I still get the Foghorn and saw in the recent issue that your Biology and Chemistry students had the highest average scores in NY. That is a wonderful accomplishment and a testament to the level of preparation that you provided.Both of our daughters have mentioned that they were well-prepared for the science classes that they have taken in college and attribute it to the great job that you did getting them prepared.
I wanted to take the time to once again to thank you for the incredible experience that my daughter had at the Eastern Regions concert. You really went to great lengths to make it happen including a last minute audition plea and driving her to rehearsals and performances. Your dedication is extraordinary!By the way, I don't know if she told you but she is playing one of the lead roles in the East Lyme Regional Theatre musical "Honk Jr." this weekend. She has been working really hard at rehearsals and we are so proud of her.
"Thank you for sharing this with us, Karen.
Thanks to you and Ms. Giles and all the faculty who work so hard to bring out the best in our kids! It is a great group; we feel very fortunate to have our daughter be part of such a enriching learning community in their class and the school."
"I just wish to say thanks for being such a wonderful host today on Fishers Island. I enjoyed the island tour and the visit to the museum. In addition, I certainly appreciated the opportunity to do my presentation on Imaginary Realms: Rock Art Explorationsfor students at Fishers Island School. And…., I truly enjoyed and appreciated the warm reception that I received for my program. The kids were great and I was quite impressed with their level of knowledge about a wide range of subject matter…! Plus, they asked some great questions. I hope that I was able to trigger their imaginations and to consider the notion of endless possibilities….! It was certainly a fun day. "
I wanted to take a minute to tell you last night's concert was outstanding! In the four years since my son has been at FIS, the band and chorus have been great. ..but this year was just phenomenal! ! We are hoping that he joins again next year. .. even if he plays the tambourine and takes over one of the senior's roles:)!...just to be a member and a part of it all. Your talents shine through the students that you teach. Happy holidays.
The parent of a grade 10 student"
We had such a delightful weekend reflecting all the magical moments of the D.C. trip with our daughter. Being the theater girl she is, Oliver was definitely a highlight. She couldn't get over how talented the lead was at such a young age and last night while we were making pumpkin bread to thank the chaperons she was belting out tunes from Oliver.
She was also deeply moved by the 911 memorial and the Holocaust museum. As a parent of a teen, I want my daughter to develop feelings of compassion and empathy and the experiences that you exposed her to help make historical events more real for her. In light of the recent Paris attacks we are reminded about how fragile peace is and how important that we remember what is good and honorable in the world as well as what is tragic.
We are so grateful for caring and enthusiastic community at Fishers Island. Our daughter was so happy to be surrounded by good friends and awesome teachers for 5 days in a row!!! These are memories that she will hold for a lifetime.
We are truly blessed. Thank you and all the chaperons who make this wonderful trip possible.
The mom of a grade 8 student"
"We just wanted to say thank you for making the first day of school so fun for the students! Our son, a junior in high school, was telling everyone he was so excited for school to start. He came home smiling and couldn't stop talking about his great day! We appreciate all you do to make this happen! You and your staff's enthusiasm carries over to the students!!
It was such a nice awards night last night. Thank you to all the work you all put into making it go so well.
I also wanted to say an extra "Thank you" to the math teacher for giving my son the most improved math pie. Mr. D. has really helped him these last weeks. I was very happy and proud of my children for all the kind awards and certificates you all handed them. Thank you for everything, truly. But, nothing made me and my son happier than that math pie. Please let the teacher know how thankful I am for his patient explanations and willingness to help out the Math program."
" Morning! I just wanted to send an note of thanks to the school for offering the Stand Up Paddleboard (SUP) class with NESS over the past two weeks and paying for half the class fee. My daughter has had such a wonderful time doing the class and we really appreciate the school creating these kind of special things for the kids to do. She has had such a wonderful year and I just want you to know how much we appreciate everything all of you have done to make her year so great! If I don't get another chance to see you all, have a wonderful and very relaxing summer!! Thanks so much again! "
"Thank you so much for the effort, research and enthusiasm you put into writing such a fine letter for my son. This scholarship application required four letters of recommendation and I am certain your strong letter of support will be noticed. Our family is grateful for your efforts and the work you and your teachers do every day. You and the Fishers Island teachers are amazing people, we are lucky to have you."
Just had to tell you about my daughter and Spanish … Although my daughter took the Spanish ECE course during the Fall semester, Simmons College still requires two semesters of foreign language courses to be taken at Simmons. My daughter will get the ECE credit towards graduation credit requirements but still has to take 2 consecutive semesters of a foreign language.
The good news, which can be attributed to her hard work but more importantly YOU, is that my daughter's Spanish placement test results showed a very high level of competency … The result is that my daughter is not required to take the freshman 100-level courses usually for those that took Spanish in High School. Her placement exam revealed she meets the prerequisite for starting at a 240-level or higher course which is generally for Simmons College sophomores. I believe that this is a great example of YOUR efforts in the classroom with our Fishers Island students. You clearly are helping to prepare our FI students for College. Your efforts are GREATLY appreciated and you should be proud and commended for all your efforts! THANKS!"
As you know, I'm almost complete with my 3rd semester here at Rollins. My grades have only gone up since the beginning of my college career. I completed my first semester with a 3.0, second with a 3.4, and plan on completing my 3rd semester with a 3.5. Academically, I have performed at the level both my parents and I hoped for.
On another note, I'm not sure if you are aware, but I'm involved in a leadership program at Rollins called the Bonner Leader Program. The Bonner Leader Program is a four-year, cohort-based community service opportunity for students who are passionate about working directly with local non-profit organizations throughout the academic year. The program empowers us to address some of the greatest challenges of our time through community-based learning and service. As a Bonner Leader, I serve 8-10 hours per week within the community and participate in a training and enrichment program to supplement my knowledge and skills. There are six areas that I mainly focus on, social justice, diversity, community building, spiritual exploration, civic engagement, and international perspective. In addition to this service I'm required to work for non-profit of my choosing. Subsequently, if everything falls in the correct place I will be interning at a New England Science and Sailing (NESS). I know that Fishers had some relations with NESS, so I thought you guys would be happy to hear that.
Ultimately, I just wanted to give a hand to the teachers at Fishers for preparing me for the challenges I would face at college. Fishers has given me all the skills needed to strive and succeed in this regard, and I wanted to make sure that proper recognition was given to the people who helped me do it. I really miss all you guys and hope to see you at the Reindeer Games over Christmas break. Have a wonderful holiday, and I look forward to hearing from you.
"I want to thank you so much for the video taping of the Christmas concert yesterday. I am Katie and Ellie's grandmother; live in Wisconsin, and am also 87 years old, so I don't get to see the grandchildren as much as I would like to. This gave me the opportunity to see Ellie perform and I loved it. I was also able to see her in the play and that was wonderful. Ellie is playing basketball again and as it will be her last year I am hoping that perhaps some of the home games can also be video taped. I was able to see her play once last year and loved it. Thanks again for doing the taping. It gave those of us who were not able to be there in person the experience."
"Hi, I just wanted to pass on that the owners of Fields of Fire were very impressed with all of the students. They found every one extremely respectful and are looking forward to having everyone return in the spring. "
"Being the diligent student that she is, one of our CT young adults got on the 4:45 ferry home and went right to the top deck to do her English homework. Shortly after she pulled a stapled packet of worksheets out of her backpack, a gust of wind pulled them from her grasp. All watched in horror as the papers floated out over the water and Julia sprinted hopelessly toward the railing. Just as everyone began to realize her disappointment, another breeze lifted the homework, and as fast as it flew away, it returned higher, only to be held firmly against the rail outside the captain's cabin. Again we all wondered for a long, slow-motion second, will it stay, or blow away again? In the nick of time an observant deck hand popped out from the captain's door and grabbed it, calmly delivering it to the haggard middle schooler.
Some students say their dog ate their homework, but for students on the Fishers Ferry, there are other homework hazards..."
"We wanted to thank you and all of the Faculty and Staff of Fishers Island School for all that you did to ensure that our daughter received an outstanding education. Thank you all again for the caring and nurturing environment you provided. We were always comfortable knowing that she was in good caring hands at Fishers Island. She is all settled in at Suffolk in Boston and started her classes yesterday and yes she is still smiling! Please enjoy the coffee and pastries that we are sending over. Have a great first day of school. "
"I wanted to let you know about the spring break trip I took to Costa Rica with 5 students from Fishers Island School.
All of them were WONDERFUL.
Each one of them had to overcome both physical and mental challenges, from living without electricity for four days and three nights, to walking for up to 5 hours on the beach at night in the pitch black tracking turtles, to trying new foods and drinks, to meeting new friends. They were all awesome, friendly and open to new challenges. They worked hard on any projects they were given and presented some really awesome research projects while on turtle patrol in Pacuare. They showed the older students (12th grade) that they nicer, smarter and more adaptable to change. It was really neat to watch them go through these challenges and meet them head on.
I really just wanted to you know how impressed I was with your students. They represented themselves, NESS and Fishers Island School well while on their trip to Costa Rica. I hope we can continue to work together in the future as well!"
"I wanted to take just a minute to compliment the school, and each of you, on how well the kids (and even the adults) from FIS comported themselves at the NCAA basketball games this weekend. Although the attendees were different Sunday and Tuesday nights, one commonality was how well everyone behaved. I'm sure that some of the older folks around us were concerned when we trooped in, but I could not have been more proud of the entire group. They watched the game, chatted about it amiably with their friends and those sitting around them, and were not up and down every few minutes running to the concession stand, bathroom, etc.
You should be very proud of your crew."
What a fun evening! Good food, interesting art show, great entertainment! I know how much effort goes into such an event. I wanted to say, 'Thank You!'"
"My daughter fell in love with Fishers Island School the day she visited last year. The faculty, staff and students have all been very welcoming and have helped to make this year's transition seamless. After a full day, my 5th grader returns home energized and excited to share her daily experiences from school, and we cannot thank you enough for creating such a positive atmosphere full of unlimited opportunities."
"A dedicated space to ponder, reflect, and converse about literacy opportunities that impact teaching and learning"
Language Arts consultant, Carol Varsalona, blogs about her day of training Fishers Island Teachers.
" I wanted to thank you for the opportunity for our son to take the stand up paddle board class; he loved it! I was thrilled he got to spend some extra time outside and exercising, something I'm concerned he doesn't do enough of. I know it took some extra effort to arrange for NESS, and I'm very appreciative.
Taking the FI School Girls to the UConn game, hosting evening activities and providing them Pizza and then Breakfast is so very much appreciated. Sophie tells us she had a terrific time.
Again, THANK YOU all for what you do! This weekend surely was above and beyond anyone's expectation. Especially the generosity of the Principal opening her home and buying breakfast and her time along with the coaches during the weekend activities with the FI School children. You all contribute to what makes FI School the special place to learn and thrive! THANKS!"


