Opinion
C087929
05-15-2020
In re L.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MODOC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.N., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JP18016)
R.N., father of the minor L.N. (minor), appeals the juvenile court's disposition order placing the minor with T.E. (mother) and transferring the case to Shasta County. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361, 375, 395.) We will affirm the juvenile court's orders.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. BACKGROUND
The one-year-old minor came to the attention of the Modoc County Department of Social Services (Department) when, on August 3, 2018, mother brought the minor to the emergency room claiming the child had been bitten by snakes. Mother claimed her home was infested with water snakes that had bitten the minor multiple times, that the minor's legs were black from the snake bites, and that the minor said there were snakes in the minor's bed. Medical personnel examined the minor and determined she had not been bitten by snakes and was otherwise physically and developmentally healthy. Staff treated the minor for mosquito bites. Medical staff described mother as paranoid and noted she continued to maintain that there were snakes in the home and that the minor had been bitten by snakes despite being told otherwise. The medical staff suspected that mother's paranoia was due to substance use and/or mental health issues and did not believe mother could adequately care for the minor.
Social worker Luke Hughes spoke with mother, who was accompanied by the paternal grandmother and the minor. Mother told Hughes she saw three snakes in the home. She stated the one-year-old minor saw them too and yelled, "Snake, snake!" She claimed the minor was up most of the night screaming. The paternal grandmother stated she had seen snakes outside mother's residence but never inside the home. Hughes asked mother if she had a plan for where she and the minor would stay when they left the hospital. Mother stated she planned to stay with the paternal grandmother.
Mother claimed her primary residence was in Redding (Shasta County), where she lived with her mother. Hughes noted mother was receiving benefits in Modoc County at an Alturas address. Mother explained that she "comes back and forth between Redding and Alturas" and that the only reason she was in town was to allow father to see the minor for the minor's birthday. When asked if she and father were together, mother stated they were "on and off" and, while she was not named on father's lease, she stayed with him on occasion when she was in town. Mother did not know where father was and did not have his telephone number. The paternal grandmother also stated she did not know father's number.
When asked whether she used drugs, mother stated she took ibuprofen and was prescribed Prozac but did not take it. She also admitted using marijuana. Mother stated she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression approximately six years ago but was not seeing a counselor or a therapist.
Mother denied having used any drugs within the last 24 to 48 hours. However, law enforcement officers assessed mother and determined she was under the influence of an unidentified controlled substance. Mother was placed under arrest and the minor was detained. Officers later determined that mother had driven the minor to the emergency room while under the influence and cited her for misdemeanor child endangerment. She refused to be subjected to a urinalysis, stating she did not feel like she needed to. Hughes explained to mother that she was going to jail, and mother agreed to allow the paternal grandmother to care for the minor.
Hughes later met with mother to develop a safety plan to allow mother to have contact with and care for the minor. When Hughes asked mother about the emergency room incident which led to the minor's removal, mother maintained her belief about the snakes and admitted having taken Prozac prior to taking the minor to the emergency room. She stated it was the Prozac that caused her to fail the sobriety assessment and claimed she was not too impaired to drive the minor to the emergency room. Because mother was neither willing nor able to acknowledge the safety issues that led to the minor's removal, Hughes was unable to develop a safety plan with mother.
Hughes also met with father, who explained he was out of town during the incident involving mother and had no knowledge of it until later that evening. Hughes found no safety concerns related to father and engaged father in a safety plan allowing him to have contact with the minor so long as he did not remove her from the placement.
The Department decided to release the minor to father's care. However, when Hughes was unable to reach father via telephone despite several attempts, he released the minor to the paternal grandmother's care.
Dependency Petition
On August 7, 2018, the Department filed a dependency petition in Modoc County pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging mother failed to protect the minor based on the August 3, 2018 incident, including that mother drove the minor to the emergency room while mother was under the influence of a controlled substance. None of the allegations in the petition pertained to father, with whom the Department recommended placement of the minor.
Initial and Contested Detention Hearings
At the initial detention hearing on August 8, 2018, both parents requested a contested hearing. The court acknowledged that the minor had been removed from mother and placed with father but, because mother and father were living together, the court ordered that mother have no unsupervised contact with the minor.
