Filed 07/10/23 G.H. v. Superior 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

G.H. et al.,

 Petitioners, 

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE 

COUNTY,

 Respondent;

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY et al.,

 Real Parties in Interest.

 G062417

 (Super. Ct. No. 20DP1488)

 O P I N I O N

Original proceeding; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of 

the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. Keough, Judge. Petition denied.

Martin F. Schwarz, Public Defender, Richard Cheung, Assistant Public 

Defender, Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner G.H. 
2

Juvenile Defenders and Donna P. Chirco for Petitioner G.R.

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services 

Agency.

No appearance for Minor L.R.

* * *

G.R. (Mother) petitions this court for a writ of mandate to compel the 

superior court to vacate its order setting a permanency hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 366.26, subd. (a), all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code), for her daughter L.R.

1

 Mother argues the juvenile court erred by setting a 

permanency hearing because she was not offered reasonable services. We conclude 

sufficient evidence supports the court’s order. We deny the petition. 

FACTS

Mother’s only contention is she was denied reasonable services. Thus, we 

limit our discussion of the facts accordingly.

I. Protective Custody Warrant

A protective custody warrant sought to remove five-year-old L.R. from 

Mother and Father. The social worker alleged Mother and Father had a history of 

domestic violence, and there was a criminal protective order and a restraining order 

protecting Mother and L.R. from Father. The social worker stated that despite the orders, 

Mother had contact with Father and allowed him to care for L.R. Mother told the social 

worker Father poked her buttocks with a tool and L.R. witnessed this and other abuse. 

Mother showed the social worker a BB gun and knives Father used to threaten her. The 

social worker said Father had unresolved substance abuse issues. She added Mother 

1

G.H. (Father) filed a letter brief joining in Mother’s writ petition. We 

provide only those facts concerning Father that are relevant to Mother’s arguments.
3

denied substance abuse issues but admitted she used methamphetamine. The social 

worker opined Mother had unresolved mental health issues. She said L.R. had a speech 

impediment. Father denied domestic violence. Additionally, Mother told the social 

worker that she suspected her ex-boyfriend sexually abused L.R. and she contacted the 

police. The social worker asserted L.R. was at risk in her parents’ care. The court 

approved the protective custody warrant removing L.R. from her parents’ care.

II. Petition/Detention

In November 2020, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed 

a petition alleging L.R. was a child as described in section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) 

(failure to protect), (g) (no provision for support), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition 

alleged Mother and Father engaged in ongoing domestic violence in L.R.’s presence and 

both were in violation of the orders protecting Mother and L.R. from Father. It alleged

Father and Mother had unresolved substance abuse issues; Mother had a 2004 driving 

under the influence (DUI) conviction. It also alleged Mother had unresolved mental 

health issues. The petition alleged Mother failed to address L.R.’s speech impediment 

and failed to care for L.R.’s half sibling who had special needs. The petition alleged both 

Mother and Father had criminal histories and Father was incarcerated. Finally, it alleged 

Mother’s ex-boyfriend may have sexually abused L.R. 

The detention report stated Mother told the social worker that Father poked 

or stabbed her buttocks with a tool and the wound was infected. The social worker 

explained Mother and Father had been in a relationship for seven years but had been 

living apart for five years. She said there were two orders protecting Mother and L.R. 

from Father, but Mother and Father were in regular contact until his recent incarceration 

on drug charges. She added Mother’s ex-boyfriend obtained a restraining order against 

Mother. The social worker opined Mother exhibited mental health issues, including 

extreme paranoia. Mother told the social worker that she had not pursued the referral to 
4

treat L.R.’s speech impediment. The social worker reported L.R.’s whereabouts were 

unknown.

At a hearing, the court concluded L.R.’s placement in the home was 

contrary to her best interests and vested temporary custody with a care facility. The court 

ordered Mother eight hours of monitored visits and no visitation for Father until he was 

released from custody. The court set a jurisdiction hearing for January 13, 2021.

III. Jurisdiction/Disposition

In the jurisdiction/disposition report, SSA recommended sustaining the 

petition, declaring L.R. a dependent, and providing reunification services to Mother and 

Father. The social worker stated L.R. was placed with a non-relative extended family 

member (Caregiver).

The social worker reported that during an interview, Mother exhibited signs 

of mental health issues, displaying mood changes. She said Mother admitted to past 

methamphetamine use three times, but denied she was under the influence and said she 

would test. Mother suffered a DUI conviction in 2004. Mother told the social worker 

that Father was in jail, but he was “free like the wind” because he knew people in county 

and federal courts that helped him get out of jail. She also told the social worker that 

Father knew a man named “Obdulio” who was “‘very powerful’” and connected with 

people in the county, which is “‘corrupt[].’” Mother admitted L.R. was present during 

Father’s physical and verbal assaults. Mother said that in 2016, she resided at a domestic 

violence shelter and completed a program. Mother told the social worker she was 

homeless and had been living in a car from 2019 to May 2020 when a friend allowed her 

and L.R. to live with her. Mother told the social worker that Father would find her and 

L.R. but she would not contact the police because he threatened her. Mother added, “law 

enforcement ‘do their job but that the higher up people release the father because of 

money.’” Mother wanted to go to the media because of the corruption.
5

Mother told the social worker that the previous month, Father took L.R. and 

told Mother that if she reported him to the police, he would take L.R. to Mexico. When 

the social worker asked Mother why she allowed Father to take L.R. in violation of the 

restraining order, Mother said she was in the hospital because the wound on her buttocks 

was infected. Mother said she was in the hospital for about five days but she escaped 

because “the doctor was working with the powerful people from Orange County.” 

