Opinion
B236617 Super. Ct. No. CK38743
01-04-2012
HORACE P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Law Office of Marlene Furth, Danielle Butler Vappie and Rohini Khanna, for Petitioner.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Marilyn Mackel, Juvenile Court Commissioner. Petition denied.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Law Office of Marlene Furth, Danielle Butler Vappie and Rohini Khanna, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
In September 2010, Horace P. (father) filed a petition for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452), challenging an order of the juvenile court terminating family reunification services with his child P.P., and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. We denied father's petition in an opinion issued on November 30, 2010 (B226973).
Because the minor in this case has an unusual first name, we will refer to the minor using her first and last initial to protect her anonymity. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.400(b)(2).)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Before the section 366.26 hearing took place, father petitioned the juvenile court to reinstate reunification services pursuant to section 388. The juvenile court granted the petition, ordered an additional six months of reunification services, and took the section 366.26 hearing off calendar. At the conclusion of the six months, the juvenile court determined that returning P.P. to the father's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to her physical and/or emotional well-being. It terminated reunification services and rescheduled the section 366.26 hearing. Father again challenges the juvenile court's order by a petition for extraordinary writ. We deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
For context, we shall include a condensed version of the background facts as set forth in our November 30, 2010 (B226973) opinion.
In July 2008, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition under section 300, alleging that Pamela J. (mother) had a 13-year history of substance abuse and was a current drug user, that mother's other children had received permanent placement services due to her substance abuse, and that father was unable to care for P.P. because he was already caring for his seven-year-old daughter Po. The juvenile court sustained the allegations against mother and father, detained P.P., and placed her in foster care. As to father, the court permitted him monitored visits with P.P., and ordered reunification services in the form of group therapy through Project Fatherhood (sometimes referred to as "parenting class" in the record). An examination of P.P. revealed that she exhibited delayed speech, psychomotor slowness, and a reluctance to engage in self-initiated behaviors, which was indicative of both developmental delays and early childhood neglect. The evaluator recommended immediate and intensive intervention to address P.P.'s situation.
Mother was later incarcerated on drug related charges. Mother is not a party to the present petition challenging the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. Accordingly, we will omit any further discussion in the case history as it pertains to mother.
In December 2008, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered father to: (1) continue group therapy with Project Fatherhood; (2) participate in the weekly speech therapy that P.P. was undergoing for her developmental delays; and (3) visit P.P. a minimum of three times a week, and to include Po. during the visits.
In its February 2009 status review, DCFS reported that father was reluctant to attend group therapy and had attended only three of P.P.'s weekly speech therapy sessions. During one of the speech therapy sessions he attended, father became upset with P.P.'s foster mother (Gloria J.) and scolded her in front of others in the lobby. Additionally, father often cancelled or changed the time of his scheduled visits with P.P. with limited notice. When father did visit with P.P., he expressed hostility toward Gloria and engaged with P.P. only minimally. At the review hearing, father complained to the juvenile court that he believed Gloria's presence during his visits stifled P.P.'s behavior. The juvenile court ordered that father's visits be unmonitored, in part to address father's concerns about P.P.'s behavior and in part to permit father to bring P.P. to Project Fatherhood sessions.
In its August 2009 status review, DCFS reported that father's group therapy attendance continued to be sporadic and that father had stopped attending P.P.'s speech therapy sessions altogether. When questioned about this latter issue, father maintained that his presence was unnecessary, and that in any event, Po. was capable of teaching P.P. how to speak. During this review period, father expressed a desire to relinquish his parental rights over P.P., but then changed his mind three days later. At the status review hearing, the juvenile court ordered that father's visits with P.P. occur at a DCFS-monitored site.
In its October 2009 status review, DCFS reported that P.P. had made significant gains in her speech development and that P.P. demonstrated cognitive skills in the above average or gifted range. A psychologist who evaluated P.P. noted that P.P. had blossomed since placement with her foster parents, and recommended that she remain in their stable and supportive home environment. Father's participation in P.P.'s speech therapy during this period continued to be sporadic and at times disruptive. A case worker observed that it took P.P. a while to warm up to father during his visits, and that she would often squirm when he initiated physical contact with her.
