Filed 7/29/22 S.S. v. Superior Court CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinio n has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

S

. S.

,
Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELE S COUNTY,

Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

,
Real Party in Interest. B 3 17892

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01104A )

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ; petition for extraordinary
writ

. Lisa A. Brac kelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore

. Petition
denied

. Nicole J. Jo hnson and X avier Rosas for P etitioner

. No appearance for Respondent.2 Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Ass istant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal
D eputy County Counsel

, for Real Party in Interest

. S tanley Wu for Minor J.S.3 The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over
then

- four

- month

- old J

. S

. and remove d him from th e custody of
his mother S

. S . (Mother ) based on the court’s finding that M other
suffered from mental and emotional problems that inhibited her ability to regularly care for her very young son. The court’s order
for reunification s ervices requi red Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation and participate in individual counsel ing

. At the 12

- month review hearing, the juvenile court terminate d
Mother ’ s family reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing. In this ex traordinary w rit proceedin g challenging the setting of that hearing, we consider whether
substantia l evidence support s the juvenile court’s finding that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department ) provide d Mother with reasonable r eunification
services before those services were ordered terminated

.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Department Investigates J.S.’s Welfare In February 2020, the Department received a report about concerning behavior by Mother at the hospital where sh e had just gi ven birth to J.S. According to the reporting party, Mother had
been aggressive and th reatening towards the nursing staff

, tried to leave with J.S. against medical advice , and refused a toxicology

test

. A hospital psychiatrist “[did] not have enough to pl ace [ Mother ] on a psychiatric hold,” but believed Mother was schizophrenic.
A Departme nt social worker visited the hospital. Mother was interfering with J.S.’s newborn screenings, “refusing to allow the examinations, yelling, cursing, and ins ulting medic a l staff.”4

The social worker attempted to calm Mother down and explained
the D epartment needed to know she was prepared to handle the responsibilities of a newborn. Mother shouted “leave me alone,”
and t he social worker left the room. A hospi tal social wo rker
then ent ered Mother’s room , but Mother told her to “get out

. ” A psychiatrist re

- evaluate d Mother and determined that she “appeared to exhibit cluster traits, low distress tolerance, and possibly borderline personality disorder. ” Later, M other yelled at a nurse wh o was performing a newborn screening test and told her to leave

. The hos pital psychiatrist was called in again. He said he would need more time to determine Mother’s capacity to care for J.S

. but there was

a “ risk factor ” due to Mother’s “ ‘l ow distress t olerance and anger aggression.’” A doctor opined Mother’s actions were i nterfering
with the standard care of J.S. The Department obtained an order

re moving J.S. from Mother ’s custody. In the Department ’ s investigation that e nsued, a social

w orker spoke t o Mother. She said that part of her income comes from “ Social Security I nsurance” and that “her disability is Anxiety and Depre ssion during her pregnancy.” Mother said she
had been following a mental health profes sional’s recommendation “whe n she was 16, but not now.” Mother
claimed she no longer needed counseling.
Treatmen t notes fr om Mother’s hospital stay when giving birth to J.S. mention a history of schizophrenia, citing “[c]ollateral history” obtained from M other’s shelter. The notes
add that Mot her “denie s this history when she is confronted.”
The notes also state t hat the schizophrenia is “apparently
untreated at this time

. ”5 Department records indicated Mother had also been
admitted to a hospital for “dr ug induced [p]sychosis” les s than
three years earlier, in May 2017. She was treat ed and discharged after nearly a month. Less than a week after her discharge, however, Mother was treated at a different h ospital for “suicidal thoughts and Bi P olar.” Afte r that hospital stay,
Mothe r had a menta l health asses sment and an intake appointment

, but decided she no longer wanted mental health
services. The following week

, Mother was admitted to another

treatment center and discharged with a prescription for
medi cation

. Within a month, M o ther “ stated that she was feeling fine and back to her old self and stopped taking the medication ,”
but she said she would resume taking the medication if she began

“ having bad thoughts

. ”

B. The Dependency Court Takes Jurisdictio n Over J.S. The Departme nt filed a ju venile dependency petition alleging Mother “has mental and emotional prob lems, including
cluster traits, low distress tolerance and possible borderline personality disorder and a diagnosis of anxiety, depression and

sc hizophrenia, which render s the mother incapable of providing regular care for the child. The mother failed to obtain
recommended mental health treatment. Such mental and emotional problems on the part of the mother, endangers the child’s physical health and safety a nd places the child at ris k of physical harm, damage, and danger.”
The court held a detention hear ing in February 2020. The

court detained J.S

. from Mother and released him into the Department’s custody. Mother was permitted m onitored
visita tion

