R.M. v. Superior Court CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 12/2/14 R.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
R.M.,
Petitioner, E061688
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. J248177 &
J248178)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, OPINION
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Christopher
B. Marshall, Judge. Petition denied.
Gloria Gebbie for Petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
1
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County
Counsel, for real party in interest.
Petitioner R.M. (father) 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 his two children. He
argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that the
reunification services offered to him were reasonable. For the reasons explained
post, we disagree with this contention and, therefore, deny the petition.
FACTS2
On February 22, 2013, the San Bernardino County Department of Children
and Family Services (CFS) filed petitions on behalf of nine-year-old A.M. and 11-
year-old J.M. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (g). The children’s
mother was deceased and father had an extensive history of violence, drug use,
and criminal activity. The petitions further alleged the children were suffering
emotional damage and extreme anxiety as a result of father’s violence and
assaultive behavior with the mother in front of them.
The children were living with the maternal grandparents under a temporary
guardianship since January 2012, and a family court granted father weekend visits
to be supervised by the paternal grandparents. It was reported that the children
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise indicated.
2 We have incorporated the record in the related appeal, case No. E058679.
2
were afraid to visit father even under the supervision of the paternal grandparents.
A report was received by the child abuse hotline that father pulled J.M.’s hair,
twisted his head, and put his fists up in the child’s face in a threatening way. In
addition, he threatened the maternal grandfather in the children’s presence.
The children were detained with the maternal grandparents; father was
granted supervised visitation and ordered to stay away from the grandparent’s
home and have no contact with the children outside of CFS.
In the report prepared for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, it was
recommended that the children remain with the maternal grandparents until such
time as the father completed a reunification plan. The recommended plan for
father included general counseling, anger management, parenting education and a
substance abuse program.
Father was the only individual who testified at the contested
jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on April 23, 2014. He denied allegations that
he had harassed the grandparents or had unauthorized contact or attempted such
contact with the children. He denied he was currently using drugs, stating he had
been clean since April 2, 2012. He believed that his children had been
brainwashed by the maternal grandparents; therefore, they did not want to live
with him. With regard to the case plan, he stated: “I’m willing to do what I have
to, but I don’t feel I need to. “ He stated that he had done nothing wrong and
should have his children placed with him.
3
The juvenile court made the requisite jurisdictional findings and ordered
reunification services. The court observed that father was an “unbelievably angry
man” and was “over the top.” When the court was informed that a psychological
evaluation had not been included in the case plan, it indicated that it wanted father
to see a psychologist to do an evaluation so that it could get a professional
recommendation on how to work with him. It added a psychological evaluation to
father’s case plan.
Following a hearing on May 2, 2013, the court issued a permanent
restraining order against father.3
Father’s case plan was amended to require that he complete general
counseling, a psychiatric/psychological evaluation, a parenting education program,
anger management education, substance abuse testing and an outpatient substance
abuse program.
In the six-month status review report, the social worker recommended that
the minors remain in the maternal grandparents’ home and that reunification
services be continued for father. The minors continued to state they wanted to be
placed with their maternal grandparents and were doing well in that placement.
With respect to father, the social worker noted that it was initially very difficult to
get in touch with him, but that he eventually came to the office and the case plan
3 Father appealed from the jurisdiction and disposition orders in addition to
the order for a permanent restraining order. Father’s counsel filed a non-issue
brief and the case was dismissed as abandoned on August 28, 2013. (Case
No. E058679.)
4
was gone over with him. Father was referred to High Desert Center to address
substance abuse, anger management and parenting services. Father did not follow
through with the intake meetings and another referral was sent to High Desert on
October 10, 2013, to enroll father in these programs. Father was enrolled in the
Medtox random drug testing program, but he failed to show for tests scheduled for
April 3 and 19 and May 1 and 13, 2013. Father was referred for a psychological
evaluation with Dr. Roger Morgan of Anchor Psychological Services in
Victorville, but a date for the testing had not yet been set.
Father attended most of the weekly visits with the children and was
described as behaving appropriately during those visits.
The six-month review hearing went forward on October 24, 2013. The
guardians’ attorney informed the court that prior to the start of the hearing, father
approached the maternal grandparents and, in front of the minors, stated: “Fuck
you. You ain’t shit, faggot ass.” The deputies had to get involved to separate the
family.
According to their attorney, the children confirmed that father had made
these statements, and that father went back and screamed at the grandmother
again. The minors were so upset that they remained in the playroom and did not
appear in court. The juvenile court suspended visits and, thereafter, had to order
that father be removed from the courtroom due to his continued outbursts.
5
The contested six-month review hearing went forward on December 12,
2013. Father did not appear at the hearing, but father’s counsel advised the court
that the paternal grandmother indicated father had entered an in-patient
rehabilitation program in the desert area. The court ordered eight pages of
Facebook posts attached to the social worker’s report be received into evidence.
