1 Filed 11/20/13 R.S. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

R.S., Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. E059369 (Super.Ct.No. J246484) OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extr aordinary writ. Cheryl C. Kersey, Judge. Petition denied. Friedman, Gebbie, Cazares & Gilleece, Monica Cazares for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel and Ja mila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.2 Petitioner R.S. (father) is the father of eight-year-old A.S., who was removed from her mother’s care and placed, along with her half-siblings, with maternal relatives. Father resides in Wisconsin. Although he in itially stated he would cooperate fully and wanted custody of A.S., he never completed any family re unification services and told the social worker that he did not want se rvices and did not want to disrupt A.S.’s placement. At the same time, father did not wa nt to give up his parental rights. Father now challenges the juvenile court’s orde r dated July 29, 2 013, terminating his reunification services and setting a hearing un der Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26, at which it will consider terminating his parental rights. 1 Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that he was provided with reasonable services and that he failed to participate re gularly and make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plan. As discussed be low, we agree with the juvenile court that father deliberately chose not to participate in the reunification services offered to him, and so deny the petition.
F ACTS AND P ROCEDURE Detention and Jurisdiction/Dispositi on – October 2012 to February 2013 A.S. was seven years old when she and two younger half siblings were removed from their mother in October 20 12. An investigation by San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) sh owed the mother had choked A.S.’s five-year-old half

1 All section references are to the Welf are and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3 sibling, the home lacked suffi cient food, and mother abused methamphetamines. Mother gave birth to a fourth child the following month. Father resided in Wisconsin , was married, and had recen tly begun providing care for his 14-year-old daughter. He had a histor y of criminal conduct and substance abuse, and was in prison from 2004 to 2008. A.S. wa s born in 2005. Father had last seen A.S. in 2011. Father told the social worker that he had not used drugs since 2004, and that he had worked hard to start a new life, including moving to Wisconsin. Father also stated that, prior to A.S.’s removal from her moth er, he had been working to establish a relationship with her. CFS filed a section 300 pe tition regarding A.S., alleging that mother’s substance abuse and abuse of A.S.’s half sibling placed A.S. at risk. The petition also alleged that father had failed to protect A.S. from her mo ther, and that he had a history of criminal conduct and substance abuse. On October 22, 2012, a social worker spoke with father by telephone to obtain informati on on potential American Indian ancestry. On November 1, Father was personally served with a copy of the petition and notice of the November 15, 2012 jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The address listed was his correct address and included his apartment number. In the ju risdiction and dispos ition report filed on November 14, 2012, the social worker evaluated father’s suita bility for parenting A.S. as follows: “The prognosis for reunification of [A.S .] with the father . . . seems promising at this time. [Father] has be en in contact with the Department and has expressed his willingness and ability to protect and provide care for his daughter [A.S.]. [Father] plans on being available by phone at the upcomi ng Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing and has4 stated he will cooperate with CFS and the Cour t in any way to ensure the safety of his daughter. CFS will continue to assess [father’s] background, his home, and his willingness and ability to parent [A.S.]. Jurisdiction and disposition hearings set for November 15 and December 5, 2012, were continued. Father was represented by appointed counsel starti ng with the December 5 hearing. Counsel asked CFS to “look into pl acement with father” and asked for father’s address so she could “notice him.” On D ecember 26, 2012, father’s counsel set the matter contested. Counsel stated she had spoken with father and “There is some modifications to allegations in the case plan that we are seeking.” 2 The contested jurisdiction an d disposition heari ng was held on February 5, 2013. The juvenile court amended the allegation regard ing father to read, “The father . . . has a criminal history of substance abuse, which may place the child [A.S.] at risk of abuse and neglect.” The court found that allegation true as to father, but dism issed allegations that father knew or should have known that A.S. was at risk of abuse or neglect and that father has a substance abuse history that puts A. S. at risk of abuse and neglect. The court found father to be the presumed father and ordered him to participate in family reunification services. The court authorized CFS to conduct an IC PC for placement of A.S. with father if mother could not re unify, but explicitly co nditioned any placement with father on the court’s approval.

2 Father was not present for any of the proceedings in this case, but was represented by appointed counsel. It does not appear from the record that he was present by telephone.5 Six-Month Review Hearing The six-month review hearing was set for Ju ly 8, 2013. In the report prepared for that hearing, the social wo rker recommended terminating reunification services to both father and mother. Father a pparently had not participated in any reunification services. Attached to the report are c opies of four form letters, 3 entitled “Progress Letter to Parent” sent to father on March 7, April 17, May 29 and June 20, 2013. Each letter lists the components of the reunification plan and asks father to call the soci al worker to arrange for services. Each letter was sent to the correct address in Wisconsin, but did not include the apartment number. The soci al worker reported that she contacted father by telephone in early July “when it was learne d he has been ill the last 6 mont hs.” Father stated that he was doing much better and had been cleared to return to work. Fath er told the social worker that he did not want to participate in family reunifi cation services. He was fine with having A.S. raised by maternal relatives and would only step in if they could not care for A.S. Father stated he did not want to upset A.S.’s life by pulling her away from her family.