The contested detention hearing commenced the following day. Social worker Hughes testified that mother's preliminary urine test was negative for illegal substances. Hughes stated he saw mother the day of the initial incident and had observed her prior to the hearing and concluded she did not appear to be in the same state of mind at the hearing as she was on the date of the incident. Hughes added that mother appeared to be psychologically and emotionally stable and was taking her medication, namely Prozac. Hughes agreed that the initial incident that led to removal of the minor appeared to have been "transitory," meaning it was not permanent, and it appeared to him that mother's emotional state was more stable than it had been previously.
Hughes testified that mother informed him about some domestic violence between mother and father in the past. He opined that the presence of domestic violence in the home in which the parents occasionally lived together would place the minor at risk of physical or emotional harm. Hughes had concerns about mother's mental health and stated there was a need for continued detention because mother remained adamant that there were snakes in the home and she did not believe the medical staff's opinion otherwise because she felt they did not do a good enough job assessing for snake bites. Because mother failed to acknowledge the safety risks, it was difficult to address those risks through a safety plan or voluntary services.
The court inquired about the source of Hughes's information that mother's primary residence was in Shasta County. Hughes explained that father stated mother stayed with father in Modoc County for a period of time and then returned to her mother's residence in Shasta County, taking the minor with her to each location. He noted, however, that the Social Services computer database showed mother was receiving benefits in Modoc County which would indicate her primary residence was in Modoc County.
Mother testified she only took Prozac when she felt she needed to and only when she was depressed. She stated she took Prozac at 3:20 a.m. the morning she was arrested, and smoked marijuana 12 hours prior to the incident. She did not tell her physician that she was taking both at the same time. Mother still believed she saw a snake in her home on August 3, 2018, and felt she did everything necessary to protect the minor, but she no longer believed the minor was bitten by a snake.
Mother testified her permanent residence was in Modoc County, but she went back and forth between Modoc County and Shasta County when she was having trouble in her relationship with father. Mother stated she would cooperate with the Department to address their concerns and would voluntarily submit to a psychological evaluation and drug test. She would also allow a social worker to have unannounced visits at the home where she lived with the minor and would follow any reasonable suggestions made by the Department to ensure the incident never occurred again. Mother testified that, if she and father could refrain from arguing, she would "have no problem staying in Alturas" with the minor. However, the home in Redding offered more opportunity and better daycare choices, and mother could "make [her]self a lot better for [her] daughter." If the court ordered a voluntary plan, mother said she would stay in Alturas with the minor and father because she did not feel it was okay for her to be taking the minor back and forth or to take the minor away from her father.
Father testified he had "a problem with some of the Department" staff but he would cooperate with the Department's unannounced home visits to make sure the home was safe and clean and there were no problems with the minor, and he would give mother permission to let staff into his home in his absence.
After considering the evidence presented and argument from counsel, the court ordered the minor detained from mother and placed with father. The court further ordered reunification services for mother (including drug and alcohol testing, substance abuse treatment, parenting education, and mental health services) and supervised visitation for mother with both father and the paternal grandmother as approved supervisors.
On August 15, 2018, mother submitted notice that her mailing address changed to Redding.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
As set forth in the jurisdiction/disposition report filed August 22, 2018, the Department recommended the court sustain the petition, continue the minor in the care of father, and provide reunification services to mother. The social worker reported that father and mother had separated and reconciled twice since the inception of the case. Mother reported that father struck her in the head and grabbed her by the arm during an altercation on August 9, 2018. After the incident, mother reported she and father were no longer residing together in father's home in Alturas. Father denied mother's accusations of a physical attack and explained that, during the altercation mother reported, he told mother that she needed to leave his residence because mother was attempting to take the minor without supervision. While the incident was not reported to law enforcement, mother was treated for symptoms of a concussion on August 10, 2018.
The social worker reported that mother was very motivated and communicative, very focused on reunifying with the minor, consistent in making appointments, and checked in with the social worker even when she was not required to do so. Mother also reportedly submitted to a urinalysis with negative results. Mother informed the Department that her primary residence was in Shasta County and she wanted to move back to Redding to "advance[] in her life." She stated she had numerous opportunities for employment there and would participate in counseling services for behavioral health, substance abuse, drug testing, and parenting education. Mother also told the social worker she believed her primary support network was in Redding.
