Opinion
G061741
05-17-2023
In re N.I. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.S., Defendant and Appellant. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, In re M.T.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.T. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.T. Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.S. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Deborah B. Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. 22DP0283, 22DP0284, 22DP0285, 22DP0286, 22DP0287, Vibhav Mittal, Judge. Affirmed. Respondent's request for judicial notice is denied.
Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.T.
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.S.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Deborah B. Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
O'LEARY, P. J.
This appeal lies from a disposition order in a juvenile dependency proceeding removing custody of the children and ordering family reunification services. J.S. (mother), who has five children, and J.T., who is the father to the two youngest, raise two arguments: they contend substantial evidence does not support removing the children from their custody, and they contend the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing three of the children with the maternal great-grandmother. We conclude there was no error and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
I. The Initial Impetus for the Dependency Proceeding; February 20 to 28, 2022
Mother has five children who are subjects of this proceeding: N.I. (age 15), Ma.S. (male, age 12), T.S. (male, age 5), M.T.S. (age 7 months), and A.S. (newborn).J.T. is the father of M.T.S. and A.S.
The ages listed were the children's ages at the time the petition was filed in March 2022.
On February 20, 2022, while mother was still pregnant with A.S., she suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. While mother was hospitalized, she suffered a stroke, which led to an emergency C-section delivery of A.S., who was premature at 25.3 weeks gestation. Mother was ultimately released from the hospital on February 28, 2022.
Due to the emergency, the four older children were left home alone without adult supervision. Over the course of the eight days mother was hospitalized, she made only minimal arrangements for the children's supervision. Mother instructed the older children to contact their maternal grandmother for help. However, the maternal grandmother did not make it to the home for two more days. When the maternal grandmother arrived, she had an altercation with Ma.S., who suffered from mental disabilities. In the altercation, Ma.S. was shouting, threatening the maternal grandmother, and experiencing delusions. This resulted in calls to the police, and ultimately he was hospitalized due to the mental health concern. The maternal grandmother only took T.S. home with her, leaving N.I. (age 15) and the infant M.T.S. home without adult supervision. It is unclear why the maternal grandmother did not take N.I. and M.T.S. home with her, but she refused to stay at their house because she had to take care of her pets. Mother was aware of this situation. Mother also sought help from a neighbor, but the neighbor was handicapped and unable to reach their upper-floor residence. The only other supervision of the children was N.I.'s therapist calling in to check on the children via Zoom each day. Mother did order groceries to be delivered to the house. Ultimately, N.I., who in the juvenile court's words had been "parentified," was left to care for the infant M.T.S. on her own for nearly the entire eight days.
The father of M.T.S., J.T., knew that M.T.S. had been left without adult supervision during the eight-day period. He initially planned to pick M.T.S. up but never followed through and never made arrangements for M.T.S.'s care. At the time, he was under a restraining order preventing him from contacting the mother and the older children (though, as discussed below, the evidence indicated he had no qualms about violating that order). J.T. claimed to have asked a neighbor to check on M.T.S., but never actually confirmed that anyone saw M.T.S. After A.S. was born prematurely in February, J.T. claimed he did not arrange for M.T.S.'s care because of the birth, but the evidence showed that J.T. only visited A.S. in the hospital one time, for one hour, with mother (in violation of the restraining order). J.T. had lost his parental rights to another child as a result of a similar failure to provide adequate supervision.
II. The Family History of Mental Illness and Domestic Violence
The mother had a current psychiatric diagnosis of anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder. In April 2007, mother was diagnosed as bipolar, and it was reported that she had suicidal ideation and was leaving N.I. in the care of B.C., the maternal greatgrandmother, for days at a time. Mother denied the suicidal ideation but agreed to a voluntary reunification plan with N.I. remaining in the care of B.C. with mother having monitored visits. She successfully reunified. In 2015, mother was receiving services from Long Beach Mental Health. Her psychiatrist suspected she had a personality disorder.
