Filed 12 / 22 / 20 Y.V. v. Supe rior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Y.V.,

Petit i oner ;

v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent;

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al.,

Real Parties in Interest. G059410 (Super. Ct. Nos. 18DP0544 & 18DP0544A)

O P I N I O N

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Antony C. Ufland, Judge. Petition denied.

Mar t in Schwarz, Interim Public Defender, Seth Bank, Assistant Public Defender, and Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and A u relio Torre, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.2 Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Hannah Gardner for the Minor.

* * *

INTRODUCTION Y.V. (Mother) is the mother of now 1 4

- year

- old K.G. (the Child). In March 2019, the Child was taken into protective custody. The juvenile court held a
12

- month review hearing after which the court found that the return of the C h ild to
Mother would create a substantial risk of detrimen t to her safety, protection, or physical
or emotional well

- being within the meaning of section 366.21, subdivision (f) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specif ied.) The court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanency hearing under section 366.26.

Mother filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the juvenile

court ’ s order s

. She argues the court erred by finding that the ret urn of the Child to
Mother would create a substantial risk of harm to the Child and by terminating
reunification services

. We deny the writ petition. Substantial evidence support s the court’s substantial risk of detriment finding. The record shows Mothe r was offered
reasonable services . Although her individual therapy sessions had not succeeded in resolving the issues that led to dependency jurisdiction and brought the C hild into protective custody , the record does not show Mother’s therapist was incomp etent in rendering therapy services to Mother.3 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. T HE J UVENILE C OURT S USTAINS THE J UVENILE D EPENDENCY P ETITION ; F OLLOWING THE

D ISPOSITION H EARING , THE C HILD R EMAINS P LACED WITH M OTHER

. In August 2018, t he juvenile court sustained the dependency petition filed in May 2018 by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) on behalf of the Child (the petition) , alleging she came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under
section 300, subdivision (b ) (1) (failure to protect). As of the jurisdiction hearing, t he
Child was not detained. The following summarizes the allegations of the petition sustained by the juvenile court to which both Mother and M.G. ( F a ther ) 1 submitted.

Mother and Father faile d to ensure that the Child , who has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy, autism, developmental delays, and a speech impairment, h as obtained timely and appropriate medica l care and attended medical appointments with orthopedic, gastroenterology, op h tha l m o logy, and urology sp e cialists and obtain ed a renal ultrasound

. The Child is a Regional Center client and has an Individual Education Plan.

When Mother was questioned i n May 2018, she con fused her own
medications with those be longing to the C hild and was unable to easily access information about the Child’s d octor

. The C hild’s teeth were in need of dental care.

Mother and F a ther have a history of dom e stic violence. Mother’s adult son reported that Mother and Father are “ al ways engaging in physical fights ”; Mother accuses Father of cheating on her and hits him and sometimes Father hits back. Mother’s adult

son reported that Mother and Father fight in front of the Child and on May 23, 20 18, Mother slapped Father during an ar gument causing the Child to cry. Father reported tha t Mother had hit him , but denied that he hit her

.

1 Father , who is the Child’s alleged father but is not her biological father, is not a party to this writ proceeding and it appears from our record that, for most of the dependency proceeding s , he did not live with Mother and the Child . Our references to Father in this opinion are limited to provid ing relevant context for Mother’s arguments.4 The petition alleged that Mother may have an und iagnosed and untreated
mental health condition. Her adult son rep orted Mother says things that do not make
sense and are not realistic. For exam ple, Mother has stated she has an appointment wit h
Donald Tr ump to get her passport. In November 2017, Mother went to a police station to
ask that a letter be sent t o the President of the United States reques ting an investigation due to Mother being harassed and physically assaulted. “ At that time the [ M ] other claimed that she almost got food poi soning , [had] been run over by a car, and had a drink
th rown at her in 2013, suspecting that people she used to liv e with tried to harm her. ” On May 26, 2018, Mother was observed to have erratic b ehavior , scattered thoughts, and
irrational ideas. Father reported that Mother is happy one moment and then suddenly starts screaming at him, accusing him of being with othe r women

.

Although Father is not the Child’s biological father , he has treated her as if
she were. The identi t y of the Child’ s biological father is unknown as is his ability to provide for her safety, protection , and support or to arrange for appropriate care for her.

