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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

S.S.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY,

 Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

 B317892

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

20CCJP01104A)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary

writ. Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. Petition 

denied.

Nicole J. Johnson and Xavier Rosas for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Stanley Wu for Minor J.S.
3

The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over

then-four-month-old J.S. and removed him from the custody of 

his mother S.S. (Mother) based on the court’s finding that Mother 

suffered from mental and emotional problems that inhibited her 

ability to regularly care for her very young son. The court’s order 

for reunification services required Mother to undergo a 

psychological evaluation and participate in individual counseling. 

At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated

Mother’s family reunification services and set a permanency 

planning hearing. In this extraordinary writ proceeding 

challenging the setting of that hearing, we consider whether

substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

(the Department) provided Mother with reasonable reunification 

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 she had just 

given birth to J.S. According to the reporting party, Mother had 

been aggressive and threatening 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 place 

[Mother] on a psychiatric hold,” but believed Mother was 

schizophrenic.

A Department social worker visited the hospital. Mother 

was interfering with J.S.’s newborn screenings, “refusing to allow 

the examinations, yelling, cursing, and insulting medical staff.”
4

The social worker attempted to calm Mother down and explained

the Department needed to know she was prepared to handle the 

responsibilities of a newborn. Mother shouted “leave me alone,” 

and the social worker left the room. A hospital social worker 

then entered Mother’s room, but Mother told her to “get out.” A 

psychiatrist re-evaluated Mother and determined that she 

“appeared to exhibit cluster traits, low distress tolerance, and 

possibly borderline personality disorder.”

Later, Mother yelled at a nurse who was performing a 

newborn screening test and told her to leave. The hospital 

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 “‘low distress tolerance and anger 

aggression.’” A doctor opined Mother’s actions were interfering 

with the standard care of J.S. The Department obtained an order 

removing J.S. from Mother’s custody.

In the Department’s investigation that ensued, a social 

worker spoke to Mother. She said that part of her income comes 

from “Social Security Insurance” and that “her disability is 

Anxiety and Depression during her pregnancy.” Mother said she 

had been following a mental health professional’s 

recommendation “when she was 16, but not now.” Mother

claimed she no longer needed counseling.

Treatment notes from Mother’s hospital stay when giving 

birth to J.S. mention a history of schizophrenia, citing 

“[c]ollateral history” obtained from Mother’s shelter. The notes

add that Mother “denies this history when she is confronted.” 

The notes also state that the schizophrenia is “apparently 

untreated at this time.”
5

Department records indicated Mother had also been

admitted to a hospital for “drug induced [p]sychosis” less than 

three years earlier, in May 2017. She was treated and 

discharged after nearly a month. Less than a week after her 

discharge, however, Mother was treated at a different hospital for 

“suicidal thoughts and Bi Polar.” After that hospital stay, 

Mother had a mental health assessment 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 

medication. Within a month, Mother “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 Jurisdiction Over J.S.

The Department filed a juvenile dependency petition 

alleging Mother “has mental and emotional problems, including 

cluster traits, low distress tolerance and possible borderline 

personality disorder and a diagnosis of anxiety, depression and

schizophrenia, which renders 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 and places the child at risk of 

physical harm, damage, and danger.”

The court held a detention hearing in February 2020. The 

court detained J.S. from Mother and released him into the 

Department’s custody. Mother was permitted monitored 

visitation.
6

In April 2020, Mother informed the Department she 

completed a mental health evaluation and was prescribed three 

medications for anxiety. She said she was told she was bipolar 

and had postpartum psychosis. Mother said she took the 

medication once and, after that, told the doctor she didn’t need 

medication. Mother said she would be receiving individual 

counseling. She denied being diagnosed with mental health 

problems during her prior hospitalizations and claimed she had 

been admitted because she was “homeless and doing substances.” 

(She refused to say what substances she had been using at that 

time.) With regard to her behavior at the hospital after giving 

birth to J.S., Mother said she had been upset with her siblings for 

not helping her when they were visiting and raised her “voice a 

little bit” at a nurse.

In June 2020, the juvenile court sustained (with certain 

amendments by interlineation) the aforementioned dependency 

allegations and ordered monitored visitation for Mother. The 

disposition hearing was scheduled to take place later.

