1 Filed 3/6/13 In re I.R. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re I.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. G.R., Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Respondent; HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. A137151
(Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV110144)

I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner G.R., the mother of eight-y ear-old I.R., has filed this writ petition seeking relief from the juvenile court’s orde r terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfar e and Institutions Code section 366.26. 1 Mother contends that she substantially complied with her case plan objectives and should have been granted additional reunification services . We conclude the contentions have no merit, deny the petition on the merits, and va cate the stay of the section 366.26 hearing.

1 All further unspecified statutory refere nces are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 II. FACTUAL AND PROC EDURAL BACKGROUND On September 27, 2011, the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition alleging that the minor came w ithin the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b). Specifically , the petition alleged that the minor had been
with mother in mothe r’s car for at least 24 hours and ha d not eaten during that time. Mother admitted to smoking he roin and driving under the in fluence of heroin while the
minor was in the car with her and to “co nducting illicit drug activities” with the minor present. Mother was arrested fo r felony child endangerment. The detention report prepared by social worker Winnie Williams indicated that the Eureka Police Department took the minor in to protective custody around 5:00 a.m. on September 25, 2011, a Sunday. The minor was hungry and thirsty but had no medical issues that required a trip to the hospital. She was also observed to look “filthy” and “was holding a dirty blanket.” The minor repor ted that she had been in the car all the previous day and that mother had been driving around all ni ght. Mother initially reported that she had been kidnapped and raped in front of the minor. Mother admitted to smoking heroin in front of the minor and dr iving under the influence with the minor in the car. Mother’s boyfriend, David C., cont acted the police when he received troubling text messages from mother on Friday nigh t, September 23. David C. was worried
because of mother’s hist ory of drug use. The detention report also stated that , since the birth of I.R. in 2004, the Department has investigated five referrals involving mother. In 2005, the Department substantiated an allegation against mother fo r general neglect of I.R. and a sibling.
Mother refused the offer of vol untary maintenance services.
The court held a contested detention h earing on September 30, 2011. Mother testified at the detention hearing. The cour t detained the minor and ordered supervised
visitation for mother. At the jurisdiction heari ng on October 11, 2011, mother objected to jurisdiction
but submitted the matter without a contested hearing. The court sustained the petition3 and adopted the findings and orders recomm ended by the Department. The matter was set for disposition on No vember 8, 2011. In a report prepared for the disposition hear ing, social worker Williams stated that police had been unable to verify mother’s re port that she had been sexually assaulted, held against her will, and for ced to use heroin the weekend I.R. was taken into protective custody. Williams indicated that it was unknown whether mother’s issues were predominantly mental health or substance abus e. Mother reported a history of substance
abuse but claimed to have been clean for over four years except for using medical marijuana. David C. told the Department that mother had a diagnosi s of bi-polar disorder and was currently taking 11 prescription medi cations, including antidepressants and pain medication. He also reported that she used medical marijuana pursuant to a 215 card. The Department recommended a case plan for mother that included a mental health evaluation, a medication evaluation, coun seling to address the incident that led to the removal of I.R., and participation in a do mestic violence support group. The case plan also required mother to stay free from illegal drugs a nd show her ability to live free from drug dependency, follow all court orders and conditions of proba tion; provide a safe home for I.R., demonstrate her ability to appr opriately parent I.R. and keep her away from criminal activity, and re main involved in the county AOD (Alcohol and Other Drugs) program. The Department also reco mmended that mother have four hours of supervised visitation per week. At the disposition hearing on November 8, 2011, mother indicated that she had no objection to the case plan and submitted on the report. The court declared I.R. a dependent, authorized her placement in fost er care, and ordered family reunification
services for mother. Mother participated in a court-ordered psychological evaluation with Dr. Andrew Renouf on November 25, 2011 . Dr. Renouf prepared a Forensic Mental Health Assessment for the court summarizing his conclu sions. Dr. Renouf noted that mother was being treated for chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, and headaches by Daisy Eng,4 M.D. Dr. Eng was aware that mother had a di agnosis of schizoaffective disorder, but she was not treating that condition. Dr. Eng was also aware of mother’s history of heroin addiction, and stated that her longer-term goal was to wean mother off of as many of the opioid pain medications as possible. Dr. Renouf stated that, from a functiona l standpoint, mother exhibited significant problems with her reality testing and was prone to misperceiving and misinterpreting people’s behaviors, events, and situations. He opined that her level of impairment was at least partly the result of her prescribed medica tions, which included high levels of opiates and hypnotics as well as a benzodiazepine; all three cla sses of medications can cause psychotic-like symptoms and all have a high potential for abuse. He recommended that mother undergo an independent medication review.
