1

Filed 8/16/24 In re T.G. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 FIVE

In re T.G., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

MARIN COUNTY HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A167431

 (Marin County Super. Ct. 

 No. JV27156A)

In this juvenile dependency proceeding, defendant L.G. (Father) 

appeals from an order issued after the 12-month status review hearing (Welf. 

& Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)), which terminated family reunification 

services regarding his son, T.G. (the minor).1 Father contends the juvenile 

court erred because he did not receive reasonable services and because there 

was a substantial probability the minor would be returned to his care if 

services were provided. We will affirm the order.

1 Except where otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The minor was born in November 2010. At the time plaintiff and 

respondent Marin County Health and Human Services (Department) became 

involved in 2021, the minor lived with his mother, N.S. (Mother). The 

Department filed a section 300 petition that alleged severe neglect by Mother 

and a failure to protect by Father because he “failed to seek legal custody or 

take other actions to ensure [the minor’s] basic needs were met.” 

A. Initial Proceedings and Appeals

The parties submitted to jurisdiction in January 2022, based on an 

amended petition alleging that Father negligently failed to adequately 

protect the minor from Mother. The juvenile court placed the minor in a

Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Placement (STRTP). 

In its February 2022 disposition order, the juvenile court declined to 

place the minor in Father’s care on the ground it would have been to the 

minor’s detriment. (§ 361.2.) The court approved a case plan by which 

Father would show he had safe and sustainable housing for the minor, 

identify a support network of at least three people who could help him care 

for the minor, demonstrate that his home was free from drugs and alcohol, 

submit to drug testing, and participate in a substance abuse assessment. 

The plan also required Father to take parenting classes and participate in 

family therapy when deemed appropriate. (Individual therapy was added to 

the plan in September 2022.) 

Father appealed from the disposition order, claiming there was no 

substantial evidence to support the conclusion that it would be detrimental to 

the minor if placed in Father’s care (Case No. A164680). We affirmed the 

order.
3

At the six-month status review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)), the 

juvenile court again ruled that it would be detrimental to place the minor in 

Father’s care. Father appealed (Case No. A166192). While the appeal was 

pending, the court re-authorized the minor’s placement in a STRTP. Father 

appealed this order as well (Case No. A166524).

We consolidated those two appeals and affirmed. We found that 

substantial evidence supported the ruling that placing the minor in Father’s 

care would still be detrimental to the minor because “Father did not comply 

with aspects of his case plan,” “did not make progress in eliminating the 

issues that led to the detriment finding at disposition,” and “had not shown 

an ability to handle [the minor’s] needs or addressed concerns about his [own] 

substance use.” We also affirmed the placement of the minor in the STRTP. 

B. 12-Month Status Review 

1. Department Report

In November 2022, the Department filed a report for the 12-month 

status review, recommending that reunification services be terminated. 

According to the report, the minor enjoyed his placement at the STRTP, made 

progress on his behavioral goals, and was meeting with a school counselor 

and individual therapist. 

The report summarized the services that the Department had offered to 

Father, including: monthly meetings to discuss case planning and the 

minor’s health, safety, and well-being; monthly communications with Father 

to monitor and discuss reunification services and review case plan activities; 

transportation assistance; assistance in using ACCESS (the mental health 

evaluation provider) and therapy referrals through Marin County Behavioral 

and Recovery Services; monthly Child and Family Team (CFT) meetings; 

referrals to substance testing and a substance use assessment; referrals to a 
4

Positive Parenting Program and contact with the facilitator to verify 

attendance and participation; contact with the Marin County eligibility office 

regarding Father’s Medi-Cal application; coordinating and offering 

Department-paid individual therapy for Father; offering to help Father build 

a support network; and coordinating and funding visitation for Father with 

professional supervision and parent coaching. 

Father, however, had not cooperated with the Department. He refused 

to provide information that would allow the Department to assess his ability 

to provide for the minor if returned to his care. He refused to answer 

questions regarding housing, employment, and his support network. He 

consistently disputed the need for supportive services that had been put in 

place to help address the minor’s significant needs in school and at home. 

Nor had Father met the requirements of his case plan. As to safe and 

sustainable housing, he claimed he lived on a boat but resisted the efforts of 

the new child welfare social worker (Peasley) to confirm the details of his 

residency. He did not allow Peasley to visit the boat until November 8, 2022. 

