Filed 6/14/16 Andrea G. v. Superior Court CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ANDREA G.,
Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF S AN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
Respondent;

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest. 2d Civil No. B270788 (Super. Ct. No. 15JD

- 00057) (San Luis Obispo County)

Andrea G. ( Mother ) challenges an order of the juve nile court denying
further fa mily reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing regarding h er minor child , D.M. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).) 1 We d eny h er petition for extraordinary writ relief

.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother and A.M. ( Father ) are the parent s of two young children
, D.M. and
G.M. 2 On February 25 , 2015, the San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services (DSS)
detained D.M. and G.M. from the care of Mother and Father due to their failure to provide for the children or to adequately supervise them. Each child ha s significant development delays and behav i or problems . Mother was homeless and Father was incarcerated for violating a domestic violence protective order. Mother also has a criminal history of dom estic violence convictions. Since 2012, DSS had provided pre

intervention services to the parents without success.

O n February 25 , 201 5 , DSS filed a dependency petition on behalf of the

two children. DSS a lleged that the y were at significant risk of phy sical or emotional
harm due to Mother's and Father's failure to supervise the m , p rovide for the m , or access treatment programs fo r their special needs. (§ 300, subd (b).) On February 26 , 201 5 , the juvenile court held a detention hearing. It found a prim a facie case regarding the dependency petition, placed the children in the temporary care and custody of DSS , and

set the matter for a jurisdiction and disposition hearing.

On Ma rch 25
, 2015, t h e juvenile court held a jurisdiction and disposition hearing

. The court received evidence of DSS written reports and took judicial n otice of the dependency file

. Fo llowing submission by the parties, the juvenile court sustained the allegation s of the dependency petition and ordered DSS to provide famil y reunifica tion services to Mother and Father.

Mother's family reunification services plan required her to participate in mental health assessment and parent education, provide safe and appropriate supervision of her children during visits, and demonstrate an abil ity to meet the children's needs, among other things.

2 Father is not a party to this petition for extraordinary writ

. Mother's petition concerns D.M. only.3 Three

- Month Interim Hearing On June 25, 2015, the juvenile court held a three

- month interim hearing. The DSS report stated that the social worker had discussed the case plan with Mother and emphasize d that she must attend an orientation class with Tri

- Counties Regional Center ("TCRC"). Mother had missed the March, April, and early May orientation class es , but attended and compl eted the orientation class on May 30, 2015. TC RC reported that it
had wor ked with the family for several years and that Mother lacked "follow through"
with her mental health treatment

. During this period, Mother also was assessed by county mental health services. At the conclusion of the interim hearing, t he juvenile
court ad vised Mother and Father that they must "put [their] feet on the gas and keep it on the gas through this whole case."
Six

- Month Review Hearing On September 17, 2015, the juvenile court held a six

- month review hearing. By then, Mother had commenced coun seling with a therapist and had completed parent
education classes . She remained homeless , however , in part because her criminal history precluded her acceptance into subsidized housing

. DSS presented evidence that Mother's services plan compliance was m inimal ; nevertheless, DSS recommended continuation of
services for six months. Mo ther, through counsel, submitted on the recommendation of
continued services. The court ordered continu ed reunification services and set the matter
for a 12

- month review hea ring.

On September 28, 2015, the TCRC social worker recommended to Mother
that she initiate adult treatment services with TCRC

. By December 2015, Mother had
missed mental health therapy appointments and some of D.M.'s appointments, and she
remained homel ess. On January 29, 2016, DSS learned that Mother had established an
online account requesting donations to " [ h ] elp [her] get [ her ] kids back from [DSS]." Mother posted photographs of the two children on the account.
Contested 12

- Month Review Hearing
On March 9, 2016, the juvenile court held a contested 12

- month review hearing. DSS recommended the termination of reunification services to Mother due to4

Mother's inconsisten t visitation , homelessness, and minimal compliance with her services plan. The cou rt received evidence of DSS reports and testimony from DSS social
worker s and Mother.

Mother testified that she contacted TCRC the day prior to the hearing regarding adult assessment and treatment services. She acknowledged that social
workers had encour aged her to have a TCRC adult assessment.

Following argument by the parties, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that DSS had provided reasonable services to Mother, but there was no reasonable probability that D.M. would be returned to her within the next six months. The court then terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing.
Mother challenges the juvenile court's order s denying further reunification services and setting a permanent plan hear ing.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that she did not receive reasonable reunification services
because
, during the first six months of her services plan, she did not receive a n evaluation
for her cogn itive delays or impairment.

For several reasons, we reje ct Mother's contention. First, Mother did not raise th e issue of assessment for cognitive delays until
the time of the 12

- month contested hearing. Indeed, t hrough counsel, she submitted to
the DSS recommendations at the six

- month review hearing. Thus, s he has forfeited this issue on review. ( In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [forfeiture rule applies in dependency proceedings] , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962 .)

Forfeiture aside, s uff

icient evidence supports the juvenile court's
determination that Mother received reasonable reunification services. ( Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598

- 599 [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].) During the review period, a DSS5

social worker recommended that Mother herself seek an assessment from TCRC. At the
12

- month hearing, DSS social workers testif ied that a TCRC assessment would address any cognitive delays or impairment that Mother suffer s and might result in placement in
low

- income housing. Social worker Nancy Kuster also testified that TCRC require s "a
self

- referral" from adults. Nevertheless, Mother did not contact TCRC for her own assessment until the day prior to the 12

- month review hearing. Under the circumstances, the services provided were reasonable. ( Ibid. [standard to determine reasonableness of services].)
We deny the petition f or extraordinary writ.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN , J.6 Richard M. Curtis, Judge *
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Gerald C. Carrasco for Petitioner. No app earance for Respondent. Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

* ( Retired Judge of Monterey County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)