Filed 3/29/13 Stacy K. v. Superior Court CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

STACY K.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

 B246299

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK73668)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.452.) Sherri S. Sobel, Juvenile Court Referee. Petition denied.

Frank E. Ostrov for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and 

Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

________________
2

Stacy K. (father) has filed a petition for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.452) challenging an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services 

with his four children and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 366.26.1 Father contends the juvenile court erred when it found that the 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) had provided 

him with reasonable reunification services because the court failed to provide services 

tailored to the family‟s special needs. We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court‟s order. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Father‟s dependent children are a daughter, S., now age 11; two sons, J., age four 

and JaC., age three; and a second daughter, H., age 22 months. Although the family had 

a prior history with DCFS,2in this instance the children were detained in Riverside 

County because the family was living there. On June 9, 2011, there was a domestic 

dispute at the family home. Father was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold 

(§ 5150) after he threatened to kill himself and the children. Father was admitted to the 

hospital on June 10, 2011, after hospital personnel concluded he could not safely be 

managed at a lower level of care. During his hospital stay, father was “agitated, yelling, 

cursing and posturing to fight with hospital personnel.” Father said that he “still felt his 

mood changing and didn‟t want to get violent.” He was diagnosed as bi-polar and manic. 

At the hospital, father was prescribed four medications, but on discharge he refused 

medication and further therapy. 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.

2

In In re S.K. (June 8, 2009, B211705) [nonpub. opn.], Division Five of this court 

affirmed a jurisdictional order involving S. and J. We take judicial notice of Division 

Five‟s opinion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) 
3

In a section 300 petition filed June 13, 2011, and amended on July 7, 2011, the 

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) alleged that the children 

were at risk because the parents had unresolved mental health and controlled substance 

issues, engaged in ongoing acts of domestic violence, and exposed the children to an 

unsafe and unsanitary home environment. It was further alleged that mother had failed to 

reunify with other children. DPSS also alleged that two-year-old J. was physically 

abused and “sustained multiple looped scars on various planes of his body consistent with 

whippings.” 

The juvenile court of Riverside County sustained a second amended petition on 

August 17, 2011. In a report prepared for the jurisdiction hearing, DPSS noted that father 

had been before the juvenile court twice previously, but had failed to benefit from any of 

the previous services offered. The juvenile court nonetheless ordered that father receive 

family reunification services. Father was ordered to “enroll and actively participate in a 

domestic violence program which addresses anger management and the roles of victims 

and perpetrators in domestic violence.” Father was further ordered to undergo a 

psychological assessment and an evaluation to determine if he required psychotropic 

medication. In addition, father was to participate in counseling and “an intensive, handson, DPSS-approved parenting education program that is age-specific to [the] children.” 

Finally, father was to be evaluated for possible substance abuse issues with an approved 

substance abuse program, and was prohibited from using marijuana for medical purposes 

unless he could provide DPSS and the juvenile court with “proof that it is not being 

smoked and is medically appropriate.”3

In accordance with the juvenile court‟s order, father underwent a series of 

psychological tests administered by Dr. Robert Suiter in early October 2011. Relating 

the incident that resulted in his involuntary hospital commitment, father said that he 

„“caught‟ his wife with another man and became involved in a physical fight with the 

man.” Father was “quite dismayed at being hospitalized” because he considered himself 

 

3 Father had been shot in the spine and uses marijuana to alleviate chronic pain. 
4

“mad not crazy.” Dr. Suiter‟s testing revealed that father had a propensity toward anger 

and mood swings. Father‟s profile on one test (the “Millon Clinical Multiaxial 

Inventory”) revealed that father “likely [had] very heightened and prominent narcissistic 

traits. Such persons tend to feel superior to others and have a tendency to exaggerate 

their abilities and positive attributes.” Such individuals also “have a need to be 

conspicuous and provoke affection and attention. In that same regard, they may have 

difficulty if they do not feel properly recognized or if they feel forced to accept the 

opinions of others or to compromise.” Father “described himself as being rather 

impatient and easily irritated as he is likely to be relatively quick tempered at times.” 

Father‟s self-assessment was consistent with his profile on the “Personality Assessment 

Inventory,” the results of which indicated that while father “likely views himself as being 

active, outgoing and ambitious, others may perceive him as being impatient and 

somewhat demanding.” Father‟s profile on the “State-Trait Anger Expression InventoryII” indicated that father “has a fairly high predisposition to become angry, and he is likely 

to be chronically temperamentally angry in a wide range of situations particularly when 

he feels threatened. In the same vein, he is likely to be chronically hostile and aggressive 

and to have major problems sustaining relationships as other persons are likely to avoid 

him. In that regard, he tends to be thin-skinned, hyper-vigilant and demeaning.” 

