IN RE: ELIJAH H. (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

I. INTRODUCTION

Maria H., the mother of E.H., appeals from an order placing her son, E.H., in the custody of the father, A.B., at a six-month review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.21, subdivision (e).   The mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered the placement of the child with the father who resides in Seattle, Washington and ordered monitored visits for her.   We affirm the orders in all respects.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Petition

The family came to the attention of the juvenile court on April 24, 2009 when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) filed a petition on behalf of the four-and half year old child.   The petition alleged the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm and damage due to the mother and father's history of violent physical altercations.   The petition further alleged that the father had struck the mother.   In addition to the domestic violation allegation, the mother was alleged to have created a dangerous and detrimental home environment.   Those circumstances were:  on April 24, 2009, the child was found by law enforcement alone on Wilshire Boulevard without adult supervision;  on numerous other occasions, the child was found wandering outside the home without adult supervision;  on January 23, 2009, the child was found nude, standing alone in the rain;  and the mother gave the child Benadryl so he would sleep.   The father was alleged to have failed to provide the child with the necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

B. Detention Report And Order Detaining The Child

The detention report stated the child was detained.   The department received a referral on April 26, 2009, that the child was a victim of severe neglect by the mother and Susan N., the maternal grandmother.   A Beverly Hills police officer, identified only as Officer Tomlin, reported that the child, who has allegedly has Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism, was found alone on Wilshire Boulevard.   The child had crossed the street.   The child left the home while the maternal grandmother was caring for him.   The mother was in Texas on a business trip.   According to Officer Tomlin, this was the fifth time the child had been found alone on the streets.   It was documented the child was alone on January 23, March 31, and April 18 and 25, 2009.   Officer Tomlin stated that the mother had been provided with several resources and had not fully accessed them.   Officer Tomlin said the mother was not taking the child's disability seriously.   The mother left the child with the maternal grandmother, who reportedly had cancer.

A social worker reached the mother by telephone.   The mother stated she was in Texas on a business trip.   The mother changed her flight to return home early.   The mother said the maternal grandmother was in remission from cancer.   The mother admitted leaving the child with the maternal grandmother, who was capable of caring for him.   The mother said that a friend had agreed to care for the child during the day.   The grandmother was supposed to care for the child at night.   The mother was scheduled to be in Texas from April 24 through 27, 2009.

The mother stated she had been in California for only seven months after moving from Seattle, Washington.   The mother moved to California so that the child could have a better life.   The mother said the child began to have behavioral problems after a visit with the father in July 2008.   The mother refused to provide any information about the father except to say he was a “bad” man.   The father's whereabouts were unknown so he could not be interviewed.   While in Washington, the child was diagnosed as being hard of hearing.   The child had a late diagnosis because the mother did not know anything was wrong with him.   The mother attended a three-week seminar at John Tracy Center in Los Angeles to help her understand the child's hearing issue.   The mother contacted the Regional Center two weeks prior to April 26, 2009.   She was told she needed to wait for services.   The mother stated the child had an appointment scheduled on April 30, 2009, for a complete neurological examination.   When the mother was told the child was being detained, she asked if he had clothes, shoes and a pacifier.   When she was told that he had the items, the mother said, “OK then he is fine.”

At the police department, the social worker observed the child to be dressed appropriately.   The child did not speak and used limited words which were difficult to understand.   The child, who was four, used a pacifier.   The child was “social” and went to anyone who showed any interest in him.   The child was described as bright despite the developmental delays and lack of speech.   The child was capable of hearing because he turned his head when his name was called.   The child complied when he was asked to sit, stand or follow the social worker.

Before being placed in the foster home, a nurse examined the child.   The nurse concluded the child had developmental delays particularly in language and personal-social functioning.   The child was described as hyperactive with a short attention span.   The child had a developmental level of a two-year-old.   The nurse recommended:  specialized placement to manage the abnormal behaviors;  psychological testing for a diagnosis;  and auditory testing.   The child was referred to the Comprehensive Autism Treatment for Children Clinic.

The social worker interviewed the maternal grandmother.   The maternal grandmother denied having cancer and admitted lying about it so she would not be arrested.   The maternal grandmother said that she had been vomiting because the child was in “baby jail.”   The maternal grandmother:  spoke in a low, slow monotone voice;  made random statements;  at times, appeared to have difficulty focusing and following the social worker's questions;  and stated she was depressed and did not have medical insurance to seek help with her depression.   The grandmother said she and the child were sleeping together in the bed.   When she woke up to use the restroom around 11 p.m., she moved the bed which had been blocking the door leading to the restroom.   Because she was “exhausted,” the maternal grandmother went back to sleep but did not move the bed back to cover the door.   She called the police after she noticed the child was missing about 2:30 a.m. The maternal grandmother was concerned about having the child placed with the father.   The father blamed the maternal grandmother for the breakup with the mother.   The maternal grandmother said the father was planning to and had threatened to kill her.   The maternal grandmother said she was concerned about the child.

The home was a two bedroom apartment with an upstairs and downstairs in a clean neighborhood.   The second level has fire escapes on each end of the hallways.   The windows are both at a low level where a toddler can walk out onto the ledge and lower the fire escape stairs.   The apartment was located less than a mile away from Wilshire Boulevard, which has three lanes of traffic.

According to the maternal grandmother, they had gone through “barbaric” measures to try to keep the child in the home.   The front door had a small alarm unit with the wires ripped off and two small red legos used as a base for the system.   There was a bolt placed high on the door but it was not a dead bolt.   The lock was a small sliding lock that a child could easily open.   There was a light wooden chair the child could easily push over to the door to get out of the apartment.   The social worker discovered the mother had placed the alarm on the door herself.   The mother called the department on April 27, 2009, to say that a “handyman” had been contacted to “properly install” the alarm system.

The social worker found a total of seven referrals indicating the child had been found wandering on the streets.   Three of the referrals were unresolved.   The past referrals indicate that the mother promised she would not leave the child in the maternal grandmother's care.   The social worker concluded the maternal grandmother was unable to adequately care for the child.   However, the mother had left the child with the maternal grandmother for two days.

There were two substantiated referrals from September 28, 2009, one at 11:32 a.m. and another at 3:08 p.m. The mother was observed leaving the home and walking in front of the child.   The child was trying to catch up with the mother.   He was not wearing a shirt or shoes.   The mother did not acknowledge the child and kept walking.   A neighbor took the child to protect him from danger.   The mother returned later and picked the child up.   The neighbor reported that the mother frequently left the child home alone.   The mother subsequently refused to open her door.   On the same day, the mother was transported to Harbor General Hospital for a Health and Safety Code section 5150 mental health evaluation.   The mother was in the airport parking area of the Los Angeles International Airport blocking traffic.   The mother was yelling at people and throwing her belongings at people.   Among the items being thrown were bottles of vodka.   The mother was highly intoxicated and driving under the influence with the child.   A physician said the mother:  would be released after an overnight stay in the hospital;  had allowed a life situation to take control of her emotions;  and was angry but would be fine after she got some sleep and rest.   At that time, the mother said she took a job in Los Angeles to get help for the child at the John Tracy Hearing Clinic at the University of Southern California.   According to the mother, the clinic is world renowned.   The mother was advised that she needed to seek counseling to help learn to cope with stress.

On October 23, 2008, a referral of general neglect against the maternal grandmother was made but determined to be unfounded.   The mother said the babysitter was sick and the child was very creative.   The child got out of the house by using the window.   The mother said she had installed protective locks on the doors.   The mother wanted to try to get an alarm system.   The mother described the child as hearing and speech impaired.   The mother accepted referrals and signed a DCFS 802 Family Preservation Program Community-Based Consent to Release Information document.

On November 20, 2008, a second general neglect complaint against the maternal grandmother was made but also determined to be unfounded.   A caller found the child in the caller's driveway.   The caller thought the maternal grandmother had an alcohol problem.   The maternal grandmother appeared to need help in caring for the child.   The mother said she was aware of the driveway incident and placed an additional lock on the door.   The mother hired a fulltime babysitter.   The mother called the child autistic and hearing impaired.

