B.L., Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

O P I N I O N

B.L. (mother) challenges, by writ petition, an order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for permanency planning as to her four children.¹  She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the respondent court's underlying findings that:  return of the children would create a substantial risk of detriment to them;  and real party in interest Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) provided her with reasonable reunification services.   On review, we disagree and deny mother's petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

In July 2008, 10-year-old Z. disclosed that mother's boyfriend had sexually abused her more than once.   Mother did not believe her daughter and continued to allow contact between the children and the man.   This led the department to immediately detain Z., her older brother, and two younger siblings, as well as initiate the underlying dependency proceedings.   The department alleged the children, who ranged in age from three to 13 years old, were at substantial risk of sexual abuse (§ 300, subd. (d)) based on the boyfriend's abuse and mother's failure to protect.

From the outset, respondent Fresno County Superior Court (juvenile court) ordered the department to provide mother with parenting classes, a domestic violence evaluation, a mental health assessment and any recommended treatment.   It also ordered supervised visits at least twice a week between mother and children.   The court further ordered sexual abuse counseling for Z. The department made all the necessary referrals.   It also referred Z.'s siblings for counseling.

The two youngest children exhibited numerous troubling symptoms.   The three-year-old girl fought and hit when she did not get her way, would not follow directives and sexually acted out.   The five-year-old boy disregarded rules, exhibited anger and lied daily, stole three to four times a week and also exhibited sexualized behaviors.

In counseling, Z. revealed that when she first disclosed the abuse, mother threatened her with commitment to a mental hospital if she told anyone else.   Then, during visits, mother tried to persuade Z. to recant and say the molestation was a lie.   All of this made the child scared and sad.   In her own therapy, mother continued to deny that Z. was ever abused.   Mother believed Z. was lying.

As of December 2008, the therapists for Z. and mother were in agreement that visitation between the two at that time was not therapeutically advised.   Mother, who had been participating in group psychotherapy, made minimal progress;  she did not accept the role she played in the children's removal.   In January 2009, the juvenile court suspended visitation between mother and Z. until further hearing, unless there was therapeutic input regarding the appropriateness of such visits.

The juvenile court eventually exercised its dependency jurisdiction over all four children in March 2009.   It found the sexual abuse and failure to protect allegations under section 300, subdivision (d) true.

That same month, Z.'s therapist consulted with mother's therapist who reported mother had made minimal progress in group therapy since visitation with Z. had been suspended.   Meanwhile, since the cessation of visits, Z. no longer came to sessions crying and had been able to thrive in terms of academics, athletics and social interaction.   Consequently, Z.'s therapist continued to recommend against visitation.   The therapist stated that resuming visits would put Z. at risk of regression.   Also, Z.'s therapist did not recommend visitation until mother had made significant progress, by acknowledging Z. was sexually abused, and by admitting her (mother's) threat to send Z. to a mental institution and her statements to Z. that the child was lying.

Four months later in July 2009, the juvenile court adjudged the four children juvenile dependents and formally removed them from parental custody.   The court ordered the same services for mother that it previously directed the department to offer her.   It also ordered unsupervised visits between mother and her other children, with discretion granted to the department to commence liberal visits under certain conditions.   As between mother and Z., the court granted the department discretion to schedule unforced therapeutic visits or conjoint therapy.   However, as of the following month, Z. still did not want to visit mother in a therapeutic setting nor participate with mother in conjoint therapy.

Although the juvenile court set the case for a status review hearing in December 2009, the court continued the matter for lack of a department report.   It also ordered updated discovery regarding visits between mother and her other three children.

In its status review report submitted in January 2010, the department recommended terminating services for mother and setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the children.   It characterized the court's status review as an 18-month hearing, apparently because the children had entered foster care in the summer of 2008. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(C).) ²  The department reported mother had completed almost all of her court-ordered services and wished to reunify.