A subsequent report by DCFS revealed that during one of father's monitored visits, father permitted P.P. to put deflated balloons in her mouth. During another visit, father became angry with a CSW and began shouting profanities at her in front of P.P. and Po. The CSW called for security and father continued to shout until he was escorted out of the building by guards.
At the December 2009 contested hearing regarding the termination of reunification services, the juvenile court admitted into evidence the status review reports prepared by DCFS and permitted father the opportunity to testify. At the close of evidence, the juvenile court ordered the continuation of reunification services for father, but warned that father's anger and hostility were problematic.
In February 2010, father had another angry outburst during a monitored visit with P.P. In the presence of both Po. and P.P., father shouted at a CSW and accused DCFS, Project Fatherhood, and the juvenile court of trying to take P.P. away from him without just cause. When guards approached father, he held on to P.P.'s hand and continued shouting at the guards and the CSW. During the episode, the CSW observed that Po. and P.P. had blank stares on their faces. DCFS reported its "extreme concern" over father's "violent and erratic behavior and apparent poor judgment in the company of his child[ren]."
Around the same time, DCFS reported that P.P. continued to display a very strong bond with her foster family and a growing disaffection toward father. On one occasion, P.P. cried when she realized that she was being taken to visit father, refused to get in the car, and screamed "I don't want to go." P.P.'s speech therapist reported that father's attendance at P.P.'s weekly sessions continued to be sporadic and that father refused to review material pertinent to P.P.'s developmental issues. During one session that he attended, father initiated a verbal altercation with Gloria, accused her of trying to take P.P. away from him, and called her and the speech therapist "witches" in front of P.P. During this same time period, father continued to attend group therapy sessions. He stated, however, that all the members in the group were crazy except for him.
In its June 2010 status review, DFCS reported that since the 2008 disposition order, father visited with P.P. 19 out of 78 possible times, and attended five speech therapy sessions out of a possible 27 sessions.
After a contested hearing to determine the suitability of returning P.P. to father's custody, the juvenile court concluded that father had failed to make the significant progress that was necessary to justify returning P.P. to his care despite more than 18 months of reunification services. According to the court, father's outbursts in front of P.P. showed a tremendous lack of control and insight, and demonstrated an unwillingness to place P.P.'s needs over his own. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that returning P.P. to father would pose a substantial risk of harm and detriment to P.P., and that there was no substantial likelihood that P.P. would be returned to father with additional reunification services. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and scheduled a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider the termination of parental rights.
Father challenged the juvenile court's order by a petition for extraordinary writ. In an opinion filed on November 30, 2010 (B226973), we concluded, based on the applicable standard of review and the record before us, that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings, and that the juvenile court properly set the underlying proceeding for a section 366.26 hearing.
In December 2010, DCFS filed a report discussing its review of P.P.'s foster parents as prospective adoptive applicants. P.P.'s foster parents were described as having a stable marriage of 34 years with no separation, being in good general health, and gainfully employed. The report noted that P.P. had a "strong attachment" to her foster parents, and that they "demonstrated their capability in meeting the daily needs of [P.P.] by providing an exception[al] level of care and supervision of [P.P.]" and were "willing to do whatever it takes to provide [her] with a warm, loving and emotionally healthy home."
In January 2011, prior to the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, father petitioned the juvenile court, pursuant to section 388, to reinstate reunification services. In support of his petition, father attached a letter in which Dr. Ronald Banks, the director of Project Fatherhood, stated that "[i]n the last two months, there [had been] a tremendous positive change in [father's] ability to communicate his needs" and that father was not a risk to P.P.'s physical or emotional health.
Section 388 provides in relevant part: "Any parent [of] a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court . . . to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made . . . ."