Flyers center Jori Lehtera has been charged with a narcotics offense in his native Finland.
The 31-year-old is accused of buying eight grams of cocaine between June and July of 2018. He is also accused of attempting to buy another gram in May 2018.
According to the Finnish newspaper Aamulehti, prosecutors are seeking a five-month sentence for Lehtera.
Police in Finland were reportedly investigating a suspected drug ring and used wiretapping services to investigate those involved.
During the process of their investigation, two of the suspects involved allegedly made contact with Lehtera's cell phone and were allegedly located near the center's cottage by Lake Näsijärvi.
The investigation resulted in some 22 arrests with possible sentences ranging from five months to 10 years.
Lehtera is charged with obtaining and possessing the cocaine. According to Aamulehti, he faces five months in prison, but charges like his often result in a fine or a short suspended sentence.
Lehtera has one goal and two assists in 24 games for the Flyers this season. He has been a healthy scratch over the last six games. He is a free agent after the year and has a cap hit of $4.7 million in 2018-19.


Consumers for Quality Care, No Matter Where is an initiative launched that was launched by the Consumer Voice in October 2010. The initiative expands the Consumer Voice's national grassroots advocacy network to focus on issues faced by long-term care consumers who receive services and supports in non-nursing home settings and builds a strong consumer voice to advocate for well-coordinated, accessible, quality long-term services and supports both at home and in the community ("home and community-based services" or "HCBS").
Increase the number, diversity and engagement of consumers and other advocates in the state network and the national Consumer Voice network.
For more information, contact Consumer Voice Director, Public Policy & Advocacy, Robyn Grant at rgrant@theconsumervoice.org.
The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care worked with a number of organizations across the country to improve the quality of home care in California, New Mexico, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia and nationwide. We could not have accomplished this without hearing directly from the people who are actually receiving services and care at home. To do that we sought out home care consumers who were willing to share their experiences. We wanted to know what they thought makes for good care and services at home. We interviewed consumers who recevied care, services and supports in their home and also had consumers give us information by computer to learn about their experiences with home care and their opinions. In addition, we held a national conference call on July 31, 2012 as another way for us to get the perspectives of consumers. The information we received from both the interviews and the conference call were used to write a report for policymakers with recommendations about how to make home care better. The report was released on September 7, 2012.
On March 28, 2012 the Consumer Voice held a conference call titled Long-Term Services, Support and Housing: Choices & Advocacy. The call provided consumers currently receiving or seeking long-term services and supports in their home, their family members, as well as long-term care ombudsmen, other advocates and interested others with an overview of options for long-term services and supports (LTSS) at home and in the community. It also covered housing rights and ways to overcome barriers to obtaining affordable, accessible housing. The call included presentations from: Jessica Brill Ortiz, Program Manager at the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; Robyn Grant, Director of Advocacy and Outreach at the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; Sarah Kaplan, Independent Living and Youth Advocate at the Boston Center for Independent Living; Bonnie Milstein, Director of Housing Policy for the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and Co-Chair of the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Housing Task Force; and Julie Sanchez a Consumer from New Mexico.
A free recording of the conference call is available here. The call materials are available here. A CD of the call recording and printed versions of call handouts are also available for purchase from the Consumer Voice for $5.00, plus shipping and handling. Visit the Consumer Voice Store or call 202.332.2275 for more information or to place an order.
On July 31, 2012 the Consumer Voice hosted a national conference call for homecare consumers, titled "Long-Term Services and Supports: Consumer Input Call." This event was open to any consumer who receives care, services, and supports in their home. Our goal for the call was to better understand what is important to consumers who receive care and services in their own homes. We posed a series of ten questions and received feedback from consumers on each question. The questions ranged from how consumers feel about their workers, their care and services, the kind of choices they'd like to make, and finally what they think the government can do to improve/ensure quality care.
We were incredibly pleased with the outcome of the conference call and thrilled with the responses and participation we got directly from consumers. We feel this type of advocacy, where you go directly to real consumers to get an understanding of what they're experiencing, is innovative and critically important. We want to thank everyone in our network who helped spread the word. It was a direct result of your efforts that our call was such a success.
A free recording of the conference call is available here. The call materials are available here.
We all want quality long-term services and supports at home – but what does this actually mean to the consumer? The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care went directly to home care consumers and asked that very question. The results were published in our recently released report, Consumer Perspectives on Quality Home Care.
• How consumers assess quality and the policy implications of what consumers believe is needed to achieve quality long-term services and supports at home.
• Key skills for turning policy recommendations into advocacy action.
A free recording of the conference call is available here. The presentation slides are available here and the call materials are available here.
What is Quality Home Care?


Do you feel a deep sense of peace in the mountains? Perhaps you long to be there and can't? I am blessed to live in a state that surrounds me with this beauty and I thank God and my Dad every day for giving me the opportunity to breathe in this beauty every day.
This is a 96% sterling silver (typical sterling is 92.5%) mountain ring with tall pines, and a tiny little cz Moon. The mountains go all the way around the band. These rings are made to order, and due to differences in size, no two will be alike.
You may request a different color stone for your moon... citrine looks really pretty for a yellow moon, and of course moonstone is perfect.
Please allow 3-4 weeks for your ring to be made and delivered. If you need it sooner, please contact me prior to ordering to see if we can make that happen.
Will come beautifully boxed ready for giving in a recycled, reusable gift box with a West Virginia mountain surprise.