Mother completed a parenting course and anger management treatment in December 2008.   She also claimed she had been discharged from group psychotherapy in December 2009, although the department had not received a copy of her discharge summary.   Mother stated she currently believed Z. was inappropriately touched and was willing to protect Z. and the other children.   Mother also claimed she attempted to have one family therapy session with Z., but that session had not yet been accomplished.

Meanwhile, the report also disclosed there had been a referral regarding mother's younger son involving an allegation of physical abuse.   The report did not address the substance of the referral but did state that, as a result, the child had not been visiting with mother and since that time, according to his therapist, the boy appeared calmer.

At the January 2010 hearing, the court continued the matter.   It directed the department to provide an addendum report stating the reasons for its recommendation to terminate reunification services.   The department was also to address and follow-up with missed visits between mother and her two youngest children.   In February 2010, the court ordered supervised visitation between mother and the children, other than Z.

A February 2010 addendum report provided the following additional information.   By the fall of 2009, Z. expressed a willingness to participate in a conjoint therapy session with her therapist and the mother's therapist.   Mother's therapist later left mother a message asking mother to call her because an appointment had been scheduled for Z. and mother in early December 2009.   However, mother did not respond.   Consequently, the scheduled therapy session was cancelled and no conjoint therapy had occurred between Z. and mother.   The department attributed the lack of any conjoint therapy session between Z. and mother to mother's failure to contact and make arrangements with her therapist.

In addition, to secure greater visitation with her other children, mother was aware she had to provide a home for them.   Although mother had housing with a relative and his family, she had no beds for the children.   Mother stated she would work on that.

Then in December 2009, it was reported mother was hitting her younger son.   Due to this new allegation of physical abuse and the fact that 18 months for family reunification services had expired, the department reported it was not in the children's best interests to return to mother's custody.

In a second addendum report submitted in May 2010, the department continued to recommend services be terminated for mother.   It described for the first time concerns discussed with mother in September 2009 at a team decision making (TDM) meeting about mother's eldest child possessing pornography and acting out behaviors of her two youngest children.   At the TDM meeting, there was also discussion that mother contact a worker at emergency housing to apply for assistance so she could have liberal visits with those three children.   However, she failed to contact emergency housing.

As for the December 2009 physical abuse referral, it had been substantiated that mother hit her younger son with a belt during an unsupervised visit.   More recently, it was reported that mother placed her oldest child in a dangerous situation.   The oldest child, who was then 15 years old, was allowed to drive a vehicle belonging to mother's boyfriend while the boyfriend was intoxicated.   The 15-year-old boy reportedly crashed the vehicle into the side of a garage.

In yet another May 2010 addendum report, the department relayed updated information about Z. and her younger brother.   According to a May 2010 progress report from the younger boy's therapist, the boy began therapeutic services in late 2008 and by September 2009 his symptoms, apparently of inattention, as well as non-compliant behaviors at home and school, had reduced through consistent therapy sessions.   However, in December 2009 those symptoms reportedly had increased.   He began to exhibit guarded behaviors and, during a December 2009 session, he reported mother had told him to behave “bad” so he would not be adopted.   He had also reported this to his foster mother.   In the weeks following mother's instructions to him, the boy exhibited confusion and emotional distress.

Then, following the referral in late December 2009 that mother had physically abused the boy during an unsupervised visit, the department suspended visits between mother and the two young children.   The boy expressed to his therapist that he felt safest with his foster mother and was afraid mother would continue to hit him.   When the unsupervised visits stopped, the boy's symptoms decreased.   By late January, his behaviors had significantly improved according to his foster mother and teacher.   Meanwhile, he began to exhibit an increased sense of calm and appeared more relaxed during individual therapy sessions.   Based on mother's emotional and physical abuse and the boy's decrease in symptoms when unsupervised visits stopped, the therapist recommended against the boy's reunification with mother due to the risk it could increase his emotional distress.