Dr. Renouf also recommended that mother continue to partic ipate in the AOD day treatment program and Narcotics Anonymous, but that the scope of treatment through
AOD be broadened to include her use of prescription medications. He further recommended that she receive treatment for pos t-traumatic stress diso rder, opining that it was highly likely that trauma was implicated to some degr ee in her impaired realitytesting. On May 30, 2012, the Department filed a six-month status review report prepared by social worker Tara Riddle. Riddle inform ed the court that, sinc e November 1, 2011,
mother had missed 21 visits due to sic kness, other appointments, scabies, and hospitalization, and that she had missed 12 of 30 visits offered be tween January 1 and May 2, 2012. Most of these visits had been canceled beca use mother was tardy. On March 26, 2012, the Department enacted a policy that mother arrive fo r a visit before I.R. would be picked up. Mother had separated from David C. and was now living at the Blue Heron motel with a new partner, S.K. On November 28, 2011, Mother attempted to bring S.K., whom she described to I.R. as “her new father,” to a visit without Department approval. When S.K. was not allowed to meet I.R., the inci dent escalated, with mother screaming and grasping I.R.5 To obtain approval to attend visits, S.K. agreed to Livescan (a background check). Prior to the investigation, he was “adamant th at he had no record of concern.” However, the background check revealed that he had be en convicted of involuntary manslaughter in
1992 for the death of his own child. He al so had two other children who had permanency planning cases. As of the date of the report, S.K. had not met I.R. In the report, Riddle also stated that mother had discontinue d her AOD groups in early December 2011. Mother reported that clinician Sheld on Chase gave her permission
not to attend in order to focus on her case plan, but Chase reported that he made no such plan with mother. Since Nove mber 1, 2011, mother had twi ce failed to drug test on the day requested, ignored voicemails asking her to test, and refused entirely to test on January 5 and March 19, 2012, stating that it was against her religion to test while menstruating. Mother stated that she would provide documentation that this was a religious matter, but the Depart ment had yet to receive it.
Riddle stated that mother’s behavior and appearance suggested that she was not maintaining sobriety. Riddle noted that, in January, mother’s face was covered with
sores. Mother had been arrested twice si nce March for public in toxication and loitering with intent to prostitute, a nd the police reports noted ma rks and bruises on her arms indicative of injection of narcotics.
Riddle noted that both Dr. Renouf a nd the Department had recommended that
mother have her medications reevaluated to provide more appropriate and effective pain management. Mother said she would attend a pain management clinic in the Bay Area for the re-evaluation, and Riddle offered to help with making the appointment. The social worker noted that it was strongly recomme nded that this take place in the next six months of services. On January 13, 20 12, mother informed Riddle that she had independently stopped taking so me of her medications. On April 18, 20 12, she told Riddle that she was titrating off her psyc hotropic medications and taking herbal supplements instead. Riddle noted that, during the reporting period, mother had manifested bizarre thinking at times.6 The social worker reported that mother believes she is being targeted unfairly and being discriminated against by the child welfar e system and the dependency court. This led to multiple explosive verbal attacks on th e social worker. Despite these outbursts, according to Riddle, mother ha d maintained good contact with the Department. The Department assigned mother a Parent Partner to assist her in working through the system. The Department also made efforts to acco mmodate mother’s requests by placing I.R.
with a foster mother of color and in a foster family that wo uld be supportive of mother’s
Rastafarian beliefs.