text:
Portable audio devices sales (factory level) in the United States 2013-2017
Published by Statista Research Department, Nov 15, 2016
The statistic depicts factory level (other) portable audio device sales in the United States from 2013 to 2017. In 2015, factory level (other) portable audio device sales in the United States amounted to 125 million U.S. dollars
Factory level sales of portable audio devices in the United States from 2013 to 2017 (in million U.S. dollars)*
Factory level sales in million U.S. dollars
* Sales include CD and cassette headset stereos, portable tape and digital memo recorders, portable radios and AC/DC boomboxes
** Estimate
*** Projection
Costco: number of warehouses 2020, by country
Costco: average sales per warehouse worldwide 2011-2020
World: retail sales 2018-2022
Costco: number of warehouses worldwide 2011-2020
Lionel Sujay Vailshery
Research expert covering the consumer electronics industry
Statistics on "Costco Wholesale Corporation"
World: retail sales of leading U.S. retailers 2020
World: most valuable retail brands 2021
United States: sales of leading retailers 2020
United States: top mass merchandisers in 2020, by retail sales
United States: sales per store of selected mass merchants stores 2020
United States: number of stores of the leading retailers 2020
United States: stores operated by discount stores and warehouse clubs 2020
Leading U.S. food and grocery retailers 2019, based on sales
Costco: global revenue 2017-2020, by region
Costco: revenue worldwide 2017-2020, by quarter
Costco: net sales worldwide 2011-2020
Costco: net income worldwide 2011-2020
Costco: number of employees worldwide 2011-2020
Leading U.S. retailers 2021, by e-commerce sales
Leading retail online companies in the U.S. 2021, by market share
Online purchases by brand in the U.S. 2021
Leading shopping apps in the U.S. 2021, by monthly active users
Most popular e-commerce apps in the U.S. 2019, by reach
Costco: consumer spending share in the U.S. in 2020, by race and ethnicity
U.S. consumer satisfaction with selected supermarkets 2020
United States: consumer satisfaction selected department and discount stores 2020
Grocery shopping by store brand in the U.S. 2021
Portable audio (factory-level) sales in the United States 2016-2020, by category
Mp3/portable media player unit sales (factory level) in the United States 2013-2017
MP3/portable media player sales in the United States 2016-2020
Bluetooth speakers sales in the United States 2013-2018
Portable audio sales (factory-level) in the United States 2015-2020
Home-theater-in-a-box sales (factory-level) in the United States 2015-2020
Headphone sales (factory level) in the United States 2018-2023
Home audio (factory-level) sales in the United States 2015-2020
Audio and video accessories sales to dealers in the United States 2018-2022
Digital camera sales in the United States 2013-2017
Home-theater-in-a-box unit sales (factory level) in the United States 2013-2017
Digital imaging products unit sales in the United States 2012-2016
CIPA companies' digital still camera shipments in the Americas 2011-2020
Digital music/video players usage in Spain in 2015-2018, by feature
Home robots sales to dealers in the United States 2016-2020
Wireless phone accessories sales to dealers in the United States 2018-2022
A/V receiver: U.S. shipment revenue 2011-2012
Net sales of Yamaha Corporation worldwide 2021, by category
Mexico: portable music devices sales 2019-2024
Mexico: music devices sales value 2014-2018
Costco Amazon Walmart Food Retail Industry Food delivery industry in the U.S.
Consumer Technology Association. (November 15, 2016). Factory level sales of portable audio devices in the United States from 2013 to 2017 (in million U.S. dollars)* [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/642629/us-other-portable-audio-devices-sales/
Consumer Technology Association. "Factory level sales of portable audio devices in the United States from 2013 to 2017 (in million U.S. dollars)*." Chart. November 15, 2016. Statista. Accessed January 21, 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/642629/us-other-portable-audio-devices-sales/
Consumer Technology Association. (2016). Factory level sales of portable audio devices in the United States from 2013 to 2017 (in million U.S. dollars)*. Statista. Statista Inc.. Accessed: January 21, 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/642629/us-other-portable-audio-devices-sales/
Consumer Technology Association. "Factory Level Sales of Portable Audio Devices in The United States from 2013 to 2017 (in Million U.S. Dollars)*." Statista, Statista Inc., 15 Nov 2016, https://www.statista.com/statistics/642629/us-other-portable-audio-devices-sales/
Consumer Technology Association, Factory level sales of portable audio devices in the United States from 2013 to 2017 (in million U.S. dollars)* Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/642629/us-other-portable-audio-devices-sales/ (last visited January 21, 2022)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Vintage wedding photos were displayed in the foyer and fresh flowers adorned white linen tablecloths for the celebration. A great-grandchild presented artwork on an easel.
Judy Greer Hensley, sister of the bride, and her husband Lloyd traveled to the celebration from their home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Steve Greer, brother of the bride who served as young usher in the wedding, and his wife Susan also attended the celebration, traveling from Athens, Georgia. The bride's brother, the late John David Greer, was also an usher in the wedding. His widow Betty Greer attended the luncheon.
Guests enjoyed white anniversary cake decorated with the original bride and groom topper from the couple's wedding. Valentine, birthday and anniversary cards exchanged between the couple for the last 60 years were shared among the group. The event culminated with hymns sung around the piano.
Mr. and Mrs. Crook were married by the groom's father, Rev. Cullen B. Crook, who was pastor of Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, on Aug. 17, 1957.
Mr. Crook is the son of the late Rev. and Mrs. Cullen B. Crook. He retired from John D. Hollingsworth on Wheels as designer of textile machinery.
Mrs. Crook, the former Corrie Elsie Greer, is the daughter of the late Ruth and John H. Greer.
They are the parents of Kimberly Crook Lee (Rick), of Rock Hill; Jan Crook Brown (Jerry), of Rock Hill; and Brian Crook (Tama Rollins Crook), of Greer. They have nine grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
The couple are lifelong residents of the Pleasant Grove community in Greer and active members in leadership positions at Pleasant Grove Baptist Church.
Mrs. Crook also celebrated her 80th birthday on Aug. 9. All grandchildren and great-grandchildren were in attendance except grandsons, Austin and Richard Lee, who are both officers in the military. They called with best wishes during the celebration.


Who is in charge in the USA? Many believe that the White House and the political institutions are in charge. Others will assume that the mega banks, Wall Street and the federal reserve system are the the real bosses. But both assumptions are not really convincing.
The powers in Western societies on both sides of the Atlantic lies in the hands of the super rich investors; and both governments and banks are actually mere tools of wealth further accumulation and protection.
All the assassinated US presidents and politicians had had patriotic monetary and fiscal policies and were against secret societies of bankers.
"Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit." – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.
"… To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill [chartering the first Bank of the United States], have not, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution." – Thomas Jefferson – in opposition to the chartering of the first Bank of the United States (1791).
"[The] abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit…. In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holdings illegal, as was done in the case of gold…. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves…. [This] is the shabby secret of the welfare statist's tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." – Alan Greenspan in an article he wrote in 1966.
"From the days of Spartacus, Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Trotski, Belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the under- world of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." – Winston Churchill to the London press in 1922.
"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." – William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England, 1694.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." – John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson.
"The money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." – Democrat Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.
"This Federal Reserve Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized."- Hon. Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.
"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing." – Ralph M. Hawtrey, former Secretary of Treasury, England.
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." – John K. Galbraith, in "Money: Whence it came, where it went", p. 29.
"The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't quite realize it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must all be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit." – H. W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.


1.1 This test method covers the determination of specific viscosity of tars and their fluid products. It does not determine absolute viscosity, but is an empirical flow test. Only by conforming strictly to requirements of the test method are reproducible results obtained.


Measuring three-dimensional surfaces with small 3D structures is a challenge for industrial measurement technology. Common optical procedures such as stripe reflection, laser triangulation or white-light interferometry are too imprecise, too slow or insufficiently robust for many inline measuring assignments. The HoloTop measuring system developed at Fraunhofer IPM uses digital multiwavelength holography for rapid 3D inline inspection. Today holographic measurement processes are primarily used in microscopy in the laboratory. In contrast to this, the sensors developed by Fraunhofer IPM can be used to measure an area of 20 mm x 20 mm. Here the sensors measure the topography of surfaces from the micrometer to the millimeter range – and do so with unprecedented speed and robustness.
On behalf of Werner Gießler GmbH Fraunhofer IPM developed a fully automated inline inspection system for precision turned parts. At second intervals, the system inspects the sealing faces of precision turned parts no larger than a thumbnail – these faces being found in 70 percent of the common rail injection systems of truck diesel engines worldwide.
Thomas Gießler of Werner Gießler GmbH about an inline inspection system for precision turned parts.


Here's my new project "Traveler girl".
Animals and hats will be on separate layer.
Submitted by Alehandra_Vanhek on Tue, 08/21/2018 - 13:32.
Submitted by ladyjai3 on Fri, 08/17/2018 - 03:29.
Submitted by Alehandra_Vanhek on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 10:06.
Yes, of course, the camera will be on a separate layer.
Submitted by disneyfriend on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 00:41.
I wish the camera was on a separate layer so you could use it with or without the camera. Is that possible?


I mentioned a while ago that I've been wanting to do a link up. Here's my plan. Would you be interested?
My husband organized one of the areas I was planning on getting to so I got a week off!
This week I reorganized the coffee and tea area in our kitchen.


text:
import {ErrorResponse} from "helpers/api_request_builder";
import m from "mithril";
import {BulkUserOperationJSON} from "models/users/users";
import {UsersCRUD} from "models/users/users_crud";
import {DeleteConfirmModal} from "views/components/modal/delete_confirm_modal";
import styles from "./index.scss";

export class DeleteUserConfirmModal extends DeleteConfirmModal {
  private readonly onSuccessfulSave: (msg: m.Children) => any;
  private readonly onOperationError: (errorResponse: ErrorResponse) => any;

  constructor(usersToBeDeleted: BulkUserOperationJSON, onSuccessfulSave: (msg: m.Children) => any,
              onOperationError: (errorResponse: ErrorResponse) => any) {
    super(DeleteUserConfirmModal.getMessage(usersToBeDeleted.users), () => this.delete(usersToBeDeleted));
    this.onSuccessfulSave = onSuccessfulSave;
    this.onOperationError = onOperationError;

  }

  private static getMessage(usersToBeDeleted: string[]) {
    return (

Are you sure you want to delete these users:

