Court Opinion

ID: 9892439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 20:04:32.910091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:07.041192
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/23/23 M.P. v. Superior Court CA6

                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 M.P. et. al.,                                                       H051039
                                                                    (Monterey County
             Petitioners,                                            Super. Ct. No. 21JD000052)

             v.

 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MONTEREY COUNTY,

             Respondent;

 MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT
 OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT
 SERVICES,

                  Real Party in Interest.
         The Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services
(Department), filed juvenile dependency petitions alleging the failure of the mother, E.C.
(Mother), to protect and provide support for her minor children, J.C., D.C., A.C., and
H.P. (the children), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).1
The Department alleged that Mother was homeless, with a chronic history of
homelessness, and had a history of drug abuse that impaired her ability to take care of her
children. The Department also alleged that the whereabouts of the children’s respective
fathers, including H.P.’s father M.P. (Father), as well as their interest in and ability to

         1
             Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
parent the children were unknown under section 300, subdivision (g). The juvenile court
ordered that the children be detained and placed in protective custody.
       The juvenile court later sustained the allegations of the petitions and granted
reunification services to Mother and Father (the parents). Following a contested
eighteen-month hearing, the court terminated the parents' family reunification services
and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26 (section
366.26 hearing).
       The parents both filed petitions for extraordinary writ to vacate the court’s order
terminating reunification services. The parents contend that the juvenile court should
have extended reunification services from 18 months to 24 months based on their
consistent progress with their case plans, which demonstrated a substantial probability
that the children could be safely returned to them. Father additionally claims that the
court erred in finding the Department had offered or provided reasonable services to him.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the parents’ claims lack merit and deny the
writ petitions.
                   I.     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A. Petition and Detention (September 2021)
       On September 24, 2021, the Department filed four juvenile dependency petitions
alleging Mother had failed to supervise or protect her minor children, and that she was
unable to provide regular care for the minor due to her mental illness, developmental
disability, or substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The Department also alleged that
the whereabouts of Father, as well as the alleged fathers of J.C., D.C., and A.C., were
unknown such that the children had been left without any provision for support. (§ 300,
subd. (g).)
       The Department alleged that Mother had child welfare history dating back to 2009
from Oklahoma and Kansas, related to Mother’s history of drug use and homelessness,
and that the children had previously been removed from Mother and placed in foster care
                                             2
before being reunified. The Department also alleged that in June 2017, it opened a
Voluntary Family Maintenance case2 for the family to address Mother’s homelessness
and drug use issues. The Department provided these services to Mother for a year, but
Mother did not meet her case plan or objectives and her participation was minimal.
       The Department alleged that on August 16, 2021, it received a referral of general
neglect of the children. Mother and the children were residing at the Share Center, a
homeless shelter in Salinas, as of August 2021. Mother was observed to be under the
influence of drugs, as she appeared drowsy with slurred speech and slow movements.
During a routine check-in at the shelter, a search of Mother’s bag revealed
methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, a smoking pipe, a knife, and a taser. Mother was
not cited or arrested for possession but placed on a behavioral contract, which included
her going to Genesis House for drug treatment. The referral also reported that H.P.,
Mother’s youngest son, had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and was non-
verbal, and that the three older children had behavioral issues. The children had been left
without parental supervision in the shelter, and H.P. had been observed “ ‘always wearing
a backpack with a leash.’ ”
       On September 14, the Department received another referral alleging physical
abuse and general neglect of H.P. by Mother. On that day, H.P. woke up around 2:40
a.m. screaming and crying, and when shelter staff arrived by his bedside, they observed
H.P. had been tied to the bed. Mother was not at the shelter and took over an hour to
return after shelter staff were able to contact her. Mother did not have any explanation
for where she had been. Shelter staff additionally reported that they had previously

       2
         County welfare department staff may provide family maintenance services for
families with a child “who[ ] is in potential danger of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, who
are willing to accept services and participate in corrective efforts, and where it is safe for
the child to remain in the child’s home only with the provision of service.” (§ 16506,
subd. (b).)
                                              3
spoken with Mother about tying up H.P. and were unaware she was also doing this at
night.
         On September 15, the Department spoke with Mother’s shelter case coordinator,
Britnee Lee, who reported that Mother and the children had been living in the shelter for
approximately two months. Lee confirmed that when shelter staff came to assist H.P. the
previous night, only the children were in the room and Mother was not present. Lee also
stated that while Mother claimed she had just been outside “ ‘in the trees,’ ” staff had
observed her being dropped off by a blue truck.
         Lee indicated that the children were left unsupervised in the shelter frequently, and
complaints were made daily about their behavior. Lee opined that Mother’s drug abuse
was making it difficult for her to take care of the children, particularly H.P. and A.C.,
who were developmentally challenged. Mother had also been kicked out of other shelters
due to similar behavioral problems. Lee stated that Mother was receiving income from
IHSS and SDI/SSI for H.P. and A.C. and was scheduled to move into a new home in
October, but had not yet paid the landlord the necessary funds to secure housing. Staff
additionally reported seeing Father in shelter at times and noted he displayed signs of
being under the influence of drugs, including being wide-eyed, drooling, and unable to
speak.
         The Department also held a meeting with Mother, who indicated that H.P. needed
to wear a harness with a leash for safety purposes as he would run into the street without
it. Mother denied tying H.P. to the bed but acknowledged that he frequently woke up
screaming and crying in the middle of the night due to leg cramps. Mother claimed that
she had been taking a shower during the incident on September 14 and denied leaving the
children unsupervised at any time. She claimed that she either left the children with
Father or a friend or took the children with her if she left the shelter. Mother denied
using any drugs and refused to submit to voluntary drug testing.