He claimed the boat belonged to a friend who let him live there, but he did 

not put Peasley in contact with the friend by the end of the review period. 

The social worker was unable to confirm with the boat’s owner or the 

harbormaster that Father was living on the boat or that the minor would be 

allowed to live there with him. 

As for his support network, when asked to identify at least three people 

who could keep the minor safe and assist with meeting the minor’s needs, 

Father said there were “ ‘doctors and lawyers’ ” but he did not want to involve 

them because they were busy and he did not want people knowing his 

business. Despite Father’s refusal to provide information about his relatives, 

the social worker tracked down a paternal aunt who was willing to support 
5

Father and the minor and attended two CFTs, but Father had no other 

support network. Furthermore, Father was upset that the minor had 

developed his own support network, including his CASA and his former 

resource parent, saying it was “ ‘disgusting’ ” that the minor spent time with 

them. He saw no need to ask the minor if he enjoyed the visits because he 

knew his son. 

The case plan also required Father to participate in a substance abuse 

assessment and submit to substance tests. During the review period, Father 

continued to refuse an assessment and denied that he had issues with alcohol 

or substance abuse. He continued to dismiss the Department’s concerns 

about his history of DUI’s — including his five DUI convictions in a 10-yearperiod (the most recent in 2018) — insisting that “ ‘they have nothing to do 

with anything.’ ” He missed the first substance test after the six-month 

review hearing, tested from September 9, 2022, through October 12, 2022, 

and missed a test on October 20, 2022. He consistently tested positive for 

marijuana. Initially, he claimed to use marijuana for medical reasons but 

failed to provide proof of a prescription. Later, he said he did not need a 

prescription because recreational use of marijuana was legal. 

Mental health services had been added to Father’s case plan after it 

became apparent that he would benefit from therapeutic support. Peasley 

confirmed that Father still displayed behaviors indicating he could use that 

support. Father remained upset with the Department and the previous social 

worker. He was quick to anger, raised his voice, claimed that providers were 

lying and that the court’s involvement was based on lies and hearsay, and 

believed that difficulties in coordinating therapy were the result of a 

conspiracy against him. 
6

Individual therapy for Father was ordered on September 1, 2022. 

Later that month, Marin County Eligibility confirmed that Father was in the 

process of applying for Medi-Cal and spoke with Father on September 16, 

2022, but Father never went to the office to fill out the required paperwork. 

He was given the documents to sign on September 20 and 27, 2022, but he 

did not turn them in until September 30, 2022. His Medi-Cal application was 

eventually approved.

Father participated in a mental health evaluation around October 10, 

2022, but refused to sign a release for the Department to review the 

evaluation and discuss it with the evaluators. The Department learned that 

Father’s mental health needs were deemed not high enough for a referral to 

services through the county, but without the release, the Department was 

unable to review the assessment to see if Father accurately reported his 

mental health. 

After learning about the denial of county services, the Department 

offered to pay for Father’s private therapy to expedite his access to mental 

health services rather than waiting for a release to learn why he was denied 

county services. The Department’s mental health practitioner explained to 

Father the options for therapy on October 31, 2022, but he never followed up. 

On November 10, 2022, Father told the social worker that he was 

willing to engage in therapy and sign the release for the Department to 

obtain information from the mental health evaluation provider. But when 

Father was given the release to sign, he said he wanted to review it further 

before signing. At the social worker’s request, Father called the 

Department’s mental health practitioner and met with the therapist (Dr. 

Russell) on November 25, 2022. 
7

As for family therapy, the case plan provided that the minor and 

Father would engage in family therapy when deemed appropriate. During 

the review period, the minor’s therapist (Mr. Jacobs) tried to incorporate 

Father into the minor’s session to include therapeutic family work. He 

reached out to Father in late September 2022, but Father did not respond. 

Eventually, Father was incorporated into one of the minor’s therapy sessions 

by phone, but Mr. Jacobs found Father to be “ ‘minimally inappropriate’ ”

when he complained about the support provided to the family and the initial 

involvement of external agencies. 