In a May 2010 update from Z.'s therapist, she recommended that Z. not be reunified with mother.   Although Z. previously and successfully completed her mental health treatment, the clinician kept her case open, at the court's request, in order to facilitate a conjoint therapy session with Z. and mother.   The purpose of this was to empower Z. and make continued recommendations regarding contact between Z. and mother.   Both Z.'s and mother's therapists attempted to facilitate two conjoint sessions with mother.   Both times Z.'s clinician prepared the girl, who reluctantly agreed to participate.   Mother was instructed to contact her therapist and Z.'s clinician.   In December 2009, the therapists scheduled a conjoint session.   Mother did not contact the therapists and they had not heard from her since that time.

The therapist also explained Z.'s desire not to have contact with mother was based on the girl's fears.   Z. was afraid based on the past when mother did not believe her, hit her when the girl disclosed the abuse, and threatened to put her in a mental hospital if the girl did not recant.   The girl was also afraid mother would treat her worse than she did before, in part because mother threatened to take her to Mexico and leave her with her father.   The girl was afraid she would be subject to physical, sexual and verbal abuse.   Meanwhile, the girl had made an excellent adjustment to foster care and shown significant progress in school and in terms of self-image.   This was possible only since her removal from mother's care.   The therapist therefore opined reunification would be detrimental to the girl's mental and emotional well-being and would create a significant risk of being retraumatized and regression in academic and social functioning.

A social worker also recently met with Z. and her younger brother in foster care.   The younger boy stated he did not want to return home with mother because she was mean and she hit and yelled at him.   In a separate conversation with the social worker, Z. said her younger brother did come home from visits reporting mother hit him.   Z. also stated she did not want to be returned to mother because Z. believed mother would never change.

Trial

Trial eventually commenced in June 2010.   At its start, mother's attorney claimed she had not received important discovery in the form of a discharge summary from mother's therapist.   All she had was mother's representation that she had been discharged from therapy in December 2009.   Counsel for the department represented that a social worker made two attempts to secure a discharge summary from the therapist, but it was never provided.   The court accepted counsel's representation as an officer of the court as true.   The court also inquired what mother's attorney would like to do.   The attorney wanted to know what the therapist was going to say before the attorney invited her to testify.   The court did not believe it was either within its power or appropriate to order the therapist to prepare a discharge summary before the case went forward or mother's attorney called the therapist to testify.   Asked once more by the court how she would like to proceed, mother's attorney replied “I am not going to subpoena [mother's therapist].” ³

There being no other pretrial matter to address, the department asked the court to consider the entire file, including the department's previous reports and attachments as well as an investigative report by the children's attorney filed in April 2010.   The court, hearing no objection, granted the department's request.

The department called the children's therapists, along with its social worker, as witnesses.

Christine Lynch

Christine Lynch, Z.'s therapist, reiterated the observations and findings she made in her previous reports.   Lynch attributed the trauma symptoms that Z. had exhibited in 2008 to ongoing emotional, physical and sexual abuse.   Although the sexual abuse was not chronic, the emotional and physical abuse was chronic.   Z. had been the least favored of mother's children and was the scapegoat.   Z. had described being hit with belts, blamed for others' conduct, and having to take on extra responsibilities.   In the therapist's view, there would be substantial emotional and mental danger to Z. if the court returned her to mother's custody.

Based on what she learned from the younger children's therapist, Lynch was also concerned that the younger boy was at risk for physical abuse if he were returned.   Having also consulted with the therapist for the older boy and with the social worker, Lynch considered the older boy to be the favorite child.   She could not say he would be at risk for physical abuse.   However, collateral exposure to physical abuse has a detrimental effect on a child who observes another child being abused.   Such an observation role models that physical aggression is okay.   It can also be a fearful experience.   Any child returning to this type of dysfunctional family would be at risk of further physical or emotional abuse.

Asked about the more recent evidence that mother told her younger son to behave badly so he would not be adopted, Lynch expressed concern about such behavior with respect to returning Z. to mother.   From what Z. had reported since the beginning, there had been consistent inappropriate communication on mother's part.

