1

Filed 7/30/13 Ana C. v. Super. Ct. CA1/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

ANA C., 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY, 

 Real Party in Interest. 

 A138752 

 (City & County of San Francisco 

 Super. Ct. No. JD12-3091) 

 Mother petitions this court for an extraordinary writ pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.261

 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, seeking 

review of the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services and setting the 

matter for hearing to implement a permanent plan for her now 15-month-old daughter. 

She contends there was no substantial evidence supporting the finding that she was 

provided with reasonable reunification services. We deny the writ petition on the merits 

and deny as moot mother’s related request for a stay of these proceedings. 

Factual and Procedural History

 In March 2012, after mother and her newborn daughter tested positive for PCP, 

the San Francisco Human Services Agency (agency) filed a section 300 petition and 

 

1

 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
2

placed the daughter in emergency foster care. The petition alleged, among other things, 

that mother had substance abuse and mental illness issues that required assessment and 

treatment; tested positive for PCP the day after her daughter’s birth; failed to benefit from 

the services provided to her by the agency in connection with a prior dependency case 

involving her three other children; failed to reunify with those three children; and had a 

lengthy child welfare history as well as a criminal history. 

 In the accompanying detention report, the social worker noted that reunification 

services were terminated as to her three older children only two months before her 

daughter’s birth. Mother reported to the social worker that she used marijuana and PCP 

periodically, but that she stopped using drugs when she first learned she was pregnant. 

She claims that she was around friends who used PCP but she had not smoked it while 

pregnant and was surprised to know that the drug tests were positive. She explained that 

she was participating in an outpatient drug treatment program during the course of her 

older children’s dependency proceedings, but because she missed three appointments she 

must complete the orientation program again in order to re-enter the program. She also 

claimed to have completed parenting and anger management classes and to be 

participating in individual therapy. 

 At the initial detention hearing, the daughter was detained and placed in foster 

care. Mother was granted supervised visitation. 

 In advance of the jurisdictional hearing, the agency submitted a report 

recommending that the court bypass services. The report states, “Given the uncertainty of 

[mother’s] mental health, her active substance abuse, and her failure to reunify with her 

older children, the agency cannot recommend services for [mother].” The social worker 

explained that mother continued to deny that she uses drugs, despite a history of positive 

drug tests, and observed that mother’s “failure to be forth-coming about her substance 

abuse is concerning as [she] actually believes that she does not have a problem.” Mother 

reported to the social worker that “if she is not getting her baby back, she is not staying in 

[a] program.” 
3

An addendum report filed in June 2012 provides additional information regarding 

mother’s substance abuse treatment. The social worker reported that after the hearing on 

May 23, 2012, she learned that mother had signed herself in to a residential drug 

treatment program. On June 6, the social worker met with mother and her case worker to 

review mother’s progress in the program. The case worker reported that mother “presents 

as very defiant and gets angry if things do not go her way.” 

Prior to the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the agency filed a first 

amended section 300 petition, which included an additional allegation pursuant to 

section 300, subdivision (j), alleging that mother failed to reunify with the three older 

siblings and that the three older children are currently in legal guardianship. Following a 

hearing on August 30, the court established jurisdiction, ordered visitation for mother, 

and set a disposition hearing. 

 In an addendum report filed in advance of the disposition hearing, the social 

worker reported that mother continued to use drugs despite being in a residential 

treatment program. The report states that mother had two positive drug tests on June 27 

and July 2, 2012. The June test was conducted after mother left the facility for a 

community visit and appeared to be under the influence when she returned. “Mother 

denied using and stated that she was offended that she was asked to test. [She] continued 

to deny using, stating that the drug stays in your system for 30 days, which is why it was 

positive.” Because she had been in the program for just under 30 days as of the first test, 

a second test was completed on July 2 to confirm the results. “Prior to the test coming 

back positive, [mother] was informed [that] if the July 2nd test was positive, she would 

be terminated from the program; it was at this time that she admitted to using and the 

program gave her another opportunity due to her admission of usage.” 