The social worker recommende d that mother receive six more months of services, but also recommended inpatient su bstance abuse treatment. In a report prepared for the six-month re view, CASA wrote that I.R. was thriving in her new foster placement and that her beha vior had improved. However, when mother missed visits, I.R. became stressed and act ed out inappropriately. CASA recommended that I.R. be placed in a concurre nt home at the end of the scho ol year and agreed with the Department’s recommendation that mother receive six more months of services. In a response to the six-month status review report, mother objected to the Department’s portrayal of her as not being in compliance with her ca se plan and to the recommendation for inpatient substance abuse trea tment. She stated that she had recently
obtained a written AOD assessment and that AO D referred her to outpatient treatment.
Mother stated that she had an appointment to attend a sc heduled treatment planning session on June 4, 2012. She acknowledg ed that she stopped attending AOD group sessions, explaining that they were not helpful. Instead, she had been attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and she attached her atte ndance records. Moth er stated that she has remained free of illegal drugs. Mother also explained that Dr. Eng conducts routine medication evaluations and drug testing, and would not conti nue to prescribe medications to her if she had tested positive for illegal drugs. She informed the court that she obtained a restraining order against ex-boyfri end David C., and that she attends domestic violence support services as needed. Sh e requested a supplemental mental health
assessment in the next six m onths because she has made s ubstantial progress in her life7 since the evaluation with Dr. Renouf in Novemb er 2011. She assured the court that she planned to attend all of her future visits with I.R.
At the contested six-month review hearin g, the court modified the case plan to allow mother to undergo intensive outpatient treatment for substance abuse. The court
set an interim status review for August 28, 2012. At the August 28, 2012, in terim status review hearing, mother did not appear but through her attorney requested adjustments to her case plan to accommodate her religious
beliefs. The court instructed mother’s counsel to provide th e Department with the name of a religious leader who could verify the re ligious practices and provide the Department with options. On October 9, 2012, the court set the ma tter for a contested 12-month review. The Department recommended terminating reunific ation services and setting the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contested this recommendation and objected to a request
from minor’s counsel’s to discontinue vi sitation. Following argument, the court suspended visitation pending the hearing. 2
Social worker Nathan Ask submitted a status report for the 12-month review hearing that summarized mother’s participation in services during the review period. Ask stated that mother had not completed any of the objectives set fort h in her case plan. Although mother continued to insist that she had been dr ug-free since September 2011, observations by former social worker Riddle and review of mother’s medical records suggested that mother continue d to struggle with opiate a ddiction and abuse. Riddle
discussed her concerns with mother after obser ving what appeared to be a large injection
site on mother’s left arm. Mo ther stated that it was a bedbu g bite. On July 24, 2012, Dr. Eng discontinued prescribed na rcotics; she found a “high risk of abuse” after several discordant drug tests.

2 Evidence regarding problems w ith visitation is described post in the summary of the social worker’s 12-month status review report.8 Mother had not completed or successfu lly participated in a substance abuse treatment program. In May 2012, she wa s assessed by the county AOD program and referred to intensive outpatient treatment, whic h consisted of two groups per week for 13 weeks. As of September 7, 2012, mother had only attended se ven groups. Mother reported to her AOD counselor her abrupt di scontinuation of opiate medications and her plan to use marijuana for pain . This change required the counselor to establish a new treatment program. Mother missed her September 6, 2012, appointment to sign the new treatment plan. Mother rescheduled the appo intment for September 13, but also missed that appointment. Mother was discharg ed from the AOD program on September 18,
2012. Mother did not engage in any formal me ntal health treatment during the review period. Mother insisted that she did not ne ed any formal treatmen t or intervention, and claimed that her participation in church ac tivities three times per week was her form of therapy. The social worker contacted the pastor at mother’s church, who stated that mother’s participation in church activities wa s roughly 50 percent less than she reported and that her engagement with the cong regation was casual and did not include a counseling relationship with any church official. The report stated that mo ther continued to reside at the Blue Heron motel in
Eureka. Ask reported that visitation, which contin ued to be ordered at a minimum of four hours of supervised visitation per week, had been inconsiste nt in frequency and duration during the review period. The majority of visits were either canceled by mother, shortened by mother’s tardiness, or limited in quality due to moth er’s nodding off or falling asleep. When visits did take place and mother was fully present, however, the interaction between mother and I.R. was loving and consistent with a warm parent-child relationship.