          {usersToBeDeleted.join(",")}

);
  }

  private delete(usersToBeDeleted: BulkUserOperationJSON) {
    UsersCRUD
      .bulkUserDelete(usersToBeDeleted)
      .then((apiResult) => {
        apiResult.do(() => {
                       this.onSuccessfulSave(
                         The users {usersToBeDeleted.users.join(",")} were deleted successfully!);
                     },
                     this.onOperationError);
      })
      .finally(this.close.bind(this));
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Home » 5 stars , Best Actress , Best Director , Best Score , Best Song , Damien Chazelle , drama , Emma Stone , Lions Gate Entertainment , musical , PG-13 , Ryan Gosling » "La La Land" Review
"La La Land" Review
Title: La La Land
Director: Damien Chazelle
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone
Studio: Liongate
Genre(s): Musical/Drama
Rated: PG-13 (For some language)
A scene early on in "La La Land" features our two main characters, walking down a romantically lit street while they look for her car. He can't stand her and she finds herself miffed at him and his constant attitude, but there is a chemistry there that is undeniable. The man points out that the lights are on, the moon is full, and this perfect romantic setting is wasted on them. They tease each other, the music swells, and soon they are dancing with such energy and joy we are officially rooting for them to get together. The scene evokes the sense of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in how the two interact with each other while the dancing is probably the most iconic I've seen since Gene Kelly put down his umbrella and decided to sing in the rain a little bit.
It has all the makings of a classic Hollywood scene. The kind of "movie magic" that is captured but once in a blue moon. What is notable about this is while the scene is shot to evoke the romance Hollywood used to be known for, the movie takes place in a modern world, with smart phones, high rent costs, and a society that has little love for what made things popular in the first place. They want things to be 'new' and 'current.' They have lost the magic in their hearts (if it was ever there to begin with). Our lead characters are old souls who are trapped in a world of cynicism and dreams that come with strings attached. That means the movie begins with a dream, falls on hard times, and ends with our leads needing to make compromises in their lives. Oh, but what a joy it all is to experience?!
We have Mia (Emma Stone), who works at a coffee shop across an original set piece used in the classic film "Casablanca," hoping to one day become a glamorous actress that people will remember long after she is gone. She has the look and appears to have the dance skills…but then, so do many other girls in this town. As far as casting agents are concerned, she can be directed but there is nothing special about her. Despite this, she goes through life with a twinkle in her eye and optimism that is infectious to observe. Much more so than Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) has. He is a fan of jazz and hopes to open a jazz club of his own, but none of the clubs who are hiring want him to play his style of music, and he has principles to adhere to. In a way, it's not difficult to imagine him being a lot like Mia just a few years ago.
He's been in this town longer though, and the reality that what he wants to do and what he needs to do are coming ever so more into conflict with each other, and he's at the point where he knows he'll have to make a choice sooner or later. When the two meet they are similar in some ways and different in others (like most couples in this type of film are). They connect so deeply, I believe, because deep down they both have an ideal view of what they would love their lives to be like. She believes it more so than he does at this point in time, but he still believes in the dream just enough to believe it's obtainable. The joy (and disappointment) comes from watching these two young lovers start a life together and watch their view of what that life is ever so slowly shift over the course of the film.
There is a fine line that is being walked throughout this entire movie where the movie has to morph from feel good musical to a more serious drama. The changes happen slowly and subtly, creeping up on the audience in a way that when we realize they are changing, we are beyond a point where anything can be done about it. The seasons change and with them so do the hopes and dreams of the future. The more the future comes up, the more we look at the past as silly dreams we had when we were kids. Yet this is not a cynical movie. It is a largely joyous one with hints of sadness and longing. It acknowledges that times change and so do the people. It knows that the world, which at one point in time seems magical and endless, becomes more grounded later on (literally in the case of this film).
The movie was directed by Damien Chazelle, who burst onto the movie scene in a big way a few years ago with "Whiplash," about an aspiring boy who had dreams of being taught by a masterful teacher, only to discover the teacher was abusive and insane. That he became a willing participant of the abuse showed how much he believed in the dream. While that was a very different kind of movie, I wonder if it was the blueprint for what we see in "La La Land." Somewhere in Chazelle's head is there is a version of "La La Land" where the characters are crushed by reality on a constant basis but so hopefully attached to the dream they just can't see what is happening around them? Because while this movie is largely a fantasy, reality does come crashing down at one point. By the time anyone realizes it though we have been viewing the world through musical colored glasses this whole time, and we can't help but wonder where things changed.
By styling this after the movies of the old days Chazelle has made a movie of undeniable beauty and joy, all while keeping his very adult concerns and disappointments intact without overbearing the audience in angst. It is a masterpiece of film making. "La La Land" is a tribute to how good movies were and how good they've become, while perfectly blending the old fashioned film making with modern day sensibilities. It may be the one movie this season that can successfully join the older generation of film lovers with the younger generation and not make either one feel contempt for each other. It is one of the best films of the year and has cemented Damien Chazelle as one of the best directors working in Hollywood after only two films. Course, the same thing happened with Michael Cimino, so hopefully reality won't sink in on Chazelle too soon.
Parents, disappointingly, there is just one use of the f word as well as a vulgar gesture. Otherwise it would be a perfect, old fashioned family film. Recommended for ages 12 and up.
"Passengers" Review
"Loving" Review
In Memory: Carrie Fisher
"Assassin's Creed" Review
"The Eagle Huntress" Review
"Allied" Review
"Arrival" Review
"Sing" Review
"Rogue One" Review
"Rules Don't Apply" Review
"Moonlight" Review


text:
Idris Elba
The Losers (pt/br Os Perdedores) é uma filme americano de 2010 dirigido por Sylvain White, baseado na história em quadrinhos de mesmo nome publicada pela DC Comics sob sua marca Vertigo. O filme é estrelado por Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Idris Elba, Zoe Saldana e Chris Evans. Ele foi colocado em pré-produção em abril de 2009, com seus filmagens sendo iniciadas em agosto de mesmo ano e finalizadas em dezembro, quando entrou em pós-produção.

O filme foi lançado nos Estados Unidos em 23 de abril de 2010, sendo recebido com críticas geralmente médias ou mistas.

Sinopse
Cinco membros de uma unidade de forças especiais dos Estados Unidos partem para a Bolívia em uma missão, na qual são traídos por um homem chamado Max, que descobrem pretender iniciar uma guerra tecnológica, e considerados mortos. Depois disso, eles se unem a uma mulher chamada Aisha para tentar conseguir vingança e impedir que a guerra seja iniciada.

Elenco
 Jeffrey Dean Morgan como Franklin Clay
 Chris Evans como Jake Jensen
 Zoe Saldana como Aisha al-Fadhil
 Idris Elba como William Roque
 Columbus Short como Linwood "Pooch" Porteous
 Óscar Jaenada como Carlos "Cougar" Alvarez
 Jason Patric como Max
 Holt McCallany como Wade
 Peter Macdissi como Vikram

Filmes dos Estados Unidos de 2010
Filmes baseados em títulos da Vertigo
Filmes com trilha sonora de John Ottman
Filmes de ação dos Estados Unidos
Filmes de aventura dos Estados Unidos
Filmes da Warner Bros.
Filmes em língua inglesa
Filmes dirigidos por Sylvain White
Filmes da Dark Castle Entertainment
Briga de galos em filmes

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


IT Consulting – Zenith Services Inc.
Technology is the hallmark of today's IT marketplace. To keep up to the ever-changing and challenging best contract staffing and IT market forces as well as other business processes, Zenith Services makes it a point to respond to the given situation quickly. It is a cut-throat competition all the way through. We extend full support to our Clients by providing them On Demand, Just in Time, Flexible Staff Augmentation as well as best consultancy services that would enable them to concentrate on their core business.


Join us for an exclusive meetup with Arthur Falls, Director of Communications at DFINITY (www.dfinity.org).
Arthur is a leading blockchain industry observer and producer of three popular blockchain centric podcasts: Beyond Bitcoin (2014), The Ether Review [masked]), and The Third Web (2017 - present). Prior to joining DFINITY, he worked at ConsenSys where he implemented the initial content marketing strategy.
Today's internet is fundamentally insecure, fragile and tending toward consolidation. Organisations like Amazon and Google are vertically integrating the compute value chain forcing businesses to depend on them for application and business system hosting. This is in stark contrast to the free and open internet envisioned by early pioneers such as the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee.
DFINITY offers a new direction. A single global virtual computer which anyone can access but no one can control. It is fast, scales with use, offers superior security, and 100% uptime. With DFINITY, the user owns their own data so unscrupulous intermediaries cannot sell it to the highest bidder.
DFINITY's design is informed by the most recent advancements in blockchain technology and a clear understanding of the evolution of cloud hosting. Where labour is the primary expense for running business systems, DFINITY can reduce infrastructure spending by 75%. Compute intensive systems like AI or Big Data will still find centralised systems preferable.
The development of decentralised business models which began on prior blockchain systems like Ethereum can continue with DFINITY, and enjoy a level playing field on which to compete with their centralised competitors. Through in-protocol governance, businesses can be protected from disasters like the Parity multi-signature wallet attack which crippled several organisations.
In this talk, Arthur Falls explains the thought process behind DFINITY's design, and where we can expect to see the project go in the future. There will also be a Q&A/Open conversation.
Looking forward to meeting blockchain, crypto and DFINITY enthusiasts!


text:
2022 marks 50 years of Leo Sayer as a recording artist. With the world gradually emerging from a two-year hiatus, Leo will be celebrating this milestone to great effect, with a live performing schedule throughout 2022, along with a brand new album. Leo, who has had worldwide #1 singles up to 2006, as well as numerous GRAMMY and BASCA awards, is currently racing to the top of the Dance Charts with a new Armand van Helden re-working of his 2006 UK #1 single with Meck. During this period of much perceived inactivity, Leo has been extremely active, spending a lot of time recording and releasing new singles - 'My City In Lockdown' and 'How Did We Get Here' - as well as collaborating on the tribute single to his friend and late-guitarist, Al Hodge, by recording Al's classic track 'Tradewinds'. However, Leo also found the time to self-produce this new album; his own takes on songs written and composed by John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison...'NORTHERN SONGS' is born; a 19 track collection of simply timeless songs.
Label: EDSEL RECORDS
Northern Songs: Leo Sayer Sings The Beatles [Digipak]
Artist: Leo Sayer
1. Eleanor Rigby
2. Strawberry Fields Forever
3. Revolution
4. Get Back
5. Across the Universe
6. A Day in the Life
7. Girl
8. A Hard Day's Night
9. Magical Mystery Tour
10. Julia
11. Can't Buy Me Love
12. Norwegian Wood
13. Here Comes the Sun
14. Only a Northern Song
15. Yesterday
16. I Feel Fine
17. Nowhere Man
18. Hey Jude
19. Eleanor Rigby #2