Lynch also testified regarding efforts to conduct a conjoint session with Z. and mother.   Once, in August 2009, Lynch prepared Z. for a conjoint session, but it was put on hold because mother's therapist was unable to prepare mother.   Mother's therapist was hospitalized for a month.   Then, in November 2009, mother's therapist shared with Lynch that mother had accepted Z.'s statements about being molested.   Lynch and mother's therapist worked in the same unit, and periodically Lynch asked the other therapist if there was any change in terms of mother's denial.   There was no change reported until probably November 2009.

Lynch prepared Z. several times for a conjoint session, which was scheduled for December 4, 2009.   Three or four days earlier had been the last day of mother's treatment in group psychotherapy.   According to what Lynch learned from mother's therapist, mother arrived and said she was sick and could not stay.   Her therapist told mother about the December 4 conjoint session and informed her they needed to meet and prepare for it.   Mother's therapist also informed mother to contact both therapists.   However, as of the 4th, neither mother's therapist nor Lynch had heard from mother.

The purpose of the conjoint session was to empower Z. and release her from the role of victim with the hope that mother be prepared to listen and not be reactive.   If that initial session was successful and did not have to be stopped due to inappropriate behavior, Lynch might have considered whether it would be in Z.'s best interest to treat her with family therapy.

Martha Foster

Martha Foster testified about her work as a therapist for Z.'s two younger siblings.   As of trial, the younger boy, who was seven years old, continued to be Foster's patient.   The younger girl, who was five years old, was no longer Foster's patient.   When Foster assessed the two in 2008, both had significant impairment in their social functioning and required mental health services.

The younger boy suffered from an adjustment disorder.   In her opinion, the younger boy's symptoms were consistent with chronic emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.   Early on in his therapy, he had described how mother would hit him with a belt.   His original symptoms of lying, aggressiveness and sexualized behaviors were especially telling to Foster.   He had a detailed knowledge of sexual matters, which was not normal for a child his age.   He drew graphic, sexual pictures and simulated sexual behaviors with his younger sister.   He disclosed in therapy that he had watched pornography.   By the time of trial, his sexualized behaviors had stopped.

Instances of his aggression, stealing or lying gradually reduced over the course of therapy.   There were longer periods of time in which his symptoms were abated.   By September 2009, he would do “great for four weeks” and then regress.   Then, in the fall of 2009, he started to have increased symptoms and, by December 2009, he exhibited acting-out behaviors on a consistent weekly basis.   Once the unsupervised visits with mother stopped, he once again began to have reduced symptoms.

Mother's reported statement to the boy that he should behave badly was consistent with the child's history of chronic emotional and physical abuse.   It added to his confusion.   Given the context in which the boy told Foster that his mother told him to behave badly, Foster believed the child.   The boy had also reported to Foster in December 2009 that he did not want to go on a visit with mother because she hit him and he was afraid.   Specifically, he said that mother hit him with a belt on his back when he was not eating his cereal and had dropped a toy.   Although lying had been one of the child's symptoms, Foster believed him based on the way his disclosure came about in therapy.   After the unsupervised visits stopped, the boy's whole demeanor changed for the better.   If the boy were returned to mother's care, Foster opined he could regress, his symptoms could come back and it could be physically and emotionally detrimental to him.   In Foster's opinion, he should not be returned to mother.

As for the younger girl, Foster testified the child exhibited sexualized behaviors, which she had learned in the home.   She had been exposed, either visually or physically, to sexual conduct.   She was also aggressive to other children, leading Foster to believe the girl had been exposed to physical abuse.   Through treatment, the child's sexualized behavior had been reduced to zero and her aggression was reduced to one or two times a week.   She seemed to react better than her brother to therapy because she was younger and had spent less time in the home.   There was probably a significant likelihood, according to Foster, that returning the girl to mother's home would be dangerous to her physical or emotional well-being.   In Foster's opinion, this child also should not be returned to mother.

William Latta

William Latta, a psychotherapist for mother's older son, was the last of the therapists to testify.   Latta had received two referrals for the older boy after he was detained.

The first referral in 2008 related to the older boy not believing Z. and harboring some resentments and agitation towards her, as well as worry about the breakup of the family.   He made remarkable progress in a limited period and grew to feel safe and secure in his foster home.

