Court Opinion

ID: 9901480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 20:03:12.266916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:33.635989
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/21/23 In re A.T. CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 In re A.T., a Person Coming Under the
 Juvenile Court Law.

 ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
 SERVICES AGENCY,
                                                                       G062686
      Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. 21DP0891)
           v.
                                                                       OPINION
 R.T.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vibhav
Mittal, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   No appearance for the Minor.
                                     INTRODUCTION
              R.T., the mother of minor A.T., appeals from an order of the juvenile court
terminating her reunification services. She asserts the Orange County Social Services
Agency (SSA) did not provide her and her daughter A.T. with conjoint counseling early
enough in the reunification process and the counseling eventually provided was
inadequate. She also asserts her visitation was inadequate. The court should, she claims,
have extended the reunification services period.
              We affirm the termination order. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s conclusion that too much time had passed since A.T.’s detention (over 18 months)
to allow reunification services to continue, in light of the lack of significant progress in
the areas most concerning to the court and to SSA. The relationship between R.T. and
A.T had not improved to the point where conjoint therapy would have a positive effect.
As the record showed, the few sessions that took place simply cemented R.T. and A.T. in
their respective opposing positions.
              As for visitation, even R.T. recognized that a child of A.T.’s age cannot be
forced to visit, at least not without extremely negative blowback. A.T.’s refusal to visit
more frequently than she did arose directly from her mother’s actions and attitudes both
before and after detention. SSA provided the framework for visitation; A.T.’s decision
not to use it fully reflects both the state of the parent-child relationship and her perception
of having escaped a toxic environment.
                                           FACTS
              A Huntington Beach police officer took A.T. and her three siblings into
protective custody after A.T.’s older sister reported an incident occurring in August 2021
during which R.T. beat her with a broom handle, pulled her hair, and kicked and spit on
her. Two of the other children, one of them A.T., witnessed this incident and
corroborated the older sister’s report. The children told SSA that R.T. routinely subjected

                                              2
them to physical and verbal abuse. They all said they were afraid of their mother. The
children were placed in Orangewood Children and Family Center.
              A.T. was 13 years old at the time of detention. Her sister was 15, and her
two brothers were 8 and 6. Both girls told SSA they wanted to live with relatives in
Georgia instead of with their mother.
              The court exercised jurisdiction over the children in October 2021. The
services made immediately available to R.T. were individual counseling with anger
management, a grief support group, and a parenting class. The court authorized six hours
of monitored visitation.
              The first visits between R.T. and the two girls in August 2021 were
“‘tense.’” A.T. and her sister told the social worker at first that they did not want to visit;
they finally agreed to go if they could go together.
              As of the end of September 2021, neither A.T. nor her older sister wanted
to visit with R.T. They were placed in foster care together.
              A visit in October led to “a lot of arguing” between R.T. and the two girls.
A.T. told SSA that she did not talk to her mother during visits because “‘she just talks
about her work and her life is great without us.’” At the girls’ request, the schedule
became visits every other week, with R.T. acknowledging that “‘I can’t force them’” to
visit. At a team meeting in March 2022, the girls complained that the visits were not
going well. R.T. “dictates the visits” and “threatens to take away their phones.” A.T.
stated that talking to R.T. was “like talking to a brick wall.” The girls did not want
therapy with R.T.
              R.T.’s individual counseling was not successful at first. The counselor
reported that R.T. would discuss the reasons for her referral only reluctantly and tended