Based on the results of father‟s psychological tests, and various DPSS reports 

concerning father‟s interaction with its social workers4 and others, Dr. Suiter concluded 

that father had “an unwarranted anger problem as he is prone to instinctively and quite 

immediately respond with anger and threats of bringing lawsuits or requesting to change 

doctors or evaluators in situations where he feels challenged or threatened.” Father 

likewise had “a number of traits and characteristics which quite significantly bring into 

 

4 One DPSS social worker stated that father‟s visits with the children at the 

agency‟s office were “full of disruptions and chaos. [Father] spends most of his visits 

making unreasonable demands and complaining about case management issues.” During 

one visit, father saw that J. had a small bump on his head. The DPSS worker stated that 

father “became belligerent and increasingly hostile. He backed me into a wall and began 

to scream in my face.” 
5

question his ability to adequately care for his children at this juncture.” Dr. Suiter 

recommended that father take parenting and anger management classes. 

From September to November 2011, father participated in a parenting and 

substance abuse program called “Positive Steps” in Lakewood, near his home in Long 

Beach. Father was allowed to complete an “accelerated” program by meeting with a 

counselor in one-on-one sessions and attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in the 

community. Although father completed a 16-week program in eight weeks, he did not 

attend any classes, and his counselor was not a licensed therapist. 

On November 14, 2011, father participated in an intake session at Coast 

Counseling in Long Beach. According to the intake counselor, father appeared for the 

initial session, vented about how he had been wronged by Riverside County, and was 

discharged after he failed to attend two subsequent appointments. 

On November 23, 2011, the juvenile court transferred the case to Los Angeles 

County. Father participated in a Team Decision Making (TDM) meeting on 

February 8, 2012, to discuss the case plan and DCFS‟s recommendations for an 

upcoming court hearing. DCFS was concerned that father had participated in a parenting 

program that did not actually provide him with any instruction. DCFS asked that father 

participate in an anger management program, as recommended by Dr. Suiter, and offered 

to provide father with funds for this purpose. Father became irate and said that he would 

not do anything beyond what the court in Riverside County had originally ordered. 

Following the TDM meeting, father remained in the building lobby and demanded to 

meet with an administrator, even after being told repeatedly that he would have to make 

an appointment, because no administrators were available to meet with him at that time. 

Eventually a security guard asked father to leave. Father said he would return in an hour 

(which he did not). DCFS administration and security staff decided that if father did 

return, Lakewood Deputy Sheriffs would be called to circle the building because father 

was acting in a threatening manner and the reception staff did not feel safe. Although 

father had a monitored visit with the children scheduled the next day, DCFS cancelled the 

visit due to father‟s behavior because the social worker felt unsafe. 
6

The above incident aside, DCFS reported on February 21, 2012, that father had 

been having weekly monitored visits with the children, who were always happy to see 

him and felt comfortable in his presence. However, father stated that he was unwilling to 

participate in any further services, and blamed the mother for the family‟s current 

involvement with DCFS. DCFS recommended that the juvenile court continue 

reunification services, subject to Dr. Suiter‟s recommendation that father participate in 

anger management and parent education, and comply with the Riverside court‟s order 

that he undergo a psychiatric medicine evaluation. At a hearing on February 21, 2012, 

the juvenile court found that both DCFS and father had complied with the case plan in 

making reasonable efforts to enable the children‟s safe return home. The court continued 

the matter to August 21, 2012, for a 12-month review hearing. 

In a report prepared for the 12-month review hearing, DCFS social worker Redina 

Sheriff reported that although the children remained suitably placed and physically 

healthy, S., and to a lesser extent J., had “ongoing behavioral issues.” Specifically, S. 

exhibited “extreme outbursts, lying and running away.” S. also had ongoing disciplinary 

issues in school, including “getting off task, causing class disruptions, struggling in the 

area of peer relationships, and disrespecting adult authority.” Ms. Sheriff believed father 

contributed to S.‟s behavioral problems because S. had been present when father had 

spoken negatively about DCFS and court employees, and his court-appointed attorney in 

particular. Many of Ms. Sheriff‟s contacts with father during the reporting period 

involved father “expressing discontent about his case or disagreement with the case plan 

contents.” DCFS changed father‟s visitation day at his request to accommodate his 

attendance at a parenting group. 

J. also exhibited behavioral difficulties such as defiant behavior, temper tantrums, 

difficulty following instructions, and scratching his face. 

