In re Zion W. CA2/3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/28/21 In re Zion W. CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has
    not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    In re Zion W. et al., Persons                                  B311497
    Coming Under the Juvenile Court
    Law.
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Los Angeles County
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         Super. Ct. Nos.
    AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           18CCJP06934A–B
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    S.S.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
    County, Martha A. Matthews, Judge. Affirmed.
    Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
    Assistant County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County
    Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    INTRODUCTION
    S.S. (mother) appeals from orders entered under Welfare
    and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e). 1 She
    contends the juvenile court erred by finding that the Department
    of Children and Family Services (Department) provided her with
    reasonable reunification services. She also argues the court erred
    by finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) does not
    apply. We affirm.
    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    The family in this case consists of mother, Zion W. (born
    2018), Z.W. (born 2019), and Travon W. (father), who did not
    participate in the dependency proceedings and is not a party to
    this appeal.2
    1.    Initial Proceedings on Behalf of Zion
    On October 26, 2018, the Department filed a juvenile
    dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and
    (b)(1), on behalf of Zion, who was then one month old. The
    petition alleged father and mother had engaged in domestic
    violence in Zion’s presence (count a-1), mother failed to protect
    Zion from the violence (count b-1), and mother had a history of
    substance abuse and was a current abuser of marijuana,
    1All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
    Institutions Code.
    2When dependency proceedings began, mother and father were not in
    a romantic relationship. As discussed below, however, they appear to
    have reunited and married in August 2020.
    2
    rendering her incapable of caring for and supervising Zion (count
    b-2).
    On October 29, 2018, the court detained Zion from father
    and released him to mother.
    On November 26, 2018, the Department filed a first
    amended dependency petition, which added an additional count
    under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), concerning father’s criminal
    history (count b-3). The original petition was dismissed on
    November 27, 2018.
    At the January 24, 2019 adjudication hearing, the court
    dismissed count b-2 (mother’s substance abuse) and sustained the
    remaining counts. The court declared Zion a dependent of the
    court, removed him from father, and placed him with mother on
    the condition that mother and Zion reside with the maternal
    grandmother.
    The court ordered family maintenance services for mother.
    Her case plan included: 10 weekly on-demand, consecutive drug
    tests with a full drug program in the event of any missed or
    positive test, a domestic violence support group for victims,
    parenting classes, and individual counseling to address case
    issues including delinquency history, grief and loss, domestic
    violence and its effects on children, co-parenting, anger
    management, and conflict resolution. As relevant here, the court
    also ordered mother to keep the Department informed of her
    address and telephone number and not to remove Zion from
    Southern California or Kern County.
    At the July 25, 2019 judicial review hearing, the court
    found mother was in compliance with her case plan, and the
    Department had provided reasonable services. The court ordered
    continued family maintenance services to January 23, 2020.
    3
    2.    Further Proceedings in November and December 2019
    2.1. Initial Proceedings on Behalf of Z.W.
    On November 15, 2019, the Department filed a petition
    under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j), on behalf of
    Z.W., who was then two months old. The petition alleged, in
    counts a-1, b-1, and j-1, that father and mother had a history of
    domestic violence, including in sibling Zion’s presence, from
    which mother had failed to protect Zion, and that the violence
    and failure to protect caused Zion to be a current dependent of
    the juvenile court. In count b-2, the petition alleged mother was a
    current abuser of marijuana, opiates, and hydrocodone, had
    tested positive for marijuana on April 25, 2019, and had tested
    positive for opiates and hydrocodone on October 3, 2019. In
    count b-3, the petition alleged father abused cocaine, marijuana,
    and ecstasy. On November 18, 2019, the court detained Z.W. from
    both parents.
    At the December 13, 2019 adjudication hearing, the court
    dismissed counts a-1 and b-1 (domestic violence), sustained
    count b-2 (mother’s drug use) as amended to strike the language
    about opiates and hydrocodone, and sustained count b-3 (father’s
    drug use). Count j-1 was stricken and its allegations regarding
    domestic violence and mother’s failure to protect were amended
    and re-pled under subdivision (b)(1) as count b-4. As re-pled and
    amended, count b-4 was sustained.
