Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD227498
HULL, J.The mother appeals from an order placing the minor with the paternal grandmother. The appeal lies. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; further section references are to this code.) The mother contends no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that it would be detrimental to place the minor with her, a nonoffending and noncustodial parent, and the trial court abused its discretion by placing the minor with the paternal grandmother, instead of keeping her in foster care. We affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings
On May 15, 2008, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed a petition alleging the minor, aged 7, was a dependent child due to the failure of the parents to supervise or protect her, and there was a substantial risk the minor would suffer serious physical harm because of the abuse of a half-sibling, Pablo, almost 12. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (j).) The petition alleged the father abused Pablo and had “an anger management problem” impairing his parenting ability. The minor was detained at the home of Maria V., the minor’s paternal grandmother.
The detention report explained that on May 13, 2008, Pablo went to school with visible facial injuries after being punched repeatedly by his father, in the minor’s presence. The mother did not live with the father, and her whereabouts were unknown. A younger half-sibling, Athena, remained at the father’s home, due to her age, although a later report indicates she was subsequently removed.
A later document explains that because Maria V. was a social worker with the Department, a social worker from Placer County was assigned to the case.
A jurisdictional-dispositional report filed on June 27, 2008, states the mother had been found. The mother’s older daughter had been removed and adopted out after the mother failed to reunify with her. The mother blamed Maria V. for manipulating that case. The mother’s home had been found appropriate, “[h]owever, [the minor] expressed that she does not want to live with her mother.” The Department’s recommendation was to place Pablo with his mother, but dismiss the dependency action as to the minor and Athena, “with a safety plan in place.”
The report also states the mother had made several unsubstantiated allegations that the father had physically and sexually abused the minor, but the minor “denied any abuse by her father and further stated that she does not wish to be returned to her mother because ‘my mother lied about me in court and tells me to say things that aren’t true.’”
The report states the mother “has not complied with the Family Law orders regarding visiting her daughter, and it does not appear appropriate to place with her. Further, [the mother] has had [services] terminated regarding [her older daughter], therefore would not be entitled to services pursuant to WIC 361.5(b)(10).”
Further, the report explained that the mother maintained a website “dedicated to slandering” the father, the father’s current companion, and the father’s mother, Maria V., and that the mother had only visited the minor once since the detention hearing, despite repeated efforts by the Department to schedule other visits. This made the mother’s intentions “suspicious” in the view of the Department. “It appears that [the mother] is more concerned with being right and winning custody, rather than what is truly in the best interest of her daughter. [She] has bombarded the Department with documentation and paperwork instead of participating in visits [with her daughter].”
On July 14, 2008, the juvenile court dismissed the petition without prejudice and ordered that prior family law orders remain in effect. The mother filed a notice of appeal, but in an unpublished opinion, we dismissed that appeal for lack of a final judgment or appealable order. (In re A.B. (Apr. 22, 2009, C059618).)
On April 16, 2009, a new petition was filed, alleging that peace officers found cocaine and indicia of drug sales at the father’s home, a fact placing the minor “at substantial risk of suffering physical harm, abuse and/or neglect.”
A detention report states the minor, aged 8, “said she has visits with her mother... every Wednesday. When asked about possibly living with her mother, she became visibly upset and said, ‘I can’t live with her. I don’t trust her.’” Maria V. asked for placement of the minor, but “disclosed the Department previously removed the child from her home stating ‘the placement was a conflict of interest.’”
After the detention hearing was continued, the mother filed a request to change existing orders, alleging that the minor was showing signs of parental alienation, and that Maria V. was fostering the father’s efforts against the mother. The trial court denied the request without a hearing, ruling in part that it was premature.
On April 30, 2009, the Department filed an addendum stating that the mother had been repeatedly deceptive and uncooperative. A second addendum states that the minor had been placed with Maria V. on an emergency basis, but because of the animosity between Maria V. and the mother, and the claimed conflict of interest, the Department recommended “neutral foster care” and a transfer of the case to Placer County.
The initial hearing on the new petition was conducted on May 5, 2009. Bijili Abbey, a licensed marriage and family therapist, testified that she had observed supervised visitations between the mother and the minor and that the mother behaved appropriately. However, at times one or the other “seemed pretty sensitive and affected emotionally by something that might come up” but “[t]hey didn’t seem to be able to talk about it, neither one of them, especially [the minor.] I didn’t really understand why.” A letter written by Abbey describing six visits she supervised between February 11 and March 18, 2009, was marked as an exhibit. Abbey had supervised two later visits, but none since the minor was taken into protective custody. In part her letter states the minor was not ready for unsupervised visits, and Abbey testified that the two later visits did not cause her to change her opinion.
The mother testified and admitted she told the minor that the father was a liar. The mother testified the minor had told her mother she said she did not want to live with her mother because the minor did not want to upset her father and grandmother, that she would stay with her father “because she didn’t want them to hurt me.” On cross-examination, the mother admitted that she had filed a restraining order against the father and claimed in the order that she had 50/50 custody.
