Court Opinion

ID: 9941082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 20:03:14.600624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:12.344894
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/15/24 In re Remington W. CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 In re REMINGTON W., a Person
 Coming Under the Juvenile Court
 Law.

 KAITLYN W.,
           Petitioner,
 v.
 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF                                                   A169066
 SONOMA COUNTY,
           Respondent;                                                   (Sonoma County
 SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN                                                     Super. Ct. No. 6635DEP)
 SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
           Real Party in Interest.

         Kaitlyn W. (mother) petitions this court for extraordinary relief from
the juvenile court’s order, at the 12-month review hearing, terminating her
reunification services and setting a permanency hearing pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26 for her child, Remington W.1 Mother
contends the juvenile court erred because (1) she was not provided reasonable
services and (2) there was a substantial probability Remington could be

         1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                                               1
returned to her home by the 18-month review hearing. We reject mother’s
contentions and deny the petition.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.    Original Petition
      In July 2022, the Sonoma County Human Services Department
(Department) filed a petition, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions
(b) and (g), to establish dependency jurisdiction over six-day-old Remington
based on mother’s chronic drug abuse, including mother’s positive tests for
amphetamine and prescribed methadone at the time of Remington’s birth.2
The Department’s July 18, 2022 detention report recommended detaining
Remington with mother under supervision. It explained that mother, who
was 29 years old, had a history of substance abuse, beginning when she was
17 years old, with periods of sobriety and relapse. Approximately a year
before Remington’s birth, mother began a methadone maintenance program
through Santa Rosa Treatment Program, Inc. (SRTP), and continued to
receive weekly counseling and random drug testing through the program.
Mother explained that her last use of methamphetamine was a “ ‘slip-up’ ”
which she immediately regretted. The Department reported that Remington
was born preterm, weighing five pounds nine ounces. Remington tested
negative for all substances at birth, did not show any signs of withdrawal
symptoms, and was feeding well.3 The Department developed a safety plan

      2 The petition also included allegations regarding father’s substance

abuse and incarceration. At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court
also terminated father’s reunification services. However, father has not filed
a writ petition, and therefore we need not summarize facts related to father.
      3 The Department’s March 29, 2023, status review report states that

Remington’s urine toxicology test was positive for methamphetamine and
opioids at birth. This is inconsistent with the Department’s statement in its

                                      2
with mother requiring her to maintain her sobriety, provide drug test results,
and develop a support system to allow for supervision and monitoring of
Remington while in mother’s care.
      At the July 19, 2022, detention hearing, over the objection of counsel
for Remington, the juvenile court placed Remington with mother.
      At the August 17, 2022, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile
court sustained the petition, declared Remington a dependent, and ordered
reunification services for mother.
II.   Supplemental Petition and Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
      On September 1, 2022, the Department applied for a protective custody
warrant for Remington after learning mother tested positive for fentanyl on
August 29, 2022. The juvenile court issued the warrant, and Remington was
removed from mother’s care and placed in emergency foster care.
      On September 6, 2022, the Department filed a supplemental petition
alleging that mother tested positive for fentanyl on August 29 while
Remington was in her care. The Department’s September 7, 2022 detention
report recommended that Remington be removed from mother. The juvenile
court adopted the Department’s recommendation.
      The Department’s report prepared for the jurisdiction/disposition
hearing on the supplemental petition stated that mother continued to deny
substance abuse and wanted Remington returned to her care. Mother met
with a counselor at Drug Abuse Alternatives Center (DAAC) for perinatal day
treatment on September 20, 2022, but she did not complete the assessment.
Mother was asked to drug test while there but claimed she “ ‘could not pee.’ ”
Mother reported to the DAAC counselor that her last drug use was in June

July 18, 2022 detention report, and the record does not explain the
inconsistency.

