1

Filed 12/2/14 R.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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

R.M.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

E061688

(Super.Ct.Nos. J248177 &

 J248178)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Christopher 

B. Marshall, Judge. Petition denied. 

Gloria Gebbie for Petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.
2

Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County 

Counsel, for real party in interest.

Petitioner R.M. (father) challenges the decision of the juvenile court to 

terminate reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 366.261to consider a permanent plan for his two children. He 

argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that the 

reunification services offered to him were reasonable. For the reasons explained 

post, we disagree with this contention and, therefore, deny the petition.

FACTS2

On February 22, 2013, the San Bernardino County Department of Children 

and Family Services (CFS) filed petitions on behalf of nine-year-old A.M. and 11-

year-old J.M. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (g). The children’s 

mother was deceased and father had an extensive history of violence, drug use,

and criminal activity. The petitions further alleged the children were suffering 

emotional damage and extreme anxiety as a result of father’s violence and 

assaultive behavior with the mother in front of them.

The children were living with the maternal grandparents under a temporary 

guardianship since January 2012, and a family court granted father weekend visits 

to be supervised by the paternal grandparents. It was reported that the children 

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code 

unless otherwise indicated.

2

 We have incorporated the record in the related appeal, case No. E058679.
3

were afraid to visit father even under the supervision of the paternal grandparents. 

A report was received by the child abuse hotline that father pulled J.M.’s hair, 

twisted his head, and put his fists up in the child’s face in a threatening way. In 

addition, he threatened the maternal grandfather in the children’s presence.

The children were detained with the maternal grandparents; father was 

granted supervised visitation and ordered to stay away from the grandparent’s 

home and have no contact with the children outside of CFS.

In the report prepared for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, it was 

recommended that the children remain with the maternal grandparents until such 

time as the father completed a reunification plan. The recommended plan for 

father included general counseling, anger management, parenting education and a 

substance abuse program.

Father was the only individual who testified at the contested 

jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on April 23, 2014. He denied allegations that 

he had harassed the grandparents or had unauthorized contact or attempted such 

contact with the children. He denied he was currently using drugs, stating he had 

been clean since April 2, 2012. He believed that his children had been 

brainwashed by the maternal grandparents; therefore, they did not want to live 

with him. With regard to the case plan, he stated: “I’m willing to do what I have 

to, but I don’t feel I need to. “ He stated that he had done nothing wrong and 

should have his children placed with him.
4

The juvenile court made the requisite jurisdictional findings and ordered 

reunification services. The court observed that father was an “unbelievably angry 

man” and was “over the top.” When the court was informed that a psychological 

evaluation had not been included in the case plan, it indicated that it wanted father 

to see a psychologist to do an evaluation so that it could get a professional 

recommendation on how to work with him. It added a psychological evaluation to 

father’s case plan.

Following a hearing on May 2, 2013, the court issued a permanent 

restraining order against father.3

Father’s case plan was amended to require that he complete general 

counseling, a psychiatric/psychological evaluation, a parenting education program, 

anger management education, substance abuse testing and an outpatient substance 

abuse program.

In the six-month status review report, the social worker recommended that 

the minors remain in the maternal grandparents’ home and that reunification 

services be continued for father. The minors continued to state they wanted to be 

placed with their maternal grandparents and were doing well in that placement. 

With respect to father, the social worker noted that it was initially very difficult to 

get in touch with him, but that he eventually came to the office and the case plan 

 

3

 Father appealed from the jurisdiction and disposition orders in addition to 

the order for a permanent restraining order. Father’s counsel filed a non-issue 

brief and the case was dismissed as abandoned on August 28, 2013. (Case 

No. E058679.)
5

was gone over with him. Father was referred to High Desert Center to address 

substance abuse, anger management and parenting services. Father did not follow 

through with the intake meetings and another referral was sent to High Desert on 

October 10, 2013, to enroll father in these programs. Father was enrolled in the 

Medtox random drug testing program, but he failed to show for tests scheduled for 

April 3 and 19 and May 1 and 13, 2013. Father was referred for a psychological 

evaluation with Dr. Roger Morgan of Anchor Psychological Services in 

Victorville, but a date for the testing had not yet been set.

Father attended most of the weekly visits with the children and was 

described as behaving appropriately during those visits.

The six-month review hearing went forward on October 24, 2013. The 

guardians’ attorney informed the court that prior to the start of the hearing, father 

approached the maternal grandparents and, in front of the minors, stated: “Fuck 

you. You ain’t shit, faggot ass.” The deputies had to get involved to separate the 

family.

According to their attorney, the children confirmed that father had made 

these statements, and that father went back and screamed at the grandmother 

again. The minors were so upset that they remained in the playroom and did not 

appear in court. The juvenile court suspended visits and, thereafter, had to order 

that father be removed from the courtroom due to his continued outbursts.
6

The contested six-month review hearing went forward on December 12, 

2013. Father did not appear at the hearing, but father’s counsel advised the court 

that the paternal grandmother indicated father had entered an in-patient 

rehabilitation program in the desert area. The court ordered eight pages of 

Facebook posts attached to the social worker’s report be received into evidence. 

Those posts were made by father on J.M.’s Facebook page, indicating that father 

had violated the court’s order by making contact outside of visits.

