M v. v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2013) · DecisionDepot
M v. v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Mar 29, 2013 No. E057868Unpublished
Filed 3/29/13 M.V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
M.V.,
Petitioner, E057868
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWJ001172)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. John N.
Monterosso, Judge. Petition denied.
David A. Goldstein for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
1
Petitioner M.V. (mother) challenges the decision of the juvenile court to terminate
reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.261 to consider a permanent plan for her minor son. Mother argues that the juvenile
court abused its discretion when it found that the reunification services offered to her
were reasonable and, also, that return of the minor would create a substantial risk of
detriment to him. For the reasons explained post, we disagree with these contentions and,
therefore, deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
H.H. (minor), who was born in January 2009, was first detained when social
workers from Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the “department”)
received reports of domestic violence involving both parents. Mother had several
injuries, which she said she had sustained as a result of an earlier altercation with the
father.2 Mother declined to move herself and the minor out of the house she shared with
father because she said she did have anywhere to stay and refused to move to a shelter.
Both parents tested positive for marijuana use. Mother insists that she uses this
drug legally as she has a medical marijuana card. She states she smokes marijuana twice
a week to treat her insomnia and anxiety, as well as to help her appetite because she is so
1All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Father was arrested in January 2011 for a domestic violence incident. He pleaded guilty to a charge of violating Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), and is currently incarcerated. The juvenile court terminated reunification services for him at the contested review hearing in July 2011. He is not a party to this petition.
2
thin. She informed the social worker that she typically smokes in the garage after the
minor has gone to sleep and she does not view her use of marijuana to be a problem.
Both parents also have rather lengthy criminal histories for theft and drug crimes.
In addition, father had convictions for domestic violence.
In 2002, mother’s oldest child was made a dependent child when allegations of
general neglect were substantiated. Mother received family reunification services and
that child was returned to her in 2003. However, the father of that child currently has
sole physical custody of him, as well as a younger sibling.
At the November 2010 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the
allegations of the amended petition to be true, and physical custody of the minor was
removed from the parents. The court also ordered that reunification services be provided
to mother that included, pursuant to the case plan: substance abuse assessment, random
drug testing, substance abuse treatment program, parenting class, individual/conjoint
therapy, and a domestic violence program.
The social worker stated in the status review report of May 10, 2011, that mother
had received referrals for services. Because mother had previously participated in
counseling services for over a year, she needed to undergo a psychological evaluation to
determine if she could benefit from counseling services. The social worker observed a
visit and found that both parents appeared loving and nurturing to the minor, who
appeared to be well bonded to them. The social worker concluded, however, that mother
had made only minimal progress toward the completion of her plan, and that she was
uncooperative and unwilling to communicate with the social worker. Mother had
3
received positive feedback from her anger management counselor, completed parenting
education, and had been faithful in visitation.
In an addendum report filed June 9, 2011, it was recommended that reunification
services be terminated. Mother had refused to participate in random drug testing. She
had refused to leave the home owned by the father’s parents, even though the father had
been incarcerated, and his parents reported she was renting out rooms without their
consent.
In another addendum filed in July 2011, it was reported that mother remained
defiant in her refusal to participate in random drug testing. She had not been assigned to
a therapist because she failed to demonstrate 30 days of sobriety. Also, she had
participated in a psychological evaluation and was diagnosed with a personality disorder
with narcissistic, antisocial and borderline traits. The psychologist, Dr. Suiter, suggested
that mother would require extensive psychotherapy that was beyond the scope of the
mental health services that could be provided in a six- to 12-month time frame.
At the review hearing in July 2011, the juvenile court continued reunification
services for the mother, ordering therapy and randomized and on-demand drug testing for
her.
The department filed a report on September 27, 2011, informing the court that the
mother had been arrested for driving under the influence of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, and a probation violation. Mother admitted to police that the
methamphetamine and pipe were hers. She also stated that she provided sexual favors to
obtain the drugs, and that she sold methamphetamine to supplement her income.
4
The department also became aware of a “You Tube” video mother had posted
entitled “Judges, Public Defenders and Foster Homes.” Mother discusses her experiences
with the dependency court system and the injustice of having her son removed from her.
