Filed 7/20/16 In re Kaitlyn S. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re KAITLYN S., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIFFANY D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D069787

 (Super. Ct. No. J518997C)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J.

Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County 

Counsel, and Paula J. Roach, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Tiffany D. appeals an order of the juvenile court continuing its dependency 

jurisdiction of her minor daughter, Kaitlyn S. The sole issue raised by Tiffany's appeal is 

her contention that the juvenile court erred in finding she received reasonable services. 

We affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Tiffany and her boyfriend Stuart S. have had an ongoing relationship since 2007

and are the parents of Kaitlyn, born in 2010. Tiffany also has three older sons, who are 

not parties to this appeal, by two different fathers: Skyler and Daniel, born in 2004 and 

2005 respectively, and who share a father, James S.; and Hunter, who is 15 and is in the 

custody of his father, Jason R. Stuart also has a son from another relationship, 

Christopher, who was born in 2003. 

The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) became 

involved with the family in 2012 after Tiffany alleged Skyler and Daniel were sexually 

abused by Christopher. As a result of the allegation, the family was provided with 

voluntary services and Christopher moved into his paternal grandmother's home. At the 

time of that voluntary case, Skyler was living with his maternal grandmother, Claudia D., 

because Tiffany could not cope with Skyler's aggressive behavior. In connection with the 

case, Tiffany, Skyler and Daniel began seeing an Agency approved therapist in early 

2014. In February 2014, Skyler moved back in with Tiffany, Stuart, Daniel and Kaitlyn. 

In April 2014, the Agency received a new referral concerning Daniel's and 

Skyler's behavior. Tiffany told the Agency's social worker that the boys were collecting 

knives to take to school to stab another student, that Daniel was making weapons out of 
3

household items, that she was calling the police several times a week because of the boys'

behavior, and that Daniel and Skyler were physically assaulting each other, Kaitlyn and 

Tiffany. As a result, Tiffany entered into a voluntary safety plan with the Agency that 

required Kaitlyn to stay with Claudia. Over the course of the next six weeks, Tiffany and 

Claudia contacted the Agency's social worker frequently about the boys' disturbing

behavior. 

On May 30, 2014, Tiffany took Daniel and Skyler to Polinsky Children's Center 

(PCC) and told PCC staff she could not care for them. Tiffany stated she felt like she 

was going "to snap" and hurt them, and that "either they will die or I will die." In her 

interviews with the Agency's social worker, Tiffany stated that she had suffered from 

depression in the past and was currently taking medication for anxiety. Tiffany also 

stated she had been diagnosed as bipolar, but could not remember when that diagnosis 

was made or who made it, and that she was currently being evaluated for autism. 

Two days after Tiffany left Daniel and Skyler at PCC, the Agency filed petitions 

under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 on behalf of Kaitlyn, Skyler and 

Daniel. The petition for Kaitlyn alleged she was inadequately supervised by her parents,

and had been hit by Daniel and inappropriately touched by Skyler. The petition stated 

Tiffany was "unable to control the violent behaviors within the home which place[d]"

Kaitlyn at risk of serious physical harm or illness. At the detention hearing, the juvenile 

 

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
4

court ordered liberal supervised visitation and reunification services for Tiffany and 

Stuart. 

Thereafter, Kaitlyn remained in Claudia's care and Tiffany began to receive 

reunification services. She continued with the same therapist she began visiting earlier in 

the year, Jeanine Sachs. In the Agency's August 2014 report for the jurisdiction and 

disposition hearing, Sachs reported that Tiffany attended therapy weekly and sometimes 

participated in joint sessions with Kaitlyn. In late June, Tiffany told the Agency social 

worker she was doing better with Skyler and Daniel out of the home and that she was 

receiving the treatment she needed, including going to weekly therapy with Sachs, taking 

medication for her anxiety, and that she had enrolled in a parenting course. Tiffany also 

gave the social worker the names and dosages of her medication and the name of her 

prescribing physician. 

The jurisdiction and disposition hearing took place on September 18, 2014. The 

juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true and placed Kaitlyn with Tiffany 

and Stuart.2 The court also continued services for both parents and found the case plan 

developed by the Agency was appropriate, reasonable and likely to be successful in 

alleviating the problems that brought Kaitlyn under the court's jurisdiction. 