                                       3
2022. The Department’s report stated concern about mother’s pattern of
avoiding random drug testing, minimizing her substance abuse issues, and
lack of insight into her behavior and the risk it posed to her child.
       The Department further reported on its discussions with Dr. Erin
Lund, who treated Remington at Santa Rosa Community Health. Dr. Lund
reported that mother brought Remington to some appointments for weight
checks and newborn visits, but she also canceled or missed multiple
appointments. As of Remington’s August 30, 2022 appointment, she weighed
seven pounds five ounces. She was in “ ‘the 3rd percentile’ ” for weight, which
might have been due to drug exposure. Dr. Lund recommended that she be
closely monitored for weight gain. After Remington was removed from
mother’s care, she was seen by Dr. Scott Holmes at Petaluma Health Center.
Dr. Holmes diagnosed Remington with poor weight gain, positional
plagiocephaly (head flatness on the left side), a minor lip tie and stiffness in
her legs and neck.
       On September 29, 2022, the juvenile court sustained the supplemental
petition, removed Remington from mother’s care and ordered reunification
services. Mother’s reunification services included substance abuse services
through DAAC, parent mentoring, housing support, drug testing, and
individual and group therapy.
III.   Six-month Review
       In advance of the six-month review hearing, the Department submitted
a report recommending continuation of reunification services. Over the six-
month period, mother inconsistently engaged in substance abuse treatment.
She delayed completing the intake process for outpatient treatment with
DAAC, and she tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl on
multiple occasions. The DAAC program coordinator recommended inpatient

                                        4
treatment at Women’s Recovery Services (WRS). When a space became
available at WRS, mother told the Department social worker that she wanted
to attend a different program because WRS was too close to her home. On
December 8, 2022, mother began treatment at Align Recovery Centers. A
week later, she was asked to leave the program. The program’s director
confirmed to the Department social worker that mother had been expelled
but did not provide further details.
      The Department encouraged mother to attend WRS. Mother delayed
completing intake at WRS for several weeks but began the program on
January 17, 2023. She left the program after five days. WRS offered mother
the option to return, but she initially chose not to do so. After several weeks
of discussions with WRS’s program staff and encouragement from the
Department, mother reentered WRS on February 20, 2023, and began a
detoxification program. The next day, mother’s roommate discovered a
plastic straw and lighters in mother’s hygiene bag. WRS staff also found a
hidden cell phone mother was using to communicate with people suspected of
selling drugs from mother’s home. WRS considered discharging mother from
the program but decided to allow her to stay. WRS reported that since the
initial incident, mother’s treatment was going well. Although it was early in
the treatment program, WRS staff were optimistic about mother’s ability to
progress in recovery.
      The Department made referrals to the Lomi Psychotherapy Clinic for
mother in September 2022, and the clinic left messages for mother, but
mother did not respond. Mother was discharged from the SRTP methadone
clinic in January 2023, and WRS arranged for her to enroll in the Redwood
Empire Addictions Program (REAP), where she could receive methadone
maintenance treatment. Mother was given referrals for parent education

                                       5
services through Child Parent Institute (CPI) and links to its remote mothers
group, but mother did not engage in parent education services during this
period. The Department explained that it did not give mother a referral to
domestic violence prevention classes because it did not appear that domestic
violence was an issue for the family.
      The Department reported that Remington had been put on a high-
calorie diet due to medical concerns of a failure to thrive. She was fitted for a
corrective helmet in January 2023 due to an abnormal head shape. Also in
January 2023, Remington received a laser procedure to correct a severe lip
tie, severe buccal ties, and a moderate tongue tie. Her feeding improved after
the procedure, and she was gaining weight at a healthier rate. Remington
received services through North Bay Regional Center’s Early Start Program
to improve her cognitive, motor and sensory skills. She received weekly
physical therapy.
      Mother had supervised weekly in-person visits with Remington until
December 2022, when the social worker required a negative drug test before
in-person visits. Virtual visitation was arranged in late February 2023, and
weekly in-person visits resumed on February 28, 2023. Remington appeared
comfortable and happy during visits.
      Minor’s counsel contested the Department’s recommendation to
continue reunification services, and the six-month review hearing was
continued to May 15, 2023. The Department submitted an addendum report
in advance of the six-month hearing, which again recommended continuing
reunification services for mother. Mother submitted a witness and document
disclosure for the hearing, which included supportive letters from her service
providers regarding her progress in treatment. In April 2023, mother

                                        6
requested to enter Dependency Drug Court (DDC), and her request was
approved on April 24, 2023.
      At the continued six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found
mother made minimal progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating
the placement and continued reunification services for another six months.
IV.   Twelve-month Review
      The Department’s report in advance of the 12-month review hearing
recommended termination of reunification services and the setting of a
section 366.26 hearing. The Department reported that on May 21, 2023,
mother successfully completed WRS’s 90-day residential treatment program.
However, mother had previously reported to the juvenile court that she would
remain in the WRS residential program for the advised 120 days. After
leaving WRS’s residential program, mother enrolled in the DAAC perinatal
program and in WRS’s aftercare program. She moved into Athena House, a
sober living environment. Ten days after mother moved to Athena House,
she was discharged from the program because of a shoplifting incident during
an outing with other Athena House residents. Minors were present at the
time of the shoplifting incident. Mother was also discharged from DAAC’s
perinatal outpatient program and the WRS aftercare program. Mother
expressed remorse to the Department social worker for the shoplifting
incident and stated that she would not have shoplifted if her daughter had
been in her care.
      Mother continued to participate in DDC, where she attended three
classes per week with the same case manager she worked with at DAAC.
The case manager advised the Department that she believed mother needed
a higher level of care, such as residential treatment. The case manager
explained her belief was based on the shoplifting incident, mother’s not being

