JESSICA v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Jessica C. (mother), mother of the minor child Angel C., petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.   She seeks review of an order setting a permanent plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.¹  Mother asserts the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and so its dispositional orders were unwarranted.   We deny the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

From the age of fifteen, mother lived with a foster parent, A.C. While she was living with A.C., mother gave birth to Angel.²  Mother told social workers that she would frequently run away from A.C.'s home, leaving Angel with A.C. In late 2006, mother made arrangements for A.C. to become Angel's long-term guardian.   However, in March 2007, after mother emancipated, mother changed her mind and terminated the guardianship.

On July 10, 2007, a report regarding Angel, then two years old, was made to the Child Abuse Hotline.   The referral indicated mother had left Angel with A.C. and had gone to Texas for two weeks without leaving Angel's Medi-Cal card or making other arrangements for Angel's care.   When a social worker interviewed A.C., she confirmed that mother had left Angel.   Mother reportedly wanted A.C. to adopt Angel.   However, she had done nothing to initiate an adoption.   A.C. also reported that mother has a bi-polar disorder, with a history of going off her prescribed medications and leaving Angel.

In a July 12, 2007 interview with the social worker, mother denied abandoning Angel, but stated she had difficulty caring for him due to her bi-polar disorder.   She made a date to meet the social worker on July 23, 2007, to discuss her options.   At that meeting, mother stated she had recently left the father of her second child,³ and was living with her great-grandmother, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease.   She wished for Angel to remain with A.C. Mother confirmed her bi-polar disorder, but stated she was not taking medication or seeing a doctor because she did not like her previous therapist.   She also stated she had used crystal meth, but had gone through drug treatment and had been clean for a year.   Mother agreed to leave her two children in their present living situations, and to accept services from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to assist her in regaining their custody.

On July 30, 2007, mother called the social worker because she urgently wanted to sign a plan with DCFS that provided for custody arrangements as discussed.   Otherwise, she would go to court to give legal custody of Angel to A.C. as she planned before DCFS became involved.   The social worker indicated a meeting to discuss those issues with all parties was scheduled for August 3, 2007, but mother asserted she would not attend.   Nevertheless, mother did attend the meeting, and proceeded to cry, curse, yell and act irrationally, including holding her second child so tightly that security had to be called to secure his release, and lying on the floor in fetal position crying for her mother.   Mother further refused to participate in the meeting or agree to the recommended services.   At that point, DCFS decided to formally detain Angel and place him with A.C. The second child went home with his father.   The juvenile court approved the detention and appointed counsel to serve as a guardian ad litem for Angel.

DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging mother failed to protect Angel and failed to provide for his support.   In a jurisdictional report, DCFS detailed evidence affirming the information that mother had a history of leaving Angel, reversing decisions to relinquish custody, periodic drug use, and failing to take medication to control her bi-polar disorder.   At the jurisdictional hearing, the parties entered an agreed case disposition plan, whereby the juvenile court found jurisdiction over Angel because mother's mental disorder interfered with her properly protecting Angel.   DCFS was directed to provide family reunification services, and mother was directed to participate in individual counseling and parenting instruction, and to maintain her mental health treatment, including taking prescribed medications.

During the first six-month period of reunification, mother largely failed to comply with her case plan, disappeared for a two week period, and wavered on whether she wished to continue with reunification.   During the second six-month period, mother made greater attempts to comply with her case plan, enrolling in individual counseling and completing a parenting class.   Her psychiatrist also indicated he was working with her medications to find the right balance.   Mother repeatedly told the social worker her goal was to restore her custody rights so she could voluntarily relinquish them to A.C. At a twelve-month review hearing, the juvenile court granted mother an additional six months of reunification services.   By the eighteen-month review hearing, mother was doing well in individual counseling, was compliant with her case plan, and had formed a bond with Angel through consistent visits.   She was living with her grandmother and was planning on obtaining her own apartment.   If given custody of Angel, however, mother planned to live with A.C. Mother's therapist saw no reason why mother could not reunite with Angel.   Thus, on February 18, 2009, the juvenile court ordered Angel returned to mother, and directed DCFS to provide family maintenance services.   A further hearing was set for August 19, 2009, to consider termination of jurisdiction.