As for visitation and parenting, the Department still had concerns 

about Father’s behavior in the minor’s presence, which had led the juvenile 

court at the six-month review hearing to change Father’s visits from 

minimally-supervised to fully-supervised. As a result of this change, visits 

were paused from September 1, 2022, to September 13, 2022, while the 

Department arranged for supervision, but supervised phone contact 

continued. On September 13, 2022, Father was offered supervised visits on 

Mondays and Wednesdays, but he declined the Wednesday visits without 

explanation. At the first fully supervised visit, the social worker noted that 

Father was frustrated, continuously lectured the minor, and needed to be 

redirected several times. The STRTP was later able to supervise only one 

visit a week; Father attended all of those visits, and they went well. 

Father consistently opposed the return to supervised visits and claimed 

it was due to hearsay. The social worker advised Father that one way to 

work toward reduced supervision was to attend parenting classes and 

demonstrate new parenting skills as indicated in the case plan. But Father 

continued to oppose parenting classes because he believed they were “ ‘not 

normal,’ ” parenting was something “ ‘you are born with or not,’ ” and he had 
8

been equipped to parent the minor since birth. In addition, Father had 

already attended three parenting sessions and believed he should not have to 

take more. 

The Department contracted with a private parenting coach and visit 

supervisor, Dr. Wanamaker, to work with Father. Father initially balked at 

the idea because he thought he had done nothing wrong and was already a 

safe and competent parent. He did not begin meeting with Dr. Wanamaker 

until October 31, 2022, as part of his weekly supervised visit with the minor,

and had three sessions. Dr. Wanamaker described a very loving relationship 

between the minor and Father, and Father was attentive, appropriate, and 

engaged during visits. 

In recommending the termination of services, the Department asserted 

that Father had made only minimal progress on his case plan objectives, was 

extremely resistant to services and supports, pushed back on individual 

therapy, denied any need for concern about his substance abuse history, 

refused to undergo a substance abuse assessment, continued to test positive 

for marijuana, had nearly no support network and resented the minor having 

one, disputed the need for services that had helped the minor stabilize and 

progress, denied any responsibility for the past neglect of the minor, and 

displayed a very volatile temper with Department workers and other 

providers. The Department therefore believed that Father was unable to 

make the progress needed for the minor to be returned to his care even with 

an additional six months of services. His efforts to visit the minor 

appropriately did not remedy the concerns about his ability to parent, 

because Father had been visiting regularly with the minor before his removal

too. The Department explained: “The concern was, and continues to be, that
9

[Father] is unable to identify and address issues that directly impact his son’s 

wellbeing.” 

2. Department Addendum Report

At the 12-month review hearing in December 2022, the matter was set 

for a contested hearing on January 27, 2023. On January 20, 2023, the 

Department submitted an addendum report covering developments since its 

November 2022 report. 

According to the report, Father provided the Department with an email 

from the owner of the boat where he was staying on December 7, 2022. The 

boatowner asserted that Father had lived on the boat for over a year, paid the 

slip fee, and maintained the boat. She also said Father could live there with 

the minor. The social worker confirmed this with the boatowner on 

December 12, 2022. On January 12, 2023, however, the harbormaster 

informed the social worker that “liveaboards” were not permitted and that 

Father specifically was not supposed to be aboard the boat more than three 

days a week. Father had told the harbormaster that he lived somewhere else 

the rest of the week. 

Because Father had finally signed a release, the Department was able 

to obtain information from Marin County Behavioral Health and Recovery 

Services about the mental health assessment Father completed in October

2022. Father had “ ‘declined any mental health concerns at the time of 

screening and state[d] that he is only seeking therapy to comply with [the] 

court order.’ ” (Italics added.)

Father had also signed a release for the Department to speak with his 

individual therapist, Ms. Russell. On December 16, 2022, the therapist 

confirmed that Father had attended weekly sessions since November 25, 

2022. She noted that Father claimed he had nothing to do with what 
10

happened to the minor when the minor lived with Mother, and Father had 

issues with the previous social worker, the CASA, and the former caregiver. 

The therapist believed a psychological evaluation might be warranted. At a 

session with Father that day, however, Father became upset when she 

broached the topics of a substance abuse evaluation and possible 

psychological evaluation, claiming he was going to hire a civil rights attorney. 