A January 23, 2009 referral of general neglect was made and determined to be unfounded.   A caller reported the child was seen walking down the street alone and completely naked in the rain.   The child was close to home.   A neighbor found the child and took him to her home.   The mother had left the child with the maternal grandmother.   The maternal grandmother was asleep because of the medication and the child walked off.   The mother agreed not leave the child in the maternal grandmother's care.   The mother had provided stable daycare providers and secure locks.

On March 31, 2009, a severe neglect referral was made and remained unresolved.   The mother called the police at 10:10 p.m. and said the child unlocked the deadbolt and door handle.   The child ran away from the home.   A vehicle arrived at the police station at 10:35 p.m. with the child.   The driver and the occupant of the vehicle said that, as they were driving westbound on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, the child suddenly darted into traffic.   The child then proceeded to open the back door of their vehicle and engage in light conversation with them.   They immediately took the child to the Beverly Hills Police Department.   The child escaped by pulling a table over to the front door and climbing up to unfasten the deadbolt lock while the mother and maternal grandmother were watching television.

There was a second open referral dated April 18, 2009, because the child was found at 11:30 p.m. wandering in the middle of the street.   The mother was unaware the child was gone.   The mother signed a Structured Decision Making Safety Plan which included the installation of an alarm on April 20, 2009.   Until the alarm is installed, the mother and child were to sleep in the maternal grandmother's room and slide the bed over the door at night.   The mother was given referrals to West Side Regional and Children Hospital.   The mother was also given a referral for a support group for parents of children with disabilities.   The third open referral dated April 19, 2009, occurred after the child got out of bed and dragged a chair to the front door and unlocked it.   The child left the home and ran out into the street.   A citizen notified the police department.   The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining the child at the detention hearing on April 29, 2009.   The child was found to be person described by section 300 subdivisions (a), (b) and (g).

C. The Two Amended Petitions, Additional Reports And Events Leading Up To The Six-Month Review Hearing

On June 1, 2009, the department filed a first amended petition to add allegations the mother had created a dangerous home environment for the youngster by failing to provide appropriate child care and to implement safety plans to prevent him from leaving the home.   On the same date, the department also filed a last minute information document for the court.   The department reported the monitor for the visits, Maeva Hosmer, stated the mother interacted appropriately and had a positive approach.   The mother displayed patience but would benefit from a parenting class on how to set better boundaries.   This is because she tended to cater to what the child wanted.   Ms. Hosmer, felt that the child “call[ed] the shots” because the mother did not want him to feel discomfort.   For example, if the child wanted candy, the mother will initially tell him no and give in if he insisted.   Ms. Hosmer also described an incident during a visit at the park where the child started to walk away.   He refused to cooperate when the mother told him not to walk way.   The child ignored the mother and kept walking in the direction of a traffic area.   The mother was not fast enough to stop him.   Rather, Ms. Hosmer had to run and pick up the child.   The child started kicking and screaming and asking for the mother.   Ms. Hosmer noticed that the mother would pick up the child.   The child would then cry and say the mother was hurting him causing her to put him down.   The social worker reported that the child's unruly behavior may be the result of the mother's lack of parenting skills.   The foster mother reported the child was given choices within boundaries.   The child responded to her directions and was able to follow a daily, structured and routine schedule.

The department also reported that the Los Angeles Police Department responded to three calls at the residence of mother and the father between August 2008 and November 2008.   On September 21, 2008, at 4:03 a.m., the mother called and requested the police to keep the peace because the maternal grandmother, who lived next door, was banging on their walls and yelling.   Also, on September 21, 2008, the maternal grandmother called at 5:49 p.m. and stated the father had physically assaulted the child.   No police report was filed.   The juvenile child abuse unit was contacted but the department did not receive any hotline referrals about the incident.   On September 28, 2008, the police received a call from a female caller.   It was reported that a female and male were hitting and fighting in their backyard.   An unidentified female was heard crying, “Help me,” in the background.   Duplicate calls were made regarding the incident.   The police arrived and assessed the situation as only a dispute.

In a combined jurisdiction and disposition report, the department stated the child was with a licensed foster care worker.   On May 5, 2009, the father reported he started legal proceedings in Washington and California to establish paternity.   The department listed a total of nine child abuse referrals between September 28, 2008, and April 26, 2009.   The list included one referral dated October 27, 2008, which had not been listed in the detention report.   An anonymous party reported that on October 21, 2008, at 2 p.m., the child ran across the street without any adult supervision.   The reporting party walked with the child.   Finally, the child recognized his home.   The reporting party knocked on the door and observed a woman sleeping inside the home.   The woman woke up and kept responding, “What?” when the reporting party tried to explain that the child had crossed the street without supervision.   The woman seemed “out of it” but finally told the child, “I'm going to call your mother.”   A tenant from across the street reported that the child was walking unattended on October 24, 2008.   A different tenant said that the child walked into her apartment one time by himself and another time he was walking around the apartment complex by himself.   The complex was near Olympic Boulevard.   On November 13, 2008, a social worker arrived at the home unannounced and the child was there with a babysitter.   The child care provider stated she had been employed there for two weeks.   When interviewed on November 14, 2008, the mother stated:  she was aware that the child had been seen unattended in the neighborhood;  the maternal grandmother was watching the child but did not feel well and could not manage him;  she had installed a latch at the top of the door;  and she contacted a child care service on the day after she was visited by the police.

A Los Angeles International Airport police officer described the September 28, 2008 incident to a social worker, Albert Jackson.   The mother was getting into arguments with bystanders and the child was walking around in the parking lot.   When the officers arrived, the mother asked them to take her and the child to jail.   The mother said she had come to the airport to purchase tickets to Seattle to see the father, who left her the week before.   The mother said she lost control because she felt betrayed at the way the father left her.   The mother was very upset, crying and appeared to have been drinking.   The mother explained the father was having “issues” with the maternal grandmother, who did not like him.   According to the mother the maternal grandmother was interfering with the relationship between the father and the mother.

A Dr. Aron from the Harbor General/UCLA explained that the mother had an overload collapse from dealing with relationships and family issues.   The mother explained that she had moved from Seattle to Dallas, Texas for a couple of years where she lost contact with the father.   When the mother was transferred back to Seattle, she accidentally ran into the father.   The mother wanted the father to be involved in the child's life.   After the mother received a job offer in Los Angeles, the maternal grandmother and the father agreed to move to California.   The mother rented duplexes next to each other.   This was to allow the maternal grandmother to have her own living space.   The maternal grandmother did not like the way the father treated the mother.   When the mother came home sometime in late September 2008, the father had packed all his belongings announcing he was moving back to Seattle.   The mother was upset and the two began arguing.   After police officers were called to the home, the father was told he should leave the home before things escalated.

When interviewed by the dependency investigator, Catherine Woillard, the mother, speaking of the child's emotional issues, said:  “We knew something was wrong since he was two but the pediatrician said, ‘He's all boy.   He's fine.   Don't worry about it’.”   At age three, the child was found to have a hearing deficit.   In early 2008, the child was given hearing aids but would take them out.   The mother enrolled the child in the Listen and Talk preschool in Seattle for hearing impaired children.   The mother chose speech therapy rather than sign language for the child.   The mother learned of the John Tracy Clinic in Los Angeles.   She wanted to move to Los Angeles because the clinic was world renowned.   The mother, maternal grandmother and child attended a three-week program in July 2008.   The child made a number of improvements and was good about wearing his hearing aids.   The child received speech therapy every day.   The mother then began applying for positions in Los Angeles.   After the mother accepted a job in Los Angeles, she was informed that John Tracy Clinic did not have room for the child in the fall of 2008.   She started looking for other preschools.   The mother said she did not have insurance for three months after moving to Los Angeles.   When the mother took the child to a pediatrician in January 2009, he recommended the child see a neurologist and a behavioralist.   The mother guessed there might be an organic problem due to a traumatic birth.   She said the child was blue when he was born.   The mother stated all the reasons she came to Los Angeles did not materialize.   According to the mother, Seattle had better resources because in Los Angeles they had to be on waiting lists here.