                                               4
       The Department spoke with the oldest child, J.C., who denied that Mother had tied
H.P. to the bed. J.C. claimed that Mother had either been in the bathroom taking a
shower or in the Share Center’s library when H.P. woke up crying on September 14. J.C.
also denied that Mother had left the shelter, leaving him or his siblings alone and
unsupervised. Mother’s younger children, D.C. and A.C., refused to speak to the
Department, and H.P. could not speak with the Department due to being non-verbal.
       On September 21, 2021, the Department informed Mother that it had scheduled an
Emergency Response Child and Family Team meeting for September 22 and encouraged
her to attend, but she did not do so.
       Initial and contested detention hearings were held on September 27 and 28, 2021.
The court found that a prima facie showing had been made with respect to the allegations
in the petition and ordered that J.C., D.C., A.C., and H.P. be detained and remain under
the Department's care, custody, and control.
       B. Jurisdictional/Dispositional Orders (November 2021)
       A jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was scheduled for November 16, 2021.
In anticipation of the hearing, the Department’s report recommended that the court
sustain the amended petitions3, adjudge J.C., D.C., A.C., and H.P. as dependents of the
court, remove them from their parents, and offer reunification services to Mother and
Father. The children had been placed in nonrelative resource family approved (RFA)
homes in Monterey County, with only D.C. and A.C. being placed together.
       Although Mother continued to deny that she had tied H.P. to the bed or left the
children unsupervised or unattended, she admitted to using methamphetamine two times
a month and smoking marijuana daily. The Department noted that Mother had a number

       3
         The Department requested that the petitions as to A.C. and H.P. be amended to
indicate that their respective fathers’ whereabouts were no longer unknown as both of
them had been in contact with the Department and expressed an interest in caring for
A.C. and H.P.
                                               5
of strengths, including her recognition that she needed a substance abuse treatment
program and her prior ability to remain drug-free, hold employment, and provide for her
children. Mother was also willing to participate in a residential drug treatment program
and a parenting program for special needs children. Mother was visiting the children
weekly, and visits were reportedly going well as Mother and the children were happy to
see each other. However, Mother struggled with setting boundaries for the older
children, who used profanity, talked about gangs, spoke about wanting to fist fight, and
would not listen to her when she softly asked them to not say bad words. Mother also
had difficulty controlling H.P., who became hyper or unmanageable after having any
sugary snacks.
       The Department was unable to assess Father’s strengths at the time, as he had not
been available to meet with social workers, but indicated that Father had reached out to
the Department directly and expressed an interest in caring for H.P. Father also had
supervised weekly visits with H.P., where he would reportedly fall asleep while H.P. was
watching videos on his phone. During one visit on November 4, Father fell asleep and
could not be roused for a long period of time. Paramedics were ultimately called to
awaken him, leading the Department to believe Father was under the influence of drugs
at the time.
       The Department concluded that the children could not be safely placed with
Mother due to her chronic substance abuse problems, which impaired her ability to
provide them with a safe and stable home. Mother also was uninterested in engaging in
safety planning due to her non-attendance of the Emergency Response Child and Family
Team meeting that had previously been scheduled for September 2021. The Department
believed Mother needed to complete a substance abuse treatment program and
demonstrate her ability to provide a safe home for the children in order to successfully
reunify with them. Similarly, the Department concluded that H.P. could not be placed

                                             6
with Father due to the indications that he was actively using drugs and did not have a safe
home environment for H.P. to live.
       At the uncontested hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of the
amended petition true, declared J.C., D.C., A.C., and H.P. as dependents of the court, and
ordered family reunification services to the parents along with visitation in accordance
with their case plans. A six-month review hearing was set for May 17, 2022.
       C. Six-Month Review
       On May 11, 2022, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the six-month
review hearing. The Department indicated that Mother was unemployed as she was
working on her sobriety and residing in a sober living environment. Mother had attended
most of her scheduled parent meetings and all of her Child and Family Team meetings,
and had demonstrated some improvement. However, the Department felt Mother
continued to face challenges in mitigating the safety concerns that led to the original
detention.
       The Department reported that Mother had completed a Family Mental Health
Assessment and had been following the recommendations from the assessment to
participate in weekly therapy sessions. Mother’s therapist reported that Mother was
engaged in sessions and willing to talk about the dependency case, and had been able to
identify stressors that impacted her ability to function. While Mother was not able to
identify how her past trauma contributed to her life today or fully understand her role in
the removal of the children from her care, Mother also appeared to be committed to
reunification and was willing to work on her goals through therapy. Mother was also
participating in parenting education classes and had completed four weeks of the
curriculum at the time of the report. While Mother’s instructor reported that Mother was
argumentative and confrontational during week one of her classes, her behavior had since
improved.

