R.S. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 ( 2015 )

Filed 4/14/15 R.S. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.S.,
Petitioner, E062768
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1400337)
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. Timothy F. Freer,
Judge. Petition denied.
Charles A. Casey, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman and Julie
Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
1
The juvenile court declared the child, M.M., a dependent of the court, removed
him from the custody of petitioner R.S. (mother), and granted mother six months of
reunification services. At the six-month review hearing, the court terminated mother’s
reunification services and set the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.1
Mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ contending real party in interest Riverside
County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to provide her reasonable
services. The petition is denied.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In April 2014 a social worker with DPSS received a referral for general neglect
regarding the child. Mother had just given birth to the child and both had tested positive
for amphetamines and opiates while in the hospital. The child was transferred to the
NICU because he showed signs of withdrawal for which he was given methadone and
opium.
Mother reported using drugs since the age of 18. She admitted using heroin
during her pregnancy. Mother reported entering an inpatient drug program, but failed to
complete it. For two months during her pregnancy, mother was incarcerated; she used
methadone during her incarceration. Mother was initially sentenced to drug court, but
failed to comply with its conditions so she opted to serve her time in jail. Upon release
from jail, mother began injecting heroin again, three times daily.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
Mother admitted to police that after her water broke, she delayed going to the
hospital in order to use heroin. Mother was receiving methadone while hospitalized after
the birth of the child. Mother had an extensive criminal history including arrests and
convictions for drug related offenses. Mother had two an active warrants for her arrest
issued on February 24, and March 24, 2014. Police subsequently arrested father when he
left the hospital.2 A search of parents’ car incident to the arrest resulted in the seizure of
three needles, a methamphetamine pipe, and heroin. The police reported mother would
also be arrested once she was released from the hospital.
The juvenile court detained the child on April 23, 2014. In the May 9, 2014,
jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker reported that parents had informed
her they wanted to enroll in an inpatient substance abuse program prior to the child’s
birth, but purposefully waited knowing DPSS would take the child away after his birth
and provide them services. Between the time mother was released from the hospital and
the preparation of the report, mother made no effort to visit the child. On May 6, 2014,
mother reported she was entering a 45-day inpatient drug program followed by aftercare
services. Mother indicated she would call the social worker to inform her of the address
of the program, but had yet to do so. The child suffered from “extensive medical health
problems” due to mother’s use of heroin during her pregnancy.
In an addendum report filed June 4, 2014, the social worker noted mother had
been visiting the child lately. The visitor log reflected mother had visited the child at the
2 Father is not a party to the petition.
3
hospital 13 times between May 12 and 23, 2014. Mother had disclosed to the NICU
social worker that mother was no longer in drug treatment and had been using heroin
again. The social worker checked with the inpatient drug program and was informed
mother had checked in on May 7, 2014, and checked out on May 8, 2014.
On May 29, 2014, the social worker attempted to reach mother, first by telephone
and then by making an unannounced visit at mother’s residence. The telephone call went
directly to voicemail and the social worker left a message. The social worker did not see
mother at her residence as no one appeared to be home. On June 2, 2014, the social
worker received a largely unintelligible call from mother apparently regarding the child’s
release from the hospital. The child had been released that day.
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on June 11, 2014, the court found the
allegations in the petition true, adjudged the child a dependent of the court, removed the
child from mother’s custody, and granted mother six months of reunification services. In
the six-month status review report filed November 26, 2014, the social worker
recommended mother’s reunification services be terminated. Mother had been convicted
on June 24, 2014, of two felony offenses, including child endangerment, and expected to
be in jail until January 2015. The social worker communicated with mother in jail by
phone and mail. The social worker met mother in jail once in November 2014. In an
addendum report filed on January 14, 2015, the social worker noted mother was still in
custody, but had been transferred to Indio Jail.3
3 There is no indication in the record where mother was initially incarcerated.
4
At the six-month review hearing on January 22, 2015, it was noted mother was
still in custody. Counsel stipulated mother would testify, “She has been participating in a
parent program at the jail. It’s a three-book program. She’s on the second book right
now. However, that was interrupted by the fact she was moved to Indio. So she couldn’t
continue with the program. She was also participating in the GOALS program which is a
drug program of approximately three months duration. She was two months into the
program and, again, she could not continue participating because she was transferred to
Indio.” Mother’s counsel argued DPSS had failed to provide reasonable services.
