Opinion
B300719
05-29-2020
In re Z.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.A., Defendant and Appellant.
Melissa A. Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP03881) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rashida A. Adams, Judge. Reversed. Melissa A. Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
The mother of an 11-year-old daughter appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional order made after the court adjudged her daughter a dependent. The mother contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that the child has suffered, or that there is a substantial risk she will suffer, serious physical harm or illness because of the mother's mental illness and drug use. We agree and reverse.
BACKGROUND
A. Detention
The family in this case consists of J.A. (mother), Ze.A. (father), and Z.A., age 11. On April 26, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the department) received a child welfare referral alleging that mother was acting erratically, felt that someone in the home was trying to kill her, and believed that father was a serial killer.
Z.A. reported that mother was under a lot of stress caused by father, and had obtained a restraining order against him, resulting in his having left the home for two weeks. She was unsure how father had caused the stress. She reported she did not feel safe at home because mother would repeatedly check to see if the doors were locked because she believed someone was trying to enter the home to hurt them.
Mother reported she obtained the restraining order against father to protect Z.A. and herself because she believed father was a drug dealer and was in trouble with dangerous people. She reported that Z.A.'s maternal uncle and grandmother, who also engaged in criminal activities, were out to "get her." She had reported these concerns to several law enforcement agencies, but nothing was done. Mother reported she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. She was seeing a psychiatrist and therapist and was taking medication for anxiety and PTSD. Mother also reported she had used methamphetamine a week earlier due to stress caused by the maternal uncle and grandmother. She agreed to submit to an on-demand drug test, but later failed to appear. The restraining order against father was eventually lifted, and he returned to the home.
The maternal uncle reported that mother used drugs and was " 'unstable.' "
The next week, Z.A.'s principal reported that the child's teacher had noticed she seemed less happy. Father had shared with the principal that mother currently used drugs, and mother told the principal that government agencies were out to "get her."
After father returned to the home, he reported that the house was clean and there were no issues, although he had found mother's drug paraphernalia. At one point she had become randomly aggressive with him, and pulled him, ripped his shirt, and broke items while he was having breakfast. Z.A. had been present on one occasion in which mother was "throwing and breaking things," but had left for her room, and was never physically hurt during the parents' arguments. Father reported that mother did not " 'really' " argue like she used to since he had returned to the home. She suspected there were cameras in the home and someone was looking for her. He had previously confronted Mother about her drug use, but she refused to enroll in counseling.
The maternal grandmother reported that mother " '[was] a pathological liar' " and " 'want[ed] to be a bad person.' " She suspected that mother used drugs.
In one report, the family home was clean and free of visible hazards, with adequate food and clothing, and no visible alcohol or drugs. Z.A. stated she felt safe in the home.
On May 6, 2019, the maternal uncle reported that "the home looked messy," and the kitchen sink was full of dirty dishes."
On May 2, 2019, mother admitted she had used methamphetamine the prior week.
On May 25, 2019, it was reported to DCFS that Z.A. felt depressed and anxious because father yelled at mother and called her crazy and stupid. It was also reported that mother was having paranoid delusions, and had used methamphetamine the previous week and used twice a day, three times a week.
On June 11, 2019, a removal order was granted authorizing Z.A.'s removal from the parents. Mother refused over the telephone to bring the child to the DCFS office, saying, " 'I'm done with this process.' "
When a DCFS social worker arrived at the home accompanied by law enforcement, mother yelled at father and accused him of cheating on her and planning to go to New York with another woman. Z.A. cried, but father escorted her to a car to be transported to the maternal grandmother's home.
DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging mother's substance abuse and mental and emotional health issues endangered Z.A., and father failed to protect her.
Undesignated statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In August 2019, mother admitted she had used methamphetamine and marijuana as late as April 2019, but denied using drugs around Z.A. or bringing them home. She took gabapentin for her PTSD and metformin for "the imbalance in [her] cycle." Mother reported that someone was watching her through the camera on her phone, but stated she was able to care for Z.A.
Father stated he never observed mother using drugs or smelled any odors in the home, and stated mother never hurt Z.A.
Z.A. denied seeing mother use any substances or noticing a change in her behavior, but admitted that mother had failed to pick her up from school over the course of two days, during which her location was unknown. Mother believed there were cameras in the home, but Z.A. never saw any. Z.A. reported that mother had been stressed and depressed but never failed to care for her. She stated that her parents would argue one to two times a week, but she did not witness the arguments because she usually stayed in her room.
The maternal grandmother reported that mother had once told her that she had taken Z.A. to the beach at night and pushed the child toward a gate above the water, but the grandmother did not know whether mother had intended to harm the child.
The maternal uncle reported that he believed mother used drugs, and in June 2019 she accused him of putting methamphetamine in Z.A.'s food, and wrote a letter to his neighbors stating the maternal grandmother was putting methamphetamine in drinks and making Z.A. sick. The prior summer, mother lost a lot of weight and her front teeth, and had lost her job two years earlier, and would often drop off Z.A. and leave for three or four hours, returning jittery, shaky, and fidgety. He said, " 'My sister was a beautiful girl, she always was. To see my older sister go through this is beyond me. She's destroying herself. She wears heavy clothing and hoodies.' " He said that mother's neighbors reported she would sometimes leave Z.A. home alone at night.
Mother failed to appear for an on-demand drug test on May 3, 2019. She claimed she had not been notified where to appear.
Mother stated she had been wrongly diagnosed with schizophrenia, believing she had been "medically profiled," similar to "racial profiling," and someone had gone into her medical file and changed information. She began seeing a psychologist in 2016, and provided documents showing she had been diagnosed with "adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood." She took gabapentin and metformin daily.