                                             7
       At the beginning of the review period, Mother enrolled herself in an inpatient drug
treatment program in Salinas and graduated from the program in January 2022. Mother
had since transitioned to an outpatient program and was attending weekly individual and
group classes, as well as Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA)
meetings three times a week. Mother also indicated she was working with a sponsor and
was currently on step one of a 12-step program. Mother’s sponsor stated that Mother had
initially been defensive and unwilling to take suggestions but later began to make
progress and had maintained her sobriety for six months. Mother also agreed to submit to
random hair follicle and urine drug testing; while the follicle test was still pending at the
time of the report, her urinalysis tests came back negative for drugs.
       Mother attended all her supervised visitation during the review period. However,
the Department noted that Mother often spoke with the children about the dependency
case and shared information with them that was not age-appropriate. Mother also
appeared to be encouraging the children not to use profanity or talk about violence
because the “ ‘Department [was] watching’ ” as well as promising them they would
return to her care by February 2022. Further, Mother appeared to be coaching the
children about what to say to their therapists, including telling them to talk about how
“traumatized” they were at being separated from her. While the Department provided
Mother with feedback about more appropriate ways to speak with the children, Mother
had difficulty accepting this feedback and often became defensive or “shut[] down.”
       The Department reported that while Mother had shown some progress during the
review period and demonstrated improvements in her communication with the children
during visits, Mother was not consistent and often reverted back to oversharing
information or telling the children not to do something because they were being watched.
       With respect to Father, the Department noted that he had not been in constant
contact during the review period or kept the Department updated on his substance use or

                                              8
recovery. Father only attended one scheduled parent meeting and did not follow up with
the Department to schedule further meetings.
       Father regularly attended his supervised visitation every week but often just gave
H.P. his phone to play with and did not bring any toys or activities. The Department
noted that H.P. was often hyperactive during visitations and would try to climb on
furniture or exit the room. Father was also observed falling asleep a number of times
during one February visit and was warned that he needed to stay awake, or the visit
would end.
       It was concluded by the Department that Mother: (1) had not been able to
demonstrate that she could meet the children’s emotional and developmental needs; (2)
was still in the process of identifying her past traumas through mental health services; (3)
was still working on her recovery and being able to maintain consistency over a period of
time with her recovery treatment; and (4) did not have stable housing. The Department
also concluded that Father had not been able to: (1) demonstrate his ability to keep H.P.
safe and demonstrate age appropriate parenting; (2) demonstrate an understanding as to
how his actions led to H.P.’s removal and what changes he would be willing to make to
maintain H.P.’s safety and wellbeing; (3) address his substance abuse problem and
demonstrate his ability to stay sober over a period of time; and (4) obtain stable housing.
The Department therefore recommended that reunification services be continued for both
Mother and Father.
       At the hearing on May 17, 2022, the court adopted the recommendations of the
Department and continued reunification services for Mother and Father. A twelve-month
review hearing was set for November 15, 2022.
       D. Twelve-Month Review
       On November 4, 2022, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the twelve-
month hearing. The Department indicated that Mother had begun part-time employment
as a security guard and continued to reside in a sober living environment. Mother
                                             9
attended all of her scheduled parent meetings and Child and Family Team meetings and
had demonstrated some improvement. However, the Department continued to feel
Mother was facing challenges in mitigating the safety concerns of her children and
accepting her role in the children’s behaviors.
       Mother continued to attend weekly therapy sessions and showed positive progress
in learning how to build positive communication skills with others and increase her
ability to manage and express her anger appropriately. Mother also began using
psychiatric medication, which led to a reduction in her verbal outbursts and emotional
dysregulation, as well as her having more patience during A.C.’s behavioral outbursts in
visitations.
       During the review period, Mother graduated from intensive outpatient services
with her substance abuse recovery program and was participating in recovery services
twice a month. However, Mother expressed frustration that she had not been allowed to
move forward from step one in her 12-step program and could not articulate why her
sponsor did not feel she was ready to progress to the next step. Mother ultimately found
a new sponsor, who she felt would support her more and hold her accountable. Mother
continued to attend NA meetings regularly up to six times weekly, submitted to all
random drug tests, and completed a relapse prevention plan.
       The Department reported that while Mother continued to participate in parent
education, she expressed frustration at multiple parent meetings about not understanding
what was expected of her. Mother believed the children were safe in her care and that the
only issue was the parents’ substance abuse issues. However, Mother acknowledged that
she needed to learn more about mental and emotional abuse as she was unsure of how she
could be inflicting it on her children. The Department also observed that Mother
appeared to show improvement in parenting from a softer place and setting appropriate
boundaries with the children despite having difficulties.

