In re C.J. CA1/5 filed 8/10/26

Filed 8/10/26 In re C.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.J., aPerson Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
___________________________________
SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A176348

(City & County of San Francisco
Super. Ct. No. JD23-3153B)

M.T. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services with respect to C.J. (Chanel), one of her nine children, and setting her matter for a permanent plan and placement following a contested 18-month review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22.Mothercontends that the court erred in terminating reunification services becauserespondent San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency)did not provide her with reasonableservices.We disagree and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The juvenile dependency proceedings below involved eight of mother’s nine children:Maya (born in 2005), Naeyah (born in 2007), Chanel (born in 2009), Shantel (born in 2010), Nicholas (born in 2011), Nathaniel (born in 2013), Philecia (born in 2015), and Jasiah (born in 2018).Allchildren except for Maya and Naeyah will collectively be referred to as “minors.”As this appeal concerns only Chanel, our references to the other sevenchildrenare limited.
Original Petitions and Detention
On May 10, 2023, the Agency filed two juvenile dependency petitions. (§ 300.)The first one was filed on behalf ofthen 17-year-old Maya, then 16-year-old Naeyah, then 14-year-old Chanel, then12-year-old Shantel, then 11-year-old Nicholas, then 9-year-old Nathaniel, and then 7-year-old Philecia.The second one was filed on behalf of then five-year-old Jasiah. The first petition only sought to detain Naeyah and alleged thatmother and Naeyah got into a verbal and physical altercation, during which mother “‘yanked’ [Naeyah’s] arm and hit her with a belt.” Mother also encouraged Naeyah’s siblings to hit her.
The petition further alleged that mother and N.J., the alleged father of allof the children except Jasiah, had “an extensive history of intimate partner violence” and that N.J. had “a history of being physically violent towards the mother ... in the presence of the minors.”N.J. was incarcerated at the time.Naeyah was placed in foster care while the other seven children remained with mother.
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court issued a detention order as to Naeyah only. Counsel was appointed for all eight children.The court placed Naeyah in foster care and granted mother supervised visitation when Naeyah was ready and granted Naeyah visitation with her siblings.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Proceedings
The Agency’sJuly 2023 disposition reportsummarized its interview with mother, who confirmed that she used a belt to discipline Naeyah but denied physically disciplining any of her other children. Naeyah, Maya, Chanel, and Jasiah all recalled incidents of domestic violence between J.K. (the alleged father of Jasiah) and mother. Naeyah stated that she and her siblings had witnessed J.K. choking mother and slamming her onto the ground.Mother denied that J.K. ever hit her in the children’s presenceor that their arguments should be characterized as domestic violence. Mother stated that she experienced abuse and neglect in her childhood and witnessed extensive domestic violence. Mother’s case plan included that she care for her children in a violence-free environment and not use physical discipline.The Agency recommended that mother participate in family therapy with Naeyah as well as individual therapy.
In August 2023, the Agency filed an addendum report detailing its interview with J.K., who was incarcerated at the time. J.K. denied any domestic violence between himand mother and claimed that they only had “verbal disagreements.”The Agency was nonetheless concerned about the children’s physical and emotional well-being due to their exposure to ongoing domestic violence. It further noted “instances where [mother] terminated interviews with the children when asked about violence in the home.” The Agency recommended that the juvenile court declare the eight children dependents of the court, and that all childrenexcept for Naeyah remain with mother. The Agency subsequently filed amended petitions that struck a prior allegation made under section 300, subdivision (b)(3).
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the amended petitions and declaredall of the children except for Maya dependents of the court.The court ordered that Naeyah be placed in foster care while the other children remain with mother.It further ordered the Agency to provide family maintenance and reunification services as to Naeyah, including individual therapy for mother and family therapy for mother and Naeyah.
Six-Month Status Review and Section 387 Petitions
In its May 2024 six-month status review report, the Agency recommended an additional six months of family maintenance and reunification services for mother. The report noted that J.K. had been to mother’s home on several occasions but was not living there. According to mother, he had come by to pick up personal belongings but was not allowed inside when the children were present.The report continued that there was aconcern about Nicholas’ and Shantel’shygiene due to a nonfunctional shower. Mother did not allow the social worker entry into her home and declined supportto address maintenance issues at her home. The report also detailed a recent argument between mother and Nicholas where mother “made verbal threats to kick [him] out of the home.” The social worker referred mother and Nicholas to Family MosaicProject (Family Mosaic) so they could “work on their communication and other relationship needs.”Mother was upset by thisreferral and told the social workerthat she “[did] not want to be bothered” and did not have the time.