At the disposition hearing, the court ordered an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation of mother to determine whether that is true and whether mother suffers from any other psychological conditions.
N.I. was diagnosed autistic and, as of the time of the petition, was receiving psychiatric treatment and therapeutic services due to severe mental health issues. Shortly before the petition was filed, N.I. ran away from home, requiring police intervention. She was psychiatrically hospitalized from August 21, 2021, through September 8, 2021. N.I.'s psychiatrist and therapist opined that her behavioral issues were exasperated when she was under tremendous stress, and that she has had to care for her younger siblings in mother's stead, including caring for Ma.S., who also suffers from mental health issues.
Ma.S. has been prescribed psychotropic medication for bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). While Ma.S. was hospitalized due to his mental breakdown, a hospital psychiatrist did a formal evaluation of Ma.S. However, during the five days Ma.S. was hospitalized, he did not exhibit any of the behaviors that mother and the maternal grandmother had claimed, and the psychiatrist expressed concern that they were giving false information about Ma.S. Subsequently, two of Ma.S.'s therapists shared a similar concern.
Mother and J.T. had a history of domestic violence. In December 2020, J.T. was arrested for violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e) [battery against a girlfriend], though no charges were ultimately filed. Mother obtained a restraining order in family law court. In that proceeding, mother declared that she was in a deep sleep when J.T. stuck a finger deep into her ear and began shouting at her. More concerning, she was pregnant with M.T.S. at the time, and J.T. used his knee to apply heavy pressure to her abdomen. Mother reported suffering stomach cramps, a bruise on her upper arm, lower back pain, and an asthma attack, and reported that the fetus' heartbeat had temporarily stopped. The family law court granted a no-contact/stay away order that protected the mother and the three older children from J.T. through March 2024.
However, both mother and J.T. violated that order, as evidenced by the fact that A.S. was conceived after the restraining order issued. Moreover, in January 2022, J.T. showed up uninvited at mother's home, and after an argument, he punched both mother (in the knee) and N.I. (in the shoulder). He punched N.I. because she had blocked him on her cell phone. More generally, N.I. reported that mother was currently dating J.T. Ma.S. reported that J.T. came to their home often, and mother and J.T. would sometimes shout and curse at each other.
N.I. reported that mother sometimes resorted to striking the children with a belt as a form of discipline, especially with T.S., who, in her words, mother hit "'constantly.'" However, N.I. had not seen any marks on T.S. after mother used the belt. She reported that on one occasion, after picking N.I. up from school, mother became irate with her because she took too long to get into the car. When they arrived on Ma.S.'s school to get him, mother threw N.I. out of the car onto her back. In another incident, after N.I. forgot to put clothes in the washing machine, mother tried to force N.I.'s own hands down her throat. Ma.S. testified to incidents in which mother pushed him hard against walls, sometimes knocking him to the ground, and testified that mother sometimes referred to him as a "motherfucker" or "fucking idiot."
On March 1, 2022, a protective custody warrant issued and the children were removed from mother and taken to Orangewood Children and Family Center. Shortly afterward, N.I. was placed with Mo.T., who was the mother of one of N.I.'s friends. Ma.S., T.S., and M.T.S. were placed with B.C., the maternal great grandmother. Newborn A.S. remained at the hospital.
III. Post-detention Reports Regarding N.I.
After the initial detention, a social worker interviewed N.I. N.I. reported that, while in mother's custody, she was the one to get her younger siblings up and ready for school during the week. She woke up around 5:00 a.m. each morning to get herself ready before waking the other children up to get them ready and feed them breakfast. Mother generally slept through this process. When N.I. got home from school, N.I. would do three hours of chores, which included doing the dishes, sweeping, and cleaning the apartment. She also helped take care of baby M.T.S. by feeding him and changing his diapers. N.I. was allowed to start her homework only after mother had approved her chores.
