Opinion
E080545
08-09-2023
In re C.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. N.S., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Tracy M. De Soto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Super.Ct.No. SWJ009493. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge.
Tracy M. De Soto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MCKINSTER ACTING P. J.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court found that return of C.S.3 (minor, born May 2010) to defendant and appellant's, N.S. (mother), custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to minor's physical or emotional well-being; thus, the court terminated mother's reunification services. On appeal, mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court's finding of detriment. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 2, 2021, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, the Department of Public Social Services (the Department), received a referral alleging general neglect of C.S.1 (born March 2006, age 14), C.S.2 (born March 2006, age 14), K.S. (born December 2007, age 13), and minor (age 10) (collectively "the children"); mother had left the eldest sibling, C.S.1, in charge of her three younger siblings, including minor; some of the siblings left the home; when they returned, they found C.S.1 on the roof acting strangely. Neighbors called 911. C.S.1 was suspected of using a stimulant or psychoactive drug. Her speech was slurred, and she vomited. C.S.1 was transported to the hospital where mother denied there were any drugs in the home.
These are the ages of the children on the date of the filing of the detention report.
On January 5, 2021, before the department had the opportunity to contact mother, the department received another referral alleging general neglect. Minors were reportedly out of control. They kept running off only to return home when they needed food. They were suspected of stealing packages off porches. The children had thrown objects at mother, poked her with sticks, called her names, chased her, and locked her out of the house. They had broken doors and windows in the home. One of the children had jumped on mother's car and threatened to break the windows while mother sat inside. Two of the children had fought each other and hit minor. When the children allowed mother back into the house, one of the children pointed a knife at her and threw it at mother's feet. The children had made fun of C.S.1 for trying to kill herself.
Mother called law enforcement. The children agreed to calm down if they were allowed to sleep outside. C.S.2 was found on the roof and placed on a mental health hold. She claimed she had been locked out of the home and was attempting to gain access through mother's window with a knife. Mother denied locking C.S.2 out of the home.
A social worker visited the home. Mother said she had been running errands on January 2, 2023, when she received a call that C.S.1 had taken several of mother's sleeping pills and climbed onto the roof. Mother reported that hospital personnel had determined C.S.1 had taken 45 Tylenol pills.
Mother reported the children had locked her out of the home for seven hours on January 4, 2021. She contacted law enforcement. The children told law enforcement they had fallen asleep and failed to hear mother attempting to get into the home. Police agreed to let the children spend the night outside if they behaved.
Mother reported that on January 5, 2021, C.S.2 was behaving erratically, going in and out of the home while holding a knife; she then tried to pry open mother's bedroom window and door. Mother called law enforcement who transported C.S.2 for a psychiatric evaluation; mother denied C.S.2 was placed on a mental health hold. Mother agreed to therapeutic services, parenting classes, and Wrap Around services.
The social worker interviewed K.S., one of mother's four children, and minor; both appeared well cared for. They denied any physical abuse and stated mother was able to meet their basic needs. They said they felt better when C.S.1 and C.S.2, whom they referred to as" 'the evil twins,'" are out of the home as they are less likely to be bullied. They said the twins compete against one another trying to top each other's behaviors.
On January 6, 2021, the social worker contacted C.S.1 at the psychiatric unit of the hospital. Regarding her suicide attempt, C.S.1 reported she was sad about not having contact with her father and decided to take sleeping pills. She denied having any current thoughts of hurting herself and was willing to participate in services upon discharge.
Father is not a party to the appeal.
The social worker contacted C.S.2 who appeared well cared for with no indications of abuse or neglect. She confirmed "there is a lot of dysfunction and arguments with [] mother and siblings." C.S.2 admitted using a knife to try and pry her mother's door and window open but denied using it in a threatening manner. She admitted she does not listen to or comply with mother's directions.
In subsequent contacts with mother, mother declined therapeutic services indicating the children were benefitting from her new parenting strategies which she derived from a book.
On February 4, 2021, the department received a third referral alleging general neglect. Law enforcement found minor and K.S. walking on a highly trafficked street at night. They indicated they had jumped out of mother's vehicle four hours earlier.