Father was “resistant to accepting the case plan” and juvenile court orders from 

both Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. When DCFS confirmed the orders, father 

argued that some items were completed, some were not ordered, and his attorney told him 

not to complete certain others. Father continued to insist that he had been unfairly treated 
7

in both Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. DCFS also reported that father had not 

complied with a number of the courts‟ orders. For example, father enrolled in domestic 

violence classes, but the classes were for victims, not batterers. When informed that 

these classes were not compliant with the courts‟ orders, father became angry and blamed 

Ms. Sheriff for failing to tell him that he needed to be in batterers‟ counseling. In fact, 

the Riverside court‟s order clearly provided that father was to participate in a program for 

victims and perpetrators. Father also failed to comply with the court‟s order that he 

undergo a psychotropic medicine evaluation, claiming he was unable to obtain an 

appointment. Ms. Sheriff commented that father “does not acknowledge that he has any 

mental or emotional issues that warrant medication.” Father did comply with the court‟s 

order that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which was conducted by Dr. Suiter, and 

partially complied with the order that he participate in anger management and parenting 

classes, by enrolling in “Project Fatherhood,” a group under the auspices of Children‟s 

Institute, Inc. Father did not comply with the order that he undergo random drug testing. 

DCFS also reported that father had disregarded the juvenile court‟s orders in other 

ways. He acted aggressively with the children‟s caregiver demanding that she not speak 

Spanish in front of the children, and that H. wear only those shoes that father provided. 

Father brought additional visitors to visits with the children, stating that he did not care 

what Ms. Sheriff had to say on the matter. Father tended to “rationalize his noncompliance [with] court orders.” During another visit, S. tried to tell father that she was 

not doing well in her foster placement, but father said “he was only present at the visits 

for the fun time with his children” and he “didn‟t want [S.] to tell him anything that has 

to do with bad things.” Father did tell S. that if she wanted to address him with any other 

matters, it would have to be after the visit. 

Although DCFS recommended that father‟s family reunification services be 

terminated at the 12-month hearing that was to occur on August 21, 2012, the juvenile 

court continued the matter and ordered DCFS to submit a supplemental report. The court 

also ordered a mental health assessment for S. 
8

DCFS prepared an interim review report in anticipation of the continued 12-month 

hearing on October 24, 2012. Several major changes had occurred. First, the younger 

three children‟s caregiver requested that the children be removed from her home. J. and 

JaC. had become more aggressive. JaC. was pinching and hitting the caregiver; J. told 

the caregiver that “You‟re not my daddy, and my daddy says I don‟t have to listen to 

you.” JaC. was replaced alone in a foster home. 

Second, S. had been prescribed the medication Abilify when she was at Del Amo 

Hospital. Father insisted that S. not be administered any psychotropic medication and 

ordered that the medication be discontinued. Without the medication, S. became “very 

physically aggressive toward others,” and she constantly threatened to hurt others. DCFS 

arranged a meeting between father and S.‟s doctor so the doctor could explain to father 

why S. needed the medication. Father said he would attend the meeting, but did not. 

The juvenile court conducted a contested 12-month hearing on December 7 and 

10, 2012. At the time of the hearing, the children had actually been detained from the 

father for 16 months. Father testified that he was doing individual counseling with 

Dr. Grant Seo through Project Fatherhood. Father testified that he would cooperate with 

doctors or other professionals who might recommend some intervention, such as 

medication for his children. The court noted there were concerns that when father and 

the children were together, the children were “kind of out of control” and father was not 

able to “draw them back in control.” Father assured the court that he was willing to 

“accept the fatherhood classes continually” so he could get the children back in control. 

When asked on cross-examination what issues had brought his family before the juvenile 

court, father said he had made “some really dumb choices” and, against the advice of 

family members and others, had stayed in a marriage that was “just not good for me.” 

Father believed the children were having behavioral issues because they were not used to 

being separated; because they had seen only him; and their mother had not visited them 

in almost two years. Father believed he was stable enough to have the children returned 

to his custody, and stated “I would do anything the judge asked me to do to have my 

kids.” 
9

S.‟s caretaker Latanya G., who had been monitoring father‟s visitation with all the 

children for nearly five months, was called as a witness by father‟s counsel at the juvenile 

court‟s request. Ms. G. testified that the children were bonded to their father and 

appeared comfortable with him “sometimes.” When asked by the court whether the 

father was able to redirect the children‟s behavior when needed, Ms. G. likewise 

responded “sometimes.” When asked by father‟s counsel whether father was “very 

caring of his kids,” Ms. G. again response was “[sometimes yes] and sometimes no.” 

Responding to further questioning, Ms. G. explained that father sometimes became 

emotional and upset, but was “quite rational” and attentive to the children when he 

calmed down. However, a one-hour visit did not afford father that much time to calm 

down. On one occasion, father had what Ms. G. considered to be an “over the top” 

reaction to a scratch on JaC.‟s head, repeatedly accusing Ms. G. of hurting JaC. and 

insisting that she report the matter to DCFS. Father also took the opportunity at his onehour visits to discuss case issues with J. and JaC., telling them that “he‟s going to court 

and he hopes that . . . they get to come back home with him.” Ms. G. monitored father‟s 

telephone calls with S. because S. had mental and emotional issues and father‟s behavior 

provoked these issues. 