In re L.C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CARMEN C. et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Real Party in Interest.
Carmen C. and Andrew B. filed separate petitions seeking review by extraordinary writ of a juvenile court order setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, to consider termination of parental rights, and to select a permanent plan for their young daughter L.C.B. Both parents contend that (1) L.C.B. should have been returned to their care at a contested 18-month review hearing; and (2) they were not provided with reasonable reunification services.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
In September 2015, this court granted a prior petition filed by these parents because the record did not contain substantial evidence that they were afforded six months of reasonable reunification services. (In re L.C.B. (A145815, Sept. 21, 2015) (hereafter, L.C.B. I).) This time, however, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court findings that L.C.B. could not be safely returned to the parents and that they both received reasonable reunification services. Therefore, we deny these petitions on their merits.
On February 5, 2015, Andrew was declared L.C.B.'s presumed father. (L.C.B. I, at p. 5.) From March 10 until April 18, Carmen was in the hospital or in a convalescent center recovering from double knee replacement surgery. (Id. at p. 6.) After she was released from the convalescent center, Carmen stayed with a family friend until she moved into a motel with Andrew. Andrew was working as a security guard, and was looking for housing for the family.
In a May 2015 six-month status report, the Bureau recommended terminating reunification services to both parents and setting a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan for L.C.B. Carmen disagreed with this recommendation and the matter was continued for a contested hearing, which was held on July 1, 2015. (L.C.B. I, at pp. 5-6.) At the conclusion of the contested review hearing, the juvenile court followed the Bureau recommendation to terminate services, and to schedule a section 366.26 hearing. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) As support for this decision, the court found that: (1) the Bureau was not required to make accommodations for Carmen because of her knee surgery; (2) even putting aside time for recovery, Carmen failed to make sufficient progress with respect to the drug dependency and mental health problems that led to dependency; and (3) although Andrew participated in some services, he lacked sufficient insight about Carmen's problems and the need for this dependency proceeding.
In a July 1, 2015 minute order, the juvenile court terminated reunification services to both parents and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing. (L.C.B. I, at p. 12.) Carmen and Andrew filed separate petitions seeking extraordinary review of the July 2015 order. Andrew claimed that the juvenile court erred by refusing to give him custody of L.C.B., and both parents claimed they were denied reasonable reunification services.
On October 29, 2015, the court conducted a hearing to review the status of this case. The Bureau provided updated information in a "Court Memo." L.C.B. was doing well in her placement with the maternal uncle. Carmen had entered a residential substance abuse program in August 2015 where she was complying with the program requirements. Andrew was homeless and living in his car, although he had recently resumed employment. The Bureau had submitted a request for Andrew to receive mental health services and the social worker also mailed him written information about Al-Anon services.
The Bureau submitted new proposed case plans for both parents. The objectives of Carmen's plan included demonstrating her ability to have custody of L.C.B., maintaining a stable residence, cooperating with the Bureau, complying with medical and psychological treatment; staying sober; and demonstrating an ability to live free of drug dependency. Most of these goals were also the objectives of Andrew's plan, although he was not required to demonstrate his ability to stay sober or live free of drug dependency.
Carmen's case plan charged her with responsibility for participating in counseling, mental health services, and substance abuse services, the latter of which required random drug testing, completion of a 12-step program, and an inpatient treatment program. Andrew was responsible for completing an individual counseling program approved by the Bureau as well as an Al-Anon substance abuse program.
On November 4, 2015, the court filed an order after hearing memorializing its findings. Among other things, the court continued L.C.B.'s dependency; adopted the new case plans proposed by the Bureau; ordered weekly visitation for both parents which "may be supervised"; and authorized the Bureau to provide the parents with overnight visits. The court also found that both Carmen and Andrew had made "partial" progress toward alleviating or mitigating the problems necessitating the placement of L.C.B. in foster care. A status review hearing was set for January 13, 2016, and the 18-month review hearing was set for April 28, 2016.
Prior to the status review, the Bureau filed another "Memo" updating the court about this case. L.C.B. was doing well in her uncle's home. She attended play therapy and speech therapy and appeared to be engaged in services that were designed to help her thrive. Carmen had completed her residential treatment program on December 11, 2015, and the plan was for her to participate in outpatient treatment at "REACH Project, Inc.," and also to attend 12-step meetings at Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA).
The week before Carmen completed residential treatment, she told the social worker she planned to stay with a friend in Antioch, but refused to provide the friend's address. The week after Carmen left her residential program, she told the social worker that she and Andrew were renting a room in the home of Andrew's boss. Again, Carmen refused to provide the Bureau with her address, stating it was only a temporary residence. Carmen had been drug testing, and produced positive tests on December 7 and December 18.
The Bureau social worker had made several unsuccessful attempts to meet with the parents, and to review their case plans before the review hearing. On December 23, 2015, Carmen cancelled a meeting that had been scheduled for that day. The social worker proposed multiple alternative times, but Carmen either said she could not commit until she consulted Andrew, or agreed but then subsequently cancelled.
Between November 2015 and January 2016, Carmen and Andrew attended five of seven scheduled visits with L.C.B. The visits were unsupervised and took place on Sundays in Sacramento near the home of L.C.B.'s uncle. During one visit, Carmen called the caregivers to come and pick up L.C.B. early because the child was having a tantrum. During this period, the parents expressed minimal interest in increasing visits, or in having overnight visits with L.C.B.
The record does not contain a transcript of the January 13, 2016 review hearing, but the court's minute order reflects that all prior orders were continued and the 18-month hearing date of April 28, 2016 was confirmed.
In an 18-month status report, the Bureau recommended that the court continue L.C.B.'s dependency, terminate services to both parents, and schedule a section 366.26 hearing to adopt a permanent plan for L.C.B.
The Bureau reported that after Carmen completed residential treatment in December 2015, she was instructed to begin outpatient services at REACH, but she did not begin those services for an entire month because she said that she was sick and there was a death in her family. During this time, Andrew was living in his car and Carmen was living with a friend named Greg. Subsequently, the couple rented a room together but refused to disclose the address to the Bureau because it was not suitable for a visit. In early March 2016, they rented a room in a seven-bedroom house. After a home visit, the social worker reported the house was not big enough to accommodate the residents and the landlord had complained that the room was rented to Carmen, but Andrew stayed there on a regular basis. In April, Carmen was asked to move out.
Meanwhile, in January 2016 Carmen began attending her REACH and 12-step programs. However, she missed several drug tests in February. In late February, she and Andrew were in a serious car accident. At the time, Andrew was prescribed hydrocodone and Carmen subsequently received a hydrocodone prescription from her own doctor, which led to a positive drug test. Later in March, Carmen began testing positive for Benzodiazepines, but could not provide any prescription or explanation for that result. During an April 7, 2016 phone conversation with the social worker, Carmen slurred her speech and took long pauses before speaking. She was requested to take an on-demand drug test, which was positive again.
During this period, Andrew had a sporadic record of attendance at Al-Anon meetings. He did not provide documentation of attending a parenting class notwithstanding that referrals were provided to him. He had completed job training and was working part-time as a security guard. Andrew declined to pursue the Bureau's referrals to individual therapy, reporting that he preferred to continue with his previous therapist. The social worker contacted that therapist who reported that he had seen Andrew once in October 2015, once in January 2016, and once in February 2016. Andrew's therapist described his sessions with Andrew as informal and told the social worker he tried to convince Andrew to find a new therapist who could provide the level of support necessary to achieve his case plan objectives.
From November 2015 until April 2016, the parents attended 15 out of 22 possible weekly visits with L.C.B. The visits were unsupervised two-hour visits on the weekend, at various locations near the relative caregivers' home in Sacramento. After Carmen's unexplained positive drug tests, her visits were suspended, but Andrew's were not. Thereafter, Andrew attended one visit by himself.
The Bureau reported that both parents expressed a desire to reunify with L.C.B. and they understood that they needed to secure housing in order to accomplish that goal. Carmen also stated that she understood the need to complete her case plan. However, Andrew did not understand the Bureau's concerns about Carmen's health and medication usage. According to the report, Andrew had advised the Bureau that "if he is successful in the reunification with [L.C.B.] and [Carmen] is not, he will continue living with [Carmen] because they are a family and he will always support [Carmen]." The Bureau opined that the likelihood of reunification was not good because the parents continued to struggle with the problems which led to the dependency, and had tried but failed to secure stable housing.
At the beginning of the review hearing, the court clarified it was conducting a combined 12-18 month review. Parents requested a contest, which was set for May 23, 2016. The court instructed the social worker, Ms. Parra, to attend the contested hearing and, in the interim, to: (1) prepare a more detailed memorandum outlining her efforts to provide reunification services to the parents; and (2) attempt to conduct a home visit of parents' new apartment.
November 2015: After the court adopted new case plans for the parents, Parra was assigned to the case and sent the parents a letter introducing herself.
December 2015: On December 7, Carmen gave a positive drug test. On December 16, parents cancelled a visit with L.C.B. because Carmen was sick. Parra scheduled an office visit for both parents for December 23. On December 18, Carmen had another positive drug test. Parents did not show up for the December 23 office visit with Parra.