                                      7
fully engaged in classes, and mother’s socializing with peers known to be
actively using drugs. The Department social worker reported similar
concerns regarding mother’s lack of engagement in classes. Mother was
unable to describe her classes to the social worker, and she told the social
worker to ask the DDC program director for the names of the classes.
      Mother was attending weekly 12-step support groups, and her sponsor
reported that she was working on step 4. She continued receiving methadone
support through REAP.
      The Department reported that after mother left residential treatment
at WRS, she tested positive for norfentanyl twice in May 2023 and twice in
June 2023. She also tested positive for codeine twice in June 2023. Mother
told the Department social worker that she was not actively using and she
believed the positive tests for norfentanyl were due to her still metabolizing
fentanyl she used in February 2023. Mother believed her positive test for
codeine was due to a poppy seed bagel.
      The Department reported that Remington continued to receive physical
therapy and play therapy. She had delays in gross motor, fine motor,
receptive language, social/emotional behavior, and cognitive skills. In
August 2023, Remington was seen by a pediatric neurologist due to her
decreased right-side gross motor movement and strength. The neurologist
found no structural abnormalities to her head and determined it was unlikely
structural brain differences were causing motor delays or asymmetries.
Continued physical therapy was recommended.
      During the review period, mother had two supervised visits per week
with Remington. The visits fluctuated between fully supervised to lightly
supervised. The Department reported mother was playful and attentive to
Remington, but it continued to believe supervision was necessary because

                                       8
mother did not consistently respond to the child’s cues and needs. For
example, mother noted when Remington was tired but continued to play with
her instead of letting her nap. The Department was also concerned that
mother did not consistently or thoroughly massage Remington for her muscle
stiffness as her physical therapist prescribed. The Department reported that
at times Remington appeared happy to see mother, smiling and reaching out
to her, but at other times Remington cried and had difficulty transitioning
away from her resource parent.
      Mother was referred to in-home parent education through CPI in
August 2023. Mother delayed beginning the visits for several weeks. After
her first visit, on September 5, 2023, mother canceled the next two visits.
The September 18, 2023 visit was shortened due to mother’s having a
scheduling conflict. Mother attended the next CPI visit, on September 26,
2023, during which she completed her registration and discussed her
expectations for herself and her child.
      Mother moved into InterFaith Shelter Network’s transitional housing
on September 27, 2023, and was working with her case manager to obtain
safe and permanent housing.
      The Department recommended termination of reunification services. It
believed mother had not progressed consistently in her treatment programs
and had not shown she was capable of managing unsupervised visits with
Remington. The Department was also concerned that mother had positive
drug tests as recently as June 2023.
      At the contested 12-month review hearing on November 3, 2023, the
Department’s social worker testified that the Department’s recommendation
was based on mother’s inconsistency and lack of substantive change over
time. Specifically, the social worker noted mother’s decision to complete only

                                          9
the 90-day WRS residential program, rather than the recommended 120-day
program, and her being discharged from the DAAC perinatal and WRS
aftercare programs due to shoplifting. Based on mother’s history of starting
and then changing programs, the social worker was unable to conclude that
there was a substantial probability that mother would complete the drug
portion of her case plan if reunification services were extended for six more
months. The social worker explained that mother continues to be drug tested
randomly by the Department and that she also received drug tests through
other programs, including REAP, the methadone clinic. Her last positive
drug test by the Department was in June 2023.
      The social worker summarized the various services the Department
offered mother during the dependency proceeding, including a referral to
individual therapy through the Lomi clinic, individual and group therapy
through WRS, group therapy through DAAC, parenting education through
CPI, and supervised visitation. The social worker testified about
Remington’s medical issues, including her physical therapy sessions. Mother
attended the sessions via remote video; however, since the sessions began in
April 2023, mother missed five appointments. Mother was not always
attentive during the sessions she did attend. The social worker was
concerned that mother had not demonstrated she understood the status of
Remington’s development and health.
      Amanda Cream, the facilitator of DDC, testified on behalf of mother.
She explained that DDC offered a voluntary treatment program for
individuals with active child protection cases who were receiving
reunification services. The program typically lasted one year and required
participants to attend treatment and self-help meetings, participate in drug
testing, work with a sponsor or mentor, meet weekly with Cream, and have

