Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK82794, Jacqueline Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee.
Cameryn Schmidt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andres B.
Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Anna M.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BOREN, P.J.
The juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over C.B., the son of Anna M. (Mother) and Andres B. (Father). The dependency petition was filed after Mother intentionally overdosed on pills. The court found that both parents are chronic substance abusers who engage in “drug shopping, ” and that Mother has mental and emotional problems that endanger C.’s health and safety. On appeal, the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional determination, and its dispositional order. We affirm.
FACTS
Mother and Father married in 2008. When C. was born in 2009, Mother and C. tested positive for two sedatives, restoril (temazepam) and benzodiazepine, which are contraindicated during pregnancy. Mother and Father both reported past use of Tramadol, a pain medication. Mother denied having mental health problems, but has scars from cutting herself and acknowledged having depressions.
When C. was six months old, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging that Mother has mental and emotional problems and a history of substance abuse, which endangers C.’s physical and emotional health and safety. The petition alleges that Father uses drugs, including marijuana and prescription medications, rendering him unable to provide regular care. The petition came about when Father called 911 on June 20, 2010, after Mother ingested 20 prescription migraine tablets plus 20 aspirin tablets. The police who responded described Father as “under the influence of some type of drug” and “impaired.” Father admitted taking migraine medication all day. Mother was transported to a hospital.
A DCFS social worker spoke to Father on June 21, in the family’s “unkempt” studio apartment. Father described Mother as despondent because he asked her to leave: her family is in Germany and she has nowhere to go. They argued over custody of C. According to Father, Mother gets depressed and mutilates herself. He does not like the scars. Mother has a history of alcohol abuse and has broken her nose many times in drunken brawls. She cannot work because she is not a U.S. citizen. In Father’s view, Mother “needs help.” Father indicated that he has a prescription for marijuana, which he smokes regularly. The social worker saw three containers of marijuana in the home.
At the direction of the police, Father left C. in the care of his brother and sister-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. B., who babysit C. when Mother is incapacitated by sedation medication. They reported that Mother and Father became addicted to pain killers while living in China; Mother now orders pain medication on the Internet and goes to emergency rooms to feed her addiction. Father is one of 14 children born to a missionary family: seven of the children were sexually abused. Mother’s parents were also missionaries, and she and Father met in China. Mother is not allowed near her relatives because she is too unstable. The B.’s took C. to a doctor, where he was found to have an infection on his penis, an inner ear infection, and diaper rash.
Mother was interviewed at the hospital. She concurred that Father wanted a separation, and they were arguing over custody of C. Mother stated, “I took the pills to see what my husband’s reaction would be if I were not here.” Mother is depressed and lonely, and has no friends. She cuts herself “because I could not feel anything, ” and has done so “for years.” She goes to emergency rooms to get morphine to treat pain from migraine headaches. During her interview, Mother was cutting her fingers with her nails, and the social worker told her to stop. Mother has scars all over her neck and arms. DCFS categorized the family as being at “very high” risk for future abuse.
At the detention hearing on June 24, 2010, Mother waived her right to reunification services, and acknowledged that the court could terminate her parental rights. Father indicated willingness to stop using marijuana, if given custody of C. Mother planned to go to Germany for mental health treatment, and she supported Father’s custody request. The court found a prima facie case to detain C. and remove him from parental custody, because it was not clear whether Father was abusing prescription drugs. C. was placed with his relatives, Mr. and Mrs. B. Mother and Father had monitored visitation.
DCFS conducted interviews with appellants in July 2010. Mother labeled any notion of mental problems as “definitely false, ” claiming that her hospitalization arose from “a very bad headache.” She was upset because she and Father had fought and discussed separation. She took 10 or 15 tablets of Father’s prescription medication for migraines, although Father thought she had taken 50 or more, so he called 911. Because this was perceived as a suicide attempt, she was hospitalized. According to Mother, a physician at the hospital thought this was “just a misguided cry for help, ” and she needs treatment for depression. Mother characterized her scars as “cosmetic, ” like a tattoo, and none are linked to suicide attempts. She does not view the scars as self-mutilation. Mother did not believe that her actions endangered C. because Father was present when Mother consumed the pills and was taken to the hospital. She and Father intend to reunite after she receives treatment in Germany.