January 2016: On January 5, Carmen informed Parra she was no longer living with Andrew because "things got weird," so she was staying with a friend named Gary. Carmen asked to change visits with L.C.B. to Saturdays because it was hard to find things to do on Sundays and L.C.B. seemed bored. On January 14, Parra met with Carmen and Andrew and provided each of them with a packet of materials which included information about resources in the community, referrals for services, and copies of their case plans. Carmen failed to attend a scheduled drug test on January 14. In late January, visits were changed to Saturdays as Carmen had requested.
February 2016: On February 2, Parra mailed Andrew "3 therapeutic referrals and a list of parenting classes in Sacramento County, per his request." On February 19, Carmen failed to attend a scheduled drug test, stating she was sick and had been prescribed medication for pneumonia. On February 29, Parra met separately with each parent and provided them with transportation assistance, and additional referrals to Al-Anon, AA/NA, and parenting classes in the county. Carmen reported she was still living with Gary, but requested that mail be sent to a post office box she shared with Andrew. Andrew reported that he and Carmen were still in a relationship and doing well. On February 29, the parents provided the address of a residence they planned to move into in March.
March 2016: On March 18 and March 23, Carmen produced positive drug tests. On March 23, Parra had another meeting with the parents during which she provided additional referrals, copies of the case plans, and parenting resources.
April 2016: On April 2, parents' visit with L.C.B. was cancelled because they failed to confirm attendance. On April 7, Parra called Carmen to discuss her recent positive drug tests. Carmen slurred her speech and "would not speak for long periods of time." Parra submitted a request for an on-demand drug test and cancelled visits until Carmen could provide documentation of prescribed medication that would explain her presentation. Carmen's April 7 drug test was positive. That day, Parra had a long phone conversation with Andrew who stated that he was out of town visiting family, but that he "will support [Carmen] because they are a family." Andrew continued to visit L.C.B. on his own, but he cancelled a visit on April 23, after calling twice to say he would be late.
May 2016: On May 2, Carmen called Parra and asked for "a favor." She said that she had been called to do an on-demand drug test that day, but wanted to test the next day instead because Andrew was out of town. Parra advised Carmen to use her bus passes and explained that on-demand tests were based "upon suspicion not to accommodate [the] client's transportation issues." Carmen did not show up for the May 2 drug test. On May 9, Parra emailed a housing referral to the parents. In early May, Carmen's visits were reinstated, although they were supervised at the Bureau. Parra reported that L.C.B. often pulled away from Carmen, and that Carmen did not appear to have the skills to interact positively with her daughter. Andrew did not visit L.C.B. during the month of May.
In her memorandum, Parra included a summary of her May 18, 2016, home visit at the parents' new apartment. The couple shared a one-bathroom, two-bedroom apartment with two roommates and background checks were underway. During the visit, Carmen told Parra she was looking forward to completing her outpatient program and she was happy to learn that she was a "survivor" and excited about being a parent again. Andrew reported that he had "learned from [Carmen] and all the classes she has been taking," and he felt more bonded with L.C.B. now that she was older. Andrew felt like things were coming together for the family. He told Parra he did not have any worries and that he was confident in his ability to be a good parent. Carmen admitted that she did worry about being a parent again and having L.C.B. with her full-time. Carmen expressed a desire that L.C.B.'s current caregivers remain in her life.
At the conclusion of her memorandum, Parra summarized concerns which led the Bureau to conclude that these parents failed to fully engage in their case plans or address the problems that led to the dependency. Andrew did not participate in individual therapy as planned, but continued to rely on Carmen, stating that he learned from the classes she took. Carmen continued to struggle with anxiety and improper usage of her medication. The family did not have a good support system, and it appeared that the parents had not really bonded with L.C.B. Because many visits were unsupervised, the Bureau had limited opportunity to observe family interactions, but once Carmen started having supervised visits, the social workers noticed that she did not have good instincts or skills when it came to providing structure and discipline, and that L.C.B. spent most of the time playing by herself while Carmen talked on the phone.
At the beginning of the contested hearing, the court admitted reports and documentary evidence submitted by the parties. The Bureau confirmed its position that L.C.B. could not be safely returned to the parents at the 18-month review and none of the exceptions for extended "services to the 24-month mark apply in this case." L.C.B.'s counsel agreed and supported the Bureau recommendations.
During the course of the multi-session hearing, Ms. Parra testified several times. At the first hearing, she discussed the meetings, phone calls, and letters pursuant to which she provided referrals to these parents. Neither parent ever objected to a referral, expressed confusion or asked any questions about these referrals. They signed forms indicating that they understood the information.
When asked why she believed the parents had not adequately addressed the problems that led to L.C.B.'s dependency, Parra described a recent conversation she had with them. Carmen continued to maintain that she did not do anything wrong the day L.C.B. was detained; she simply took L.C.B. to the doctor, and her medication was not a concern. Andrew told Parra that "he blamed the doctors for not getting the medication right," and he also "confirm[ed] that [Carmen] takes the medication as needed not as prescribed." Thus, Parra concluded that the parents were still "justifying" Carmen's use of medication. Also, they had no safety network, support system or childcare plan to help them if L.C.B. was returned to their home.
Before continuing the matter, the court requested that the Bureau gather additional information about the parents' new roommates; the amount of medication mother was taking; and whether mother's behavior during the April 7 phone call with Ms. Parra and her positive drug tests were attributable to prescription medications.
On June 8, 2016, the Bureau prepared another report for the court. Background checks for parents' roommates disclosed that one had a misdemeanor conviction for DUI in 2009, and several subsequent DUI arrests, and the other had several theft-related arrests with one misdemeanor conviction.
Since the last session of the review hearing, the social worker had discussed Carmen's positive drug tests with one of her doctors. The doctor reported that he began working with Carmen because she needed more than one doctor and more attention than any other patient due to her chronic pain and anxiety. The doctor stated that Carmen's prescription medications should not have caused the type of presentation that the social worker observed during her April 7 phone conversation with Carmen. He also pointed out that Carmen tended to mix medications that she obtained by visiting emergency rooms. After obtaining information about Carmen's prescriptions, the social worker checked with the lab technician at the drug-testing facility, who reported that Carmen's prescription medications did not cause her positive drug tests.
During this session of the hearing, the court heard testimony from the foster mom, M.S., about the 20-month period that she and her husband (the maternal uncle) had been caring for L.C.B. As we discuss below, there was a point during M.S.'s testimony when Carmen became very agitated.
M.S. testified that she and L.C.B. participate in speech therapy every other week and weekly mental health therapy to address various "behaviors" such as parent-child interactions and how to handle "tantrums." Initially, speech therapy was also weekly because L.C.B. had a significant speech delay, but she had improved greatly and the sessions were reduced to every other week.
M.S. testified that neither parent had ever asked M.S. about L.C.B.'s mental health needs. M.S. had made herself available to talk with Carmen about L.C.B., and they had a few good conversations early on, but in the last six months they had only had one brief phone conversation. M.S. expressed ongoing concern regarding the fact that parents either did not feed L.C.B. during visits or gave her inappropriate food.
The court asked M.S. about her relationship with parents. Before L.C.B. was born, M.S. had met Carmen only a couple of times and did not know her well. After L.C.B. was placed with M.S., her relationship with Carmen became "uncomfortable." As M.S. explained, "She's a very unpredictable person. I never know what to expect out of Carmen from one week to the next. Sometimes she looks great. Sometimes she's slurring her words. Sometimes she looks like she's going to drool everywhere. [¶] She's abrupt. She's aggressive. She makes me uncomfortable."
M.S. testified that she kept voicemail messages that Carmen had left for her which demonstrated behavior that M.S. found concerning. The court then advised the Bureau that the court wanted additional information from the caregivers about these voicemails and other notes they kept about the visits. Arrangements were made for M.S. and her husband R.C. to attend the next session of the hearing.
"THE COURT: She seems very agitated. What's going on, [counsel]?"
"THE COURT: Well, it's a little more than that.
"[COUNSEL]: I know. She just put some exclamation marks.
"THE COURT: Big time. And she's staring at me right now. So what's the problem?
"[COUNSEL]: I don't think there's a problem. [¶] But she does have the baby proofing items on layaway. She says she can go pick them up for the apartment. She does want to be able to spend more time with [L.C.B.]. . . ."
The court asked the Bureau to arrange supervised visits for Carmen at a location outside the Bureau's office, explaining that it was important to give her more time to interact with the child in a more natural setting. The court also increased Andrew's visits to four hours a week, but made it clear those visits needed to be separate from Carmen's. In addition, the court stated that if Carmen childproofed her apartment, the court would give the Bureau authority to give her unsupervised visits, but that "it's just authority. If the Department continues to have concerns based on positive drug tests and how mom presents, then I understand."
Counsel for the Bureau expressed concern that the court was attempting to facilitate "hands-on parenting," which was not a court-ordered service. The court admonished counsel that this was not a new issue: "There's going to be a very strong argument made by counsel for parents as to whether or not reasonable services have been offered in this case. [¶] And the Department needs to be able to respond as to whether or not the services that have been offered have been reasonable and designed to promote reunification. [¶] I think the Department has been well aware—Mom has a guardian ad litem; Father had some mental health issues—as to whether or not the services that have been put in place are designed and tailored to facilitate that reunification."
During this session of the hearing, M.S. completed her testimony and the court also heard testimony from M.S.'s husband R.C., as well as an update from Ms. Parra. Again, there was an issue regarding Carmen's behavior during the hearing.
M.S. testified that Carmen sounded strange when she left phone messages on March 6 and March 7, 2016. Recordings of those messages were played for the court. M.S. also testified about the parents' participation in L.C.B.'s services since the prior session of the contested hearing.