.6 In April 2020, Mot her informed the Department s he completed a mental health evaluation and was prescribe d three medications for anxiety. She said she was told she was bipolar and had postpartum psychosis

. Mother said s he took the
medication on c e a nd , after that, told the doctor she di dn’t need
medication. Mother said she would be receiving individual

coun seling. She denied being diagnosed with mental health

pro blems during her prior hospitalizations and claimed she had
been admitted because she was “homeless and doing su bstances.” ( She refused to say what substances she ha d been using at that
time. ) Wit h regard to her behavior at the hospital a fter giving
birth to J.S. , Mother said she had been upset with her siblings for not helping her when they were visiting and rais ed her “voice a little bit” at a nurse. In June 2020, the juvenile court sustained (w ith certain amendments by interlineation) the aforementioned dependency allegations and ordered monitored visitation for Mother

. The disposition hearing was scheduled to take place l ater. In the interim before the disposition hearing, Mo ther told a
social worker not to call her anymore because she did not require
assistance and was “well aware” the social worker was not willing
to h elp her. When asked if she had been fol lowing up wit h her psychiatrist and taking her medication, Mother res ponded, “ ‘ It’s

no ne of your business if I am, plus I don’t need to take
medication. All I needed to do was take the assessment and I did that, so there, I’m doing what I need to do. ’ ”
No t long therea fter, Mother was involuntarily hospitali zed pursuant to Welfare and Insti tutions Code section 5150

. The involuntary hospitalization was triggered because Mother was threatening other residents of the s helter where she lived and7

refused to lea ve the shelte r

. Mother was released from the hospital the next day and allowed to ret urn to the shelter. The shelter manager reported that Mother had been “unstable the
entire week.” There were also problems with Mother’s visitation. In July
2020
, a vis itation monit or terminated a visit when Mother became “very loud, angry, and confronta tional” after being advised against overfeeding J.S

. On another occasion, Mother

was shouting obscenities at a passerby during a v isit with J.S. at

a park , yelling at th e visitation monitors, and cursing at J.S.’s
foster mother

. In August 2020 , Mother to ld the Department she
was asked to leave her shelter after a fight with staff and her

roommate. Mother was in “good spirits” and i n a “positive mood”
for two later visit s , however, s tating she was taking her medication daily and was feeling better and les s anxious

. Shortly before the disposition hearing, the Department submitted a report to the juvenile court atta ching a September

20 20 progress letter from Dr. Robert Stro ng, who had b een having weekly teletherapy sessions with Mother since May. According to the letter, “[ Mother ’s ] treatment goal was related to reducing panic attacks (that often look like angry out bursts to the
untrai ned eye) from multiple times/wk to less than weekly. [Mother ] worked

. . . on learning and applying coping skills,
which she worked hard at to employ in the conflicts that would emerge with women at [ Mother’s shelter ] that were reporte dly critical and agg ressive. And when she was relocated to a calmer
she lter, her anxiety went down dramatically.” According to Dr. Strong’s let ter, “[ Mother ] has been working with a psychiatrist at our clinic,” and she felt “the medicatio n was helping her have

more even moo ds and clearer thinking.”8 At the dispos ition hearing held in October 2020 , the court declared J.S. a dependent of the court a nd o rdered that he be placed in foster care. The court also orde red family reunification
services for Mother, including parenting classes, transportation and housing ass istance, and mental health treatment

— specifically, a n order for a psychiatric evaluati on , a direction to
take all prescribed psychotropic medication

, a nd a requirement to participate in individual counseling.

