1

Filed 7/18/22 J.C. v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

J.C., Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. E079013 (Super.Ct.No. J285609)
OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Petition denied. David E. Wohl for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.2 INTRODUCTION Petitioner J.C . ( mo ther) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to
California Rules of Court , rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her chil d , I.C. (the child) , and setting a Welfare and
Institutions Code 1 section 366.26 hea ring. She contends t he court erred in finding that reasonable services were offered to her. Mother has requested a stay of the section 366.26 hearing pending review of this writ

. We deny the writ petition , as well as the request for stay

. FACTUAL AND PR OCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2020 , the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the child, who was two years old at the time. The petition alleg ed that she came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision s (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support)

. It specifically alleged that mother had a history of substance abuse and domestic violence, mother was incarcerated, and the whereabouts of the child’s father were unknown. 2 The social worker filed a detention report stating that CFS received a referral alleging ge n eral neglect, caretaker absence/incapacity, and emotional abuse

. The referral stated mother was arrested for assaulting her boyfriend, and there wa s no one to care for her daughter.

1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.

2 The child’s father is not a party to this writ.3

The juvenile court held a detention hearing o n June 18, 2020 , and detained the child in foster care

. It ordered services to be provided pending the development of a case plan and supervised visits once a week

. Jurisdiction/Disposition The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on August 3, 2020, recommending that the child be removed from mother’s custody, be declared a dependent, and that mother be provided with reunification services. The social worker
interviewed mo ther on July 1, 2020, and mother said she had a prior dependency case in 2018 in Arizona, whe n she had a domestic violence charge with a boyfriend. She said

s he went through detox in jail and attended a substance abuse program

. Mother fu r ther stated that she was experiencing a significant amount of anxiety due to the COVID

- 19 quarantine and the responsibilities of being a single mother , and her doctor intended to send her to a substance abuse treatment program for one month.
The social worker observed that mother was “ high l y motivated to engage in services t o have her child returned ” and was “ extremely cooperative with CFS

. ” The social worker attached a case plan that included the requirements that mother participate in counseling, a domestic violence program, an anger management program, a parenting education program, and an outpatient substance abuse program. The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on August 6, 2020. Mother’s counsel stated her belief that the child was not at ri sk with mother. She said m other wa s

“ not opposed to doing any services that the Department ask [ed] of her [;] she just
believe [d] she [could] accomplish those services with the child in her custody. ” The4

court set the matter for mediation on September 8, 2020 , and a hearing for September 15,
2020. The social worker filed a mediation report stating that the parties met and reached an agreement. CFS agreed to dismiss the substance abuse allegation, and m other agree d

to participate in the case plan , including random testing, outpatient substance abuse services, parenting education , individual counseling , and domestic violence classes. The social worker reported that m other self

- enrolled in an aftercare program and anger management

. CFS recommend ed t hat the child be returned to mother on f amily

m aintenance at the September 15 hearing date , based on a memorandum with additional information for the court (CFS 6.7) filed o n September 14, 2020. The memorandum
indicated that , on August 17, 2020, mother pa rticipated in a Child and Family Team Meeting (CFTM) and provided evidence that she was participating in all her case services. Mother reported the names of her providers. The outcome of the CFTM was mother being allowed unsupervised visits, and the soci al worker reported that those visits were going well. The social worker further reported that a home evaluation was done on September 10, 2020 , and the home was found to be appropriate. The court held a hearing on September 15, 2020 , and found that the c hild came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and dismissed the substance abuse allegation. It declared the child a dependent, returned her to mother’s custody under family maintenance, approved the case plan, and order ed mother to participate i n family maintenance services.5

Subsequent Petition On October 23, 2020, the social worker filed a petition pursuant to sections 342 and 387, alleging that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protec t), and (g) (no provision for support ) . The social worker reported that CFS received a referral on October 20, 2020 , alleging that mother was drinking and hitting the child. When law enforcement arrived at the home , mother