                                            10
       The Department additionally reported that Mother, Father, and J.C. had been seen
in the community together outside of their supervised visitations. Mother did not appear
to be forthcoming about unapproved visitation by claiming she had no way of contacting
J.C. then later reporting that he had been in touch with her. The Department informed
Mother and Father that if they wished to have unsupervised contact with J.C., they were
required to notify the Department immediately and provide information on where they
were going to be and for how long, as well as report to the Department after the meeting
what they discussed and if they had any concerns for J.C. As Mother did not provide all
the requested information, the Department informed her that she could not have any
outside contact with J.C. unless the Department arranged for it.
       While Mother had reasonable visitation with the children during the reporting
period, the Department observed that she had difficulty managing their needs together;
however, she was open to suggestions of changes on how to manage their behavior.
Mother had some visitations where she was unable to set boundaries and control the
children’s behavior but also had a number of positive visitations where the children
followed her directions and did not engage in any outburst or negative behavior.
       With respect to Father, the Department reported that he had obtained part-time
employment and stable housing in a studio apartment in Marina. Father had also been
more actively participating in case plan services and regularly attended visitations.
During the review period, Father completed inpatient services with a sobriety date of
March 17, 2022 and continued to participate in NA meetings and outpatient services.
However, as Father had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance in June
2022 and sentenced to serve time in county jail, he had requested that all referrals to
parenting education be deferred until he completed his jail time in early November 2022.
       Father did not appear to understand the trauma and difficulty that the children
were facing due to the parents’ choices and believed that with his sobriety, he would be
able to care for all the children without difficulty. Father also did not believe H.P. was
                                             11
traumatized from using a backpack leash and felt it was useful to prevent him from
running away. However, Father indicated he would benefit from more hands-on support
to assist him with his parenting skills.
       Father had consistent supervised visitation with H.P., but many visits were spent
sitting on the couches, eating snacks, and watching videos. H.P. was also observed
playing with the room lights, running around the room, and climbing on top of the dining
table. Father additionally claimed he had tried to engage in other activities such as
coloring or readings books, but H.P. only wanted to “ ‘[watch] Netflix and chill.’ ”
While the Department suggested Father bring in learning pages or ask the school or
H.P.’s caregiver if any activities would be helpful during visitations, Father did not
follow up on these suggestions.
       The Department concluded that Mother: (1) had not been able to demonstrate that
she could meet the children’s emotional and developmental needs; (2) was still in the
process of identifying her past traumas through mental health services; (3) was still
working on her recovery and being able to maintain consistency over a period of time
with her recovery treatment; and (4) did not have stable housing. The Department also
concluded that Father: (1) had not been able to demonstrate his ability to keep H.P. safe
and demonstrate age appropriate parenting; (2) had not been able to demonstrate an
understanding as to how his actions led to H.P.’s removal and what changes he would be
willing to make to maintain H.P.’s safety and wellbeing; (3) was still working on his
recovery and being able to maintain consistency over a period of time with his recovery
treatment; and (4) had not participated in any therapeutic or education decisions in
relation to H.P.’s emotional and behavioral health. The Department therefore
recommended that reunification services be continued for both Mother and Father.
       At the hearing on November 15, 2022, the court adopted the recommendations of
the Department and continued reunification services for Mother and Father. An eighteen-
month review hearing was set for March 21, 2023.
                                             12
       E. Termination of Reunification Services
              1. Eighteen-Month Report
       In anticipation of the eighteen-month review hearing, the Department
recommended termination of family reunification services to both parents. In its status
review report filed on March 10, 2023, the Department recommended that the court
maintain H.P.’s dependency and out-of-home care, terminate the parents' family
reunification services, and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing in
July 2023. As to J.C., D.C., and A.C., the Department recommended that the court
maintain their dependency and out-of-home care, terminate Mother’s family reunification
services, deem the eighteen-month hearing as the selection and implementation hearing,
and order long-term foster care as the permanent plan, with a post-permanency hearing to
be set for September 2023.
       The Department reported that while Mother began new part-time employment as a
caregiver in February 2023 and had participated in all case plan services, she continued to
face challenges in mitigating safety concerns for the children, providing them with a
stable home, and accepting her role in their behaviors. Mother was attending weekly
therapy sessions and making progress on building healthy interpersonal boundaries with
others, and continued to take psychiatric medication as directed, but was observed during
many meetings to have a flat effect with minimal emotional responses to any topics.
       Mother continued to reside in a sober living environment but as of January 2023,
she did not have funds to pay monthly rent and indicated that she may move in with
Father. Mother’s contact with her sponsor had also been minimal during the reporting
period, but she tested negative on random drug tests and reported that she had maintained
sobriety for over a year.
       The Department noted that while it had multiple conversations with Mother about
setting boundaries for her children, Mother still struggled to follow through with
implementing the strategies discussed. For example, after the Department advised
                                            13
Mother of ways to redirect the children while still acknowledging their feelings, Mother
made numerous comments to A.C. during a family meeting that did not utilize these
tactics. Mother also did not appear to understand the Department’s concerns about
providing snacks that contained ingredients found to escalate the children’s negative
behaviors and mood, particularly in A.C.’s case. In addition, Mother was not engaging
with the children’s schools regarding their academic progress and any difficulties they
were having. Lastly, after the Department informed Mother in January 2023 that it would
be recommending the termination of services and agreed that she would not discuss this
with the children until therapeutic services were in place, Mother proceeded to share this
information with the children during a supervised visitation three days later.
       As for Father, the Department noted he had retained his previous employment and
housing during the review period. However, the Department felt Father continued to face
challenges in mitigating the safety concerns for H.P. and the other children, and
understanding his role in their behaviors. Father continued to attend NA meetings,
completed a relapse prevention plan, and tested negative during random drug tests.
However, Father still did not appear to understand the Department’s concerns around
parenting the children, setting boundaries, or the role he played in the trauma the children
faced while in the parents’ care.
       Mother and Father had reasonable visitation with all four children4 but continued
to display difficulty in managing their needs, particularly when the children were
together. Mother also continued to have unsupervised visits with J.C., despite being
advised that this was not approved, and did not comply with the rules set in place for
informing the Department about such visits, resulting these visits being pulled back. In