                                      10
regular reviews before a judge. Cream testified that mother had been in
compliance with the DDC program since she enrolled; she had reached the
third phase of the program and was expected to complete the program in
about six months. Cream testified to mother’s progress in seeking help and
support, advocating for herself, and setting boundaries with people who are
unhealthy or using drugs. Cream was aware of mother’s positive tests for
norfentanyl, but Cream understood this was not uncommon in people who
had been long-term users of fentanyl. Cream was not concerned about
possible relapse because mother’s behaviors did not indicate active drug use.
Mother’s recent drug tests had been negative, including during the time
period after she was discharged from her housing and aftercare program due
to her shoplifting. Cream believed it was significant that mother was able to
maintain her sobriety while handling the challenges of seeking new housing
and treatment programs. When asked whether Remington would be safe if
placed in mother’s care, Cream qualified that the issue was not her area of
expertise. She ultimately testified that mother needed ongoing supervision to
provide for Remington’s safety and was not yet ready to care for her daughter
full-time. However, Cream believed mother was on her way to reaching that
goal.
        Mother testified about the residential treatment program she
completed and the outpatient programs in which she continued to participate
through DDC and DAAC. She went to individual therapy with a therapist at
the Lomi clinic from September 2022 to June 2023. The therapy was
intended to be weekly, but mother did not consistently attend until she
stopped using drugs. In June 2023 the therapist left the clinic, and mother
understood she needed a new referral to see a new therapist. She asked the
social worker multiple times for a new referral and only recently received

                                       11
one. As a result, she did not have individual therapy from June to October.
Mother also testified about Remington’s medical history, including her need
to wear a corrective helmet and her lip tie issue. Mother attended a recent
appointment with a neurologist to discuss possible tests that might be needed
to determine if Remington was having seizures. Mother has had difficulty
obtaining Remington’s medical records, but she recently obtained physical
copies. Mother missed some of Remington’s regular medical appointments
because she was not told about them. Mother attended Remington’s physical
therapy appointments and explained the muscle massages the therapist
prescribed.
      Following the contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court
terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Mother challenges the juvenile court’s termination of reunification
services and the setting of the section 366.26 hearing on the grounds that the
juvenile court erred in finding that the Department provided reasonable
services. She also contends that the juvenile court erred in finding it was not
substantially likely that Remington will be returned to mother’s care by the
18-month date.
I.    Statutory Framework
      For a parent of a child under three years of age at the time of removal,
the statutory scheme for providing reunification services establishes “three
distinct periods and three corresponding distinct escalating standards . . . .”
(Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 845.) During the first
period, from the jurisdictional hearing to the six-month review hearing,
services are “afforded essentially as a matter of right,” subject to certain
statutory exceptions not relevant here. (Ibid.) During the second period,

                                       12
from the six-month review hearing to the 12-month review hearing, “a
heightened showing is required to continue services.” (Ibid.) The juvenile
court must continue services only if it finds that “there is a substantial
probability that the child . . . may be returned to their parent . . . within six
months or that reasonable services have not been provided . . . .” (§ 366.21,
subd. (e)(3).) During the third and final period, from the 12-month review
hearing to the 18-month review hearing, services are “disfavored.”
(Tonya M., at p. 845.) The juvenile court shall continue the case “only if it
finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to
the physical custody of their parent” within the extended review period or if it
finds reasonable services have not been provided. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) In
order to find a substantial probability of return, the juvenile court is
statutorily required to find that the parent has (1) consistently and regularly
contacted and visited with the child; (2) made significant progress in
resolving the problems that led to the child’s removal; and (3) demonstrated
the capacity and ability to complete his or her treatment plan and to provide
for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and
special needs. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)–(C).)
II.   Reasonable Services
      Before the juvenile court may set a section 366.26 hearing, it must find
by “clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were provided or
offered to the parent . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(c)(ii).) We review this
finding for substantial evidence, taking into account the “clear and
convincing” standard. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–
996.) Thus, we must determine “whether the record as a whole contains
substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it
highly probable that the fact was true.” (Ibid.) We review the record in the