N.I. reported that mother had made up lies to have N.I. diagnosed as autistic, anxious, and depressed, none of which N.I. felt she had. Mother was attempting to have N.I. diagnosed as schizophrenic, which N.I. reported was based on lies. Mother also made her take sleeping medications, which she felt she did not need, and which caused her to fall asleep in class. Since being removed from mother's custody, N.I. stopped taking her medications and felt better. N.I. reported that, since being removed, she felt good having so many fewer responsibilities in terms of chores and childcare. N.I.'s high school counselor was interviewed and she similarly expressed concern that mother was making up lies about N.I.'s behavioral issues, as N.I. exhibited no such issues at school. The counselor also expressed concern about the amount of chores N.I. was required to do, which was negatively affecting her ability to complete homework.
N.I. was doing very well and was happy in her placement with Mo.T. She was excited to go back to school because she had not been in school for several weeks due to caring for her siblings. She was also happy that she would be able to do her homework right after school. Mo.T. described N.I. as "'delightful, calm and extremely sweet,'" and denied seeing any concerning behaviors. In May 2022, N.I.'s therapist reported that N.I. was "the happiest she has ever seen her." Around the same time, N.I.'s school counselor reported that N.I. "'is a totally different person,'" always smiling and very happy.
On May 23, 2022, N.I. wrote a letter to the juvenile court that stated, in part, "For as long [as] I can remember I have not felt safe at home." "My mother is always [portraying] me as a crazy and out of control person but those who truly know me say I am very kind, helpful and responsible. At home I wasn't able to be my true self but now since I'm in a new home with people who care and love me I'm able to be my true self. I would really like to stay at my school of origins which is [intentionally omitted] high school. I have friends and people there who love and support me. It would mean the world to me if I was allowed to stay at [intentionally omitted] high school with my foster parents who make me feel safe and cared for. My whole life I have been let down by adults, so please don't be the one to send me and my siblings into a home where I feel uncared for and afraid for my safety." She would later testify that, when initially removed, she had bad grades in school, including Fs, and by the time of her testimony she had improved those grades to all As and Bs.
On June 6, 2022, N.I. disclosed to the social worker that she had been raped. Before discussing it with the social worker, N.I. wanted her therapist to be on the phone for support. N.I. disclosed that she had been raped multiple times by T.S.'s father, D.F. The first instance happened when she was five years old and they were all living in Florida. D.F. said he had a game for N.I. and "'stuck his penis in my vagina.'" N.I. did not disclose that incident to anyone and did not remember how it made her feel. The second incident occurred at the maternal grandmother's house in Long Beach, California. She was sleeping on the couch when D.F. put either his penis or finger in her vagina, she could not remember which one. She said this happened "'pretty much every night.'" She told B.C. about one incident, and B.C. called the police. According to N.I., mother did not believe her and instead protected D.F. However, a physical examination was performed and was inconclusive. Moreover, the investigating officer concluded that B.C. had coached N.I. on what to say and was manipulating her. The third incident occurred at D.F.'s house in Los Angeles, when D.F. grabbed her and inserted his penis into her vagina. She did not tell anyone about this incident because "'there's nobody I could tell.'" Mother did not believe her the last time, and the police did nothing. Although these allegations were quite serious, given the uncertainty created by the prior investigation, these allegations did not appear to play any role in the juvenile court's ruling removing custody of the children. Indeed, the court ultimately vested custody of T.S. with D.F., the alleged perpetrator.
IV. Post-detention Reports Regarding Ma.S.
Ma.S. similarly reported that mother made him do chores for "'hours'" after getting home from school. He also reported that mother made him take sleeping pills, which he did not feel he needed.
Ma.S. was placed with maternal great-grandmother B.C. He reported that he liked living with B.C. notwithstanding that mother said negative things about B.C. Ma.S. was given opportunities to speak with mother over the phone but often declined. Mother complained that B.C. did not believe in mental health. Mother also complained that B.C. brainwashed and manipulated Ma.S. against mother, though B.C. denied the allegations. For his part, Ma.S. professed not wanting to visit mother because "he always gets in trouble from his mother and his mother always tells him he is being aggressive even though he is not." Ma.S. ended up giving his cell phone back to mother because "she gets mad at him if he does not reply or text her good morning every day, so he would rather not have it." Mother would later falsely report that Ma.S. threw the phone at her, but a social worker observed the exchange and noted Ma.S. did so calmly and acted appropriately throughout the visit (mother had also falsely reported that Ma.S. was poking his baby brother M.T.S. with a stick in the eye).