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing 

evidence that there was a substantial danger to the daughter’s physical safety, protection 

or physical or emotional well-being if she were returned to mother’s care, that the agency 

had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for the daughter’s removal, 
4

and declared the daughter a dependent of the court. Mother was ordered to engage in 

recommended services and was granted supervised visitation. 

On February 22, 2013, in advance of the six-month review hearing, the social 

worker submitted a status review report recommending that in light of mother’s chronic 

and lengthy history of substance abuse, services be terminated and the matter be set for a 

section 366.26 hearing. The social worker observed that mother “has demonstrated her 

ability to comply with her case plan activities: go to groups, attend individual therapy, 

submit to drug/alcohol tests, etc. [However], [n]o matter how many certificate of 

completion [she] obtains, there seem to be no significant behavioral changes, resulting in 

the re-occurrence of the same issues.” The report explains that while mother completed 

the residential substance abuse program on November 27, 2012, one week later she 

relapsed. Paramedics found mother on the street in an intoxicated, catatonic state. 

Mother was unable to provide any specific information regarding the whereabouts of her 

five-year-old son, who at the time was staying with mother on an unauthorized and 

unsupervised visit. The child was eventually located and he informed the investigating 

social worker that “my mom drinks a lot.” The doctor who treated mother informed 

police officers that he suspected that she had drugs in her system. 

 In an addendum filed in May 2013, the social worker reported that mother had 

stopped submitting to regular drug testing. According to the service provider, mother’s 

last drug test was on February 28, 2013, and she failed to appear for her scheduled 

appointment on March 6, 2013. Mother then missed the next three weeks of testing, 

called to schedule an appointment for the end of April, and then failed to appear for that 

appointment. Similarly, mother had not attended a therapy appointment since March 

2013. According to mother’s therapist, the last scheduled therapeutic session was on 

April 8, 2013, but mother failed to appear for the appointment. The therapist informed 

the social worker that she needed to speak with mother before providing a written 

progress report. Finally, after graduation from the out-patient program, mother was 

referred to and was participating in the dependency drug court program. The addendum 

indicates that mother was discharged from the program in April after missing two 
5

appointments. The addendum also notes, however, that discharge appears to have been 

the product of a miscommunication between mother and staff, and that her re-entry into 

the program was pending at the time of the report. 

 The social worker also detailed a new referral received by the agency regarding a 

verbal and physical altercation involving mother. At the time of the incident, mother’s 

five-year-old son was again staying with mother on another unauthorized and 

unsupervised visit and witnessed the domestic violence. Despite the police report 

identifying mother as a party to the altercation, mother denied that she was involved. 

 The social worker again recommended the termination of services, observing that 

mother’s lack of progress and inconsistent participation in the required services were 

troubling, particularly since mother had been provided ample services for a total of two 

years. 

 The social worker was the only witness at the contested six-month review hearing, 

and her reports were admitted into evidence. The social worker testified that prior to the 

completion of mother’s residential program, the social worker conferred with the 

program director to set up aftercare programs, such as an outpatient program, to support 

mother in maintaining her sobriety. Following mother’s graduation, mother attended 

sessions at a women’s center and participated in 12-step meetings. Nonetheless, as noted 

in her report, mother relapsed within a week of her graduation. The social worker opined 

that even if services were continued to the 12-month review hearing, mother would 

receive only a couple more weeks of services and would be unlikely to reunify with her 

daughter. 

After considering the evidence, testimony, and oral arguments of all counsel, the trial 

court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided 

to assist mother to overcome the problems which led to the dependency, that mother had 

not sufficiently mitigated those issues, and that returning the one-year-old child to 

mother’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, 

protection, and emotional or physical well-being. The court further found that there was 
6

not a substantial probability of the child’s return to mother’s care at the 12-month review, 

terminated services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. 

Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition challenging the court’s 

termination of services and the setting of the permanent plan hearing. 

Discussion

 At the sixth month review hearing, a court may terminate reunification services 

and order the setting of a section 366.26 permanency hearing only if “there is clear and 

convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent 

. . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).) The reasonableness of services is judged according to 

the circumstances of each case. (Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 

549, 554.) A social services agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the 

parent’s problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during 

the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where 

compliance proves difficult. (Id. at pp. 554-555.) “In almost all cases it will be true that 

more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided 

were imperfect. 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.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) We determine whether 

substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that reasonable services were provided, 

reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging in 

all reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. (Id. at p. 545.) 