The social worker opined that mother and the minor had a very strong bond and mother behaved in a very caring and attentive way toward the minor. However, the social worker stated mother's most significant barrier to creating a safe and stable environment for the minor was mother's mental health. The Department concluded mother's mental health status, in the absence of supervision, contributed to the likelihood that the minor was at risk of serious physical harm if returned to mother's care, particularly given the minor's young age and vulnerability. On the other hand, the Department determined there were no safety issues regarding the minor's safety with father, and father's residence was a safe environment for the minor.
Combined Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
The combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing commenced on August 27, 2018. The court conducted a settlement conference between the parties off the record, at the conclusion of which the Department stated on the record its revised position that it would submit on the jurisdictional/dispositional report, arguing the court should exercise jurisdiction, place the minor with mother with a plan of family maintenance, transfer the matter to Shasta County, and order visitation for father. The Department noted jurisdiction was appropriate because there had not been enough time or services provided to alleviate the risks which brought the minor to its attention. The Department noted the significance of mother's support group in Shasta County, many of whom were seated in the courtroom, to assist mother, supervise her, and help alleviate the risk of harm to the minor.
Father's counsel objected to the Department's reversal of its previous position, arguing the minor was safe with father, and further arguing mother was making a concerted effort to "take this [minor] away from her father, spirit her off to Shasta County, where father w[ould] be, . . . for all intents and purposes, excluded from having a relationship."
The Department explained that, since the filing of the report on August 22, 2018, there was new information that caused the Department to reevaluate its position, including statements by father to a social worker's aide indicating father "had no intention whatsoever of providing visitation to mother" and "didn't want [mother] involved in [the minor's] life at all." Mother's counsel agreed with the Department and informed the court of texts from father to mother just prior to the hearing wherein father threatened to remove the minor from mother and "she was never going to see the child again" because father "was going to flee with the child." Mother's counsel further informed the court that mother was "prepared to file a restraining order against father" that same day. Minor's counsel also expressed concern about father's lack of cooperation with the Department and urged the court to exercise jurisdiction and set the matter for a contested disposition hearing.
The court found true the allegations in the petition and exercised jurisdiction over the minor based on the jurisdiction/disposition report and mother's stipulation. Regarding disposition, the court found mother was in Modoc County for a visit when the initial incident occurred, mother's permanent residence was in Shasta County, and mother was and had been the primary caretaker of the minor up to the point of detention. Therefore, the court placed the minor with mother and ordered family maintenance services for mother, stating, "I'm not going to—essentially through this proceeding, because of this incident that mom admittedly went through—simply remove custody from her." The court ordered the Department to pursue transfer of the matter to "mother's county of residence, Shasta County," and further ordered visitation for father every weekend. The court's minute order set the transfer-out hearing for September 10, 2018.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sufficient Evidence to Support Dispositional Order
Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court's dispositional order placing the minor with mother. He claims the evidence established that placement with mother would create a substantial danger to the minor, given the Department's conclusion that mother's mental health issues were a significant barrier to creating a safe and stable environment for the minor. He further claims it was not reasonable for the court to rely on the statements of counsel that he would not cooperate or allow mother to have contact with the minor, or that mother's support group in Shasta County would alleviate the risk of harm to the minor. As we will explain, father's claims lack merit.
"If the court finds that the child is a person described by Section 300, it may order and adjudge the child to be a dependent child of the court." (§ 360, subd. (d).)
"A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents . . . with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances . . . : [¶] (1) 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 parent's . . . physical custody." (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
"The interests of both parent and child are protected by the two-step process of a dependency proceeding, with its separate adjudication and disposition hearings. Thus, when [the Department] makes a prima facie case under section 300 by proving the jurisdictional facts at the adjudication hearing, it is not improper for the court to sustain the petition; not until the disposition hearing does the court determine whether the minor should be adjudged a dependent. (§ 360.) At the disposition hearing, however, the minor may not be taken from the physical custody of a parent unless the court finds that the parent is incapable of properly caring for the child, that such placement would be detrimental to the child, and that placement outside the home would be in the child's best interests. (§ 361; Civ. Code, § 4600; In re Carmaleta B. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 482, 495-496; In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 695.)" (In re La Shonda B. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 593, 599.)
We review the dispositional order removing a child from parental custody for substantial evidence. (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126.) "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order even if there is other evidence that would support a contrary finding. [Citation.] . . . The appellant has the burden of showing that there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the order. [Citations.]" (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 915-916, italics added.)