Father has a history of substa n ce abuse evidenced by criminal convictions for driving under the influence of a lcohol and/or drugs. Father has a criminal history of
arrests and

/ or convictions for driving under the influence, driving on a suspended or
revoked lic ense , refusing a chemical test, fail ing to stop at a stop sign, and driving
without a lic e n se

.

Finally, the petition alleged Mother also has a criminal history which
involves arrests and/or convictions for driving wit hout a license, failing to register a vehicle, fail ing to provide proof of financial responsibility, hit and run with property damage, and driving under the influence of al c ohol or drugs.

Following the disposition hearing, in accordance with SSA’s

recomme ndation s , in Octo ber 2018, the juvenile court declared the Child a dependent
child of the Orange County Juvenile Court under section 360, subdivision (d) , and5

ordered that she remained placed with Mother and Father and that family maintenance
services be p rovided to the family.
II. T HE J UVENILE C OURT G RANTS SSA’ S A PPLICATION FOR A P ROTECTIVE C USTODY W ARRANT AND D ECLARATION S EEKING R EMOVAL OF THE C HILD FROM M OTHER AND F ATHER ’ S C ARE

. I n March 2019, SSA filed a protective custody warrant application and
declaration for the removal of the Child from Mother and Father’s care. The application
stated Mother “ ha s failed to comply with several medical appointments to address the child’s ongoing medical nee ds. The child was left under the care of the parents with a Family Maintenance case plan. Under the parent’s case plan, the parents are ordered to keep all medical and dental appointments on behalf of the child. The mother admitted to missing the child’ s recent appointments for Ophthalmology on February 27, 2019 and Orthopedics on March 8, 2019. Due to the mother’s missing the child’s Orthopedic appointment the child has not been provided with the adequate medical equipment through CSS program. PHN For rest spoke with the child’s pediatrician Dr. Currie on
March 1 5 , 2019 which she reported that the child is considered failure to thrive. The mother continues to show a pattern of lack of follow through with the child’s medical appointment prior and during her Family Maintenance Case. According to the PHN the child has missed appointments for the following specialists: diagnostic ultrasound for Vesicoureteral Reflux, ophthalmology, orthopedic, PT/OT, and ENT for hearing test.”

The application also desc ribed an incident that occurred on March 19, 2019 during which the Child injured her right eye : “ The mother reported to her

roommate

. . . that the child fell and received the injury to her eye. [The roommate] stated that after questioning the mother on the child’s injury that the mother changed her story and stated that the child rubbed her face with a Mr. Clean sponge causing the injury to her eye. The mother reported leaving the child unsupervised for an unknown amount6

of time in the shower which plac es the child who has special needs at risk of injury. At this time the undersigned, [the social workers] are not able to determine [] how the child’s injury was caused due to the child’s inability to communicate verbally. ”

The application stated SSA consulted with a child abuse expert regarding the Child’s injury and the ex p ert was unable to deter mine, based on the information provided, whether the Child or Mother caused the Child’s injury. The expert stated ,

“ regardless of the reason why, the mother is not following through with medical recommendations, whether deliberate or due to her psychiatric condition, that the child’s
health is at risk. ”

The application reported that Mother complied with the court ’ s order to submit to a forensic psychological evaluation by Dr. Roberto Flores de Apodaca who diagnosed Mother with “ Unspecified Psychotic Disorder. ” D r. Flores de Apodaca stated
that Mother’s diagnosis constituted a significant risk factor for her well

- being and ability to parent

. The application assert ed Mother refuse d to seek mental health services because
she d id not believe she ha d a mental health issue. Nevertheless, Dr. Flores de Apodaca
stated that it would be possible for mental health treatment to improve her p sychosis.

The application concluded: “Due to the mother’s unresolved mental health
issues and lack of follow through with the child’s medical appointments, the undersigned
believes that the child if left in the care of the mother is a [t] substantial risk for furthe r abuse or neglect. Therefore, the undersigned r es pectfully requests that custody be
removed from the [Mother] and [Father].” 2

The juvenile court granted SSA’s application, finding that the Child
remain ing in Mother’s home was contrary to the Child’s we lfare. The Child was
detained.