                                               3
to “blame her daughter.” R.T. was “focused on working” at her cleaning business. Her
                                 1

counselor noted improvement in anger management and communication with the children
and recommended further therapy and support for anger and relationship issues. As of
April 2022, R.T. had completed 16 therapy sessions.
                  A.T. maintained throughout the entire reunification period that she did not
trust R.T., did not want to reunify with her, and wanted instead to be placed with relatives
in Georgia. A.T. had no interest in working out a relationship with R.T. Her therapist
opined in September 2022 that it was in A.T.’s best interest to move to Georgia to live
with relatives there. A team meeting in early September 2022 had to be held in two
sessions because the children did not want to see R.T.
                  In September 2022, A.T.’s foster parent reported that “numerous visits”
with R.T. had left A.T. “visibly upset.” 2 Her mother “brought up past traumas, renewed
old fights, talked about her appearance, etc.” A.T. suffered from alopecia (hair loss), and
both her foster parent and her doctor believed that stress caused the condition to worsen.
After skipping most of the visits during the summer of 2022, A.T.’s emotional and
psychological condition improved. As for R.T., the foster parent stated, “She may have
completed court-ordered classes, but her nature and habits are unchanged. She routinely
falls into patterns of verbal assault, belittlement, unacceptance, and in general strikes a
tone of fear and anger in the girls.”
                  A.T. and her sister visited their relatives in Georgia over the Christmas
holidays, between December 22, 2022, and January 7, 2023. The visit went very well.
When contacted by SSA about scheduling a video call with R.T. during the visit, A.T.
stated, “‘I don’t want to, period.’”

         1
                   At one point, R.T. told her own mother that when she got all four of her children back, she would
“‘beat the dog shit’” out of the oldest child, because it was all her “fault” that the children were detained. R.T. told
the oldest child to go to independent living because “‘[y]ou and I are not good together,” although she wanted to
reunify with the other three children, including A.T.
         2
                   On one visit, R.T. told A.T. to “enjoy her time” with her older sister because when “this is over,”
the younger children would be moving to Arizona, while the older sister would be staying in California.

                                                            4
              In November 2022, R.T.’s therapist gave SSA a discouraging report about
her progress. She “doesn’t want to acknowledge anger issues, she is in denial and
has not work [sic] through those issues.” When the therapist tried to address her anger,
she became arrogant and told him “not to go there.” She was “not taking any
responsibility and regarding the physical abuse she has stated that ‘family members are
brainwashing her children and that Social Services is against her.’” But in December, the
situation improved somewhat, and R.T. reportedly made “significant progress.”
              Having noted R.T.’s December improvement in her individual therapy, the
court ordered conjoint therapy for R.T. and A.T. on January 9, 2023. This order was not
immediately communicated to A.T., and she told SSA she was not interested in therapy
with her mother. Her foster parent opined that forcing her to attend would cause
emotional trauma. Her court-appointed special advocate reported that the prospect of
conjoint therapy with R.T. caused her to break down in tears. A.T.’s therapist was
skeptical about the benefits of conjoint therapy because A.T. “feels that [R.T.] can say all
the right things that people want to hear, but then, [R.T.] will not change and will repeat
previous behaviors towards her and her siblings.” Nevertheless, A.T. agreed to give
conjoint therapy a try.
              In March 2023, SSA reported to the court that despite being encouraged to
visit, both A.T. and her sister refused to do so. R.T. stated in March 2023 that she had
come to terms with her two daughters not wanting to visit her. When asked how she
could reunify with A.T. if she was not visiting, she replied that “God has show[n A.T.]
being home with her and ‘he never shows me something that will not happen.’”
              As of March 13, 2023, A.T. and R.T. had had three conjoint therapy
sessions. The therapist reported that R.T. logged on 30 minutes late to the second
session, claiming that she had put down the wrong day. The therapist noted that the
sessions had been at the day and time R.T. specified. “Her issues [sic] is that she has
justification for what she did to the children.” The therapist added that R.T. “has been