                                         13
light most favorable to the judgment below with due deference to the juvenile
court’s credibility determinations, resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.4 (Id. at p. 996.)
      We find substantial evidence supports the finding that the Department
provided reasonable reunification services to mother. Mother was provided
with multiple referrals and services throughout the proceeding, including
residential treatment at WRS, substance abuse services through DAAC, WRS
aftercare treatment after she completed the 90-day residential treatment,
drug testing, parenting education, individual therapy, housing assistance,
supervised visitation, and regular contact with the Department.
      Mother highlights several areas in which she contends the Department
failed to provide reasonable services. She argues the Department failed to
consistently provide monthly in-person meetings between the Department
social worker and mother. She claims the then current social worker testified
that the Department had no in-person contact with mother in June and July.
The social worker’s testimony is less definitive than mother asserts. She
stated she would need to review the delivered service logs. The delivered
service logs for this period indicate that a Department social worker met in
person with mother on June 30, 2023, and then again on August 2, 2023.
Mother also refers to the social worker’s testimony that she did not meet with
mother in October 2023. The social worker explained that her scheduled

      4 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by not applying the

clear and convincing evidence standard. The record belies this claim. The
juvenile court specifically stated on the record that “[t]he Court has to
determine at a 12-month review, did the Department provide reasonable
services or offer reasonable services by clear and convincing evidence.
[¶] Quite frankly, all parties demonstrated that the Department did just that,
they provided reasonable services.” In addition, the juvenile court’s findings
and orders also reference the clear and convincing evidence standard.

                                       14
October meeting with mother had to be postponed because the social worker
was ill; however, the social worker contacted mother by telephone during this
period.
      Mother further contends her referrals for a parenting mentor and a
therapist were delayed. As to the parenting mentor, the record indicates
mother was offered parenting education services through CPI during the
initial six-month review period, but she did not engage. Mother later began
working with a parent mentor from CPI, in April 2023, while she was at
WRS, and she continued to engage in CPI’s services through October 2023.
In August 2023 mother received another referral for parent education, and
after some delays and cancelations of visits by mother, mother began
engaging in visits with her parent mentor. Regarding individual therapy,
mother testified that she participated in therapy with a therapist from the
Lomi clinic “on and off” from September 2022 to June 2023, when the
therapist left the clinic. She then asked the Department for a new referral
multiple times, but she did not receive a new referral until October 2023.
The Department social worker testified that mother’s original referral to
Lomi remained open. In addition, mother received individual and group
counseling at WRS. It appears there may have been some miscommunication
regarding how mother was to continue individual therapy after her assigned
therapist left the Lomi clinic. However, given the multiple services provided
to mother during the dependency proceeding, we do not find that a delay in
securing a new therapist requires reversal of the juvenile court’s finding that
the Department provided reasonable services. (In re T.G. (2010) 188
Cal.App.4th 687, 697 [“ ‘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’ ”].)

                                      15
      Mother’s claim that the Department provided inadequate housing
assistance is not supported by the record. The Department assisted mother
by providing her a referral to InterFaith assisted housing, referring her to
WRS’s residential treatment program, communicating with her about her
plan to live at Athena House after she completed the residential treatment,
and then confirming that mother secured housing through InterFaith in
September 2023 after she was discharged from Athena House.
      Mother also complains that she did not receive a referral for domestic
violence counseling. The Department’s March 29, 2023, report in advance of
the six-month review hearing states that a referral was not made because
there was little information that domestic violence was a safety threat for the
family and the Department wanted mother to focus on her substance abuse
treatment. Under the circumstances of this case, we reject mother’s
argument that the Department failed to provide reasonable services because
it did not provide a referral for domestic violence counseling. (In re T.G.,
supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.)
      Mother’s claim that the Department’s communication with mother’s
substance abuse providers was inadequate is also not supported by the
record. Mother cites to the then current social worker’s testimony at the
November 3, 2023, contested 12-month review hearing. The social worker
stated that since she was assigned to mother’s case on September 20, 2023,
she spoke with mother’s DDC counselor once and spoke with mother’s DAAC
counselor twice. The social worker testified that she did not know if the
previous social worker spoke with mother’s DAAC counselor; however, the
Department received and reviewed all of the DDC reports. The record also
includes documentation of contacts between the Department social workers
and mother’s WRS caseworker, and between the Department social worker

