father. P.L. said, "We would do
better not going back home because [my father] is always hitting on my brothers and it's real
scary."
The children reported that Q.L. was sometimes present when Sean disciplined them, but
said that she was not aware of the extent of Sean's physical abuse.
3
Both Q.L. and Sean denied that Sean had physically abused the children. Sean
explained the difficulties that the family experienced as a result of Q.L.'s health issues. Q.L.
told the social worker that she had a significant seizure disorder and had suffered a stroke, and
that she was experiencing some memory loss.
DCFS filed a multi-count petition under various subdivisions of section 300, which was
later amended to a single count under section 300, subdivision (a), alleging that Sean
physically abused the children and that Q.L. was unable to prevent the abuse. The
Los Angeles County juvenile court sustained the petition, removed the children from parental
custody, and ordered DCFS to provide family reunification services. Q.L. was offered
individual counseling and conjoint counseling with the children, "when appropriate."4 Sean
was prohibited from visiting D.T. and K.T. The court ordered DCFS to provide the family's
therapists with copies of the sustained petitions, case plans, and DCFS court reports.
Because the family lived in San Diego, the Los Angeles County juvenile court
transferred the case to the San Diego County juvenile court (juvenile court). Los Angeles
County case records were electronically transferred to the juvenile court in April 2014. In
May 2014, the juvenile court ordered the Agency to comply with the DCFS case plan or to file
a modification petition to change the plan's requirements. The Agency provided the parents
with referrals for domestic violence treatment counseling, child abuse group therapy, parenting
classes, substance abuse treatment services, and housing.
4 Sean's case plan was similar to Q.L.'s case plan but involved only P.L. and S.L. 4
The maternal aunt was not able to maintain the minors in her care. In June 2014, the
Agency placed the minors in foster care in San Diego County.5 The minors began therapy in
San Diego County in July. The social worker asked the minors' therapists to advise the
Agency when they were ready for conjoint therapy with Q.L. In October, Kenneth's therapist
said that Kenneth was not ready to begin conjoint therapy. D.T.'s therapist advised that D.T.
was not ready to begin conjoint therapy. K.T.'s therapist did not respond to the inquiry. Q.L.'s
therapist said that she was ready to participate in conjoint therapy with her children.
The minors continued to have serious behavioral problems. In November, over Q.L.'s
objection, Kenneth was placed with a paternal aunt in northern Los Angeles County. The
paternal aunt agreed to drive Kenneth to San Diego once a month to visit his siblings. The
Agency offered to provide public transportation services to Q.L. to visit Kenneth once a week.
Q.L. explained that she could not travel alone or sit for long periods of time because of her
health problems, and asked the Agency to either provide a plane ticket or reimburse the costs
for Sean to drive her to visit Kenneth.6 The social worker explained that the minors did not
want to see Sean, and that it was not a good idea for him to drive Q.L. to visits.
Q.L. participated in therapy. She filed an atonement letter and a safety plan with the
court. The social worker asked Q.L. to write a more sincere atonement letter and to develop a
more specific safety plan that would address how Q.L. would protect the children if Sean were
5 At the parents' request, the siblings had been placed in foster care in San Diego to facilitate reunification.
6 DCFS had reimbursed Q.L. for her driving expenses from San Diego to northern Los Angeles County to visit the minors. 5
to become angry. The Agency asked Q.L. to provide a letter from her doctor describing her
medical conditions and any limitations on her ability to travel.
At the six-month review hearing in November 2014, the juvenile court ordered the
Agency to provide therapy to Kenneth in Los Angeles County and to reimburse Q.L. for her
travel expenses to visit Kenneth the following week, pending review of her medical
information. The juvenile court found that Q.L. and Sean had made progress with their case
plans and that reasonable services had been offered or provided to the family. The court
ordered Q.L. to continue working on her atonement letter, and stated that when the letter was
complete, conjoint therapy would begin with D.T. and K.T., and the Agency would have
discretion to permit her to have unsupervised visits with the minors.
In December 2014, the social worker arranged for Kenneth to be referred to a facility in
Los Angeles County for therapy. When she learned that there was a four to six month waiting
list at that facility, she contacted Kenneth's former therapist, who referred her to another
facility. That facility began the process of obtaining Medi-Cal authorization for Kenneth's
therapy.