On December 9, 2022, Father again refused to undergo a substance 

abuse evaluation or include his friends in his support network. In the nine 

times he was called for drug testing since the Department’s last report, he 

had two “NO SHOWS” and one test was rejected due to damage to the 

collection device. Of the six tests that were analyzed, all were positive for

marijuana and one was positive for alcohol. When confronted with the one 

positive alcohol result, Father denied drinking alcohol, and a toxicologist 

could not confirm that the result was due to alcohol consumption rather than 

incidental exposure. As for the two missed tests, Father offered no 

explanation. He provided one additional test on January 13, 2023, which was 

positive for marijuana. 

Since the last report, Father continued visiting the minor, and there 

were no safety concerns. He also continued weekly parenting sessions with 

the parenting coach, Dr. Wanamaker, to whom he expressed his frustration 

with the Department. After the Department recommended termination of 

reunification services, Father talked about “ ‘moving on’ ” if he could not 

“ ‘have his son.’ ” Dr. Wanamaker invited Father to think about how the 

minor might feel and react if Father walked away from him. In the following 

session on January 2, 2023, Father continued to talk about his son being 

taken from him “ ‘for no reason’ ” and reiterated that he would “ ‘just move 

on’ ” if the minor was not going to live with him. 
11

The Department continued to recommend that reunification services be 

terminated for both parents.

3. 12-Month Contested Hearing

Peasley was the only witness at the contested hearing on January 27, 

2023. He testified that the case plan required family therapy to be explored 

when deemed appropriate by the minor’s therapist, and before the current 

review period, neither the Department nor the minor’s clinician thought it 

was appropriate to begin. Peasley added that the minor’s previous therapist 

had concerns about Father’s presentation and his ability to control what he 

said and be appropriate in a family session. The previous therapist believed 

that Father needed individual work. Individual therapy was therefore added 

to Father’s case plan at the six-month review and was discussed as a 

“prerequisite” to family therapy. As Peasley summarized, Father was not 

assessed to have a high enough need to be served by Marin County, so the 

Department offered to pay for a private therapist to facilitate therapy 

occurring sooner than if he had enrolled in another program. Private therapy 

was further delayed by Father’s inaction, his insistence that therapy was 

unnecessary, and the difficulty Peasley had in contacting him.

2

As for parenting classes, Peasley referred Father to Marin County 

Positive Parenting, a weekly virtual class. But Father refused to participate 

in the class for a number of reasons until he started to work with Dr. 

Wanamaker. 

Peasley replaced the previous social worker assigned to the case in 

August of 2022. It was uncommon for a social worker to be replaced, but the 

2 On cross-examination, Father’s counsel asked if Peasley would agree 

it takes time to get Medi-Cal approved, and Peasley responded: “[The 

process] goes quicker [when] someone is responsive to requests for forms and 

documents and follows through on the dates and times they say they will.” 
12

relationship between Father and the previous social worker had become so 

tense that the Department believed that changing the social worker might 

help move things forward. Father continued to blame the previous worker for 

most of the Department’s involvement and spoke of her in very derogatory 

terms. He also became upset with Peasley when he asked about engaging in 

services. Father was very quick to become angry, yell, and curse, which can 

be signs of substance use or intoxication. Although those behaviors could 

also be explained by a mental health condition, this possibility could not be 

explored due to Father’s lack of cooperation with providers. 

After Peasley’s testimony, counsel for Father and counsel for Mother 

argued that reasonable services were not provided, services should be 

extended to the 18-month date, and there was a substantial probability the 

minor could be returned to parental custody with additional services. The 

minor’s counsel argued that family therapy was a critical component of the 

case plan and, because it did not occur, the services provided to Father were 

not reasonable. 

4. Juvenile Court’s Order

The juvenile court ruled orally on February 7, 2023, that the minor 

could not be returned to either parent, services were reasonable, and services 

could not be extended to the 18-month date based on a substantial probability 

of return. As to whether services were unreasonable due to the absence of 

family therapy, the court stated: “This court can’t find that family therapy 

was critical when . . . [F]ather resisted signing up for therapy, even though he 

had one-on-one help in doing so, was evasive in his agreement to engage, and,

essentially, delayed the process unnecessarily.” 