Ask wrote that another barrier to successful visits had recently arisen, specifically, mother’s interactions with staff superv ising the visits ha d become hostile and inappropriate. Mother was 35 minutes late for visits on September 11 and 13, 2012, after9 having canceled visits on Sept ember 4 and 6. On September 18, 2012, staff monitoring the visits requested that moth er take a moment to meet w ith them regarding visitation guidelines. Mother refused an d became threatening and hos tile. Social worker Abbie Bremers reported that mother was yelling thr eats at the visitation staff while I.R. was present. Mother then cancel ed her visit on September 20. As previously noted, on October 9, after hearing argument, the c ourt suspended visitation between I.R. and mother pending the 12-month review hearing.
Visits between I.R. and her former guardian Jamie M. occurred regularly throughout the summer. Sin ce the start of the school y ear, I.R. had spent every other weekend with Jamie M. Jamie M. expresse d interest in adopting I.R. if reunification were to fail. The Department was working to facilitate a gradual transition of placement to minimize disruptions to I.R.’s well-being. I.R. experienced serious behavioral prob lems during the review period, including multiple suspensions from school and the Boys and Girls Club. Her foster home placement was extremely unstable due to her behavior. On Octobe r 26, 2012, minor’s
counsel filed a section 388 petition seeking to limit mothe r’s educational rights and requesting the appointment of Jamie M. as I. R.’s educational surrogate. Noting that the
current recommendation was to terminate serv ices and plan for permanency, counsel explained that I.R.’s current placement was not concurre nt and was precarious; the concurrent placement with Ja mie M. would require I.R. to change schools; mother appeared to be either unavailable or unwillin g to allow the change; the changes requested in the petition would allow I.R. to be placed with Jamie M ., go to her new school, and begin the transition to perm anency with Jamie M. On November 7, 2012, the court held th e contested 12-month review hearing and a hearing on I.R.’s s ection 388 petition. Mother testified that she had done everyt hing required by her ca se plan, and more. She had not used illegal drugs since September 25, 2011, a nd maintained her sobriety through support from friends a nd 12-step programs, AOD, pray er, and meditation. When asked about her progress in complying with c ourt-ordered substance abuse treatment, she10 testified that she was in the process of completing the program but had not done so because her social worker was going to recomme nd that I.R. be placed for adoption: “I just felt what was the point of completing th e program if—” She stopped getting high in order to set a good example for her children a nd other young women. She testified that she was using marijuana via a 215 card once a month, and that heavy use would be once
a week.
Mother testified that she and her doctor agreed that she would discontinue all psychotropic medications so as not to be de pendent on pharmaceutical medication for her mental well-being. She discontinued these medi cations in January of 2012. As a result, she has clearer thinking. Mother testified that she was bullied by visitation staff before her visits were suspended. She opposed the limitation of her educational rights to I.R. and felt she was capable of performing them. Mother stated that, of all the missed visits with I.R. du ring the last six months, she
was at fault one or two times. She did fall as leep during the last 15 minutes of one visit because she felt so comfortable watching a m ovie with I.R. like they used to when she was at home. Mother said I.R. was always very excited to see her at visits and sad to see her go. Mother also testified about one inci dent when visitation staff interrupted her time with I.R. to discuss the case, and how upsetting this was to mother. Regarding the psychological treatment component of her case plan, mother testified that once she was off all of her ps ychotropic medications she no longer needed psychological evaluation or treatment. She felt that during the last six months her mental health had improved.