At the 12-month hearing in Kenneth's case,7 the juvenile court found that Q.L.
consistently and regularly visited Kenneth, and that she had made significant progress in
resolving the problems that led to his removal from the home. The court found that reasonable
services had been provided or offered to Q.L.
In February 2015, the Agency asked the juvenile court to reinstate supervised visitation,
citing a number of incidents that had occurred in the past month. Kenneth said that Q.L. had
7 D.T.'s and K.T.'s father contested the Agency's recommendations to terminate his reunification services, and the juvenile court continued their 12-month review hearings. 6
telephoned him and yelled at him for not coming to visit her in San Diego. The social worker
had approved arrangements to allow Q.L., D.T. and K.T. to have dinner together twice a week.
The foster mother had offered to transport D.T. and K.T. to visits if Q.L. would telephone her
to confirm the visit. Q.L. said that she would telephone the foster mother, but the foster
mother said that she did not hear from Q.L.
In February, at a special hearing, the juvenile court ordered unsupervised visitation
between Q.L. and the minors. The juvenile court ordered visits with D.T. and K.T. every
Wednesday and Saturday, and directed Q.L. to identify where and when the visit would take
place, and who would be transporting the minors, the day before the visit.8 The minors were
not to be transported by any person who had not been approved by the Agency.
In March, the children met in Orange County to celebrate Kenneth's birthday. Kenneth
was looking forward to seeing Q.L. She did not attend the visit. Q.L. told Kenneth that she
could not come because her driver had not had a background check.
Q.L. was in the hospital on the date of the 12-month review hearing for D.T. and K.T.
The juvenile court continued their review hearing to the 18-month review date. The social
worker reported that Q.L.'s hospitalizations were becoming more frequent.
In reports prepared for the 18-month review hearing, the Agency recommended that the
juvenile court terminate reunification services and set section 366.26 hearings for the children.
The social worker reported that Kenneth was doing well in his paternal aunt's home. Kenneth's
paternal aunt was willing to become his legal guardian. Kenneth was "very sad" that Q.L. had
not visited him during any of her multiple visits to Los Angeles. Q.L. refused the Agency's
8 The record transcript of this hearing is not included in the appellate record. 7
offer to pay for a bus ticket to visit Kenneth. K.T. and D.T. wanted to stay with their foster
mother, who preferred a permanent plan of long-term foster care in order to be able to obtain
more services for them.
At the review hearing, the social worker testified that Q.L. last visited Kenneth in
Los Angeles in November 2014. Q.L. was dependent on Sean for transportation. The social
worker acknowledged that Q.L. would have to take a train from San Diego to Los Angeles, and
a bus from Los Angeles to Lancaster, to visit Kenneth. Q.L. would not acknowledge that all of
the children were afraid of Sean. In her atonement letter, Q.L. did not identify Sean as the
perpetrator of the abuse and she did not acknowledge the specific harm that he had inflected on
the children.
According to the social worker, Q.L.'s visitation with D.T. and K.T. was sporadic. The
social worker had contacted a visitation center to set up weekly visits. There was a two-month
waiting list for services. Beginning in June, visitation center personnel tried to contact Q.L.
every week for three weeks, leaving messages on Q.L.'s telephone. When they did not hear
from Q.L., they removed her from the waiting list. The social worker acknowledged that
Q.L.'s telephone "has always been unreliable" and said that she did not know whether Q.L.'s
telephone was functioning during that time.
The social worker testified that she was assigned to the case in October 2014. She said
that she was not aware of the extent of Q.L.'s medical issues. Despite the social worker's
request, Q.L. did not provide any medical information to her and did not sign a medical
release. The social worker was aware that Q.L.'s health problems had impeded visitation on
several occasions. The social worker did not review the DCFS file when she received the case
8
because the file had been misplaced during an office move. She located the DCFS file in
December 2014 and reviewed it in January 2015.