The mother stated that since they came to Los Angeles and moved to her current residence, the child had been 100 percent out of control.   The maternal grandmother paid for babysitters.   The child had gone through four babysitters.   The mother also said that she had a lot of personal issues.   As a result the mother relied on the maternal grandmother who was able to properly take care of the child.   The mother wanted to figure out why she was so emotional and had to take time off from her job to get her life back in order after she was hospitalized.   The mother explained that the child's getting out of the apartment was part of a bigger problem.   According to the mother, she could put locks in but she needed doctors to help her figure out what was in the child's heart and head.   She thought that a neurologist and other doctors would help.

In terms of the domestic violence allegations, the mother said the father pushed her up against the wall and hit her in the face.   In terms of excessive discipline, the mother said the father hit the child.   The mother said she felt like she was “here today”;  i.e., involved in dependency proceedings, because she made the mistake of calling the father and asking him to live with them.   The mother claimed the child's emotional and behavioral issues were exacerbated when the father lived with them for two weeks.   She claimed the experience was traumatic and she never had behavioral issues with the child until after the father left.

The mother said she met the father in 2003.   When she was dating the father, one night he screamed and swore at her.   The father also pushed her.   She subsequently discovered the father was using drugs.   The mother broke up with him because of the drug usage.   The mother said the father had been arrested in Seattle on a charge.   The mother said she did not tell the father about the child until August 2008.   According to the mother, when the father came to Los Angeles he did not provide for the child or try to get a job.

The mother denied that the maternal grandmother had a drinking problem.   A friend of the mother, Natasha Cvjetit, told the department the maternal grandmother had a drinking problem.   According to Ms. Cvjetit, the mother said the maternal grandmother had a drinking problem.   Ms. Cvjetit said the mother would call and talk about the problems with the maternal grandmother and the father.   The mother said the maternal grandmother was under severe stress and going through a lot.   The dependency investigator described another incident:  “[Ms. Cvjetit] recounted she was on the telephone with the mother, and the mother, father child and paternal grandmother were locked in a motel bathroom while the maternal grandmother was outside the door screaming and yelling. [ ]  The mother paused and stated, ‘That didn't happen.   If she's talking about, there was one time, we got to the last stop, a hotel.   I was driving the truck and my mom was driving the car.   The firefighters were there.   There was a swimming pool and [the father] just threw [the child] in the pool and got in after him.   And we were all going ‘What are you doing’?”

The father was interviewed on May 5, 2009.   The father admitted not providing financially for the child.   The mother indicated she did not want any financial assistance from the father.   The father desired to have custody of the child so they could live together in Seattle.

The father denied ever hitting or pushing the mother.   According to the father, the domestic violence incident where the police were called occurred while the mother and maternal grandmother were both intoxicated.   The mother came home from work and the maternal grandmother was in front of the door intoxicated.   The mother was stressed and started drinking vodka.   The mother and maternal grandmother “were getting physical” in the father's words.   The father said:  Ms. Cvjetit overheard unspecified incidents while she was on the telephone;  the maternal grandmother would drink alcohol in a car;  every time she left the house, the maternal grandmother would go to a liquor store;  the maternal grandmother drinks vodka shots;  the maternal grandmother was always screaming because she was intoxicated;  and the police suggested he leave for a couple of days to calm down the maternal grandmother.   The father thought the mother and maternal grandmother would calm down and not fight in front of the child.   The mother thought the maternal grandmother could take care of the child.   However, according to the father the maternal grandmother was always intoxicated.   The father said:  “When I talked to [the mother], she told me she would get a nanny and take care of [the child].  [The mother] told me [the maternal grandmother] used to beat the nannies or cuss at them.   Nastasha knows.”   The dependency investigator further related:  “When asked if the child ever walked out of the house while he lived with the family, the father replied, ‘No.’ Never.   When I was with him or my mom was with him.   We'd just go to the park.   We didn't have any problems.”

The father stated he did not know about the child's existence for three and half years.   The father ran into the mother in Seattle.   For the first time, she told the father about the child.   They spent two months together and were supposed to be married.   The father lived with the mother and the child for a month and half from September until the middle of October 2008.   After moving to Seattle, the father sent gifts for the child's birthday.   The mother said she did not need anything from the father.   But, the father claimed he was not trying to avoid supporting the child.   The mother had not cooperated with the father while he tried to establish paternity in the State of Washington.   The mother had another man's name placed on the child's birth certificate.   The father provided other details about arguments and domestic violence involving the mother the maternal grandmother's drinking.

Ms. Cvjetit, a family friend, was interviewed.   Ms. Cvjetit had known the father since he was born and met the mother in 1997, through the maternal grandmother.   Ms. Cvjetit corroborated the aforementioned evidence and alcohol abuse and domestic violence but denied that the maternal grandmother suffered from cancer.

The mother's neighbor, Donna O'Leary, saw the child outside the home on his own at least five times.   The child's babysitter, identified only as Olivia, said she was hired through an agency in October 2008.   She initially worked three days a week for about three months.   Then she started working twice a week.   Olivia thought the maternal grandmother watched the child the other days of the week.   Olivia said the child would sometimes try to get out of the home.   Olivia would take the child to the park or to the mall to keep him relaxed.   The mother's former neighbor (speaking anonymously) said the child wandered unsupervised down the block towards Olympic Boulevard on more than a few occasions.   The neighbors on the block were very concerned.   It seemed the child was trying not to be in the situation at home.

The foster mother, Carey J. said the child was very comfortable and doing really well.   The child was thriving and receiving a lot of attention from her.   The first three or four nights he lived with her, the child would get up several times at night.   The foster mother slept outside the child's bedroom the first week.   The foster mother had an alarm on the door.   If the child got up during the night, the foster mother heard him.   The child would come to the foster mother's room so the alarm was not being used.   The child liked to go out and play.   But, he was not interested in trying to get out.   The child had not tried to escape out of the home at all.   The child was speaking a lot more since he got his hearing aid.   The child had learned a lot more and was good at expressing himself.   The child had high energy that increased in the evening.   The child had regular two hour naps daily and slept straight through at night.   Although the child was described having developmental delays and lack of speech, he was bright and enjoyed mechanical things.

The foster mother said initially the child would flee so that he had to be picked up when he ran.   The caregiver also practiced handholding.   At first, when the child would go to the park, it was difficult because he would kick and scream.   But his behavior had changed for the better.   The child listened.   The foster mother was amazed at the child's improvement.   The child was given a lot of free reign but he could not choose everything.   The foster mother stated that she had observed significant progress and growth in the child's behavior since he had been in her care.   The child responded to boundaries, re-redirection and a regulated schedule.   The foster mother had observed the mother and the child.   When the child acted out with the mother, she followed him around and tried to redirect him.   However, the mother would not exert any parental authority.

The mother did not follow through on accessing agreed upon services and making safety plans to prevent the child's detention.   On October 7, 2008, the maternal grandmother stated that the family would be participating in therapy at the John Tracy Clinic.   On October 8, 2008, the mother told a social worker she would be seeing a licensed clinical social worker from the clinic for individual counseling.   The mother stated the child would be attending the clinic for audio and verbal therapy.   The mother also said the child would have all his needs including preschool met at the clinic.   However, the mother had been advised in August 2008 the clinic did not have an opening in the preschool for the child.   The department report also listed the various forms the mother signed in which she agreed to access various services and to place safety features in the home to prevent the child from escaping the home.

A social worker also reported that it was possible the mother suffered from an untreated and undisclosed alcohol or substance abuse problem.   The mother denied any substance abuse but her body language changed when she was questioned about the subject.   The mother was reserved in answering the questions about alcohol use.   During the interview the maternal grandmother began to answer for the mother.   The maternal grandmother denied that the mother ever used drugs.   The father, however, had stated the maternal grandmother persuaded the mother to drink to “calm down.”   The mother would then become intoxicated.   On the day of the domestic violence incident, the mother was intoxicated.   The mother was intoxicated during the September 28, 2009 airport incident when she drove the child to the airport.