The juvenile court found DPSS had provided reasonable services: “I find that the
Department has complied with the case plan. The extent of the progress made by the
mother towards alleviating or mitigating the causes has been unsatisfactory at this time.”
The court denied mother reunification services and set the section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends DPSS failed to offer mother reasonable services. We disagree.
“‘The paramount goal in the initial phase of dependency proceedings is family
reunification. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘At a disposition hearing, the court may order
reunification services to facilitate reunification between parent and child.’ [Citation.]
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.’ [Citation.]
Accordingly, a reunification plan must be appropriately based on the particular family’s
‘unique facts.’ [Citation.] ‘Absent a finding of detriment, even incarcerated parents are
5
entitled to reasonable reunification services, whatever the likelihood of success.
[Citations.]’” (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 696-697.)
DPSS “‘must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a family
reunification plan. [Citation.] “[T]he record should show that the supervising agency
identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to
remedy those problems, maintained reasonable 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. . . .’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘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.’ [Citation.] ‘The applicable
standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re T.G.,
supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 697)
Mother’s abuse of controlled substances, particularly while pregnant with the
child, was the condition that led to the dependency of the child. On April 18, 2014, the
social worker provided mother with referrals to resources for substance abuse treatment,
counseling, parenting, and other services. Mother enrolled in an inpatient drug program
on May 7, 2014, but checked out the next day. Mother reported using heroin again. On
May 29, 2014, the social worker attempted to contact mother, to no avail, both by
telephone and by an unannounced visit to mother’s residence. The social worker
received a return call on June 2, 2014, from mother, but was unable to effectively
communicate with her.
6
Mother was apparently arrested sometime on or before June 24, 2014, when she
was convicted of two felony offenses and sentenced to jail. In the interim prior to being
arrested, mother had apparently failed to enroll in, participate in, or complete any of the
services for which she had been provided referrals.
After mother’s incarceration, the social worker communicated with mother by
phone and mail and made one visit to mother in jail. The social worker noted on
November 25, 2014, “The mother’s service objectives were to obtain resources to meet
the needs of her child and to provide a safe home, stay free from illegal drugs and show
her ability to live free from drug dependency, to not break the law and avoid arrests and
convictions, and to follow all conditions of probation. The mother’s responsibilities were
to participate in general counseling, participate in and complete a parenting education
program, and to engage in substance abuse services including an inpatient program.”
Mother’s conviction on a felony offense unrelated to the instant case reflected her failure
to abide by one of the major objectives of her case plan. As the social worker indicated,
mother had “not provided any documentation of completion of any service or objective in
the case plan.”
The social worker further reported that “mother stated she has participated in the
GOALS program while incarcerated. Per the mother, this program offers substance
abuse services, education counseling, and transitional planning. The mother reported to
me that the service provider would not sign a release of information so that I could obtain
copies of the materials used. The mother also asserted that the program does not provide
participants with certificates of completion.”
7
At the six month hearing on January 22, 2014, it was stipulated that mother was
“participating in the GOALS program which is a drug program of approximately three
months duration. She was two months into the program and, again, she could not
continue participating because she was transferred to Indio.” However, mother still failed
to provide substantive information as to whether the program met the criteria of her
service plan and whether mother satisfactorily completed any portion of that program
and, hence, any of her service goals. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
determination that DPSS provided reasonable services to mother. Mother simply failed
to avail herself of those services or prove that any alternate services in which she engaged
met the criteria of her service plan.
DISPOSITION
Mother’s petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
MILLER
J.
8