The social worker reported that Kenneth and Q.L. did not have conjoint therapy because
there were problems transferring Kenneth's medical coverage to Los Angeles County. The
social worker acknowledged that the Agency had not provided transportation services for
Kenneth to visit Q.L. in San Diego. The Agency's plan was to provide transportation services
to Q.L. to visit Kenneth in Los Angeles. The social worker said that she informed Sean that if
Q.L. "did have some sort of debilitating medical condition, it would only help her child welfare
case as to us being able to help her with visitation, showing the court why she's missed so
many visitations." Sean said that he would bring the documents regarding Q.L.'s medical
condition to the Agency's office. He telephoned the social worker to tell her that he had left
the documents in the reception area. The social worker checked for the documents, but they
were not in her bin.
Q.L.'s therapist testified that he understood that the protective issue was the physical
and emotional abuse of Q.L.'s children by her husband. According to the therapist, Q.L.
always cooperated with the therapy process and had an above average understanding of the
protective issues. Q.L.'s presentation was fairly normal. The therapist said that Q.L. was
always calm and her thinking patterns were cohesive. Q.L. believed that Sean corporally
disciplined the children by spanking them with his hand and a belt.
Q.L. testified that as her stress levels increased, she experienced more seizures. She
used to have approximately three seizures a year but she had had eight seizures in the past
three months. Q.L. was taking four different anti-seizure medications and two blood thinners.
9
She required regular, twice daily injections of one of the blood thinners. According to Q.L.,
the social worker was aware of her condition. A social worker had brought the children to visit
her when she was in the hospital with blood clots in her lungs. Her doctor tried to telephone
the social worker. When Q.L. told the social worker that the doctor was trying to contact her,
the social worker told her that the social workers' telephone lines had been switched during a
move. Q.L. stated that she had left paperwork about her medical condition at the Agency's
office and said that later, Sean also left paperwork for the social worker at the Agency's office.
Q.L. said that she maintained contact with Kenneth by telephone, texting, and chat
video and that they used to talk almost every day. Last month they spoke approximately once
a week. Q.L. testified that she repeatedly asked the social worker to transport Kenneth to
San Diego for visits and to allow Kenneth to take Metrolink to visit her when she and Sean
were in Los Angeles. Q.L, testified that the social worker denied her requests and instead
offered to pay for Q.L.'s train and/or bus tickets to visit Kenneth.
Q.L. said that it was difficult to arrange visits with K.T. and D.T. The social worker
told her to telephone the foster parent, and the foster parent told her to telephone the social
worker. Q.L. asked for a set visitation schedule, but there was never any schedule. Q.L. was
on a waiting list for transportation. She was told that she did not have priority because her
visits with the minors were unsupervised.
Q.L. said that she had attended an intake with K.T.'s therapist approximately a week
before she was hospitalized in April. Q.L. claimed that the therapist had contacted her directly,
saying that the social worker was not returning the therapist's telephone calls. Another session
10
was scheduled for the following week but Q.L. was hospitalized that day. Q.L. did not meet
with D.T.'s therapist because she was told that D.T. was not ready for conjoint therapy.
K.T.'s and D.T.'s foster mother said that her interactions with Q.L. were always
pleasant. When the social worker was involved, interactions became overwhelming and
chaotic. The foster mother was required to telephone the social worker and ask permission to
schedule visits. Q.L. attended a school meeting for D.T., and came to the hospital when D.T.
broke his arm. The foster mother took K.T. and D.T. to visit Q.L. in the hospital.
Sean testified that the social worker never asked about Q.L.'s health. He said that he
had left paperwork documenting her condition at the Agency.
The juvenile court determined that reasonable reunification services were offered or
provided to the family. While the parents had made more progress in services prior to an
inexperienced social worker being assigned to the complicated case, there was a preponderance
of evidence to show that the Agency had offered or provided reasonable services to the parents.
The juvenile court found that there was not a substantial probability that the minors could be
returned to Q.L.'s care, terminated reunification services and set section 366.26 hearings for the
minors.9
Q.L. petitioned for review of the juvenile court's orders under California Rules of Court,
rule 8.452. Q.L. requests that this court reverse the orders setting the section 366.26 hearings.
This court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral
argument.