Ma.S. professed to never wanting to see mother or J.T. "'ever in my life again.'" He began referring to them by their first names rather than as parents because "'they don't act like it or treat me like it.'" Ma.S. said he feels safe and happy at B.C.'s house and wanted to stay there "'[f]orever.'" Ma.S.'s therapist reported that he loved B.C. and enjoyed that he got to see his uncle and cousins while there.
Although B.C. professed a willingness to accommodate all of Ma.S.'s psychiatric appointments, she was inconsistent in ensuring Ma.S. attended his appointments. Ma.S.'s psychiatrist and therapist reported in April 2022 that B.C. prevented Ma.S.'s appointments on April 11 and 18, 2022. His attendance remained inconsistent in May 2022, with Ma.S.'s psychiatrist expressing concern that the inconsistency was putting Ma.S. at potential harm. In July, his therapist reported that B.C. was underreporting "symptoms and behaviors causing [a] barrier in treatment."
In May 2022, Ma.S.'s teacher reported on some challenges at school, "mainly with him walking out of class without permission." One time Ma.S. was found in the teachers' parking lot, and another time in front of the school. However, the teacher had not seen any instances of Ma.S. acting aggressively or displaying significant mental health symptoms. The primary problem was that Ma.S. simply was not doing his schoolwork, which may have been due in part to Ma.S.'s lack of ability, not being used to school, and simple refusal on Ma.S.'s part.
By June 2022, Ma.S. had ceased taking all of his psychotropic medications, which used to make him feel tired, and was feeling much better without them. A clinical psychologist assessed Ma.S. and concluded that his primary diagnosis was depressive disorder and ADHD. The previous diagnoses were deemed "'in remission.'"
V. Post-detention Reports About T.S. and M.T.S.
T.S. was also placed with B.C. and was likewise happy with the placement. When asked where he preferred to live (either with mother or B.C.), he said B.C. When living with mother, he reported that N.I. and Ma.S. mostly cared for him. Mother was usually sleeping. T.S. also reported that J.T. was often at their house (apparently in violation of the restraining order), but did not live there. He reported that living with B.C. was "'great,'" and he enjoyed seeing his cousins while there.
Infant M.T.S. was also placed with B.C. and appeared happy, healthy, and well cared for.
VI. Post-detention Reports About Mother and J.T.
Mother was subsequently interviewed and expressed that she did not know why the children were detained, as they were "left with appropriate care" while she was in the hospital. The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) recommended that she begin participating in services right away, including parenting education and counseling, which she was willing to do, as well as a personal empowerment program addressing domestic violence, which she was steadfastly unwilling to do. Although mother had professed a willingness to engage in counseling, she was subsequently highly inconsistent in therapy sessions and appointments with her psychiatrist. Mother had been granted visitation but voluntarily suspended visitations in April 2022 on the ground that she felt she needed a private attorney because "'everything I say is being used against me twisted turned around fabricated or falsified.'"
SSA recommended that J.T. participate in parenting education, counseling, and anger management classes. He expressed willingness to do so, and in fact had recently completed an anger management course (which his landlord forced him to do after an altercation with mother). Although J.T. subsequently participated in therapy, J.T.'s therapist felt that he was not being entirely forthcoming and was avoiding difficult questions about past domestic violence episodes. J.T. was granted visitation with M.T.S. but was not using all of the visitation allowed to him and declined when encouraged to use it all.