The second referral arose in November 2009.   The foster mother had discovered pornography in the older boy's bedroom.   It appeared, to Latta, that the material was not particularly obnoxious for a 15-year-old boy.   The boy was also more than willing to surrender the material to the foster mother, who had been concerned he was sharing this with other children.

Although the older boy was still quite agitated with Z., the two siblings participated in an April 2010 family session to go over their differences.   It was very stressful for both of them, so they also had a session in which the social worker participated.   It went “beautifully.”   They seemed to have gained a real appreciation of each other.   The older boy had come to accept his sister's allegations of sexual abuse.

The older boy was able to tell Latta what his expectations were for mother and what she needed to improve upon so he could feel safe and most comfortable moving back with her.   He wanted his mother to find full-time employment, a car and her own apartment.   In this way, mother could take pride in assuming her adult role and in her accomplishments.   He loved his mother and, if she could improve her circumstances, he would be willing to live with her, even if away from his siblings.

Latta believed the older boy needed stable parental support due to his developmental stage, which the therapist described as an emancipation period.   Without this, it would confound and confuse the older boy's development.   If the “adult parental system” were confused, not focused on the older boy, or preoccupied with their own needs, it would really confound the transition the older boy made in his emancipation period.   The older boy was doing great in his foster home.   If he was in a home that was stable and had good parental input, the older boy would excel.

In Latta's estimation, the older boy was also parentified because of his previous experiences in his family.   He felt the need to take over and be protective of his siblings.   He was aware mother was having parental difficulties and tried to figure that out and be supportive.   A child who is parentified tries to take on a role that not only is the child not capable of, but the child does not have the wherewithal and understanding of what parental processes could and should be.   A child should not have to live through that.

The department rested at this point.   Trial resumed in July 2010 when the court heard testimony from the social worker and the oldest child.

Eva Torres

Social Worker Eva Torres testified about mother's failure to complete a therapeutic session with Z. Torres did not know why mother did not accomplish this task.

After the court, in July 2009, gave the department discretion to arrange a therapeutic session, Torres let Z. know about this.   At each home visit with Z., Torres asked if the girl wanted to participate in a therapeutic session with mother.   Z. readily said no until approximately September 2009.   Z. agreed to the session because her therapist would be there.   Z. never said she wanted to visit her mother.

Torres in turn e-mailed both Z. and mother's therapists.   Mother was also notified.   However, the session did not occur soon thereafter because mother's therapist was ill and out on leave.

When the session was rescheduled, Torres talked with mother about calling her therapist.   Torres was not directly involved though in scheduling the session.   That was up to the therapists and their ability to coordinate schedules.   Torres did receive an e-mail from mother's therapist that a therapeutic session was to occur on December 10, 2009.   Mother was aware of this but she failed to call her therapist to verify or confirm her attendance.   Mother was also out of contact with Torres for some time, which was a concern to the social worker.   Otherwise, according to Torres, mother completed anger management training, parenting classes, and she participated in both individual and group therapy.

Asked about why the department did not exercise its discretion for liberal or extended visits between mother and her other children, Torres explained this was due to mother's housing issues.   Mother did not have a stable, permanent home for herself until December 2009.   Prior to that, Torres had been working with mother trying to go forward with liberal visits.   In August 2009, the social worker met with a relative of mother's who was willing to offer his home to mother and the children.   However, mother refused assistance from her family.   In September 2009, mother was referred to a housing agency for emergency housing.   After that, mother was advised to contact an individual for filling out an application.   However, she did not take advantage of these opportunities.   Once mother did secure housing in December, mother still did not have any beds for the children.

Torres also testified that mother said at some point she believed Z. and that going to therapy had helped her (mother).   However, Z. did not believe her mother.   Z. said on numerous occasions that her mother would never change.   Asked whether the department conveyed to Z. that mother completed anger management and parenting and had participated in group therapy, Torres replied she had not.   Z. relayed her feelings that, despite mother participating in services, mother had neither progressed nor changed.