Mother told the social worker she got L.R. from Father and went to Long Beach because 

Father “knows many people in Orange County” and “‘there is no justice in Orange 

County.’”

The social worker stated Mother admitted Father physically assaulted her in 

L.R.’s presence and she violated the orders by allowing Father to have contact with them. 

Mother denied she had a substance abuse problem but agreed Father did. Mother also 

denied she had mental health issues. Mother attributed her failure to seek treatment for 

L.R.’s speech impediment to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and 

made other excuses for her failure. As to her ex-boyfriend’s sexual abuse of L.R., 

Mother said she reported it to the police. Mother refused to discuss L.R.’s half-sibling. 

Mother denied she had a criminal history. Father denied any domestic violence.

As to visitation, the social worker reported that shortly after L.R. was 

placed with Caregiver, Mother arrived one night to see L.R. Although it was late, 

Caregiver agreed. When Mother told L.R. that she was going to take her to the park, L.R. 

agreed to go. Caregiver said L.R. could not go, and Mother grabbed L.R. and began to 

leave. Caregiver called the police.

The social worker reported Mother signed her case plan services and agreed 

to participate in counseling, parent education, a personal empowerment program (PEP), 

mental health services, random drug testing, and an outpatient substance abuse program. 

The social worker was angry at the emergency response social worker who was on 
6

Father’s side. The social worker reported that in December of 2020, she provided Mother 

with referrals for the various services.

At the jurisdiction hearing, Mother and Father pleaded nolo contendere to 

the amended petition (§ 300, subds. (b)(1) [failure to protect] & (j) [abuse of sibling]).2 

The court found the allegations true and that L.R. fell within section 300, subdivisions 

(b)(1) and (j). The court set a contested disposition hearing for February 23, 2021.

The contested disposition hearing did not occur on that date. The court 

continued the matter three times, once because Mother’s counsel was unavailable, once 

because Mother was hospitalized, and once because the court was otherwise engaged. 

Addendum reports described Mother’s visitation with L.R., who was with

Caregiver, from December 2020 to May 2021.

3

 Those reports also detailed Mother’s 

other services during the period. 

In January 2021, the social worker asked Mother if she was participating in 

therapy. Mother was agitated and exclaimed she would not participate in therapy because 

the police did not do anything regarding her allegations L.R. was sexually abused. 

Mother stated she would not participate in any services unless the court ordered them,

and she would not take any classes because she was a good mother, she was not crazy, 

and she never did drugs. During another conversation that month, Mother yelled at the 

social worker that she was lying in the report. The social worker gave Mother a list of 

shelters. Mother did not show up for several compliance visits.

That same month, Dr. Lilia Carey reported to the social worker that she had 

a telephonic intake appointment with Mother. Carey stated Mother was resistant to 

services and admitted she was only participating because she was advised it was the only 

2

The substance abuse allegation against Mother was stricken. The petition 

was amended to allege Mother may have mental health issues. 

3

Father was released from jail during this period.
7

way to reunify with L.R. Carey said she would continue to treat Mother but she might 

have a mental health disorder.

The following month, Carey told the social worker she had been unable to 

treat Mother because she was so distressed and scattered. She explained Mother needed 

to be stabilized on medication before they could work on her trauma. Carey reported 

nothing had changed the following month because she was still trying to arrange for 

Mother to see a psychiatrist. She added Mother had no insight concerning her role in

L.R.’s removal from Mother’s care.

In April 2021, Carey reported Mother seemed more stable. She said 

Mother claimed the doctor had advised talk therapy instead of medication and she was 

able to address how to cope and protect L.R.

The following month, Carey reported Mother was making an effort at 

complying but they met only because Carey forced her. She opined Mother has a 

different crisis every week and it hindered her progress in addressing the sexual abuse. 

She said Mother “‘was just livid that I had been placed in her report saying that she had 

made no progress in the sexual abuse.’” Mother was able to refocus and calm down. 

Carey opined Mother had made slight progress. When the social worker told Carey that 

Mother seemed to be regressing, Carey said Mother seeks attention and control, and 

when she does not get them, she believes the world is out to get her and she becomes 

emotional. Carey attributed this to childhood trauma and said Mother requires long term 

therapy.

Mother began drug testing in December 2020. She tested positive for 

alcohol three times in January 2021. But she did not have any positive or missed tests 

until April 2021 when she stopped testing. Mother denied using drugs or alcohol. 