    The court declared Z.W. a dependent of the court, removed
    her from father, and placed her with mother on the condition that
    she reside with the maternal grandmother or in another
    Department-approved location. The court entered a mutual stay-
    away order for mother and father and ordered family
    maintenance services for mother. Mother’s case plan included
    4
    biweekly or on-demand drug tests, with a full drug program if
    mother missed any test or showed anything other than low or
    decreasing levels of marijuana, a 26-week support group for
    domestic violence victims, parenting classes if not already
    completed, and individual counseling to address case issues,
    breaking the domestic violence cycle, and co-dependency. As
    relevant here, the court also ordered mother to keep the
    Department informed of her address and telephone number and
    not to remove Z.W. from Southern California or Kern County.
    Father was not provided with services but was granted monitored
    visitation.
    2.2. Additional Petitions on Behalf of Zion
    On November 15, 2019, the day it filed the initial petition
    on behalf of Z.W., the Department also filed a subsequent petition
    under section 342 on behalf of Zion, which mirrored the
    allegations in Z.W.’s section 300 petition, discussed above.
    That day, the Department also filed a supplemental
    petition on behalf of Zion under section 387. Count s-1 alleged
    that the parents had continued to engage in violent altercations,
    including mutual combat on November 3, 2019; mother permitted
    father access to Zion in violation of court orders; and mother
    failed to protect Zion. Count s-2 alleged that mother had violated
    court orders by missing eight drug tests, testing positive for
    marijuana on April 25, 2019, and testing positive for opiates and
    hydrocodone on October 3, 2019.
    The court detained Zion from both parents.
    At the December 13, 2019 adjudication hearing, the court
    dismissed the section 387 petition without prejudice. As to the
    section 342 petition, the court amended count b-1 to allege that
    mother was a current marijuana user, tested positive for
    5
    marijuana on April 25, 2019, missed eight tests in 2019, and was
    occasionally under the influence of marijuana while caring for
    Zion. As amended, the court sustained count b-1. The court
    amended count b-3 to state that parents continued to engage in
    altercations, including on November 3, 2019, and mother
    provided inadequate protection to Zion by allowing father access
    to him. As amended, the court sustained count b-3. The court
    sustained count b-2 (father’s drug use) as pled and struck
    count b-4 (failure to comply with court orders).
    The court removed Zion from father and placed him with
    mother under the supervision of the Department and on the
    condition they reside with the maternal grandmother or in a
    Department-approved location. The court again issued a mutual
    stay-away order to the parents and ordered the family
    maintenance services for mother discussed above.
    3.    The Department Files Additional Petitions in 2020, and
    the Children are Removed from Mother
    On February 7, 2020, the Department filed a supplemental
    section 387 petition on behalf of both children. Count s-1 alleged
    that mother left the maternal grandmother’s home with the
    children in violation of the court’s order, failed to notify the
    Department she had moved, failed to provide the Department or
    court with her address, and failed to comply with her case plan.
    On February 10, 2020, the Department requested a protective
    custody warrant for Zion and Z.W. after the Department was
    unable to locate either mother or the children.
    At the February 10, 2020 detention hearing, the court
    detained the children from mother and ordered monitored
    visitation at the Department’s offices. The court issued a warrant
    for mother’s arrest under section 339 and a protective custody
    6
    warrant for Zion and Z.W. under section 340. A month later, on
    March 10, 2020, mother and the children were located and the
    warrants were recalled and quashed.
    The adjudication hearing scheduled for April 1, 2020 was
    continued to April 29, 2020, then to August 19, 2020 due to the
    Covid-19 emergency.
    On April 24, 2020, the Department filed a subsequent
    petition under section 342 on behalf of both children. The petition
    contained one count, pled under section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
    which alleged mother had mental health and emotional problems,
    including suicidal ideation, and that mother sent a text message
    on March 17, 2020, implying she would hurt herself. At the
    detention hearing later that day, the court again detained the
    children from mother. The court denied mother’s request for
    unmonitored visitation and ordered monitored visitation at a
    Department-approved location.
