Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. NJ13726 A-B, Harry M. Elias, Judge.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
Anita S. appeals an order placing her daughter, Tiffany T., in foster care and an order regarding visitation with her son, Brett T., and with Tiffany. Anita contends there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that placement with her would present a danger to Tiffany, and the visitation order caused an unnecessary impediment to her efforts to reunify with the children. We affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of 15-year-old Tiffany and 13-year-old Brett (the children) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) based on neglect by their father, Alan T., who had been leaving them alone for days at a time with little or no food and no electricity. The children said Alan had been away for several weeks, but he stopped by occasionally. Tiffany said she worked on weekends to buy food and clothing for herself and Brett. There were numerous child welfare referrals regarding the family.
Anita lives in Kansas. Tiffany reported that Anita was trying to raise money to bring the children to Kansas to live with her, but then said she could not care for them because she was taking care of the maternal grandmother. Alan said he had financial problems and was looking for work. He denied leaving the children alone for long periods of time and said they were old enough to take care of themselves.
Tiffany lived with Anita until she was four years old and then again for seven months in 2004. Brett had not lived with her since he was a toddler. Anita said Alan used drugs and had cut off the children's communication with her, but as Tiffany became older they talked frequently by telephone. Anita said the family court had ordered supervised visits for her, but she did not have the funds to go to California to visit the children. Anita said that when Tiffany lived with her in 2004, Tiffany kept a lot of things from her. By reading Tiffany's diary she learned that she had had sex with a 20-year-old man. At that time she asked Alan to bring Tiffany back to California. Anita said she drinks socially and attends AA meetings on occasion because alcoholism runs in her family. She asked to have the children placed with her. The Agency requested an investigation of Anita's home through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).
In August 2007 the social worker reported Anita was scheduled to begin random drug tests and said she was looking into therapy and parenting classes. Both children said they wanted to live with Anita. The court found the allegations of the petitions to be true.
The ICPC placement request was denied because of a past criminal offense by Anita's current husband. Anita said the conviction for a lewd and lascivious act was based on him urinating in public.
In October the social worker reported that Tiffany had run away from her placement. On October 15 Anita submitted to Brett's placement in foster care and the court continued the disposition hearing as to Tiffany. It ordered the parents to comply with their case plans. On October 18 the Agency reported Tiffany had been located.
At the disposition hearing for Tiffany, the social worker recommended against her being placed with Anita because Anita had not provided good supervision in the past. The social worker testified the ICPC had been denied because of Anita's husband's conviction, and she had asked Anita to have him call her to discuss this, but he had not called. The social worker said Anita did not say she had started therapy or parenting classes.
Tiffany testified that she wanted to live with Anita. She said she talked with her every day by telephone. She said Anita had supervised her pretty well in the past, but she had lied to Anita about what she was doing. Tiffany believed she had matured and that she and Anita could deal with any problems that arose.
Anita testified that Tiffany had lived with her when she was 14. Anita said Tiffany had difficulty following her rules, so she sent her back to live with Alan. Anita said she did not know about her husband's conviction until this case arose, but believed he had merely urinated in public and had not served any time in jail for the offense. Anita said she could provide for Tiffany and supervise her. Anita had not started therapy or a parenting class, but planned to do so. Anita said she had not known about the children's circumstances and had not tried to gain custody because she lacked sufficient financial resources.
The court declared Tiffany a dependent child and removed custody from Alan. The court found it would be detrimental to place Tiffany with Anita and ordered her placed in foster care. The court authorized the Agency to provide transportation for Anita to come to California to visit the children.
DISCUSSION
I
Anita contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that placement with her would present a danger to Tiffany.
Section 361.2, subdivision (a) provides as follows:
"When a court orders removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall first determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent requests 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."
The finding of detriment under this section must be made under the standard of clear and convincing evidence. (In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.)
Substantial evidence supports a finding that Tiffany's placement with Anita would be detrimental to Tiffany. Anita had very little experience being a parent. Tiffany lived with her only until she was four years old and then for a brief time when Tiffany was 14. Anita did not see Tiffany again after she sent her back to live with Alan.
Anita had not supervised Tiffany sufficiently when Tiffany lived with her. Anita said she would drop Tiffany off at a mall, but she later learned Tiffany would leave and spend time with adult men. Anita learned from reading Tiffany's journal that Tiffany thought she was pregnant. Anita testified she sent Tiffany back to live with Alan in California because she could not control her and was afraid that if she stayed with her in Kansas she would get into more trouble. She said she could not watch her 24 hours a day and thought she would be better off living with Alan in a small community.
Also, Anita was not involved in the children's lives when they did not live with her. Anita said she did not know about the conditions they had endured in Alan's home, but Tiffany told the social worker she had talked with Anita frequently during the past year and told her about their lives, that there was no food, no power for three weeks, and that Alan was never around.
Tiffany said Anita had never been a mother before and did not know how to be a parent. Tiffany testified she was more mature and independent now and could better deal with difficulties that might arise. However, when she was questioned specifically about what she would do if there were problems, she said she did not know and might call her attorney or the social worker.
The court properly based its finding of detriment on Anita's lack of parenting experience and the denial of the ICPC placement evaluation. Anita had not begun parenting classes or therapy to help her gain parenting techniques and insight to help her become a safe and effective parent for Tiffany. The court noted the need for an ICPC so that if Tiffany were placed with Anita in Kansas necessary services and resources would be available to the family. Substantial evidence supports the court's decision that it would be detrimental to Tiffany to place her with Anita.
II
Anita contends the visitation order caused an unnecessary impediment to her efforts to reunify with the children. She argues the court prevented frequent and regular visits by ordering that visits would take place in San Diego.
In making visitation orders, the juvenile court must consider the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) It must consider the totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the child. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) The court's orders regarding visitation may be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' [ Citation.]" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
The court authorized funding for Anita's transportation to San Diego for visits with Tiffany and Brett. This order was a practical solution to providing Anita and the children opportunities to spend time together. By ruling that visits would take place in San Diego, the court ensured Tiffany and Brett would not have to miss school or other activities, and Alan also would be able to visit them. Anita has not shown an abuse of the court's discretion.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, J., IRION, J.