K.G. v. Superior Court CA1/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 6/28/24 K.G. v. Superior Court CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
K.G.,
Petitioner, A170159
v.
Contra Costa County
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Super. Ct. Nos. J23-00370,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
J23-00371 & J23-00372)
Respondent;
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES BUREAU,
Real Party in Interest.
In this juvenile writ proceeding, K.G. (mother) seeks extraordinary
relief from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and
setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code1 with respect to her three children—C.G. (born
July 2017) and twins W.M.G. and W.D.G. (born April 2021). Mother argues
that the juvenile court erred when it declined to extend her reunification
1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise specified. The alleged fathers of the minors are not involved
in these writ proceedings.
services at the six-month review hearing. She also claims the Contra Costa
County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) failed to provide her
with reasonable reunification services. We deny the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
In May 2023, two Bureau social workers made an unannounced visit to
the home of mother and her three children in response to a referral alleging
mother’s physical abuse of C.G. The household also included the maternal
grandmother, a maternal aunt, and two maternal cousins—10-year-old Ko.G.
and seven-year-old H.G.—whom the maternal relatives had been caring for
since February 2023 because their mother was unavailable.2 Mother and her
children were not home, but both the maternal grandmother and the
maternal aunt expressed concern for her mental health. They said that the
previous week mother woke the household at 6:00 a.m. by playing loud music;
cut off 8 to 10 inches of H.G.’s hair in retaliation for the child having
accidentally cut some of the twins’ hair three months earlier; and grabbed
Ko.G. by the hair and shoulder and swung him around the room, causing him
to fall and hit his face on a hard edge of the maternal grandmother’s hospital
bed resulting in a bump that was sore to the touch. During the altercation,
mother pushed the maternal grandmother to the floor and threw a wooden
table at the maternal aunt. According to the women, mother was diagnosed
with schizophrenia but was inconsistent with her mental health treatment.
2 During this visit, the social workers observed the maternal
grandmother and the maternal aunt to have mobility issues due to their
weight. In addition, the maternal grandmother used oxygen, and the
maternal aunt detailed other personal health issues. Their impaired physical
ability to protect the children was a factor in the minors’ removal from the
family home.
2
Law enforcement reportedly had been called to the house numerous times
leading to mother’s repeated involuntary hospitalizations.
When mother came home with the minors, she immediately confronted
the social workers. She was visibly agitated, yelling loudly, spitting while
speaking, and pacing. Mother stated the maternal grandmother called the
police on the day of the incident because “ ‘I’m crazy!’ ” and acknowledged she
could be physically aggressive. At times during the conversation mother
became irate over unrelated topics, screaming profanities loud enough for the
neighbors to hear. Her thought process was tangential and very difficult to
track. And her emotions were labile, spontaneously transitioning from
happiness, anger, despair, and humor within the span of minutes. Mother
stated she did not agree with all of the medications she was prescribed
because they were too much and caused unwanted side effects.
H.G. confirmed the incident, stating all of the children had been
present, mother had been screaming and calling everyone the “ ‘B word,’ ”
and she felt scared and unsafe. She said she accidentally cut the twins’ hair
at one point when using scissors to cut out rubber bands. Ko.G. also said he
felt unsafe, verified the incident, and reported that the police came and took
mother to “ ‘the crazy house.’ ” He described another time when mother had
other children hold him down while she hit him with a belt because he did
not want to watch a movie with her. C.G. disclosed mother “ ‘whooped’ ” her
on her bottom with a belt when she was in trouble. According to C.G.,
mother also “ ‘whooped’ ” H.G., and C.G. saw a mark. C.G. remembered the
police arresting mother after she “ ‘destroyed the whole house.’ ”
The condition of the home was unsanitary, with excessive trash,
evidence of urine and feces on various surfaces, an exposed electrical outlet,
and mother’s marijuana bong within reach of the minors. Urine-soaked
3
clothing and bedding were observed in mother’s bedroom, and mother
explained she often peed on herself, but she would not do laundry because
there were “ ‘water bugs’ ” in the laundry machines since the home’s water
had been shut off for a month. Mother admitted that two large, fist-sized
holes in her bedroom door were from her punching as “ ‘a way not to hit her
family.’ ” Flies were observed throughout the home. The Bureau detained
the three young minors on May 25, 2023, and they were placed in foster care
together with Ko.G. and H.G.
The Bureau filed juvenile dependency petitions on May 30, 2023,
alleging that C.G. was described by subdivisions (b)(1) and (d) of section 300
due to mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues and her use of
inappropriate physical discipline, along with some inappropriate sexual
touching among the children in the household. The twins’ petitions alleged
they were described by subdivisions (b)(1), (d), and (j) of section 300 based on
the same facts. The minors were formally detained at the detention hearing
the next day.