She ended the video with a statement that read “all this for a plant”—apparently referring
to her use of marijuana. Pictures of the minor and his caregiver were featured on this
Internet site, although mother had not received permission of the caregiver or the
department to do so.
In addition, mother had tested positive for marijuana three times and had “no
showed” four other times since June. Mother admitted that on July 26, 2011 she was
under the influence of Klonopin (or Clonazepam) and had passed out. This drug had
apparently been prescribed to reduce anxiety in place of marijuana.
After this report was filed, mother made an almost complete turnaround in her
behavior. She was immediately enrolled in the “Family Preservation Court” program,
and as of December 2011 she was in full compliance. She tested negative for all
substances as of October 27, 2011, attended 12-step meetings, and participated in anger
management classes, as well as individual counseling. Based on mother’s compliance, at
the 12-month status review hearing in January 2012, the juvenile court ordered the minor
returned to her care and custody and the department was ordered to provide family
maintenance services.
However, prior to the status review hearing, mother had relapsed, and the
department filed a supplemental petition under section 387. In the accompanying report,
the social worker stated that on August 14, 2012, she had talked with mother’s case
5
manager in the Family Preservation Court who said there was concern that clients in this
group were consuming baking soda within two hours of testing so that they would not
test positive. The case manager said she would be requesting mother to drug test on that
date. Within two hours of this conversation, mother called the social worker and
admitted that the day before she had taken two hits of marijuana and smoked “a bowl of
meth.” Mother stated she had been in a “funk” the last couple of weeks and was scared
to graduate from Family Preservation Court and lose her support.
In a face-to-face meeting two days later, mother told the social worker that she
was “triggered” to use methamphetamine due to her current living arrangements. She
indicated that her current roommates abused methamphetamine and she began to use it
within one week after moving in on July 20, 2012. She expressed concern about
parenting her son due to his developmental problems. She also admitted that men were
her weakness and that she was in a romantic relationship with a man from her group.
An initial decision was made that the minor would remain in the mother’s care
with continued court involvement. Mother signed a relapse prevention plan from the
court and new living arrangements were found for her and her son. As part of the plan,
mother was to have no romantic relationships or unneeded contact with men for a
minimum of 30 days.
Soon, however, the case manager received an anonymous report that mother had
not stayed the previous night in the new residence but had spent the night with a man
who was a known drug dealer. Mother appeared in court the same day as this report was
received and confirmed she had not stayed the night at the new residence. She said she
6
had been with a friend, and denied it was the person who was of concern to the court
program and the department. When asked why she had used, mother responded, “You
don’t understand. It has been so stressful lately. [The minor] is a handful. You just
don’t understand how hard it is to take care of him.” At this point, she was being
terminated from the court program. Mother left the courtroom and attempted to leave the
courthouse, refusing to inform social workers of her son’s whereabouts. Only after
deputies intervened did mother reveal the minor’s whereabouts, and he was taken into
protective custody later that day.
At the detention hearing in August 2012, it was ordered that mother be provided
reunification services, including alcohol and drug testing, substance abuse treatment,
parenting education, and counseling. The court authorized minor’s return to mother upon
a suitable home evaluation, and mother being clean and following all steps in program.
Mother enrolled in Gibson House, which is a 45-day residential substance abuse
treatment program. She did not complete the program and left it on September 19,
explaining to the counselor that she was “unable to sit around and complete substance
abuse treatment as she had other legal issues that she had to take care of.” She had
positive drug tests on September 5, and October 28, 2012.
Mother entered MFI Recovery Center’s residential program in late October 2012,
and completed the program on December 9, 2012. Thereafter, she participated in its
outpatient program receiving aftercare services.
Because three of mother’s appointed attorneys declared a conflict in succession,
the contested jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition was not heard until
7
January 2013. Mother testified at this hearing on January 9, 2013, that in addition to
participating in MFI’s aftercare program, she had obtained employment, maintained a
residence, regularly attended 12-step meetings, and maintained contact with her sponsor
and her son.