       4
        Father requested visitation with all four children prior to the twelve-month
review, but the Department did not believe it was appropriate at the time for a number of
reasons, including Father’s lack of progress early in the case. The Department
subsequently approved Father’s visitation with all four children for the eighteen-month
review period.
                                            14
addition, family visitations were reduced from twice a week to once a week due to
Mother not being able to manage the children’s behavior during visits, including them
cursing at each other or antagonizing and hitting A.C. with little to no redirection from
either parent. As a result of the behavioral issues, the Department and the parents came
up with a number of rules that the parents were required to enforce during visits. While
the parents did attempt to set some boundaries and enforce the rules in one December
visit, they were not consistent and did not redirect the children’s misbehavior in a
subsequent visit. The Department also expressed concern that Mother had admitted to a
number of individuals that she could not manage all her children and did not know how
to meet their emotional needs. Mother also blamed A.C. for her inability to reunify with
the children and allowed the other children to make similar statements to A.C.
       The Department further noted that Father’s parenting style appeared to be very
“hands off,” where he mostly remained quiet and did not redirect the children if they
argued or hit one another. Father also laughed and antagonized the older boys by making
jokes and had difficulty directing H.P. firmly, which resulted in H.P. running away from
him during visitations.
       The Department concluded that Mother: (1) had not been able to demonstrate that
she could meet the children’s emotional and developmental needs, such as knowing their
triggers and how to prevent and respond to them, consistently placing their feelings
before her own, and understanding how their past trauma is a direct reason for their
current behaviors; (2) was still in the process of identifying her past traumas through
mental health services and had not identified how her own trauma affected her ability to
impact the children’s safety; and (3) did not have stable housing. The Department also
concluded that Father had not been able to: (1) demonstrate his ability to keep H.P. safe
and demonstrate age appropriate parenting; (2) demonstrate an understanding as to how
his actions led to H.P.’s removal and what changes he would be willing to make to
maintain H.P.’s safety and wellbeing; and (3) actively participate in or attend any
                                             15
medical, behavioral, or educational meetings or assessments in order to demonstrate his
ability to understand and attend to H.P.’s needs. The Department further noted that
while Mother and Father had participated in case plan services, they both failed to
demonstrate sufficient behavioral change reflecting that they had learned from the
services provided. The Department therefore recommended that reunification services be
terminated for both Mother and Father.
               2. Contested Hearing
        On March 21, 2023, the court held an uncontested eighteen-month review hearing.
Mother requested a contested hearing, which the court set for May 2, 2023.
        At the hearing on May 2, 2023, both parents testified on their own behalf. Father
testified that he had been working at the Elijah Foundation in a transitional position for
eight months and had recently begun working at Taco Bell. Father also indicated he had
been living in a studio apartment in Marina since August 2022. Father confirmed he had
been sober for 32 months, checked in with his sponsor every few weeks, and attended
NA meetings three times a week. Father had been attending supervised visits weekly
with H.P. but believed he was now ready for unsupervised visits.
        Father additionally testified that he was attending parenting classes regularly with
no absences, and had learned more about how to properly parent H.P., including “fill[ing]
his emotional cup and redirection.” Father disagreed with the Department’s assessment
that he could not keep H.P. safe or demonstrate age-appropriate parenting, and indicated
he was there for H.P. both physically and emotionally. Father also believed he had
addressed the issues that led to H.P.’s removal, namely, his homelessness and active
addiction, and demonstrated that he was now ready to raise and take care of H.P.
However, when asked by the court to further explain how he meant to “be there” for H.P.
and provide for his emotional, educational, and behavioral needs, Father had difficulty
answering the question and ultimately indicated he was “not quite sure” how he would do
this.
                                             16
       Mother testified that during visitations, she attempted to keep the children
occupied by bringing snacks and an activity for them to do together. Mother noted that
the children had behavioral issues, but indicated she tried to work with the children by
listening to what they were saying, “stay[ing] in the solution” with them, and telling them
ways to handle these issues. Mother acknowledged that it was difficult to visit with all
four children at once and found it helpful to have individual visits, where she noticed an
improvement in their behavior. Mother described her relationship with the children as
“very open,” where they trusted her with most of their problems, and she tried to support
and problem solve with them.
       Mother additionally gave herself an “F” grade for her parenting skills at the time
of removal, but felt she had improved over time to a “B” grade. Mother indicated she
was now (1) more aware of what was going on and how she was acting; (2) clean and
sober; (3) able to reflect and take constructive criticism; (4) able to communicate and
collaborate with others; and (5) able to carry healthy relationships.
       The court also heard briefly from attorney Michael Atteridge, who represented all
four children during the proceedings. Mr. Atteridge agreed with the Department’s
recommendation to terminate services. While Mr. Atteridge noted the parents had done
many things to improve since the children were first removed, they had not progressed
after the twelve-month hearing to more visits, such as unsupervised or overnight visits.
Given that 18 months had passed since the children’s initial removal, he did not think it
was “warranted” to offer the parents additional services. The Department agreed with
Mr. Atteridge’s comments and further noted that it had been a total of 20 months since
the initial removal.
       After hearing argument from all parties, the court issued its ruling at a subsequent
hearing on May 16, 2023. The court acknowledged that under Michael G. v. Superior
Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609 (Michael G.), it had discretion to consent to new services
despite the statutory limits for dependency matters. The court determined that the
                                             17
Department had offered reasonable services to the parents, and the parents’ participation
in services had allowed them to understand the effect their drug use had on their ability to
make decisions, regulate themselves, and parent. However, the court indicated that apart
from the parents’ housing situation and drug use, one of the main issues that led to the
original detention was their inability to control the children’s behaviors. The court noted
that the children treated their parents with the “utmost disrespect” and were
nonresponsive to requests to behave. The court therefore found that the children’s
behavior in recent visits, particularly when one child continued to curse and kick one of
the parents, demonstrated that the children still did not respect the parents or their
authority. The court also admonished the parents for not using the children’s current
caregivers as resources to help them learn appropriate ways to regulate the children’s
behavior and keep them under control; instead, the parents viewed the caregivers
negatively and kept them at a distance.
       The court commended the parents for becoming sober and maintaining their
sobriety and Father for finding employment and stable housing, and acknowledged that
both parents clearly loved the children. However, the court noted that “discipline [was]
part and parcel of love,” and the children’s current behavioral issues were the result of the
parents’ non-parenting and lack of discipline over a number of years.
       The court ultimately found that Mother had not been able to demonstrate an ability
to have appropriate, constructive disciplinary conversations with the children and
implement clear and immediate boundaries to ensure their safety. The court also noted
that Mother had still not found stable housing such that the children would not have
suitable housing if returned to her. As for Father, the court found that while he had
worked on his case plan, he had still not mitigated or alleviated the causes that led to the
removal. The court also found that Father had not been able to demonstrate the
following: (1) his ability to keep the children safe; (2) age appropriate parenting; (3)