2 The application for a protective order also cited Mother’s refusal to submit to drug testing

.7 I II

. T HE J UVENILE C OURT S USTAINS SSA ’ S S UPPLEMENTAL P ETITION

. In March 2019, SSA filed a supplemental petition for more restrictive placement (the supplemental petition)

. As relevant to the issues in this writ proceeding,

t he supplemental petition alleged that the then

- current court

- ordered case plan for Mother
included that she (1) comply with medical or psychological treatment; (2) demonstrate adequate knowledge of the Child’s special needs ; (3) demonstrate an ability to provide, or obtain any specialized care the C hild require d such as medical, dental, and developmental
services ; ( 4 ) attend all s pecialty medical and developmental service appointments promptly and appropriately to learn to care fo r the Child’s individual needs; ( 5 ) refrain from behaving in a manner that is verbally, emotionally, or physically abusive or threatening; ( 6 ) show her ability to provide adequate care for the Child’s special needs; ( 7 ) inform the assigned social worker of any difficulties in completing the case plan as soon as they occur to allow the assigned social worker the opportunity to provide
assistance in finding ways to overcome said difficulties; ( 8 ) participate in individual, conjoint, family, and/or group thera py with a therapist approved by S SA to address domestic violence, the C hild’s special needs, and how the C hild’s da il y needs are met;
and ( 9 ) comply with a mental health evaluation including attending mental health and/or psychiatric appointments

.

The supplemental petition alleged that although Mother had been receiving
services since March 2018 , and despite the juvenile court ’s and SSA’s supervision,
Mother continued to fail to meet the Child’s medical and developmental needs. Mother
missed a diag nostic ultrasound for Vesicoureteral Reflux that was scheduled for the
Child

. The Child missed appointments with specialists in the fields of ophthalmology , orthopedic s, and physical and / or occupational therapy, and also missed a hearing test.

The supple mental petition alleged that i n September 2018, Mother was assigned a case manager through the Child’s health plan to assist her in managing the8

Child’s various medical needs. Mother’s case, however, was closed because she failed to return the case manage r’s multiple calls. M other blamed missing appointments on not having financial means or transportation ; Mother had been provided with a bus pass and
information on how to use ACCESS transportation for the C hild.

The supplemental petition stated Mother re ported the C hild did not require
as much medical care because a doctor told her she was doing such a good job caring for
the C hild and the Child did not need to attend as many appointments. When the C hild

was diagnosed as failing to thrive , Pedia S ure was prescribed to supplement her diet. Mother, however, reported she did not give the Child the prescribed Pedia S ure because
the Child did not like the flavor although an observer who is not identified in the supplemental petition noted that “when the bo ttle was held out, the child reached for and
drank the Pedia [S] ure. ” The supplemental petition stated: “ C ompetent medical opinion
is that , [Mother] , has not been following through with the medical recommendations for
the [C] hild, and whether [Mother] ’s a ctions are deliberate or due to a psychiatric condition, the [Mother]’ s actions have put the [C] hild’s hea l th at risk. ”

The supplemental petition further alleged that i n January 2019, Mother participated in a court

- ordered Evidence Code section 730 evalua tion in which Mother

was diagnosed with nonspecific psychotic disorder. During her evaluation, Mother
reiterated s everal delusional and paranoid statements and stated she refused to seek
mental health treatment because she did not believe she had a mental health issue. The supplemental petition alleged Mother’s “ prospects for participating meaningfully in any treatment programming recommended for her are guarded. The mother maintains that there are no problems with her care of the child and that her situ ation is the fault of a
social worker from 2015. ”

With regard to the Child’s eye injury , the supplemental petition alleged that

t he C hild was observed to cry and need ed to be calmed and at one point , pointed to her eye and closed her fist. Mother’s roommate expressed concern that Mother may have9

struck the Child and stated her concern was based on how the Child responded to the

roommate ’ s questions and the roommate having previously observed Mother s lap the Child’s face

. The roommate reported that Mother told her that the Child had fallen and injured her eye but , during the investigation, Mother reported that the Child was injured
after she rubbed her eye with a white “magic eraser” sponge intended f or cleaning tile
when Mother briefly left the child unattended in the shower. Mother stated that the roommate had instructed her to use the sponge to wash the child; the roommate stated she gave the sponge to Mother for household cleaning. According to m edical personnel, the injury appeared consistent with a friction bu rn that could have been caused by the sponge and if that is what had occurred, it could not be determined if it was Mother or the Child who rubbed the Child’s face with the sponge.