The juvenile court commended Father for visiting the minor but stated: 

“[A]t this point, [F]ather has not demonstrated the skills that can keep [the 
13

minor] safe and protected, physically and emotionally. He has been secretive, 

aggressive, noncooperative and has not addressed concerns about substance 

abuse.” The court therefore terminated reunification services and adopted

the Department’s proposed findings. Father filed a timely appeal.

3

II. DISCUSSION

At the 12-month review, the juvenile court shall return a child to the 

parent unless it finds that doing so would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) If (as here) the child is not returned, the court 

has a few options. One option is to continue the case with additional services, 

but only if the court finds “[1] that there is a substantial probability that the 

child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian 

and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or 

[2] that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or 

guardian.” Id., subd. (g)(1).)

Father contends the juvenile court erred by denying his request to 

continue reunification services because reasonable services were not provided 

and there was a substantial probability that the minor could be returned to 

his custody with additional services. We disagree. 

A. Reasonable Services

The Department is not required to provide perfect reunification

services. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972 (Alvin R.).) It need

3 Mother appealed as well. In her opening brief, she joined in Father’s 

arguments “for the purpose of acquiring a reversal of the order terminating 

reunification services and finding reasonable services had been provided to 

[F]ather.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).) She has not asserted error 

as to any findings pertaining to the reasonableness of services she received or 

the likelihood of the minor’s return to her care.
14

only make a reasonable effort to provide services that identify the problems

leading to loss of custody and to help remedy those problems. (In re Riva M.

(1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) We review the juvenile court’s ruling for 

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

Here, the problems leading to removal — and the reasons for not

placing the minor with Father initially — centered around inadequate

housing, lack of a support network, and issues regarding substance abuse. 

To address these problems, the Department created a court-approved case

plan requiring Father to have safe and appropriate housing for the minor, 

maintain a support network that could help him care for the minor, and show 

that his home was free from substance abuse by submitting to drug testing 

and undergoing a substance abuse assessment. The case plan also required 

Father to take parenting classes, engage in individual counseling, and 

participate in family therapy when deemed appropriate. 

To help Father remedy the problems leading to removal and comply

with his case plan, the Department asked Father about his housing and

whether the minor could live there (efforts Father largely rebuffed), offered to

help him build a support network, reached out to a paternal aunt despite

Father’s refusal to provide information about his relatives, referred Father

for a substance abuse assessment, referred Father for substance testing,

referred Father to a parenting program and contacted the facilitator to verify

his participation, provided Father with a parenting coach, provided Father

with access to the mental health evaluation provider, made therapy referrals, 

contacted the Marin County eligibility office regarding Father’s Medi-Cal 

4 Father contends we should disregard the Department’s arguments 

because its factual assertions are not supported by citation to the record. The 

record citations for the facts on which we rely are contained in the 

Department’s statement of facts.
15

application, and offered Department-paid individual therapy when county 

services were unavailable. The Department also held monthly CFT 

meetings, provided transportation assistance, coordinated and funded 

professional supervision for visits, and communicated with Father to monitor 

and discuss reunification services and review case plan activities, 

notwithstanding difficulties in reaching Father and Father’s volatile 

behavior. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Department

provided reasonable services.

Father’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. He contends the 

Department delayed his access to individual therapy and a parenting coach, 

noting that individual therapy was not ordered until September 1, 2022, and 

did not begin until November 25, 2023. But there is substantial evidence 

that Father contributed to the delays by not timely submitting paperwork for 

Medi-Cal and for therapy, claiming to the mental health evaluator that he 

had no mental health issues (which precluded county services), delaying 

signing a release for the Department to discuss with the evaluator why 

county services were denied, and initially resisting a parenting coach. It is 

not our role to reweigh the evidence.

Father’s reliance on Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 962 is misplaced. 

In Alvin R., the Department was entirely responsible for a delay in arranging 

therapy for the minor as a precursor to joint counseling and failed to obey a 

court order to arrange for family therapy. Here, by contrast, the Department 

arranged for the minor’s therapy, and Father substantially contributed to the 

delay in obtaining individual therapy and a parenting coach.

Father also argues that reasonable services were not provided because 

the Department did not provide family therapy. However, the case plan 

specified that family therapy would occur only when deemed appropriate, and 
16

there was no evidence the minor’s therapist had reached this conclusion. The 

minor’s therapist allowed Father to participate in one phone session with the 

minor but noted that Father’s conduct was minimally inappropriate.