Also, before the younger boy reported mother hitting him with a belt in the beginning of December 2009, he did report he liked his visits with mother and wanted to be with her.   However, there seemed to be a dramatic reversal in his attitude as of January 2010.   Torres discussed with the child his reversal of feelings about mother.   The social worker also testified that the younger girl corroborated what the younger boy had stated about mother spanking him with a belt.

In Torres' opinion, return of the younger children to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to their well-being.   Also, although mother participated in services, Torres did not believe mother had been able to demonstrate that she had benefited from services.   The younger children were more at risk than mother's oldest child, who never stated mother had hurt him.   Because of his age, he could verbalize any problems.

Torres also testified that during a court recess that day, mother told Z. that this was her fault and the younger boy's fault.   Z. told Torres she and her aunt had been sitting in the court cafeteria when mother approached and started talking to them.   Mother accused Z. and blamed her for the delay and blamed her younger brother because of what he said.   Torres treated the information as reliable.   This blaming behavior on mother's part as well as the incident during visitation, when mother hit her younger son with a belt, led Torres to believe the children could not be safely returned to mother's care.   Such behavior on mother's part led Torres to believe she had not benefited from her services.

Mother's Oldest Child

The oldest child was questioned about whether mother had hit his younger brother during visitation in December 2009.   The witness replied he did not see anything and did not think he was there that day.   He testified he did not see mother use a belt on his younger brother.   He also testified that, before he and the other children were removed, he never saw mother hit him or his siblings.   In addition, he never saw mother do anything more than kiss her boyfriend.   Further, there was no talk about sex in the home.

For now, the oldest child wanted to be in his aunt's home while mother “fixe [d] all her problems.”   He wanted her to not do things that she was not supposed to be doing, “[l]ike getting new boyfriends and stuff.”   He wanted her to get a job so “she could have money to buy us ․ enough food and clothes when we go to school.”

The trial resumed for a final day in August 2010.   On that date, mother and other witnesses testified.

Mother

According to mother, Z. did not tell her about being touched or abused.   Mother also denied that she had disbelieved Z., although mother later admitted she had.   Mother claimed she did not know why her other children were removed.

From the classes mother took, she learned how to discipline the children, that is not to hit or yell at them.   The psychotherapy helped mother because “almost the same happened to [her].”   Mother's stepfather tried to molest her and her own mother hit her, instead of supporting her.   Mother found it impossible that “that happened to [Z.].” Mother claimed therapy helped her understand Z.'s feelings but could not explain how.

Mother testified that during her psychotherapy she came to believe Z. It was about 15 days after her visits with Z. were suspended.   Mother also wanted conjoint therapy with Z. so they could have contact.   Mother claimed she asked her own therapist many times about conjoint therapy.   Mother also testified she did not know a session had been arranged in December 2009.   The last time mother saw her therapist, mother inquired about a conjoint therapy session, but the therapist did not know.   According to mother, this was in March of 2009.   It was also in March 2009, according to mother, that her therapist told mother she did not have to be in the “classes” anymore.

In mother's view, there were no problems when she previously had supervised visits with Z. Mother testified she never knew exactly why the court suspended her visitation with Z. Mother only had visits for a month and a half, and she had not had any contact with Z. since then.   Mother denied having recently said to Z. that this was all her fault.   Instead, mother testified she only told the children's aunt that everything would be much easier if Z. wanted to have visits with her (mother) or if Z. wanted to talk with mother on the phone.

Mother also denied that she treated Z. differently from her other children.   She further testified that statements about Z. doing better when she was not with mother were “lies.”   She offered into evidence pictures and certificates pertaining to Z.

Mother testified she loved all four of her children very much.   Asked if she thought Z. distrusted her, mother replied “I don't know that.”   According to mother, she did not convey to Z. that she believed her daughter because she (mother) did not have visits or phone contact with her.

Mother also denied hitting her younger son, as reported in December 2009.   She did not know why the child would say that she hit him.   Before December 2009, her younger son would cry that he wanted to come home with her.   Mother's younger daughter also wanted to be with her (mother).   According to mother, she had beds for her children to sleep in so they could visit overnight.