The social worker supervising the case admitted during her testimony at this
hearing that mother was then currently in compliance with her case plan.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court made the requisite
jurisdictional findings and denied reunification services to the mother. The court
commented that mother’s entire history with dependency proceedings going back 10
years had to be considered in order to evaluate her substance abuse problem and
determine whether the minor could be safely returned to her care. In view of her history,
it opined that the department would have been justified when mother relapsed in August
2012 not to attempt to keep the minor in her care by devising a safety plan. This plan
was devised based on mother’s input as to what her temptations were. However, mother
did not comply with the plan, resulting in termination from Family Preservation Court.
From late August to late October, mother continued to use drugs. Eventually, she
did get into the MFI program and had been clean for 77 days, but the court noted that
mother seems to do well when there is intense scrutiny and oversight, but does not do so
well when she is on her own and must deal with stressful situations. It concluded that
there still exists a substantial risk of harm to the minor if he were placed back in mother’s
care.
8
The juvenile court indicated that the minor had been originally removed
September 26, 2010, and had been out of the home for over 18 months. The total number
of months of services provided exceeds 28 months. The court found that the department
had provided reasonable services. Although there had been some concerns about the
minor’s development, the court commented that his behavior was really no different from
almost any other three or four year old as confirmed by an assessment by the Inland
Regional Center. Thus, contrary to mother’s suggestion, the department had not simply
placed an extremely troubled child in her care without adequate support and instruction.
Mother complained that the department did not prepare her, but the court pointed out that
it was not the department’s job to prepare her, but only to provide her the tools and
opportunity to help her prepare herself.
DISCUSSION
Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred in two respects. First, it erred in
finding that there was a substantial risk to the minor if he were returned to her care.
Second, she claims that she was not provided reasonable reunification services. Neither
contention is well taken.
First, mother contends that since she completed her drug treatment program and
had been clean for 77 days, the juvenile court’s finding regarding substantial risk is
necessarily not supported by substantial evidence. No so. Even though she was in
compliance with that component of her case plan at the time of the hearing, the juvenile
court properly considered her entire history and concluded that she had not demonstrated
an ability to refrain from drug use when she was in stressful situations. By her own
9
admissions, the difficulties she encountered in trying to parent the minor were a
significant factor that contributed to her relapse. Mother, however, still fails to recognize
that there is a link between her sobriety—or lack thereof—and her ability to parent.
Weighing her relatively brief period of sobriety against her long history of drug abuse,
particularly when confronted with stressful situations, the juvenile court could well find
that the minor faced a substantial risk of harm if returned to mother’s care.
The standard of review when a parent challenges the reasonableness of the
reunification services provided or offered is whether substantial evidence supported the
juvenile court’s conclusion that such services were reasonable. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2
Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and
of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70
Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) “All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and the
reviewing court must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the
juvenile court.” (In re Albert B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 361, 375.)
The juvenile court’s order is supported by substantial evidence. Mother complains
about the department’s failure to provide services after the supplemental petition was
filed and the minor detained, asserting that the services she did receive, she secured on
her own or through the Family Preservation Court program. However, the department
was not obligated to provide services in addition to those provided as part of the latter
program. For instance, there was no need for the department to make arrangements for
housing or drug testing when those arrangements had already been made.
10
It is true that after she was terminated from Family Preservation Court, mother
made her own arrangements for residential programs, but this was the result of her own
decisions rather than lack of effort by the department. We believe it is not particularly
significant that a social worker did not visit her while she was in the residential treatment
program since it was obvious that she was receiving treatment for her primary problem,
substance abuse, and counselors in that program were monitoring her progress.
Overall, while the services provided may not have been ideal, they were
reasonable.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating reunification services and finding that returning the minor to the mother would create a substantial risk of detriment, as the department provided reasonable services and the mother's history of relapse demonstrated a continued risk.
Issues
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in finding that the reunification services offered to the mother were reasonable?
Did the juvenile court err in finding that returning the minor to the mother's care would create a substantial risk of detriment?
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Overall, while the services provided may not have been ideal, they were reasonable.”
“Weighing her relatively brief period of sobriety against her long history of drug abuse, particularly when confronted with stressful situations, the juvenile court could well find that the minor faced a substantial risk of harm if returned to mother’s care.”