Opinion
G044919 Super. Ct. No. DP020269 Super. Ct. No. DP020270 Super. Ct. No. DP020271
09-07-2011
In re J.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. APRIL B., Defendant and Appellant.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Debbie Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheryl L. Leininger, Judge. Affirmed.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Debbie Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minors.
April B. (the mother) appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court, which removed 11-year-old J.B., nine-year-old T.B. and seven-year-old Z.B. (collectively the children) from her custody. The petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleged failure to protect, primarily due to the mother's ongoing drug abuse and untreated mental health issues. The mother argues the petition lacked sufficient facts to support jurisdiction and that substantial evidence did not support the court's dispositional orders. We disagree and affirm.
The father is not a party to this appeal and is referenced as necessary.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I
FACTS
Near midnight one evening in September 2010, Anaheim police officers responded to a motel based on a call about a woman acting suspiciously and talking to herself. When they arrived, they found the mother outside, talking to herself. She looked dirty and the socks she was wearing were "filthy." The mother told the police that she was okay and was just singing to herself, but eventually admitted that she was bipolar and had stopped taking her medication several weeks earlier. She said that she was stressed out because the children were supposed to return to school but had lice. She also admitted she had been using methamphetamine and marijuana several times a week for about a month.
The officers spoke to the children, who said the mother was "acting weird" and "scaring them." The officers observed that the motel room was "dirty, very crowded and messy, with clothes and items scattered about the floor. The trash was overflowing and plates with old food were s[i]tting on the bathroom sink counter." They determined that the mother was "gravely disabled and unable to care for herself."
The mother was taken to the hospital for evaluation and the children were detained by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA). The petition alleged failure to protect under section 300, subdivision (b), primarily based on the mother's drug use, failure to treat her mental health issues, and the condition of the motel room. Other allegations included the mother's alleged failure to provide a stable and permanent home, domestic violence involving the now-absent father, and the father's alleged substance abuse issues. The juvenile court subsequently ordered the children detained, and authorized funds for the mother to participate in drug and alcohol testing.
In preparation for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, senior social worker Barbara Mautino investigated the allegations set forth in the petition. All three children were placed in the same foster home. Interviewing the children separately, Mautino learned that the mother had changed their first names to keep their whereabouts hidden from the father. The oldest child, 11-year-old J.B., was attending fifth grade, where she was learning to play the violin. She had also been accepted into a gifted education program. She reported witnessing domestic violence between her parents, and thereafter, her mother began moving her and her siblings from place to place. They had lived in the motel where they were detained for about a year and had also lived in other motels in California after leaving the father in Texas. When the social worker commented that she seemed sad, J.B. said that she has depression and was supposed to see a counselor, however the counselor could not meet with her because all the children had lice. With respect to the mother, J.B. said that she has "bipolar depression" and was supposed to take medication. After placement in foster care, she reported enjoying school and that she liked living in her foster home. She stated, however, that she wanted to live with the mother.
Nine-year-old T.B. stated that on the day he and his siblings were detained, the mother was acting "weird" and "singing and dancing around." He wanted to live with both parents, but admitted that they fought all the time. He was enjoying his new foster home and school, and was taking a karate class. Seven-year-old Z.B. largely reiterated what the older children had reported with regard to detention, and said the mother's behavior made her frightened. Nonetheless, she wanted to live with the mother. She also liked her foster home and her school.
The foster caretaker reported sibling conflict with respect to the way the two older children treated Z.B. Additionally, the mother called the foster home several times a day, leaving inappropriate comments about the foster caretaker on the answering machine. The children were referred to counseling to address their removal as well as the sibling conflict.
The mother was interviewed at several points by SSA. She stated that on the night the children were detained, she had been dancing outside to "release energy." She claimed she was abused at the hospital and was released in less than 24 hours. She admitted testing positive for methamphetamine and marijuana at the hospital and that she had been using drugs for about a month. The mother also reported that domestic violence between her and the father led to her departure with the children, and she did not want him to have the children. He paid her $235 in support per month pursuant to a mediation agreement.
With respect to the children, she admitted they had lice and had been ill, and were therefore not attending school or counseling. She stated that she received cash aid, food stamps, and other assistance through Providence Community Services—Project Renew (Project Renew), and the children had always had a place to live. She claimed she was not bipolar but was being treated as if she was, and had been prescribed numerous medications, although this contradicted other statements she made to SSA. She admitted she was not taking her medication at the time of detention. Regarding the condition of the motel room, she told the social worker that food preparation gets messy, and they worked with what they had. The mother denied neglecting the children and said she was simply overwhelmed and had a little "breakdown."
Mautino also spoke to Crystal Rodriguez, the mother's coordinator through Project Renew. Rodriguez had been working closely with the family since December 2009, and provided a number of services as well as rent assistance. She believed the mother had been a "phenomenal mom" but she seemed to have given up after the children became sick and the mother's car broke down. After detention, Rodriguez went to see the mother at the motel, but she had been drinking and swore at Rodriguez. Rodriguez reported that the mother was not taking her medication and was using other drugs. While Rodriguez stayed in contact with the mother through the beginning of the detention proceedings, in mid-October, she told the social worker that she believed the mother was abusing drugs. By December, the mother was terminated from Project Renew for lack of participation.