                                             5
resistant in the whole process from intake to the most recent session.” Whenever A.T.
asked a question, R.T. “made an excuse or deflected.” “The mother’s resistance in
conjoint therapy and refusal to engage with the child and the questions asked are
concerning.” The therapist stated that she did not see how A.T. could safely reunify with
her mother.
              R.T. criticized the therapist because she “ask[ed] personal questions that
[R.T.] felt she did not need to address because she was already addressing things with her
own individual therapist. [R.T.] reported that she feels that the family therapist sided
with [A.T.] by inquiring of [R.T.] ‘how do you feel about what your daughter has said.’”
              Concerning conjoint therapy, A.T. told SSA that R.T. never asked about her
school or her well-being. Instead she made many excuses about past events or made the
topic completely about herself. The therapist even had to prompt her to say hi to A.T.
              The 12-month review hearing, which finally got underway on March 20,
2023, became the 18-month hearing. By this time, A.T. had turned 14. The statutory
time for reunification services had run out. A.T., two of the social workers, R.T.’s
therapist, and R.T. herself testified.
              On May 18, 2023, the court ordered R.T.’s reunification services as to A.T.
terminated. It approved continued foster care for A.T. with a permanent plan of
placement with a fit and willing relative.
              The court found the trial testimony of R.T.’s individual therapist not
credible. In contrast to the rosy picture of her progress he gave on the stand, a report
from the end of November 2022 struck quite a different note. He told SSA in November
that R.T. was “in denial” and did not want even to acknowledge anger issues, let alone
work through them. He found anger management “difficult to address” with her because
of her arrogance and her warning him not to “go there.” Asking her questions meant he
was “‘intruding.’” She refused to take responsibility for the current situation or the prior
physical abuse and contended that “‘family members are brainwashing her children and

                                              6
that Social Services is against her.’” The bottom line, according to her therapist, was that
R.T. “‘is not able to provide appropriate parenting for her children.’” The court noted the
“striking similarity” between R.T.’s individual therapist’s assessment in November 2022
and the conjoint therapist’s assessment four months later, in March 2023.
              In addition, the court also considered A.T.’s unwavering decision that she
did not want to reunify with R.T., or even to visit her. It found A.T.’s fears regarding
reunification credible. It noted that conjoint therapy, even as late as January 2023, was
premature and therefore unsuccessful. The court could not find any basis for ordering
additional reunification services beyond the 18-month cutoff date.
                                      DISCUSSION
I.            Reasonable Services (Conjoint Therapy)
              We review a challenge to SSA’s provision of reasonable services for
substantial evidence. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) “In making this
determination, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s
determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the
findings and orders. [Citation.] ‘We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise
independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the
findings of the trial court.’ [Citation.]” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191
Cal.App.4th 676, 688-689.)
              A finding that reasonable reunification services have been offered must be
supported by “‘clear and convincing evidence.’” (Robert L. v. Superior Court (1996) 45
Cal.App.4th 619, 625, quoting In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.) Again,
the standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. (Id. at p. 626.) “[I]n reviewing the
reasonableness of the reunification services provided . . ., we must also recognize that in
most cases more services might have been provided, and the services which are provided
are often imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that

                                             7
might have been provided, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances.”
(Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.)
                  R.T. argues that SSA’s delay in setting up conjoint therapy amounts to a
                                                                    3
failure to provide reasonable reunification services. This long delay also was the basis of
her request for additional reunification services beyond the 18-month cutoff date.
                  The court did not agree. It first noted R.T.’s defensiveness in her individual
therapy as late as November 2022. Only after receiving a report of improvement on that
score did the court order conjoint therapy in January 2023. As the court rightly
perceived, there was no point to setting up conjoint therapy with someone who was going
to tell the therapist not to “go there” when sensitive topics were introduced. Second, the
three sessions of conjoint therapy that were conducted showed that R.T. had not made the
progress that her individual therapist attributed to her in his December 2022 report or on
the witness stand. She was still yelling and arguing – although this time with the
therapist – she was still focused on herself, she was still unwilling to listen to A.T., and
she was still convinced that people were “taking sides” against her.
                  A.T. testified that she did not feel conjoint counseling was doing her any
good. She did not see any change in the way R.T. related to her; consequently her
feelings of fear and belittlement were unchanged. Under these circumstances, conjoint
therapy would not only be unsuccessful, it would likely convince A.T. that she was
justified in refusing to have a relationship with her mother and in wanting to move to
Georgia to live with relatives who would take proper care of her.