According to mother, she was evicted from the family home after the
minors were detained, and the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt
served her with a restraining order. She therefore entered a dual diagnosis
shelter. However, by August 2023, mother was discharged from that shelter
for failure to participate in its programming. She moved to another shelter
but did not engage in any services. Mother informed the social worker she
did not want to work with the Bureau on reunification and requested the
children be returned to the maternal grandmother. Mother did not
consistently attend her weekly visits with the minors, despite being given
transportation assistance. She told the social worker she was no longer
4
interested in visiting her children because she had no transportation and did
not believe she would reunify.
The court took jurisdiction over the minors on August 23, 2023, after
declining to continue the hearing. Mother was not present. At the
dispositional hearing on that same date, the minors were adjudged juvenile
court dependents and formally removed from mother’s care. Reunification
services were ordered for mother in the hopes she would have a change of
heart and reengage with the Bureau.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the Bureau
recommended that mother’s reunification services be terminated because she
had not meaningfully engaged in services or demonstrated any behavioral
change. Mother contested the recommendation, and the matter was set for
hearing on March 6, 2024. At the hearing, mother testified that she wanted
further reunification services and would be willing to engage in mental
health assessments. She found public transportation confusing, so she
mostly had weekly phone contact with her children, which sometimes did not
occur. On cross-examination, mother acknowledged she had been given
information about parenting classes and drug testing, but stated she did not
understand how to engage in them. She denied receiving information
regarding counseling, anger management, substance abuse treatment, or
mental health assessment. She would use BART or bus tickets to attend
visitation if she was given them. The social worker offered her these
transportation resources, but she declined visitation because she felt like she
was not in a suitable place to receive the tickets. Mother believed her
children were removed because she cut her niece’s hair and the house was not
clean. She denied any “whoopings” or any mental health issues. Although
she conceded she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, she felt it was no
5
longer an issue. She did not participate in any meetings with the Bureau to
discuss how they could support her. As of February 2024, mother began
receiving Social Security benefits for her schizophrenia which would help her
make visits and go to parenting classes without having to rely on public
transportation.
Mother’s prior social worker testified regarding e-mailing mother
referrals for parenting classes, counseling services, drug treatment, and drug
testing. He also e-mailed her the web link for a family team meeting he had
previously discussed with her. In addition, he sent her a letter at the shelter
where she was residing (the address of which she had designated to the court
as her official mailing address) with referrals for services and notice of a
court hearing, and he gave her a similar letter in person on July 6, 2023. At
the in-person meeting, the social worker went over the referrals with mother.
After mother was discharged from the shelter due to noncompliance
with services, she told the social worker she was unaware of her current
address, did not want to meet in person, and did not want to continue
engaging with the Bureau. Mother had two in-person visits with the minors
while he was her social worker, but then missed visits and finally informed
him she was not interested in visitation or services. She wanted the children
placed with the maternal aunt or maternal grandmother. Although the social
worker strongly urged her to engage in services and visiting, mother refused
and declined an in-person visit from the worker.
Mother’s current social worker testified that, when she took over the
case, mother’s whereabouts were unknown. After she first reached mother by
telephone in November 2023, mother consistently stated she did not want to
participate in services. She just wanted the children to be with her family.
Every time she was in contact with mother, the social worker asked her if she
6
wanted in-person visitation, but mother stated she only wanted phone calls.
The social worker offered to bring mother tickets for public transportation
and offered to meet her at the social services office in Antioch, but mother
declined.3
After argument on April 3, 2024, the court terminated reunification
services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to
section 366.26 so that a permanent out-of-home placement could be
established for C.G. and the twins. In doing so, the court acknowledged
mother’s mental health struggles but queried: “What more should [the social
workers] have done in this case? And short of actually going out to the
shelter and physically walking with Mom to each of the appointments in the
referrals, I’m struggling what more [sic] they could have done because it
seems like they were reaching out to her.” The court found the social workers
3 The current social worker also filed an update with the court for the
period between the first day of the contested hearing (March 6, 2024) and the
second day of the hearing (April 3, 2024). Mother requested in-person
visitation on March 18, which the social worker arranged for March 22 and
which reportedly went well. On March 19, the social worker completed a new
referral for drug testing and e-mailed the instructions to mother at her
request. Mother tested negative on March 22. On March 21, 2024, the social
worker also e-mailed mother resources for parenting education, anger
management, and counseling/mental health for her county of residence. Both
the current and former social workers met with mother in person on
March 25, went over her case plan with her in detail, and provided her with
public transportation assistance. Mother agreed to various mental health
services but stated she did not believe anything was wrong with her. She
continued to minimize her culpability for the removal of her children. A
second visit was set for March 29 and mother reportedly enrolled in anger
management. Nevertheless, the Bureau still recommended that services be
terminated due to mother’s untreated mental health issues, her lack of
insight into those issues, and her denial of the behaviors that led to the
removal of her children.