Throughout the proceedings below, mother and J.T. engaged in various forms of harassment. For example, when Mo.T. (N.I.'s caretaker) dropped N.I. off at B.C.'s house for a visit, both J.T. and mother began sending her unwanted calls and text messages. After Mo.T blocked their numbers, she began receiving numerous calls from unknown numbers. N.I. likewise began receiving "creepy" text messages from random numbers. B.C. was the recipient of numerous unwanted and anonymous calls from J.T. N.I. reported that mother and J.T. used various phone applications that allowed one to make calls and send text messages from different numbers. They also apparently made numerous false police reports about B.C., falsely reporting various types of child abuse, which was very upsetting to the children. Moreover, on three different occasions mother (twice with J.T.) went to B.C.'s house unannounced and uninvited. For example, in late May, mother and J.T. showed up unannounced and uninvited at B.C.'s house during T.S.'s birthday party. They let themselves in through the gate and began recording everyone present. They claimed a social worker had approved them entering the property. B.C. told them to leave but they were uncooperative until B.C. threatened to call the police. Around June 27, mother and J.T. came uninvited once again to B.C.'s house. This was to get their things back from a car they had been using, but that belonged to B.C., and which B.C. had towed back to her home. At another point, mother showed up at N.I.'s school and screamed at her teacher, calling her a bitch. At another point, mother threatened the assigned social worker, quoting a spiritual script that says, "'be serious - sober about the fact that you have an enemy who wants to devour you ....'"
Sometime around early April 2022, mother and J.T. got engaged to be married. Sometime in May 2022, mother had the restraining order lifted.
VII. Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings
At the jurisdiction hearing, mother and J.T. pleaded no contest to the petition, as amended by interlineation.
Subsequently, a contested disposition hearing was held in which the juvenile court received testimony from mother, the maternal grandmother (not B.C., who is the maternal great-grandmother), N.I., Ma.S., and the assigned social worker. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered custody taken from the parents and ordered reunification services for mother and J.T.
The only change in placement that occurred as a result was custody of T.S. was vested in his father D.F., who is not a party to this appeal.
The juvenile court reasoned as follows: "The fact that mother had to leave the children that day alone would not be sufficient for removal, but [SSA]'s investigation has shown issues related to that incident and other evidence that supports removing custody from mother and [J.T.]" "[I]t's clear that [the children] were not appropriately cared for." "The most concerning part of that circumstance in February of 2022 . . . is . . . the parents still seem to believe that the plan that was executed . . . was appropriate." "It's clear to the court that leaving the children with [N.I.] for days was not a safe situation in general, but also with the parents' understanding of the special needs of each of these minors, and considering their mental health situations, developmental situations, but also the age of the minors." "The court found, throughout the records, evidence of excessive yelling at the children, chores beyond an appropriate amount for the children, the children being left alone for extended periods of time, physical abuse and domestic violence." "The court notes that [N.I.] is thriving now without the burden of the yelling, hitting and being a parent to the siblings." After noting the clear evidence that mother and J.T. intend to resume a relationship, the court expressed concern about "domestic violence and whether the parents have sufficiently addressed those issues in therapy or specific courses." "Given the lack of progress related to addressing those concerns, the court does believe, until those concerns are addressed, the children are at risk both emotionally and physically." Mother and J.T. appealed.
DISCUSSION
Both mother and J.T. contend that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's decision to remove the children from their custody (in J.T.'s case, the only child at issue is baby M.T.S.-he does not contest the placement of newborn A.S.). They also contend the court abused its discretion by placing two of the children with B.C. Both arguments represent a challenge to the disposition order, not the jurisdictional findings. We begin with the decision to remove the children from the parents' custody.
I. Removal
The decision to remove children from a parents' custody is governed by Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c), which states, "A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents, guardian or guardians, . . . unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive . . .: [¶] (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." "The elevated burden of proof for removal from the home at the disposition stage reflects the Legislature's recognition of the rights of parents to the care, custody and management of their children, and further reflects an effort to keep children in their homes where it is safe to do so." (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146.)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
"'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."'" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Because the standard at the trial court was elevated- clear and convincing evidence-our analysis must make "an appropriate adjustment," meaning we must "determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by this standard of proof." (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005.) We conclude that substantial evidence in the record meets this elevated standard.