C. Subs equent Developments, and the Six

- Month Review
Hearin g A Department social worker called M other i n December
2020 to discuss vi sitation with J.S. and provide assistance with

tr ansportation, housing, and funding for programs. M other
refused assistance from t he Department

. During a subsequent phon e call with M other, a social worker heard Mother and J.S.’s alleged father arguing. T he Department later met with Mother and suggested enrolling in a
domestic violence class. The Department also informed mother it

c ould not provide financial assistance p ayments to he r because
she was already receiving social security payments

. Dr. Strong (Mot her’s therapist) authored another progress letter regarding Mother in February 2021. Insofar as the letter described Mother’s condition, it was identical to his prio r letter

prep ared in advance of the disposition hearing. This letter,
howe ver, also i ncluded a jeremiad about social welfare system s and their treatment of people of color: “From my observations
and from current sociological study, black mothers are subj ect to negati ve attributions from social workers and medical profession als, at a highl y disproportionate rate. [¶]

. . . [¶] I have9

watched [Mother] attempt everything asked of her with no support or financial resources. She tried attending a certificat e

program at a local college and tried to take online parenting
classe s, all while str uggling with finances and transportation. This young lady has a great amount of trauma that clouds her mind regularly, and tr eatment by our racist healthcare system
has caused a grea t deal of it. She has already been robbed of the irrepla ceable first key year of bonding with her baby. [¶]

. . . [¶] I will advocate for her as much as I can against this implacably biased system that traumatizes black families on a regula r basis.
I w as written up by my county clinic last year for complaini ng of similar sy stemic biases, because I had offended some privileged,
Caucasian social worker. This was the same month I was shot
with rubbe r bullets for protecting a sister of color f rom the polic e officers that were dragging her across the pavement and beating
her. T he fear of institutions and uniforms has been beaten out of

me. So, professionalism be damned. Those in positions of power

w ho ignore and thereby perpetuate this sort o f human suffe ring by a racist and oppressive system, those are the one s who should
be sleepless with fear and remorse, for the spiritual karma that will inevitably come to them in this world or the next.” The Dep artment submitted the letter to the juvenile court

as par t of a status update report in advanc e of the six

- month review hearing. The Department’s report opined Dr. Strong’s
letter was “inappropriate ” and demonstrated Dr. Strong “ wants
to serve more as an advocate

. . . than her therapist. ” The Dep artment ’s rep ort stated the Departme nt would search for a more appropriate therapist i n the months to follow

. By March of 2021, Mother told a Department social worker she was taking new medication prescribed by h er psychiatrist Dr.10

William Kaz (the psychia trist working at the same clinic as Dr. Strong) and was experiencing “ problems ” with t he new medication. Mother provided a letter from her residential case manager explaining Mother had been transported to the h ospital after having a n adverse reaction to the ne w medic ation. The
social worker advised Mother to contact her doctor to have he r medication reevaluated.
At the six

- month review hearing

, held in April 2021, the juvenile court found the Department had pro vided Mother wi th
reasonable services. The court further found that Mother had made partial progress with her case plan and order ed
reunification services to continue.

D. The Twelve

- Month Review Hearing and Termination of Reunificatio n Services
Visitatio n problems continued after the six

- month rev iew hearing. At one visit i n May 2021, J.S.’s foster mother reported
Mother said she did not take her medication. A June 2021 visit
had ended with the police being called when Mother “was acting out of control, ” and “cussing and screaming” in front of J. S. As a

resu lt, a Department social worker , J.S.’s foster mother, and the
foster fami ly social worker met with Mother and she was agitated and used profanity throughout the meeting. Mother was asked if
she was keeping Dr. Strong apprised of any mental he alth issues

a nd she said that Dr. Strong was not helping her

. The Department social w orker said he would talk to Dr. Strong about
Mother ’ s concerns

. Dr. Strong ther e after sent an e

- mail to a Department social
worker stating Mother “has fulfilled all of he r other requi rements, finished anger management and parenting classes,11

participated in individual therapy[.] What’s the latest from y our end? What’s the hold up for reunification?” The social worker
informed Dr. Str ong of the recent meeting in which Mot her used prof anity and “ refused to listen to reason

. ” Dr. Strong provided a final prog ress letter in Sep tember
2021

. The letter contained identical statements as the previous
letters about Mother’s treatment goals

, he r feelings about the
effect of her med ication, and life updates

. Dr. S trong also expressed skepticism about the justificati on for J.S. ’ s removal: “It has also been confirmed recently, that the hospital used a false diagnosis to justify snatching her baby from her b reast, stating that she is schizophrenic , which hours of assessment and therapy can confirm, [she] is not.