    The adjudication hearing for both petitions was held on
    August 19, 2020.3 As to the section 387 petition, the court
    amended count s-1 to allege that mother failed to keep the
    Department informed of her and the children’s whereabouts or
    allow the Department to visit and assess the children’s safety
    from January 27, 2020 to March 4, 2020, in violation of the
    court’s order and had failed to participate regularly in court-
    3 Mother testified at the hearing that she had neither traveled to nor
    lived in Las Vegas or outside of Southern California with the children
    at any time from December 2019 to the present, and claimed she had
    been living with the maternal grandmother during that time. She
    asserted she had been staying away from father. Later that day,
    however, the Department received information that mother had
    married father in Las Vegas.
    7
    ordered drug testing. As amended, the court sustained the
    allegation. As to the section 342 petition, the court sustained
    count b-1 as pled.
    The court found the previous dispositions of the court had
    been ineffective in protecting the children. The court also found
    there was evidence that the children’s developmental needs were
    not being addressed and that mother had refused to allow the
    Regional Center to assess them.
    The court removed the children from mother and ordered
    family reunification services. Mother’s case plan included
    participation in 10 random, on-demand consecutive drug tests,
    with any missed test or test positive for anything other than low
    levels of marijuana resulting in a full drug rehabilitation
    program with random testing; parenting classes; individual
    counseling with a Department-approved therapist; a
    psychological assessment; a psychiatric evaluation; and
    transportation assistance. The court ordered visitation at a
    neutral or public Department-approved location, monitored by
    Department staff, with discretion to allow other monitors if
    mother visited consistently.
    Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, which was assigned
    case No. B307193.4
    4 The appeal was ultimately consolidated under that case number with
    a later appeal, case No. B308116, from orders discussed below. By
    stipulation of the parties, the consolidated appeal was remanded to the
    juvenile court on May 4, 2021, with directions related to ICWA.
    8
    4.    The Department Petitions to Modify Visitation in
    August 2020
    On September 1, 2020, the Department filed a petition
    under section 388 asking the court to change the visitation order
    entered the previous week. The court had ordered mother to
    receive three 3-hour visits per week in a neutral location
    approved by the Department, supervised by a Department
    monitor. The Department asked the court to order weekly
    monitored virtual visits instead. The Department described
    mother’s claims that she had been assaulted and that her life and
    the children’s lives were at risk from father’s associates,
    described mother’s concerning behavior during an emotional plea
    to the social worker about the danger, and noted that she was not
    actively visiting the children.
    On September 17, 2020, at the initial hearing on the
    petition, the court ordered monitored visits for mother by a
    Department-approved monitor other than the caregiver to take
    place at Department offices or a police station until the October
    evidentiary hearing. The court ordered that mother could also
    have monitored virtual or telephone visits, and the caregiver
    could monitor those visits.
    At the October 2, 2020 section 388 hearing, the court found
    mother had episodes in which she was agitated, upset, and
    behaved unpredictably.5 The court found mother’s behavior
    placed the children at risk because it could cause her to act
    impulsively during a visit and could frighten the children.
    Because the Department offices were closed, virtual visits were
    5At this hearing, mother testified that she was not in a relationship
    and had not married father.
    9
    the only way to ensure the children’s safety. Thus, the court
    concluded the Department had established a change in
    circumstances in light of this new information, and virtual
    visitation would be in the children’s best interests. The court
    granted the petition and ordered the Department to work with
    the children’s caregiver to plan a virtual visitation schedule. The
    visits, which would remain virtual until the Department offices
    reopened, should occur a minimum of three times per week; once
    the Department’s offices reopened, mother was to have monitored
    visitation there.
    Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the
    September 17, 2020 and October 2, 2020 hearings, which was
    assigned case No. B308116.
    5.    Six-Month Review Hearing in March 2021
    On March 3, 2021, the court held a six-month review
    hearing under section 366.21, subdivision (e). Mother testified.
    After the court received evidence indicating mother had
    substantially complied with her case plan, the hearing was
    continued to March 23, 2021, to address evidence that mother
    had secretly married father and moved to Las Vegas.
    At the continued hearing, the court issued its tentative
    ruling that the Department had met its burden of proof, noting
    that mother had six missed drug tests in the previous two
    months; was living either full-or part-time with father in Las
    Vegas, which she had failed to disclose to the social worker;
    underwent a psychological assessment that suggested she
    suffered from fairly serious mental health problems; and seemed
    to have stability issues. Mother asked the court to place the
    children with her, or, alternatively, to order unmonitored,
    overnight visitation.