In the interim before the disposition hearing, Mother 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 help her. When asked if she had been following up with her

psychiatrist and taking her medication, Mother responded, “‘It’s 

none 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.’”

Not long thereafter, Mother was involuntarily hospitalized 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. The 

involuntary hospitalization was triggered because Mother was 

threatening other residents of the shelter where she lived and 
7

refused to leave the shelter. Mother was released from the 

hospital the next day and allowed to return 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 visitation monitor terminated a visit when Mother

became “very loud, angry, and confrontational” after being 

advised against overfeeding J.S. On another occasion, Mother

was shouting obscenities at a passerby during a visit with J.S. at 

a park, yelling at the visitation monitors, and cursing at J.S.’s 

foster mother. In August 2020, Mother told the Department she 

was asked to leave her shelter after a fight with staff and her 

roommate. Mother was in “good spirits” and in a “positive mood” 

for two later visits, however, stating she was taking her 

medication daily and was feeling better and less anxious.

Shortly before the disposition hearing, the Department 

submitted a report to the juvenile court attaching a September 

2020 progress letter from Dr. Robert Strong, who had been 

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 outbursts to the 

untrained 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 reportedly 

critical and aggressive. And when she was relocated to a calmer 

shelter, her anxiety went down dramatically.” According to Dr. 

Strong’s letter, “[Mother] has been working with a psychiatrist at 

our clinic,” and she felt “the medication was helping her have 

more even moods and clearer thinking.”
8

At the disposition hearing held in October 2020, the court 

declared J.S. a dependent of the court and ordered that he be 

placed in foster care. The court also ordered family reunification 

services for Mother, including parenting classes, transportation 

and housing assistance, and mental health treatment—

specifically, an order for a psychiatric evaluation, a direction to 

take all prescribed psychotropic medication, and a requirement to 

participate in individual counseling.

C. Subsequent Developments, and the Six-Month Review 

Hearing

A Department social worker called Mother in December 

2020 to discuss visitation with J.S. and provide assistance with 

transportation, housing, and funding for programs. Mother 

refused assistance from the Department.

During a subsequent phone call with Mother, a social 

worker heard Mother and J.S.’s alleged father arguing. The 

Department later met with Mother and suggested enrolling in a 

domestic violence class. The Department also informed mother it 

could not provide financial assistance payments to her because

she was already receiving social security payments.

Dr. Strong (Mother’s therapist) authored another progress 

letter regarding Mother in February 2021. Insofar as the letter 

described Mother’s condition, it was identical to his prior letter 

prepared in advance of the disposition hearing. This letter, 

however, also included a jeremiad about social welfare systems

and their treatment of people of color: “From my observations 

and from current sociological study, black mothers are subject to 

negative attributions from social workers and medical 

professionals, at a highly disproportionate rate. [¶] . . . [¶] I have 
9

watched [Mother] attempt everything asked of her with no 

support or financial resources. She tried attending a certificateprogram at a local college and tried to take online parenting 

classes, all while struggling with finances and transportation. 

This young lady has a great amount of trauma that clouds her 

mind regularly, and treatment by our racist healthcare system 

has caused a great deal of it. She has already been robbed of the 

irreplaceable 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 regular basis. 

I was written up by my county clinic last year for complaining of 

similar systemic biases, because I had offended some privileged, 

Caucasian social worker. This was the same month I was shot 

with rubber bullets for protecting a sister of color from the police 

officers that were dragging her across the pavement and beating 

her. The fear of institutions and uniforms has been beaten out of 

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

who ignore and thereby perpetuate this sort of human suffering 

by a racist and oppressive system, those are the ones 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 Department submitted the letter to the juvenile court 

as part of a status update report in advance 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 

Department’s report stated the Department would search for a 

more appropriate therapist in the months to follow.

By March of 2021, Mother told a Department social worker

she was taking new medication prescribed by her psychiatrist Dr. 
10

William Kaz (the psychiatrist working at the same clinic as Dr. 

Strong) and was experiencing “problems” with the new 

medication. Mother provided a letter from her residential case 

manager explaining Mother had been transported to the hospital 

after having an adverse reaction to the new medication. The 

social worker advised Mother to contact her doctor to have her 

medication reevaluated.