In closing argument, father cited a letter from father‟s therapist to the effect that 

father had made “significant progress” as a result of his individual counseling sessions, 

and had complied with “certain of” the Riverside juvenile court‟s orders. Counsel 

requested that the children be returned to father that day, or, if the court was not so 

inclined, that father be given an additional 60 days of reunification services. 

The juvenile court was not inclined toward either option. First, the court pointed 

out that father had not had a single unmonitored visit with the children, nor had DCFS 

increased the length of father‟s visits or liberalized them to be unmonitored. Although

father‟s therapists had said “he‟s doing better. He‟s working better,” they had not 

recommended sending the children home. The court commented that although father had 

“said good things on the stand. . . . But the fact of the matter is when asked to show up at 

a doctor‟s appointment, he didn‟t. When asked to talk to his children about things that 
10

are going on, he didn‟t. Every little thing becomes a big thing. Every big thing becomes 

a mountain, but only as it affects [father] and what he‟s looking at for his children.” The 

court acknowledged that the children loved father, and recommended that father “keep 

doing what he‟s supposed to be doing and keep doing it well.” However, the court found 

by a preponderance of the evidence that, as of the hearing date, return of the children to 

father‟s care would create a substantial risk of harm to them. The court stated that 

although it could find “regular and consistent contact for the father,” it could “not find 

that [father] made significant progress in resolving the problems which led to removal or 

that he demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the treatment 

plan and provide for the children‟s safety, protection, physical or emotional well-being 

and special needs.” The court terminated father‟s reunification services, and stated it 

could “not return the children . . . never having any unmonitored contact, and I do not 

believe that there is a substantial probability of return in 60 days.” 

DISCUSSION

Father contends the juvenile court erred when it found DCFS had made reasonable 

efforts to reunify him with the children, because DCFS did not consider the family‟s 

special needs or tailor its services to the father‟s “special mental health needs.” 

It is evident that father perceives “the family‟s special needs” and his own “special 

mental health needs” to be one and the same. We note first of all that there is no 

evidence in the record of father having raised this issue at any time during the 16-month 

reunification period. Father did not request any additional services tailored to his 

“special mental health needs” but instead complained that DCFS was making him do 

more than he believed the court had ordered. For example, Dr. Suiter recommended, and 

the juvenile court ordered, that father participate in parenting, anger management and 

domestic violence programs. Father chose a domestic violence program tailored to 

victims, claiming that the children‟s mother, not he, was the aggressor. When DCFS 

informed him he had to attend a program for batterers, he asserted that the court had not 

ordered him to participate in such a program. Likewise, father enrolled in “Positive 
11

Steps,” a parenting program that did not comply with the case plan because it did not 

require him to attend any classes, and his counselor was not a licensed therapist. Father 

also attended an intake session at Coast Counseling, spent the entire session complaining 

that he had been wronged, and was discharged from the program when he failed to attend 

two subsequent appointments. It is clear father approached the case plan as something he 

could do as he saw fit, and his view did not necessarily comport with the juvenile court‟s 

orders. 

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court‟s finding that DCFS provided 

adequate reunification services. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545; In re 

Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.) 

As the juvenile court in this case recognized, the real issue it had to address at the 

12-month hearing was whether the children could be returned to father at that time, and, 

barring that, whether they could be returned within the 60 days remaining until the end of 

the 18-month reunification period. 

Section 366.21, subdivision (f), provides that a permanency planning hearing shall 

be held no later than 12 months after a child enters foster care. The section further 

provides that “[T]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his 

or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial 

risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the 

child.” 

The juvenile court in this case found that the children would be at risk if returned 

to father at the 12-month hearing. Father does not, and could not, dispute that finding. 

Even if father had complied with all other aspects of the case plan, he had never had even 

one unmonitored visit, let alone an overnight visit with the children. Although father 

visited with the children consistently, he spent a great deal of his limited visitation time 

complaining about the way the children‟s foster parents were caring for his children. In 

fact, father spent so much time complaining that he had little time to develop the 

interactive parenting skills necessary for him to reunify with his children. Although 
12

father testified at the hearing below that he would do whatever was required to have his 

children returned to him, he had failed to do so during the 16 months that DCFS provided 

him with reunification services. The juvenile court properly terminated those services at 

the 12-month hearing.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is made final forthwith 

as to this court.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_______________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, P.J.

BOREN

________________________, J.

CHAVEZ