J.C. v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2022) · DecisionDepot
J.C. v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 2022 No. E079013Unpublished
Filed 7/18/22 J.C. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
J.C.,
Petitioner, E079013
v. (Super.Ct.No. J285609)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Petition denied.
David E. Wohl for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for
Real Party in Interest. 1
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner J.C. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court’s order terminating
reunification services as to her child, I.C. (the child), and setting a Welfare and
Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing. She contends the court erred in finding that
reasonable services were offered to her. Mother has requested a stay of the section
366.26 hearing pending review of this writ. We deny the writ petition, as well as the
request for stay.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2020, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services
(CFS) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the child, who was two years old at the
time. The petition alleged that she came within the provisions of section 300,
subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). It specifically
alleged that mother had a history of substance abuse and domestic violence, mother was
incarcerated, and the whereabouts of the child’s father were unknown. 2
The social worker filed a detention report stating that CFS received a referral
alleging general neglect, caretaker absence/incapacity, and emotional abuse. The referral
stated mother was arrested for assaulting her boyfriend, and there was no one to care for
her daughter.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
2 The child’s father is not a party to this writ. 2
The juvenile court held a detention hearing on June 18, 2020, and detained the
child in foster care. It ordered services to be provided pending the development of a case
plan and supervised visits once a week.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on August 3, 2020,
recommending that the child be removed from mother’s custody, be declared a
dependent, and that mother be provided with reunification services. The social worker
interviewed mother on July 1, 2020, and mother said she had a prior dependency case in
2018 in Arizona, when she had a domestic violence charge with a boyfriend. She said
she went through detox in jail and attended a substance abuse program. Mother further
stated that she was experiencing a significant amount of anxiety due to the COVID-19
quarantine and the responsibilities of being a single mother, and her doctor intended to
send her to a substance abuse treatment program for one month.
The social worker observed that mother was “highly motivated to engage in
services to have her child returned” and was “extremely cooperative with CFS.” The
social worker attached a case plan that included the requirements that mother participate
in counseling, a domestic violence program, an anger management program, a parenting
education program, and an outpatient substance abuse program.
The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on August 6, 2020. Mother’s
counsel stated her belief that the child was not at risk with mother. She said mother was
“not opposed to doing any services that the Department ask[ed] of her[;] she just
believe[d] she [could] accomplish those services with the child in her custody.” The 3
court set the matter for mediation on September 8, 2020, and a hearing for September 15,
2020.
The social worker filed a mediation report stating that the parties met and reached
an agreement. CFS agreed to dismiss the substance abuse allegation, and mother agreed
to participate in the case plan, including random testing, outpatient substance abuse
services, parenting education, individual counseling, and domestic violence classes. The
social worker reported that mother self-enrolled in an aftercare program and anger
management. CFS recommended that the child be returned to mother on family
maintenance at the September 15 hearing date, based on a memorandum with additional
information for the court (CFS 6.7) filed on September 14, 2020. The memorandum
indicated that, on August 17, 2020, mother participated in a Child and Family Team
Meeting (CFTM) and provided evidence that she was participating in all her case
services. Mother reported the names of her providers. The outcome of the CFTM was
mother being allowed unsupervised visits, and the social worker reported that those visits
were going well. The social worker further reported that a home evaluation was done on
September 10, 2020, and the home was found to be appropriate.
The court held a hearing on September 15, 2020, and found that the child came
within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and dismissed the substance abuse
allegation. It declared the child a dependent, returned her to mother’s custody under
family maintenance, approved the case plan, and ordered mother to participate in family
maintenance services.
4
Subsequent Petition
On October 23, 2020, the social worker filed a petition pursuant to sections 342
and 387, alleging that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious
physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support). The social
worker reported that CFS received a referral on October 20, 2020, alleging that mother
was drinking and hitting the child. When law enforcement arrived at the home, mother
was “completely drunk” and “belligerent,” and the child had bruising on her temple that
was “consistent with being hit.” Mother stated that she did not want her child and CFS
should have taken the child from her. The police talked to a family friend, who said
mother had been consistently drunk for about two weeks.
The court held a hearing on October 26, 2020, and found the previous disposition
had been ineffective and detained the child in foster care. It ordered supervised visits,
once a week.