3 The form letters contained the following information: “You have been ordered by Juvenile Court to regularly participate in the Reunification Service Plan so that your child(ren) [A.S.], can be returned to your ho me. As your social worker, I am concerned that you have not shown sufficient progress in starting or completing the following parts of your service plan: counseling, as needed[; ] random drug testing[;] visitation . . . [¶] Please call me to discuss what problems may be preventing you from working on your Reunification Plan. I would lik e to help you to resolve these proble ms so that your child[ren] can be safely returned to your home.”6 Father’s counsel set the matter contested on his behalf and asked that he be served with a copy of the review report, though she commented that it appeared he was in agreement with the CFS recommendations. The contested six-month review hearing wa s held on July 29, 2013. The social worker testified that she had sent father f our letters to notify him that he needed to complete “counseling as needed, random testing, and visits with [A.S.].” The social worker also testified that sh e first spoke with father by te lephone on July 4, 2013, which is when she first discovered that father lived in an apartment comp lex. The address the social worker had for father, and to which she had sent the four letters, did not include an apartment number. Father told the social worker that he had never received any of the four letters. Father also told the social wo rker that he was not interested in receiving family reunification services unless his parent al rights were going to be terminated. Father was comfortable with A.S.’s placement with maternal relative s and wanted to keep her with her siblings. When father’s counsel asked the social worker what referrals for services had she provided to father, the social worker replied that she had not asked father to drug test or given him any referrals for c ounseling. Father was not in agreement with the CFS recommendation that his parental rights be terminated. After hearing argument from the parties th e juvenile court found that reasonable services had been provided and terminated fa mily reunification services to both parents. Regarding father, the court reasoned that CFS co uld not force father to engage in services if he did not want to, and that father had stated he did not want to pa rticipate in services. Father initiated this writ proc eeding on August 12, 2013.7 D ISCUSSION 1. Reasonable Services Father argues the juvenile court abus ed its discretion when it determined CFS provided him with reasonable services. This is because, father argues, CFS failed to notify him of his case plan components or provide any referrals or direction as to counseling, drug tes ting or visitation. Before initiating proceedings to terminate pa rental rights, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence th at CFS provided reas onable reunification services. ( In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039, quoting Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164-1165.) We review a juvenile court’s finding th at an agency offe red or provided reasonable reunification services for substantial evidence. ( Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598 ( Katie V .).) “In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light mo st favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all legitimat e and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed.” ( In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 ( Misako ).) Here, CFS sent four letters to father in four months informing him of the services required by his case plan and as king him to contact the social worker so she could help him obtain those services. Although these lette rs were addressed to father without an apartment number, and father told the social wo rker that he did not receive any of them,8 substantial evidence supports the juvenile co urt’s conclusion that father did receive at least one of the letters but simply failed to follow through with reunification services. First, the court could easily infe r that not one of the four lette rs was returned to sender as undeliverable because the social worker continued to send th em to the same address and did not state during her testimony that any of them were returned. Seco nd, the letters were sent to the correct address, and the fa ct that father lived in apartment number 3 indicates it was likely a small bu ilding and thus unlikely that four separate letters would remain undelivered, and not returned to se nder, when delivered to that building and otherwise correctly addressed to father. Finally , the juvenile court, as the trier of fact, was entitled under the circumstances to discred it father’s statement to the social worker that he had not received any of the four letters. Regarding the social worker’s failure to pr ovide any referrals for services, each of the four letters asked father to contact the so cial worker so she co uld do just that. In addition, any attempt by the social worker to provide referrals during her telephone conversation with father on July 4, 2013 would have been useless after father told her he would not participate in services. As th e juvenile court reasoned when it made the challenged ruling on July 29, 2013, CFS could not force fath er to engage in services when father stated that he did not want to.
2. Participation and Prog ress in Case Plan Father further argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it determined that he failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in his case plan components, namely random drug testing, counseling as needed, and visitation.9 The failure of a parent to participate re gularly in court-ordered treatment programs is prima facie evidence that th e child’s return to that parent would be detrimental. (§§ 366.21, subds. (e) & (f), 366.22, subd. (e).) We review dependency determina tions for substantial evidence ( In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329), viewing the ev idence in a light mo st favorable to the juvenile court’s findings ( Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pp. 538, 545). Where there is any substantial evidence to support the juve nile court’s order, contradicted or not, we must affirm the court’s decision. ( In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.) We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that father did not make substantive progress in his case plan. First, although father argues he was only supposed to drug test and participate in counseling when dir ected by the social worker, the record indicates th e social worker sent him four separate letters reminding him that he had not participated in his case plan at all and asking him to contact her so she could assist him in accessing services. Fath er did not do so , and later told the social worker that he would not participate in serv ices. Regarding the vi sitation component of the case plan, the record indicat es that father had telephone contact with A.S., but did not progress to visits, although he was authorized to visit with A.S. The record as described above contai ns substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that CFS attempted to provide fath er with reasonable services, but that father deliberately chose not to participate in the case plan.10 D ISPOSITION The petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur: RICHLI J. CODRINGTON J.