Motherbegan individual therapy but did not start family therapy because neither she nor Naeyah were willing to engage in it. The Agency noted it would “re-submit [the] referral in hopes they both will come to agreement to begin therapeutic services.” It furtherconcluded that mother was unwilling to accept services and that minors were at risk of “further use of excessive discipline in the form of violence.”TheAgency recommended further “services to monitor that minors receive appropriate educational support, routine medical services, and are attending school regularly.” The six-month review hearing was subsequently continued several times.
On September 4, 2024, the Agency filed supplemental petitions under section 387, asserting that minors’ placement with mother was no longer appropriate. The petitions alleged that two days earlier, mother was arrested after she grabbed a knife and threatened Nicholas because he was bothering her. The petitions further alleged that mother refused to meet with the social workerand had not utilized any family maintenance and reunification resources or the Family Mosaic referral.The juvenile court ordered minors detained andplaced in foster care. Mother was granted supervised visitation, subject to a criminal protective order that was issued.The court then vacated the previously set six-month review hearing date and renewed its detention findings.
The Agency’s section 387 disposition reporthighlighted that mother was at risk of eviction due to over a year of unpaid rent and that “[a]t the time of removal, the home was “extremely cluttered” and “hazardous due to cleanliness.”The Agency further noted that mother “ha[d] continued to exhibit a tendency to minimize concerns raised” regarding minors as well as “a lack of awareness regarding the potential consequences of her actions on the children’s well-being.” Mother was unwilling to engage in services or reunify with Naeyah. Mother had started a parenting classas part of her criminal pre-trial diversion program.In addition to the parenting class and individual therapy, the Agency recommended that mother engage in family therapy to “foster a healthier family dynamic” and complete a psychological evaluation.
Mother did not appear at Naeyah’s 12-month review hearing in November 2024, and the juvenile court terminated her reunification services without objection. At the contested section 387 hearing, the court found the allegations in the petitions true. It ordered thatreunification services continue as previously ordered (family therapy and individual therapy), with the addition that motherundergo a substance abuse assessment and a psychological evaluation. The court also ordered supervised visitation once a week(at a minimum)and set the six-month review hearing for May 2025.
Combined Six-Month and 12-Month Review
Before the six-month review hearing, the Agency filed a status review report recommending that minors’ dependency status be renewed and that mother be providedan additional six months of reunification services. Mother had completed her parenting class, enrolled in another parenting class, and completed her psychological evaluation.The evaluation revealed that mother was at risk of developing a drug addiction, so the Agency recommended that mother complete a substance abuse assessment and a psychiatric evaluation for medication assessment, and submit to random drug testing.
Mother was participating in weekly individual therapy but had“not adequately addressed the core safety concerns that led to the [Agency’s] involvement.”Although referrals were made, family therapy had not begun because the Agency was focused on stabilizing minors’ “care, behaviors, education, medical and dental needs.”Minors were seeing individual therapists to address their mental health needs.Chanel, Shantel, Nathaniel, Philecia, and Jasiah were each assigned a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), and, for additional support, a Court Appointed Family Engagement Specialist was appointed for allof the children.
The supervised visits began in Antioch. The Agency provided transportation for all six children (including Chanel) from three different homes every week and gave mother fundsso she could travel to and from Antioch. Mother did not miss a visit but sometimes arrived over half an hour late. There was a concern that some minors were sad or cried during or after the visitsbecause mother gave Jasiah preferential treatment.During one visit, “Nicholas and Nathaniel got into physical altercations that [mother] had difficulty . . .de-escalating.”The six-month review hearing was subsequently continued several times to October for a combined six- and 12-month review hearing.
In October 2025, the Agency filed a status review report recommending that mother be provided another six months of reunification services. The Agency noted it had made a referral to Foster Care Mental Health for therapeutic visitations and family therapy in May 2025.In March or May, itreferred minors (including Chanel) to wraparound services with Seneca Family of Agencies (Seneca), an outside nonprofit agency. Seneca approved the services in June and as of August, was “working towards assigning a team of clinicians” for minors.After finally being allowed entry into mother’s home, the social worker observed that “the home continues to need repairs and deep cleaning.” Mother “did not have a timeline of when further repairs [would] be scheduled.”