There had been a school assessment which parents planned to attend, but they were late because M.S. accidentally gave them the wrong meeting time. So, instead the group had a 45-minute visit on the ground floor of the school building. Three things happened during the visit which concerned M.S. First, when Carmen tried to reach out to L.C.B., the child "jerked away," yelled "no," and behaved in a rude manner that M.S. had not seen before. The parents did not react to this behavior in any way. Second, while M.S. and Carmen were talking, Andrew played with L.C.B. on the stairs in a way that M.S. thought was not safe. Carmen did not say anything about this, although M.S. went over and asked Andrew to take L.C.B. off the stairs. Finally, there was a floor-to-ceiling chalkboard on one of the walls and, at one point, L.C.B. climbed on a chair to reach a higher part of the board. M.S. told L.C.B. not to stand on the chair, but a few minutes later, Andrew encouraged her to stand on the chair again. M.S. had to intervene and it appeared to her that neither parent comprehended the danger to L.C.B. of standing on the chair.
Parents attended one of L.C.B.'s speech therapy sessions which was conducted at a park. M.S. removed herself from the group and while she observed from afar, it appeared to her that the speech therapist spent most of her time chasing after L.C.B. Later, the therapist told M.S. that the parents never told L.C.B. "no" or attempted to redirect her, but simply "followed her like the blind leading the blind." The therapist also reported that L.C.B. was rude to Carmen in a way that the therapist had never seen her treat anyone else. The therapist also said that parents did not really attempt to talk with L.C.B., who reverted to an old pattern of shutting down and using one word to attempt to communicate.
R.C., who is Carmen's brother, testified that he was responsible for bringing L.C.B. to and from her visits with the parents. R.C. described an incident that occurred at a Chuck E. Cheese, when he came to pick up L.C.B. after a visit. The parents had split up and used their cell phones to try to locate R.C. in the crowded parking lot. Andrew, who was carrying L.C.B., found R.C. and he began to put the child in the car. Meanwhile, Carmen was standing near the entrance and began to yell at Andrew to wait because she wanted to say goodbye. Carmen was "screaming and saying that she was having a panic attack." R.C. testified he did not know why Carmen was so upset, but she may have been mad about where he parked. L.C.B. did not have a verbal reaction to Carmen's behavior, but after she was buckled in to her car seat and Carmen leaned in to say goodbye, L.C.B. slapped her face.
R.C. testified that L.C.B.'s behavior toward Carmen was out of character; she had never hit him or his wife in the face, but she had hit Carmen in the face three different times. R.C. also testified about other visits when the parents either failed to feed L.C.B. and/or to change her diaper. On these occasions, parents knew that it was their responsibility to feed L.C.B. because that issue had been addressed with them. R.C. also testified about parents being late, and one occasion when Andrew called to say he was running late, but then called again and said he was going to be more than an hour late because he had errands. R.C. had to tell Andrew it was his responsibility to call the Bureau and cancel, which he did.
Ms. Parra testified about times during supervised visits when L.C.B. pulled away from Carmen or was otherwise rude or disrespectful toward her. There was also a visit when Carmen arrived late, licked her lips repeatedly and was perspiring a lot. She also used her phone to call Andrew even though she had been asked not to talk on the phone during visits.
As Parra began to describe a conflict that occurred when the Bureau attempted to schedule a June 14 visit, Carmen left the courtroom. The bailiff looked for her in the restroom and walked around the building but could not find her, so the court elected to continue with Parra's testimony.
Parra testified that one of Carmen's visits that had been scheduled for June 10 had to be rescheduled for June 14. On June 13, Parra called Carmen's cell phone to confirm the June 14 time. Andrew answered the phone, said Carmen was napping, and he would relay the message. On the morning of June 14, another social worker called Carmen to confirm the visit for that day. Carmen sounded lethargic and slurred her words. She said she had taken Motrin and cough medicine and that she was sick. Parra testified that Carmen told the social worker that she "didn't understand what was happening and why we were calling her that morning," and then she began yelling and screaming and hung up on the social worker. Parra testified that she called Carmen back to discuss the situation, but Carmen began screaming at her. Andrew intervened on Carmen's side of the conversation, but while Parra tried to talk with him, the line went dead again. Around 30 minutes later, Andrew called back. He told Parra that he was outside the apartment and was now free to talk with her. He apologized for what had happened and cancelled the visit because Carmen was not feeling well.
Parra testified about a June 22 visit at a park that was supervised by another social worker. Carmen tried to hug L.C.B., but she said no, walked away, and then ran toward the street. Carmen tried to redirect L.C.B., who refused to comply. When L.C.B. got to the street the social worker intervened because Carmen was about 40 or 50 feet behind her. Later during the visit, Carmen opened a prescription bottle and poured several pills of different colors and sizes into her hand. She took at least one, maybe more, put the rest back in the bottle, and then into her purse, which she put in the diaper bag where it was accessible to L.C.B. At the end of the visit, Carmen struggled to get up from the grass where she and L.C.B. had been playing. After about five minutes, she asked the social worker for help up. The social worker did not think Carmen would have been able to get up without somebody there to assist her.
Parra testified that during the month of June, Carmen produced two negative drug tests, but then missed tests on June 23 and June 27. Since the last hearing, Parra had contacted the speech therapist who confirmed that she was concerned about parents' interactions with L.C.B. Parra had visited the parents' apartment before the hearing that day and confirmed it was childproofed. She explained that she did not have an earlier opportunity to conduct the visit because it had only been a week since the parents reported that the apartment was ready.
Parra began to answer questions about the assistance that Andrew provides to Carmen when the court interrupted to ask Andrew if he was on his cell phone. Andrew's counsel then responded that Carmen was calling him. The court began to say that Andrew needed to stay off his phone, but then asked if there was a concern about Carmen's well-being—she had left the courtroom almost 25 minutes earlier and had not returned. While the parties discussed this issue, Carmen reentered the courtroom. The court asked for an explanation several times, but the most Carmen could say was that she was on the phone with her doctor and she thought she had more time.
Parra testified that she spoke with Andrew before the court session that day about whether the family had "thought about a safety plan as to how they were going to care for [L.C.B.] if she were to have visits [at parents' apartment]." Andrew, who worked the graveyard shift as a security guard, told Parra that he does not require much sleep and would always be present during Carmen's visits.
The parties were still in the process of questioning Parra when the court day drew to a close. Before continuing the matter, the court again provided the Bureau with several directives. First, if there was another interaction with Carmen when she appeared lethargic or slurred her words, the Bureau was to order an on-demand drug test. Second, although the court had been pushing the Bureau to get the parents' apartment approved for a visit, there were still many concerns about Carmen, and the Bureau was instructed not to exercise its authority to permit a visit unless they believed it would be safe for L.C.B. Third, the court instructed the Bureau to reschedule Andrew's visits in a way that would allow L.C.B. to have a regular naptime. Carmen's counsel requested unsupervised visits for Carmen if Andrew were present. The court denied that request, expressing "grave concerns," including court's own observations of Carmen during the courtroom proceedings.
The first part of this session was spent questioning Ms. Parra about various incidents described in her reports or prior testimony. When that testimony was finally completed, Carmen elected to testify herself.
Carmen testified that she did not recall the details of a visit she had with L.C.B. on May 19th, but she did recall Ms. Parra's testimony that Carmen had used her phone during a recent visit. Other than once answering a call from her aunt, Carmen used her phone to play Pandora, toddler radio, because she and L.C.B. liked to sing and dance when they played with toys. Regarding the supervised visit at the park, Carmen recalled that the plan was to play on the play structure and then sit at the bench, but it was a hot day, and the bench was too hot, so they found some shade under a tree. Carmen's knee problems are such that sometimes she can get up and move around and sometimes she cannot, and she had discussed those problems with the social worker before the visit took place.
Carmen testified that when she and Andrew had an unsupervised visit at the library, she tried to take L.C.B. into the restroom to change her diaper, but L.C.B. had a huge tantrum. She also attempted to change her on the couch, but somebody told her she could not do that. When they tried to feed L.C.B., the librarian told them they were not allowed to have food in the library.
Carmen also testified that one of her prescribed medications causes her to perspire. Other side effects of her medication are "waking and nausea." Carmen testified that her brain injury has caused her to suffer short-term and long-term memory loss, to stutter, and to have nightmares and panic attacks. The social worker never discussed these issues with Carmen or talked to her about how to make the apartment safe for L.C.B.
Carmen testified about positive interactions she has had with L.C.B. during visits. She also testified that she has received positive feedback from L.C.B's speech therapist who told her she was doing better during her interactions with L.C.B. She believed that her medication helped with her ailments. She also expressed her belief that she is capable of caring for L.C.B. full-time notwithstanding her physical limitations and testified that she would accept help if she needed it.
Carmen described her relationship with Andrew as "good," and testified that she did not recall telling the social worker that they were having problems. She admitted they sometimes argue about finances and she testified that she has a "problem" with his gambling, as a result of which they sometimes were "pretty close" to not having enough money to pay rent. Carmen opined that she and Andrew were good parents and a good team, but that when it came to their personal life, they were not as close as they used to be. Carmen denied that she had been homeless but confirmed that Andrew was homeless for a long time.
Carmen testified that things were going "great" at their apartment; everybody paid their share of the rent and it all worked out. But she acknowledged that Andrew's gambling caused stress because they did not have a "cushion." Also, after Andrew got his paycheck, she would wonder where he was "for hours," and suspected he was gambling. Carmen and Andrew discussed this problem many times and he always said that he was just trying to make more money for them so they can live better. Carmen testified that she became very angry during fights over this issue, and admitted she had physically pushed Andrew, but she did not think she had "put hands on him" in the last six months. The two had broken up in the past because of Andrew's gambling, but they got back together when he stopped gambling for a while.