 In this case, the agency arranged for and mother participated in a wide range of 

services, including a residential treatment program, an outpatient drug treatment program, 

individual therapy, drug testing, and parenting classes. Mother argues that while the 

agency may have developed a reasonable reunification plan “it is clear that from the 

beginning there was never any intention to return the child to her mother. The social 

worker assigned to this case had already made her mind up and was looking to fast track 

a permanency plan that excluded the mother.” She faults the social worker for failing to 

“follow up on [mother’s] progress in therapy and her attendance at an outpatient 
7

program” and failing to increase visitation or allow unsupervised visitation once she was 

in the outpatient program. She argues that by failing to gather information from mother’s 

service providers, the social worker “painted a portrait of [mother’s] engagement in 

services . . . that is at best, inaccurate, and at worst, false.” We disagree. 

 The record does not demonstrate any bad faith on the part of the agency or social 

workers. As detailed above, the record establishes that the social workers made 

appropriate referrals and consulted regularly with mother’s service providers throughout 

the proceedings. Mother argues that the social worker’s bad faith is demonstrated by her 

failure to follow up on missing attendance sheets from the outpatient treatment program 

between April and May 2013. At the review hearing, however, the social worker 

acknowledged that mother had reported that she was attending her out-patient treatment 

program, and conceded that she had not requested or received additional evidence of 

attendance after March 2013. The social worker’s failure to request additional evidence 

of attendance does not establish that the agency failed to provide reasonable services or 

was acting in bad faith. Moreover, it is entirely unlikely that the missing attendance 

records would have had any impact on the outcome of the proceedings. 

 Mother also argues that the social worker incorrectly reported to the court that her 

individual therapy had been discontinued and that she had been discharged from the 

dependency drug court program. The record, however, establishes that the social worker 

gave an accurate report of mother’s participation in therapy and the dependency drug 

court, as reported to her by the service providers at the time of the report. Moreover, the 

social workers provided ample clarification of her report at the hearing. She confirmed 

that there was some confusion regarding mother’s discharge from the dependency drug 

court program, but also acknowledged that mother had attended some sessions in May 

and intended to re-engage with the program. Likewise, the social worker testified that 

mother’s therapist was hoping to speak with mother before providing a progress report to 

the agency and indicated that “she would call mom to reschedule the therapy sessions” 

she had missed. It is immaterial whether the social worker reported that therapy was 
8

“discontinued” or “pending” insofar as the factual information provided to the court was 

accurate and allowed the court to evaluate mother’s progress. 

 Finally, contrary to mother’s argument, the agency made reasonable efforts to 

facilitate visitation between mother and child. The status review report indicates that 

mother had supervised bi-weekly visits on Tuesdays and Fridays for three hours and that 

mother was attentive to her daughter’s needs and seemed comfortable caring for her 

during the visits. The social worker reported that in October 2012, mother had cared for 

her daughter without incident at the facility during a two-week visit while the child’s 

caretakers were out of town. At the six-month review hearing the social worker testified 

that after the successful October visit, the agency evaluated the prospect of increasing 

visits, including overnight visits, and intended to implement additional visits once mother 

sufficiently demonstrated that she could stay drug-free for an extended period of time. 

She explained that she was willing to authorize the two week visit in October because 

mother was in a program and there was supervision. The real test, however, was how she 

would “do outside in the community, is she going to be able to apply all the tools she 

learned in this program.” For this reason, the social worker wanted mother “to stabilize 

outside after completing the program . . . prior to placing the child with her.” The agency 

was considering overnight visits around the Christmas holiday, but when mother relapsed 

in early December, the agency determined that increasing visits would no longer be 

appropriate. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that the agency’s decision not to 

increase visitation demonstrates a failure to provide reasonable services. 
9

Disposition

 The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. 

Rules of Court, rule 8.452(h).) The request for a stay is denied as moot. Our decision is 

final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b).) 

 _________________________ 

 Pollak, Acting P.J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

Siggins, J. 

_________________________ 

Jenkins, J.