Since the Agency’s last report, mother enrolled in new parenting classes“to further . . . address parenting her teens.” Mother, however, had difficulty implementing the parenting skills she learned, particularly when Nicholas and Shantel got intophysical altercations. Mother also lacked “coping skills in managing stress,” which “impact[ed] her ability to respond effectively to the minors’ needs.” Duringone supervised visit in September 2025, mother provided Jasiah, Philecia, and Nathaniel with electronic devices without notifying the Agency, in direct violation of the juvenile court’s order permitting only supervised contact with minors. When the social worker raised the issue, mother responded that she had “the right to provide such items to her children in order to maintain sibling communication.”Mother’s therapist reported that mother was “actively working on her parenting skills” but still had “not adequately addressed the core safety concerns” that led to the Agency’s involvement.Ultimately, the Agency recommended that “the family be given an opportunity to continue to work towards reunification and further assess progress with long awaited therapeuticservices in place.”
Finally, mother was a “no show” for all 12 random drug testing appointments referred by the Agency during the reporting period. Mother did complete a substance abuse disorder assessment but “did not meet medical necessity as she had declined [a] pattern of problematic substance use.”
At the combined six- and 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court found that although the Agency had made reasonable efforts and mother had made adequate progress, it was not safe to return the children to her custody. It ordered continued supervised visitation andthe same reunification services. The court also recommended that a therapist be part of the visits and that the visits be “conducted separately between the children.”
18-Month Review and Addendum Report
In its February 2026 status review report, the Agency recommended that mother’s reunification services be terminated and that the matter be set for a section 366.26 hearing as to Jasiah, Philecia, Nathaniel, Nicholas, and Shantel. As for Chanel, the Agency also recommended that reunification services be terminated and that the juvenile courtcontinue the matter for a six-month review for a permanent plan of “placement with a fit and willing relative.” The report highlighted that a recent visit to mother’s home confirmed that “conditions ha[d] not changed” as repairs were still needed and “hazards remain[ed] unresolved.”Mother’s visits with the children had also not improved. The Agency continued to provide transportation for all the children, with weekly visits occurring on two different days in order to separate the children.
Chanel and two of her siblings reportedfeeling unsafe during visits with Shantel and Nicholas because they did not believe mother protected them. The report noted that mother struggled to set limits or to intervene during conflicts. Two of mother’s adult childrenbegan participating in the visits at mother’s request and “often step[ped] in to provide structure, support, and reinforcement of rules.” Mother continued to show “an ongoing pattern of favoritism toward[Jasiah] while neglecting the emotional and developmental needs of her older children.” She, however, “consistently denie[d] these behaviors.”
The report then summarized its concerns regarding minors’behaviorsand their ongoing treatments.As forChanel, the report stated that she“continue[d] to be a resilient teen who [was] very charismatic, nurturing and attentive to others.” She had “wraparound services in place to address mental health and behavioral needs, which ... support[ed] ongoing permanency planning.”
Mother continuedindividual therapy but had still not adequately addressed the safety concerns that led to minors’ removal.Mother also completed parenting classes that were part of her “criminal case court orders.”Family therapy had not started as Seneca was focused on stabilizing “minors and their relationships.”Finally, mother submitted to random drug testing for the first time in February 2026. She tested positive for opiates, Benzodiazepine, and Oxycodone. Mother confirmed she did not have a prescription for these drugs and had taken them for at least the past year “to address gum pain and menstrual cramps.” The social worker advised mother to seek a medical evaluation with her primary care physicianregarding her ongoing use of pain medication and recommended outpatient support services.
The juvenile court continued the 18-month review hearing to April2026 for a contested hearing. It ordered a minimum of one supervised visit per month, giving the Agency discretion to increase or decrease visitation for each child. Before the hearing, the Agency filed an addendum report, noting that mother had stopped drug testing.According to the report,Chanel and some of her siblingsstill reported feeling unsafe around Shantel and Nicholas due to their “physically assaultive conduct ... during visits.” In March, Jasiah informed the social worker that he witnessed violence between mother and J.K.on two occasions in the home and that J.K. also physically harmed Jasiah’s siblings.
The addendum reportconcluded thatterminating reunification services was appropriate due to ongoing and significant concerns regarding “mother’s capacity to safely parent the minors without risk to their physical safety, emotional well-being, and developmental needs.” Contributing factors included mother’s “unresolved mental health issues, ongoing substance use, and a demonstrated inability to consistently protect the minors from exposure to harm, including violence.”The Agency further commented that mother had over 18 months “to address the unsafe conditions in the home” but had not done so and had declined the Agency’s offers of help.