A department social worker concluded the mother did not take responsibility for the state of affairs.   Instead, the mother blamed the father for the child's behavior.   However, the father was only involved in the child's life for approximately four to six weeks.   The mother and maternal grandmother who resided in the same house had been the parental figures in the child's life.   The maternal grandmother had a substance abuse problem.   The social worker believed the child might have been escaping due to an unsafe home environment or the failure to protect or to take necessary steps to prevent him from leaving the residence.   The mother stated she did not need any parenting classes but would take one for children with special needs.   The mother claimed to have contacted a counselor.   The mother also blamed the child's behavioral and developmental issues for his escapes from the home.   Although the mother told the department and law enforcement the child was autistic, the source of the diagnosis was unknown.

By letter dated April 30, 2009, Dr. Ronald Gabriel, a neurologist, gave a diagnostic impression that the child may have a conduct or oppositional-defiant disorder.   However, Dr. Gabriel did not actually conduct a neurological examination because of the child's behavior.   The child was aggressive, violent, destructive, noncompliant and barely controllable with tactile restraints by both the mother and the foster mother.   Dr. Gabriel prescribed Risperdal on a trial basis to moderate the child's behavior.

The department recommended the mother comply with the following:  attend a regular parent education class and one for parents with special needs children;  attend individual counseling;  participate in an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation with the maternal grandmother and the child;  submit to six consecutive random drug and alcohol tests with negative results;  and if there is a positive test, complete a substance abuse treatment program.   The department recommended that the father complete parenting classes for children with special needs and obtain individual counseling.   The department recommended monitored visits for both parents.

On June 1, 2009, Terri Breuer, counsel for the department, advised the juvenile court that the Intensive Services Worker was present.   The worker said that the father and the child had a visit which went extremely well.   The child saw the father arriving for the visit.   The child ran to the father and they hugged.   Ms. Breuer said, “[The father and the child] appear to have an extremely loving relationship.”   The juvenile court ordered:  the child detained in shelter care;  family reunification services;  an evaluation of the father's home and reevaluation of the mother's home;  and neurological, medical and speech evaluations for the child.   The matter was continued to July 2, 2009, for a contested hearing.   The matter was set for mediation on June 22, 2009, but did not settle.   On June 22, 2009, the department filed a second amended petition adding the mother had created an endangered home environment for the child by leaving him with the maternal grandmother, who was incapable of caring for him and did not follow safety plans.   The juvenile court dismissed the first amended petition.

Also on June 22, 2009, the department filed a last minute information for the court document concerning a contact made by an Austin, Texas child protective services worker, Amelia Chavez.   Ms. Chavez contacted Los Angeles County social worker Mark White about a November 28, 2008 incident.   The Austin agency received a hotline referral naming the mother.   The child was detained because there had been prior incident wherein he was found without adult supervision.   The mother reportedly brought the child to Austin to research schools for the blind and hearing-impaired.   The mother was staying at a hotel.   The child was found wandering around the hotel and the Austin Police Department was contacted.   It was unknown how long the child had been wandering around the hotel.   Austin police officers knocked on all the hotel room doors attempting to locate the family.   The mother was eventually located when the child led the officers back to a room that they had already knocked on but received no response.   When the police officers knocked on the door again with flashlights, it took the mother several minutes to answer the door.   The mother appeared to be intoxicated.   The mother told the police officers she only drunk “a little vodka” with orange juice.   The police officers observed that the vodka bottle was half empty.   When the police officers informed the mother the child had been found wandering around the hotel without supervision, she turned to the bed and stated, “My child is missing!”   The mother insisted there was another child missing causing police officers and resources (helicopters and many police officers) to be used to search for a second alleged missing child.   When the maternal grandmother was contacted, the police discovered the mother did not have a second child.   The mother was assessed by a mental health officer, Timothy Diven, who concluded she required psychiatric care.   The mother told Mr. Diven that she has an alcohol problem and drinks every day when she gets home after work.   The mother said her drinking problems had started three months earlier when she had problems with her husband.   The mother was transported to a mental health facility where she was diagnosed with an alcohol-induced psychosis.

Kennie Russell, who worked with Austin Police Department Victims Crisis Services response, subsequently reported the police received a telephone call that the child was running around naked in the lobby of a hotel.   The hotel was next to a busy highway.   An unidentified gentleman from a different room gave the child some clothes.   The police officer reported that the mother did not run to grab the child when she eventually opened the door.   She began asking the police officers, “Why are you doing this to me?” or, “Why are you taking my child?”   According to Ms. Russell, the mother never accepted responsibility for the child running about the hotel and not wearing any clothing.

A July 2, 2009 interim review report, stated it was suspected the mother's inability to adequately care for the child was due to a lack of parenting skills, inappropriate child care, alcohol abuse and underlying mental health issues.   The mother had very little awareness that her actions contributed to the child's safety risks.   The mother did not show any remorse after the child was able to escape from the home and the hotel room.   Citing the airport and Texas hotel incidents, the report stated the “crux” of the mother's neglect of the child was her mother's alcohol problem.   The report also questioned the truth of the mother's claim the father was abusive towards her.   This was because the mother had made statements about numerous subjects which were either conflicted or had “been less than forthright.”   The department further noted that law enforcement had been summoned to the home but no reports were filed and no one was arrested.

On July 2, 2009, the juvenile court found the father to be the presumed father.   The mother pled no contest to the second amended petition.   The juvenile court sustained the amended language as to section 300, subdivision (b)(1) and dismissed the remaining counts in the interest of justice.   As sustained, it was alleged:  “[The mother] created an endangering home environment for the child, who has a hearing loss, delayed language skills and a neurological disorder, in that mother did not consistently provide appropriate supervision including but not limited to leaving the child with maternal grandmother ․ who is not capable of providing care for the child and failing to consistently follow through with safety plans to prevent the child from leaving the home.   Mother's failure to provide appropriate supervision for the child resulted in, on prior occasions, and on or about [January 23, 2009,] and [April 24, 2009,] the child being found alone wandering outside the home without adult supervision.   Mother's failure to provide supervision for the child places him at risk of harm.”

The child was declared a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b).  The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence a substantial danger existed to the child's physical and emotional health and safety.   The juvenile court ordered:  family reunification services for the mother and the father;  the department to initiate an Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children investigation for the father in Seattle;  the father and mother to complete parenting classes for special needs children;  the mother to undergo random drug and alcohol testing;  the mother to be in individual counseling;  the mother and the child to complete an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation;  and monitored visits for the mother and the father.   The department was granted discretion to liberalize visitation with an approved monitor.

Dr. Nancy Kaser-Boyd filed her evaluation on August 24, 2009.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd reviewed the records from the case and interviewed the mother.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd quoted the mother's description of the events leading to the dependency case and other related matters including the airport and Texas hotel incidents.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd concluded there was no clear indication the mother has a psychiatric disorder or psychological symptoms.   There was a strong indication the mother has histrionic features.   Women with such a profile tend to be somewhat dramatic.   They will typically have good self-control but, at times of stress, they may have mini-explosions of emotion or even a rapid decomposition into a psychotic state.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd believed the airport and Texas hotel incidents causing psychiatric hospitalizations indicate the dynamics of hysteria.

Dr. Kaser-Boyd theorized that the child with special needs related to birth trauma became more hyperactive and uncontrollable in response to his surroundings.   This included the decomposition of the mother, being left alone with the screaming and intoxicated maternal grandmother and distress at the father's departure to Seattle.   The child was very eager to see the mother and seemed very happy when she arrived for the evaluation.   The two had a close relationship.   The child was clearly bonded to the mother.   His affect ranged from flat to depressed.   When the mother arrived, the child seemed happy and content.   The child said, “I miss my mommy.”   Dr. Kaser-Boyd also noted that a brain damaged and hyperactive child is very difficult and challenging for any parent and especially for one who works full time.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd stated that the child's behavior in foster care improved but only after he was placed on Risperdal.