9 The juvenile court returned the siblings to the parents' care. 11
DISCUSSION
A
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Q.L. argues that reasonable services were not provided to reunify the family. She
contends that the Agency did not make a good faith effort to implement therapy for Kenneth,
and conjoint therapy between herself and each of the minors, as required by their court-ordered
case plans. Q.L. contends that the Agency did not make reasonable efforts to arrange visitation
with D.T. and K.T. She also asserts that the social worker's inexperience caused the
reunification plan to collapse and that the social worker did not meet her obligation to assist
Q.L. in the areas in which compliance proved difficult. She faults the social worker for not
reading the DCFS reports until January 2015, and not providing the parents' therapists with
copies of the petitions and reports, as ordered by the Los Angeles County juvenile court.
B
STATEMENT OF LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Family reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings. (§ 361.5;
In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 563; In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458,
467; 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.)
Reunification services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family. (David B. v.
Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 793-794, citing In re Alvin R. (2003)
108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972 (Alvin R.).) At each review hearing, if the child is not returned to his
or her parent, the juvenile court is required to determine whether "reasonable services that were
12
designed to aid the parent . . . in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and
the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent . . . ."
The "adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Agency's] efforts
are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995)
33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164 (Robin V.).) To support a finding that reasonable services were
offered or provided to the parent, "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 (Riva M.).)
In addition, to promote reunification, visitation must be as frequent as possible,
consistent with the well-being of the child. (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A); Alvin R., supra,
108 Cal.App.4th at p. 972.) "Visitation between a dependent child and his or her parents is an
essential component of a reunification plan, even if actual physical custody is not the outcome
of the proceedings." (In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580; In re J.N. (2006)
138 Cal.App.4th 450, 458.) The Agency is required to make reasonable efforts to assist the
parents in areas where compliance proves difficult, including providing transportation services
or modifying the location of the visits. (Riva M., supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 414; Robin V.,
supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165; Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340,
1345.)
13
We review a reasonable services finding to determine if it is supported by substantial
evidence. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 413-414.) The burden is on the
petitioner to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's findings.
(In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
C
REASONABLE VISITATION SERVICES WERE OFFERED TO Q.L. IN K.T.'s AND D.T.'s CASES
The record shows that Q.L. was offered unsupervised visitation with all of her children
during the review period. In November 2014, Q.L. and Sean met with the social worker, who
approved a plan to allow Q.L. to have dinner with D.T. and K.T. twice a week. In January
2015, the foster mother offered to transport D.T. and K.T. to visits if Q.L. would telephone her
to confirm. In view of Q.L.'s health problems and frequent hospitalizations, it was not
unreasonable to ask her to confirm the visit the day before it was scheduled.
At a special hearing on February 4, 2015, the juvenile court set a schedule for
unsupervised visitation between Q.L., K.T. and D.T. Q.L. was responsible for identifying the
location and time of the visits, and who would be transporting the minors, the day before the
visit. Visits were to occur each week on Wednesday and Saturday. At the 18-month review
hearing, Q.L. said that when she telephoned the foster mother, the foster mother told her to
telephone the social worker. K.T. and D.T.'s foster mother said that the social worker had to
approve each visit.
The plain wording of the juvenile court's February 4 order scheduling visits every
Wednesday and Saturday indicates that the foster mother misunderstood, or was not aware of,
the court's visitation order. There is no indication in the record that Q.L. brought this issue to 14
the attention of her attorney or the court, or tried to resolve the issue in order to effect the
court's order. If she had done so, the issue could have been resolved. Although the juvenile
court found that there was miscommunication and misunderstanding between the social worker
and Q.L., and between the social worker and Sean, the record does not support Q.L.'s claim
that the social worker was solely responsible for the communication problems concerning
visitation with K.T. and D.T., and that as a result, Q.L. did not receive reasonable visitation
services.
The record shows that the social worker approved a plan for Q.L. to visit with K.T. and
D.T. twice a week, on the condition that Q.L. telephone the foster mother to confirm the visit.