Mother was participating in PEP and parenting education.

Mother stated she did not have mental health issues and initially refused to 

participate in mental health services. However, in March 2021, Mother told the social 
8

worker that she had a mental health assessment at the Orange County Health Care 

Agency (HCA) and was informed she has a lot of trauma and would benefit from 

extensive therapy and medication. Mother stated she was referred to Medi-Cal for 

services, but she was unclear as to what services she needs. The social worker told 

Mother to obtain a written recommendation from the HCA, which she agreed to do. 

Later, Mother told the social worker the assessment recommended therapy and requested 

a referral. The social worker again asked Mother to obtain a written recommendation 

from the HCA, which Mother again agreed to do. In May 2021, Mother told the social 

worker that she had already provided her with the written recommendation stating she did 

not meet the criteria for services. The social worker said Mother had not provided it and 

to submit it again.

At the May 2021 disposition hearing, the court declared L.R. a dependent 

child, removed custody from her parents, vested custody with SSA, and ordered

reunification services for her parents. Mother’s case plan included counseling, a 

domestic violence program, a PEP, mental health evaluations, a parenting education 

program, substance abuse outpatient treatment, and alcohol testing for 60 days. The 

social worker noted Mother had completed the parenting program and PEP and satisfied 

her counseling requirement because she did not qualify for additional mental health 

services. The court ordered Mother have supervised visits twice weekly and if she 

complied with visitation rules and did not discuss the case or disparage Father or 

Caregiver, she could begin two hours unsupervised in 30 days. The court set a six-month 

review hearing for November 22, 2021.

In an interim review report, the social worker, Daniela Aranda Soto, 

reported Carey scheduled the in-person meeting with Mother, but she never showed up. 

Carey said she would terminate Mother because she had met the six-month limit. Carey 

could have requested an extension, but she recommended a licensed and specialized 

counseling provider (LSCP). She stated Mother completed some treatment goals but did 
9

not address the sexual abuse allegations because she always had a crisis. Carey explained 

Mother believed L.R. was sexually abused but addressing it triggered her own trauma 

history and she could not self-regulate and became overwhelmed. In June 2021, Carey 

recommended Mother undergo an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation (730 

evaluation). Soto received Carey’s termination report in July 2021.

Soto reported Mother stated she was undergoing alcohol monitoring and 

did not drink or use drugs. Mother insisted she did not need to complete an outpatient 

substance abuse program. Soto reported that SSA recommended a 730 evaluation for 

Mother.

IV. 6- and 12-month Hearings

In the six-month review report, SSA recommended continuing reunification 

services, finding suitable placement, ordering a 730 evaluation for Mother, and 

scheduling a 12-month hearing. Soto opined Mother made moderate progress on her case 

plan. Soto discussed the LSCP counseling referral with Mother to address SSA’s 

involvement, L.R.’s sexual abuse, and self-regulation. Mother said she had already 

completed what was asked, but she would participate. Soto submitted an LSCP referral. 

In August 2021, Mother’s LSCP, Joseph Marquez, reported he was 

terminating her for three “‘no shows’” and not completing her intake appointment within 

30 days. Soto got Mother reinstated and encouraged her to continue with her therapy.

In September 2021, Marquez reported Mother was participating in weekly 

therapy, but she had a lot of work to do because of all the trauma she suffered. Mother 

shared her life experiences. She admitted to domestic violence with Father, but denied 

drug use. She did not mention anything about sexual abuse. Mother told Ramirez this 

situation she was going through had been false and SSA and law enforcement made up 

all the allegations. Marquez said Mother had little insight as to why SSA was involved.

The following month, Marquez reported Mother had paranoia, was unable 

to control her emotions, and indicated she was psychotic. He stated that when Mother 
10

discussed her past, she screams, cries hysterically, and makes hand movements like she is 

attacking someone. Mother believes everyone is plotting to get her in trouble. He stated 

they set goals, but Mother would not be able to meet them if she did not progress by selfregulating. Marquez recommended Mother get a psychological evaluation, and might 

need medication.

That same month, Mother reported her counseling was going well and she 

had been working on controlling her anxiety, impulses, distrust, and fears. Mother 

previously told Soto that she had provided another social worker a letter from her mental 

health assessment that stated she did not meet the criteria for services; Soto did not have 

it. Soto recommended the court order a 730 evaluation.

Soto reported Mother said she completed a parent education program and 

she already knew everything they discussed, including to never yell at a child or use 

physical discipline. Mother said she completed PEP and people never changed and she 

would not tolerate someone disrespecting or hitting her. Mother regularly checked in 

with her parent mentor. Soto stated Mother completed her alcohol monitoring and was 

waiting to have the bracelet removed. Soto detailed Mother’s visitation with L.R., which 

included 12 hours of supervised visits. 

At the November 2021 six-month review hearing, the court continued the 

hearing to January 26, 2022, because L.R.’s counsel requested a contested hearing.