On December 5, 2014, the Agency received a new referral alleging that Stuart had 

punched holes in the walls of the family's home, hit and forcefully pushed Kaitlyn, 

Daniel and Skyler, yelled at Kaitlyn and Tiffany, and drove with Kaitlyn in the car under 

 

2 Skyler and Daniel were placed with a foster family. 
5

the influence of marijuana. When interviewed by the Agency's social worker, Tiffany 

confirmed the allegations against Stuart and told the social worker she had taken Kaitlyn 

to stay with Claudia because she was fearful of Stuart. Tiffany described Stuart as being 

abusive and told the social worker she wanted to leave him but didn't know where to go. 

She also alleged that one of the reasons she brought Skyler and Daniel to PCC in May 

was to protect them from Stuart. The social worker referred Tiffany to a domestic 

violence shelter, but Tiffany declined that assistance. 

In her interview, Claudia told the social worker that Tiffany had been hearing 

voices and that Tiffany said "she felt free" once she left Kaitlyn with Claudia. Claudia

also told the social worker that she had seen Stuart be verbally abusive to Tiffany and the 

minors, and that Kaitlyn was acting abnormally clingy and insecure. A supervisor at 

Kaitlyn's preschool also reported that Kaitlyn had missed a lot of school and had been 

having stomach problems. Stuart denied all of the abuse allegations. He admitted he 

smoked marijuana, but stated it was for medical reasons and gave the social worker a 

copy of his medical marijuana card. 

As a result of the new allegations concerning Stuart's behavior and its concern 

over Tiffany's mental health, on January 15, 2015, the Agency filed a supplemental 

petition on behalf of Kaitlyn under section 387. The petition alleged that Tiffany and 

Stuart were no longer able to care for or adequately supervise Kaitlyn because Kaitlyn 

had been exposed to Stuart "punching walls," "throwing toys at [Tiffany]," and because 

Stuart had grabbed Kaitlyn and thrown her on the bed. The petition also alleged that 

Stuart smoked medical marijuana while caring for Kaitlyn and that Tiffany was
6

"experiencing hallucinations, hearing voices and seeing snowy spots." At the detention 

hearing on the new petition, the juvenile court ordered Kaitlyn to remain in Claudia's 

custody and liberal supervised visits for both parents. At the initial jurisdiction and 

dispositional hearing on February 19, 2015, both parents contested the truth of the 

allegations in the petition and the juvenile court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing 

in March. 

On March 3, 2015, before the hearing, the Agency received a new referral alleging 

that Stuart sexually abused Kaitlyn. The Agency suspended his visitation in order to 

conduct an investigation of the allegation. In the same time frame, Tiffany stopped 

seeing Sachs and began therapy with a new provider, but was dropped by the new 

provider after missing too many appointments. Tiffany also reported continued and 

increasing mental health concerns. She told the Agency's social worker that she had 

suicidal thoughts, that she stopped taking her medication because it was making her 

crazy, and that she was hearing " 'all kinds of stuff, seeing snowy spots' and had a 'few 

episodes' where she 'freaked out in public.' " She also reported hearing "voices telling her 

that she is a 'bad mother' that she is 'worthless' an 'idiot, a joke' and that she should 'give 

up' and that her children should be 'raised by someone else.' "

At the March 12, 2015 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court 

found by clear and convincing evidence that the allegations in the section 387 petition 

were true, removed Kaitlyn from her parents and continued Kaitlyn's placement with 

Claudia. The court also found reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal, but that 

Tiffany's and Stuart's progress in alleviating the issues that brought Kaitlyn into the 
7

court's jurisdiction had not been substantial. The court ordered supervised visitation for 

Tiffany and that the Agency provide the parents with services consistent with the case 

plans that were developed earlier in the proceeding. The plan included a requirement that 

Tiffany meet and work with a psychiatrist and take medication as prescribed, and that she 

attend therapy and participate in a domestic violence class. The court set the six-month 

review hearing for September 1, 2015. 