Mother abused alcohol when she was a teenager, and experienced delirium tremens. She participated in AA and did not touch alcohol for two years. She uses Tramadol for migraine headaches. When she needs a prescription, she calls her physician. The drug takes some of the pain away but causes drowsiness. Without medication, she is unable to take care of C.
Mother was born in 1988.
Father described the events of June 20: Mother failed to answer his knocks at the bathroom door, so he kicked down the door and found Mother on the floor. “I tried to shake her awake and she would not wake up” so he poured cold water on her, called a poison control center, then called 911. Mother began vomiting, and the paramedics took her away. Father initially believed that Mother consumed the entire bottle of his migraine medication, but later found many of the pills scattered around on the bathroom floor. He believes that they take very good care of C., although Mother “needs to get professional help... to get to the root of the problems. Up to that point there was no indication she would do anything like that.” The custody fight he had with Mother was “uncharacteristic” and they have now resolved their differences. He stated that Mother was “somewhat depressed” but “other than that she is one of the most rational people I know.” Mother used to cut herself with a razor because she sees the scars as a cosmetic enhancement and “thinks they are beautiful.” Father did not see how self-mutilation has any impact on Mother’s ability to take care of C.
Father stated that he and Mother had substance abuse problems when they lived in China, two years earlier. Father was in several motorcycle accidents and began using morphine or another opium derivative for pain. He continued using it when he no longer needed it “because I liked how it made me feel.” He became addicted, which he views as a rite of passage. Mother came to stay with him: there was not much to do in the town, so they both drank a lot and abused pain pills. They stopped for a few months, then started up again. “There was not much of a reason not to. We enjoyed it and we were having a good time.” It was easy to obtain prescription medications in China. Father convinced Mother to move to the U.S., but she “never took to America” and felt bored. Father does not believe that Mother currently abuses alcohol or prescription medications. Mother stated that Father uses medical marijuana for ADD and back pain, plus it helps him concentrate at school. He also has prescription medications for migraine headaches: it affects him, but does not impair him, and he has taken care of C. while under the influence of marijuana or pain medications.
Both parents want to reunify with their child. Father insists that Mother was not trying to commit suicide. Rather, she was taking medication to get high and accidentally took too much. Thus, he reasoned, it was a drug overdose, not a suicide attempt. At the same time, Father stated that the “long term prospects of me taking care of my son are difficult—as a single father and working full time.... I recognize [Mother] is not in a situation to look after him at this point.” Mother acknowledged that “I made a mistake and I am aware I am going to need counseling and help.” Father believes that C. should live with his grandparents in Germany, to avoid living in foster care in the U.S. Mr. B. (C.’s uncle) is committed to caring for C. until Father and Mother are ready to do so, or until custody is given to the maternal grandparents. Mother and Father had daily visits with C. at Mr. B.’s home in Beverly Hills.
In August 2010, DCFS reported that Father has been prescribed Alprazolm (anti-anxiety), Tramadol (pain medication) and Sertaline (antidepressant). He refills these prescriptions by simply calling the physician, who does not know that Father uses marijuana. Dr. Gandy, who prescribed marijuana for Father, was placed on probation in 2009 by the state medical board. Father told Dr. Gandy that he injured his back in 2004 during Army basic training. He uses marijuana one to two times daily; his consumption has increased over time as the drug is not as effective as it used to be. He formerly used it for recreational purposes. On a medical form, Father indicated that his use of the drug causes confusion, fatigue, and memory problems, among other bothersome side effects. Mother is prescribed Tramadol and Xanax (anti-anxiety). Mother and Father tested negative for drugs on August 3, 2010, although the test does not screen for the prescription drugs they use. Mother failed to appear for testing on August 20, and Father failed to appear for testing on August 6 and 19. Father tested negative for drugs on September 8, 2010, but Mother was a “no show” for testing on September 7.