    10
    The court found mother’s credibility was “limited.” It
    commented that mother’s statement that she was not in a
    relationship with father was not true, and “it’s really not possible
    to make substantive progress on addressing the issues that have
    caused a risk of harm to children if mother is concealing very
    basic facts about her living situation from the Department … .”
    The court explained that mother’s “technical compliance with her
    case plan is far less important than the fact that she’s not at all
    transparent about her actual living situation.” The court also
    noted that mother was not in compliance with her case plan
    because she missed drug tests and had not participated in a drug
    program, and noted mother suggested in a conversation with the
    social worker that she was under the influence of something
    when she married father. The court explained that because the
    children are so young, they would not be able to disclose if they
    were exposed to domestic violence.
    Thus, the court held it would be detrimental to return the
    children to either parent, and mother was in partial compliance
    with her case plan. The court found reasonable services were
    provided to the parents. The court ordered the Department to
    work with the caregiver to ensure the children were receiving all
    necessary developmental services.
    Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
    FACTUAL BACKGROUND
    1.    Family History
    Mother, who had a welfare history of her own as a child,
    which included being a victim of human trafficking and being
    spanked by her adult brother with a belt as a form of discipline,
    was 19 years old at the start of Zion’s juvenile dependency case.
    11
    She had completed school through 10th grade and had been on
    probation as a minor for several offenses.
    Mother met father through a friend when father was
    incarcerated; mother was 16 and father was 20. Father’s CLETS
    report reflects convictions for second degree robbery (Pen. Code,
    § 211) and misdemeanor vandalism (id., § 594, subd. (a)(2)) as
    well as several arrests that do not appear to have resulted in
    convictions.
    Zion was born in August 2018.
    2.    2018 Domestic Violence Referral
    This case stems from an October 20, 2018 referral related
    to a physical altercation between father and mother in Zion’s
    presence; father was the aggressor.
    A week after the referral, a HUB doctor indicated that Zion
    was underweight, and Zion’s foster mother told the Department
    that mother had been diluting ready-made formula. After the
    doctor explained that formula should not be diluted so that the
    child could receive all of its nutrients, Zion’s growth insufficiency
    was “completely resolved,” and he showed normal growth and
    development.
    Otherwise, Zion appeared healthy and showed no signs of
    abuse or neglect. Mother appeared to appropriately care for him,
    soothe him, and handle him, and there were no evident safety
    concerns in mother’s home. During the Department’s monthly
    visits, social workers observed a strong bond between mother and
    Zion. Mother disclosed that she smoked marijuana but said she
    did not smoke around Zion.
    During the first family maintenance period, mother was
    pregnant with her second child with father. During the first half
    of 2019, she successfully completed a domestic violence class, 12
    12
    sessions of a domestic violence support group, and six parenting
    classes.
    3.   2019 Domestic Violence Referral
    Z.W. was born in September 2019. Mother tested positive
    for opiates and hydrocodone on October 3, 2019, which she
    explained was due to the pain medication she had been
    prescribed after she gave birth via C-section.
    On November 4, 2019, the Department received a second
    domestic violence referral for an incident the previous day
    between mother and father. Mother denied that the altercation
    had been physical but agreed to a safety plan in which the
    maternal grandmother would monitor visitation with the
    children.
    Mother began individual counseling in December 2019. She
    discussed the traumas in her life, domestic violence, what
    triggered her anger, her reactions to things, and coping skills.
    4.   Post-Removal Events in 2020
    By January, however, the Department reported that
    mother was no longer attending individual therapy and had
    missed many of her drug tests. Family preservation services had
    been terminated due to nonparticipation.
    When the Department went to the maternal grandmother’s
    home to check on the children on January 17, 2020, they were not
    there. Nor could the Department locate them on January 21, 23,
    and 31, 2020, or on February 3, 2020.
    On January 27, 2020, mother told the social worker that
    she had relocated to Las Vegas with the children. She said she
    planned to be back in Los Angeles the following day and would
    meet the social worker at the Department’s office. Mother
    13
    declined to provide her contact information in Las Vegas but said
    she would provide the social worker with a copy of her lease.
    Mother did not appear at the Department’s office the next day,
    however.
    The maternal grandmother contacted the social worker on
    March 4, 2020, and reported that the children were at her home.