The juvenile court found cause to detain the minor from her father’s home. The juvenile court (Referee Hertoghe) excoriated the mother for lying in order to get custody of her daughter and manipulating her daughter, in part referencing court orders from a family law file that had been judicially noticed, as follows: “And I think what is so disappointing is she was making progress. She was making progress, in essence, providing to the Court, listen to me, some of this stuff is true, even though her credibility had been severely damaged with multiple bench officers. That’s kind of the [scary] part of this court file is it’s Judge Ullman, Judge Burger-Plavan, Judge McBrien. We can add Referee Hertoghe to that list. [The mother] has very little, very little, if any, credibility because of her behavior. What I’m hoping to get through to her is that it’s not about her; it’s about [the minor]. And she doesn’t seem to be getting that message because to her it’s very clear through her behavior that the way she conducts herself in court that it’s about winning. It’s about winning the prize, and [the minor] is the prize. And adequate parenting isn’t treating your child like she is a pawn to get back at another individual.” The apparently damning family law court orders described by the juvenile court are not in the record on appeal.
The juvenile court admonished the mother at some length, and in particular, stated Judge Burger-Plavan had discounted the mother’s explanation for lying on the restraining order application, and the court expressed surprise at the lack of any apology for such conduct.
The juvenile court declined to place the minor with Maria V., pending further investigation.
A jurisdiction-disposition report states that before the initial hearing, the minor had refused to get into a car to go to a supervised visit with the mother. The report states it was not in the minor’s interest to be placed with her mother because they “have had many years of unhealthy encounters. While it does appear that the mother and daughter have been making strides in mending their relationship; the current circumstances have left [the minor] feeling that her mother would rather make her stay in foster care instead of a family member with whom she is attached.”
An addendum report found the mother was not entitled to reunification services, having failed to reunify with another child, but recommended supervised visitation.
At the jurisdictional hearing on June 17, 2009, the mother and father submitted on the Department’s report. The juvenile court sustained jurisdiction.
Before the dispositional hearing, the minor’s counsel objected to reunification services for the mother.
At a hearing held on July 15, 2009, Maria V. testified to her good relationship with the minor, but the juvenile court found she did not qualify as a de facto parent. That same day, an addendum report had explained that Maria V.’s home had been evaluated and found suitable for placement of the minor, and recommended such placement.
In another addendum report, the Department dropped its view that the mother should not get reunification services.
At the dispositional hearing on July 20, 2009, the mother repeated her claim to being a nonoffending, noncustodial parent, presumptively entitled to custody of the minor. The minor’s counsel argued against placement with the mother because the minor “does not really feel safe at this time with her mother.” The minor’s counsel acknowledged the minor wanted to be placed with her grandmother, but counsel recommended placement in foster care. The minor stated she did not want to remain in foster care: “I want to be with my grandma or with my auntie or with my family, but... I don’t want to be in foster care.”
The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that placing the minor with her mother would be detrimental to her well-being “and, therefore, to her long term safety and protection.” This was based in part on the lack of a “parent/child relationship” between the mother and the minor. The court ordered the minor placed under the Department’s control “for suitable placement in the home of the paternal grandmother, Maria V[.]”
After an aborted effort to seek rehearing before a judge, the mother timely filed this appeal.
Discussion
I
Placement with the Mother
The mother contends no substantial evidence supports the order denying placement of the minor with her.
Generally, when there is a nonoffending, noncustodial parent of a child who has been removed from the home, and that parent seeks custody, “the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) Detriment must be found by clear and convincing evidence. (See In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 697-700.)
“‘We review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing evidence that the children would suffer such detriment. [Citations.] Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.’” (In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1569-1570, quoting In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.)
As the Department points out, the minor refused to visit with the mother, in part because the minor does not trust the mother, and became visibly upset at the prospect of seeing her or having to live with her. That alone supports the conclusion that placing the minor with her mother at this time would be detrimental to the minor. Even the therapist relied on heavily by the mother, Bijili Abbey, indicated that unsupervised visits between mother and daughter were not yet appropriate. The minor’s counsel echoed this concern, stating the minor “does not really feel safe at this time with her mother, ” but was “starting to think about opening up to the idea of visits.” To compel the minor to live with her mother, when she cannot comfortably visit with her mother, would be detrimental to her.
Accordingly, we conclude the record supports the juvenile court’s finding that placing the minor with her mother at this time would be detrimental to her well-being.
II
Placement with Maria V.
The mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing the minor with Maria V., the minor’s paternal grandmother.
Generally, when a child is removed from parental custody, preference “shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative.” (§ 361.3, subd. (a).) In considering whether to place a child with a relative, a number of nonexclusive factors must be considered, including the best interests of the child, and the wishes of the parent, relative and child. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)-(8); see In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 677-678, 679-680.)
In reviewing such placement, we apply the abuse of discretion standard: “Broad deference must be shown to the trial judge. The reviewing court should interfere only ‘“if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that [the judge made].”’” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.)
The mother draws some inferences unfavorable to the juvenile court’s decision and seeks to reweigh other inferences. At best, this method of argument could show a different judge might have made a different decision, but the mother cannot carry her burden to show an abuse of discretion.
The record shows that Maria V. is a capable, loving, grandmother who has a positive relationship with the minor. The minor wanted to be placed with a relative, and mentioned in particular her grandmother.
Contrary to the mother’s assertion, the juvenile court was not required to conclude that Maria V. would obstruct the mother’s efforts to reunify. The record shows that Maria V. stated the opposite: She wanted the mother to succeed and hoped the mother would reunify with the minor.
The fact that the minor’s counsel suggested the minor remain in foster care does not show that placement with the paternal grandmother was not in the best interests of the minor.
In short, we find no abuse of discretion.
Disposition
The juvenile court orders are affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.