Mother did not believe her past relationships with men may have harmed her children.   The only exception was “perhaps” what happened with her youngest child's father.⁴

Mother wanted to be with her children and to protect them.   She understood the department was against returning the children because she hit them, something she denied.

Mother claimed her younger son was lying when he previously said she hit him.   Mother further testified she never told her younger son to misbehave.   Also, according to mother, neither of her younger children were exposed to inappropriate adult sexual activity or pornography in her home.   She also denied her former boyfriend had any pornography.   She further denied that she and he had kissed in front of the children.

In addition, mother denied previously hitting Z. or telling her she would put her in a hospital and leave her there.   Rather, mother claimed she only offered to take Z. to a hospital to check out the child.

Mother's Relatives

A relative with whom mother lived testified that she observed mother and the children during four or five visits in December 2009.   Although mother's younger son would misbehave at times, the witness never observed mother become angry with the child or hit him.   When mother disciplined the younger son by talking to him, he would respond by saying he did not want to live with mother.

The relative's 11-year-old son testified that mother's younger son sometimes got mad, but did not act badly during visits in the home with mother.   The witness also volunteered mother “got mad but she never hit [her younger son]” during visits.   Also, mother's younger son never defied mother or said he did not want to live to her.

Following lengthy arguments by the parties, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for the four children.   In the process, the juvenile court found return of the children to mother's care would create a substantial risk of detriment to them;  and the department provided mother with reasonable reunification services, but despite those services mother made only minimal to moderate progress.

DISCUSSION

I. Substantial Risk of Detriment

Mother contends the juvenile court considered past circumstances and events more than her current circumstances, the extent to which she availed herself of services, and the efforts or progress she demonstrated.   With this as her premise, she argues there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that return of the children to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to them.   Mother crafts her argument by focusing almost exclusively on remarks made by the juvenile court and her testimony.   In the process, she ignores the law on appellate review and much of the evidence before the juvenile court.

To begin, the juvenile court's reasoning is not a matter for this court's review.  (Davey v. Southern Pacific Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 325, 329.)   It is judicial action and not judicial reasoning, which is the proper subject of appellate review.  (El Centro Grain Co. v. Bank of Italy, etc.  (1932) 123 Cal.App. 564, 567.)   Thus, to the extent mother focuses on some of the juvenile court's comments and assumes from those remarks what evidence the court did or did not consider, her argument is meritless.

Also, as this court explained in In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378-1379, the power of an appellate court asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or not, which supports the trier of fact's conclusion.   All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the decision, if possible.   We may not reweigh or express an independent judgment on the evidence.  (In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 833.)   In this regard, issues of fact and credibility are matters for the trial court alone.  (In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 859-860.)

The record before us contains not only the numerous reports summarized above but also four days of testimony at the 18-month status review hearing.   Nevertheless, in her writ petition, mother virtually ignores that evidence.   She cites to only 10 pages of the reporter's transcript to support her argument.   Mother's approach of picking and choosing evidence to suit her argument, however, is not an approach we may follow on review.  (In re A.A. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1313.)

Mother completed parenting classes and anger management classes.   She also regularly participated in and was eventually discharged from group therapy.   Yet, the record supports the juvenile court's finding that mother made only minimal to moderate progress in addressing the problems that led to the children's removal from her custody.

Despite completing anger management classes, mother hit her younger son, with a belt, during an unsupervised visit in December 2009.   Notably, there was evidence that she had previously behaved this way when the children lived with her.   This was mother's manner of discipline when the boy got in trouble.   Mother, however, denied the December 2009 incident.   Also, as recently as May 2010, the boy said he was scared of mother;  she was mean and spanked him.

In addition, notwithstanding parenting classes and group therapy, mother reportedly told her younger son, again in December 2009, to behave “bad” so that he would not be adopted.   Also, at a recess during trial, mother made contact with Z. and faulted her and her younger brother for the dependency proceedings.