Mother and Father were raised in Christian missionary families belonging to the “Children of God” or “Family of Love” group, which is “characterized by the early sexual exploitation of children.” Father acknowledged that the group is referred to as a “cult”: he found it abusive, although the sexual abuse of children ended before Father was born in response to AIDS and lawsuits. Father’s parents still belong to the group, but he does not; Mother’s parents are no longer involved. According to maternal aunt Mrs. B., the cult does not believe in education or cleanliness, and her husband did not know the days of the week or the months of the year when he left the group at age 13. Mrs. B. also stated that when she babysat C., she saw that his finger was “black, bleeding and had pussy stuff coming out and he screamed if you touched it.” Mr. and Mrs. B. took C. to a doctor for treatment of the infected finger, a bad ear infection, and an infection on his penis. When Mother and Father spent nights at her home, she could hear C. screaming, and the next day he would be bleeding from the anus; she thought it was because Mother did not clean the child.
Father testified at the jurisdictional hearing. He agreed that he has a history of abusing prescription drugs, but denied abusing marijuana. He smokes marijuana to help his concentration and to relax, using it when he has classes, for pain, and to help him sleep. He stopped using marijuana after C. was detained by DCFS. He told Dr. Gandy that he was injured during Army basic training in 2004; however, he “went AWOL” before completing his training, so there is no record of his military service. Father also has migraines stemming from a motorcycle accident. When he sought the prescription for marijuana in 2010, he failed to disclose his use of other prescription medications: he wrote on a patient information form that the only drug he has ever taken is Tylenol. In fact, he used morphine while living in China, then switched to Tramadol to overcome his addiction to morphine. Father still uses Tramadol, as well as Zoloft (an antidepressant). Zoloft is a daily medication. He takes Tramadol “as needed, ” which he describes as two to four times weekly, and sometimes not at all. He has been using Tramadol “for long periods.”
Father denied being under the influence of any drug except Zoloft while taking care of C.; however, when the police came to his home on June 20, 2010, in response to his 911 call, he told them he had “taken a couple of my migraine medications, ” referring to Tramadol. Under further questioning, he admitted that he has taken care of C. while using pain medication. He sometimes smoked marijuana in the kitchen, which has a wall but no door. The family lives in a studio apartment with no living room and a cupboard in “the main room” where Father stores his marijuana. In Father’s view, evidence that smoke is harmful to others is “inconclusive.” Father was asked to drug test for DCFS only one time, and tested negative.
The social worker forgot to tell appellants that they had to call in daily.
While Mother was hospitalized, Father was told by a doctor that Mother was suffering from postpartum depression. Both Father and Mother take care of C. Father did not deny that when his brother and sister-in-law came for a visit, they saw that C.’s finger was black, bleeding and pus-filled, and the baby screamed when his finger was touched.
The DCFS investigator testified that Mother was hospitalized for taking an excessive amount of Fioricet (a prescription pain medication/barbiturate) and aspirin. Mother also uses Tramadol. Mother indicated that she was diagnosed with depression, and said that she cuts herself because she “can’t feel anything.” DCFS felt that Father abused marijuana because he had multiple containers of it at home, said that he used it several times daily, and was under the influence of some kind of medication when the police arrived after Mother overdosed. The investigator does not know whether Father’s drug usage impairs his ability to take care of C. The medical reports show that C. had numerous medical conditions that called for treatment, but neither parent brought C. to a doctor.
THE COURT’S RULING
At the jurisdiction hearing on September 21, 2010, the court stated, “In 20 years I’ve never seen [a] case of such drug shopping as I see in this case. It’s clear to me that both parents have an extensive history of using any substance that will get them high. And when they can’t get one they move to another country.” The court found that Father is clearly under the influence when he is caring for C. Further, it found that Mother and Father are not credible or forthcoming witnesses.