At the six-month review hearing, held in April 2021, the 

juvenile court found the Department had provided Mother with 

reasonable services. The court further found that Mother had 

made partial progress with her case plan and ordered

reunification services to continue.

D. The Twelve-Month Review Hearing and Termination 

of Reunification Services

Visitation problems continued after the six-month review 

hearing. At one visit in 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 

result, a Department social worker, J.S.’s foster mother, and the 

foster family 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 health issues

and she said that Dr. Strong was not helping her. The 

Department social worker said he would talk to Dr. Strong about 

Mother’s concerns.

Dr. Strong thereafter sent an e-mail to a Department social 

worker stating Mother “has fulfilled all of her other 

requirements, finished anger management and parenting classes, 
11

participated in individual therapy[.] What’s the latest from your 

end? What’s the hold up for reunification?” The social worker

informed Dr. Strong of the recent meeting in which Mother used 

profanity and “refused to listen to reason.”

Dr. Strong provided a final progress letter in September 

2021. The letter contained identical statements as the previous 

letters about Mother’s treatment goals, her feelings about the

effect of her medication, and life updates. Dr. Strong also

expressed skepticism about the justification 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 breast, 

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 of systemic 

racism, only to find that very anxiety response used against 

them.” Dr. Strong stated “[Mother] has done everything asked of 

her,” including individual parenting and anger management 

classes, and a vocational training program. The letter closed: “I 

hope the reunification of this mother with her child can be done 

as soon as possible, so that not another minute of this formative 

developmental phase be lost. [¶] Until she is reunified with her 

child, she cannot be expected to act any other way than 

distraught. I am reminded of the words of Jesus, who lambasted 

the authorities of his day for ‘binding burdens upon other men’s 

backs that they themselves could never carry.’ I hope she 

receives justice for the medical crimes committed against her and 

her child.”

Before the 12-month review hearing, a Department social 

worker asked Mother why Dr. Strong did not include information 
12

concerning her medication and housing in his progress letter.

Mother said that when she asked Dr. Strong to include that

information, he refused. Mother discussed enrolling in a second 

individual counseling program, but the Department pointed out 

she was receiving treatment from Dr. Strong and that she was 

not ordered to enroll in a second individual counseling program. 

Mother also reported she was still taking her medication under 

the supervision of Dr. Kaz. The Department asked Mother about 

“where she was currently living, the contact information of her 

case manager, her employment internship, and a progress letter 

from Dr. Kaz,” but, according to the Department, she “was not 

able to confirm any of the questions asked of her.” The 

Department called Dr. Kaz to discuss Mother’s progress with 

managing her medications but was unable to leave a message.

The Department did reach Mother’s anger management 

and parenting class program facilitator, who reported that 

Mother had completed 28 sessions of a 16-session parenting 

course and 27 sessions of a 16-session anger management course.1

A week later, the executive director of the facility offering the

anger management classes reported Mother “had a meltdown” 

during a class when she was told the Department recommended

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 

July 2021 that Mother needed more sessions “to gain a better 

insight.”

2 According to the Department, a social worker told Mother 

she could cease participation in the classes but was free to

continue if she needed additional help.
13

In a last minute information report submitted 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 through October 2021.” The report also revealed one

monitored visit between Mother and J.S. had to be terminated 

because of Mother’s “assaultive and aggressive behavior towards 

the monitor.” According to the report, Mother met with a 

Department social worker in December 2021 and provided an 

enrollment and progress letter for a new anger management 

program, copies of recently filled prescription medications, and

materials detailing her efforts to search for housing.

At the 12-month review hearing, Mother asked the juvenile 

court to return J.S. to her custody or, failing that, to continue 

reunification services. Mother argued she completed “her entire

case plan” (meaning programs, counseling, taking medication as 

prescribed, and visiting J.S.). Mother acknowledged the 

Department was recommending termination of reunification 

services but argued the recommendation was made “because the 

social worker was not happy with [Mother’s] attitude.”