On November 12, 2020, the social worker filed another jurisdiction/disposition
report, recommending that the court sustain the latest petition, remove the child from
mother’s custody, and provide mother with reunification services. The social worker
observed that mother seemed to be highly motivated to have the child returned to her, but
when she had the child under her care, she did not provide the child with a safe and
loving home. The social worker asserted that mother would go through the motions of
completing the services, but “she has clearly not shown improvement.” The social
worker stated that the following preplacement preventive services were provided, but
5
were not effective in preventing or eliminating the need for removal of the child from the
home: parenting education, a domestic violence program, and drug testing.
The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on December 7, 2020.
It sustained the petition, ordered that the child remain a dependent, and ordered
reunification services for mother.
Six-month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month status review report on May 27, 2021,
recommending that the court terminate mother’s services and set a section 366.26
hearing. The social worker reported that on May 17, 2021, mother told her that she loved
her daughter and did not want to lose her, but felt she needed a “significantly longer
amount of time to reunify” due to her struggles with alcoholism and mental health. She
said she had a family history of mental illness and addiction, and that she was receiving
mental health services through High Desert Psychological Services, Inc., including seeing
a doctor who was providing medication management, mental health assessment and
diagnostic services, and she was seeing a clinical therapist. As to compliance with her
case plan, the social worker reported that mother completed parenting education, anger
management, and domestic violence services through A Better Way. Mother also
completed inpatient substance abuse services and had attended some outpatient services.
The social worker further reported that mother was having consistent and
appropriate visits with the child, and that she had progressed to unsupervised visits.
However, mother was arrested on April 25, 2021, for felony vandalism following a
domestic dispute with her landlord/roommate, and her visits were returned to supervised 6
visits due to her violent behavior, destruction of her residence, and allegations that she
was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.
Mother told the social worker she felt there was a lack of mother/child bonding,
which had been present since the child was an infant and was removed from her care in
Arizona. Mother stated that she did parent child interactive therapy (PCIT) with the child
during that reunification process, but due to the child being an infant who was not able to
engage, mother did not feel those bonding services worked. The social worker reported
that mother was currently seeing a therapist with ACT Family Counseling, who was
going to be working with mother and the child on strengthening their bond. Nonetheless,
the social worker opined that returning the child to mother would create a substantial risk
of detriment to the physical and/or emotional well-being of the child. She reported that
mother had completed the majority of her court-ordered treatment plan but had failed to
demonstrate any benefit from her services. The social worker noted a pattern in mother’s
behavior, where she could go a few months with a positive trajectory, only to fall back
into alcohol abuse and/or domestic violence. The social worker further reported that on
December 3, 2020, mother stated she was not ready to have the child returned to her on
family maintenance. Mother said she could not raise the child on her own, and that she
was getting ready to attend a six-month inpatient alcohol treatment program and then a
sober living program. She stated that she might be ready to have the child returned to her
in about one year. Mother also said the child required too much time from her that she
did not have, due to her work obligations.
7
The court held a six-month review hearing on July 16, 2021. The licensed clinical
social worker (A.K.), who had been providing mother with therapy since May 2021,
testified. She said she had 12 sessions with mother and testified that mother had made
improvements. Mother also testified and indicated that she had completed all of her
services. She testified that the services she participated in were not referred to her by
CFS; rather, she found them by herself and enrolled on her own. Mother felt like she had
benefitted from those services and went on to describe what she had learned from her
anger management program and inpatient treatment. Mother said she also sought out
Vivitrol injections (to help with her alcohol craving), psychiatry, PCIT, a home visitor’s
program, and a family support program. She stated that she was currently doing PCIT
with a therapist (M.F.) and had been since March 2021. She met with the therapist once a
week. The therapist helped her with “bonding and attachment” with the child and
understanding how to correctly parent and discipline the child. Mother confirmed that
she was also in therapy with a licensed clinical social worker (A.K.), who helped her with
her personal issues and past traumas. When asked if she would participate if the court
were to offer her more services, she said, “Absolutely a thousand percent.”
Mother was asked how many substance abuse programs she had completed in her
life, to date, and she said three. She said she completed the last program in February
2021, but relapsed in April 2021. As to random testing, mother said she tried to
participate, but stopped going since her name was not in the system. The social worker
confirmed there were issues with the system. Mother also admitted that she caused
8
damage to her roommate’s property in April 2021, and he had a restraining order against
her.