To the extent mother relies on her testimony that she came to believe Z. early in the proceedings and that she did not know about the scheduled conjoint session, mother overlooks the conflicting evidence on this subject.   Also, while mother argues that Z. was never informed that mother acknowledged the molestation or completed services, the only evidence she points to is the social worker's testimony that she never personally told Z. that mother completed anger management and parenting and had participated in group therapy.   However, there was evidence Z. relayed her belief that, despite mother participating in services, she had neither progressed nor changed.   Z. did not believe her mother and said on numerous occasions that her mother would never change.   From this evidence, a court could reasonably determine that Z. was aware of mother's effort.

In any event, mother disregards the testimony by the therapists and the social worker that it would be detrimental to the well-being of all of the children to be returned to her care.   She further avoids the evidence that none of the children wished to return to her care at that time.   She also ignores her own testimony, which reveals her lack of insight into the problems that led to the children's removal and the suspension of visits with Z.

We conclude on the record before us that there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's substantial risk of detriment finding.

II. Reasonable Reunification Services

Mother also contends the department failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services.   According to mother, the department did not do enough to facilitate conjoint therapy or visitation between her and Z., failed to pursue liberal visitation between her and the other children, and failed to notify her of its criteria for reunification.

Once again, mother overlooks most of the record before the juvenile court.   On review, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's reasonable services finding.

To begin, the court suspended visitation between mother and Z. in January 2009, unless and until there was therapeutic input that visitation was appropriate.   Mother never challenged that order in a timely fashion.   Thus, it is not subject to our review on this appeal.   An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed.  (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.)

Furthermore, there was no evidence that resuming visitation between mother and Z. was appropriate.   Instead, a resumption of visits put Z. at risk of regression.

When the court later granted the department discretion to schedule unforced therapeutic visits or conjoint therapy, the record reveals that the social worker did pursue the issue with Z. and the therapists until more than 18 months had elapsed.   The fact that conjoint therapy never occurred does not mean the department acted unreasonably in this respect.   Mother bears some responsibility, given her failure to contact her therapist in response to the therapist's directions.   We agree with the department in this respect that reunification services cannot be forced on an unwilling or indifferent parent.  (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.)

In addition, the record does not support mother's contention that the department failed to pursue liberal visitation between her and the other children.   Mother overlooks the social worker's testimony in this regard.

Torres explained the lack of liberal visitation was due first to mother's housing issues.   The social worker also described the department's efforts to help mother, but to no avail.   Mother eventually secured stable housing in December 2009.   However, she still did not have beds for the children.

Then, that same month, her younger son reported mother hitting him with a belt during an unsupervised visit.   This led to a reasonable interruption of visits between mother and the younger children while the allegation was investigated.   Once that referral was substantiated, the court resumed visitation but changed its order to supervised visits.   Later still, her oldest child apparently crashed an automobile he was too young to drive during an unsupervised visit with mother.

Last, to the extent mother contends the department failed to notify her of its criteria for reunification;  she fails to cite any record to support her contention.   We also note mother never testified that she did not know what she needed to accomplish in order to regain custody.   The record rather establishes that the department provided court-ordered services and mother participated in services, but in the end she did not make sufficient progress to regain custody.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.   This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

FN2. The maximum time for court-ordered services is calculated from the time a child was originally removed, which is the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing or the date 60 days after the child was initially removed from the parent's physical custody. (§§ 366.22, subd. (a) and 361.5, subd. (a).).  FN2. The maximum time for court-ordered services is calculated from the time a child was originally removed, which is the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing or the date 60 days after the child was initially removed from the parent's physical custody. (§§ 366.22, subd. (a) and 361.5, subd. (a).)

FN3. While mother mentions the lack of a discharge summary in her petition, she fails to articulate a claim of prejudicial error as a result of its omission..  FN3. While mother mentions the lack of a discharge summary in her petition, she fails to articulate a claim of prejudicial error as a result of its omission.

FN4. According to the record, this was the man who molested Z..  FN4. According to the record, this was the man who molested Z.