DCFS followed up with Dr. Banks and learned that since the juvenile court's August 2010 order terminating reunification services, father had continued to participate in group therapy through Project Fatherhood, had made progress in dealing with his anger, and was "able to focus less on perceived wrongdoing against him, and more on his responsibilities as a father." Additionally, DCFS monitors reported that more recent visits between father and P.P. had gone well, that there appeared to be a "close and trusting relationship" developing between them, and that father had treated DCFS representatives with courtesy. In light of father's apparent progress, DCFS recommended that the juvenile court reinstate reunification services and permit father lengthier and unmonitored visits with P.P.
On March 7, 2011, the juvenile court concluded that it was in the best interests of P.P. to reinstate reunification services for six months and granted father's section 388 petition. The juvenile court ordered father to: (1) attend group therapy through Project Fatherhood on a weekly basis, (2) attend weekly conjoint counseling with P.P. through play therapy, (3) attend weekly speech therapy with P.P., and (4) have unmonitored visits with P.P. the first Saturday of every month and every Wednesday. The court gave DCFS the discretion to liberalize visitation to overnight stays after consultation with the therapists who were working with father and P.P.
The juvenile court ordered father to attend both weekly "conjoint counseling" and "play therapy" with P.P. It appears from the record that they are one and the same.
In July 2011, DCFS conducted a status review and reported that out of 46 possible visits with P.P., father had missed five visits. Three missed visits occurred because of conflicts with father's work schedule. The fourth missed visit occurred because of a conflict with a dental appointment scheduled by father. The remaining missed visit occurred on Father's Day. Although father was required to provide 24 hours of notice before each missed visit, he did not do so.
DCFS described the circumstances of this missed visit as follows: "[O]n father's day, father was upset because he asked for more time on this holiday, and the message that more time was not approved was not communicated in time."
As part of its status review, DCFS interviewed Gloria. Gloria admitted that she and father did not get along, and that she had concerns about P.P.'s safety when P.P. was with father. Gloria's safety concerns stemmed from what she perceived to be jealousy directed at P.P. by Po., and animosity between the sisters. During the interview, Gloria recounted an incident in which P.P. returned home from a visit with father and revealed that she had seen father in bed with an unidentified woman and that father had accused P.P. of acting as a "spy" for Gloria. When the CSW confronted father about this alleged incident, father neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. Rather, he accused DCFS of sending P.P. to "spy on him," and that Gloria was "brainwashing" P.P. Gloria reaffirmed her and her husband's enthusiasm to adopt P.P., but also expressed a desire to have P.P. reunified with father when father was ready to care for her.
DCFS also consulted with P.P.'s play therapist. According to the therapist, during the period of March through the end of July 2011, father and P.P. attended 11 out of 17 sessions together. For some of the missed sessions, father cited a work conflict or an inability to get to the therapy session; for other missed sessions, father provided no excuse at all. The play therapist stated that during this period, the interaction between father and P.P. had begun to improve. P.P. was now initiating physical interaction with father by approaching him, inviting him to read, and asking him to pretend play with her. The therapist noted, however, that father needed additional work in two areas: First, when father was told about negative behavior that P.P. engaged in (i.e., slapping or pinching others), father either remained silent or responded by denying that such negative behavior had occurred. Second, when father was told that P.P. had difficulty adjusting to the transitions between her foster home and unmonitored visits with father, father maintained that P.P. was "being coached to act a certain way."
During this review period, DCFS also investigated an allegation, which arose through a DCFS Hotline referral, that Po. had placed a belt around P.P.'s neck during an unmonitored visit with father. The CSW interviewed P.P., who revealed that Po. did place a belt around P.P.'s neck, but did not tighten the belt or pull on it. When the CSW interviewed father, father denied that the incident had occurred and further accused P.P.'s foster mother of calling in the false referral to sabotage the progress that father was making with P.P. During this same conversation, father also maintained that the "system [was] against him," that he "[was] not being treated fairly," and that he no longer wanted to participate in the court-ordered classes and counseling.
