Opinion
B333598
12-16-2024
In re G.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.C., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 18LJJP00220E Debra L. Gonzales, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILEY, J.
A mother claims insufficient evidence supports the decision removing her daughter from her custody. We affirm. Code citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We focus on the mother and her youngest daughter, who was eight when this case began and is the only dependent in the case. The child's father has not appealed. The child has four older half siblings who do not live with the mother.
This is not the family's first dependency matter. In the current case, the juvenile court sustained allegations of substance abuse and neglect against the mother at a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in October 2023. The mother does not challenge the jurisdictional ruling.
As for the dispositional ruling, we review these orders for substantial evidence. We indulge reasonable inferences and resolve conflicts in favor of the findings, examine the record in the light favorable to the juvenile court's determinations, and refrain from credibility determinations. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.); In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154 (V.L.).) Because these orders require clear and convincing evidence at the juvenile court, we ask whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that a fact was true. (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 149, 154-155.)
Substantial evidence justified the removal of this child under section 361, subdivision (c)(1), which provides for removal from parental custody when a child faces a substantial danger to her safety or to her physical or emotional wellbeing and no reasonable means short of removal exist to protect the child.
According to the June 2023 child welfare referral, the mother housed the child in her car, used methamphetamines, had drug paraphernalia, did not think using drugs was a problem, and seemed paranoid. The child told the referring party she had not been eating and her mother sold drugs and did not love her.
Workers at a Denny's restaurant the family frequented reported the mother left the child unattended several times late at night while the mother went to the bathroom for long periods of time or left the diner. The mother appeared to be under the influence of drugs.
One time the child drank an open alcoholic beverage in their car. She said it was a White Claw. The mother denied this; then the child recanted this claim and said she was just joking.
Family members discussed the mother's history of drug use. The mother's ex-husband reported the child's half sister had moved in with him due to the mother's drug use, paranoia, and aggression. This was in January 2023. The half sister told a social worker it was obvious the mother was using methamphetamine, as she was not eating or sleeping and there were glass pipes or tinfoil with residue in the mother's home. She was worried for the child's safety, as the mother refused help. Another half sister reported that, as of June 2023, the mother was on methamphetamine, opiates, and alcohol, although she had not seen the mother since 2018 and wanted no contact with her. She said the mother tried to get her to do drugs and alcohol. One time the mother overdosed in her presence. She, too, was worried about the child's safety.
The father had heard the mother was using drugs. A family friend confirmed "the mother is a heavy user of alcohol [ ] and drugs and she is so addicted that she could possibly exploit her daughter to get what she wanted." She felt the mother was putting the child in danger.
Near the end of July 2023, just three months before the disposition hearing, the mother tested positive for both amphetamines and methamphetamine. Yet she denied drug use. She also denied other allegations in the case regarding her neglect of the child, and she blamed family members who were "out to ruin her life and hated her."
The mother's denial turned to flight. She absconded with the child to Missouri after learning the juvenile court had issued a removal order. The mother told the social worker she was on her way to meet her; then she "stopped all contact." The mother returned to California only after the court issued an arrest warrant and the mother's counsel unsuccessfully tried to get the case transferred to Missouri. The mother had refused to surrender the child to Missouri police, so they obtained a warrant to retrieve the child, and a California social worker had to travel there to bring the child back.
From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable the child faced a substantial danger to her safety or to her physical or emotional wellbeing if she returned to the mother's custody and no reasonable means short of removal could protect her. (See § 361, subd. (c)(1); V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 156-157.) As the mother acknowledges, her past conduct was relevant to this determination. (See In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126-1127 (John M.).) Contrary to her arguments, the mother's troubling conduct stretched beyond a single weekend.
The mother's denials signaled she lacked insight regarding her drug problem and the hazards it presented to her child. Lack of insight increases the risk of a recurrence. (See V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 156.)
Although the mother eventually cooperated with the Department, agreed to drug test, and voluntarily signed up for services, a willingness to participate in services "is merely conflicting evidence regarding the risk" a parent poses to a child that "must be disregarded" under the substantial evidence test. (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 157.)
Similarly, having a couple of negative drug tests over a short period after her recent positive test does not erase the concern for this child given the mother's history of drug use, including while the child was in her care. The mother does not contend she had overcome her substance abuse issues as of the disposition hearing.
The mother contends a lack of transparency cannot be the sole basis for removal. This removal decision was grounded in more than just a lack of transparency.
The mother implies the court erred because her child was healthy and never was harmed. But a child need not suffer actual harm for removal to be appropriate. (John M., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1126-1127.) And the jurisdiction report noted concerning behavioral issues with the child.
The mother argues there were reasonable means to protect her child without removal. She refers vaguely to the testing, services, and supervision she would receive and argues this was enough. This explanation is insufficient to command reversal. Periodic social worker visits, for example, would not prevent out-of-state flight. (See John M., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1127 [where mother already had violated court orders, the juvenile court reasonably could determine the child "could not be safely placed in mother's custody in the hope that she would comply with court orders or DCFS supervision"]; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 ["Unannounced visits can only assess the situation and mother's sobriety at the time of the visit. Substance abuse testing can only detect use after the fact-which would be after mother had already placed the minor at risk again"].)
The mother maintains that her flight should be excused by a reasonable fear of a placement with the father's family and her extreme emotion at the prospect of losing her child. She also emphasizes evidence favorable to her, such as the child's claims she was not afraid of the mother and did not witness her taking drugs, and the fact that a family friend worked as a cook at the Denny's where the child was left unattended. We defer to the juvenile court's assessment that this evidence did not temper the danger to the child. We may not reevaluate witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. (See R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633; V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 154, 156, 157.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the juvenile court's dispositional orders.
We concur: STRATTON, P. J. GRIMES, J.