When Q.L. failed to contact either the foster mother or her sons, the social worker brought the
visitation problems to the attention of the juvenile court. The juvenile court authorized
unsupervised visitation and set a regular visitation schedule, but there is no indication in the
record that Q.L. had weekly visits with K.T. and D.T. The social worker then tried to set up
regular visitation, with transportation services, at a visitation center. The visitation center
telephoned Q.L. at least three times and left messages, but did not hear from her. Q.L.'s
telephone may or may not have been working at that time. However, if her telephone was not
working, it was her responsibility to identify another means for the social worker and service
providers to contact her. If Q.L. was concerned about her visitation services, she could have
contacted the visitation center to check on the status of her application. The record contains
substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that reasonable visitation services
were offered to Q.L. in D.T.'s and K.T.'s cases.
15
D
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT FINDINGS THAT KENNETH RECEIVED REASONABLE THERAPEUTIC SERVICES AND THAT THE AGENCY MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT CONJOINT THERAPY
On November 25, 2014, when Kenneth was placed in the home of his paternal aunt, the
juvenile court ordered the Agency to provide therapy to Kenneth in Los Angeles County. The
record shows that on December 1, the social worker asked an aide at Casey Family Programs
to contact a specific facility in Los Angeles County to set up services for Kenneth. On
December 26, the social worker learned that the facility had a four to six month waiting list.
On December 31, the social worker spoke with Kenneth's former therapist in Los Angeles
County, who referred the social worker to Lancaster Children's Bureau (LCB). The intake
coordinator at LCB initiated the process to obtain Medi-Cal approval for Kenneth's therapy. In
January 2015, at the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court made an uncontested finding
that reasonable services had been offered or provided in Kenneth's case.
In May, the social worker reported that she was actively working with Los Angeles
Children's Bureau (LACB) to enroll Kenneth in individual therapy. LACB reported that as of
May 11, Kenneth's Medi-Cal had not been transferred to Los Angeles County and they
therefore could not provide services to him. The social worker contacted a DCFS specialist,
who reported that Kenneth's Medi-Cal was listed as having been transferred to Los Angeles
County. A staff psychologist at the Agency had found an appropriate therapist for Kenneth in
northern Los Angeles County and had approved county payment. The social worker sent
Kenneth's record to the therapist, and Kenneth's first appointment was scheduled for May 18.
16
The social worker asked Kenneth's therapist for updates on June 11 and June 25, but the
therapist did not respond.
The record permits the reasonable inference that Kenneth began therapy on May 18 and
continued to participate in therapy to the date of the court's findings, a period of approximately
three and a half months. The issue of whether Kenneth was receiving therapy was not raised at
the 18-month review hearing. Because Kenneth received individual therapy for more than half
of the review period at issue, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the
reasonable services finding.
Q.L. contends that conjoint therapy between Kenneth and her was necessary to support
meaningful visitation. She argues that the failure to provide therapy to Kenneth from
November 2014 to May 2015 resulted in the erosion of their relationship. We are not
persuaded by this argument. If there was any erosion in the parent/child relationship, the
record supports the reasonable inference that it was due in large part to Q.L's failure to make
more of an effort to visit Kenneth. Q.L. does not claim that her visitation with Kenneth was
inadequate. Q.L. did not visit Kenneth during any of her trips to Los Angeles, and she did not
attend his birthday party in Orange County in March 2015. Kenneth was disappointed and sad
that Q.L. did not visit him. There is nothing in the record to indicate that he was ready to
participate in conjoint therapy with Q.L.
Similarly, D.T. was not ready for conjoint therapy with Q.L. At the 18-month review
hearing, Q.L. testified that D.T.'s therapist did not believe that conjoint therapy was
appropriate at that time. The Agency provided therapy to D.T. during the dependency
proceedings, including the review period at issue here, with the objective of providing conjoint
17
therapy, when appropriate. The record shows that D.T.'s therapist did not recommend conjoint
therapy. We conclude that there is substantial evidence to show that reasonable therapeutic
services were provided in D.T.'s case in accordance with his court-ordered services plan.
The record shows that when K.T. was ready for conjoint therapy, his therapist contacted
Q.L. and arranged to meet with her before scheduling conjoint therapy sessions between Q.L.
and K.T. Q.L. participated in the intake session. Q.L. was not able to attend the scheduled
conjoint therapy session the following week because she was hospitalized. There is nothing in
the record to indicate that Q.L. telephoned K.T.'s therapist to reschedule the session, or that she
asked the social worker for assistance in rescheduling the session. The record permits the
reasonable inference that Q.L. could have participated in conjoint therapy with K.T. if she had
chosen to take advantage of that service. "[T]here is no 'requirement that a social worker take
the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions.' "
(In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233, quoting In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d
1148, 1463, fn. 5.) We conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to show that
Q.L. was offered conjoint therapy services with K.T.