The court noted that mother was continuously engaged in services and had made
some progress, and that she had consistently visited the child. The court said the visits
were reportedly positive, and it believed there was a bond between mother and the child.
It then continued her services. Mother’s counsel asked, “And then in terms of PCIT,
could we have authority for the minor to participate in PCIT with the mother?” The court
gave authority for the child to participate in PCIT if it was in a supervised setting.
On August 27, 2021, the court approved a change in the case plan to require
mother to participate in general counseling, outpatient treatment, a 12-step program, and
substance abuse testing.
Twelve-month Status Review
The social worker filed a 12-month status review report on November 22, 2021,
recommending that the court terminate mother’s services and set a section 366.26
hearing. Mother reported that she was maintaining her sobriety and attending substance
abuse classes through her church and was receiving counseling. The social worker
reported that mother had her referral for random substance testing renewed on September
8, 2021. Mother admitted that she had not been testing and informed the social worker
that she had not been available.
The social worker continued to have concerns regarding mother’s participation in
and benefit from services. Although mother indicated that she had completed services,
she had not yet provided proof. The social worker reported that “CFS has offered and/or 9
provided reasonable services” to mother, and mother had “shown a pattern of escalating
actions and no benefit from the services that have been offered to her.”
On January 19, 2022, the social worker filed additional information to the court
(form CFS 6.7), stating that on January 1, 2022, mother was involved in a single vehicle
accident and was arrested for two counts of driving under the influence (DUI) and a
bribery charge for attempting to bribe an officer with sex to avoid arrest. The social
worker also reported that she spoke with mother’s therapist (A.K.), and that mother had
provided progress reports. Mother also submitted some of her certificates of completion.
The social worker stated, “It is clear that the mother has participated in multiple services
to include those provided by the Department, and those she accessed on her own.”
However, CFS continued to be concerned she had not benefitted from services, especially
in light of her recent arrest.
The social worker filed another CFS 6.7 report on March 9, 2022, and stated that
mother had “clearly received and completed all services available to her,” but she had
failed to benefit, continued to abuse alcohol, and lacked a bond with the child, which
placed the child at greater risk for continued abuse.
On May 4, 2022, the social worker filed a CFS 6.7 report and reviewed mother’s
services. She reported that mother completed an outpatient substance abuse program at
St. John of God on February 23, 2020, anger management and parenting education
programs on November 9, 2020, and a domestic violence program on December 16,
2020. Mother had consistently attended counseling over the life of the case, including
PCIT, and was currently receiving counseling services at High Desert Psychological 10
Services. Mother continued to attend recovery meetings at One Step to Freedom at
Calvary Chapel and began receiving regular Vivitrol injections to help her maintain
sobriety. The social worker observed that despite completing her case plan and her
continued participation in counseling and substance abuse services, mother continued to
engage in domestic disputes while under the influence of alcohol. The social worker
reported that on April 12, 2022, she emailed mother her renewed random drug testing
referral, informed her she was re-enrolled in random drug testing, and asked if she was
continuing to participate in ongoing substance abuse services and counseling. The social
worker also reported that she submitted a referral for substance abuse services to a drug
and alcohol counselor, who attempted to reach mother four times.
After numerous continuances, the court held a contested 12-month hearing on May
6, 2022. Mother’s current social worker, who was assigned to the case after the
jurisdiction/disposition hearing, testified that mother had completed all her services. She
said that mother last relapsed in January 2022, and she submitted a referral for substance
abuse services and re-enrolled mother in testing at that time. The social worker said the
last time she spoke with mother was on December 31, 2021, but she had been
communicating since then by text and email. She last sent mother a text and email on
April 12, 2022. When asked if all the services mother participated in were ones that she
accessed on her own, the social worker confirmed, and said mother “was very proactive.”
The social worker then added that mother “was provided information through the
Department, and, when offered services, she stated she was already enrolled in those
services.” 11
The social worker further stated that mother never felt she had a bond with the
child. When asked what services she had referred mother for in order to help the bond,
the social worker said, “Through her referral for counseling services, [mother] was
attending individual therapy with [M.F.] in Acts Family Care Counseling, and [mother]
informed me that she was participating in parent-child interactive therapy with [M.F.] at
family counseling.” The social worker added that mother told her she was switching to a
different therapist who would provide PCIT and in-patient services through High Desert
Psychological Services.