The attorney for J.S. urged the court to terminate

reunification services. Counsel argued: “Mother has done 

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, Mother was “unable to care for [J.S.’s] needs 

during monitored visitation.” The Department likewise argued 

reunification 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 reunify 
14

with” J.S. But the court observed 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 issues still are 

an ongoing issue and are manifesting itself in terms of her angry

outbursts.” The court found the Department provided reasonable 

reunification services but “Mother has not made significant 

progress in resolving the problems that led to [J.S.]’s removal 

from the home, and Mother has not demonstrated the capacity 

and ability to complete the objectives of the treatment plan and 

to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and 

emotional well-being.” The court accordingly terminated 

reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing 

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 information 

about her mental health diagnosis and replaced 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 juvenile court and the broader assertion that there is no

substantial evidence supporting the reasonable services finding 

does not jibe with our view of the record. The Department 

identified the problems leading to Mother’s loss of custody; 

offered numerous services designed to remedy those problems; 

and maintained ongoing contact with Mother, which included 

offering assistance when she demonstrated issues with 

compliance. It is well-settled that services provided need only be 
15

reasonable, not perfect or even ideal, and the Department’s 

efforts were more than adequate under that standard.

If a juvenile court removes a child from parental custody 

and assumes dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, the court may require the 

Department to provide reunification services to the parent and 

order participation in a counseling program “designed to 

eliminate those 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 also Welf. 

& Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (a).) The court then monitors 

compliance with reunification services at periodic hearings.

The Department “must make a good faith effort to provide 

reasonable services responsive to the unique needs of each 

family, and the plan must be . . . ‘“‘designed to eliminate those 

conditions which led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional

finding.’”’ [Citation.]” (Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 

Cal.App.4th 397, 420 (Patricia W.).) The Department’s efforts are 

judged according to the circumstances of the particular case. 

(Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 

1345; see also In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 

547 (Misako R.).) “Services will be found reasonable if the 

Department has ‘identified the problems leading to the loss of 

custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, 

maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the 

course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist 

the parents in areas where compliance 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 evidence, considering the 
16

record in the light most favorable to the Department and in light 

of the clear and convincing standard of proof 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.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

reasonable services finding. Mother received a mental health 

evaluation and a diagnosis. She was being treated by a 

psychiatrist who prescribed medication to treat her mental 

illness. She was also referred to, and attended, parenting, 

domestic violence, and anger management classes. The 

Department further offered Mother resources for locating housing 

and transportation funding, maintained regular contact with 

Mother throughout the reunification period, made suggestions to 

help her with her case plan compliance, and attempted to 

mediate conflicts between her and J.S.’s foster mother. These are 

reasonable efforts to eliminate the basis on which the juvenile 

court assumed jurisdiction over J.S. As the juvenile court 

recognized in its remarks at the 12-month review hearing, that 

these efforts did not ultimately succeed in transforming Mother’s 

behavior to enable reunification was largely a function of her 

intransigence (indeed, she expressly refused the Department’s 

assistance at times), not the absence of efforts made by the 

Department.

The only specific counterargument Mother offers to the 

contrary is the claim that the Department cannot be found to 

have provided reasonable services because it did not replace Dr. 

Strong as Mother’s therapist and did not otherwise to obtain 

more information about her mental health diagnosis. The point

concerning Dr. Strong, however, is waived. Mother’s attorney in 

the juvenile court was well aware of the content of Dr. Strong’s 
17

progress letters, the Department’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 objected to Dr. Strong’s continued 

service as her therapist and this is easily understood as a tactical 

judgment—Dr. Strong was a vocal, steadfast advocate for Mother 

(even if unprofessional to a degree) and there was no guarantee a 

new therapist would be as strongly in her corner. (See In re S.B. 

(2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. 2 [“waiver is the ‘“intentional 

relinquishment or abandonment of a known right”’”].) 

Furthermore, Mother was also under the continued care of her 

psychiatrist, Dr. Kaz, who was prescribing her medication. So 

even if the Department should have done more to search for a 

new therapist (and even if Mother would have then accepted a 

new therapist) or tried to obtain more information about Mother’s 

mental health diagnosis, the absence of evidence that the 

Department did so does not defeat a reasonable services finding. 

(Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at 547 [“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”].)
18

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.