    Mother called the social worker shortly thereafter, threatened the
    social worker with profanity, and stated the Department would
    not take her children. Mother soon called back, however, and said
    she would bring the children to the Department’s office. She left
    the children with the social worker in the lobby that day, but did
    not provide proper clothing, formula, a bottle, or diapers. Thirty
    minutes after dropping off the children, mother called back and
    said she was relinquishing her parental rights to her mother.
    Zion appeared well cared-for, but the foster mother
    reported that at almost six months old, Z.W. could not hold her
    head up, sit up, or roll over; nor was she trying to crawl. Z.W.’s
    pediatrician referred her to the Regional Center. Similarly, Zion
    had speech delays and was not meeting his developmental
    milestones. Thus, on March 6, 2020, the Department referred the
    children for a Regional Center assessment and mental health
    services.
    During mother’s March 13, 2020 visit at the Department’s
    office, the foster mother expressed concern that mother was
    planning to leave with the children. Mother brought a diaper bag
    of clothes and formula for the children. Building security was
    advised, and two social workers entered the room to monitor the
    visit.
    On March 30, 2020, mother refused to consent to or
    participate in the children’s assessment by the Regional Center.
    14
    The Department indicated that the Regional Center could assess
    the children without mother’s consent but would not be able to
    provide services for the children if they were found eligible.
    On May 29, 2020, twice-weekly in-person visits with the
    children had been scheduled, with the caregiver monitoring the
    visits. On June 1, however, mother declined to have the visits and
    said she was going to focus on her classes. Then, on June 9, she
    again requested in-person visits.
    On June 9, 2020, mother again refused to consent to the
    children’s assessment by the Regional Center. Both children were
    ultimately assessed and both were found to have delays.
    At her in-person visit the next day, mother was two hours
    late, spent the visit on her phone, and sent the social worker a
    text message saying that she wanted the children to be moved
    again because she did not like the paternal aunt—
    notwithstanding she had asked the Department to place the
    children with the paternal aunt several months earlier.
    The following week, the paternal aunt indicated that
    mother became hostile and argumentative in front of the
    children. Mother was verbally aggressive as the aunt tried to put
    the children in the car; the children were crying. The caregiver
    called law enforcement to help her get Zion and Z.W. into the car.
    On July 1, 2020, mother called the social worker and
    indicated she was in a relationship with an enemy of father’s, and
    when father found out, her tooth was “knocked out.” Mother said
    she was leaving town to get away from father, and she would not
    be visiting the children in the future. Then, on July 13, 2020, the
    social worker arrived in the lobby of the Department’s office to
    find mother crying hysterically and shaking. Mother said the
    15
    children needed to be immediately moved from the caregiver’s
    home because mother was scared for their lives and her own.
    Mother cancelled her visit on July 8, 2020, and did not
    attend her July 22, 2020 visit. She failed to confirm her July 29,
    2020 visit, and when it was cancelled, she called the social
    worker and threatened to harm the caregiver if she did not bring
    the children to the visit. Mother did not attend her August 5,
    2020 visit.
    Things appeared to improve in late summer, however.6
    Mother enrolled in a parenting class on August 26, 2020, and
    although she was not enrolled in individual counseling, she was
    waiting to be scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation. On
    September 19, 2020, mother and the caregiver agreed to a
    schedule for virtual visitation. The Los Angeles County
    Department of Mental Health reported that mother had enrolled
    in individual counseling on September 28, 2020; she began
    weekly therapy that day. On December 30, 2020, mother’s
    therapist indicated that mother had made progress. On January
    25, 2021, however, the therapist indicated that going forward,
    she would only be able to see mother once per month due to her
    large case load.
    Meanwhile, mother finished her 12-session parenting
    course in January 2021. The instructor reported that mother
    “exudes a positive and open attitude towards learning new
    parenting concepts. She participates in each zoom class
    discussion and asked questions for clarification as needed.
    6 Unbeknownst to the Department at the time, mother married father
    in Las Vegas on August 19, 2020.
    16
    [Mother] openly addresses issues that brought her to the
    attention of DCFS.”
    By the time of the six-month review hearing in March 2021,
    mother had been engaged in her weekly virtual visits with Zion
    and Z.W. and was getting along well with the caregiver.
