Opinion
B231862
09-28-2011
In re Isabel T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AURORA C., Defendant and Appellant.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. DaVanzo, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK86253)
APPEAL from findings and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Aurora C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdiction and dispositional orders, claiming that there was no evidence that her three children, Isabel T. (Isabel, born June 2001), Esmeralda T. (Esmeralda, born March 2006), and Maria T. (born Dec. 2007), were at risk of serious physical harm. She further contends that removal of the children from her care was unnecessary; rather, the children could have safely remained in mother's care under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), with family maintenance services.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Referral to DCFS and Mother's Hospitalization
On January 14, 2011, DCFS children's social worker Veronica Luna (Luna) went to mother's home to investigate allegations of caretaker absence/incapacity and emotional abuse. The reporter stated that the Monrovia Police Department had been dispatched on January 13, 2011, to mother's home because mother had been acting in a bizarre fashion. According to Monrovia Police Officers Leon and Pacheco, mother was observed in the backyard carrying a large metal ladder. Officer Leon asked mother what she was doing, and she replied that she was "removing all the metal material away from her residence because the power lines and the metal would cause her [to develop] cancer." It had also been reported to DCFS that mother had turned off the electricity in the home because she believed that the children could get cancer from watching television.
Moreover, mother had not been taking her medications. Specifically, Reynalda H. (grandmother), the maternal grandmother, told Officer Leon that mother was supposed to be taking anti-psychotic medications as well as medications to treat depression, and she had not taken her medications in several days.
When Officer Leon asked mother if she was taking her medications, she responded "No."
The police officers placed a hold on mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. The officers left the children with the grandmother.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Luna went to the family's home address and introduced herself to the grandmother, who told the social worker that she was very concerned about mother's mental health. According to grandmother, mother had stopped taking her medications for the past week or two, and the grandmother wanted mother to seek help.
The grandmother told Luna that the whereabouts of the children's father, Teddy T. (father), were unknown and that he had a history of domestic violence against mother, having been arrested for domestic violence on several occasions. On one occasion, father hit mother over the head with a gun, and mother obtained a restraining order against him.
Luna then spoke with the children's maternal aunt, Lizeth B. (the aunt), who stated that she had noticed mother acting strangely, that mother refused to take her medications, and that mother became angry with family members when they tried to get her to take her medications. The aunt was worried about the children because of mother's strange behavior.
The grandmother signed a safety plan that she would not allow mother to be left alone with the children once mother returned from the hospital.
Luna called the mental health hospital on January 17, 2011, and was informed that mother would not be released at that time.
On January 20, 2011, Luna met with mother at the hospital. Luna explained that mother was being interviewed for the purpose of assessing her ability to care for her children. Mother told Luna that she was not waiving any of her rights and refused to sign a form regarding her preferred language. She stated: "'I'm not signing s---, f--- you.'" When Luna asked mother why she had been hospitalized, mother replied: "'The police don't know s---'" and that "'I needed to take down the power lines.'"
Luna noted that mother appeared lethargic and, when Luna began to read the allegations that had been made about her, mother stated that she did not want to talk to the social worker, that she had a headache, and that "they" had her taking drugs.
Luna tried to explain that mother had to cooperate with the safety plan for the children, and mother stated that she would not leave her family home and that she would not take her medications. She admitted that she had not been taking her medications when at home with the children. Mother stated that no one could make her take her medications. Then, she walked out of the room stating, "'I know my rights.'"
The hospital's social worker, Debra Hollers (Hollers), told Luna that mother was very aggressive and verbal, that mother had poor impulse control, and was very demanding. Hollers indicated that mother had a schizophrenic affective (disorder) diagnosis and that mother was now medication compliant.
Next, Luna contacted the aunt regarding possible placement of the children with her. The aunt and her husband arranged to go to DCFS's offices to submit to criminal background checks.