Law enforcement contacted mother to pick up the children at the police station. When mother arrived, she said she had been looking for them. When asked why she had not reported them missing, she responded that the children leave all the time and that law enforcement become annoyed when she calls to report them missing. Minor and K.S. reported they did not like living with mother because they did not have internet or cellphones. Law enforcement released them to mother's custody.
The social worker contacted mother, who reported that after she picked up the children from school, K.S. stole her purse and locked herself in the bathroom. When K.S. finally came out of the bathroom, they proceeded to get her a haircut. The other children became upset because mother could only afford to get K.S. a haircut. Minor and K.S. then locked themselves in the car and would not let mother in. When mother eventually gained access to the car, the children continued to misbehave, eventually kicking mother in the neck and face. They then left the vehicle, running off to hide in areas in which mother could not drive.
The social worker issued mother a referral for counseling. Mother requested a Christian therapist; she "stated she did not agree with traditional therapy because she believes formal diagnoses will prohibit the children from 'free healing' and make them feel 'less than.'" The social worker reported, "The mother does not appear to have an understanding of the severity of the children's behaviors and need for services. Additionally, she did not appear to have an understanding of how her lack of supervision and/or parenting skills are contributing to the home dynamics."
On February 11, 2021, the social worker interviewed all four children. Minor and K.S. "explained they had jumped out of their mother's car because she had parked the car as a 'time out.' They stated they avoided their mother by hiding in bushes and behind a building."
When contacted by services, mother started crying and said she might kill herself because she believed she was going to jail. During a mental health screening, mother said she would not kill herself. However, she continued to cry, admitting she had choked and hit the children in the past which had made them the way they are. Mother said she did not want therapy because she would be going to jail anyway. By the end of the conversation, mother was no longer crying and appeared stable.
On February 13, 2021, the department received an immediate response referral. Mother had called 911 because the children were trying to lock her in her room. Law enforcement reported there was evidence the girls had tried to lock mother in her room. The children were sleeping outside in a "tent/fort" they made out of sheets. "It was reported when the mother went outside, she began yelling, and bit [C.S.2] on her hand and forearm through her jacket. [C.S.2] had three small dark red marks on her hand; however, it did not look like a bite mark." K.S. stated she had a burn mark on her foot caused by mother a few months earlier.
The children chased mother back into the house, and she called 911. "The girls stated their mother was yelling and screaming at them because she was mad as they used expensive sheets to build their 'fort.' When the mother began pulling the fort down, she slapped [minor] on the left side of her head. [Minor] did not have any visible injuries. It was reported that neither the girls nor the mother felt safe staying at the home that night." "[M]other was found sleeping in her car and the children were in the backyard asleep in the makeshift fort."
C.S.1 "reported her sisters and her mother were arguing, hitting, and pushing one another earlier tonight. [C.S.1] shared when her mother came home . . ., she started complaining about them not doing any chores and was upset because they used her expensive curtains for their fort. She reported her sisters were trying to lock their mother in her room and would not listen to what their mother was saying. [C.S.1] indicated she does not normally get involved in their yelling; she denied having any marks inflicted by her mother. She reported [C.S.2] has a bite mark on one of her hands from the mother biting her. When asked what she wanted to see happen tonight, she stated she just wants her mother and sisters to not yell at one another. She stated she felt safe in the home."
K.S. reported that C.S.2 pushed mother who, in turn, bit C.S.2 on her right arm. She said, "mother likes to tell them what to do and they do not like it." When asked about the burn on her foot, K.S. denied having a mark. When asked what she wanted to happen, K.S. said she wanted mother to stop yelling at them and telling them what to do. She confirmed the children had tried to lock mother in her bedroom.
C.S.2 confirmed that they tried to lock mother in her bedroom because she told them they could not watch television. C.S.2 said mother hit her on her left hand; she had a small red mark on her left hand which did not resemble a bite mark. She said mother had been hitting her since she was six or seven years old. C.S.2 reported mother had slapped her a couple days earlier which did not leave a mark. She "indicated she does not want to live with her mother because she is mean."
Minor reported that mother and her sisters got into a fight. Mother" 'sort of'" slapped her on the left side of her head with an open hand. Minor "said her sisters talk back to their mother and do not obey. She stated she is not afraid to live with her mother."