However, on August 6, 2009, DCFS had to re-detain Angel.   An unannounced visit by the social worker to A.C.'s home on April 8, 2009, had not gone well.   Angel had been found home alone with A.C.'s ex-husband.   Mother admitted she was out of the house to create the illusion that she was employed, despite losing her job two weeks earlier.   She did not want A.C. to know her activities.   On June 9, 2009, mother further admitted that she was not taking her medications, having run out of them and been unable to contact her doctors to obtain more.   On June 23, 2009, she told the social worker she was becoming depressed, was locking herself in the bathroom for periods of time, and was often crying.   She was also not sleeping properly.   The social worker determined that mother would, in fact, have been able to contact her doctors if she had tried.   The social worker could not learn more because mother refused to provide a waiver to allow the doctors to discuss mother's progress.   Mother became angry upon learning the social worker checked her story with the doctors, threatened the social worker's job, and instructed the doctors not to communicate with DCFS on any matter.   Mother also missed a scheduled appointment to pick up a bus pass that would enable her to reach appointments with her doctors.

Mother had failed to enroll Angel in a Head-Start program in part because she did not want him to go to school and become “confused.”   Mother resisted speaking to A.C. about mother's failure to take medication.   Mother attempted to derail a scheduled meeting between the social worker and the concerned parties to create a safety plan for Angel by falsely claiming to some of them that others had cancelled the meeting.   Once the meeting occurred, mother was observed to raise her voice, laugh and sob at once, make sarcastic remarks, and attend to cell phone calls rather than the business at hand.   She expressed irritation with the fact that the social worker and A.C. were monitoring her care of Angel.   In fact, mother had become hostile toward A.C. and no longer wanted A.C. to be involved with Angel.

On July 17, 2009, DCFS agreed with A.C. that given mother's behavior and failure to take her medications, A.C. would not leave Angel alone with mother.   DCFS asked mother to enroll Angel in school by August 10, 2009, but mother demurred, saying she could not because Angel's immunization record was misplaced.   On July 27, 2009, mother informed the social worker she had taken Angel to the doctor.   Instead of producing an immunization record, mother reported that Angel required substantial medical treatment, including investigation of a finding of blood in his urine, a series of shots for an unspecified purpose, asthma medication for breathing problems, and an assessment for ADHD. Soon thereafter, on August 6, 2009, DCFS received a call from A.C. reporting that mother had left Angel without making provisions for his care, and had been out of touch for four days.   Angel was detained and placed with a foster family due to A.C.'s home being temporarily decertified as an appropriate foster care facility.⁴  When mother learned of the removal she appeared unconcerned, and made plans to move out of A.C.'s home.

DCFS filed an amended dependency petition, alleging that mother had again failed to protect Angel by stopping her medication and leaving Angel without appropriate plans for his care.   Mother contested the allegations.   At an adjudication hearing,⁵ mother testified that she left Angel in order to care for her sick grandmother, and because of the safety plan signed with DCFS could not take him with her.   She further claimed to have contacted A.C. during the time she was gone.   Mother also stated she had resumed taking her medication as of July 17, 2009, and emphasized that she was taking her medication at the time she left Angel.   However, she admitted she had repeatedly gone off her medication over the years.   After taking that evidence, as well as the evidence DCFS had submitted over the course of Angel's case and Angel's counsel's concurrence, the juvenile court sustained the amended allegations, found Angel remained a dependent child of the court under section 300, subdivision (b), and terminated mother's custody order.   DCFS was given discretion to place Angel appropriately.   Further reunification services were denied, as mother had already received the maximum amount of services permitted.   The court therefore set a section 366.26 hearing for March 8, 2010.   This petition followed.

DISCUSSION

Mother's sole challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings is that they are unsupported by substantial evidence.   We begin by noting that when considering a challenge to the substantiality of the evidence, the appellate court will not reweigh the evidence, but will view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order.  (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 46;  In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329;  In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)   Every reasonable inference supporting the juvenile court's order will be drawn.  (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828.)   Assessments of witness credibility are for the juvenile court to make.  (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043;  In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.)   If in the end substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the order, it will be affirmed.  (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 193.)   Applying those rules to the evidence here, the record reveals substantial evidence in support of the juvenile court's order.