Father next complains that there was a delay in providing 

unsupervised visitation. He relies primarily on Tracy J. v. Superior Court 

(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1427 (Tracy J.), which stated: “When the

Agency limits visitation in the absence of evidence showing the parents’ 

behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the child’s safety, it unreasonably 

forecloses family reunification on the basis of the parents’ labeled diagnoses 

and does not constitute reasonable services.” In Tracy J., the agency had

restricted visitation for the parents, notwithstanding their demonstrated 

ability to care for the child, merely because they had developmental 

disabilities. Here, by contrast, Father’s visitation remained supervised 

because Father had not addressed the safety concerns that had led the 

juvenile court to increase supervision for visits at the six-month hearing. 

Among other things, concerns remained over how Father spoke to the minor

about the first social worker and resource parent.

Lastly, Father argues that the Department did not provide housing 

assistance. There is ample evidence, however, that Father did not seek 

housing assistance, represented that his current housing was adequate, and 

refused to provide details in response to the Department’s efforts to better 

understand his living situation. It turned out that, contrary to his 

representations, Father was not permitted to live on the boat full time with 

the minor, but the Department did not discover this until shortly before the 

end of the review period, due at least in part to Father’s misinformation.

In sum, while Father points to evidence that he believes supports his 

position, he does not show that there was a lack of substantial evidence 
17

supporting the juvenile court’s finding of reasonable services.

B. Substantial Probability of Return

Father contends that services should have been extended because 

“there [was] a substantial probability that the child [would] be returned to 

the physical custody of the parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in 

the home within the extended period of time . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd (g).) We 

disagree.

To find a “substantial probability” of return, the juvenile court must 

find three elements: “(A) That the parent or legal guardian has consistently 

and regularly contacted and visited with the child. [¶] (B) That the parent or 

legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led 

to the child’s removal from the home. [¶] [And] (C) [that] [t]he parent or 

legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete 

the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, 

protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.” (§ 366.21, 

subd. (g).)

There is no dispute that Father satisfactorily visited the minor. The 

question, therefore, is whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s conclusion that the other two elements were not established. It does.

1. Progress in Resolving Problems Leading to Removal

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Father made little or 

no progress in resolving the problems that led to removal. He never obtained 

adequate housing, since the harbormaster stated he was not permitted to 

stay all week on the boat, let alone with the minor. While he claims his 

housing is still sufficient because he has stayed on the boat for a while 

without the rules being enforced against him, the fact is that he has no 

authorized housing and risks eviction. Father also did not disclose any 
18

information regarding a support network. More notably, he never completed 

a substance abuse assessment. The results of his drug tests were 

consistently positive for marijuana and at least one test detected alcohol. 

Although the marijuana levels were not high and Father denied consuming 

alcohol, it was reasonable to conclude that he had made little progress given 

his unexplained missed tests, his history of DUIs, his refusal to see why the 

Department would be concerned about those DUIs, and his continuing refusal 

to complete a substance abuse assessment. Father did begin individual 

counseling and parenting classes during the most recent review period, but it 

did not appear to result in significant behavioral change.

Father argues that the minor’s mental health has substantially 

improved since the start of the case. But this is the minor’s progress, not 

Father’s, and it supports the conclusion that the minor should stay at the 

STRTP (or other appropriate facility) rather than be returned to Father. At 

the STRTP, the minor receives services and treatment needed to address his 

mental health struggles. Father does not point to evidence that his actions 

helped the minor improve. He never even acknowledged that the minor has 

significant mental health issues, claiming instead that the minor’s only 

problem was being separated from Father. 

2. Capacity and Ability to Complete the Plan

Given Father’s lack of progress over the past 12 months, and his 

continuing resistance to the Department’s offers of services and refusal to 

acknowledge that the minor has significant mental health issues, it was 

reasonable to conclude that Father had not demonstrated the capacity and 

ability to complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the minor’s 

safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and needs. To put it 

another way, there was substantial evidence that, even with additional 
19

services, there would remain a substantial risk of detriment to the minor if 

returned to Father’s physical custody at the 18-month review.

The juvenile court’s findings and order were supported by substantial 

evidence.

III. DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

CHOU, J.

We concur.

SIMONS, Acting P. J.

BURNS, J.