Mother admitted "attempting to control the children's behavior, she would grab the back of their neck and squeeze in order to inflict enough pain to regain control of them. She also stated she would spank the girls on their buttocks repeatedly and admitted she lost her temper."
The department had received eight prior referrals regarding the children. Four were deemed unfounded, one was evaluated out, one was deemed inconclusive, and two had been substantiated. On February 18, 2021, the department took the children into protective custody pursuant to a warrant. "[M]other expressed relief the children were not in her care and inquired as to if she would still be required to participate in therapy now that the children were not [in] the home. She explained that things were more peaceful now that they were gone."
On February 22, 2021, the department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging, as to mother, that the children had suffered or were at risk of suffering serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally by mother (a-1 &b-1); that mother would leave the children unattended (b-2); and that mother had an extensive prior history of referrals with the department which included substantiated allegations (b-3).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At the detention hearing on February 23, 2021, the court observed, "frankly, this is one of the most compelling reports that I can remember reading in recent memory with the children, especially the two older twins, their behavior being absolutely out of control, mother having zero ability to control apparently any of the children, the older children putting the younger children at risk, physical acts of abuse by the older children against the mother, mother abusing the children back, mother admitting to choking and hitting the children. [¶] It's basically just an absolute free-for-all over at mother's house with extreme violence and extreme out-of-control behavior and basically mother leaving the kids alone because she doesn't know what to do, and they are locking her in her bedroom. They are assaulting her, trying to forcibly remove her cell phone. They are kicking her repeatedly from the back seat in order to get their way. [¶] Mom, in the report, which I think would likely be self-evident, is saying they are like this because I choked and hit them, and, you know, I'm going to be arrested at any time, words to that effect. One of the children brandishing a knife at the mother." The court detained the children. The following day, a different court entered another order detaining the children.
The court made the order temporary, as it recused itself because it knew the police officer who had written the report regarding the incident where the officer found the children on the road.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed March 12, 2021, the social worker recommended the court find the allegations in the petition true, remove the children, and offer mother reunification services. Mother's recommended services included parenting classes, counseling, and a psychological evaluation.
C.S.2 reported that mother "would whip her with whatever she could find. She said that her mom would make them pull their clothes down and be naked when she would whip them. She described being whipped around five times a day." She reported that when she was younger mother would drink and punch the children. She did not want contact with mother.
C.S.1 reported that "mother's discipline [consisted of] time outs where they had to stand still for excessive amounts of time. She said they could stand for thirty minutes at a time and if her sisters moved then the time would start over. She said their legs would hurt so they would try to lean up against the wall but that would start the time over. She said that if they were unable to finish the time then they had the opportunity of being spanked on their bare bottoms. Each spanking would be the number of minutes left in the time out. She described being spanked with a laundry drying cords and handles. She said that there would be red marks or lines and the lines would 'flay out.' She said when they were spanked [mother] would push their head into a pillow and she felt like she could not breathe. She said when she would sit down her bottom would initially sting. She said there were some times when the spankings would make her bleed. She described one time with her sister, [K.S.], when she was five years old. She said her mom had diatomaceous earth in the bedroom and [K.S.] knocked over the shelf and it fell over the floor. She said her mom grabbed a leather dog leash that was thin and spanked her on the bottom, which resulted in her sister bleeding 'all over her butt.' She said they were sick a lot at school but they were told not to go to the health office because her mom did not want it on her record what was happening in the house."
K.S. reported mother would sometimes "hit them on the back to correct their wrong behavior. She said that her mom stopped spanking them in the last year. She said that when she was younger her mom would grab them by the back of their necks, slap them in the face, which would 'hurt.'" Minor "stated that when she got into trouble at her mother's house she would go into time out. She said that her mom stopped disciplining them. She said that she has not received a spanking since she was nine years old. She said she would get spankings because they would steal stuff from the store." "She said her mother spanked her on her bottom and that her mom was strong." "She said she would like to go back home, be with her family and for everything to be 'normal.' "
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on March 17, 2021, the department struck the a-1 allegation. Mother's counsel submitted as to jurisdiction and to reunification services, but requested a domestic violence plan be added to her case plan: "I would just indicate that there's no allegation or-and no reference to domestic violence in mother's case plan as it is. This is just an additional assistance that she feels she needs based on her history." The court found the allegations in the petition true, removed the children from mother's custody, and granted her reunification services which included a domestic violence program.