                                       16
and the directors at Athena House, where mother lived after completing the
residential treatment at WRS.
       Finally, mother asserts that the social worker’s belief that mother
would not succeed in reunification is not a defense to providing reasonable
services. As discussed ante, we find substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s finding that the Department provided reasonable services. In
addition, we are unpersuaded by the evidence mother cites in support of her
argument. Mother claims that the Department social worker testified that at
some point between September and October, mother’s visitation was reduced
from four hours to two hours because of the Department’s recommendation to
terminate reunification services. However, the social worker’s initial
testimony on this issue was that the reduction in visitation was also due to
the Department’s resources and to accommodate schedules. Later in her
testimony, the social worker clarified that the reduction in visitation hours
was not due to the Department’s recommendation to terminate services but
was done in order to accommodate mother’s treatment and work schedule
and the Department’s resources.
III.   Substantial Probability of Return by 18 Months
       Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding there was no
substantial probability of reunification within 18 months. She argues the
evidence supports a finding that she meets the section 366.21,
subdivision (g)(1) statutory requirements for a finding that there is a
substantial probability that Remington will be returned to her by the 18-
month date, which is in March 2024. Specifically, mother argues she has
maintained regular contact and visitation with Remington (§ 366.21, subd.
(g)(1)(A)); she has made significant progress in her case plan (§ 366.21, subd.
(g)(1)(B)); and she has demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the

                                       17
objectives of her treatment plan and to provide for Remington’s safety,
protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs (§ 366.21,
subd. (g)(1)(C)).
      We agree with mother that she had consistent and regular visitation
with Remington throughout the dependency proceeding. The record also
includes evidence that mother has made progress in treating her drug
addiction, particularly the testimony of the DDC program director. However,
mother’s progress is fairly recent and not without recent setbacks. She
completed the WRS 90-day residential treatment program on May 21, 2023.
Shortly thereafter, mother tested positive for norfentanyl and codeine, in May
and June 2023. Then, in August 2023, mother was discharged from her sober
living facility after a shoplifting incident. The juvenile court recognized at
the November 3, 2023 hearing that mother had more recently been making
progress in addressing her addiction problem. However, it found that there
was not a substantial probability of reunification by March 2024. In making
this finding, the juvenile court noted that mother had suffered from addiction
for years and had only been clean and sober since June 2023.
      We uphold a juvenile court’s findings supporting termination of
reunification services if supported by substantial evidence. (J.H. v. Superior
Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535.) “When determining whether
substantial evidence is present, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence,
pass on the credibility of witnesses, or determine where the preponderance of
the evidence lies. [Citation.] We merely determine if there is any substantial
evidence, contradicted or not, which will support the conclusion of the trier of
fact. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is ‘reasonable, credible evidence of
solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could make the findings
challenged . . . .’ [Citation.] The appellant must show the evidence is

                                       18
insufficient to support the trial court’s findings.” (Adoption of Myah M.
(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1539.)
      We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that
there is not a substantial probability of reunification by March 2024.
Although mother presented evidence that she had been sober since she
entered treatment on February 20, 2023, she acknowledges the drug tests
from May and June 2023 indicating positive results for norfentanyl and
codeine. Mother denied using drugs during this period and offered
alternative explanations for the positive tests. However, on review, we do not
resolve conflicts in the evidence or assess witness credibility. (Adoption of
Myah M., supra, at p. 1539.) The record supports a finding that although
mother’s progress in resolving her addiction was continuing, it was not
significant enough that there was a substantial probability of reunification by
March 2024.
      The record also includes evidence to support a finding that mother had
not demonstrated the capacity and ability to provide for Remington’s safety,
physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. The juvenile court
noted that Remington has many medical issues. Mother attended some of
Remington’s medical appointments, but not all. There was also testimony
from the social worker that mother lacked a full understanding of
Remington’s development and health. During supervised visitation, mother
was observed to be attentive and playful with Remington but did not
consistently recognize Remington’s cues. Nor did mother demonstrate an
awareness of how to massage Remington for her muscle stiffness as
prescribed by the physical therapist. After Remington was removed from
mother’s care in September 2022, mother’s visitation was supervised, and the
Department did not believe mother had shown the ability to safely and

                                       19
appropriately care for Remington without supervision. Sufficient evidence
supports a finding that mother did not demonstrate a capacity and ability to
provide for Remington’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being,
and special needs.
       As discussed ante, mother is progressing in her case plan to address the
difficult problem of substance abuse. We, like the juvenile court, encourage
her to continue to do so. However, the juvenile court’s conclusion that there
is not a substantial likelihood of reunification by March 2024 is supported by
the evidence.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (§ 366.26,
subd. (l)(1)(c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) The request for a stay is
denied. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

                                                Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Simons, J.
Chou, J.

A169066/Kaitlyn W. v. Superior Court

                                           20