Dr. Kaser-Boyd indicated the mother had a good understanding of the child's limited language skills.   The mother was very energetic, positive and warm in dealing with the child.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd suggested as to the mother, “If she behaved irrationally in the past;  it may have been the result of all of the stressors in her life.”   Dr. Kaser-Boyd concluded the department had intervened at a crucial time for the family and pointed to significant changes that needed to be made.   The mother had made significant changes and was “very on top” of the child's hearing and cognitive issues.   This included securing services in place for the child (Beverly Hills School District and setting up an individualized education plan meeting) and staying in contact with the John Tracy Clinic.

On August 26, 2009, in a last minute information document, the department reported the father had traveled from Seattle for monitored visits with the child once a month.   The father had weekly contacts with the child by telephone.   The visits were appropriate.   The child was always happy to see the father.   The child always greeted the father with a hug and a kiss.   The father brought clothes, shoes, toiletries and toys.   The father was attentive to the child's needs.   The father did not have a problem understanding the child's speech.   The father at times translated the child's speech to the social worker.   The father and the child were bonded.   Although the child would get very difficult and restless during visits, the father appeared to be aware and appropriately redirected the child.   The child listened and took direction well from the father.   The father was enrolled in a parenting program.

The mother had weekly monitored visits.   The foster mother reported the visits went well.   The mother walked with or went swimming with the child.   Sometimes, the mother would hold the child and treat him like a baby.   The mother had to redirect the child several times before he would listen to her.   The mother was participating in a parenting program and individual counseling.   The mother did not appear for random drug and alcohol testing on July 13 and August 5, 2009.   On July 17, 2009, social worker Tasha Beard spoke to the mother about the missed July 13, 2009 test.   The mother stated she did not understand the instructions so she did not call about the test.   Ms. Beard explained the instructions to the mother again about the drug and alcohol testing procedures.   When the mother missed the August 5, 2009 test, the mother said, “[N]o one called me.”   Ms. Beard stated that the instructions had been given to the mother in July 2009.   At that time the mother understood that she was required to contact the number.   Ms. Beard referred the mother for on demand testing on August 13, 2009 but the mother failed to appear.   The mother was randomly tested on August 14, 2009 and had a negative test.   The child was seen by neurologist, Dr. Habib Ismail.   According to the foster mother, Dr. Ismail reported the child's brain function is normal.

On October 29, 2009 the mother filed a section 388 petition requesting immediate reunification with the child or, in alternative, placement of him closer to the mother's Beverly Hills residence.   In an attached pleading, the mother asserted the juvenile court had ordered 10 random drug tests which could take months to complete.   The juvenile court set the section 388 petition for hearing on December 11, 2009.   On December 11, 2009, the department filed a letter from the mother's therapist.   The therapist's letter indicated the mother was receiving weekly individual therapy and had completed 10 sessions.   The department also filed a letter indicating the mother had completed a parenting program.   A December 11, 2009 status review report and response to the mother's section 388 petition, stated she and the father were in partial compliance with the case plan.   The mother had been very inconsistent in compliance with the random alcohol testing requirement.   The mother missed eight appointments and had a positive test for alcohol on November 24, 2009.   During a visit to the mother's home on October 6, 2009, a children's social worker, Joe Eisenfeld, observed a half bottle of wine in her refrigerator.

The mother visited the child once to twice a week.   The mother attended school and medical appointments with the child.   The mother was very attentive and affectionate with the child.   The child was very receptive to the mother's attention.   There is a strong relationship between them.   During the same visits, however, the mother did not demonstrate an ability or motivation to redirect the child or set boundaries for him.   The mother's visits were liberalized to unmonitored day visits on December 4, 2009.

The father had cooperated with the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children home study.   The Department of Social and Health Services of Washington gave approval to the father for possible placement of the child.   A background check did not reveal any criminal history for the father.   On December 1, 2009, the father notified the department that he was in the process of enrolling the child in at the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center.   On November 9, 2009, the department liberalized the father's visits to unmonitored day visits.

On September 9, 2009, the Regional Center of Pomona found the child did not have a developmental disability (conditions similar to cerebral palsy, autism, or epilepsy of mental retardation).   Rather, the child was diagnosed with Mixed Expressive Receptive Language Disorder which was found to be secondary to the child's hearing disability.   The evaluator recommended the child be provided with speech and language therapy which will be available in the school district.

On June 29, 2009, Dr. Rita Collins-Faukner conducted a psychological and developmental evaluation on the child.   Dr. Collins-Faukner noted the child had delays in language ability.   However, Dr. Collins-Faukner indicated the deficiency might be attributed to lack of schooling opportunities due to age, coupled with the child's hearing disability.   Dr. Collins-Faukner noted the child had been making good progress as his vocabulary had increased significantly while he had been in foster care.   The child had very short attention span and was very impulsive which required structure within all of his activities.   The foster mother seemed to understand this because she worked with, played with and supervised him.   The child needed one on one time.   He also needed a home that is completely and beyond the normal ways of child proofing.   The child figured things out and learned quickly when something was presented to him.   The child was very sad after seeing the mother at visits.   The child commented:  “Mommy went away, Daddy went away.   I love Mommy, I love Daddy.”

The child was being monitored and treated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Elliot Noon. The child was taking Tenex for hyperactivity and insomnia.   The child was no longer taking Risperdal as Dr. Noon found the drug to be ineffective.   The child was initially observed by the social workers and foster parents to be very hyper and impulsive.   The child's foster parents, school teachers and daycare provider reported the child is comparatively calm and easily managed.   There were no complaints of the child running from any of them.   According to the foster mother, the child was not waking up as much at night.

The child began kindergarten in September 2009.   Both the mother and department requested Yorba Elementary conduct an individualized education plan assessment for the child.   The mother was at the Student Study Team meeting for the assessment.   During the meeting, the mother was actively involved in the assessment and case planning for the child.   However, the child had be redirected by a teacher and the foster mother to sit down and not run around.   The mother did not redirect the child or set any boundaries for him.   The child was found eligible and assigned to a school psychologist, Laura Lubin.   The mother provided copies of a speech and language progress report from the John Tracy Clinic summer program dated July 2008.   The report clearly indicated the mother had been invested in the past in the child's education and development and obtaining services and treatment for him.

Neither parent wanted the child placed with the other parent.   The mother said she was ready to have the child released to her.   The mother asserted the father's visits should be monitored because he has a drug and criminal history and is incapable of meeting the child's special needs.   A social worker reported, “The father wants the child ․ released to his care and believes ․ he can meet the needs of the child and provide him with a good home.”   The father said he was willing to do anything to have full custody.   The father did not want the child released to the mother.   He said the mother “has serious problems with alcohol use and will not stop” drinking anytime soon.   The father believed her alcohol use led to the supervision issues which allowed the child to roam the streets.

The social worker believed it was premature to place the child with either parent.   The mother's participation in therapy and parenting programs did not mean that she had adequately addressed her personal issues of parenting or strengthened her coping mechanisms so that the child could be safely returned to her home.   The father had not enrolled in a therapy class.   The social worker believed it would be premature to place the child out of state with the father due to efforts to reunite the child with the mother.   The child had been observed to be very attached to the mother.   The mother's frequent visits have been very positive to the child.   The child looked forward to the visits with the mother.   The social worker concluded ending the mother's visits would “surely be emotionally” detrimental.   The social worker stated such a permanent separation should only be considered if the mother's reunification efforts were unsuccessful.

On December 11, 2009, the juvenile court continued the matter for contested hearings on the mother's section 388 petition and the six-month review on January 11, 2010.   The juvenile court also authorized the child to visit with the father in Seattle.

On January 11, 2010, in an interim review report, the social worker recommended that both parents have unmonitored visitation.   Both parents had done well with visitation.   They picked the child up and returned him to the foster parents clean, groomed and fed.   The child told the foster mother that he was happy visiting with the parents.   The father began weekend visits on January 7, 2010.   The father enrolled at the Hearing Speech and Deafness Center in Washington.   The father met with an intake counselor and provided all the past medical and psychological testing.   Once the father is permitted to have extended visits with the child they will begin conjoint counseling pertaining to special needs education.   The department was amenable to any court order permitting the child to visit the father in Washington.