Here, the evidence was sufficient to support the court's dispositional orders. The minor was initially detained after mother claimed the minor was bitten by a snake in bed. Medical staff concluded otherwise, and suspected mother was paranoid due to substance abuse and/or mental health issues. Those suspicions turned out to be unfounded, as mother admitted having taken Prozac but otherwise tested negative for illegal substances. She continued to test negative throughout the proceedings. Social worker Hughes later testified that mother did not appear to be in the same state of mind as she had been a week earlier when she was detained, and she appeared to be more psychologically and emotionally stable and was medication compliant.
The court initially ordered the minor detained and placed with father and ordered reunification services for mother, including alcohol and drug testing, substance abuse treatment, parenting education, and mental health services. The court acknowledged that mother and father were, at that time, residing together with the minor in the same home in Modoc County. The Department's August 22, 2018 report recommended the court sustain the dependency petition. The Department reported that while mother was motivated, focused on reunifying with the minor, and willing to participate in services, continued placement with father was appropriate due to mother's mental health issues which contributed to the risk of serious physical harm if the minor were returned to her care without supervision.
However, by the time of the August 27, 2018 combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing several weeks later, the Department had reevaluated its position regarding disposition. After submitting on its August 22, 2018 report and arguing jurisdiction was proper because mother needed more time and services to alleviate the risk of future harm to the minor, the Department revised its earlier recommendation that the court continue the minor in father's care and instead argued the court should place the minor with mother under a plan of family maintenance and transfer the case to Shasta County where mother's support network, many of whom were seated in the courtroom, would assist and supervise mother and make sure "she is healthy, safe, and well," and would help alleviate any risk of harm to the minor. The Department further explained that, since making its initial recommendation, it received new information that raised concerns, namely that father told a social worker's aide he had no intention of allowing mother to visit the minor or be involved in the minor's life. Those concerns were echoed by mother's counsel who alerted the court to the existence of threatening texts from father to mother just prior to the hearing, and noted that mother was prepared to file a restraining order against father that day.
The court sustained the petition and exercised jurisdiction over the minor based on mother's stipulation and on the jurisdiction/disposition report. Thereafter, the court ordered the minor returned to mother under a plan of family maintenance. In making its dispositional order, the court stated its "primary motivating factor" was based on "what evidence I do have," including that mother's permanent residence was in Shasta County, mother was only visiting Modoc County when the incident triggering the minor's removal occurred, and mother was and had been the primary caretaker for the minor up to the point of detention. The court stated it was not inclined to remove custody of the minor from mother based on a single incident that triggered detention but noted the importance of a program of family maintenance and mother's engagement in services to protect the minor. The court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence.
Father argues the additional information offered by the Department and mother's counsel was neither evidence nor argument supported by evidentiary facts. Like the juvenile court, we construe the new information offered by the Department and mother's counsel as offers of proof relevant to the issues at hand. (See In re Mark C. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 433, 445.) It is not at all clear from this record that the court relied in part or at all on the offers of proof in making its determination as to disposition, given the court's statement that "my primary motivating factor here is based on what evidence I do have." (Italics added.) In any event, even without considering the offers of proof, the record demonstrated that the incident resulting in temporary placement of the minor with father was the result of a "one-time incident" provoked by mother's use of Prozac; thereafter mother was emotionally and psychologically stabilized, medication-compliant, and very motivated to participate in services and reunify with the minor; mother otherwise tested negative for illegal substances throughout the dependency; during the period of detention, mother had unlimited supervised contact with the minor while living with father in the same home without incident; father's objection to placement with mother was not based on child safety but rather child custody; and mother had significant resources and a strong support system available to her in Redding, giving her the best opportunity to better herself while at the same time protecting the minor. Based thereon, there was sufficient evidence to support the court's disposition orders. B. Order to Transfer Case to Shasta County
Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered the Department to pursue transfer of the matter to Shasta County and set the matter for a transfer-out hearing. He claims the court erred in finding the minor resided in Shasta County and in finding that transfer of the matter was in the minor's best interest. He further claims a change of venue would be prejudicial to him because it would fuel the already hostile relationship between the parents and would reduce his parental access to the minor.
As the Department aptly notes, father's claim fails because the transfer-out hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2018, a date after the court issued its disposition order from which father appeals. In essence, father asks us to review what amounts to a tentative ruling to transfer the case subject to the outcome of a transfer-out hearing that had not yet occurred as of the court's dispositional rulings. We decline to do so.
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/_________
RAYE, P. J.
/S/_________
BUTZ, J.