In a January 2022 addendum report, Soto reported Mother denied any 

contact with Father but Mother claimed she saw L.R. with Father; the criminal protective 

order was active to June 2022. Caregiver and Father reported a few instances of Mother 

seeking out and observing or approaching Father.

In November 2021, Mother told Soto that she consistently attended therapy 

with Marquez. Mother said they were discussing domestic violence and L.R.’s sexual 

abuse. When Soto asked about her psychological evaluation, Mother denied he made that 

recommendation and she never agreed to take medication. Soto told Mother it was in her 
11

case plan and the therapist recommended it. That same month, Marquez reported Mother 

had a lot of anxiety and paranoia and was always going through a crisis. He believed that 

if L.R. were returned, Mother’s dysregulation would be too much for L.R. because she 

had manic episodes and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) responses. Marquez 

reported he told Mother that he recommended a psychological evaluation. Mother 

initially told him that she would do it but then she declined. Marquez would try again.

The following month, Mother told Soto that Marquez gave her resources 

for a psychiatric evaluation. Mother was amenable to the evaluation. Marquez reported 

Mother continued to do well and she understood why she needed to be evaluated. 

However, Mother believed “medication was only for crazy people.” When Marquez gave 

Mother resources for an evaluation, she said she would go to the same location she went 

the last time. Marquez opined it would be a danger to return L.R. to Mother because she 

“‘presents being impulsive, dysregulated, manic and paranoid.’” He could not make a 

diagnosis but said Mother presented as bipolar with psychosis or PTSD.

Later that month, Mother told Soto that Father, his boss, and another social 

worker made up everything in the petition and it was “‘a trap.’” She stated, “‘My 

mistake was that I did not flee the [c]ountry.’” Mother said she consistently attended 

therapy and they discussed domestic violence and sexual abuse. Mother stated she had 

been through a lot and she gets emotional when talking about these topics. Mother said 

she was working hard to change her behavior and was using breathing exercises. Mother 

told Soto she had a psychiatric appointment the following week. Soto encouraged 

Mother to go. Soto included the form to request a 730 evaluation for Mother with the 

January 2022 addendum report.

At the January 26 six-month review hearing, the court continued the 

hearing to March 4, 2022, because Mother was seriously ill and not present.

In a March 2022 addendum report, Soto reported she spoke with Marquez 

in January 2022. Marquez stated Mother completed 20 sessions and the last session was 
12

her third “‘no show.’” He recommended Mother have ongoing therapy because she 

needed to work on regulating her emotions. Mother always talked about the system 

being corrupt and her case was a conspiracy. Marquez encouraged her to schedule a 

psychological evaluation, but he did not think she did. He opined her primary diagnosis 

was PTSD and other diagnoses were unclear. Mother told Soto she completed her 

counseling with Marquez and learned to control her emotions. Mother missed her 

psychological evaluation appointment because she was sick. Soto encouraged her to 

reschedule and communicate if she needed help. Mother became upset and said Soto

wanted the evaluation, not the court, and Soto could not ask her to do the evaluation. 

When Soto tried to explain, Mother interrupted and said everything was a plan to take 

L.R. away from her.

In February 2022, Soto asked Marquez if he would be able to see Mother. 

He said he did not have space and Mother needed someone who could be available for 

her more than once a day. Soto left a voicemail for another therapist inquiring about his 

availability.

Later that month, Soto told Mother that Marquez recommended ongoing 

therapy and a psychological evaluation. Mother agreed she needed ongoing therapy

because she suffered a lot of trauma and Marquez’s treatment helped her. Mother said 

she went to a place where they told her that she was not eligible for psychological 

evaluation because she had completed two evaluations and did not meet criteria both 

times. Soto asked Mother to get something in writing, and Mother said she would. 

When Soto recommended a 730 evaluation, Mother said she was willing.

At the March 4 six-month review hearing, the court ordered a 730 

evaluation for Mother when SSA provided the paperwork. The court continued the 

hearing to April 25, 2022, for a six-month and 12-month review hearing.

In an April 2022 addendum report, Soto stated SSA’s recommendation had 

changed. SSA recommended there was a substantial probability of return by the 18-
13

month review, suitable placement, and to schedule an 18-month review hearing. SSA 

believed Mother would benefit from a 730 evaluation and conjoint counseling with L.R. 

In March 2022, Mother told Soto she was not looking for Father and 

planned to request an extension of the criminal protective order. Soto told Mother about 

the court authorizing a 730 evaluation. Mother asked why she had to do it when she was 

told she did not meet the criteria. Soto said her previous therapists recommended it. Soto 

encouraged Mother to have the 730 evaluation. Later, Mother texted Soto a picture of 

what appeared to be a letter from the HCA stating she did not meet the criteria for mental 

health services.

That same month, L.R.’s therapist told Soto that she had made numerous 

attempts to speak with Mother about attending a session, but Mother had not returned the 

calls. Soto talked to Mother about participating in conjoint therapy. L.R.’s therapist 

reported she spoke with Mother and invited her to join a session. Soto submitted a 

conjoint therapy referral.