The social worker reported the mother had a seizure on January 5, 2010.   This occurred while the mother was dropping the child off with the foster mother.   The mother fell to the floor unconscious and was taken to a hospital.   The social worker spoke to a Pomona Hospital staffer in the intensive care unit and was told the mother's condition was unclear.   But the toxicology screens indicated the mother's condition was not drug or alcohol induced.   As of January 8, 2010, the mother was unconscious on a respirator in critical condition.

On February 8, 2010, a department report related that the mother had regained consciousness in January 2010.   The mother signed a consent of release of her toxicology screen tests performed at the time of her hospitalization.   The toxicology screen tests indicate there were no drugs or alcohol detected at the time the mother fainted.   The mother said it was the first time she had ever fainted and attributed the incident to a low sodium count.   The mother objected to the juvenile court's authorization of a Seattle visit between the father and the child.   The mother stated the father could not manage the child's special needs.

The child visited the father from January 16 to 22, 2010.   The visit went well.   The child was well behaved during the trip and there were no problems while he was being flown to Seattle.   The father stated the child enjoyed the visit.   The child did not have any mental health or behavioral problems.   The father ensured that the child spoke daily with the mother by phone.

A problem arose when the father tried to return the child to Los Angeles.   The father telephoned a Los Angeles County social worker, Mr. Eisenfeld, and stated the child was refusing to get on the airplane.   The child did not want to leave Seattle.   The father had to switch to the next available flight.   After the father allayed the child's fears and anxiety, the two boarded the flight and returned to Los Angles without any problems.

D. Testimony At The Sixth Month Review Hearing

On February 8, 2010, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on the mother's section 388 petition and the six-month review.   The school's psychologist, Ms. Lubin, testified that she completed a psycho-educational and individualized education plan evaluations on the child on January 25, 2010.   According to Ms. Lubin, the mother was “highly involved” in the individualized education plan and the child's education.

Ms. Lubin had seen the child since September 2009 when school began.   Since January 25, 2010, Ms. Lubin checked on the child every day that she was present at his elementary school.   This was approximately twice a week.   The child was doing well in school.   Because of the evaluation, he was in a small group setting.   The child was placed in a specialist program with speech and language services and communicative and handicapped itinerary services.   When she initially began to evaluate the child, on one occasion, he seemed groggy.

The foster mother told Ms. Lubin that the child was on medication, which had been changed by the time of the January 25, 2010 evaluation.   The child initially did not consistently wear his hearing aids.   But, at the time of her testimony, the child wore the hearing aids more regularly.   Since the child had been placed in the small group setting, he was very excited to come to school and interacted better with other children.

Ms. Lubin stated she did not know enough about the case to render an opinion about the child's placement.   Ms. Lubin also did not have enough interaction with the child to render an opinion about whether he had a close bond with the mother.   Ms. Lubin observed the child run and hug the mother.   The child had recently said he was making the mother a Valentine and said, “I love mom.”   Ms. Lubin was unaware that the father was even in the picture.   The child did not talk to her about the father.

Dr. Kaser-Boyd testified she had been conducting an Evidence Code section 730 evaluations for 30 years.   As noted, Dr. Kaser-Boyd was appointed to evaluate the mother and the child.   The juvenile court asked Dr. Kaser-Boyd if the alcohol issue raised any concerns about the mother's ability to parent the child.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd admitted she did not have any information about the alcohol testing.   This was because Dr. Kaser-Boyd had not interviewed the mother on the issue.   But, on the surface, the alcohol testing issue would give Dr. Kaser-Boyd some concern.   She would normally need to interview the person before expressing an opinion.   A blood to alcohol of level .02 would not by itself concern her, but it might in connection with other missed tests.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd did not believe the mother had an alcoholic personality.   The mother did not look like a chronic alcoholic.

Dr. Kaser-Boyd believed that it would be detrimental to take the child away from the mother.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd was particularly concerned that the child saw the mother have a seizure.   According to Dr. Kaser-Boyd, any child that observed the seizure incident would need some additional security and reassurance that the mother was all right and would not be abandoned.   Because of the child's developmental delays and medical issues, he was more fragile than other children.   It was in his best interests to do what was needed to make him feel secure about the mother.   This would be accomplished by regular visitation.   Every weekend would be a good plan in her view.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd testified that moving the child out of the Los Angeles area would mean he had fewer contacts with the mother.

Dr. Kaser-Boyd did not evaluate the father.   She knew something good about him based on the reports.   She could not recommend the child be placed with a person she had not evaluated.   She was concerned about the domestic violence reports.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd thought some of the information about the father was in a department report.   However, the source of the information was maternal relatives.

Gregory Lockett, a marriage and family therapist, had been providing individual therapy for the child for six months.   Mr. Lockett met with child in the foster home.   Mr. Lockett was asked if the child asked about the mother during therapy.   Mr. Lockett responded:  “He's mentioned his mother.   He said he missed his mother.   But he doesn't ask for her every time I see him.   Usually, if we talk about mother, I bring it up.”   Mr. Lockett added the child usually wanted to talk about “things five-year-olds like” to discuss.   Mr. Lockett saw the child on the date of the mother was unconscious.   As noted, the child saw the mother while she was unconscious.   Because the child saw the mother bleeding from the mouth and being put into an ambulance, he thought she was dead.   The child was upset but not totally distraught and wanted to talk about the incident.   Based on what he saw, the child believed the mother was dead.   The child would not listen to Mr. Lockett and others, who tried to explain the mother was alive.

The child talked about visiting the father in Seattle.   The child said it was raining but he had a good time.   The child told the foster parents about an incident of domestic violence.   Therefore, Mr. Lockett questioned the child about it.   The child said, “Daddy hit mommy.”   The child would not elaborate.   Mr. Lockett had not seen the child with either parent.

Mr. Lockett worked with the child on reactive attachment disorder where the child bonded with any male.   The child had resolved the inappropriate behavior.   Mr. Lockett was working on the child's Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms, oppositional behaviors, short attention spans and lack of focus.   In the six months they had worked together, Mr. Lockett noticed the child's impulse control was better.   The child was more compliant with school rules.   He had demonstrated some compliance with rules at home.   When the child initially began therapy:  he was very isolated and had poor social skills;  he did not interact with his peers very well;  and it was hard for him to speak and enunciate so people could understand him.   The child had changed quite a bit and improved.   According to Mr. Lockett, the child's health issues were of a”high risk” nature so that it would help to have a parent with experience dealing with the special needs.

The father testified that he was employed as a security officer with the Department Homeland Security.   His normal hours of work were 4 a.m. to noon.   The father was screened before he was hired.   The father had never been arrested.   He denied hitting the mother.   The father lives in an apartment with the paternal grandmother.   The paternal grandmother agreed to provide care for the child when the father is working.

The father completed a court-ordered parenting class where he received training for special needs children.   The father went to the Speech, Hearing and Deafness Center in Seattle.   The clinic offered early education.   The child could be enrolled after a speech therapy evaluation.   The father had scheduled the child for an evaluation and a pediatrician during the scheduled three week Seattle visit.   The visit was cut short to six days because the child had to return the child to Los Angeles for a doctor's appointment.   The Seattle appointments had to be canceled.   When the father tried to bring the child back to Los Angeles, the youngster was upset and crying on the airplane.   The child was saying he did not want to go to Los Angeles.   They were asked to leave the airplane because the child would not stay in the seat belt.   The father began implementing what he had learned in the parenting class about special needs children.   The father took his time and let the child know that he would be seeing the mother.   The child was then the first in line when they took a later flight.