was “ completely drunk ” and “ belligerent ,” and t he child had bruising on her temple that
was “ consistent with being hit. ” M other stated that she did not want her child and CFS should have taken the child from her. The police talked to a family friend, who said mother ha d been consistently drunk for about two weeks. The court held a hearing on October 26, 2020, and found the previous disposition had been ineffective and detained the child in foster care. It ordered supervised visits, once a week. On November 12, 2020, the soc ial worker filed another jurisdiction/disposition report , recommending that the court sustain the latest petition, remove the child from mother’s custody, and provide mot her with reunification services. The social worker observed that mother seemed to be highly motivated to have the child returned to her, but when she ha d the child under her care, she d id not provide the child with a safe and loving home. The social worker asserted that mother would go through the motions of completing the services, but “ she has clearly not shown improvement .” The social worker stated that t he following p replacement p reventive s ervices were provided , but6

were not effective in preventing or eliminating the need for removal of the child from the home: p arenting education, a domestic violence program , and drug testing. The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on December 7, 2020. It sustained the petition, ordered that the child remain a dependent, and ordered reunification services f or mother.
Six

- month Status Review The social worker filed a six

- month status review report on May 27, 2021, recommending that the court terminate mother’s service s and set a section 366.26 hearing. The social worker reported that on May 17, 2021, mothe r told her that she love d her daughter and d id not want to lose her, but fe lt she need ed a “ significantly longer

amount o f time to reunify ” due to her struggl es with alcoholism and mental health. She said she had a family history of mental illness and add iction , and that she was receiving mental health services through High Desert Psychological Services, Inc. , including seeing
a doctor who was providing medication management, mental health assessment and diagnostic services , and she was seeing a clinical t herapist . As to compliance with her case plan, the social worker reported that mother completed parenting education, anger management , and domestic violence services through A Better Way. Mother also completed inpatient substance abuse services and had a ttended some outpatient services

. The social worker further reported that mother was having consistent and appropriate visits with the child, and that she had progressed to unsupervised visits. However, mother was arrested on April 25, 2021 , for felony vandalism following a
domestic dispute with her landlord /roommate , and her visits were returned to supervised7

visits due to her violent behavior, destruction of her residence, and allegations that she was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.
Mother told the social worker she felt there wa s a lack of mother/child bonding, which ha d been present since the child was an infant and was re m oved from her care in Arizona . Mother stated that she did parent chil d interactive therapy (PCIT) with the child during that reunification pr o cess, but due to the child being an infant who was not able to
engage, mother did not feel those bonding services worked . The social worker reported that mother was currently seeing a therapist with ACT Family Counseling, who was going to be working with mother and the child on strengthening their bond. Nonetheless, the social worker opined that r eturning the child to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to the physica l and/or emotional well

- being of the child. She reported that mother ha d completed the majority of her court

- ordered treatment plan but had failed to demonstrate any benefit fr om her services. The social worker noted a pattern in mother’s behavior, where she could go a few months with a positive trajectory, only to fall back into alcohol abuse and/or domestic violence. The social worker further reported that o n December 3 , 2020, mother stated she was not ready to have the child returned to her on family maintenance. Mother said she could not raise the child on her own, and that she was getting ready to attend a six

- month inpatient alcohol treatment program and then a sober living program. She stated that she might be ready to have the chi ld returned to her in about one year. Mother also said the child required too much time from her that she did not have, due to her work obligations.8

The court held a six

- month review hearing on July 16, 2021. The licensed clinical social worker (A.K.), who had been providing mother with therapy since May 2021 , testified. She said she had 12 sessions with mother and testified that mother had made improvements

. Mother also testified and indicated that she had completed all of her services. She testified that the services she participated in were not referred to her by CFS; rather, she found them by herself and enrolled on her own. Mother felt like she had benefitted from those services and went on to describe what she had learned from her
anger manageme nt program and inpatient treatment. Mother said she also sought out Vivitrol injection s (to help with her alcohol craving) , psychiatry, PCIT, a home visitor’s program, and a family support program. She stated that she was currently doing PCIT
with a ther apist (M.F.) and had been since March 2021. She met with the therapist once a week. T he therapist helped her with “ bonding and attachment ” with the child and understand ing how to correctly parent and discipline the child. Mother confirmed that
she was a lso in therapy with a licensed clinical social worker (A.K.), who helped her with her personal issues and past traumas. When asked if she would participate if the court were to offer her more services, she said, “Absolutely a thousand percent.” Mother wa s asked how many substance abuse programs she had completed in her life, to date, and she said three. She said she completed the last program in February 2021, but relapsed in April 2021. As to random testing, mother said she tried to participate, but stopped going since her name was not in the system. The social worker confirmed there were issues with the system. Mother also admitted that she caused9

damage to her roommate’s property in A pril 2021 , and he had a restraining order against her. The court noted that mother was continuously engaged in services and had made some progress, and that she had consistently visited the child. The court said the visits were reportedly positive , and i t believed there was a bond between mother and the child.
It then continued her services . Mother’s counsel asked, “ And then in terms of PCIT, could we have authority for the minor to participate in PCIT with the mother ?” The court gave authority for the child to participate in PCIT if it was in a supervised setting. On August 27, 2021, the court approved a change in the case plan to require mother to participate in general counseling, outpatient treatment, a 12