The following day, Luna received a call from Hollers, advising her that mother had been released that morning and was on her way home. Hollers stated that mother had been particularly uncooperative the day before and she did not recall having been interviewed by Luna. Mother left the hospital without her medications because the hospital had been unable to refill her prescription.
Luna then called the aunt, who stated that mother had appeared at her home and was screaming, demanding to know why she could not be with her children. The aunt was upset and crying on the telephone. Luna informed the aunt that she would go to mother's home and detain the children and temporarily place them with the aunt and uncle.
When Luna arrived at the aunt's home, the aunt told her that both she and mother had arrived at Isabel's school to pick her up. Mother picked Isabel up and told the aunt that she was taking the child to see the doctor. The aunt stated that mother appeared to be acting "crazy." The aunt said that mother then appeared at the aunt's home to pick up the younger children, but the aunt lied and told mother that the children were with the DCFS social worker. The aunt did not open the door to allow mother into the home, and mother left the home stating, "I'm coming back to break all your windows." Mother sped off with Isabel in tow.
Luna called the Temple City's sheriff's station, asking the deputies to take Isabel into protective custody. While waiting at the aunt's home, Esmeralda told Luna that she was afraid of mother, who scared her sometimes.
Isabel was eventually detained from mother at mother's home. When Luna went to mother's home to take custody of Isabel, mother denied knowing Luna and denied having been interviewed the day before in the hospital. Luna asked mother if she had taken her medication that day, and mother denied that she needed any medication. Mother approached Luna and told her that she had no right to do this, and also told the children that their grandmother had "'f----- us up.'"
Luna placed Isabel with the aunt.
Section 300 Petition; Detention Hearing
On January 26, 2011, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of the children pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (g). As is relevant to this appeal, the petition alleged in counts a-1 and b-2 that mother and father had a history of engaging in verbal and physical altercations. In count b-1, the petition alleged that mother "has mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder and/or Schizophrenia, which render . . . mother incapable of providing the children with regular care and supervision. [M]other failed and refused to take [her] psychotropic medication as prescribed. On 01/14/2011, . . . mother was hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of [her] psychiatric condition. [M]other's mental and emotional condition endangers the children's physical and emotional health and safety, and creates a detrimental condition and places the children at risk of physical harm, damage and danger."
At the detention hearing, mother's counsel asked that the children be released to her because she was no longer under a section 5150 hold. The children's attorney asked that the children be detained in light of mother's threats and angry demeanor towards the aunt and because mother denied having talked to Luna on the day before her release.
The juvenile court found that DCFS met its burden to show a prima facie case of endangerment to the children. The juvenile court ordered mother to sign a release of information with respect to her treating physician or psychiatrist's medical records.
The juvenile court then found that a substantial danger existed to the children's health and that there were no reasonable means to protect them without removal from mother and father's custody. The children were detained with their aunt. Mother was given monitored visits.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
In its February 23, 2011, jurisdiction/disposition report, DCFS advised the juvenile court of father's drug use and history of domestic violence. Father admitted that he hit mother with his fist in 2005 or 2006 and that the couple had gotten into "really bad fights." Mother confirmed that father had been violent towards her.
The grandmother verified that she had called the police when mother had not taken her medications for two or three days because mother had stated her belief, based on a report from the electric company, that electricity can cause cancer. Mother had removed all the light bulbs from her bedroom. The grandmother knew that mother was not taking her medication because she counted the number of pills left in the medicine bottle. The grandmother called the police because mother became aggressive when the grandmother reminded her to take her pills. Furthermore, two years ago, the grandmother had taken custody of the children because mother had been hospitalized. The grandmother stated that mother would sometimes not take her medication because of having difficulty with the drugs' side effects.