         3
                    We note that R.T. never informed the court that SSA was dilatory about setting up conjoint
therapy, which was an aspect of her original case plan. “No reason is apparent here why the general principle that a
party should not sleep on her rights does not apply. [Citation.] If Mother felt during the reunification period that the
services offered her were inadequate, she had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in
formulating a better plan: ‘“The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and of calling the
judge’s attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be
careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few
judgments would stand the test of an appeal.” [Citation.]’ [Citation].” (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404,
416.)

                                                           8
               The court carefully considered the evidence of the reasonableness of the
therapy services provided to R.T. Given the resistance to the therapeutic process that she
exhibited throughout most of the reunification period, the court had substantial clear and
convincing evidence that, under the circumstances, the therapy on offer was reasonable.
II.            Visitation
                                                     4
               Welfare and Institution Code section 362.1, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides
that “[v]isitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the
child.” The evidence in this case showed that visitation was not consistent with A.T.’s
well-being.
               “When a child refuses visitation, it is the parent’s burden to request a
specific type of enforcement, or a specific change to the visitation order. Absent a
request, it is not the court’s burden to sua sponte come up with a solution to the
intractable problem of a child’s steadfast refusal to visit a parent.” (In re Sofia M. (2018)
24 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1046.) R.T. made no such request to the court.
               As R.T. herself acknowledged, a child of A.T.’s age cannot be forced to
visit. She even stated that she had resigned herself to A.T.’s desire not to visit and had
put the matter in God’s hands.
               Dragging A.T. to a visit against her will would probably be
counterproductive. The most likely outcome would be resentment and further alienation.
Forcing A.T. to visit could not possibly repair the damaged relationship between her and
her mother. (See In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1227, 1238-1239 [harmful
effects of forced visitation].)
               The evidence in this case showed that when R.T. and A.T. did visit, the
negatives far outweighed the positives for A.T.5 She and her mother argued. R.T.
brought up old fights and commented on A.T.’s appearance. A.T. felt that her mother

       4
               All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
       5
               “[R.T.] just talks about her work and her life is great without us.”

                                                         9
concentrated on the two younger boys and ignored her. When A.T. visited, the stress
exacerbated her alopecia. When she did not visit, her psychological and emotional state
improved.
                  The purpose of visitation is to maintain or improve significant, positive
emotional bonds so that the family can reunify. (See In re Autumn H. (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) In this case, however, visitation just made things worse. The
only bright spot – and the reason she agreed to visit at all – was that A.T. could see her
brothers. But even that benefit came with a cost, as A.T. perceived her mother’s
favoritism toward them. The court had substantial clear and convincing evidence that the
visitation offered to R.T. was reasonable under the circumstances.
III.              Extension of Time for Services
                  R.T. asked the court to extend the hearing on reunification services past the
18-month cutoff period of section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A), pursuant to section 352.6
The court denied this request on the ground that it saw no basis for the extraordinary
circumstances required for such relief. (See Andrea L. v. Superior Court (1998) 64
Cal.App.4th 1377, 1388-1389.) Moreover, relief under section 352 requires a finding
that a continuance not be contrary to the child’s interest. The court could not find that
continuing reunification services was not contrary to A.T.’s interest.
                  We review the juvenile court’s decision to deny a motion to continue a
hearing for abuse of discretion. (In re Gerald J. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1187.) We
cannot find that the court abused its discretion in this case.

         6
                   Section 352, subdivision (a)(1), provides, “Upon request of counsel for the parent, guardian,
minor, or petitioner, the court may continue any hearing under this chapter beyond the time limit within which the
hearing is otherwise required to be held, provided that a continuance shall not be granted that is contrary to the
interest of the minor. In considering the minor’s interests, the court shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need
for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the
damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.”

                                                          10
                                 DISPOSITION
          The order terminating reunification services is affirmed.

                                             BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, J.

DELANEY, J.

                                        11