During the visit in Seattle, the father was able to redirect the child.   The father spent time walking with the child.   The father wanted to make sure the child got fresh air before sleeping because the child was taking medication.   The father secured the apartment but the child did not try to escape.   There was a playground in the building where the child played with other children.   One of the father's friends had a child almost the same age and the two children played together.   The father visited the child once a month.   He talked to the child twice a week on the telephone.   The father had three overnight visits with the child in Los Angeles and the Seattle visit was the fourth.   The visits went “great” in the father's words.

The father wanted custody of the child.   The father wanted the child to be able to see the mother whenever she wanted as long as she was getting better.   The father promised to do whatever was necessary to facilitate visits with the mother and the child.   The father thought the mother might have an alcohol problem.   This was based on what he saw in the juvenile court reports.   The father had also observed the mother drinking “just for a short time period” before he left for Seattle.   According to the father, he and the mother got along well now.

The mother testified that she was hospitalized with a high fever and the flu.   She lost nutrients (sodium and potassium) from her body.   She had a seizure from the fever and went into a coma.   The mother explained that, on the day she passed out, she had picked the child up from his foster home in the morning.   She felt fine until around noon.   She called a friend and asked him to drive the child back to the foster home.   While they were driving, the mother threw up six times from the flu.

The child was diagnosed as hearing impaired at the age of three.   The mother immediately began looking at resources in Seattle.   The mother attended many clinics with audiologists at Children's Hospital.   The mother also went to the Speech, Hearing and Deafness Clinic in Seattle with the father in August 2008.   The mother also went to the University of Washington audiology department.   The mother was not satisfied with what she heard.   The mother did not believe that Seattle had the same quality of teachers as Los Angeles.   The mother completed a 30-hour parenting class.   The mother was in individual counseling twice a week addressing personal and family issues, alcohol, boundaries, choices, decision making and stress.

The mother denied being an alcoholic.   The mother testified she had made a poor choice to use alcohol given:  the stressful times of moving to Los Angeles;  the problems with the father and their families;  and the child's health issues.   If the child was returned to her, the mother would continue testing.   The mother now refused to go to parties.   When the mother attends fashion shows for her job, she now asks for sparkling water.   The mother was unable to undergo alcohol testing for a period of time because she had been “mugged” on September 26, 2009.   The mother missed a test on May 26, 2009 because she had not actually been told that she needed to appear.   The mother missed the July 13, 2009 test because she was out of town.   The mother claimed she was unaware that she missed tests on August 5 and 13, 2009.   The mother testified that she was “sure” it was in the paperwork that she had missed a September 2, 2009 test.   The mother was excused from the tests she missed on October 1 and 14, 2009, because she was hospitalized or on bed rest.   The mother explained her November 24, 2009 positive test of .02 percent blood alcohol level as “underneath the legal limit.”   The mother testified that she was very open about the test result which occurred after she attended a party.   The half-bottle of wine that was in her refrigerator on October 6, 2009, was for cooking.   When the mother was told to take a test the following day, she went to the facility and signed in but was very sick.   She was told she would have to wait over an hour because there was no woman to take her in the restroom for the test.   The mother tested twice in February 2010.   The mother also was tested at the hospital and three times with her doctor.   All the tests were negative.   Addressing Dr. Kaser-Boyd's point the need for counseling to resolve hysterical personality traits, the mother addressed those issues with exercising, deep breathing, reading and a support group.

If the child were returned to her, the mother would support a co-parenting relationship with the father.   The mother had hired a fulltime babysitter.   The mother stated that she had a “beyond-belief” security system in her home.   The mother had enrolled the child at a school three blocks from her place of employment.   The child would be able to have speech therapy at the elementary school which has an after-school daycare program.   The maternal grandmother was no longer living in the mother's home.

E. The Juvenile Court's Ruling

The matter was continued to February 9, 2010 for argument.   The juvenile court found the conditions that originally justified jurisdiction still existed and ordered placement of the child in the father's home.   In resolving the placement issue as to the father under section 366.21, subdivision (e), the juvenile court found detriment if the child were placed with the mother:  “With respect to the mother's testimony, I was pretty clear at disposition that I felt mother had a serious drinking problem.   And that was based on the episode in Texas [and] the episode that happened at the airport.   And so I ordered that mother randomly alcohol test.  [¶] And what I wanted to see was whether or not mother could refrain from using alcohol for a period of time.   Now, I didn't say that I thought she was an alcoholic.   But I did express concern that she was abusing alcohol.  [¶] And if someone can refrain from using alcohol for a period of several months or longer, then, that would indicate to me that they do not have an alcohol abuse problem, and that would have been the end of the story.   But the problem is the mother didn't do that.  [¶] There are a number of missed tests-I believe eight-seven missed tests and one positive test for alcohol-over a period of a couple of-well, more than a couple of months.   And that continues to raise the question in my mind as to whether or not she has an alcohol abuse problem.   And I have to say that I still believe she does.  [¶] I made it very clear to her that this was a big issue for the court.   And that was why I did not return [the child] to her at disposition.   So knowing that this is a big issue for the court, that she's basically being watched for alcohol use, I would find-find it very concerning that she missed all these tests.  [¶] And I frankly didn't find her excuses to be all that credible.   In addition, even knowing that she was being under the microscope as far as alcohol abuse, the department still found half a bottle of wine in her refrigerator.   I don't believe that it was wine being used for cooking.  [¶] And, in addition, she did have positive test for alcohol.   I realize it was .02.   That's what the alcohol content was when the test was taken.   What it was at the time the alcohol was-was ingested, we don't know.   But the fact that it was a .02 doesn't really mean that I can quantify how much alcohol ․ was ingested.   I can only state that she had a positive test.

The juvenile court continued:  “With respect to her therapy, I have to agree with counsel that it doesn't seem to be working all that successfully.   I realize that she was nervous.   She was trying to talk with vocal cord injuries, and she was under pressure to get her testimony done.  [¶] But a lot of her statements were rather belligerent.   She did not follow directions particularly well when we were trying to keep her on track.   And she flatly denied that she had any type of alcohol abuse problem, which makes me believe that further reunification services for mother are probably not going to be very successful because she has not been able to refrain from using alcohol and test clean through the pendency of the disposition to the [section 366.]21(e) date.   The [section 366].21(f) date is in the end of June.”

The juvenile court explained the decision to place the child in the home of the father thusly.  “With respect to the father, on the other hand, I was pretty impressed by father.   It is true he did not have a lot of contact with his son prior to the case coming into the system.   However, since he appeared in court, he has really stepped up to the plate here in a way that I wish more fathers would do.  [¶] I mean, it's rather extraordinary for the fathers that we see to have somebody, at their own cost, fly down to California monthly to visit with their son.   That's not cheap.   And, clearly, father, while, I mean, he's employed, he doesn't seem to have a lot of extra money because he's living in a rather small apartment.   So he's really made a priority of building a relationship with this child.  [¶] The other thing that really impressed me about father was he seemed to be a very calm person.   His answers were very deliberate.   He really did not seem to get easily upset, even when some of the questioning was difficult.  [¶] The way he handled the incident with the airplane I thought was pretty good.   I mean, we've all been on airplanes where children have been upset.   And it can be very-it can be very difficult for the parents trying to calm down a little child.  [¶] But he handled it appropriately.   He was asked to take the child off the plane.   He did so.   And he was able to get the child back on the plane.   And it sounds as if the child was upset at having to leave Seattle.  [¶] I think father, basically, is very impressive as a father.   He did not have a lot of time on the last visit to really do much with the child.   But he, clearly-you know, he picked out activities the child liked.”

The juvenile court continued:  “And I think this is very, very important for children that ․ have attention deficit disorder and other hyperactivity disorders is they do need to have physical exercise.   And father testified that he took the child out.   They did activities, went on walks.   And the child was tired and slept at night.   And that's really important for some of our kids.   [¶] The fact that the visit was cut short was done without my knowledge.   I ordered a three-week visit, and I expected it to happen.   Whoever decided it was a good idea to cut short father's visit did it without my permission.   But father appeared very genuine, and he appeared very concerned.   And he appeared to have the skills necessary to work with this child.  [¶] And, sadly I-I really wish that mother had done what I requested of her, which was to refrain from alcohol use and provide proof of that through testing.   And that just hasn't happened.  [¶] So, while I realize, if this is not the best scenario for a child to have an appropriate parent in one state and a parent that the child has lived with for most their life in another state, the reality is ․ I can't say that I that I think mother is going to make any different changes in the next four and half months.  [¶] And while I realize that, placing the child with the father, the child is going to, obviously, miss the mother, the reality is that seeing children with parents who continue to abuse substances is very detrimental to them.   It's very hard on a child.   And, I think that, as the child grows up, it's going to have even more of an effect.”