Contested Hearing and Termination of Reunification Services
The juvenile court held a contested 18-month review hearing on April 22 and 27, 2026. Mother and social workers Nicole Lock and Maria Sancheztestified. Lock was assigned to this case in March 2026 and had only worked with the family for about six weeks. When she met with mother, mother claimed that “the Agency ha[d] traumatized her children” and “ruined their sibling relationships” and that “family therapy would have really helped.” Mother did not identify any actions on her part that contributed to the current situation. Lock also observed that mother had “extreme dry mouth,” which suggested possible substance use. Lock testified that shedid not believe it was appropriate to return the children to mother at this timebecause mother did not recognize why safety concerns were still present.
Sanchez testified next. She was assigned to this case in 2023 and had worked with the family for about three years. When asked about the delay in family therapy, she explained that this was a complex case involving “six children with different [and] specific behavioral, educational, and emotional needs.”Before family therapy can begin, the clinician has to assess what the child’s needs are and then “move on to the parent to see how appropriate it is to include the parent in the therapeutic services.” Sanchez continued that “if a parent is denying or does not believe that [he or she is] the root cause ... or has the insight,” it would “be a detriment to include the parent.” And in her opinion, mother had not acknowledged or accepted theAgency’s safety concerns, her role in those safety concerns, or how they impacted her children.
With respect to herreferral to Seneca, Sanchez testified thatshecompleted six individual packets, one foreach child, in March or May 2025 to request wraparound services for them.Once approved, Seneca assigned a team that included at least two providers for each child in the late summer of 2025. Seneca wasstill working on “stabilizing the children within their own therapeutic and behavioral needs”due to their “[n]eglect and trauma from exposure to violence.” Sanchez had previously made another family therapy referral to Foster Care Mental Health, buther subsequent referral to Seneca supersededthat earlier referral, as “both services [could not] exist at the same time.” Sanchez did not believe the children’sclinicians were at a point to recommend family therapy, as the children’s needs as well as their sibling relationships were being prioritized.
With respect to therapeutic support during visits, Sanchez testifiedthat they did not occur but that she had made referrals. She explained that after the referral process, it was “out of [the Agency’s] hands when those services begin or how they are approved.” At times, however, the Agency had three staff members present during visits for support.Sanchez did not believe mother haddeveloped insight into the effects of excessive physical discipline or domestic violence on her children, “how to effectively parent her children as a group,” or “the causes of her children’s struggles.”(Boldface omitted.) She accordingly concluded that mother wasnot currently capable of safely parenting her children.
Mother testified that she had asked the Agency to provide family therapy multiple timesso she could “understand what [was] going on” and to “talk as a family.” She also wanted to let her children know how she felt and to apologize to them. She continued that the Agency never referred her to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation or to parent coaching. She attended individual therapy weekly, which she found beneficial. With respect to issues that occurred during visitation, mother explained, “[t]here’s a lot of kids that want my attention. It’s very hard to give all my attention.” She acknowledged that Nicholas had hit his siblings during visitsand that he had anger issues. Mother was currently unemployed and was in school to get her high school diploma. As part of her diversion program in criminal court, mother had to attend weekly therapy and complete a parenting class, which she did. As for housing, mother testified that she just got a Section 8 housing choice voucher and was in the process of moving out of her current home.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification servicesas to Chanel and set the matter for a permanent plan of placement with a fit and willing relative.It also terminated reunification services as to the other minors and set their mattersfor a section 366.26 hearing.The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services were provided or offered to mother. Itnoted that although services may not have been perfect, the Agency offered “an enormous panoply of services” that included numerous providers assigned to address the complex needs of each child. It further emphasizedthat there was still a number of safety concerns and that mother “showed absolutely no insight into her own behaviors that may have impacted her children.”This included insight “on the effects of domestic violence on the children, or the effects of excessive discipline.” The court concludedthat “family therapy [was] not the panacea for what ails this family,” as mother “must develop insight into safety concerns ... in order for [her] to ... even begin family therapy.”
Mother timely appealed the order as to Chanel.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Law and Standard of Review
“When a child has been removed from a parent’s custody, the [juvenile] court ordinarily must order child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family.” (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624.) Such services “‘enable [parents] to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain custody of their dependent children.’” (Ibid.)
