Opinion
H044908
04-05-2018
In re A.C. et al. Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.F., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. Nos. 16JU00059, 16JU00060)
A.F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's orders in the juvenile dependency petitions filed on behalf of 13-year-old A.C. (younger daughter) and nine-year-old J.C. (son). In those orders, the juvenile court placed the children with father and directed that both father and mother receive family maintenance services. The juvenile court further found that mother had received reasonable reunification services.
We find no error and will affirm the orders.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Juvenile dependency proceedings
On February 24, 2016, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) filed juvenile dependency petitions on behalf of younger daughter and son alleging: (1) that the children suffered serious physical harm or were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to mother's behavior (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (a)); and (2) the children suffered serious physical harm or were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to: (a) mother's failure to protect them from the maternal uncle; and (b) father's failure to protect them from mother (§ 300, subd. (b)).
Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At the detention hearing held on February 25, 2016, the juvenile court ordered younger daughter and son detained with supervised twice-weekly visitation for both parents.
1. Jurisdiction/disposition report and hearing
In the March 29, 2016 jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department recommended that the petitions be sustained on both grounds, with the children declared dependents. The Department further recommended that mother and father be offered family reunification services.
Older daughter, who is not a subject of this appeal, reported she and younger daughter left home for two days. When they returned, mother was angry when they would not tell her where they had been or who they were with, and hit them with a belt. Mother slapped son when he would not stop crying.
The maternal uncle arrived during the altercation and older daughter said she would call the police, which made him very angry. He grabbed older daughter by the hair and dragged her on the floor, tried to put her in a headlock and choked her. Mother did not intervene but told her, "See this is what happens to you." Younger daughter reported she was crying and looking down most of the time so she did not see everything that happened.
Son reported seeing the maternal uncle pulling older daughter's hair and choking her. He said both mother and the maternal uncle were hitting older daughter during this incident. Son also told the social worker that mother would hit him with a belt when he got in trouble.
The social worker interviewed mother who said that older and younger daughter were disrespectful, "constantly cuss[ed] at her," and called her names. The two girls left the house the afternoon before the altercation and did not return home that evening, so mother filed a missing person report with the police department and she and the maternal uncle drove around Watsonville looking for them. When the girls showed up on the evening of the next day, they acted as if "nothing had happened." They would not answer her questions and were verbally abusive toward her. When the maternal uncle arrived at the house, mother said that older daughter was "out of control." She was yelling, throwing things, and eventually attacked the maternal uncle, knocking him down. According to mother, the maternal uncle did not fight back at first, but then older daughter said she would lie to the police so they would take son away. The maternal uncle spanked older daughter twice on the buttocks, but did not choke her or pull her hair. Mother said she would sometimes show her children a belt to get them to behave, but never struck them with it.
Father reported he was unaware of this altercation between his daughters, mother and the maternal uncle. He had not seen his children in several months as he had relocated to Oxnard, California. Older daughter lived with him in 2014, but her behavior was problematic. She was smoking marijuana at school, being disrespectful at home, and father called police when he found drug paraphernalia in her bedroom. He eventually sent her to live with her maternal aunt. Father was interested in taking custody of younger daughter and son, but said he could not take custody of older daughter because of her behavior.
The family's prior child welfare history included a substantiated referral from September 2014 after mother struck older daughter with an iPhone charging cord causing a laceration on her bicep. Mother admitted hitting older daughter with the cord, and agreed that older daughter should live with father at that time. Mother also signed a safety agreement, in which she agreed to, among other things, not physically discipline her children.
At an April 26, 2016 settlement conference, mother and father submitted on the petitions, as amended. The juvenile court found the allegations set forth in the amended petitions to be true and assumed jurisdiction over younger daughter and son pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The children were ordered removed from both parents. The court further ordered that mother receive reunification services, pursuant to the case plan, including counseling, an anger management assessment and recommended classes, parenting education and support the children's educational success. The juvenile court ordered supervised visitation between mother and the children at a minimum of twice a week.
The petitions were amended the same day (April 26, 2016) to remove the following allegations: (1) that the children were at risk because mother had slapped older daughter; and (2) that the children were at risk because father was aware younger daughter and son were being physically abused by mother.
2. Six-month review
In the August 29, 2016 six-month review report, the Department recommended that the children remain in out of home care and that mother and father receive an additional six months of reunification services. Mother was employed, and her new employer was more flexible with her taking time to participate in services. Father had moved to Santa Cruz County to participate in services, but had not yet done so.