                                              18
meeting the children’s developmental and emotional needs; and (4) implementing
structure and clear boundaries to make sure of their safety.
       The court ordered that all four children remain dependents and terminated
reunification services for both parents. The court set H.P.’s matter for a section 366.26
selection and implementation hearing on August 29, 2023, with a post-permanency
review hearing set for November 7, 2023. As for J.C., D.C., and A.C., the court deemed
the eighteen-month hearing as the selection and implementation hearing and set a post-
permanency review hearing for November 21, 2023.
       After making its ruling, the court encouraged the parents to not give up and keep
working hard, including working on structure, implementing boundaries, staying sober,
finding permanent housing, and understanding their role as a parent to be respected, not a
friend. The court noted that once the parents felt they had made sufficient progress
towards remediating the issues that led to the initial removal, they could consider filing a
petition under section 388 demonstrating changed circumstances.
       F. Petitions for Extraordinary Writ
       Father and Mother filed timely notices of intent to file a petition for extraordinary
writ on May 17, 2023, and May 18, 2023, respectively. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.450(e)(4)(A).) Within 10 days of the record being filed, Father and Mother timely filed
their petitions for extraordinary writ with this court on June 29, 2023, and July 3, 2023,
respectively. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(c)(1).) Real party in interest Department
filed its opposition on July 18, 2023.
                                         II.   DISCUSSION
       A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
       Under section 300 et seq., “California has a comprehensive statutory scheme
establishing procedures for the juvenile court to follow when and after a child is removed
from the home for the child’s welfare. [Citations.]” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th
45, 52.) “ ‘The objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected
                                               19
children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if
those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time.’ ” (In re
Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.)
       When a dependent child is removed from a parent’s custody, section 361.5 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code generally requires that parents receive reunification
services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)5; see also § 361.5, subd. (a)(1) [describing family
reunification services].) The purpose of such reunification services is to “ ‘eliminate the
conditions leading to loss of custody and facilitate reunification of parent and child.’ ” (In
re I.A. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 19, 23.) Facilitating reunification “ ‘furthers the goal of
preservation of family'" (ibid.), which “ ‘is the first priority when child dependency
proceedings are commenced.’ ” (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.) While
“the law favors reunification whenever possible…reunification services constitute a
benefit; there is no constitutional “ ‘ “entitlement” ’ ” to those services. [Citation.]” (In
re Aryanna C. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1242.)
       Reunification services that are ordered generally begin with the dispositional
hearing and, for children three years or older, end 12 months thereafter. (§ 361.5, subd.
(a)(1)(A).) However, section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A) provides that services may be
extended to 18 months “if it can be shown[…] that the permanent plan for the child is
that the child will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time
period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial
probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of the child’s parent or
guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been
provided to the parent or guardian.”