    But that was also the month that the Las Vegas deception
    unraveled.
    5.   The Las Vegas Investigation
    At the six-month review hearing, the Department told the
    court that mother was still unpredictable because she continued
    to provide “false information” to both the Department and the
    court and refused to provide her address.
    On March 5, 2021, a property management company in Las
    Vegas, Nevada told the Department that mother’s address was in
    Las Vegas, but would not provide her apartment number. The
    Department later learned that father had made an injury report
    to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department the previous
    October and had provided the same address as that provided by
    the management company for mother. A management company
    employee told the Department, “she is so cute pregnant.”
    On March 8, 2021, a Department social worker went to the
    maternal grandmother’s home. Although the maternal
    grandmother wasn’t home, a neighbor said that mother “comes by
    every now and then and she appeared pregnant.”
    The Department also reported that father’s social worker
    from a dependency case involving father’s other child indicated
    father resided in Las Vegas, was arrested there on November 16,
    2020, and the mother of his other child said a mutual friend told
    her that father was married and expecting a child with a woman
    in Las Vegas.
    17
    On March 10, 2021, mother contacted the Department to
    provide her new contact number, but declined to meet with the
    social worker in person on March 12, 2021, and said her mother
    could sign any required documents on her behalf. When the social
    worker asked if mother was married, she replied, “I went to
    Vegas on some mad stuff and got married.”
    She denied she was pregnant, however, and threatened the
    mother of father’s other child and accused her of providing
    information to the Department. Via FaceTime with the social
    worker, mother displayed her stomach area. The social worker
    reported she believed she was observing a “pregnant belly”;
    mother said she would take a pregnancy test at a doctor’s office
    and provide the results to the Department.7 Mother also denied
    that she lived in Las Vegas and said she lived in her mother’s
    home.
    The Department subsequently received an anonymous text
    message containing a video. The message said the video was
    taken at the beginning of February. The video showed mother
    and father popping a balloon; writing on the video said “it’s a
    girl.”
    DISCUSSION
    1.       The court’s reasonable-services finding is supported by
    substantial evidence.
    Mother contends the court erred by finding the Department
    had provided her with reasonable reunification services.
    Specifically, she argues that she received too few individual
    7   There is no evidence she ever did so.
    18
    therapy sessions and lacked access to the children’s
    developmental treatments. We disagree.
    1.1. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
    When a child is removed from a parent’s custody, the court,
    typically, must order child welfare services for the child and the
    parent to facilitate family reunification. (§ 361.5, subd. (a);
    Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 
    42 Cal.4th 836
    , 843.) If the
    dependent child is younger than three when he or she is removed,
    reunification services must be provided for at least six months
    from the disposition hearing but, ordinarily, not longer than 12
    months from the date the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5,
    subd. (a)(B).)
    The Department must make a good faith effort to develop
    and implement the family reunification plan. (In re Jasmon O.
    (1994) 
    8 Cal.4th 398
    , 424.) In particular, reunification services
    should be tailored to the particular needs of the family. (David B.
    v. Superior Court (2004) 
    123 Cal.App.4th 768
    , 788.) The
    Department’s efforts must, therefore, be judged according to the
    circumstances of each particular case. (In re Taylor J. (2014) 
    223 Cal.App.4th 1446
    , 1451.)
    We review a court’s finding for substantial evidence from
    which the court could conclude there was clear and convincing
    evidence that the Department provided reasonable services. (In
    re Alvin R. (2003) 
    108 Cal.App.4th 962
    , 971.) In determining
    whether substantial evidence exists, we review the evidence in
    the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge all
    legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the ruling. (In re
    Misako R. (1991) 
    2 Cal.App.4th 538
    , 545.) The standard is not
    whether the services provided were the best that might have
    19
    been provided, but rather whether they were reasonable under
    the circumstances. (Id. at p 547.)