On July 13, 2011, case workers, Dr. Banks, and father had a "team engagement meeting" to discuss father's case compliance. During the meeting, father explained that the nature of his work was such that he could not give 24 hours of notice before missing a visitation. Father also requested frequent and lengthier visits with P.P. Dr. Banks stated that he had counseled father through Project Fatherhood for approximately two years, and in his opinion, father had received enough group therapy to satisfy the court's requirements. Dr. Banks further opined that even though father appeared stubborn and accusatory of others, these traits did not interfere with his ability to keep P.P. safe. At the end of the meeting, DCFS concluded that it had thoroughly investigated the hotline referral, and that there were no imminent safety concerns with allowing P.P. to spend unmonitored time with father and Po. On the advice of Dr. Banks, DCFS increased the visitation schedule to weekly Wednesday and Saturday visits. Father agreed that he would continue to attend group therapy at Project Fatherhood and play therapy with P.P.
On July 20, 2011, P.P.'s counsel petitioned the juvenile court, pursuant to section 388, to change father's visits from an unmonitored to monitored status. In support of the petition, minor's counsel cited the following reasons: Po. had placed a belt around P.P., which caused P.P. to fall; father had failed to visit P.P. consistently and once returned P.P. to her foster home late; and father had permitted P.P. to interact with an unidentified woman who had not undergone the requisite criminal background check. The juvenile court denied the petition on the ground that P.P.'s bests interests would not be promoted by monitored visits.
On September 1, 2011, DCFS conducted a status review and reported that father had not attended any of P.P.'s speech therapy sessions since reunification services were reinstated in March, in direct violation of the juvenile court's order. Additionally, father cancelled all four of the play therapy sessions scheduled for August. According to the play therapist, father did not explain why he cancelled the sessions, and refused to return her multiple voicemail messages. Because of father's total absence in August, the therapist could provide no additional information about father's progress in therapy.
According to P.P.'s speech therapist, sessions were conducted on March 18, April 8, April 15, May 6, May 20, and May 27. An evaluation determined that P.P. no longer required speech therapy as of June 2011.
DCFS also reported that during this review period, it had offered father the opportunity to have unmonitored weekend visits with P.P. on a weekly basis beginning in August, in addition to the weekly Wednesday visits that were already in place. DCFS made this offer in response to father's frequent complaints that he was not allowed sufficient visitation time with P.P. Father accepted the offer by DCFS. During the month of August, however, father had only one weekend visit with P.P. Father canceled the remaining weekend visits, on the grounds that he had a work conflict or was unsure of whether he was allowed to visit with P.P. In addition to these missed weekend visits, father also missed three of the five possible mid-week visits in August.
After this weekend visit took place, a referral was generated alleging that P.P. was left alone at night. After investigation by DCFS, the referral was closed as being unfounded.
--------
A social worker who evaluated P.P. during this review period described her as happy, playful, and friendly. The worker observed that P.P. enjoyed participating in activities at her foster family's daycare center, playing outside, doings crafts, and learning how to write her name and letters. When asked about her living situation by the social worker, P.P. responded that although she liked visiting with father, she would be sad to leave her foster parents.
DCFS recommended in its status review report that the juvenile court terminate reunification services. It based the recommendation on the two referrals of neglect (though both were closed), father's multiple cancelled visits in August, and its assessment that father was "not able to demonstrate that he [could] handle a commitment to the care of [P.P.]."
On September 22, 2011, DCFS filed a "last minute information" with the court. It reported that P.P. had been on vacation with her foster parents from September 2 to September 12, and that father had been notified of these dates. Since P.P.'s return from vacation, father had cancelled scheduled visits with her. When DCFS inquired about the cancelled visits, father reported that he was unable to adjust his work schedule to accommodate visits with P.P. As a result, P.P.'s foster parents were left with the task of explaining to P.P. why father had cancelled his visits with her. DCFS reaffirmed its recommendation that the juvenile court terminate reunification services and proceed with a permanent placement plan for P.P., specifically, adoption by her foster parents, who had been caring for her for almost three years.