Mother’s visitation with L.R. at Olive Crest and with Caregiver was spotty. 

She interacted well with L.R. but was not always engaged and missed many visits.

At the combined six-month and 12-month review hearing, the court 

continued the case to May 23, 2022, because Mother’s counsel was absent due to illness. 

In a May 2022 addendum report, Soto reported L.R.’s therapist stated 

Mother attended her first collateral session. The therapist said Mother verbally attacked 

Caregiver in front of L.R. During the session, Mother spent most of the session 

discussing why SSA was involved and was more concerned with Soto being notified of 

her attendance. Mother engaged minimally with L.R. L.R. had a speech assessment 

scheduled.

At the May 23 combined six-month and 12-month review hearing, the court 

continued the matter to July 13, 2022, for a combined six-month, 12-month, and

18-month hearing because SSA’s recommendation changed.
14

In a minute order dated July 1, 2022, the court noted it previously ordered 

Mother have a 730 evaluation when SSA submitted the paperwork. The court stated, 

“SSA filed the 730 evaluation paperwork via ex parte, however, this paperwork was 

misplaced prior to the court ordering the 730 evaluation.” The court stated SSA 

resubmitted the paperwork. The court again ordered a 730 evaluation for Mother and the 

report be due by August 19, 2022. The court appointed Dr. Roberto Flores de Apodaca 

to complete the 730 evaluation.

In a July 2022 addendum report, SSA recommended continuing the matter 

for 60 days for completion of Apodaca’s report. Soto reported that in May 2022, she told 

Mother to seek counseling at a Family Resource Center or inquire with her attorney to 

have the court authorize funds for ongoing counseling. Mother stated she would ask her 

attorney. Mother said she was open to having the 730 evaluation but had not heard from 

anyone. The following month, Mother told Soto she would begin therapy at Camino 

Nuevo. Mother said she missed her intake appointment but would reschedule. When 

Soto encouraged her to attend conjoint counseling with L.R., Mother said she thought it 

was court ordered. When Soto said it was encouraged, Mother said of course she could 

attend. Soto later reported they had an intake appointment that same month.

Mother continued to have 12 hours of supervised visits per week but visited 

inconsistently. Mother was occasionally late, did not show up, and was aggressive and 

rude with Caregiver in L.R.’s presence. Soto approved Mother’s request to have a friend 

(Friend) supervise visits.

L.R. gave differing answers as to whether she liked visits or wanted to see 

Mother. She did not want to live with Mother. She appeared comfortable in her 

placement and was doing well.

At the July 2022 combined six-month, 12-month, and 18-month review 

hearing, the court continued the matter to September 12, 2022. The following month, 

Apodaca sent the court a letter stating that because of COVID-19 and other family 
15

illnesses he was unable to complete the report. He requested a four-week extension or to 

be relieved. The court granted the request, ordered the report due September 22, 2022, 

and indicated it would reschedule the review hearing. 

In a September 2022 addendum report, Soto opined Mother made moderate 

progress on her case plan. Soto reported that in July 2022, Mother left her a voicemail 

stating she was aware the court ordered a 730 evaluation and Soto needed to refer her to 

ongoing counseling. The following month, Soto stated Alejandra Anacleto, the conjoint 

therapist, said she treated Mother but it was difficult because Mother wanted to talk about 

her case and not L.R.

Mother’s visitation performance had not changed—it was inconsistent. 

Caregiver reported there were occasions when Friend was not present when she picked 

up L.R. Soto reported L.R. told Caregiver that Mother’s friend “‘Guero’” was present 

during visits. Caregiver saw a man but could not identify him because “he always has a 

hoodie on.”

L.R. reported Mother’s male friend “Guero” or “El Guero” was present 

during visits. Mother denied having any unauthorized persons at the visits. L.R.’s 

attitude about living with Mother had not changed.

At the September 2022 combined six-month, 12-month, and 18-month 

review hearing, the court continued the matter to October 13, 2022, for completion of 

Apodaca’s report. Apodaca filed his report.

SSA filed a section 388 petition requesting the court remove Friend as 

Mother’s visitation supervisor. In the request, Soto stated L.R. said Mother and Father 

visit together when Friend supervises visits. Soto also said Mother’s friend named “‘El 

Guero’” attended visits. Soto stated El Guero may be Mother’s ex-boyfriend who 

allegedly sexually abused L.R.
16

V. 18-month Review 

In an October 2022 addendum report, SSA recommended terminating 

reunification services, funding suitable placement, and setting a section 366.26 hearing 

(.26 hearing). Soto reported Anacleto stated Mother last attended a session on September 

15, 2022, called to let them know she was not going to make it on September 22, 2022, 

then did not call or show up on September 29. She said Mother had not met her goals 

because she was always late and always went off topic. Anacleto planned to request an 

extension so Mother could meet her goals.