Mother stated that she co mplied with the domestic violence component of her case plan by obtaining a restraini ng order against her former pa rtner David C. and attended some classes and groups at the Humboldt Dome stic Violence Services for a few months. She still goes occasionally when she has time. There is no domestic violence in her current relationship.11 Mother testified that there was no crim inal activity occurr ing in her home. Regarding an arrest for public intoxication, she said she was not under the influence and no charges were filed. She asked the officer to draw blood or give her a sobriety test. Mother said she complied with the me dication evaluation requirement by having an evaluation every month until her medications were discontinued. She also testified that she complied w ith the requirement to provide suitable housing. She acknowledged that her current ho using situation at the motel was not ideal, but said that if I.R. were returned to her, I.R. would sleep in the bed with her. Mother said she co-slept with all of her children. She went on to say that she intended to move into an apartment and that I.R. would have her own room. She was hoping to move within a month or two, once the current occupa nts moved out. If it to ok longer than that, she would make other arrangements. She te stified that her current partner, now her fiancé, is loving, kind, gentle , and patient, and has a great relationship with I.R. despite only having met her a couple of times. Mother said she had done everything the ca se plan required. Sh e told the court she felt that nobody else was doing anything they were supposed to do to help her reunify with her daughter. Mother wanted the court to know that her life was very different from
what it was when I.R. was first removed. She had done everything asked of her and had repeatedly asked for more vis its, more time, and more help from the Department, but was “constantly denied everything.” Her visits were repeatedly cancelled, and then that fact was held against her. On November 8, 2012, the court issued its ruling from th e bench. The court stated
that it had re-read the entire file and conc luded that the statem ents and information contained in the report were more credible th an the evidence presented at the hearing. The court found that mother had not regularl y and consistently cont acted and visited I.R., that she had not made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to I.R.’s removal, and that she had not demonstrated the capacity or ability to complete her case plan objectives or to provide for I.R.’s prot ection and physical and emotional well-being. Consequently, the court terminat ed reunification services and set the matter for a section12 366.26 hearing to determine a permanent plan for I.R. The court also granted minor’s counsel’s section 388 petition. Visitation wa s set at one time every other week for two hours for two months, supervised, on condition that mother meets w ith the Department regarding her conduct and behavior so that visita tion is positive for I.R. Mother filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition.
III. DISCUSSION At the 12-month permanency hearing, “the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent . . . unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the retu rn of the child to his or her parent . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, pr otection, or physical or emotional well-being
of the child.” The social worker has the bur den to establish such detriment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f).) The juvenile court made this finding when it issued its ruling. Section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1), a llows the juvenile court to extend
reunification services at the 12-month review he aring if it finds that there is a substantial probability the child can be returned to parental custody within 18 months of the date the child was removed from parental custody. In order to find a substantial probability of return, the court must make th ree findings set forth in the statute as follows: (1) the parent consistently and regularly contacted and visited the child; (2) the parent made significant progress in resolving the problems th at led to the child’s removal; and (3) the parent demonstrated the capacity and the ability to complete the treat ment plan objectives and provide for the child’s sa fety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).) Here, mother argues that she met each of these requirements and substantially complied with each component of her case plan and that she was, therefore, entitled to nearly six more months of reunification services. In ordering the termination of reunification services, the court made the oppo site findings, i.e., that mother did not consistently and regularly c ontact and visit I.R., did not make significant progress in resolving the problems that led it I.R.’s remo val, and had not demonstrated the capacity13 and ability to complete the treatment plan objectives or provide for I.R.’s safety, protection, and physical a nd emotional well-being.