. . . A vicious cycle often takes place with Black women when scrutinized by authority figures, that they will react out of anxiety, based on years o f systemic racism, only to find that ver y anxiety response used against them.” Dr. Strong stated “[ Mother ] has d one everything asked of
her

, ” including individual parenting and anger management
classes , and a vocational training program. The letter close d: “ I hope the reunificatio n of this mot her with her child can be done as soon as possible, s o that not another m inute of this formative developmental phase be lost. [ ¶ ] Until she is reunified with her child, she cannot be expected to act any other way t han distraught. I am remin ded of the wo rds of Jesus, who lambasted
the authorities of his da y for ‘binding burde ns upon other men’s backs that they themselves could never carry.’ I hope she receives justice for the medical crimes committed against her an d
her child.”
Before the 12

- month review hearing, a Department social
worker a sked Mother w hy Dr. Strong did not include information12

concerning her medication and housing in his progress letter

. Mother said that when she asked Dr. Strong to include that
i nformation, he refused. Mo ther discusse d enrolli ng in a second individual counseling program, but t he Department pointed out
she was receiving treatment from Dr. Strong and that s he was not ordered to enroll in a second individual counseling program

. Mot her also reported she was s till ta king h er medication under the supervision of Dr. Kaz

. The Department asked Mot her about “where she was currently living, the contact information of her case manager, her employment internship, and a progress letter
from D r. Kaz ,” but , accor ding to the Departmen t, she “ was not able to confirm any of the questions asked of her.” T he Department called Dr. Kaz to discuss Mother’s progress with managing her medications but was unable to leave a message

. T he Dep artment did rea ch Mother’s anger managemen t and parenti ng class program facilitator , who reported that
Mother had completed 28 s essions of a 16

- session parenting
course and 27 sessions of a 16

- session anger management course. 1
A week l ater
, the executive director of the facility offering the

ange r management classes reported Mother “had a meltdown” during a class when she was told the Department recommend ed she continue anger management classes

. 2 The executive director
did not know if Mother was taking her medication

.

1 The Department and the program facilitator had decided in J uly 2021 that Mother needed more sessions “to gain a b etter insight.”

2 According to the Department , a social worker told Moth er she could cease participation in the classes but was free to continue if she needed additional help.13 I n a last minute information report submi tted before the
12

- month review hearing, the Department stated Mother had been advised in June 2021 that the Department could pay for
court ordered services but she had “refused every month from
June 2021 th rough October 2021.” The report als o revealed on e monitored visit between Mother and J.S. had to be terminated
because of Mo ther’s “assaultive and aggressive behavior towards
the monitor

. ” Accor ding to the report, Mother met with a Department social w orker in December 2021 and provided an enrollment an d progress letter for a new anger management

program , copies of recently filled prescription medications, and
materials detaili ng her efforts to search for housing.
At the 12

- month review hearing, Mother asked the juvenile
court to return J.S. to her custo dy or, failing that, to continue
reunification services. Mother argued s he completed “her entire case plan” (meaning programs, counseling, taking medication as prescribed

, and visit ing J.S. ). Mother ack nowledged the Department was recommendi ng terminatio n of reunification services but argued the recommendation was made “becau se the
soci al worker was not happy with [Mother’s] attitude.” The attorney for J.S. urged the court to terminate
reunification serv ices . Counsel argued: “ Mother has don e everything in the case plan and yet it’s not enough. She completed additional anger management classes,

. . . [s]he’s still not able to control her anger.” Counsel also argued that despite parenting classes, Mothe r was “ unable to care for [J.S.’s] need s during moni tored visitation.” The Department likewise argued

r eunification services should be terminated

. The juvenile court stated it was “sympathetic” to Mother

,

as she “seems to be going to her classes and wants to reunify14

with ” J.S. But the court o bserved that “ Mother , in her behaviors

not only at visits but in interactions with the social worker and the caregiver, is not showing a change in her behaviors that brought her before this court. Her mental health i ssues still are an ongoing issue and ar e manifesting itself in terms of her angry outbursts.” The court found the Department provided reasonable
reunification services bu t “ Mother has not made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to [J. S.]’s removal from the home, and Mother has not demo nstrated the capa city and ability to complete the objectives of the treat ment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and
emotional well

- being.” The court accordingly terminated
reunification services and set a perman ency planning h earing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.