The court was told that the psychological evaluation had not been 

accomplished, and that father had not been drug testing prior to entering the 

rehabilitation program. The court ordered the minors to remain dependents and 

that reunification services to continue. Father’s visits remained suspended, but the 

social worker was authorized to reinstate visits if father completed his 

rehabilitation program and continued to participate in services. The social worker 

was given authority to allow unsupervised visits with the paternal grandparents on 

condition that father not have contact with the minors during those visits in any 

way, shape, or form.

By the time of the 12-month status review report, CPS recommended that 

services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. It was noted that father 

enrolled in Set Free Men’s Ranch Program, attending a 60-day sober living 

program from December 12, 2013 through February 9, 2014. Father failed to drug 

test as scheduled on April 24, May 12 and 30, 2014.
7

Visitation was reinstated in March 2014, and visits went well until April 10, 

2014, when it was reported that father struck J.M. on the arm. After this incident, 

the children indicated they no longer wanted to visit with father. 

On June 12, 2014, the date initially set for the 12-month review hearing, 

father requested to set a contested hearing, indicating there was an issue whether 

reasonable services had been provided to him. The court ordered that visitation be 

suspended pending the contested hearing.

At the contested 12-month review hearing , the juvenile court received into 

evidence the June 12 review report and attachments. The attachments included 

several pages of drug testing referrals, which reflected father did not test. Also 

attached were six pages of certificates showing father’s participation in the Set 

Free Men’s Ranch Program and completion of a parenting and anger management 

programs in October 2013.

The social worker, Larry Sears, testified at the hearing that he had not 

previously received any documents from father concerning completion of a 

parenting class and learned that day for the first time that father had completed an 

anger management class. Father was also supposed to participate in a drug testing 

program. Sears spoke to father on April 17, 2014, when father came to the office 

upset about visits. Sears informed him that he would be mailing him drug-testing 

information; he did so by mailing it to the last address listed for father in the CFS’

file. Sears stated he did not see father after that date and did not follow up with 
8

him as he did not have a good phone number to reach him. He indicated that he 

did not call paternal grandmother, although he had her phone number.

Sears further testified that he met with father in February 2014 after father 

completed the Set Free Men’s Ranch Program and made arrangements to meet 

with him again to go over his programs and have him sign consent for treatment 

forms. Father did not appear for this meeting and Sears did not see him again until 

the April encounter. Because father had not signed the consent forms, Sears was 

unable to refer him to counseling during the prior six months. Sears indicated he 

had made arrangements for father to undergo a psychological evaluation with 

Dr. Morgan in November 2013, but he was unable to make father aware of this 

because he was in the Set Free Men’s Ranch Program. After that time, 

Dr. Morgan was no longer available and new consents were needed. When he saw 

father in April, he tried to talk to him about the psychological evaluation and the 

need to sign consent forms, but the latter was very angry and left. Sears also told 

father that they needed to meet the following month to have the consent forms 

signed, but father never called to schedule an appointment. In June, Sears learned 

from the maternal grandparents that father had left the state to seek employment.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court observed that although 

father had certificates that he had finished parenting, anger management, and the 

Set Free Men’s Ranch programs, it did not have any reports to show that he had

benefitted from receiving services. It further noted that father had bypassed and 
9

not communicated with the social worker. There was no evidence to rebut that the 

social worker did not have any way of contacting father, adding that the social 

worker does not have that obligation. In contrast, father could have easily 

contacted the social worker.

The court also found that father understood that he had an obligation to 

drug test, but refrained from doing so. Thus, it had no evidence that he had

actually been clear and sober. Finally, father’s conduct throughout the course of 

the case demonstrated that he did not benefit from the anger management 

program. Father had not addressed any of the central issues that brought this case 

to the court.

The court found that CFS provided reasonable services, terminated father’s 

services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.

DISCUSSION

The standard of review when a parent challenges the reasonableness of the 

reunification services provided or offered is whether substantial evidence 

supported the juvenile court’s conclusion that such services were reasonable. (In 

re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Substantial evidence is evidence 

that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier 

of fact. (In re Jasmine C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 71, 75.) “All conflicts must be 

resolved in favor of the respondent and the reviewing court must indulge in all 
10

reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court.” (In re 

Albert B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 361, 375.)

Father asserts that CFS did not make reasonable efforts to make 

arrangements for a psychological evaluation as directed by the court. The social 

worker could have easily contacted him while he was in an in-patient drug 

program. Furthermore, father asserts that it would have taken only minimal efforts 

by the social worker to maintain reasonable contact with him. However, it was not 

the social worker’s obligation to take him by the hand and escort him to classes—

even assuming this would have been possible. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 

Cal.App.3d 1448, 1463, fn. 5.) We reject the suggestion that CFS “had a duty to 

track him continually throughout the dependency process even after he had been 

identified, contacted by a social worker, apprised of the proceedings, provided 

with counsel and participated in hearings. There is nothing in the statutory scheme 

to support this assertion. . . . Once a parent has been located, it becomes the 

obligation 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.)

Father was made aware of the requirements of the service plan and the need 

to sign consent forms in a meeting with a social worker in March 2013. He was 

also present when the court ordered a psychological evaluation. Throughout the 

course of these proceedings, he chose to go his own way without communicating 

with the social worker. He could have easily done so, and it was his obligation to 
11

keep the social worker informed of his whereabouts. Substantial evidence 

supports the juvenile court’s order.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

MILLER

J.