E
ALTHOUGH THE JUVENILE COURT FOUND THAT THE SOCIAL WORKER WAS INEXPERIENCED, THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE FINDING THAT THE AGENCY OFFERED OR PROVIDED REASONABLE REUNIFICATION SERVICES TO Q.L.
Q.L. contends that the social worker's inexperience and lack of communication skills
resulted in the collapse of the reunification plan. Citing the juvenile court's observation that it
"came very close" to finding that reasonable services were not provided, Q.L. argues that she
participated in services and made substantial progress with her case plan, but that the social
18
worker did not do all that she was required to do under the circumstances. (In re T.G. (2010)
188 Cal.App.4th 687, 698.) Q.L. faults the social worker for not reviewing the DCFS file until
January 2015, and not providing the therapists with copies of the reports, contrary to court
orders.
We are not persuaded by Q.L.'s argument. In April 2014, the Los Angeles County
juvenile court ordered DCFS to provide copies of the petition and the court reports to
providers. At the 18-month review hearing, Q.L.'s therapist said that he was aware of
allegations of domestic violence between Q.L. and Sean because he had read the court reports
from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The therapist was also aware that Q.L.'s
daughter, P.L., had disclosed being physically abused because that information was included in
the reports from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The record indicates that Q.L.'s
therapist received the court-ordered materials and permits the reasonable inference that a social
worker provided the court-ordered materials to the minors' (and Sean's) therapists as well.
In addition, we reject Q.L.'s claim that the Agency did not make a good faith effort to
implement the case plan. The case plan was in effect when the less experienced social worker
was assigned to the case, and her delay in reading the DCFS file did not change the provision
of services to the family. During the review period at issue, Q.L. continued to participate in
individual therapy. When Q.L. discontinued therapy, the social worker helped her resume
therapy. Q.L. achieved her therapeutic goals. K.T., D.T. and Sean continued to participate in
individual therapy. The social worker secured therapy for Kenneth in Los Angeles County.
Sean and Q.L. completed their court-ordered reunification case plans in the siblings' cases, and
the juvenile court returned the siblings to their care. Q.L. had the same case plan for the
19
minors as she did for the siblings. The minors and the siblings had the same social workers
throughout the case. There are no findings that the other social workers who were assigned to
the case were inexperienced. As the juvenile court noted, the minors were more severely
physically abused for a longer period of time than were their siblings, and required more time
to heal from Sean's physical abuse. In its response, the Agency acknowledges that the juvenile
court can continue to offer child-centered services, including conjoint therapy, to the minors,
even after the conclusion of the reunification period. (§ 366.3, subd. (e).)
"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.) The Agency offered or provided court-
ordered family reunification services to Q.L., her husband and her children for more than 18
months. As a result of these services, Q.L. was able to reunify with two of her children. The
record shows that the Agency made a good faith effort to meet the minors' needs to allow them
to reunify with Q.L. Throughout the entirety of the dependency proceedings, DCFS and the
Agency provided therapeutic and counseling services to both D.T. and K.T. to address their
specific behavioral and emotional needs. Q.L. was offered unsupervised visitation with the
minors during the review period. Kenneth, too, received appropriate therapeutic services for a
significant time during the proceedings, including therapeutic services for approximately half
of the review period at issue. We conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the finding that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent. (§ 366.22,
subd. (a).)
20
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for a stay is denied.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
21
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court denied the mother's petition for writ of mandate, finding that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that the Agency provided reasonable reunification and visitation services despite communication challenges and the mother's medical issues.
Issues
Whether the Agency provided reasonable reunification services to the mother, including therapy and visitation.
Whether the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were offered or provided is supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition. Petition denied.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that reasonable visitation services were offered to Q.L. in D.T.'s and K.T.'s cases.”
“The juvenile court determined that reasonable reunification services were offered or provided to the family.”
“We review a reasonable services finding to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence.”