On cross-examination, the social worker was asked if she personally provided
mother with referrals for all her services, and the social worker said the referrals “were
provided to her” before she was assigned the case. The social worker stated that mother
was engaged in the services and successfully completed them.
Mother testified on her own behalf and said she was never given any referrals by
CFS but sought out her own services because she wanted to be proactive. Mother felt
that she had absolutely benefitted from the services, and she was ready to take the child
back into her home that day. Yet, she also admitted that since she completed her
outpatient services in February 2021, she had relapsed three times. Nonetheless, she felt
like she benefitted from her outpatient services.
Mother further testified that she was never referred to PCIT by CFS, although she
did request it in May 2021 and October 2021. Mother said she was originally seeing
therapist M.F., who was supposed to do PCIT, but since M.F. would not meet in person
with her and the child, she no longer used her services. Mother testified she thought 12
counseling would have helped her bond with the child, and stated that if she had gotten
more help, she believed some of the relapses could have been prevented. Mother then
testified that she had consistently visited the child and had 10 visits since March 2022.
She said, “I mean, me and [the child] are extremely bonded.”
In closing arguments, mother’s counsel contended that the social worker admitted
a critically important part of reunification would be PCIT, but there was no PCIT
provided. He argued, “If there isn’t, then there’s a service not being provided that I think
makes the services as a whole unreasonable.” He stated that mother was “clearly battling
her alcoholism” and he thought she was “doing a very good job now.” Counsel asked the
court to make a finding of no reasonable services and offer her another six months of
reunification services. County counsel argued that the provision of reasonable services
was not an issue, since mother told the social worker she was enrolled in everything, and
there was no doubt that mother engaged in and completed her programs. He further
acknowledged mother’s complaint that she did not get PCIT, and argued that PCIT was
“great for parenting skills, but I’m not sure that relates to substance abuse. And
substance abuse is clearly the thing that she is struggling with.”
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were
provided as recommended by the social worker. It stated, “And the proof is kind of in the
pudding in this case because everybody agrees that Mom completed the services.” The
court stated the problems with anger management, domestic violence, and substance
abuse were ongoing and posed a significant risk to the child. It did not believe the lack of
a PCIT referral was critical in this case, and remarked, “PCIT has nothing to do with 13
substance abuse, domestic violence, and anger management. It has to do with parenting
and the relationship, which I think Mom addressed through counseling, parenting, and
visitation.” The court adopted the social worker’s recommended findings and orders,
terminated services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
The Court Properly Found That Reasonable Services Had Been Provided
Mother argues the court erred in finding reasonable services had been provided
since CFS failed to provide any referrals or services to her; rather, she found her own
services. Specifically, mother contends CFS failed to maintain reasonable contact with
her. She also argues that the “most significant failure” was the failure to provide PCIT
services and claims that, had she been given such services, “it is likely she would not
have relapsed by drinking.” Mother claims she lacked a maternal bond with the child,
and CFS became aware of such, yet did not offer her “bonding services” that would have
given her the bond and love that would “motivate her to stop drinking.” Mother asks that
we vacate the order terminating her services and setting a section 366.26 hearing, order
that a reasonable reunification plan be devised and implemented, order visitation, and
grant custody of the child to her. We conclude the court properly found that reasonable
services were provided.
A. Relevant Law
To support a finding that 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 14
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.)
“In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all legitimate
and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial evidence
supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed.” (In re
Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
B. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Court’s Finding of Reasonable
Services
We have reviewed the record and find mother’s argument unavailing. She first
contends that CFS failed to maintain reasonable contact with her. She points out that she
reported numerous times for drug testing and was turned away because she was not “in
the system.” It is unclear how this relates to CFS’s alleged failure to maintain contact
with her. Mother then asserts that when she relapsed in connection with her DUI arrest,
around January 1, 2022, it took three and half months for her to receive a referral for
services, and she points out that the social worker testified in May 2022 that she last
spoke with her in January 2022. We note, however, that the social worker testified she
last spoke with mother in December 2021, but they were communicating through texts
and emails. She specifically said she emailed mother on January 14, 2022, and texted
and emailed her on April 12, 2022. The social worker said she told mother in her email
in January 2022 that she needed a new consent form. (The social worker could not refer 15
mother to services after her relapse since her consent form had expired.) The social
worker also testified that she reached out to mother by phone, but was unable to reach
her, so she left voicemails. We note that, “[t]he Department has a duty initially to make a
good faith attempt to locate the parents of a dependent child. Once a parent has been
located, it becomes the obligation of the parent to communicate with the Department and
participate in the reunification process.” (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436,
441.)