“Typically, when a child is removed from a parent, the child and parent are entitled to 12 months of child welfare [(reunification)] services to facilitate family reunification. These services may be extended to a maximum of 18 months. (§361.5, subd. (a).) If, at the 12-month hearing, [the agency] does not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it has provided reasonable [family reunification]services to the parent, [those] services must be extended to the end of the 18-month period.[(§§361.5, subd. (a),366.21, subd. (g)(1).)]” (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345.) In some cases, reunification services “can even be extended to 24 months if, among other findings, the court finds ‘reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.’” (In re A.O.(2025) 111Cal.App.5th 1048, 1060.)
We review the juvenile court’s findings for substantial evidence. (San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 215, 223.) “In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict.If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
B. Analysis
Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in selecting a permanent plan for Chanelbecausesubstantial evidence does not support its finding thatthe Agency provided motherwithreasonable reunification services.Specifically,mother contendsthat she was neverprovided court-ordered family therapy, recommended psychiatric services, or recommended therapeutic support during her visits with minors.We are unpersuaded.
Family Therapy
Mother first contends that the Agency “fail[ed] to make any real effort to assure that family therapy occurred” as it “simply provided a referral and then sat back” for most of the reunification period. Mother further argues that the Agency’s referral of Chanel and her siblings to Seneca “did absolutely nothing to promote family therapy.” The record belies these contentions.
Following an incident in April 2024 in which mother verbally threatened Nicholas, the Agency initially referred mother to Family Mosaic “to support [Nicholas].” Mother responded that she “[did] not want to be bothered” and did not utilize the referral. In May 2025, the Agency made a referral to Foster Care Mental Health for family therapy.Due to minors’ trauma and complex needs at the time, the Agencyalso submitted lengthy intake packets on behalf of each minor (including Chanel) to obtain wraparound services with Senecaaround this same time.Once Seneca approved minors for services in June, they could not simultaneously receive services from Foster Care Mental Health. Seneca then assembled a team of at least 12 providerswho prioritized stabilizing minors (including Chanel) “within their own therapeutic and behavioral needs.” Although Seneca’s services included family therapy, minors’ providers did notrecommend it yetbecause they were focused on treating minors’ individual needs as well as their sibling relationships.Thus, despite the lack of family therapy, the servicesprovided by the Agency were properly “tailored to fit the circumstances of [this particular] family.” (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777.)
Moreover, during the reunification period, mother’s therapist noted that although mother consistently attended individual therapy, shefailed to adequately address the core safety concerns that led to minors’ removal. And at the time of the 18-month review hearing, motherhad still not gained insight as to these safety concerns (including excessive physical discipline and domestic violence), her role in them, or how they affected minors. Given this, it would have been detrimental, according to the social worker, to include mother infamily therapy because minors’ trauma would not beheard or addressed under those circumstances.
In any event, the Agencydid make reasonable efforts to refer mother and minors (including Chanel) to family therapy. Moreover, the delay in establishing family therapy was not due tothe Agency’s inaction, but ratherthe need to prioritize and stabilize minors as a result of the trauma and neglect they experienced. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 50 [“a parent’s liberty interest in the care, custody and companionship of children cannot be maintained at the expense of their well-being”].)Indeed, the adequacy of the Agency’s “efforts to provide suitable services is judged according to the circumstances of the particular case” (In re Taylor J.(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451) and “not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world” (In re Misako R., supra, 2Cal.App.4th at p. 547).
In In re A.O., supra, 111 Cal.App.5th 1048, for example, the Court of Appeal held that although the mother had not been able to visit with the minor at the time of the six-month review hearing, the departmentof family serviceshad “made reasonable efforts to effect such visits in a way that would not further harm [the minor].” (Id. at p. 1062.)The court therefore concluded that reasonable reunification services were provided (id. at p. 1063),notwithstandingthe importance ofvisitation as “‘an essential component of any reunification plan’” (id. at p. 1062).The same is true here. Indeed, ample evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that reasonable reunification services were provided, notwithstanding the Agency’s failure to provide family therapy as ordered.
The two cases mother relies on are readily distinguishable. In In re Taylor J., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, the mother failed to complete, as part of her case plan,domestic violencevictim counseling and individual therapy. (Id. at p. 1451.) The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s reasonable services findingbecause the department had simply handed mother a list containing one domestic violence victim counseling agency near her home. (Id. at p. 1452.) The department further did not verify the adequacy of the counseling service the mother participated in for several months. (Ibid.) Here by contrast, the Agency itselfmade referrals to at least two different family therapy providers, completed and presentedintake packets so that Chanel and her siblings could be approved for wraparound services, and kept apprised of mother’s progress in individual therapy.Moreover, the service providers, rather than the Agency, determined that family therapy was not appropriate due to the mother’s and minors’ issues.