Younger daughter, who had been placed in a group home, went "AWOL" from that home on a few occasions during the six-month review period. Son was placed in a foster home, and his caregivers reported he seemed to be adjusting well to his placement.
As to her case plan, mother was initially unable to attend counseling due to work, but had recently begun attending after obtaining a new position with an employer who was more flexible with her schedule. She attended educational meetings for both children and communicated regularly with their educational liaison about their academic needs. Although mother had completed a parenting education course, the social worker noted that she continued to deny and minimize her use of corporal punishment. Mother also maintained that older daughter and younger daughter needed to change their behavior as it was their fault the family was involved in juvenile dependency.
Mother visited with son twice a week beginning in March 2016. Younger daughter refused to visit with mother at first, but began visits with her in May 2016. Father began supervised visits with both children after he moved to Watsonville in June 2016.
At the September 13, 2016 six-month review hearing held on September 13, 2016, the juvenile court ordered that the children were to remain in out of home care and with an additional six months of reunification services for mother and father.
3. Twelve-month review
In the April 11, 2017, twelve-month review report, the Department recommended that the children be placed with father, and that reunification services be terminated for both parents. The Department also recommended that both parents be provided family maintenance services, and mother be allowed unsupervised visitation with the children.
The report noted that mother was no longer working after her seasonal work ended in November 2016. Father could not afford housing in Santa Cruz County, and had relocated to a four-bedroom home in Kern County. The children began an extended visit with father on March 31, 2017.
The social worker informed mother in February 2017 that the Department planned to recommend that the children be placed with father in Kern County. Mother was concerned about her ability to visit the children due to the condition of her vehicle and her financial circumstances. The social worker advised mother to obtain an estimate for necessary car repairs, indicating the Department could possibly assist her with those costs.
Mother continued to regularly attend individual therapy, but denied losing her temper with her daughters, blaming confrontations instead on their "anger issues." Mother blamed older daughter's behavior and substance abuse for the dependency proceedings. The social worker was also getting reports that mother was making inappropriate comments to the children during her supervised visits, such as encouraging them to "pick her" and tell the social worker they did not want to live with father. Mother denied making these remarks.
As for father, the report noted that he participated in counseling and had gained "substantial understanding" of how his behavior had been neglectful of the children. Father acknowledged his accountability for failing to protect the children from mother. He was practicing the skills he learned in therapy with the children, and he has seen a "positive shift" in his relationship with them.
In December 2016, younger daughter reported mother made negative comments about father during supervised visits. Mother admitted making one such comment after running into father at work and overhearing him discuss "spending money on women." She agreed to avoid making any such comments again. In January 2017, a supervisor at the location where mother's visits occurred reported that mother was asking younger daughter to choose her over father. Consequently, mother's visits were returned to another location for closer supervision.
Also in January 2017, son's therapist expressed concerns to the social worker that mother was sharing inappropriately with son and told him to tell the social worker that he wanted to stay in his foster home rather than with his father. The social worker asked mother to call the therapist to discuss ways to support son, but mother never did so.
Mother began unsupervised visits with the children in February 2017. Mother reported younger daughter was sometimes defiant and moody but the visits otherwise went well. Son said he wanted more time and overnight visits with mother. Father visited with the children consistently, progressing to unsupervised visits in December 2016 and overnight visits in February 2017.
The Department reported mother had made moderate progress with her services, but there were continued concerns about mother's use of appropriate discipline if confronted by challenging behaviors. As to father, the Department reported he had made substantial progress in addressing the issues which led to dependency and the children could be safely placed in his home.
The Department filed an update to the court on June 13, 2017, reporting that the children began an extended visit with father on March 31, 2017. Younger daughter said she was comfortable in father's home and did not wish to return to Santa Cruz County. Son did not report any concerns about staying with father, but he did miss mother and hoped to return to her one day.
Mother reported that visitation with her children was difficult due to the distance involved and her financial situation. The Department offered to assist her financially, i.e., by paying for public transportation to Kern County, paying for vehicle repairs, reimbursing for mileage or paying part of her rent or other bills to facilitate visitation. Mother also said she was concerned about visiting because she had never traveled outside Santa Cruz County and was afraid of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stopping a bus or train if she used public transportation to travel to Kern County.
4. Contested hearing
At the August 2, 2017, contested twelve-month review hearing, the social worker testified the children had been on an extended visit with father since March 30, 2017. The Department continued to believe that the children should remain in father's custody, but remained concerned about mother's conversations with the children. The social worker said mother had "[i]nappropriate conversations about [her] own feelings towards [father]" with younger daughter and would ask repeatedly whether father's current wife was treating son appropriately.