       5
         This section provides as follows: “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (b), . . .
whenever a child is removed from a parent’s or guardian’s custody, the juvenile court
shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the child’s
mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians.”
                                              20
       If the child is not returned to the parent at the eighteen-month review hearing, “the
court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to [s]ection 366.26 in order to determine
whether adoption, … tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in
foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. … The court shall also order
termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. … The court shall
determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been
offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) “ ‘Absent
extraordinary circumstances, the 18-month review hearing constitutes a critical juncture
at which “the court must return children to their parents and thereby achieve the goal of
family preservation or terminate services and proceed to devising a permanent plan for
the children.” [Citations.]’ ” (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285,
307-308.)
       We review the juvenile court’s findings in support of an order terminating
reunification services for substantial evidence. (J.H. v. Superior Court (2018) 20
Cal.App.5th 530, 535.) “We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the
evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in
support of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the juvenile court's order,
and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports
a contrary conclusion. [Citation.]” (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 942, 947.)(.)
       B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s Order to Terminate
            Reunification Services
       Notably, the parents do not claim that there was insufficient evidence to support
the court’s order to terminate services. Instead, the parents argue that reunification
services should have been extended for an additional six months because there was a
substantial probability of safely returning the children to them by that time. Mother
contends she has been making consistent progress with her case plan, including: (1)
attending weekly therapy and learning how to establish healthy boundaries; (2)
                                             21
maintaining her sobriety for over a year and residing in a sober living environment; (3)
completing parenting courses that have helped her to be patient and listen to the children;
(4) maintaining constant contact with the Department and attending all meetings and
visitations; and (5) having a strong support network. Father similarly claims that he has
been making steady progress with his case plan, including maintaining his sobriety,
obtaining housing and steady employment, maintaining all visits, and being equipped to
handle H.P.’s emotional and medical needs. The parents further argue that the court has
the discretion to extend reunification services to 24 months under section 366.22 if they
meet all the criteria under section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1).6 As the juvenile court
found the parents had made significant progress in their case plans, the parents claim that
they have met this criteria and therefore should be entitled to additional services.
       We disagree. While section 366.22, subdivision (b) provides for a further
extension of services after 18 months, this is only applicable to “three narrowly defined
categories of parents who have faced specified obstacles to reunification.” (Michael G.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 628.) Those categories are: (1) a parent making progress in a
court-ordered residential substantial abuse treatment program; (2) a parent who is a minor
parent or nondependent minor parent at the time of the initial hearing; or (3) a parent
recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or custody of the United
States Department of Homeland Security Services. (§ 366.22, subd. (b).) Further, our
high court has indicated that even if these exceptions apply, an extension is not automatic
and additional conditions must first be met. (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 628
[noting that the parent must be making significant and consistent progress in a treatment