Those posts were made by father on J.M.’s Facebook page, indicating that father
had violated the court’s order by making contact outside of visits.
The court was told that the psychological evaluation had not been
accomplished, and that father had not been drug testing prior to entering the
rehabilitation program. The court ordered the minors to remain dependents and
that reunification services to continue. Father’s visits remained suspended, but the
social worker was authorized to reinstate visits if father completed his
rehabilitation program and continued to participate in services. The social worker
was given authority to allow unsupervised visits with the paternal grandparents on
condition that father not have contact with the minors during those visits in any
way, shape, or form.
By the time of the 12-month status review report, CPS recommended that
services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. It was noted that father
enrolled in Set Free Men’s Ranch Program, attending a 60-day sober living
program from December 12, 2013 through February 9, 2014. Father failed to drug
test as scheduled on April 24, May 12 and 30, 2014.
6
Visitation was reinstated in March 2014, and visits went well until April 10,
2014, when it was reported that father struck J.M. on the arm. After this incident,
the children indicated they no longer wanted to visit with father.
On June 12, 2014, the date initially set for the 12-month review hearing,
father requested to set a contested hearing, indicating there was an issue whether
reasonable services had been provided to him. The court ordered that visitation be
suspended pending the contested hearing.
At the contested 12-month review hearing , the juvenile court received into
evidence the June 12 review report and attachments. The attachments included
several pages of drug testing referrals, which reflected father did not test. Also
attached were six pages of certificates showing father’s participation in the Set
Free Men’s Ranch Program and completion of a parenting and anger management
programs in October 2013.
The social worker, Larry Sears, testified at the hearing that he had not
previously received any documents from father concerning completion of a
parenting class and learned that day for the first time that father had completed an
anger management class. Father was also supposed to participate in a drug testing
program. Sears spoke to father on April 17, 2014, when father came to the office
upset about visits. Sears informed him that he would be mailing him drug-testing
information; he did so by mailing it to the last address listed for father in the CFS’
file. Sears stated he did not see father after that date and did not follow up with
7
him as he did not have a good phone number to reach him. He indicated that he
did not call paternal grandmother, although he had her phone number.
Sears further testified that he met with father in February 2014 after father
completed the Set Free Men’s Ranch Program and made arrangements to meet
with him again to go over his programs and have him sign consent for treatment
forms. Father did not appear for this meeting and Sears did not see him again until
the April encounter. Because father had not signed the consent forms, Sears was
unable to refer him to counseling during the prior six months. Sears indicated he
had made arrangements for father to undergo a psychological evaluation with
Dr. Morgan in November 2013, but he was unable to make father aware of this
because he was in the Set Free Men’s Ranch Program. After that time,
Dr. Morgan was no longer available and new consents were needed. When he saw
father in April, he tried to talk to him about the psychological evaluation and the
need to sign consent forms, but the latter was very angry and left. Sears also told
father that they needed to meet the following month to have the consent forms
signed, but father never called to schedule an appointment. In June, Sears learned
from the maternal grandparents that father had left the state to seek employment.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court observed that although
father had certificates that he had finished parenting, anger management, and the
Set Free Men’s Ranch programs, it did not have any reports to show that he had
benefitted from receiving services. It further noted that father had bypassed and
8
not communicated with the social worker. There was no evidence to rebut that the
social worker did not have any way of contacting father, adding that the social
worker does not have that obligation. In contrast, father could have easily
contacted the social worker.
The court also found that father understood that he had an obligation to
drug test, but refrained from doing so. Thus, it had no evidence that he had
actually been clear and sober. Finally, father’s conduct throughout the course of
the case demonstrated that he did not benefit from the anger management
program. Father had not addressed any of the central issues that brought this case
to the court.
The court found that CFS provided reasonable services, terminated father’s
services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
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
9
reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court.” (In re
Albert B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 361, 375.)
Father asserts that CFS did not make reasonable efforts to make
arrangements for a psychological evaluation as directed by the court. The social
worker could have easily contacted him while he was in an in-patient drug
program. Furthermore, father asserts that it would have taken only minimal efforts
by the social worker to maintain reasonable contact with him. However, it was not
the social worker’s obligation to take him by the hand and escort him to classes—
even assuming this would have been possible. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188
Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.) We reject the suggestion that CFS “had a duty to
track him continually throughout the dependency process even after he had been
identified, contacted by a social worker, apprised of the proceedings, provided
with counsel and participated in hearings. There is nothing in the statutory scheme
to support this assertion. . . . 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.)
Father was made aware of the requirements of the service plan and the need
to sign consent forms in a meeting with a social worker in March 2013. He was
also present when the court ordered a psychological evaluation. Throughout the
course of these proceedings, he chose to go his own way without communicating
with the social worker. He could have easily done so, and it was his obligation to
10
keep the social worker informed of his whereabouts. Substantial evidence
supports the juvenile court’s order.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
11