An April 2019 letter from a psychiatric social worker stated mother had been diagnosed as suffering from "major depressive disorder, recurrent episode, moderate." Letters from therapy providers reported she was engaged in therapy and medication management, had attended "a couple of sessions" of therapy, and was motivated to have her daughter returned.
Mother reported she and father argued because he allowed people into the home, including a drug dealer who was "a baby killer." In May 2019, she had an argument with father in which she pushed items onto the floor, and when he pushed her to get to the door, she grabbed him by his shirt, causing it to rip. She believed the maternal grandmother was putting something into Z.A.'s food, which was making the child sick.
Father stated he wanted assistance to get drug treatment for Mother, but failed to understand DCFS's allegations of abuse and neglect, as he had never observed mother physically or verbally abuse Z.A.
During a monitored visit with Z.A. on July 18, 2019, mother reported she was being "set-up" by the maternal grandmother and uncle, who were killers and drug dealers, and DCFS was plotting against her and watching her through her phone. DCFS ended the visit because mother would not refrain from speaking about the case in Z.A.'s presence.
Z.A. reported she felt safe at home, even if mother was not taking her medication, seeing a psychiatrist, or drug testing. DCFS reports indicated she was an honor student.
B. Hearings
The juvenile court found that mother's mental and emotional problems were exacerbated by her drug abuse. It amended the petition by interlineation to allege that mother suffered from mental health problems and failed to take psychotropic medication as prescribed, which resulted in bizarre, paranoid and violent behavior, which Z.A. had witnessed, and rendered her unable to provide regular care and supervision for the child. This, combined with father's failure to protect Z.A., endangered the child's physical health and safety and placed her at risk of serious physical harm.
In a September 13, 2019 report, DCFS stated that the parents continued to reside together, and father was unwilling to ask mother to leave the home. Father reported that mother's behaviors were worsening and he did not know what to do, but was unwilling to formulate a safety plan for Z.A. Mother was no longer permitted on Z.A.'s school campus after she had arrived demanding to visit with the child, made accusations against father and the maternal relatives, and harassed a crossing guard. The principal stated that mother's behavior was erratic, and her " 'pattern of delusional thinking' " had worsened every year since the child was in the third grade. Mother refused to submit to a drug test.
At the disposition hearing, the court found that mother's behavior, stemming from her mental and emotional issues and exacerbated by drug use, had escalated to a point that placed the child at significant risk, and father had failed to protect the child or articulate a plan to keep her safe. The court declared Z.A. to be a dependent of the court, removed her from the parents, and ordered her suitably placed and reunification services instituted.
Mother appeals.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings were unsupported by substantial evidence because no evidence suggested that her mental illness put Z.A. at substantial risk of serious physical harm. We agree.
We review a jurisdictional order for substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) " 'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. "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." [Citation.] "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.] ' "[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is appropriate]." ' " ' " (Ibid.)
A child may be adjudged a dependent of the court under subdivision (b) of section 300 if 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 . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child." (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The juvenile court need not find "that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inability to supervise or protect her child." (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624.) "The three elements for jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) are: ' "(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ' "serious physical harm or illness" ' to the [child], or a ' "substantial risk" ' of such harm or illness." ' [Citations.] 'The third element, however, effectively requires a showing that at the time of the jurisdictional hearing the child is at substantial risk of serious physical harm in the future (e.g., evidence showing a substantial risk that past physical harm will reoccur).' " (In re B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685, 692.)
Here, mother's psychiatric records indicated she suffered from substantial mental health problems, including schizophrenia, paranoia, anxiety, adjustment disorder, and depression. She failed to take prescribed medications (or they failed to work), and used marijuana and methamphetamine, which exacerbated her condition.
Mother's mental health issues resulted in her inability to meet some basic parental responsibilities. She sometimes left Z.A. home alone at night, was unable to visit the child's school, and had little understanding about what should be said in front of the child.
But no substantial evidence indicated that any of this subjected Z.A. to a substantial risk of serious physical harm.
The proper basis for a juvenile court's ruling predicated on a parent's mental illness "is expert testimony giving specific examples of the manner in which the [parent's] behavior has and will adversely affect the child or jeopardize the child's safety." (In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 540.) A diagnosis of mental illness "should be the court's starting point, not its conclusion. Rather than mandating a specific disposition because the mother is [mentally ill], the diagnosis should lead to an in-depth examination of her psychiatric history, her present condition, her previous response to drug therapy, and the potential for future therapy with a focus on what affect her behavior has had, and will have, on her children. [¶] Harm to the child cannot be presumed from the mere fact of mental illness of the parent . . . ." (Ibid.)
Here, no expert testimony or other evidence suggested that mother's mental health challenges endangered Z.A. to the extent she was at substantial risk of serious physical harm. She was happy and healthy, and an honor student at school. "The primary motivating factor in declaring jurisdiction appears to have been to offer mother services. We have no doubt that providing services to assist a family that has acknowledged the need for support certainly was meant to promote the best interests of [the child] and her entire family, but these good intentions are an insufficient basis upon which to find jurisdiction under section 300 . . . ." (In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, 139.)
Respondent argues that mother "randomly became aggressive and started breaking items while father was having breakfast one day." (See In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599-600 [a child's exposure to a parent's domestic violence places the child at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm].) But nothing indicated this episode either endangered Z.A. or was likely to reoccur in such a way as to endanger her. Respondent argues mother once "threw and broke things" when Z.A. was present. But without more information, a vague report of "throwing and breaking things" in a child's presence is not substantial evidence that the child has been endangered.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are reversed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CHANEY, J. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.