Carmen acknowledged it was important to drug test to demonstrate she was drug free, but she also admitted missing several tests. When asked why L.C.B. was originally detained, Carmen testified that she took prescription medication and went to sleep, but when she heard the baby wheezing she called 911, and an ambulance came. Carmen understood that there had been concerns about her abusing her medications, her paranoid thoughts and her slurred speech, and acknowledged that she had been treated for opiate dependency. However, Carmen testified that she does not believe that she has a drug problem.
Carmen was asked if she has a safety plan for a time when she was taking care of L.C.B. and began to feel drowsy. She responded that she would call or wake up Andrew or a roommate and ask for help. She also said that she would call her brother and sister-in-law, although she admitted that she had not discussed this plan with them. In response to follow-up questions from Andrew's attorney, Carmen testified that the social worker never offered to help her create a safety plan.
Carmen's brother R.C. testified as a rebuttal witness that Carmen had complained to him about Andrew's problems with gambling and drinking. R.C. admitted that he had never seen Andrew drink while he was with L.C.B. R.C. also testified about a recent incident when Carmen had left burned macaroni and cheese in the refrigerator for Andrew because she was mad at him and Andrew later fed the burned meal to L.C.B.
The court began by noting that 23 months had passed since L.C.B. was first detained. L.C.B. was an infant when the case was filed and she had spent most of her life out of the care of her parents. The court then acknowledged that there was a period of time when these parents had not been provided with reasonable services. However, that was no longer the case.
The court identified Carmen's substance abuse issues as the "crux" of this case, and the issues that led to the dependency. The court found, after completing residential and outpatient treatment, Carmen "misses tests and tests positive for substances with no explanation, and . . . presents in an altered state on many occasions." These behaviors have persisted throughout the history of this case and were well documented in the evidence. They were also evident in Carmen's testimony that very day. In this regard, the court stated: "Mom appears altered to the Court. She had pregnant pauses in her response[s]. She was hard to understand. She was groggy."
The court then identified Andrew's unqualified devotion to Carmen as another major concern. From the very beginning, Andrew had been clear that he would stay with Carmen, regardless of what were to happen with L.C.B. However, because Carmen had not meaningfully addressed her substance abuse problems, she was "wholly unsafe to parent her child."
In analyzing the progress of these parents, the court did not rely on testimony about Andrew's alleged drinking and gambling. Indeed, it doubted there was sufficient evidence that Andrew had a drinking problem. It also characterized evidence about Carmen's mobility issues as "unhelpful." Based on its own observations, the court found that Carmen's physical limitations were not profound and were not a barrier to parenting her child. As the court explained, "I don't think this is a case where the Department has failed to make accommodations to a disabled individual so that they can learn to parent within their limitations; but rather it's right back to the basics of what this case was all about and where it started, with issues of substance abuse."
The court found that the parents both love L.C.B. very much. However, they failed to "show any insight into what led to this dependency proceeding in the first place." Thus, although they made efforts, they failed to meaningful address their problems. Furthermore, in some instances they did not make a real effort. For example, Andrew decided not to engage in individual therapy and both parents failed to follow through with their responsibilities to communicate with the Bureau, and to work with the social worker.
Ultimately, the court adopted the Bureau's recommendations to terminate reunification services to both parents, and to schedule a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for L.C.B. The court concluded that these recommendations were not only supported by the considerations the court had discussed, but also by the "wealth of evidence presented in these proceedings."
Although they filed separate petitions, Andrew and Carmen raise the same issues. Both contend there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that: (1) returning L.C.B. to their custody would create a substantial risk to the child's well-being; and (2) reasonable reunification services were provided.
In the present case, the juvenile court's detriment finding is supported by substantial evidence. L.C.B. was removed from the home because Carmen's substance abuse posed a substantial danger to L.C.B.'s physical safety and emotional well-being. Almost two years later, Carmen continued to abuse her prescription medications and Andrew continued to enable that dangerous behavior. In their writ petitions, neither parent squarely addresses these pertinent facts which amply support the detriment finding in this case.
Instead, Carmen contends that L.C.B. should have been returned to her because she substantially complied with her drug rehabilitation programs and her 12-step program. Unfortunately, though, substantial evidence shows that any benefit Carmen received from that participation did not result in significant progress toward eliminating the conditions that led to this dependency. Carmen also suggests that her positive tests should not be held against her because they were caused by prescription medications. The problem with this argument is that even if Carmen had produced prescriptions to explain all of her positive tests (which she did not), that would not alter the conclusion that mother's continued abuse of prescription medications poses a danger to L.C.B. The court had ample evidence, including its own observations of Carmen, that no significant progress was made toward alleviating this problem.
Andrew contends that, as a matter of law, there is no basis for sustaining a detriment finding against him because the dependency petition did not allege that he was a dangerous parent. Andrew defeats his own argument, however, by expressly acknowledging that he did not request that the juvenile court place L.C.B. in his sole custody. Thus, the issue is whether L.C.B. can be safely returned to the home of both parents. Substantial evidence—indeed undisputed evidence—establishes that Andrew will support Carmen no matter what her behavior. Unfortunately, that environment is not a safe home for L.C.B.
Andrew contends that the juvenile court's finding that he was afforded reasonable reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence, and the "remedy" for this error is to "extend the reunification period and order continued services." With some factual adjustments, Carmen adopts Andrew's legal analysis as her own.
Here, neither parent would qualify for the limited right to a continuance afforded by section 366.22, subdivision (b). However, the circumstances in this case are unusual in that: (1) it has already been established that parents did not receive reasonable services during the first six months of the reunification period, and (2) for reasons that are not clear, the 12-month review was postponed until it became a 18-month review due to the passage of time. Perhaps for these reasons, the juvenile court made an express finding that reasonable services were afforded to these parents. Under the circumstances, the reasonable services finding may well be required to justify the challenged order.
In the present case, substantial evidence supports the finding that these parents were afforded reasonable services. The issues that led to this dependency case were Carmen's substance abuse and mental health problems and Andrew's failure to acknowledge or address those problems. The new case plans that were adopted after our decision in L.C.B. I were tailored to address these specific problems. Furthermore, the Bureau reports and memoranda and Ms. Parra's testimony constitute substantial evidence of the Bureau's reasonable efforts to assist these parents with their plan objectives.
Andrew contends he was not afforded reasonable services because all the Bureau did was give him a long list of referrals. The evidence shows that the Bureau did more than that; the social worker made numerous attempts to encourage Andrew to obtain a more realistic perspective regarding Carmen's problems and their impact on the child's well-being. Equally important, there is substantial evidence that Andrew made a conscious decision to resist individual counseling, and that he consistently limited his role in these dependency proceedings to that of an advocate for Carmen rather than an independent parent for L.C.B.
Carmen's primary contention is that the Bureau failed to address her mental health problems adequately because it never acknowledged that she had a "developmental limitation that required more assistance in order for [her] to access services." The problem with this argument is that, in contrast to the situation we addressed in L.C.B. I, this record demonstrates that Carmen did access services during the relevant time period. Carmen had recovered from her knee surgery and there is no evidence that transportation issues prevented her from accessing services. In addition to residential treatment, Carmen participated in outpatient treatment, a 12-step program, drug testing and visitation. Despite that participation, she failed to make substantive progress toward alleviating the problems that led to this dependency.
Parents mistakenly rely on In re Patricia W. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397. In that case, the mother began hearing voices for the first time in her life following the birth of her son. Initially she was diagnosed with postpartum depression, but later she received a diagnosis of schizophrenia. (Id. at p. 402.) The mother's mental illness was the sole basis for removing her toddler from the home; mother had trouble managing her medications, and father appeared to be in denial about the seriousness of mother's condition. (Id. at pp. 402-403.) Under those circumstances, a reunification plan that was not tailored to address mother's mental illness was deemed inadequate. (Id. at pp. 420-424.) In this case, by contrast, Carmen's mental health issues were inextricably intertwined with her chronic abuse of prescription medications; the underlying drug abuse was the direct cause of her dangerous behavior; and the case plan was tailored to address Carmen's unique problems.
Furthermore, the record shows that throughout the relevant time period, Carmen received individual therapy from a mental health provider of her choosing. Although that therapist was reportedly unavailable to speak with the social worker, she did provide a letter dated April 26, 2016, which confirmed that Carmen participated in individual therapy sessions on a biweekly and sometimes monthly basis. Again though, despite this treatment, Carmen was not able to resolve the substance abuse problems that led to this dependency case.
Finally, Carmen contends that she was denied reasonable services because the Bureau "made no efforts to encourage [her] to visit for longer periods of time with less restriction," but instead imposed more "restrictive visitation due to positive drug tests." With the careful guidance of the juvenile court, the Bureau afforded Carmen ample opportunity to use visitation as a method of demonstrating her ability to be a safe parent. The record contains substantial evidence that, despite that opportunity, Carmen was not able to overcome her overarching substance abuse problems.