Mother told the DCFS dependency investigator, Glenda Fonseca (Fonseca), that she had been hospitalized on three separate occasions, that the last occasion was completely against her will, and that she had not been aggressive towards anyone. Mother stated that she had never been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but, in 2006, during her previous section 5150 hold, she had been diagnosed with severe acute depression. And, in 2007, she had been hospitalized for an outburst of aggression and emotional distress. She also stated that the basis for her first involuntary hospitalization was her unsafe driving and her desire to commit suicide. She stated that the pain had been unbearable. She clarified that her diagnosis had actually been bipolar disorder and depression.
Mother explained that she did not like taking her psychotropic medications because they "knock[ed]" her out and made her feel "tired [and] sleepy."
DCFS records showed that in January 2008, there had been a case where there had been voluntary supervision of the family based on substantiated caretaker absence/incapacity, that was opened on January 3, 2008, and closed on December 4, 2008. The grandmother corroborated by saying: "Two years [ago,] my daughter had a voluntary case in which the girls were placed with me because she was hospitalized. She began to get aggressive that time and she was hospitalized. The doctor diagnosed her with depression."
Isabel said that she never felt unsafe around mother. Mother always cooked for them and would talk to them. She wanted to go home to mother.
Fonseca concluded that the children were at risk because of mother's past refusal to cooperate with DCFS and her refusal to take her medication.
March 9, 2011, Last Minute Information
In a subsequent report, mother wanted the juvenile court to know that she had not been aware that her children had been detained from her when she confronted the aunt. Attached to the report were various documents regarding mother's hospitalization, which also contained mother's written comments. The discharge instructions from mother's most recent hospitalization indicated that, as of January 21, 2011, mother no longer needed an acute level of psychiatric care. The discharge document reported that mother suffered from a schizoaffective disorder.
Mother's handwritten letter was also provided to the juvenile court. In it, mother stated that she had been hospitalized against her will on January 13, 2011. She was forced to accept an injection of a drug that made her unconscious. She also stated that she was held beyond the normal three-day hold period and only released after she had taken psychotropic medication. She represented that she had been "under treatment for depression, panic attacks, mood swings, [and] fatigue since 2006." She claimed that she had been cooperative with DCFS.
March 9, 2011, Adjudication Hearing; Juvenile Court Order; Mother's Appeal
At the hearing, mother represented that she wanted to submit the letter she had written in lieu of testimony.
After receiving all the documents into evidence, the juvenile court entertained oral argument. Mother argued that the allegations against her should be dismissed because she no longer presented a danger to herself or others. Both the children's attorney and county counsel asked that the juvenile court sustain the allegations regarding mother's mental conditions.
Regarding mother, the juvenile court sustained an allegation that mother had mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, that rendered her incapable of providing the children with regular care and supervision, that mother had failed and refused to take her psychotropic medication as prescribed, and that mother had been hospitalized for evaluation and treatment of her psychiatric condition. The juvenile court also sustained the allegation that mother's mental and emotional condition endangered the children's physical and emotional health and safety and created a detrimental condition that placed them at risk of physical harm.
The juvenile court also sustained allegations regarding father.
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that substantial danger existed towards the children's physical and mental health and that DCFS had taken reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children from mother's custody. It ordered mother to attend parenting education and counseling with a licensed therapist, and that she obtain psychiatric treatment and take her prescribed medications.
Mother's timely appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
I. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court's Jurisdictional Findings
A. Standard of review
The parties agree that we review the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) "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.]" (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.)
B. Analysis
"The purpose of section 300 'is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.' [Citation.]" (In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.)
With that in mind, section 300 provides, in relevant part: "Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (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, or the willful or negligent failure of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse." (§ 300, subd. (b).)
To find a minor a person described in section 300, subdivision (b), there must be proof of neglectful conduct, causation, and a substantial risk of serious physical harm. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.)
Here, there is ample evidence that the children are at a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Mother has been diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder that led her to have delusions, and she had been involuntarily detained for about a week because of her refusal to take her psychotropic medication. As harmless as her most recent delusional belief was—that electricity caused cancer—mother could not care for the children until she accepted her psychotropic medications. Her own account as to why she was held so long was that she was only released after she had taken her medication. Thus, by her own admission, the children had been deprived of her parenting for a week because she had not taken her medication.