Mother's particular claim is that notwithstanding evidence she left Angel without a plan for his care and failed to take her medications, nothing shows that Angel was thereby placed at a substantial risk of serious physical harm within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b).  She notes that Angel was always left with A.C., who adequately cared for Angel and kept him well.

Mother's leaving Angel with a competent caregiver does not immunize her from her display of poor parenting judgment, or the potential consequences of her actions.   There is evidence in the record that mother has a pattern of leaving Angel without making appropriate plans for his care.   She continues to do so despite having completed parenting classes, engaging in individual counseling, and participating in reunification efforts for eighteen months.   On at least one occasion, mother left Angel with A.C. for two weeks, but failed to ensure A.C. had Angel's Medi-Cal card to enable her to seek any medical treatment that might become necessary.   There is evidence showing that when she leaves, mother is often incommunicado rendering Angel's caretaker unable to contact mother in the event of an emergency.   There is also evidence in the record showing that mother's relationship with A.C. has deteriorated, and mother has left A.C.'s home.   Given that circumstance, it is not clear mother would leave Angel with A.C. or another acceptable caretaker should she again decide to disappear.   The fact that mother wavers on her commitment to caring for Angel suggests there is a significant threat she will leave him again.

Evidence that mother routinely stops taking medication designed to control her bi-polar disorder further supports the juvenile court's order.   Mother herself acknowledges this behavior, but cannot seem to prevent it.   She further admits that her condition interferes with her ability to care for Angel.   When off of her medication, mother is observed to become agitated and irrational.   She describes herself as suffering from depression and sleeplessness, locking herself away in a bathroom to cry.   There is evidence that during her latest episode of not using medication, mother became angry at A.C. and DCFS, and affirmatively tried to undermine their efforts to assist with Angel's care.   There is evidence that mother withheld information about her whereabouts and activities;  she attempted to cancel a meeting of concerned parties to discuss Angel's care;  she even evaded her responsibility to enroll Angel in school;  and notwithstanding mother's report of the alarming results of Angel's recent medical examination, it is not clear what mother is doing to attend to Angel's health concerns.   Such evidence is sufficient to show that mother poses a risk of harm to Angel.⁶

Evidence that mother leaves Angel without providing for his care, and that she has a tendency to stop taking her prescribed medications constitutes the substantial evidence that supports the juvenile court's finding jurisdiction over Angel.   Mother's suggestion that the juvenile court's dispositional orders must be overturned because the jurisdictional finding was improper necessarily fails.   The petition for a writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its order is therefore denied.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary relief is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

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

FN2. Angel's biological father is not identified and is not part of these proceedings.   The man whose name appears on Angel's birth certificate is likewise not part of these proceedings..  FN2. Angel's biological father is not identified and is not part of these proceedings.   The man whose name appears on Angel's birth certificate is likewise not part of these proceedings.

FN3. The second child resides with his biological father and is not a participant in this matter..  FN3. The second child resides with his biological father and is not a participant in this matter.

FN4. The record suggests the decertification was because A.C.'s ex-husband was not cleared to be near foster children..  FN4. The record suggests the decertification was because A.C.'s ex-husband was not cleared to be near foster children.

FN5. Because DCFS proceeded by way of an amended petition after Angel's re-detention, the juvenile court was required to conduct a new jurisdictional hearing on the amended allegations. (§ 342.).  FN5. Because DCFS proceeded by way of an amended petition after Angel's re-detention, the juvenile court was required to conduct a new jurisdictional hearing on the amended allegations. (§ 342.)

FN6. Mother testified that she was, in fact, taking her medication again by the time she left Angel with A.C. in August 2009.   The juvenile court does not appear to have credited mother's account.   Regardless, if mother was on her medications and still decided to leave Angel without appropriate provisions, it suggests mother exhibits poor judgment even when medicated.   That does nothing to further her argument that Angel is not at risk of harm..  FN6. Mother testified that she was, in fact, taking her medication again by the time she left Angel with A.C. in August 2009.   The juvenile court does not appear to have credited mother's account.   Regardless, if mother was on her medications and still decided to leave Angel without appropriate provisions, it suggests mother exhibits poor judgment even when medicated.   That does nothing to further her argument that Angel is not at risk of harm.

TURNER, P.J. KRIEGLER, J.