In its report for the six-month review hearing, dated August 25, 2015, the Agency 

reported that in May, Tiffany had begun seeing a new therapist on a consistent basis. The 

therapist, Judith Rochelle, reported in June and July that Tiffany was cooperative, open 

and communicative, and that she did not see any evidence that Tiffany suffered from 

bipolar disorder. At that time, Rochelle believed Tiffany's mental health concerns were 

environmental. In August, Rochelle's assessment changed and she reported that Tiffany 

was experiencing more obsessive and anxious behaviors, and that a psychological 

evaluation would be valuable to clarify Tiffany's diagnosis. Tiffany reported that her 

mental health had improved and that she had stopped seeing snowy spots. 

With respect to domestic violence services, the Agency reported that its staff 

psychologist was concerned that Tiffany's participation in domestic violence group 

therapy would be detrimental. As a result, the Agency sought approval from Rochelle 

before authorizing Tiffany's participation. In June, Rochelle informed the Agency that 

Tiffany would benefit from a domestic violence group. The initial service provider

Tiffany selected did not have the capacity to take her, delaying the start. However, by the 

time of the Agency's August 25, 2015 report, Tiffany was approved with a different 
8

provider and had been given two potential starting dates for services in late August and 

early September.3

In its August 25, 2015 report, the Agency recommended continued services for 

Tiffany and that her visits with Kaitlyn remain supervised. At the September 1, 2015 

hearing, Tiffany contested the reasonableness of services provided to her and sought 

unsupervised visitation. The court set an evidentiary hearing for September 25, 2015. 

Before the hearing, the Agency modified its position to recommend unsupervised visits 

for both parents. At the hearing, however, Kaitlyn's attorney did not agree that 

unsupervised visits were appropriate and asked that the court conduct an evidentiary 

hearing before allowing unsupervised visits.4 As a result of this request, the court 

continued the evidentiary hearing to November 16, 2015, and set a settlement conference 

for October 21, 2015. 

 

3 The Agency moved to augment the record on appeal to include its October 21, 

2015 report filed in Skyler and Daniel's case (but not Kaitlyn's case), and for relief from 

filing the motion to augment late. The Agency's motion asserts the report contains 

pertinent information considered by the juvenile court before its ruling about the 

domestic violence services provided to Tiffany. Tiffany opposes the motion on the 

grounds that the information in the October 21, 2015 report is contained elsewhere in the 

record. The motion is granted. The report indicates that Tiffany did not start the 

domestic violence group on either date given by the service provider. Rather, on October 

14, 2015, Tiffany told the social worker she was scheduled to start the group that day, but 

would start the following week because she did not have transportation. The social 

worker offered to drive Tiffany and took her to her first session on October 14, 2015. 

4 The attorney's concern stemmed from an August referral alleging Stuart sexually 

abused Kaitlyn. The Agency investigated the allegations and, after concluding there was 

no evidence of sexual abuse, closed the referral as being unfounded. The Agency also 

closed the March sexual abuse referral as inconclusive after two forensic interviews of 

Kaitlyn did not uncover any abuse by Stuart. 
9

At the September 25, 2015 hearing there was also some discussion concerning 

Rochelle's suggestion that Tiffany undergo a psychological evaluation. Tiffany's attorney 

stated that Rochelle had resigned from the program through which the Agency was 

providing services and that Tiffany was in the process of locating a new therapist. 

Tiffany's attorney requested that Rochelle's August report, which contained the 

suggestion that Tiffany undergo an evaluation, be provided to him and to Tiffany's new 

therapist once established. The court ordered Rochelle to provide a written report to the 

parties, but declined to order that Tiffany undergo a psychological evaluation. 

In advance of the October settlement conference, the Agency again recommended 

unsupervised visitation for both parents. The Agency also recommended that the court 

order a psychological examination for Tiffany. The issue of the psychological 

evaluation, however, was not addressed at the settlement conference. The Agency filed 

an ex parte application at the beginning of November seeking an order for a 

psychological evaluation for Tiffany. The ex parte application also explained that on 

October 28, 2015, Tiffany's new therapist reported that Tiffany was again suffering from 

auditory hallucinations. The court signed the order on November 9, 2015, and on 

November 16, 2015, the court continued the review hearing to January 22, 2016, to await 

the results of Tiffany's evaluation. 