In addition, mother told Luna in no uncertain terms that she refused to continue taking her medication once she was released by the hospital. Also, whereas mother had lived with the grandmother who provided an additional measure of care for the children, mother indicated at the time the children were detained from her that the grandmother was responsible for having brought the police and DCFS into the matter. And, the aunt confirmed that mother was acting strangely and became angry with family members when they tried to get her to take her medication.
The cases cited in mother's appellate briefs are distinguishable. In In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, there was no evidence that the father's alleged "'mental and emotional problems' rendered him unable to provide care for his children. Although [the mother] described [the father] as 'paranoid and 'hallucina[tory],' there was no evidence linking these alleged mental disturbances to physical harm or a risk of physical harm to the children." (Id. at p. 718, italics added.) Here, unlike the father in In re Daisy H. , mother has been diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder and she needs to take antipsychotic medication. And, her failure to take her medication renders her incapable of providing care for her three daughters.
In In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, there was no evidence that the parents' mental problems were "tied to any actual harm" to the children "or to a substantial risk of serious harm." (Id. at p. 829.) The Orange County Social Services Agency "offered no evidence that these problems caused, or created a substantial risk of causing, serious harm" to the children. (Id. at p. 830.) In contrast, the children here are at a substantial risk given mother's multiple hospitalizations, refusal to take her medication, and her unwillingness to accept help from her family.
Mother's past inability to care for her children because she failed to take her medication, coupled with mother's representation that she would not take her medication and her lack of cooperation with family members, compels the conclusion that the children are at a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness as a result of mother's failure to provide regular care for them. (In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1283.) This evidence is sufficient to support the juvenile court's findings under section 300, subdivision (b). (See, e.g., In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1650 [evidence indicates a pattern of behavior resulting in inadequate supervision that places the minor at substantial risk].)
In light of this conclusion, we need not address mother's argument that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under subdivision (a). "Section 300, subdivisions (a) through (j), establishes several bases for dependency jurisdiction, any one of which is sufficient to establish jurisdiction." (In re Dirk S. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1045.)
--------
II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court's Removal Order
Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in removing the children from her care. With the provision of services and supervision, she claims that DCFS could have ensured their safety with her.
A. Applicable law and standard of review
Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides, in relevant part, that in order to remove a child from her parents, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that: "There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor's parents' . . . physical custody." (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
We review the juvenile court's order for substantial evidence. (In re Kristin H., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1654.)
B. Analysis
For the same reasons set forth above, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's order removing the children from mother's custody. She had been hospitalized on three occasions, and mother told Luna that she did not intend to take her psychotropic medications.
The cases cited by mother in support of her argument are inapposite. In In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, the Court of Appeal reversed a removal order because (1) the physical abuse suffered by the child was a single occurrence that neither the social services agency nor the juvenile court considered to be an obstacle to reunification, and (2) the juvenile court did not consider the existence of alternatives to out-of-home placement. (Id. at p. 529.) In contrast, mother's multiple hospitalizations and refusal to be compliant with her medication are what led to DCFS involvement and put the children at risk. And, unlike the evidence presented at the hearing in In re Henry V., supra, at pages 529-530, there was no evidence presented that in-home services may have been appropriate.
Similarly, mother directs us to In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10 to support her position that any risk of future harm is speculative. But, in that case, the speculation was that the mother, who had been in an abusive relationship, would enter into a new relationship with yet another abusive type of person. The Court of Appeal concluded that that reasoning was speculative. In contrast, in this case, the risk to the children is posed by mother's own failure to treat her mental condition. That risk is based upon substantial evidence, not speculation.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's findings and order are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
________________________________ , J.
ASHMANN-GERST
We concur:
________________________________ , P. J.
BOREN
________________________________ , J.
DOI TODD