We begin with the decision to remove the children from mother. The evidence in this case can be classified into three general categories: the triggering event (i.e., the eight-day period where the children were left alone), the family history prior to that point, and mother's conduct for the duration of these proceedings.
The triggering event demonstrated extremely poor judgment on mother's behalf. Although the initial situation was an emergency and could be excused, the fact that mother left the children alone for eight days without adult supervision was inexcusable. From the record, it is clear that mother had multiple family members in the area, including B.C., a brother, and sister-in-law, who potentially could have stepped in to help, but there is no indication she contacted any of them. Indeed, the sister-in-law said mother reached out to her when she was initially hospitalized but never mentioned anything about needing help with the children. Instead, she contacted the maternal grandmother, who prioritized her pets over the children, and a neighbor whose physical disability prevented her from accessing mother's residence. As a last resort, mother could have even contacted SSA. But she did none of those things, and instead left her children alone with a 15-year-old whom she believed to have severe mental health issues.
The evidence that emerged from the ensuing investigation only confirmed that poor judgment was a pattern in her parenting that was harming the children. For example, mother's parenting approach of forcing her children to do hours of chores at the expense of the children's schoolwork was highly damaging to the children emotionally and seriously compromised their ability to lead successful and happy lives. Additionally, mother's erroneous insistence that N.I. and Ma.S. had severe mental health issues, resulting in excessive psychotropic medication on top of sleeping pills, is a potential risk to the children's physical and mental health. Both N.I. and Ma.S. claimed mother made up lies about the children's behavior to secure psychiatric diagnoses, and multiple experts-including a counselor, therapists, and a psychiatrist-shared that concern. The fact that both N.I. and Ma.S. are thriving in their current placements and have no desire to return to mother is evidence of the harm that mother was doing to them.
Further, mother's belligerent conduct throughout these proceedings has evinced a deliberate campaign to sabotage the children's caretakers, which is a serious risk to the children's emotional health. There was clear evidence of this by mother's decision to show up uninvited on B.C.'s property on three different occasions, which at times left the children in tears. Again, poor judgment resulting in emotional harm to the children. The campaign of harassment in the form of harassing phone calls and false police reports further reinforces the conclusion that mother was not acting in the children's best interests. Moreover, the fact that mother elected to cease in-person visits with the older children, for no reason other than she felt she was being defamed, strongly suggested she did not have the capacity to be a supportive parent to her children.
And then there is the serious risk of domestic violence in the home. There was no evidence that mother addressed the threat of domestic violence by J.T. According to mother's declaration when she obtained the restraining order, J.T. engaged in very serious violence against her, including harming her fetus. And N.I. testified that J.T. punched her at one point. Mother, far from addressing the issue, denied there was any issue to address. She had the restraining order lifted and got engaged to J.T. And while J.T. did take an anger management class, a single class does not fully obviate the concern (as we discuss in more detail below). The totality of these circumstances furnished substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's ruling removing custody of the children from mother pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c).
Likewise, we find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's decision to remove custody of baby M.T.S. from J.T. J.T.'s decision to knowingly leave M.T.S., an infant, alone with an autistic teenager for eight days was a severe lapse in judgment. Mother could at least somewhat be excused by the medical emergency, but not J.T. While J.T. claimed he thought things were under control due to the maternal grandmother's and the neighbor's involvement, only a modicum of concern would have quickly revealed that the situation was far from under control. Moreover, despite the restraining order, the juvenile court could easily find that J.T. had the ability to pick up his child, but instead he showed disregard for the child's safety and for his duties as a parent. Thankfully, N.I. showed uncommon maturity and competency during that period and nothing bad happened, but J.T. took a severe risk with his baby in letting that situation persist for eight days.