- step program, and substance abuse testing. Twelve

- month Status Review The social worker filed a 12

- month status review report on November 22, 2021 , recommending that the court terminate mother’s service s and set a section 366.26 hearing. Mother reported that she was maintaining her sobriety and attending substance abuse classes through her church and wa s receiving counseling . The social worker reported that mother had her referral for random substance testing renewed on September 8, 2021. M other admitted that she ha d not been testing and infor med the social worker
that she ha d not been available

. T he social worker continued to have concerns regarding mother ’ s participation in and benefit from services. Although mother indicate d that she ha d completed services,
she ha d not yet provided proof. The social worker reported that “ CFS has offered and/or10

provided reasonable services ” to mother, and mother ha d “ shown a pattern of escalating actions and no benefit from the services that have been offered to her. ” On January 19 , 2022, the social worker filed a dditional information to the court (form CFS 6.7 ) , stating that o n January 1, 2022 , mother was involved in a si ng le vehicle accident and was arrested for two counts of driving under the influence ( DUI ) and a bribery charge for attempting to bribe an officer with sex to avoid arrest. The social worker also reported that she spoke with mother’s therapist (A.K.) , and that mother had provided progress reports. M other also submitted some of her certificates of completion. The social worker stated, “ It is clear that the mother has participated in multiple services to include those provided by the Depar t ment, and those she accessed on her own. ” However, CFS continue d to be concerned she had not benefitted from services, especial ly in light of her recent arrest. The social worker filed another CF S 6.7 report on March 9, 2022 , and stated that
mother ha d “ clearly received and completed all services available to her ,” but she had failed to benefit, continued to abuse alcohol, and lacked a bond with the child, which plac ed the child at greater ri s k for continued abuse. On May 4, 2022, the social worker filed a CFS 6.7 report and reviewed mother’s services. She repor

ted that mother completed an outpatient substance abuse program at
St. John of God on February 23, 2020 , anger management and parenting education
programs on November 9, 2020, and a domestic violence program on December 16,
2020 . Mother had consistently a ttended counseling over the life of the case , including
PCIT , and was currently receiving counseling services at High Desert Psychological11

Services . Mother continued to attend r e covery meeting s at One Step to Freedom at Calvary Chape l and began receiving regular Vivitrol injections to help her maintain sobriety. The social worker observed that despite completing her case plan and her continued participation in counseling and substance abuse services, mother continued to engage in domestic disputes while u nder the influence of alcohol. The social worker reported that o n April 12, 2022 , she emailed mother her renewed random drug testing referral, informed her she was re

- enrolled in random drug testing, and asked i f she was continuing to participate in ongoi ng substance abuse services and counseling. The social worker also reported that she submitted a referral for substance abuse services to a drug and alcohol counselor , who attempted to reach mother four times. After numerous continuances, the court held a contested 12

- month hearing on May
6 , 2022

. Mother’s current social worker , who was assigned to the case after the jurisdiction/disposition hearing , testified that mother had completed all her services. She

sa id that mother last relapsed in January 2022, and she submitted a referral for substance abuse services and re

- enrolled mother in testing at that time. The social worker said t he
last time she spoke with mother was on December 31, 2021, but she had been

c ommunicating since then by text and email. She last sent mot her a text and email on April 12, 2022. When asked if all the services mother participated in were ones that she
accessed on her own, the social worker confirmed, and said mother “ was very proac tive. ” The social worker then added that mother “ was provided information through the Department , and, when offered services, she stated she was already enrolled in those
services. ”12

The social worker further stated that mother never felt she had a bond with the child. When asked what services she had referred mother for in order to help the bond,
the social worker s ai d, “ Through her referral for counseling services, [mother] was
atte nding individual therapy with [ M.F.] in Acts Family Care Counseling, and [mother] informed me that she was participating in parent