The roo mmate and another person who ha d live d in the home expressed

concern about Mother’s care and supervision of the C hild, as they ha d observed Mother
exhibit ing bizarre behavior, including Mother’s failure to change the Child’s diaper for extended periods of time.

In addition, the supplemental petition alleged Mother had not complied
with court

- ordered testing by refus ing to drug test and failing to provide proof of
attendance at 12

- step meetings.

After Mother and F ather submitted on the suppleme n tal p etition , the juvenile court sustained it, finding the allegations of the supplemental petition true by a preponderance of the evidence. The court re

- appointed Dr. Roberto Flores de Apodaca to complete an updated assessment of Mother regarding the applicab ility of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2).10 IV. S SA F ILES F OUR R EPORTS L EADING UP TO THE C ONTESTED 12

- MONTH R EVIEW H EAR ING

. 3
In its status review report dated March 3 0, 2020 and addendum report no. 1
in May 2020, SSA recommended that the juvenile court order the continue d provision of
reunification services to Mother. In the former report, SSA asserted Mother’s cooperation in the case plan had been minima l. Mother stated she had completed some parenting classes , but she had initially refused to sign a counseling referral because she disputed the statement the Child was removed from her care due to phys ical abuse.

In addendum report no. 1, the social worker reported that Mother had b eg u n receiving telehealth services via video chatting with Jane Canseco , LSCP

. As of
mid

- A pri l 2020, Canseco had met with Mother three or four times and found Mother to
be “very likeable.” Canseco observed Mother to be “lacking education and ‘in need of a lot of parenting.’” She could not say whether the Child would be safe in Mother’s care without observing the Child with Mother.

Canseco reported Mother demonstrated litt le insight into the issues requiring SSA interventions. Mother had expressed closely

- held feeling s of being persecuted and of distrust toward SSA, the juvenile court, and the police ; Ca n sec o stated
Mother ’ s lack of insight and d istrust of those entities were “recurring themes impeding her progress.” Canseco stated there was hope Mother may make progress if she “accept[s] process instead of defending against it.”

3 In its opposition to the petition for writ of mandate, County Counsel explains: “Given that [the Child] was initially removed f r om Mother in March 2019, the review hearing here took place almost 18 months after the child entered foster care per section 361.49. As a result, the hearing was a 12

- month review per section 366.21, subdivision (f), with those provisions applying despite no six

- month review having taken place beforehand. (See Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 846

- 847; Jessica A. v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 636, 645.) ”11 The social worker also reported that , i n April 2020, Mother object ed to the Child receiving a planned haircut and stated she would e

- mail Xavier Becerra to inform
him of “ all the corruptions and felonies that the social workers have committed. ” She
also stated she would “ have an investigation open ” on Father because “he has been the one who has been hallucinating and assaulting her in the past.”

In its addendum report no. 2 in June 2020, SSA changed its recommendation from continuing reunification services to terminating them and scheduling a permanency hearing. In tha t report, the social worker concluded Mother’s progress in counseling was “ not significant enough due to the m other continuing to display paranoid delusions and still lacking insight into her own mental health issues. These delusions have been expressed b y the mother during visits and will, no doubt, have an effect on the child. Although the mother completed 4 out of the 6 parenting classes
and [was] given a certificate of completion in the past, the mother still demonstrates poor judgment when relating to others, as observed in her video calls with the child by being distracted with other adults and children during her video calls and making critical statements regarding the child’s hair cut in the presence of the child. According to her therapist, the mother continues to report some paranoid and delusional thoughts, which she has done consistently throughout the life of this case. [Mother] has no i nsight into
her own mental health needs and has denied a need for mental health treatment to address these concerns.”

The social worker cited Mother’s statements that she planned to contact the FBI to report Father for having assaulted and threatened her in the past and claimed she had videos of him threatening her. Although Mother reportedly had a good attendance
record and positive attit u de in therapy sessions, was making some progress working toward treatment goals , and expressed “extraordinary care” w ith regard to the Child, Canseco acknowledged Mother “ perseverates ” on a notion and get s stuck there, but
believe d she c ould be coached and taught.12 Mother continued to express paranoid statements during visits with the
Child , including obsessing regarding the length of the Child’s bangs, complaining that she is being followed, and sharing her plans to hire a detective to “get all the people who
have committed f

e l onies when removing her chil d .” Mother missed a visit with the Child
because she desired to fl y to Washington , D.C. to meet with the President about her case.