Mother’s visitation performance remained inconsistent. When Soto asked 

L.R. whether she would like to live with Mother, L.R. stated she wanted to stay with 

Caregiver. She also said she would like to live with Father. L.R. said Mother and Father 

once visited her together. L.R. appeared comfortable with Caregiver and continued to do 

well. Caregiver reported L.R. had no developmental concerns and her speech continued 

to improve. 

At the combined six-month, 12-month, and 18-month review hearing, the 

court continued the matter to November 29, 2022. The court granted SSA’s request to 

remove Friend as Mother’s visitation supervisor.

In an October 2022 interim review report, Soto requested the court adopt an 

updated case plan, which was similar to the prior case plan and added a recommendation 

to have a “reality-oriented” therapist based on the 730 evaluation. Soto left voicemail 

messages with Carey, Marquez, and Anacleto. Carey reported she did not utilize realityoriented approach because that is used to treat schizophrenia. Carey used cognitive 

behavior therapy (CBT), which Mother struggled with. Soto reported Father stated he 

had communication with Mother but denied plans to be in a romantic relationship with 

her.

The court approved the updated case plan. The court noted SSA would 

continue to search for a therapist who could provide reality-oriented therapy.
17

In a November 2022 addendum report, Soto reported that neither Anacleto 

nor Marquez could offer Mother reality-oriented therapy. In October 2022, Soto inquired 

whether LSCP Patricia Hikita could provide reality-oriented therapy to Mother. Hikita 

indicated she had never heard of this therapy and believed it had to do with sessions 

being based on reality. Hikita however said she was able to offer services to Mother. 

The next day, Soto called Mother to obtain consent to submit a counseling referral. Soto 

could not leave a voicemail because the voicemail was full. Soto texted Mother a picture 

of the referral and asked her to give authorization.

The following month, Mother told Soto that she would not sign the LSCP 

referral unless the substance abuse and sexual abuse points were removed. Soto told 

Mother the referral listed what the sustained petition listed, but if Mother submitted to an 

on-demand test, then the substance abuse allegation in the referral might be redacted 

when the results were received. Mother refused to do the on-demand test stating there 

was no point and she would rather wait for court.

Soto reported Anacleto stated she received the authorization for extension 

but Mother had two “‘no shows’” in October 2022. Anacleto said there was a dynamic 

difference when Mother did not attend: L.R. was calmer instead of being slightly 

dysregulated by not following directions. Anacleto said that when Mother had her third 

no show in November, she had to terminate her. She said they were never able to address 

the sexual abuse because of Mother’s lack of attendance.

Soto met with Mother in person or telephonically for monthly compliance 

contacts despite Mother cancelling, rescheduling, not showing up, or not responding to 

messages. Mother asserted she had done nothing to warrant L.R. being removed from 

her care.

Mother’s visits remained inconsistent, and Caregiver reported Mother did 

not follow visitation guidelines. Soto reported Father said he planned to be in Mother’s 

life until L.R. was grown. Father said Mother completed her services and L.R. needed to 
18

be returned to her care. Father was looking for an apartment for Mother and L.R. and he 

planned to pay their rent. Father told Soto that he understood his case plan, but he did not 

intend to do any services because it was a waste of time.

The contested 18-month permanency hearing began in November 2022. 

Soto testified over several days in November and December 2022, and January 2023. 

Mother testified over numerous days in January, February, and March 2023. We discuss 

the relevant portions of their testimony anon. 

During the pendency of the hearing, SSA submitted two addendum reports. 

Soto stated SSA remained concerned about Mother’s inability to protect L.R. from 

physical, emotional and sexual harm. Soto explained that although Mother had 

successfully completed court ordered services, Mother was unable to address sexual 

abuse in therapy because she could not control her emotions when discussing her trauma. 

SSA was also concerned that Mother would expose L.R. to domestic violence because 

she resumed contact with Father, who refused to complete any services. SSA stated that 

because Mother’s visitation became more inconsistent she failed to demonstrate she 

could prioritize L.R.’s needs ahead of her own. Finally, SSA opined Mother had not 

addressed her mental health appropriately. Soto opined Mother had made moderate 

progress on her case plan.

Soto reported that in October 2022, Apodaca completed the 730 evaluation 

and determined Mother has histrionic personality traits. Apodaca stated, “‘[I]t is 

unfortunate that [M]other is so emotionally volatile, but because this is a reflection of her 

personality make-up and not a transient psychiatric condition that could respond to 

medications and therapy, I would not expect much change in her manner of behavior.’”

In December 2022, Mother sent Soto a text message stating the man L.R. 

called El Guero was not the same person who allegedly sexually abused her. Mother said 

L.R. had never been sexually abused. Mother discovered a morbid video and acted 

appropriately by reporting it and having L.R. checked.
19

Soto stated that in January 2023, Mother sent her a text message with a 

picture of the LSCP referral, signed, but with information from the justification box 

scratched out. Later that month, Soto attempted to speak to Mother to schedule a 

compliance contact, but there was no answer. Soto left a voicemail requesting a call 

back.

L.R. continued to give differing answers as to whether she liked visits or 

wanted to see Mother. L.R. did not want to live with Mother. L.R. said she liked 

Caregiver more.