At the September 29, 2011 contested hearing to determine the suitability of placing P.P. in father's permanent custody, the juvenile court admitted into evidence the status review reports prepared by DCFS, DCFS service logs, and the last minute information referenced above.
Father testified that he was not certain that he visited with P.P. in August, but he was "pretty sure [he] did." When questioned further about his visit(s) in August, father maintained that he visited with P.P. during the first or last weekend of August, or possibly both, (he could not recall), and had to cancel the remaining weekends because of a work conflict. Father stated that he did not visit with P.P. at all in September because she was on vacation "for two to three weeks," and that when P.P. returned, no one contacted him to let him know that he could visit with her.
Father explained that he owned his own business and that his multiple missed visits in August were due to work project that required him to work on weekends through the Labor Day holiday. He explained, however, that the project was over and he would try to no longer work on weekends. When asked about his plans to care for P.P. if she were placed in his custody, father testified that he would make sure P.P. went to school and that she received afterschool care before he picked her up in the evenings. Petitioner testified that P.P. and Po. had a very playful relationship, that they enjoyed spending time together, and that P.P. did not want to return home to her foster parents at the end of her visits with father. When questioned about petitioner's statement that P.P. was a "spy," petitioner stated: "It was fun. I was talking to [P.P.] at the time, too. She thought it was funny and she laughed."
Gloria testified that she and her husband had been caring for P.P. for three years and that P.P. called her "nana" and her husband "papa." Gloria kept detailed records of when P.P.'s visits with father took place, and confirmed that father had only one overnight visit with P.P in August, and no visits at all in September. According to Gloria, father stopped attending play therapy because he concluded that it was no longer necessary. Gloria testified that prior to play therapy, P.P. was socially withdrawn and would sit in a corner. Now, she actively participated in a group setting with laughter and enjoyment. When P.P.'s play therapist raised the possibility that P.P. might return to father's care, P.P. expressed a desire to stay with her foster parents.
At the conclusion of the hearing, P.P.'s counsel joined in DCFS's recommendation that the court terminate reunification services.
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial risk of detriment to P.P. if placed in father's permanent custody and accordingly terminated reunification services. The juvenile court cited the following reasons for its decision: father elected to accept a work contract that prevented him from regularly visiting with P.P. on the weekends; father's compliance with the court-ordered visitation requirements was "minimal"; and father inconsistently participated in therapy with P.P., especially toward the end of the six-month period. These facts, according to the juvenile court, spoke "volumes about [father's] commitment" to caring for P.P. The juvenile court scheduled the section 366.26 hearing for January 26, 2012.
DISCUSSION
"[W]ithin 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent," "[t]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) "The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental." (Ibid.)
"In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker's report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided . . . ." (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) Additionally, "[c]ompliance with the reunification plan, though not determinative, is a pertinent consideration at a section 366.22 hearing." (Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1341.)
At the section 366.22 hearing, a trial judge can consider, among other things: "whether changing custody will be detrimental because severing a positive loving relationship with the foster family will cause serious, long-term emotional harm," whether the parent has a "limited awareness . . . of the emotional and physical needs of a child[,]" whether the minor has not "lived with the natural parent for long periods of time[,]" and "the manner in which the parent has conducted himself or herself in relation to a minor in the past." (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704-705.)
We review the juvenile court's order under the substantial evidence standard, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the dependency court's findings. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is "'reasonable, credible and of solid value'" that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to reach the same conclusion as the juvenile court. (In re Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1080.) Where there is any substantial evidence to support the court's order, contradicted or not, we must affirm the dependency court's decision. (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113; Constance K. v. Superior Court , supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 705 ["In the presence of substantial evidence, appellate justices are without the power to reweigh conflicting evidence and alter a dependency court determination"].)