The court sustained three counts: (1) Mother has mental and emotional problems including depression, suicidal ideation, self mutilating behavior, and a suicide attempt followed by a psychiatric hospitalization that render her unable to provide regular care of C. and endangers his physical and emotional health and safety; (2) Mother has a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, and currently abuses prescription medication, rendering her incapable of providing regular care for C.; and (3) Father is a current abuser of illicit drugs, including marijuana and prescription medication, that renders him incapable of providing regular care for C. On prior occasions, Father possessed, used and was under the influence of drugs while C. was in his care, which endangers C.’s physical and emotional health and safety.
Moving to disposition, the court declared C. a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The court found by clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial danger to C.’s health, safety and well-being if he were returned to parental custody. In light of the parental drug shopping, the court ordered Mother and Father to undergo a drug rehabilitation program with random testing; individual counseling to address all issues, including substance abuse; and parenting because the parents do not understand the need for C. to have appropriate medical care. The court put C. in the custody of DCFS, with a view toward placing him eventually with his grandparents in Germany. The parents and grandparents were given monitored visitation.
DISCUSSION
1. Appealability and Standard of Review
Appellants challenge the court’s sustained findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Appeal is taken from the disposition order, which is an appealable judgment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 196.) “In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022.)
The court may exercise jurisdiction under section 300 if “(b) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child....”
2. Jurisdictional Findings
a. Findings Against Mother
The record supports the court’s findings that Mother has serious mental and emotional health problems. In her first interview, Mother admitted that she took an overdose of pills “to see what my husband’s reaction would be if I were not here.” After C. was detained, Mother dismissed the idea that she has any mental problems and claimed that her hospitalization arose from “a very bad headache.” Mother told DCFS that she needs treatment, and Father agreed that Mother “needs help.”
Mother initially told the DCFS social worker that she cuts herself “because I could not feel anything” and has done so “for years.” The social worker witnessed Mother cutting her hands with her fingernails. It is easy to reject Mother’s claim that she self-mutilates for cosmetic reasons: this appears to be an attempt to minimize the shocking nature of her conduct, which has left her with visible scarring.
Mother has a history of abusing alcohol and pain medication dating back to her teenage years, when she participated in drunken altercations and experienced delirium tremens. Though Mother has apparently overcome her dependence on alcohol, she continues to self-medicate using prescription pain medications, among other drugs. Mother obtains pain killers over the Internet and by visiting emergency rooms. She also takes pain killers prescribed for Father’s use. When C. was born, Mother and C. tested positive for two sedatives, prompting a child endangerment report.
The court could reasonably conclude that Mother’s mental state (evidenced by self-mutilation), her recent deliberate drug overdose and resulting hospitalization, and her dependence upon prescription medications impair her current ability to care for C. and endanger the child’s health and safety. Mother took unapproved drugs while pregnant, and C. was born with those drugs in his bloodstream. Six months later, Mother overdosed and lost consciousness while at home with C. This alone is reason for intervention to protect C. In addition, Mother’s state of depression and drug-induced sedation prevent her from maintaining the family’s “unkempt” apartment, and she failed to obtain prompt medical care for C.’s infections. Mother is a chronic substance abuser who has not been treated, warranting dependency jurisdiction to protect C.’s health and safety. (Compare In re J.N., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1022 [“single episode of parental conduct” insufficient to establish jurisdiction where neither parent “had an ongoing substance abuse problem.”].)
b. Findings Against Father
At the outset, we observe that “a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring her within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent. [Citations.]” (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397 (italics added); In re Alexis H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 11, 16; In re Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 60; In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1212.) The court properly sustained allegations that Mother has a history of substance abuse and mental and emotional problems that periodically render her incapable of providing regular care of C. As a result, “the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the child is appropriate” and Father’s jurisdictional challenge is rendered moot. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1431.) The purpose of the dependency proceeding is “to protect the child, rather than prosecute the parent.” (In re Alysha S., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 397.) C. must be protected due to Mother’s behavior, regardless of Father’s conduct, so jurisdiction is proper.