The social worker also cited Dr. Flores de Apodaca ’s Evidence Code
section 730 evaluation report from January 2019 in which he opined: “ ‘ [M] other ’ s unspecified Psychotic Disorder (298.90) is a significant risk factor for her wellbeing and parenting abilities going forward. ’ ” He further stated: “ I do not think it clinically likely probable that M other will come to the realization that she has unwarranted paranoia anytime in the fo reseeable future. She has apparently harbored these ideas for [ se veral ]
months and is un insightful about them. She does not trust Social Services and there is no compelling clinical reason for believing this is going to change spontaneously or even
with the help of counseling. There is a possibility that treatment with medications may help and so it is certainly warranted that she be evaluated for such treatment. Paranoia is highly resistant to treatments of all kinds, including medication, but it does offer some hope for clinical efficacy. ”

The social worker further noted that family maintenance efforts failed i n Mar c h 2019 d u e to concerns regarding Mother’s mental health after the Child’s eye injury and numero u s missed appointments.

In its addendum r eport no. 3 in A ugust 2020, the social worker reiterated
SSA ’s recommendation to terminate reunification services and schedule a permanency hearing. The social worker reported Mother continued to take parenting class es and
continued receiving therapy services from Canseco. Canseco stated that Mother ha d
made significant progress toward the goals established in individual therapy including “the use of appropriate disciplin e and parenting skills; knowledge and provision of tim e ly13

medical, d e ntal, and e d ucational s e rvic e s; and the acquisition and d e monstration of prot e ction and safety skills related to domestic violence. ”

Canseco stated Mother report ed the use of “ tried and true ” par enting skills including the use of positive rein forc e m e nt, distraction , positive mod e ling, and consist e nt forms of limit setting she learned through parent education at the Regional Center, in
other classes , and in individual therapy. Canseco stated Mother acknowledges the inappropriat e n e ss of corporal p unishment and appears consci e ntious about v e rifying, participating and att e nding m e dical, d e ntal, and e ducational appoint ments for h er child,
bas e d on h e r r e ports and the social worker’s reports. Canseco stated: “[Mother] r e ports a h e althy und e rstanding of th e danger s of do mestic violence for herself and her child

. Additionally , sh e staunchly states that h e r s e lf

- worth would not allow her to stay with anyone who would show her abus e and disrespect. At no tim e during our s e ssions has [Mother] presented any behaviors or v e rbalizations that rais e a n y concerns about th e
pres e nc e of d elusions , hallucinations, thought disord e rs, or oth e r psychotic b e haviors. ”

Canseco reported to the social worker that she had not observed Mother experiencing any delusions or hallucinations in her counseling sessions and stated that
Mot her exhibit ing delusional thinking does not automatically mean she has a psychotic
disorder. Canseco c l arified she wa s not asserting that Dr. Flores de Apodaca’s Evidence
Code section 730 evaluation conclusion was incorrect, but that she herself h ad not seen Mother display symptoms of unspecified psychotic disorder.
V. F OLLOWING THE C ONTESTED 12

- MONTH R EVIEW H EARING , THE J UVENILE C OURT F INDS T HERE I S A S UBSTANTIAL R ISK OF D ETRIMENT TO THE C HILD IF S HE W ERE R ETURNED TO M OTHER , T ERMINATES R EUNIFICATION S ERVICES , AND S ETS A P ERMANENCY H EARING

.

At the 12

- month contested review hearing held i n September 2020, the juvenile court admitted into evidence the M arch 30, 2020 status review report and the
three addend um reports. The social worker assigned to this case testified that Mother’s14

case plan consist ed of completing a parenting clas s , demonstrating parenting skills, complet ing and mak ing progress in counseling to address the issues that b r ought the family to the attention of SSA , and taking medication if need ed

. Mother completed t w o parenting programs and continued to attend individual counseling with Canseco that she began in March 2020 ; Mother had previously participated in individual counseling with a different therapist

.

The social worker testified she referred Mother to c ommunity resources
that of f er ment al health services and Mother c ontacted those resources. The social
worker tes tified that she did not believe the Child could be safely returned to Mother’s

care within 18 months of the date she was removed from Mother’s custody.