Father argues that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's finding that there was substantial risk of detriment to P.P.'s well-being if placed in father's custody. According to father, the juvenile court erroneously "focused on father's inconsistency in visitation instead of the important parenting concepts." We disagree.
Throughout the six-month period when reunification services were in place, father demonstrated a marked disregard for the importance of P.P.'s speech and play therapy. Father failed to attend every one of the six speech therapy lessons that were scheduled during the review period in question. Rather than explaining why he missed these sessions, father simply points out in his petition that P.P. no longer requires speech therapy. Whether P.P. presently requires speech therapy is beside the point. She needed the therapy during the period in question, and father failed to attend this therapy with her despite an order by the juvenile court to do so. Father's attendance at P.P.'s weekly play therapy was only marginally better. Out of 21 scheduled play therapy sessions, father attended only 11 with P.P, and stopped going all together toward the end of the six-month review period because he believed the therapy was no longer necessary. Father's assessment was erroneous. Although the therapist noted that P.P. and father's relationship had progressed somewhat during the period, she also noted that P.P. and father required continued therapy to work on P.P.'s physically aggressive behavior (pinching and slapping of others), and P.P.'s difficulty transitioning between her foster home and father's home. Father's spotty attendance at play therapy deprived P.P of the opportunity to work on these areas. Father's disregard for P.P.'s speech therapy and inconsistent attendance at her play therapy is evidence of his limited awareness of P.P.'s emotional and developmental needs.
In addition, father's visits with P.P. were highly inconsistent. Although father complained repeatedly that DCFS was not providing him with enough time with P.P., when father had the opportunity to spend every weekend with P.P. in August, he elected to spend only one weekend with her. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 317 [parent's '"sporadic and late"' visits with the minor was evidence to support juvenile court's setting of a hearing to terminate parental rights].) Similarly, although P.P. was on vacation in early September, father had at least one opportunity to visit with her before the section 366.22 hearing, but cancelled that scheduled visit last minute. Although father professed a commitment to caring for P.P., his actions indicated otherwise.
There is evidence that P.P. has developed a positive, loving relationship with her foster parents over the last three years and that severing this relationship will cause long-term emotional harm. When P.P. was placed in her foster parent's care, she showed significant speech delays and was socially withdrawn. Now, she appears to be an active, thriving child who does not have any speech delays and enjoys group activities and social connections.
Father relies significantly on David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (David B.), and compares his situation to the father's situation in that case. Father's comparison is inapt. In David B., the father "did virtually everything . . . requested of him, and then some" during the 18 months of reunification. (Id. at p. 772.) The father "even requested anger management classes on his own initiative, to avoid any possibility he might subject his daughter to the type of violence that had marred his own childhood" and it was undisputed that he showed "consistent dedication to [his daughter's] welfare and their reunification." (Ibid.) The facts of David B. stand in stark contrast to the facts presented in this case. As noted above, father minimized P.P.'s developmental delays, disregarded the importance of speech and play therapy in P.P.'s rehabilitation, and showed significant inconsistency when it came to spending time with P.P.
Father argues that there is no evidence that he has "been inappropriate in any way with [P.P.] during the visits." Not so. Father referred to P.P. as a "spy" in her presence. Although father claimed that this comment was mere jest and that P.P. thought it was funny, the juvenile court was entitled to adopt a different interpretation and view the comment as needlessly placing P.P. (who was already demonstrating difficulty transitioning between her foster home and father's home) in the middle of the feud that father had with Gloria. Coupled with father's other comments about how Gloria aimed to sabotage his relationship with P.P., the comment demonstrated that father had made little to no progress in the area of placing the needs of P.P. over his own.
In sum, based on the record before us, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated family reunification services and set the underlying proceeding for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.264(B)(3), this opinion is made final forthwith.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
________________, P. J.
BOREN
We concur:
_______________, J.
DOI TODD
_______________, J.
CHAVEZ