On December 14, 2015, Tiffany underwent a psychological evaluation conducted

by Richard J. Jordan, Psy.D. Jordan diagnosed Tiffany with schizoaffective disorder, 

obsessive compulsive disorder and dependent personality disorder. Jordan also reported

that there was "no evidence of clinically significant impairment in cognitive/intellectual 
10

functioning that would preclude [Tiffany] from benefitting from services within the legal 

timelines for this case." Jordan opined that Tiffany's mental health had improved over 

the previous few weeks, which he attributed to Tiffany's consistency in her prescribed 

medication in that time frame, and that he expected continued improvement with 

sustained medication. 

Jordan's report noted that Tiffany's inconsistency with her medication was not 

unusual for patients, like her, coping with manic symptoms. He recommended continued 

individual therapy and that Tiffany's therapist monitor and emphasize the importance of 

her psychotropic medication compliance. Based on Jordan's recommendations, the 

Agency amended Tiffany's case plan to include stabilizing her mental health by having 

regular appointments with a psychiatrist, taking medication as prescribed, attending 

therapy and domestic violence and nonprotective parent abuse courses, and participating 

in random drug testing. 

The court held the six-month review hearing for Kaitlyn on January 22, 2016.5

The court heard testimony from Tiffany, Claudia and the social worker assigned to the 

family, and accepted the Agency's reports into evidence. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, Tiffany's counsel argued the Agency failed to provide reasonable services, 

focusing primarily on Tiffany's need for domestic violence assistance. Tiffany's counsel 

argued the Agency knew Tiffany was in need of such assistance for five months before 

related services were added to her reunification plan, and the Agency waited two 

 

5 The hearing was combined with the 18-month review hearing for Daniel and 

Skyler, who remained in foster care.
11

additional months before providing her with such service. Tiffany's counsel also asserted 

that even once domestic violence support was provided, Tiffany had only had the 

opportunity to attend four sessions. 

In response, the Agency's counsel argued the Agency had provided referrals for 

domestic violence shelters throughout the case, but that Tiffany had refused that 

assistance. Additionally, the Agency worked to provide domestic violence group therapy 

to Tiffany as soon her therapist indicated she should attend. The Agency asserted that 

any delays in obtaining the service were reasonable, or were related to Tiffany's 

resistance. 

After the hearing, the juvenile court continued reunification services for Tiffany 

and Stuart, ordered unsupervised visitation for Tiffany, and set the 12-month review 

hearing for April 5, 2016. The court rejected Tiffany's assertion she had not been 

provided with reasonable services. The court found that because of the complex nature 

of the case, the Agency did not act unreasonably by waiting for Tiffany's therapist to 

assess whether domestic violence group therapy was appropriate. The court stated: 

"This is very much a case where we have very complicated factors that are fluid, are 

intertwined, and . . . particularly made more complicated . . . by [Tiffany's] self-reports 

for an extensive period of time that, once the children were out of the home, her 

relationship with [Stuart] was greatly improving, and that the household was more 

peaceful."
12

DISCUSSION

I

Whenever a minor is removed from parental custody, the court must order 

reunification services for the parents to remedy the problems that led to the minor's 

removal. (§ 361.5; In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1362; M.V. v. Superior 

Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 174.) Each reunification plan must be appropriate to 

the particular individual and based on the unique facts of the case. (In re Misako R. 

(1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Provision of reunification services implements the law's 

strong preference for maintaining the family relationship whenever possible. (In re 

Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.)

Services are considered reasonable if the child welfare agency has " '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 re Alvin R. (2003) 108 

Cal.App.4th 962, 972.) The reasonableness of the Agency's efforts is judged according to 

the circumstances of each case. (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 

1164 (Robin V.); Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345.) 

Further, " '[r]eunification services are voluntary, and cannot be forced on an unwilling or 

indifferent parent.' " (In re Nolan W., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1233.) There is no 

"requirement that a social worker take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to and 

through classes or counseling sessions." (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 

1463, fn. 5.)
13

We review the court's findings as to the adequacy of a reunification plan and the 

reasonableness of the Agency's efforts for substantial evidence. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 

Cal.App.4th 41, 46; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.)