The social worker testified that younger daughter had completed a substance abuse residential treatment program in Santa Cruz County and there was no indication she had relapsed while in father's care. However, the social worker did have a concern about mother's ability to care for younger daughter because, during a home visit by the social worker in July 2017, younger daughter told her she had seen a video of mother that upset her. The video was of mother at a birthday party and she seemed to be extremely intoxicated.
Son had also seen the video and asked the social worker if she wanted to see it. When the social worker asked what kind of video it was, son responded, " 'It's a video of my mom dancing with her friend, and he's on top of her.' " He seemed confused by what was happening, and said that he thought mother was drunk.
The social worker testified that mother had participated in her case plan, and had made progress in her counseling. Mother was participating in her children's education and communicating with teachers and staff about supporting her children academically.
Since the children began their extended visit with father in March, mother had visited them once, in June 2017. Mother said it was financially difficult for her to travel to Kern County so the Department explored several options with her. For example, the Department offered to pay for a bus pass, but mother rejected that idea due to her concerns that ICE was randomly stopping buses in Kern County. The Department offered to pay a portion of her rent, so that she could pay a friend or relative to drive her to Kern County, but she said that she could not find anyone to do so given the distance involved. When she did visit in June, a relative drove her to father's home, and mother provided the Department with travel receipts for reimbursement.
When asked about unsupervised visits, the social worker testified that she believed some of the conversations between mother and the children were "detrimental to the children's emotional well-being."
Mother testified on her own behalf at the hearing. She explained that the video younger daughter had seen was taken during a birthday dinner party she hosted for herself with friends. She said she had "some drinks" and was "intoxicated, but not unconscious" during the party. Mother knew that people were taking videos during the party but "never thought they would upload [them]."
Mother later specified that she had "two drinks."
Mother learned that younger daughter and son had seen the video of her at the party when son told her during a telephone conversation that younger daughter was mad at her. Son asked mother why someone came to dance at her party. Younger daughter believed there was a stripper at the party, but mother said that it was merely a friend of hers, dancing in front of her and unzipping his jacket, as she sat in a chair. Younger daughter had also heard that mother was so drunk she had to be carried home, but mother denied that happened.
Mother testified that she was working and wanted the children returned to her care. If the children remained in father's care, she would only be able to visit them once a month due to the distance.
After final arguments, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that mother and father had been provided reasonable services. The juvenile court also found that, although mother had made progress with counseling, she continued to lack insight into how her abusing alcohol could negatively impact the children. Because father had followed through with his case plan and had been consistent in "being there for the children," the juvenile court found that placement with father was appropriate. The court further ordered family maintenance services for both parents, with mother to receive unsupervised visitation once a month for a minimum of two hours.
Mother's visits would take place three times in Kern County, followed by a fourth visit in Santa Cruz County. The parents were responsible for their own transportation and lodging costs for these visits. Mother was permitted to call the children three times a week on specified dates and at specified times, but the children were permitted to call mother whenever they wished.
Mother timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. No error in ordering family maintenance services for mother
Mother argues the juvenile court should have continued reunification services for her at the twelve-month review hearing, rather than family maintenance services. We disagree that the court erred.
When a juvenile court places a dependent child with the noncustodial parent pursuant to section 361.2, it has discretion, but is not required, to order reunification services to the former custodial parent. (See § 361.2, subd. (b); In re Erika W. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 470, 475-478 (Erika W.).) "If the court places the child with the noncustodial parent, the court initially has three alternatives. The court may order the noncustodial parent to assume custody of the child, terminate juvenile court jurisdiction and enter a custody order. (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(1).) It may continue juvenile court jurisdiction and require a home visit within three months, after which the court may make orders as provided in subdivision (b)(1), (2) or (3). (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(2).) Or the court may order reunification services to be provided to either or both parents and determine at a later review hearing under section 366[] which parent, if either, shall have custody of the child. (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(3).)" (In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 55, italics omitted & added.)
Under subdivision (b) of section 361.2, the juvenile court has discretion to grant or deny reunification services to the parent from whom custody is removed. (In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1285; Erika W., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at pp. 475, 478.) Accordingly, we review the juvenile court's order for abuse of discretion. Under that standard, " ' " 'a reviewing court will not disturb [a] decision unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. . . . ' " . . . "The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court." ' " (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351.)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue reunification services to mother, as mother had no entitlement to such services under section 361.2. Section 361.2 "expressly contemplates that reunification services will be offered only for the purpose of facilitating permanent parental custody of the child by one or the other parent." (Erika W., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 476.) "When a child is placed in nonparental custody, reunification services are necessary to promote a possible return of the child to parental custody. However, when a child is placed in parental custody, this goal has already been met and therefore reunification services are not necessary." (Id. at p. 478.)