Canseco also testified at the hearing. She stated Mother virtually participated in weekly therapy sess ions lasting 45 to 60 minute s each and had “exceptional” attendance as she attended about 18 sessions to date

. She testifie d the goals of therapy were to address her domestic violence history and its impact on Mother
and the Child ; p a renting skills in ref erence t o neglect and/or optimal parenting for the
C hild; and appropriate provision of medical and dental care for the Child

. She testified about Mother’s progress in working toward addressing each of the goals. She also saw in Mother “ symptomology of delusional thoughts ” but thought those symptoms would not interfere with her daily living activities. Canseco was not directed t o address symptoms of Mother’s mental health diagnosis. Mother did not tell Canseco she believed Father had people following Mother. Mother told Canseco that the reason SSA is i n volved in
her life is because she failed to obtain p roper treatment for the Child’s dental issues a nd
because someone made an anonymo u s call stating that she had ab used or neglected the
Child because there had been a m a rk on the C hild’s face

.

Canseco testified Mother did not tell her about Mother being the aggressor
in a domestic violence situation , did not take responsibility for failing to provide for the15

Child’s me d ical needs but explained the problems she faced in meeting those needs , and never acknowledged slapping the Child

.

Mother did not tell Canseco about contacting the FBI , Father stalking
Mother , or about needing the President’s assistance to help her get her passport and to make certain complaints because she wants the Child back in her care

. Canseco testified Mother expressed the delusional thought that the County does not want Mother to have the Child back in her care. Mother told Canseco she went to Washington, D.C. , but
Canseco could not say whether that statement reflected a delusion beca use she did not
know if it w as true. Canseco t estified that Mother’s recurring feelings in therapy about being persecuted by SSA and her mini mizing the importance of letting th ose feeling s go has im p eded h er ability to focus on the goals o f therapy. Cans eco was unaware the Child had to have multiple teeth extracted because they were rotte d to the extent they could not
be saved. Canseco testified that as a professional, she trusted Dr. Flores de Apodaca ’s reporting , but based on her time with Mother, she did not reach the same conclusion he
did that Mother met the diagnostic criteria for psychosis not otherwise specified.

During argument, the Child ’s counsel stated: “We would join with the County and ask that the court terminate servi c es an d keep [the Ch ild] out of Mother ’ s hom e.” Father ’s counsel stated Father would “submit [] to the recom men dation ” of SSA and join in C ounty C ounsel’s and M inor’s c ounsel’s argu m ents regarding Mother

.

The juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that return of
the Child to Mother and Father would create a subst antial risk of detriment to her safety, protection , or physical or emotional well

- being. The court further found that reasonable

serv ices had been offered to Mother and Father and that Mother’s progress t oward s alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement ha d been minimal

. The court
ordered reunification services terminated for Mother and Father and s et the matter for a permanency hearing.16 Mother filed the instant petition for writ of mandate challenging the juvenile court’s orders

. This court issued an order to show cause. Both County Counsel
and the Child’s counsel responded, opposing issuance of a writ.

DISCUSSION
I. S UBSTANTIAL E VIDENCE S UPPORTS THE J UVENILE C OURT ’ S R ISK OF S UBSTANTIAL D ETRIMENT F INDING

. Mother contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court ’ s finding that returning the Child to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment
to the Child

. At a 12

- month review hearing, the juvenile court must return a child to parental custody “ unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
return of the child

. . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well

- being of the child. ” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) A parent ’ s failure to participate regularly and make substantial progress in court

- ordered treatment programs is prima facie eviden ce that return of the child to the parent ’ s care would be detrimental. (§ 321.21, subd. (f)(1)(B).)