In the second case, In re Alvin R.(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, family therapy was “critical to reunification” because the minor refused to visit with the father for four months, and “both the [juvenile] court and the social worker recognized that visitation [was unlikely to] take place without conjoint therapy.” (Id. at p. 972.)Conjoint therapy, in turn, “was not going to be accomplished unless some effort were made to get [the minor] into individual therapy.” (Id. at p. 973.) Despite this, the department’s only effort to obtain individual therapy for the minor was “to make a referral to a therapist who had no time available to see [the minor].”(Ibid.) It did not try to find other therapists in the area or attempt to find transportation for the minor to see an available therapist. (Ibid.)The Court of Appeal thereforefound that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding. (Id. at p. 975.)Here, the Agency made multiple referrals to family therapy andrequested wraparound services for Chanel and her siblings that were approved. And Chanel and her siblings were each assigned at least two providers to treat their individual and complex needs, and those providers decided against family therapy at the time.The Agencyeven transportedChanel and her siblings to supervised visits with mother and provided additional staff support during these visits.It had no legal duty to do more.
Recommended Psychiatric Services
Mother next argues that the Agency did not make any effort to provide her with psychiatric services, as recommended by mother’s psychological evaluation. We disagree. The psychological evaluation concluded that mother was “at a high risk for developing serious addiction issues”(italics omitted) due to her family history and recommended “comprehensive substance use services.”In response, the Agency requested that a substance abuse assessment, random drug testing for the next six months, and a psychiatric evaluation for medication assessment be added to mother’s case plan.Mother completed a substance abuse disorder assessment in which she self-reported that she did not have a pattern of problematic substance use.
As mother concedes, the juvenile court did notorder psychiatric services. Nonetheless, the Agencymade good faith and reasonable efforts to address concerns about mother’s potential substance use. It referred mother to random drug testing and followed up with her about it, but mother was a “no show” for all 12 appointments. When mother finally tested in February 2026 and disclosed that she had been taking unprescribed pain medication for the past year, the Agency discussed its concerns with her and recommended that she seek outpatient support services. It also advised that motherseek a medical evaluation by her primary care provider regarding her ongoing use ofpain medication and management.Reasonable services were therefore providedby the Agency, notwithstanding the lack of a psychiatric evaluation. (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 547 [services need not be perfect so long as they were reasonable under the circumstances].)
Therapeutic Support During Visits
Finally, mother contends thatreunification services were inadequate because theAgency failed to secure a therapist or parent coach for mother’s visits with minors as ordered by the juvenile court.We do not agree.
First, the juvenile courtrecommended but did not order that a therapist be present during visits.Mother seemingly acknowledges this in her reply brief but nonetheless argues that it was “[f]or all intents and purposes” an orderbecause the court had commented at the 12-month review hearing, “what I really need is a therapist to be at these visits.”We disagree. In the colloquy that occurred before that comment, the court asked the Agency whether a therapist could be present at visits. The Agency responded that it wastryingto “find loopholes and be creative here”because Senica did not providetherapeutic support during supervised visitations. The court eventually acknowledged that it could not order “clinical therapeutic supervision.”
Second, contrary to mother’s contention that the Agency never attempted to comply with the juvenile court’s recommendation,Sanchez testified that she made referrals for the family to have therapeutic support during visits. She continued, however, that it was “out of [the Agency’s] hands when those services begin or how they are approved.” In the meantime, the Agency continued to transport minors (including Chanel) to the visitation site on a weekly basis,despite their many foster placement changes. It also split the visits between two different dates to reduce sibling violence and the number of children mother had to manage at a time.
Additionally, the Agency had up to three staff members present to support mother’s visits with minors (including Chanel). And for special events, CASAs were present as well. Two of mother’s adult children also participated in the visits to help “provide structure, support, and reinforcement of rules.”The social worker and other Agency staff also provided feedback to mother regardingrecommended changes to her behavior duringfuture visits, but mother did not acceptthe feedback and responded that “she knew her children better.” We do notsee what more the Agency could have reasonably done under the circumstances to support mother during visits.
On this record, we find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Agency provided reasonable reunification services.
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

CHOU, J.

WE CONCUR.

SIMONS, ACTING P.J.
BURNS, J.

A176348/ In re C.J.(SFHSA v. M.T.)