The juvenile court also denied the mother's section 388 petition as the proposed change in custody was not in the child's best interests.   The mother was given monitored visits and unmonitored telephone contact with the child.   This timely appeal followed.

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Home of the Father Order

The mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering the child placed with the father in the State of Washington at a section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review hearing.²  At the six-month review hearing, there is a statutory presumption a child will be returned to parental custody unless the juvenile court finds the return of the youngster to his or her parent would create a substantial risk of detriment. (§ 366.21, subd. (e);  Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249;  Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 305.)   The department had the burden of establishing detriment by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 366.21, subd. (e);  In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 262;  In re Heather B. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 535, 554.)

We review a custody determination for an abuse of discretion (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319;  Bridget A. v. Superior Court, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 300-301.)   Custody determinations are not disturbed in a dependency proceeding in the absence of an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd exercise of discretion.  (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319;  Bridget A. v. Superior Court, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 300-301.)

The department argues the juvenile court could properly find returning the child to the mother would be detrimental to him.   Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude the juvenile court order placing the child in the home of the father exceeded the bounds of reason.   The father completed a parenting class for children with special needs.   This was the only juvenile court ordered program the father was required to complete.   The Department of Social and Health Services of Washington gave approval to the father for possible placement of the child.   A background check revealed no criminal history for the father.   The father enrolled the child in at the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center.   The father began having unmonitored overnight visits with the child in November 2009.   The father had six-day visit with the child in Seattle in January 2010.   The visit was cut short from a three-week visit due to the child's scheduled medical appointments in California.   The department reported the visit had gone well.   The child did not want to leave Seattle.   By all reports, the child was bonded to the father.   The father agreed to allow the mother to have frequent contact with the child.   The father was willing to co-parent the child.   Furthermore, the department conceded that there was no evidence to suggest the father might harm the child.   The sole reason identified by the department on the detriment issue for the mother to reunify with the child.   However, the department noted the mother was not close to reunifying with the child due to her alcohol issues and personality disorders.   In any event, the evidence did not establish as a matter of law that it would be detrimental for the child to be placed with the father. (§ 366.12, subd. (e);  In re James Q., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 262;  In re Heather B., supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 554.)   Therefore, we must uphold the juvenile court's decision placing the child in the home of the father.

The mother nevertheless claims the juvenile court should not have ordered the placement in Seattle because it would be detrimental to the child because:  the child has brain damage, hearing loss and language delays;  the child should not have been placed away from the mother and medical and rehabilitative services in Los Angeles;  and the evidence including the bonding study showed detriment to the child from if he was separated from the mother.   These arguments all suggest that we make a different detriment finding from the juvenile court.   We cannot reweigh the evidence.   The juvenile court's detriment determination placing the child in the home of the father is based on sufficient evidence and must be upheld.  (In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 833;  In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.)

In any case, none of the mother's arguments support a finding the juvenile court abused its discretion.   It should be noted the mother's brain damage claim is not supported by the record.   According to the foster mother, Dr. Ismail reported the child's brain function is normal.   The child was also evaluated at the Regional Center of Pomona in September 2009.   The child was found not to have a developmental disability (conditions similar to cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy of mental retardation).   Rather, the child was diagnosed with Mixed Expressive Receptive Language Disorder which was found to be secondary to the child's hearing disability.   The mother's brain damage argument lacks merit.   For similar reasons, there is simply no merit to the mother's claim California has better resources than the State of Washington to meet this child's special needs.

With respect to the bonding study, no doubt Dr. Kaser-Boyd believed there was a bond between the mother and the child and detriment from the child by separation.   However, the juvenile court was not bound by Dr. Kaser-Boyd's opinion because the detriment determination could be made without opinion testimony premised upon testimony by a professional such as her.  (Evid.Code §§ 730;  801;  In re Eric A. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1394 & fn. 4 [a court is never obliged to appoint an professional to assist in making a factual or legal determination under Evidence Code section 730];  Laurie S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195, 202 [bonding study under Evidence Code section 730 is only an information gathering tool].)   Furthermore, Dr. Kaser-Boyd's opinion was rendered without the benefit of conducting an interview with the mother on the missed alcohol tests.   Dr. Kaser-Boyd also testified it would be a matter of concern that the mother had missed seven tests and tested positive in November 2009.   Moreover, Dr. Kaser-Boyd had never spoken to the father.   Given the alcohol issue which the juvenile court considered to be a “serious problem,” it acted within its discretion in placing the child with the father.

B. Monitored Visits for the Mother

The mother argues the juvenile court order requiring monitored visits must be reversed.   A visitation order determining the best interests of a dependent child may be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.  (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318;  In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.)   In making the visitation order, the juvenile court must look to the best interests of the child.  (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 50-51;  In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973-974.)   The Court of Appeal has held, “While visitation is a key element of reunification, the court must focus on the best interests of the children ‘and on the elimination of conditions which led to the juvenile court's finding that the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, harm specified in section 300.’ ”  (In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 50 quoting In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376.)

The juvenile court acted within its discretion.   The child, who has special needs, became a dependent of the juvenile court after he escaped from his home on no less than seven occasions requiring police intervention.   At the time, the child was four years old and was found wandering alone outside during all times of day and night.   On more than one occasion, the child crossed busy Wilshire Boulevard while he was unattended by an adult.   During one elopement, strangers picked the child up and took him to a police station after he entered their vehicle.   Despite repeated warnings about adequate supervision and taking security measures, the mother did not protect the child from his dangerous escapades.

During the course of the proceedings, the juvenile court required the mother to address her suspected alcohol abuse issues.   The mother admitted that in the past, stress had led her to abuse alcohol.   This included a five-day drinking binge when the father moved to Los Angeles and then returned to Seattle.   The drinking binge culminated in mother's arrest after following the father to the airport and throwing items in the airport parking lot.   Among the items were empty vodka bottles.   While the mother was engaging in this behavior, the child was wandering around the airport parking lot unsupervised.

Also, the mother had been hospitalized in Texas in November 2008 with an alcohol-induced psychosis.   The mother was hospitalized after the child was found nude wandering around a hotel.   When Austin Police Department officers eventually located the mother's room, she did not initially respond to knocks on the door.   The mother was found in a room with a half empty bottle of vodka.   The mother also told police officers she had another missing non-existent child.   As late as November 2009, which was several months into the dependency proceeding, the mother tested positive for alcohol.   The mother missed seven drug and alcohol tests.   A social worker also found an opened wine bottle in the mother's refrigerator on October 6, 2009.   This constitutes substantial evidence the mother has failed to make sufficient progress to address the issues raised by the dependency proceeding.  (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 213-214;  In re S.H. (2003) 111 CalApp.4th 310, 317-320;  In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 49-50.)   Under the circumstances of this case, the juvenile court acted within its discretion to monitor the mother's visits due to concerns about her ability to protect and care for the child if left unsupervised.  (See In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 712-713;  see also In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318;  In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 953.)

IV. DISPOSITION

The orders under review are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

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

FN2. Section 366.21, subdivision (e) provides in part:  “At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.   The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.   At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child's removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent's or guardian's ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan.   The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.   In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker's report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5;  and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself to services provided․  [¶] Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental․”.  FN2. Section 366.21, subdivision (e) provides in part:  “At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.   The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.   At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child's removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent's or guardian's ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan.   The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.   In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker's report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5;  and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself to services provided․  [¶] Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental․”

MOSK, J. KRIEGLER, J.