At the 12

- month review hearing, the focus is the child ’ s well

- being at the time of the hearing rather than on the initial basis for juvenile court interve ntion. ( In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 899.) “ Thus, while the court must consider the extent the parent has cooperated with the services provided and the efforts the parent has made to correct the problems which gave rise to the dependency [c itation], the decision whether to return the child to parental custody depends on the effect that action would have on the physical or emotional well

- being of the child. ” ( Ibid. )

We review the juvenile court ’ s factual findings, such as the finding of risk of detriment, under the substantial evidence standard. ( Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345

- 1346; Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004)17

117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1341.) “ Under that stan dard we inquire whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court ’ s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our dedu ctions for those of the juvenile court. [Citations.] However, ‘ [s]ubstantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence must be of ponderable legal significance and must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. ’” ( Georgeanne G. v. Superior
Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 865.) The juvenile court assesses the credibility of witnesses, and we are bound by its credibility determinations. ( In re S.P. (2020)
53 Cal.App.5th 13, 18

- 19; In re Dako ta H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)

Substantial evidence support s the court ’ s finding that return of the Child to
Mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to the Child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well

- being. The Child ha s significant special needs which necessitate her attendance at a host of medical specialists’ appointments. Dependency jurisdiction was asserted in this case in part due to Mother’s failure to manage the Child’s
medical needs and ensure the Child attende d all such appointments. T he Child was not removed from Mother’s care at that time ; the Child remained with Mother on a family maintenance plan. Substantial evidence shows that Mo ther continued to fail to manage the Child’s medical needs even while recei ving family maintenance services . Mother’s failure to follow through with attending medical appointments and following directives (e.g. , making sure the Child took the prescribed Pedia S ure after concerns about her failure to thrive) coupled with , inter alia, the unconfirmed cause of the Child’s eye injury triggered the juvenile court to grant SSA’s application to take the Child into protective custody.
The record shows that after the Evidence Code section 730 evaluation , Mother was diagnosed wit h nonspecific psychotic disorder which may negatively affect her ability to parent the Child and address her special needs. The record shows Mother18

has cooperated in therapy with Canseco, but persists in paranoia and delusions that have impeded therapy to some point. In her writ petition, Mother argues substantial evidence
does not show a sufficient nexus between Mother’s mental health issues and her ability to parent the Child. Whether or not her nonspecific psychosis is to blame , in whole or in part , f or her inability to meet the Child’s medical needs and otherwise care for her , substantial evidence support s the juvenile court’s finding that Mother was unable to
handle that heavy responsibility and returning the Child to Mother’s care , therefore, posed a substantial risk of detriment to the Child

.

T o the extent Mother suggests that her efforts to complet e parenting class es and participat e in several therapy sessions with Canseco should automatically result in
the Child being returned to her, that is not the law. As stated in In re Dustin R. (1997)
54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143: “ As we have already stressed, simply complying with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy sessions and visiting the children is to be considered by the court; but it is not determinative. The court must also consider the parents ’ progress and their capacity to meet the objectives of the plan; otherwise the reasons for removing the children out

- of

- home will not have been ameliorat ed. ”
II.
M OTHER W AS O FFERED R EASONABLE R EUNIFICATION S ERVICES

. At the 12

- month review hearing, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided or offered to Mother. Whenever a child is removed from a parent’s custody, the juvenile court must order provision of chil d welfare services to the parent deemed eligible for reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) Section 361.5 requires a good faith effort to provide
reasonable services “‘ specifically tailored to fit the circumstances of each family ’” and

“‘ designed to eliminate those conditions which led to the juvenile court ’ s jurisdictional finding. ’” ( In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472, 1474.)19 The juvenile court’s finding that reasonable reunification services had been offered or provided is revi ewed under the substantial evidence standard. ( In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) A finding by the juvenile court that reasonable services have been provided must be made on clear and convincing evidence. ( Ibid. ) “[W] hen reviewing a findi ng that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole
contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact wa s true. Consistent with well

- established principles governing review for sufficiency of the evidence, in making this assessment the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to ho w the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the
evidence. ” ( Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5 th 989, 995

- 996.)

“ [I]n reviewing the reasonableness of the reunification services provided by the Department, we must also recognize that in most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which are provided are often imperfect. The standard is
not whet her the services provided were the best that might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances.” ( Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)

In her writ petition, Mother acknowledge s she was offered serv ices. She participated in two parenting programs, two rounds of counseling with two therapists, and submitted to two Evidence Code section 730 evaluations with Dr. Flores de Apodaca. Mother argues she was not offered reasonable services because the thera py she received
from C a nseco was deficient and SSA failed to provide “a replacement counselor or an alternative service.” Her argument is based on arguments made by SSA and the Child’s
counsel at the 12

- month review hearing which Mother argues rejected Ca nseco’s “positive assessments of Mother and heavily criticized Canseco’s competence.”20 The record does not show , however, that SSA argued Canseco was incompetent in providing therapy services to Mother o r that she was otherwise unqualified to render such s ervices. To the contrary, i n its addendum reports admitted
into evidence at the 12

- month review hearing , SSA cited Canseco’s statements about Mother’s progress in therapy. The record shows SSA did not question Canseco’s competence . Instead, SSA disagree d with the substance of her testimony which suggested that Mother had met all of the goals of therapy and ha d resolved the issues that
led to the Child becoming a dependent child and being taken into protective custody

.