The social worker also spoke to other residents at the mother's motel, who expressed their concern for her, with the consensus being that she needed immediate mental health services. Her behavior had deteriorated in the past six months. The manager said he had been concerned about the children for several months, because the mother would stay in the room while the children did laundry and otherwise cared for themselves. They were also concerned about the children's safety as they would play unsupervised in the parking lot. The mother had been seen acting "weird" and apparently intoxicated.
When SSA met with the mother shortly after detention, she admitted that she needed to address her mental health and substance abuse issues. She was referred to several services, including substance abuse treatment and testing, basic needs assistance, and parenting classes. In the months that followed, however, she did not begin any of her services and missed drug tests. In December, she told SSA that she believed the police had violated many laws when they arrested her, and until she had a chance to tell the judge what happened, she would not begin services. Between September 2010 and January 2011, the mother missed every drug test.
Shortly after this conversation, the foster caretaker monitored a visit between the mother and children at a restaurant. The mother, with the children present, accused the foster caretaker of taking her children from her and threatened to call the police. The caretaker called the police instead. Thereafter, the mother's visits were held at an SSA office. The father also contacted SSA around this time and told Mautino he had received a call from the mother. She sounded "high on something" and was threatening toward the foster caretaker.
In January 2010, the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held. The mother waived her right to a hearing and did not present any evidence. In a statement to the court, the mother said that on the day the children were detained, she had been "outside on and off the whole day, was singing and dancing a little bit. I was also praying and practicing some poetry because I'm a poet." She complained about the behavior of the police officers and her treatment at the hospital, and denied that her behavior was erratic. She also said the police had mistreated her in the past, and said she had been harassed by the child protective agency in Texas. At the conclusion of her statement, counsel presented argument regarding the wording of the allegations of the petition.
After argument, the court amended the petition, making a number of changes to the wording of several of the allegations. The court then found the allegations of the amended petition true, concluding the children came under the jurisdiction of section 300, subdivision (b), and that reasonable efforts had been made to eliminate the need for removal. The court also found that returning the children to the parents would be detrimental. The court authorized a family reunification plan for the mother and scheduled a six-month review. The mother now appeals the court's findings.
II
DISCUSSION
The court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings will be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) "We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the weight of the evidence. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record most favorably to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]" (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251.)
Jurisdiction
Section 300, subdivision (b) applies where "[t]he 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 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).) Proof consists of three elements: "(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) 'serious physical harm or illness' to the minor, or a 'substantial risk' of such harm or illness." (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.)
This is not a close case. The mother attempts to parse the allegations of the petition one by one in an attempt to show there was no substantial risk of serious harm sufficient to support jurisdiction. It is not the particulars of the precise language in each allegation that is important, but the substance of the allegations found true by the juvenile court. (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1037-1038.) Here, the substance of the allegations was that the mother had an ongoing and currently untreated mental illness. The evidence of this was more than substantial, supported by the mother's behavior, her statements to SSA, the children's statements, and statements provided by others, including the hotel manager and her neighbors. The mother's behavior had deteriorated over the past months, and the children were often unsupervised and not attending school or counseling due to lice. Her erratic behavior on the night of detention scared her youngest child. While the mother argues that she could have made alternate arrangements for the children's care on the night of detention, the evidence belies this contention, demonstrating that she was neither in a condition to care for the children herself, or to arrange for care, on the night they were detained.
In addition to the ongoing mental health issues, there was more than substantial evidence, based on the mother's own admissions, that she had untreated substance abuse issues. At the time of detention, she stated she had been using methamphetamine and marijuana several times a week for about a month. Neighbors had seen her apparently intoxicated. Her subsequent behavior led others, including her Project Renew counselor and the father, to believe that she was still abusing drugs or alcohol.
Further, the court had evidence of neglect, as exemplified by the children's inability to attend school or counseling because of lice. While unfortunate, lice is a treatable condition, and her failure to act so that her children could return to school and counseling demonstrates neglect. All three factors — the mother's untreated mental health and substance abuse issues, and general neglect — placed these three small children at a serious risk of substantial harm.
The mother's arguments are not helped by her refusal to participate in services, including counseling and drug testing. Further, her statement to the court essentially denied responsibility, complaining about the behavior of others rather than focusing on the issues she needed to address to reunify with her children. We agree with the mother that poverty is not a valid basis for jurisdiction. But it is not poverty that led the juvenile court to its conclusions — rather it was the mother's behavior, and her apparent unwillingness to address the serious issues that led to dependency.
Disposition
The mother next argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court's dispositional findings. To justify removal from the parent's custody, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that "[t]here 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).) We review orders for removal to determine if they were supported by substantial evidence. (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 193.)
For many of the same reasons discussed above, there was substantial evidence from which the court could conclude that the mother's untreated mental illness and substance abuse was a "substantial danger" to the physical health, emotional well-being, and safety of her three small children. A mother who allows her children to play in a parking lot, or keeps them out of school and counseling because of untreated lice, poses a risk of substantial danger. While the mother was described as "phenomenal" before the present issues arose, those issues have been not been addressed since detention. Indeed, there are facts which suggest they have worsened. Without acknowledging these issues and beginning to take steps to address them, which the mother has failed to do, she poses a substantial risk of harm to her children. We thus find the court's orders appropriate and supported by substantial evidence.
III
DISPOSITION
The court's orders are affirmed.
MOORE, J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
BEDSWORTH, J.