“If there is substantial evid ence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. ( In re Brandon C . (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 15 30, 1534.) We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, rewe igh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw a ll reasonable inferences in suppo rt of the findings, consider
the record most favorab ly to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if other evid ence supports a contrary conclusion. ( In re
Autumn H . [(1994)] 27 Cal.App.4t h [567,] 576.) The appellant has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial evidence. ( In re Geoffrey G

. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)” ( In re L.Y.L . (2002) 101 Cal.App. 4th 942, 947.) For
evidence to be considered “s ubstantial,” it must be reasona ble, credible, and of solid value. ( In re Jason L . (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214 .) “ ‘The ultimate test is
whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record.’ [Citation.]” ( In re Savannah M . (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1394.)
Mother contends that she consistently and regularly visited I.R. She cites her testimony at the 12-month hearing that she was only responsible for one or two missed
visits and that all the other missed visits we re due to situations out of her control, and points out that the Department did not call a ny witnesses to refute this testimony. She dismisses the suspension of visitation near th e end of the review period as due to her conduct with adults, arguing that it was not re lated to her loving relationship with her daughter. There are two problems with this argument. First, it ignores our standard of review and the burden of a petitioner in estab lishing error. Second, it ignores the court’s express finding that the statements and info rmation contained in the Department’s report
were more credible than the tes timony presented at the hearing. Contrary to mother’s position, there was ample evidence that she did not contact and visit her daughter consistently and regularly. Th e report authored by the social
worker stated that moth er canceled a number of visits and that others were limited by her tardiness. When visits took place, sometime s mother appeared to be nodding off or14 sleeping. Her hostile and threat ening behavior with visitati on supervisors resulted in the suspension of visits, further impacting the consistency and re gularity of her contact with
I.R. Next, mother acknowledges that her case pl an was designed to help her resolve the problems that led to I.R.’s removal and incl uded services to address substance abuse, mental health, medication evaluation, and domestic violence. She again cites her testimony at the hearing as evidence that sh e has made significant progress on her case plan and in addressing the problems that led to the court’s intervention. However, mother did not complete or su ccessfully participate in a court-ordered substance-abuse treatment program. She con tinued to deny any drug abuse or addiction issues despite the previous social worker’s concerns th at mother showed signs of continuing drug abuse; an arrest for p ublic intoxication in March 2012; and her physician’s discontinuing prescrip tion narcotics in July 2012 because of drug tests that were inconsistent with prescribed medications . Mother also had not engaged with courtordered mental health treatment and misrep resented the frequency and nature of her
contacts with her church to her social worker. Mother’s profound lack of progress in overcoming the co nditions that led to I.R.’s removal also supports the court’s finding that mother did not demonstrate the capacity and the ability to complete her case plan or safely parent her daughter. In addition, mother lacked adequate housing for I.R. She proposed to share a bed with her daughter
in a motel room that she was al so sharing with S.K., her fiancé. 3 Given mother’s continued denial of any substance abuse or mental health issues,
combined with her insistence on addressi ng her own perceived needs in her own preferred ways, the court could reasonably c onclude it was not probable that I.R. would
be returned to mother if reuni fication services were extended. On this record, the court’s findings that mother failed to consistently and regularly visit I.R., failed to make significant progress on the problems that led to I.R.’s removal, a nd did not demonstrate

3 S.K. testified that there was no room for I.R. in the motel room.15 the capacity and ability to complete her treatment plan orprovide for I.R.’s care and wellbeing were well supported by substantial evidence.
IV. DISPOSITION The petition is denied on the merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(h)(1).) This decision is final as to this court immediately. ( Id ., rule 8.490(b)(1).) Th is court’s stay of the section 366.26 hearing shall be di ssolved on the filing of this opinion.

_ ____________ ____________ Haerle, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Lambden, J.

_____________ ____________ Richman, J.