- child interactive therapy with [M.F.] at family counseling. ” The social worker added that mother told her she was switching to a different therapist who would provide PCIT and in

- patient services through High Desert Psychological Services.
On cross

- examination, the social worker was asked if she personally provided mother with referrals for all her services, and the social wor ker said the referrals “were provided to her” before she was assigned the case. The social worker stat ed that mother was engaged in the services and successfully completed them. Mother testified on her own behalf and said she was never given any referral s by CFS but sought out her own services because she wanted to be proactive

. Mother felt that she had absolutely benefitted from the services , and she was ready to take the child back into her home that day. Yet , she also admitted that since she complete d her outpatient services in February 2021, she had relapsed three times. Nonetheless, she felt like she benefitted from her outpatient services.
Mother further testified that she was never referred to PCIT by CFS, although she did request it in May 2021 and October 2021 . Mother said she was originally seeing therapist M.F., who was supposed to do PCIT, but since M.F. would not meet in person
with her and the child , she no longer used her services. Mother testified she thought13

counseling would have help ed her bond with the child, and stated that if she had gotten more help , she believed some of the relapses could have been prevented. Mother then testified that she had consistently visited the child and had 10 visits since March 2022

. She said, “ I mean, me and [the child] are extremely bonded. ” In closing arguments, mother’s counsel contended that th e social worker admitted a critically important part of reunification would be PCIT, but there was no PCIT provided. He argued , “ If there isn ’ t, then there ’ s a service not being provided that I think
makes the services as a whole unreasonable. ” He stated that mother was “ clearly battling her alcoholism ” and he though t she was “ doing a very good job now. ” Counsel asked the

c ourt to make a finding of no reasonable services and offer her another six months of
reunification services. County counsel argued that the provision of reasonable services was not an issue , since mother told the social worker she was enrolled in everything, and

t here was no doubt th at mother engaged in and completed her programs. He further acknowledge d mother’s complaint that she did not get PCIT , and argued that PCIT was

“ great for parenting skills, but I ’ m not sure that relates to substance abuse. And substance abuse is clearly the thing that she is struggling with. ” The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were provided as recommended by the social worker . It stated, “ And the proof is kind of in the pudding in this case because everybody agrees that Mo m completed the services. ” The

court stated t he problem s with anger management, domestic violence, and substance abuse were ongoing and pose d a significant risk to the child. It did not believe the lack of
a PCIT referral was critical in this cas e, and remarked , “ PCIT has nothing to do with14

substance abuse, domestic violence, and anger management. It has to do with parenting and the relationship, which I think Mom addressed through counseling, parenting, and
visitation. ” The court adopted the so cial worker’s recommended findings and order s , terminated services , and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION The Court Properly Found That Reasonable Services Had Been Provided Mother argues the court erred in finding reasonable services had been provided
since CFS failed to provide any referrals or services to her; rather, she found her own services

. Specifically, mother contends CFS failed to maintain reasonable contact with
h er . She also argues that the “most significant failure” was the failure to provide PCIT services and claims that, had she been given such services, “it is likely she would not have relapsed by drinking.” Mother claims she lacked a maternal bond with the child, and CFS became aware of such, yet did not offer her “bonding services” that would have given her the bond and love that would “motivate her to stop drinking.” Mother asks that we vacate the order terminating her services and setting a section 366.2 6 hearing, order that a reasonable reunification plan be devised and implemented, order visitation, and grant custody of the child to her

. We conclude the court properly found that reasonable services were provided

. A

. Relevant Law To support a finding that reasonable services were offered or provided, “ the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable15

contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult

. . . . ” ( In re Riva
M . (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)

“ In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided , this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment m ust not be disturbed. ” ( In re
Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
B

. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Court’s Finding of Reasonable
Services
We have reviewed the record and find mother ’ s argument unavailing. She first contends that CFS failed to maintain r easonable contact with her. She points out that she reported numerous times for drug testing and was turned away because she was not “in the system.” It is unclear how this relates to CFS’s alleged failure to maintain contact with her. Mother then asserts that when she relapsed in con nection with her DUI arrest, around January 1, 2022, it took three and half months for her to receive a referral for services, and she points out that the social worker testified in May 2022 that she last spoke with her in January 2022. We note, however, that the social worker testified she last spoke with mother in December 2021, but they were communicating through texts and emails. She specifically said she emailed mother on January 1 4 , 2022 , and texted and emailed her on April 12, 2022. The social wor ker said she told mother in her email in January 2022 that she needed a new consent form. ( The social worker could not refer16

mother to services after her relapse since her consent form had expired. ) The social worker also testified that she reached out t o mother by phone, but was unable to reach her, so she left voicemails. We note that, “[t]he Department has a duty initially to make a good faith attempt to locate the parents of a dependent child. Once a parent has been located, it becomes the obligatio n of the parent to communicate with the Department and participate in the reunification process.” ( In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441.)
Mother next contends she was not provided with any referrals or services. However, the record belies thi s claim

. The social worker reported in the 12

- month status review report that CFS “ offered and/or provided reasonable services” to mother

. At the
contested 12

- month review hearing, the social worker testified that the services mother participated in were ones that she accessed on her ow n ; however, she also testified that mother “ was provided information through the Department , and, when offered services, she stated she was already enrolled in those services.” On cross

- examination, whe n asked if she personally provided mother with referrals for all her services, the social worker said the referrals “were provided to [mother] ” before she was assigned the case.
We also note that, i n the CFS 6.7 report filed on January 19, 2022, t he socia l worker stated, “It is clear that the mother has participated in multiple services to include those provided by the Department, and those she accessed on her own.” (Italics added.) Furthermore, in the CFS 6.7 report filed on May 4, 2022, the social worker reported that she emailed mother her renewed random drug testing referral on April 12, 2022 , and
informed her she was re

- enrolled in random drug testing . The social worker also rep orted17

that a referral for substance abuse services was submitted to a drug and alcohol counselor , also on April 12, 2022

. We are aware of no rule prohibiting parents from locating and accessing services on their own, if they choose to do, when those servi ces are deemed acceptable by child protective services agencies such as CFS. As to mother’s specific claim s that CFS failed to provide PCIT, and that had she received PCIT it was likely she would not have relapsed into drinking, such claim s ha ve no merit. At the six

- month review hearing, mother testified that she was currently doing
PCIT with her therapist , M.F. , and had been since March 2021. Mother said she met with the therapist usually once a week , and t he therapist helped her with “bonding and

attac hment” with the child and how to correctly parent and discipline the child. The
social worker confirmed in her May 4, 2022 report that mother participated in PCIT with
M.F. At the 12

- month review hearing, the social worker testified , “Through her referral for counseling services, [mother] was attending individual therapy with [ M.F.] in Acts Family Care Counseling, and [mother] informed me that she was participating in parent

child interactive therapy with [M.F.] at family counseling.” Although it is not clear from the record if CFS referred mother to PCIT, it does clearly show that mother was participating in PCIT. Consequently, mother’s claim that had she received PCIT, it was likely she would not have relapsed into drinking, is grou ndless. She asserts that she had no maternal love or bond with the child and argues that she was not offered bonding services “that would give her the maternal bond and love .

. . that would, in turn, motivate her to stop drinking.” Mother’s assertions a re highly speculative. Moreover, we n ote , in contrast to18

mother’s assertions about a lack of bonding with the child, that mother told the social worker she loved the child and did not want to lose her

. Further , t he social worker
observed that mother seem ed to be highly motivated to have the child returned to her

. Additionally , a t the 12

- month hearing, mother testified that she and the child were “extremely bonded.” She also testified , “[B] eing an alcoholic is not fun.

. . . And I have my good times and I have my bad times. But regardless, I ’ m committed to getting through. I ’ m committed to myself. I ’ m committed to that child. And I will never stop fighting for her. ” Mother’s own words indicate that she felt bonded with the child and was motivated to stop drinking to get her back. Unfortunately, mother simply continued to drink , as noted by her admission that s he relapsed three times in 2021, after she had completed outpatient services. In sum, the record shows that mother was provided with reasonable services, and, as the parties agreed, she completed her services. The problem was that mother failed to
benefit from those services

. W e conclude the evidence was suff icient to support the court’s finding that mother was provided with reasonable services . We also note mother does not dispute the court’s finding that she failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her case plan

. Therefore, there is no basis to conclude the court erred in terminating her services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.19 DISPOSITION The writ petition and the request for a stay are denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

MILLER J.