II

Tiffany asserts the Agency was deficient in its provision of reunification services 

because it did not obtain a psychological evaluation or provide domestic violence

treatment at an earlier stage of the proceedings. We disagree. There was sufficient 

evidence before the juvenile court to support its finding that the Agency provided Tiffany 

with services reasonably designed to identify and remedy the issues that led to Kaitlyn's 

dependency. Tiffany was dealing with a complex set of problems that seemed at the 

outset to stem from Daniel and Skyler's aggressive and dangerous behavior. Tiffany's 

mental illness and her relationship with Stuart were two of many challenges she faced in 

her efforts to reunify with Kaitlyn, and these issues did not come to the fore until months 

into the proceeding.

The Agency concedes its follow up concerning Tiffany's medication fell below

what it considers to be best practices. The Agency, however, is not required to provide 

"the best [services] that might be provided in an ideal world." (In re Misako R., supra, 2 

Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) Rather, the reasonableness of the services must be considered in 

relation to the circumstances of the case. (Robin V., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164.) 

When the case began Tiffany represented she was receiving treatment from a physician 

and regularly taking medication. She provided the social worker with her physician's 

name and the names and dosages of her medication. Further, Tiffany's therapist reported 
14

in June and July of 2015 that Tiffany's mental health was stable and improving. These 

facts provide a reasonable explanation for the Agency's delay in obtaining a 

psychological evaluation.

Additionally, once the evaluation was performed, the primary treatment 

recommended by the evaluating psychologist (continued therapy with monitoring of 

Tiffany's medication compliance) was already underway. The psychologist also 

expressed his opinion that Tiffany did not have any "clinically significant impairment" 

preventing her from reunifying by the date of the 12-month review in February 2016. 

This evidence sufficiently supported the juvenile court's reasonable services finding.

With respect to Tiffany's assertion that the Agency failed to provide adequate 

services related to domestic violence, the record contradicts this claim. Tiffany did not 

report violent behavior by Stuart until December 2014. Thereafter, she minimized his 

behavior and by the time the section 387 petition was filed in January 2015 she reported 

that her relationship with Stuart had improved. Tiffany also declined services that were 

offered to address this aspect of the case, including the Agency's referrals to shelters and 

the court's offer to issue a restraining order against Stuart. The Agency could not force 

Tiffany to access these services. (See In re Michael S., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1463, 

fn. 5.) We also reject Tiffany's assertion that the Agency acted unreasonably by seeking 

her therapist's evaluation of her ability to benefit from domestic violence group therapy. 

In light of the complex nature of Tiffany's case, it was appropriate for the Agency to 
15

consult with a mental health professional to determine whether such services were 

appropriate.6 

In sum, the Agency made a good faith effort to identify and address Tiffany's 

problems, maintained consistent contact with Tiffany throughout the proceedings, offered 

consistent visitation, and provided ongoing services throughout. (In re Riva M. (1991) 

235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) While we do not condone the Agency's delay in seeking a 

psychological evaluation for Tiffany earlier, we cannot say that insufficient evidence 

supported the court's finding that the services offered and provided to Tiffany were 

reasonable under the circumstances of her case.7 (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 547.) 

 

6 Any delay resulting from the initial service provider not having the capacity to 

accommodate Tiffany was minimal. Indeed, when Tiffany's social worker learned 

Tiffany did not have transportation to start the domestic violence group therapy, she 

personally drove Tiffany to the provider. 

7 Tiffany relies on In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323 (K.C.) and Patricia W. v. 

Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397 (Patricia W.) to support her assertion that the 

provision of services was not reasonable. This reliance in misplaced. Unlike this case, 

both K.C. and Patricia W. involved orders terminating reunification services. (K.C., at p. 

325; Patricia W., at p. 400.) Additionally, in K.C., the social services agency failed to 

provide any assistance to the father to secure treatment for his diagnosed mental illness. 

(K.C, at p. 333-334.) Likewise, in Patricia W. the agency undertook no effort to confirm 

the mother's psychiatric diagnosis or to secure treatment for her mental illness. (Patricia, 

at p. 401.) The social service agencies' absent efforts in K.C. and Patricia W. are unlike 

the consistent efforts made in this case to assist Tiffany in obtaining and maintaining 

services for the evolving reunification issues she faced. 
16

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, J.

McDONALD, J.