7
more credible than mother on the issue of reasonable services. It also found
mother not only failed to engage in services but failed to update the Bureau
on her whereabouts, return phone calls, update contact information, or even
visit her children, despite the provision of transportation resources. In
determining not to continue the matter to a 12-month hearing, the court
noted mother was not taking recommended medication for her mental health
condition, although she was receiving governmental benefits for it. The court
saw no likelihood of “any reasonable degree of success if services were
continued” and concluded any further provision of services would not be in
the children’s best interests. It therefore set permanency planning hearings
for all three minors on August 7, 2024. Mother’s timely petitions followed.
II. DISCUSSION
When a dependent child is removed from parental custody, the juvenile
court ordinarily must order child welfare services for the minor and the
parent for the purpose of facilitating reunification of the family. (§ 361.5,
subd. (a).) As is relevant here, for a child under three years of age at the time
of removal (along with members of a sibling group including that child),
reunification services are presumptively limited to six months. (Tonya M. v.
Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 843.) This is because the “ ‘ “unique
developmental needs of infants and toddlers” ’ [citation] justif[y] a greater
emphasis on establishing permanency and stability earlier in the dependency
process.” (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 175 (M.V.).)
Thus, if “the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent
failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-
ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to
Section 366.26 within 120 days.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3).) However, if the
juvenile court finds that there is a substantial probability that the child may
8
be returned to his or her parent within the extended timeframe or that
reasonable services have not been provided, the court must continue
reunification services to the 12-month date. (Ibid.)
We uphold a juvenile court’s findings supporting termination of
reunification services if supported by substantial evidence. (J.H. v. Superior
Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535.) To the extent a particular finding
must be made by clear and convincing evidence, we “must determine whether
the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact
could find the existence of that fact to be highly probable.” (In re V.L. (2020)
54 Cal.App.5th 147, 149, 155.) In contrast, as set forth above, the juvenile
court law “places discretion in the hands of the trial court as to whether to
schedule a hearing to terminate parental rights” at the six-month mark.
(M.V., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 179.) Indeed, “ ‘[a]t the six-month review,
the court has discretion to continue the case and forebear from scheduling a
[section 366.26] hearing even if it does not make the finding there is a
substantial probability the child may be returned to his or her parent.’ ”
(F.K. v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 928, 935.) We therefore
review a decision to schedule a permanency planning hearing in this
timeframe for an abuse of discretion.
Here, the juvenile court did not find either a substantial probability of
return or failure to provide reasonable services. And mother does not
challenge the juvenile court’s findings, made by clear and convincing
evidence, that she failed to participate regularly and make substantive
progress in her court-ordered treatment plan. Thus, the juvenile court’s
decision to set a permanency planning hearing for the three minors was a
discretionary decision.
9
Mother argues that the juvenile court erred because it did not
sufficiently consider that she had significant mental health issues, went
through periods of hopelessness, did not have stable housing, and was just
beginning to make efforts to engage in services at the time of the hearing.
Mother also notes that she had a good relationship with her children which
was worth preserving. However, by her choice, mother had only seen her
young children four times in the 10 months prior to the hearing. And,
according to the social worker, the children were bonded with the current
caregiver and considered the placement their home. Moreover, the court was
well aware of mother’s mental illness and expressed concern that she was not
taking her medication against the advice of her doctors. Under such
circumstances, the court viewed continuation of services to be contrary to the
best interests of the minors and unlikely to succeed. The record amply
supports these conclusions, especially since the 12-month mark in the case
was under four months away at the time mother’s services were terminated.
(§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A), 361.49, 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) There was no abuse of
discretion.
We easily reject mother’s argument that the Bureau failed to design
reunification services focused on her mental illness, and therefore the
services offered or provided were unreasonable. The services offered were
specifically designed to help the Bureau understand mother’s mental health
issues and offer appropriate support, but mother simply decided not to avail
herself of them, including visitation with her young children. Indeed, she
was initially residing in a dual diagnosis shelter expressly designed to both
provide her housing and help her with any mental health and substance
abuse issues, but she was discharged for her failure to comply with the
program. As the juvenile court noted, it is hard to imagine what further
10
efforts the social workers could have made when faced with mother’s failure
to keep in consistent contact and her repeated assertions that she did not
want to participate in services or reunify. (In re T.W.-1 (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
339, 348 [“ ‘[r]eunification services are voluntary, and cannot be forced on an
unwilling or indifferent parent’ ”].) In short, mother has not established error
with respect to the reasonableness of the services offered to her.
III. DISPOSITION
The petition is denied on the merits. (See § 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(C),
(4)(B).) Because the permanency planning hearing in this matter is set for
August 7, 2024, this opinion is final as to this court immediately. Mother’s
request for a stay of the permanency planning hearing is denied as moot.
11
SIGGINS, J.*
WE CONCUR:
BANKE, ACTING P. J.
LANGHORNE WILSON, J.
A170159
K.G. v. Superior Court
* Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
12