II. DISCUSSION
Mother argues the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding is unsupported by the evidence and asserts the Department should have sought out more detailed i nformation
ab out her mental health diagnosis and replace d Dr. Strong as her therapist

. As we go on to explain, the specific contention about replacing Dr. Strong is waived for failure to raise that issue in the juven ile court and the broader ass ertion tha t there is no substantial evidence supporting the reasonable services finding
does not jibe with our view of the record. T he Department identified the problems leading to Mother ’ s loss of custody;
offered numerous se rvices designed to remedy tho se problem s; and mainta ined ongoing contact with Mother, which included offering assistance when she demonstrated issues with compliance. It is well

- settled that services provided need only be15

reasonable, not perfect or even i deal, and the Department’s
ef forts were more than ad equate under that standard. If a juvenile court removes a child from pare ntal custody and assumes dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, the court may require the Depart ment to provide reunification services t o the parent and order participation in a counseling program “designed to
eliminate th ose conditions that led to the court ’ s finding that the child is a person described by [Welfare and Institutions Code,] [s] ection 300.” ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362, subd. (d); see als o Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (a).) The court then monitors compl iance with reunification services at periodic hearings. The Department “must make a good faith effort to provide
reasonable se rvices responsive to the uniq ue needs of eac h family, and the plan must be

. . . ‘“‘designed to eliminate those
conditions which l ed to the juvenile court ’ s jurisdiction al finding.’”’ [Citation.]” ( Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397 , 420 ( Patricia W. ).) The De partment’s effor ts are judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. ( Amanda H. v. Su

perior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340,

1345 ; see also In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538,
547 ( Misako R. ) .) “Servic es will be found reasonable i f the Department has ‘identif ied the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designe d to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made re asonable efforts to assist
th e parents in are as where comp liance proved difficult

. . . .’ [Citation.]” (

In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972

- 973.)
We review a juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided for substantial evide nce, considering the16

record i n the light most favorable to the Department and in light of the clear and convincing standard of proo f that applies in the juvenile court

. (

Patricia W.

, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at 419 ; see also Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005, 1011

. )
Su bstantial eviden ce supports t he juvenile court’s reasonable services finding. Mother received a menta l health
evaluation and a diagnosis

. She was being treated by a psychiatrist who prescribed medication to treat her mental
i llness

. She was also referre d to, and attend ed, parentin g , domestic violence

, and anger management classes. The Department furthe r offered Mother resources for locating housing and transportation funding

, maintained regular contact with Mother throughout the reunification period, ma de suggestions t o help her wi th her case plan compliance, and attempted to mediate conflicts between h er and J.S.’s foster mother. These are reasonable efforts to eliminate the basis on which the juvenile court assumed jurisdi ction over J.S. A s the j uvenile court

recogn ized in its r emarks at the 12

- month review hearing, that
these efforts did not ultimat ely succeed in transforming Mother’s behavior to enable reunification was largely a function of her intransigence (indeed , she expressly refused the D epartment’s
assistan ce at times), not the absence of efforts made by the Department. The only specific cou nterargument Mother offers to the contrary is the claim that the Department cannot be found to have provided reasonable s ervices because it did not re place Dr. Strong as Mother’s ther apist and did not otherwise to obtain
more information about her mental h ealth diagnosis. The point concerning Dr. Strong , however, is waived. Mother ’s attorney in the juvenile court was well aware of the content of Dr. S trong’s17

progress let ters, the Dep artment’s view that the letters were inappropriate, and the Department’s statements that it would search for another therapist for Mother. Despite that awareness, Mother’s attorney never object ed to Dr. Strong’s continued
service as her thera pist and this is easily understood as a tactical judgment

— Dr. Strong was a vocal, stea dfast advocate for Mother (even if unprofessional to a degree) and there was no guarantee a new therapist would be as str on gly in her corner

. (See In re S.B. (2004) 32 C al.4th 1287, 1293 , fn. 2 [“ w aiver is the ‘“ intentional relinquishment or abandonment o f a known right ”’”].)
Further more , Mother was also under the continued care of her psychiatrist, Dr. Kaz

, who was prescri bing her medication . S o even if the Department should have d one more to search for a new therapist (and even if Mother would have the n accepted a new therapist) or tried to obtain more information about Mother’s mental health diagnosis, the absence of evidence t hat the Department did so does n ot defeat a reasonable services finding

. ( Misako R.

, supra , 2 Cal.App.4th at 547 [“The standar d is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were

reas onable under the circumstances”] .)18 DISPO SITION The pe tition for extraordinary writ is denied

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFI CIAL REPORTS

BAKER , J.

We concur:

RUBIN

, P. J

.

MOOR , J.