Soto reported L.R. continued to do well and appeared comfortable in her 

placement. Caregiver stated L.R. had no developmental concerns and her speech 

continued to improve.

At the hearing, Soto testified that although Mother had done her case plan 

services, her behavior had not changed and she had not gained any insight or taken 

responsibility for why SSA was involved. Soto said Mother was erratic, angry, 

aggressive, and resistant to feedback. Soto estimated her interactions with Mother were 

30 percent positive and 70 percent negative. Soto said she constantly tried to meet 

Mother for compliance visits. She provided Mother with resources and referrals, 

maintained communication with her, L.R., and Caregiver, collaborated with Mother’s 

therapists, and made sure Mother received her visitation hours.

Soto testified Mother successfully completed counseling, PEP, parenting

class, and alcohol testing, but she did not understand why SSA was involved or address 

the issues that brough them into the system. Soto testified Mother’s therapists stated she 

had not gained any insight as to why SSA was involved. Soto did not re-refer Mother to 

another PEP class or parenting class because it was not needed. Based on Mother’s 2004 

DUI, her admission she used methamphetamine, her positive alcohol tests, and her 

demeanor when they spoke, Soto still believed Mother had a substance abuse issue. Soto 

also said Mother was inconsistent with participating in collateral sessions with L.R. and 
20

her therapist. Soto did not believe Mother should receive more services because she had 

already received over 18 months of services without sufficiently progressing or changing 

her behavior.

Soto explained that after Apodaca diagnosed Mother with the unresolvable 

histrionic personality trait, she submitted a referral for reality-oriented therapy, which 

would have helped Mother with planning but would not have addressed the risks that 

caused L.R.’s removal. Soto referred Mother to a therapist who could offer this therapy.

Soto had not liberalized Mother’s visitation because Mother had not 

demonstrated L.R. could be safe with Mother if visits were liberalized. Soto opined 

Mother’s visits were inconsistent and had been deteriorating for months. Soto stated 

Mother was untruthful about having unauthorized individuals at the visits because she 

saw an unknown man at a visit.

Soto stated Mother had not addressed the domestic violence and she knew 

Mother had contact with Father when the domestic violence protective order expired in 

June 2022. Soto was concerned that Mother had not addressed how she would protect 

herself from Father.

Mother testified she had completed all her programs and they were useful. 

Mother liked Soto very much but Soto was confrontational, did not help in reunification, 

and ignored her reports. Mother discussed with Soto what she learned in parenting class

and PEP class. She testified about what she learned in PEP class, conjoint therapy, and 

sexual abuse therapy. She stated Apodaca told her that she was a strong woman who 

should prepare herself for when L.R. was returned to her care. She never had a drug 

problem, never used methamphetamine, and never told anyone she used 

methamphetamine at Father’s direction.

Mother testified L.R. was removed from her care because of domestic 

violence. She stated though that all the incidents of domestic violence occurred before 

L.R. was born in 2015. She said there was no domestic violence in 2019 or 2020. 
21

Mother denied Father carved or cut her buttocks in 2020, which led to the dependency 

petition. Later, however, Mother testified Father had hit her, pulled her hair, and stalked 

her. Mother admitted that while she was pregnant with L.R., Father hit her and urinated 

on her. She stated that in 2016, Father physically attacked her in the car while L.R. was 

present. She said that in 2019 he knocked down the door of her house, hit her, and 

burned a mattress. Mother testified the last incident of domestic violence was in 2020 

when Father raped her and stabbed her buttocks with a sharp tool

Mother testified she never had anyone unauthorized at visits. The man who 

L.R. saw was not her ex-boyfriend. Mother said Soto mistakenly thought she still saw

her ex-boyfriend.

During her testimony, Mother lost focus, was nonresponsive, went off on 

tangents, and had to be redirected to answer the question. On occasion Mother got 

agitated and loud or emotionally distraught and cried.

The juvenile court began by stating that “what [was] dramatic [was] the 

disconnect between the beginnings and ends of [M]other’s testimony.” The court found 

Mother’s testimony not credible. The court explained that although Mother had engaged 

with her case plan and participated in therapy, she did not embrace services in a 

meaningful manner and continued to believe she was the victim of a fraud and 

conspiracy. The court opined that as a result, she failed to gain any insight as to what 

caused L.R. to be removed from her care or accept responsibility. The court concluded 

that because of Mother’s lack of insight, she could not protect L.R. from violence and 

other forms of abuse and neglect. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that 

SSA provided Mother reasonable services at the six-month, 12-month, and 18-month 

intervals. The court noted that although Mother completed her services, it would not 

characterize her progress as moderate. The court mused that since July 2022, Mother’s 

performance had deteriorated. The court concluded L.R. could not be returned to Father 
22

because of his unwillingness to engage in services. The court terminated reunification 

services and set a .26 hearing for July 12, 2023.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues the juvenile court erred by setting a permanency hearing 

because she was not offered reasonable services. We disagree. 