The juvenile court may "order services for the purposes of improving the contact between the original custodial parent and the child rather than reunifying them." (In re Sarah M. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1486, 1489 (Sarah M.), overruled on other grounds in In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 204.) The court explained: "[There is] middle ground between reunification services and no services at all. . . . [T]he juvenile court's broad discretion under section 361.2, subdivision (a) arguably gives it the opportunity to attempt to help the parents in creative ways. If the court may terminate outright its jurisdiction and award custody to the former noncustodial parent or go so far as to order services for both parents and reserve the custody question for a later date, we believe the court may also make orders which implicitly acknowledge it will not reunify the child with the original custodial parent and at the same time attempt to help that parent in maintaining or strengthening the contact with the child." (Sarah M., supra, at p. 1502.)
Mother relies on In re Calvin P. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 958, but that case is inapposite, despite some superficial similarities. In Calvin P., like this case, the children were placed with father, the formerly noncustodial parent, rather than mother. (Id. at p. 962.) The juvenile court ordered 12 months of reunification services for mother. (Id. at p. 961.) At the six-month review hearing, where the Department recommended that both mother and father receive family maintenance services, it was undisputed that the Department had provided absolutely no reunification services to mother during the prior six months. (Id. at p. 962.) On appeal, the court reversed because the Department had disregarded the juvenile court's prior order, directing that mother receive the reunification services the Department had previously been ordered to provide. (Id. at p. 964.) Unlike the social services agency in Calvin P., the Department here did provide reunification services to mother as ordered before recommending placement with father (the formerly noncustodial parent) and maintenance services for both parents. We decline to read Calvin P. to require reunification services under these circumstances.
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in ordering that mother be provided with family maintenance, rather than reunification, services.
B. No error in finding reasonable services had been provided
We turn now to whether, as mother contends, the court erred in finding that reasonable reunification services had been provided to her by the time of the 12-month review hearing.
Section 361.5, subdivision (a), generally mandates that reunification services are to be provided whenever a child is removed from the parents' custody. (See In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 (Luke L.).) "Reunification services must be 'designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.' (§ 362, subd. (c).) Accordingly, a reunification plan must be appropriately based on the particular family's 'unique facts.' " (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 696.) " ' "[T]he record should show that the [Department] 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 . . . ." ' " (Id. at p. 697.)
"Among its components, the reunification plan must include visitation. (§ 362.1.) That visitation must be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the minor. (Ibid.)" (Luke L., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 679; § 362.1, subd. (a)(1).)
"The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Department's] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) That additional services might have been possible, or that the services provided were not the services the parent thought were best for the family, does not render the services offered or provided inadequate. " '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 T.G., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.)
On appeal, the applicable standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688.) " 'In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [Department]. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the [juvenile court's findings]. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed.' " (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.) "We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
Here, mother argues that the court's finding that reasonable services were provided was not supported by clear and convincing evidence since the Department did not provide enough assistance to her to visit the children in Kern County. We disagree.
Mother was informed in February 2017 that the children would be placed with father in Kern County beginning in April 2017. The social worker made various efforts to assist mother in visiting the children once they relocated, but each effort was rejected by mother. At first, mother said she needed new tires for her car and initially provided an estimate of $760. When the social worker indicated the Department had an annual limit of $300 to provide to a family, mother said the estimate was for the "most expensive" tires and she would get another estimate. The second estimate was for $520, and when the social worker again mentioned the $300 limit, mother said she could not pay the remaining $220 as that she was out of work at the time.
When the social worker offered to pay for a bus pass or a train ticket, mother refused because there was a risk that ICE would detain her at the bus or train, which could result in her deportation. Mother also said that, due to the distance involved, she could not have a friend or family member drive her to Kern County and provide receipts for travel expenses. However, when mother did make her one visit in June 2017, a relative gave her a ride and mother did provide receipts to the Department for reimbursement.
We find that the services provided in this case were "reasonable under the circumstances." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) Again, while better services might have been provided to mother in an ideal world where the Department had more substantial resources, that is not the standard we employ. We look only to " 'whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.' " (In re T.G., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.) In this case, the record contains substantial evidence that they were.
III. DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
Premo, Acting P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J. /s/_________
Grover, J.