    1.2. The Department provided reasonable services.
    Mother argues that the crucial service being provided to
    her was individual counseling, and that service was “severely
    impacted” during the review period. Mother’s case plan called for
    weekly individual counseling, which she began on September 28,
    2020. On December 30, 2020, the therapist reported that mother
    appeared to have made progress. On January 25, 2021, however,
    the therapist indicated that going forward, due to her large
    caseload, she would only be able to see mother once every four to
    six weeks. Thus, although mother received weekly individual
    counseling for the first four months of the review period, she
    seems to have received only monthly individual counseling for the
    last two months. Mother contends the Department “made no
    effort to refer mother to a therapist who had a lighter case load or
    who could see [her] on a weekly basis as recommended by her
    providers.” Therefore, she argues, the Department failed to make
    reasonable efforts to assure she had access to weekly therapy.
    Certainly, mother appears to have benefitted from
    individual therapy. Mother testified that the sessions were
    helpful because they talked about her past as well as her present
    situation, and her therapist helped guide her as to how to react to
    different situations and helped her to learn coping skills. In her
    sessions, she worked on her feelings, concerns, and fears. Mother
    testified that her therapist was a big influence on her; she talked
    to her therapist about everything. For example, mother
    previously thought the caregiver was against her and felt angry;
    she learned through therapy that she was wrong.
    20
    Mother’s improved communication skills were not only the
    result of individual counseling, however. Mother also testified
    that she learned to communicate better with the caregiver
    because she kept in touch with the instructors from her parenting
    classes, who talked to her about different ways to communicate.
    Mother’s Department of Mental Health treatment plan had
    suggested that she receive individual counseling once every two
    months. It also suggested that a weekly group class would be
    helpful to reduce her sad mood and angry outbursts. It did not
    mandate weekly individual sessions. Nevertheless, additional
    individual sessions with mother’s current therapist would
    probably have been helpful. But it is not obvious that additional
    sessions with a different therapist, with whom she had no
    relationship and would have to start from scratch, would be more
    helpful than limited sessions with the therapist she already had.
    Mother acknowledges her lies to the Department and the
    court, which she frames as “trying to pretend that she had not
    married father or had not become impregnated with another of
    his children, or was not going back and forth to Las Vegas,” but
    she insists the lies are “a core issue that only can be addressed
    with intensive services.” Although there is evidence mother’s
    individual counseling helped with her anger and communication
    issues, however, there is no evidence in the record before us that
    the counseling addressed her repeated, substantial lies about her
    relationship with father and where she lived. If it did, it did not
    seem to help. Indeed, immediately after testifying about the
    benefits of therapy, mother told the court she did not have a
    relationship with father and last communicated with him when
    the children were detained. In fact, they were married and
    expecting a third child.
    21
    Finally, mother suggests that she should have been offered
    opportunities to communicate with the children’s developmental
    services providers and participate in their treatments. But the
    court did not view mother’s minimization of the children’s
    developmental delays as a barrier to reunification. To the
    contrary, at the six-month-review hearing, the court indicated it
    was inclined to return the children to mother because the
    Department had not proven they would be at risk if they were
    returned to her. It was only after the court learned mother had
    lied about her relationship with father and was concealing “very
    basic facts about her living situation from the Department” that
    the court concluded return would be detrimental. As the
    children’s developmental needs were not a barrier to
    reunification, the court did not err by concluding the Department
    had provided reasonable services.
    2.    Mother’s ICWA claim is not ripe.
    On May 4, 2021, this court entered a stipulated remand
    order in case No. B307193 in which we directed the juvenile court
    to order the Department “to investigate mother’s claimed
    Cherokee heritage and inquire of the father, if available, and the
    paternal family regarding any known Indian heritage, and send
    notices to the Cherokee and any appropriate tribe(s) and the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to submit a report on its
    investigation as well as those notices, return receipts, and any
    tribal or agency responses to the juvenile court. [Citation.]”
    In this appeal, mother “again raises the issue of
    noncompliance with the ICWA … because the [juvenile] court
    found on March 3, 2021 that the ICWA did not apply.” Mother
    acknowledges that the lower court’s ruling predates our remand
    order but nevertheless asks us to “affirm the directions from [the
    22
    remand order] for each and all of the reasons argued in her
    opening brief in case number B307193.” Because we have already
    granted the relief mother seeks, we decline to do so. (See People
    ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 
    1 Cal.3d 910
     [courts should
    not issue advisory opinions].)
    DISPOSITION
    The orders are affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    LAVIN, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    EDMON, P. J.
    EGERTON, J.
    23
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B311497

Filed Date: 12/28/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2021