“[W]henever a child is removed from a parent’s . . . custody, the juvenile 

court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services” to the parent 

deemed eligible for reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) “[An agency] must make 

a good faith effort to provide reasonable services responsive to the unique needs of each 

family, and the plan must be ‘“‘specifically tailored to fit the circumstances of each 

family’”’ and ‘“‘designed to eliminate those conditions which led to the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional finding.’”’ [Citation.] Specifically, the record must show the agency 

identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to 

remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the 

duration of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents when 

compliance was difficult. [Citation.] The adequacy of the plan and the agency’s efforts 

are judged according to the specific circumstances of each case. [Citation.] . . . 

[Citation.] And ‘“[t]he effort must be made to provide reasonable reunification services 

in spite of difficulties in doing so or the prospects of success.”’ [Citation.]” (Patricia W. 

v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 420.)

“In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been 

provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. The standard is 

not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, 

but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.” (In re Misako R.

(1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547 (Misako R.).) “‘Reunification services are voluntary . . .

and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be forced to comply with them. 

[Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (In re Ronell A. (1995) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365.)
23

A juvenile court must find SSA provided reasonable reunification services 

based on clear and convincing evidence. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 

971.) “‘Under this burden of proof, “evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial 

doubt. It must be sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every 

reasonable mind.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) We review a juvenile court’s finding

for substantial evidence. (Ibid.) 

Here, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion SSA 

provided Mother reasonable services.4 There was overwhelming evidence SSA identified 

the problems leading to Mother’s loss of custody of L.R., offered services to Mother 

designed to remedy the problems, Soto maintained reasonable contact with Mother 

during the duration of the service plan, and Soto made reasonable efforts to assist Mother 

when compliance was difficult. 

SSA provided Mother with referrals and resources for numerous services 

including individual counseling, conjoint counseling, PEP, parenting class, substance 

abuse testing, a parent mentor, a psychological evaluation, and visitation. Soto provided 

Mother with extensive counseling to help her gain insight into the domestic violence and 

her own trauma she suffered as a child. Soto had multiple monthly compliance or other 

contacts with Mother where they discussed Mother’s case plan requirements and 

progress, and Soto offered encouragement and help with difficulties. Indeed, in June 

2022, Mother texted Soto, stating “I know you have always resolved my issues and I am 

thankful for that.” Soto collaborated with Mother’s therapists and repeatedly tried to

identify programs or other therapists to help Mother address her issues. SSA provided 

Mother with reasonable visitation, even approving Mother’s friends as a supervisor when 

4 We note Mother does not challenge the court’s decision to not return L.R. 

to her care. 
24

she complained about Olive Crest and Caregiver. The record establishes Mother’s issue 

was not a lack of services but instead her commitment to the services SSA provided. 

Mother asserts SSA failed to provide ongoing therapy, failed to refer her to 

additional PEP classes, failed to refer her to reality-oriented therapy within a reasonable 

time, and failed to facilitate a timely 730 evaluation. Although the therapy might not 

have been the best that would be provided in an ideal world, it was reasonable under the 

circumstances. (Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) Her contention additional 

therapy would have helped her gain insight into her role in the domestic violence is pure 

speculation. Mother got plenty of services but failed to take advantage of them. 

Mother complains there was a 16-month delay from when Carey first 

recommended a 730 evaluation, June 2021, to when the 730 evaluation was completed, 

October 2022. We note the delay cannot be attributed solely to SSA. Mother resisted the 

730 evaluation, the paperwork was lost, and Apodaca got sick and requested an 

extension. Additionally, a 730 evaluation is not a service. Other than her claim 

concerning therapy, Mother does not explain how the delay in the 730 evaluation 

rendered her services unreasonable. 

Mother contends Soto’s recommendations concerning services were based 

on flawed reasoning concerning substance abuse, sexual abuse of L.R., and L.R.’s special 

needs. First, these were allegations the court sustained that resulted in L.R.’s dependency 

and Soto was justified in including them in therapy referrals. Second, even assuming 

Soto’s reasoning was flawed regarding these allegations, it does not demonstrate her 

services as a whole were unreasonable. Mother criticizes Soto for not liberalizing her 

visitation. There was overwhelming evidence Mother’s visitation deteriorated, she did 

not follow visitation guidelines, and she had unauthorized visitors. 

Finally, Mother complains the juvenile court did not rule on the progress 

and reasonableness of services until nearly two years after disposition. It is true the court 

continued the matter numerous times for various reasons not attributable to one party or 
25

the court. And it is true review hearings represent one of the significant safeguards built 

into the dependency system. (David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 140 Cal.App.4th 772, 

778.) But Mother was represented by counsel during the pendency of these proceedings. 

She could have objected to the continuances. She did not.

Based on the record before us, there was sufficient evidence SSA provided 

Mother reasonable services. The juvenile court did not err by terminating reunification 

services and setting the .26 hearing for July 12, 2023.

DISPOSITION

The petition for writ of mandate is denied. 

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, J.

DELANEY, J.