       6
         Under this section, the court may extend services if the parents have “maintained
consistent and regular contact and visited the child[ren];…[¶] ..made significant progress
in resolving the problems that led to the child[ren]'s removal and;…[¶] demonstrated the
capacity and ability to complete the objectives of her treatment programs and provide for
the child[ren]'s safety, protection, emotional well-being and special needs.” (§ 366.21,
subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).)
                                             22
program or in establishing a safe home for the child, and the court must find extension of
services is in the child’s best interest and that there is either a substantial probability of
return to the parents at the end of the extension period or reasonable services were not
provided].)
       None of the exceptions noted in section 366.22, subdivision (b), are applicable in
the instant matter. While the parents were previously enrolled in inpatient treatment
programs, they have both graduated. Accordingly, the parents fail to demonstrate that
they meet the criteria for extending services for an additional six months.
       We recognize that under Michael G., the court has the discretion to extend
reunification services past the eighteen-month mark under the “escape valve” in section
352, which applies for “exceptional situations in which the court determines that
extending services and continuing reunification efforts beyond 18 months is not contrary
to the child's interests.” (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 632-634.) Nevertheless,
the court in’this matter acknowledged this discretion and ultimately did not find that it
was in the best interests of the children to continue further services based on the parents’
lack of progress in addressing the children’s behavioral issues, one of the primary reasons
for the initial removal.
       Further, in examining the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s
order, there was substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding that Mother and
Father had not made substantive progress in resolving or mitigating the issues that led to
the children’s removal, namely: (1) meeting the emotional and developmental needs of
the children; and (2) controlling or parenting them successfully. With respect to Mother,
the record indicates that Mother still did not have stable housing where she could safely
live with all four children if they were returned to her care. In addition, the record
reflects that despite completing multiple parenting classes and receiving advice from
various sources on how to establish appropriate boundaries with the children, Mother
chose not to follow this advice repeatedly. While Mother had some positive visitations
                                               23
during the 18 months of services, her progress was inconsistent as she repeatedly
struggled with maintaining control over all the children. In particular, we note that the
Department documented more improvement in Mother’s parenting skills in the twelve-
month report than in the eighteen-month report. Such a difference indicates that Mother
had not been able to make steady progress in alleviating the Department’s concerns about
the children’s behavior.
       The record also reflects that Mother failed to redirect inappropriate conduct, did
not intervene when the older children blamed A.C. for the family’s inability to reunify,
and did not regulate her emotions in front of the children. Another notable example
includes Mother informing the children of the Department’s decision to terminate
services only three days after the Department specifically asked her not to do so. Mother
also did not consistently follow the detailed rules that she and the Department worked on
to assist her during visits. The record demonstrates that she implemented them in one
visit but failed to do so in a subsequent visit.
       Turning to Father, his repeated behavior during visits which included falling
asleep, letting H.P. watch videos, and not maintaining sufficient control over H.P. –
resulting in H.P. running away or becoming hyperactive – reflected that Father had not
made improvements in learning to act as an authority figure and to effectively discipline
H.P. Further, Father’s inability to explain to the court how he intended to “be there” for
H.P. demonstrated that he was not fully equipped to address H.P.’s emotional,
educational, and behavioral needs.
       We additionally note that the children were represented at the hearing and their
counsel agreed with the recommendation to terminate services, based on his observation
that the parents had never progressed beyond supervised visits since the children’s initial
removal. Further, at the time of the hearing, a total of 20 months had passed since
removal, thus demonstrating that the parents had been given substantial time to resolve or
mitigate the issues that resulted in removal, which they failed to do.
                                               24
       Mother and Father are certainly to be commended for maintaining sobriety and
taking significant steps towards stabilizing their housing and employment issues.
Further, as noted by the court in its holding, both parents have the ability to continue
working on the issues that resulted in their loss of custody and file section 388 petitions
demonstrating changed circumstances. However, the record reflects there was substantial
evidence that despite the parents’ progress in alleviating their substance abuse, housing,
and employment issues, they failed to fully address the parenting and discipline issues
that contributed to the children’s removal. Accordingly, the court did not err by
terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing.
       C. Father Fails to Demonstrate that the Department Did Not Provide or Offer
          Him Reasonable Services
       Father additionally argues that he did not receive reasonable reunification services
because he was required to visit with all four children, as opposed to having one-on-one
visits with H.P. Father claims that because these “ ‘family visits’ ” did not go well, it was
detrimental to his progress and case plan to include the other children in his visitation
“requirements.”
       Father’s argument fails for two reasons. First, Father’s visits with all four children
only began after the twelve-month hearing, thus providing Father with a year of one-on-
one visitations with H.P. and sufficient time to demonstrate progress in his case plan,
which, as detailed above, he did not do. Second, despite Father’s claim that he was
somehow required to visit all four children, the record reflects that Father himself
requested visitation with all four children despite the Department’s initial
recommendation otherwise. Therefore, we find no merit to Father’s contentions.

                                     III.    DISPOSITION
   The petitions for extraordinary writ are denied

                                             25
                                ___________________________________
                                                Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________________________
           Greenwood, P.J.

__________________________________________
           Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

M.P. et al. v. Superior Court
H051039