To be sure, that was one incident (albeit lasting eight days) and that particular incident might be unlikely to recur, but such lapses in judgment do not happen in a vacuum. When we look to the broader context of what led to that severe lapse in judgment, we find a parent who is a risk to his child's safety in other respects as well. Specifically, J.T.'s anger management and domestic violence issues, which, the evidence showed, were still unresolved. Two aspects of the record provide evidence they were unresolved: his therapist did not think they were resolved, and his belligerent conduct during the proceedings demonstrated he was still a risk to others. J.T.'s therapist was of the view that he was not fully engaging in the therapy, and even expressed that she needed to "start all over" with him. She opined that he "does not know how to control his anger and feels he continues to repeat his behavior." At one point in therapy, J.T. made comments that led the therapist to believe J.T. was going to engage in "'a [domestic violence] incident'" with B.C. He also, according to his therapist, "reported multiple incidents that happen[ed] at work that happened due to his anger." And his conduct during the proceedings, specifically, trespassing on two occasions at B.C.'s residence, and engaging in other forms of harassment, bore out the concern that his anger was not under control. On the whole, the evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that giving custody of M.T.S. to J.T. presents a serious risk of physical or emotional harm to M.T.S.
II. Placing Two of the Children with B.C.
Next, both mother and J.T. contend that, even if removing the children was appropriate, the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing Ma.S. and M.T.S. with B.C. Pursuant to section 361.3, subdivision (a), "In any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to [s]ection 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative ...." In deciding whether relative placement is appropriate, the legislature has described a long list of factors to consider, but the lynchpin of the analysis is the best interests of the child. (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1068.) We review the court's decision to place a child with a relative for abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 1067.)
Mother and J.T. point to certain qualities where B.C. leaves something to be desired as a caretaker placement. For example, there were legitimate concerns about B.C.'s commitment to ensuring Ma.S. received consistent mental health care. One of the section 361.3 factors is the ability of the relative to "[f]acilitate implementation of all elements of the case plan." (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(G.) Also, everyone agreed that mother and B.C. had a highly contentious relationship and the social worker believed that, "[d]eep down," B.C. did not want reunification to succeed. Moreover, there was evidence that B.C. was making negative comments about mother in front of the children. This called into question B.C.'s ability to "[f]acilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the parents." (Id. at subd. (a)(7)(E).) Indeed, the juvenile court recognized these issues and ordered SSA to discuss them with B.C. and to report back to the court about the status of those conversations.
But mother's and J.T.'s arguments ignore the many positive qualities that B.C. brought to the table as a caretaker. B.C., who ran a daycare center out of her home, had the ability to "[p]rovide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child[ren]" (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(A)), she "[e]xercise[d] proper and effective care and control of the child[ren]" (id. at subd. (a)(7)(B)), she "[p]rovide[d] a home and the necessities of life" for the children (id. at subd. (a)(7)(C)), she "[p]rotect[ed] the child[ren] from [their] parents" (id. at subd. (a)(7)(D)), and she was willing to "[p]rovide legal permanence for the child[ren] if reunification fail[ed]" (id. at subd. (a)(7)(H)(i)). Moreover, her household permitted "[p]lacement of siblings . . . in the same home." (Id. at subd. (a)(4).) She also frequently had the children's aunt, uncle, and cousins over, and thus could "[f]acilitate visitation with the child[ren]'s other relatives." (Id. at subd. (a)(7)(F).) Additionally, both Ma.S. and T.S. expressed a desire to stay with B.C., which is a legitimate consideration under section 361.3, subdivision (a)(2). Finally, and most importantly, the children were happy and felt loved in her care at the time of the disposition hearing. (Id. at subd. (a)(1) ["[t]he best interest of the child[ren], including special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs"].)
Ultimately, our task is not to decide in the first instance whether Ma.S. and M.T.S. should be placed with B.C. Our task is to decide whether such a placement is within the realm of reason. Given the many considerations recommending B.C. as a caretaker, as well as the juvenile court's sensitivities to the potential downsides, we conclude the court's determination was well within its discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J. SANCHEZ, J.