Substantial evidence supports the court’s findings against Father. Father enabled Mother’s self-destructive behavior by allowing her to ingest his prescription medications. He has no insight into Mother’s drug dependence, drawing a specious distinction between her conduct in taking dozens of pills to get high and taking them to attempt suicide. Father admitted to being addicted to morphine while living in China, apparently because it was easy to obtain and he and Mother “enjoyed it and were having a good time.”
After moving to the U.S. several years ago, Father continued to self-medicate, obtaining prescriptions for marijuana and pain killers without disclosing to the prescribing physicians that he was taking multiple substances. He has used marijuana for such a long time that he is now obliged to use increasing amounts to get high. He kept multiple containers of the drug at home. Father dishonestly wrote on his application for medical marijuana that the only drug he has ever taken is Tylenol, though he is a long-time user of pain killers like morphine and Tramadol. Father also told the physician that he needed marijuana to treat a back injury, but at the hearing he testified that he uses it to concentrate on schoolwork, to relax, as a sleep aid, and for pain.
At the jurisdiction hearing, Father denied being under the influence when the police came to his home in response to the 911 call, although he appeared to be impaired and told the officers that he used pain medications all day. On cross-examination, Father admitted that he took care of C. while using pain killers. To make matters worse, Father smoked marijuana indoors, in a studio apartment, apparently indifferent to the danger that hallucinogenic smoke poses to his infant, because he personally deems the studies to be “inconclusive.” While mere use of marijuana may not support dependency jurisdiction, there is a risk of harm when the drug is smoked inside the house and exposes a child to secondhand smoke. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451-453.)
While Father claims to have stopped using marijuana, he only did so in response to dependency intervention. Without dependency jurisdiction to ensure that Father remains clean, there is no assurance that he will stop. Like Mother, Father is a chronic abuser of drugs who has not sought treatment for his problems. The court could justifiably find that C. is endangered by Father’s chronic drug use and attendant impairment of his ability to care for a toddler. Had Father been unimpaired, he would have sought prompt treatment for C.’s badly infected finger and ears, rather than relying on relatives to seek medical assistance for the helpless infant.
3. Disposition Order
Appellants object to the court’s decision to remove C. from their custody. The determination is supported by the evidence. Mother intentionally overdosed while C. was in her care. She conceded that she needs treatment for her mental issues, and she intends to go to Germany for this treatment. Father told DCFS that Mother “needs help” and “is not in a situation to look after [C.] at this point.” Mother waived her right to reunification services after consulting with her attorney. Under the circumstances, Mother is presently unfit to take custody of C.
For his part, Father admitted to DCFS that when Mother went to Germany for treatment, he would be unable to take care of C. alone, as a single father who attends school and works. Father wants his in-laws to take custody of C.; he does not want to take care of the child himself. With respect to Father’s drug problems, the doctor who prescribed marijuana for Father is unaware that Father uses other powerful prescription medications because Father failed to disclose his use of those drugs. Similarly, the doctor who prescribed painkillers, sedatives and antidepressants for Father is unaware that Father uses marijuana. As the dependency court observed, Father goes to several physicians to get as many drugs as possible, drug shopping to stay high.
Parental drug addictions have a substantial effect on a parent’s ability to give priority to a child’s needs. (In re Stephen W. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 629, 643.) The court could legitimately insist that Mother and Father present proof of prolonged negative drug testing and completion of a drug rehabilitation program. Couples who use sedating drugs—in this case painkillers and marijuana—“‘frequently use them at the same time. It’s a way of connecting with each other, if you will, and that means that both parents would be out of commission frequently at the same time.’” (Ibid.) In addition, before Mother and Father take custody of the child, the court reasonably required them to complete a parenting program so that they know when to seek medical care for C.’s illnesses.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DOI TODD, J. ASHMANN-GERST, J.