Mother next contends she was not provided with any referrals or services.
However, the record belies this claim. The social worker reported in the 12-month status
review report that CFS “offered and/or provided reasonable services” to mother. At the
contested 12-month review hearing, the social worker testified that the services mother
participated in were ones that she accessed on her own; however, she also testified that
mother “was provided information through the Department, and, when offered services,
she stated she was already enrolled in those services.” On cross-examination, when
asked if she personally provided mother with referrals for all her services, the social
worker said the referrals “were provided to [mother]” before she was assigned the case.
We also note that, in the CFS 6.7 report filed on January 19, 2022, the social worker
stated, “It is clear that the mother has participated in multiple services to include those
provided by the Department, and those she accessed on her own.” (Italics added.)
Furthermore, in the CFS 6.7 report filed on May 4, 2022, the social worker reported that
she emailed mother her renewed random drug testing referral on April 12, 2022, and
informed her she was re-enrolled in random drug testing. The social worker also reported 16
that a referral for substance abuse services was submitted to a drug and alcohol
counselor, also on April 12, 2022. We are aware of no rule prohibiting parents from
locating and accessing services on their own, if they choose to do, when those services
are deemed acceptable by child protective services agencies such as CFS.
As to mother’s specific claims that CFS failed to provide PCIT, and that had she
received PCIT it was likely she would not have relapsed into drinking, such claims have
no merit. At the six-month review hearing, mother testified that she was currently doing
PCIT with her therapist, M.F., and had been since March 2021. Mother said she met with
the therapist usually once a week, and the therapist helped her with “bonding and
attachment” with the child and how to correctly parent and discipline the child. The
social worker confirmed in her May 4, 2022 report that mother participated in PCIT with
M.F. At the 12-month review hearing, the social worker testified, “Through her referral
for counseling services, [mother] was attending individual therapy with [M.F.] in Acts
Family Care Counseling, and [mother] informed me that she was participating in parent-
child interactive therapy with [M.F.] at family counseling.” Although it is not clear from
the record if CFS referred mother to PCIT, it does clearly show that mother was
participating in PCIT.
Consequently, mother’s claim that had she received PCIT, it was likely she would
not have relapsed into drinking, is groundless. She asserts that she had no maternal love
or bond with the child and argues that she was not offered bonding services “that would
give her the maternal bond and love . . . that would, in turn, motivate her to stop
drinking.” Mother’s assertions are highly speculative. Moreover, we note, in contrast to 17
mother’s assertions about a lack of bonding with the child, that mother told the social
worker she loved the child and did not want to lose her. Further, the social worker
observed that mother seemed to be highly motivated to have the child returned to her.
Additionally, at the 12-month hearing, mother testified that she and the child were
“extremely bonded.” She also testified, “[B]eing an alcoholic is not fun. . . . And I have
my good times and I have my bad times. But regardless, I’m committed to getting
through. I’m committed to myself. I’m committed to that child. And I will never stop
fighting for her.” Mother’s own words indicate that she felt bonded with the child and
was motivated to stop drinking to get her back. Unfortunately, mother simply continued
to drink, as noted by her admission that she relapsed three times in 2021, after she had
completed outpatient services.
In sum, the record shows that mother was provided with reasonable services, and,
as the parties agreed, she completed her services. The problem was that mother failed to
benefit from those services. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the
court’s finding that mother was provided with reasonable services. We also note mother
does not dispute the court’s finding that she failed to participate regularly and make
substantive progress in her case plan. Therefore, there is no basis to conclude the court
erred in terminating her services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
18
DISPOSITION
The writ petition and the request for a stay are denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
19
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court properly found that reasonable reunification services were provided to the mother, as she had access to and completed numerous services, and the lack of a specific referral for parent-child interactive therapy (PCIT) did not render the services unreasonable.
Issues
Did the juvenile court err in finding that reasonable reunification services were provided to the mother?
Did the agency's failure to provide specific referrals for PCIT and alleged lack of contact render the reunification services unreasonable?
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were provided as recommended by the social worker.”
“It did not believe the lack of a PCIT referral was critical in this case”
“We conclude the court properly found that reasonable services were provided.”