County Counsel argue d : “So far as [Mother’s counsel]’s suggestion that
we could n ot find someone to tr e at mom, she’s right. We found someone to offer treatment. We found a number of people to offer treatment, but as Dr. [Flores de] Apoda c a predicted, those professio n als wer e unable to give mom the treatment that would be needed to fix her. Again, not out of failure because we did offer and provide people th a t were providing treatment, but as a far as a fix, you’r e right. We didn’t find that fix, but she can’t fault us for that because we did everything we could in trying to address the numerous problems that mom has.”

The juvenile court found Canseco’s testimony to lack credibility and that
the therapy had not successfully resolved Mother’s issues for a variety of reason s , including decisions made by Canseco the court disagreed with ; the court did not state it
found Canseco to have rendered incompetent therapy services. At the hearing, t he court
stated: “Largely, this hearing centers around the information that is provi ded by the counselor, the therapist Miss Canseco and what the value of that counseling, what th at therapy w a s, the outcome of that therapy was. I think there was a failure in that therapy. Part of that failure with the therapy is as a result of Mother’s failing to engage with the therapist in things that were acc u rate about the case , about her history, about the issues as they really do exist.21 “ D omestic violence and her involvement as an aggressor. Physical abuse and her involvement as a proponent of ph ysical abuse towards the child. All of those things. And part of it is the fault of the therapist, who had that information at her disposal
in the [Evidence Code section ] 730, in the reports, detailed specific items of delusional though t s and chose to ignore them with the mother.

“I understand from Miss Canseco that her therapy, her approach is not to challenge an individual’s delusional thoughts because you end up becoming part of the individual’s delusion and the conspiracy against them. I understan d that concern, but I don’t believe that it

— in this case that it was helpful to completely ignore them. They need to be discussed. They need to be addressed with the individual mother and not just ignored and that’s what I think happened here.

“I think Miss C a nseco did not give any attention to the specific

— very specific information that was detailed in Dr. Flores de Apodaca’s report, in the social worker’s reports and really address that. Address Mom’s mental health history. I don’t
know if it was a b ias on the part of the counselor. I can’t necessarily say that. She definitely had a position and a belief with regard to how her sessions with Mother were.

“I do note a lack of what I would describe as forthright answering f rom the therapist to certain questions. Answers that weren’t necessarily entirely responsive to the question. I don’t believe that

— I don’t believe

— I can’t say that it came, necessarily,
f rom a bias, but I did note in her testimony specifically today that the therapist didn’t

want t o answer the questions that were asked.

“Specifically, there was a question, did you consider

. . . Dr. Flores de Apodaca’s concerns? And the answer was, I consider x, y and z, never addressing whether or not she considered Dr. Flores de Apodaca’s concer ns. That’s just an example of the types of answers where she was touching on answering a question, but answering it in a completely different way, in not offering information that was entirely responsive to the question that was being asked.22 “It was defi nitely an agenda and a direction that Miss Canseco wanted to go with her answers, but the problem

— and I think that she eventually had to even land on
it

— was that she was operating with incomplete information. Things that Mother didn’t
share with her. And so it’s lack of information

— bad information in, bad information out. You can’t have an accurate, appropriate recommendation or diagnosis if you are not getting the necessary information in. Data in. And part of that, as I said, is on Mother for
not sha ring that and part of that is on Miss Canseco for having it there and not doing anything to bring that out on her own.”

Services need to be reasonable under the circumstances. As detailed ante , Mother was provided extensive services over a substantial period of time. As explained by the court, the therapy provided by Canseco in particular was imperfect. But services need to be reasonable; perfection is not the standard. The court’s finding Mother was offered reasonable services is amply supported by the record.

DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

ARONSON, J.