In the six-month status review report filed on August 12, 2021, the social worker recommended the court continue reunification services to mother. As part of her domestic violence program, mother had attended five classes of a Personal Empowerment Program and three individual counseling sessions. Mother participated in a psychiatric evaluation and was "cleared." She completed a psychological evaluation on August 2, 2021. Mother completed two parenting programs.
Mother participated in 13 supervised visits during the reporting period. She reported the visits went well. C.S.2 chose not to attend any visits. She reported she did not feel comfortable meeting with mother as she does not respect her opinions. The other children reported visitation went well overall, but that it was sometimes challenging being engaged with mother for two hours.
In an addendum report filed August 19, 2021, the social worker recommended liberalized visitation for mother "to include unsupervised, overnights and weekends, when deemed appropriate and at the children's consent." "At this time, the Department would like the mother to participate in and benefit from therapeutic services before the Department moves the children to unsupervised visits, at the children's consent." On July 19, 2021, mother reported that "she had not commenced individual therapy because she did not believe in traditional psychotherapy." Mother "completed her first session of individual counseling on August 17, 2021."
The social worker had received the results of mother's psychological evaluation in which the psychologist concluded," 'Before any significant attempt is made for reunification, I believe family counseling should be mandated for the girls and [mother] and that this family counseling would determine whether, in fact, the reunification plan would be successful or appropriate. This should be done before extended visitations are granted ....'" (Italics omitted.) Mother indicated that "she is feeling better now that her children are not living with her, calmer, sleeping better, not suffering from anxiety and depression caused by her inability to cope with their ongoing conduct."
At the hearing on August 24, 2021, mother's counsel requested a contested hearing with respect to unsupervised visitation: "Mother has completed her entire case plan except for therapy, and her new case plan only has therapy as well as parenting perhaps when the children get back into the home." Counsel also requested visitation not require the children's consent. The court set the matter for a contested hearing.
In the September 8, 2021, addendum report, the social worker reported that K.S. reported she and her siblings were not ready to go back home. She thought unsupervised visitation would be" 'okay.'" Minor reported not minding having unsupervised visits, but not being ready to return to mother's custody. Both twins stated it was not a good time for them to return to mother's custody.
Mother was inadvertently given an unsupervised visit with K.S. and minor on August 28, 2021; the visit was cut short when mother put them in a timeout and the children wanted to go back to their foster home. Mother reported she disciplined the girls because K.S. was bullying minor. Mother started and stopped therapy at one institution, but now reported she was enrolled in therapy at another institution.
At the hearing on September 13, 2021, mother's counsel argued that the court should order unsupervised visitation with mother. The department argued that before mother's visitation should be liberalized, mother needed "to participate in and consistently engage in individual therapy and conjoint therapy and benefit from those services ...." The twins both refused to visit with mother.
Minor's counsel requested that "unsupervised visits be authorized at this time, but I would like the Department to experiment maybe with [minor] having one-on-one visits with her mom to see how that works out at this time before having unsupervised." Mother's counsel agreed that unsupervised, one-on-one visitation with minor would be appropriate.
The court granted the request for minor to have on-on-one visitation with mother. The court repeated its previous order that the department had full authorization to liberalize visits.
On February 10, 2022, the department filed a status review report in which the social worker recommended mother continue to receive reunification services. Mother had attended 14 of 16 individual therapy sessions. Mother completed a third parenting class dealing with out-of-control teens. The social worker confirmed, "mother has made appropriate progress towards her treatment goals." Mother had supervised visits with minor 12 times during the reporting period. Minor reported the visits had been positive.
The social worker noted, "mother is continuing to benefit from her remaining case plan services and is receptive to constructive feedback. The mother's visitation with the children has been an issue for the children at times. The Department would like to see mother make more significant progress in her therapy and participate in conjoint counseling with the children before her visits can be liberalized and she can reunify with the children."
At the 12-month review hearing on February 24, 2022, mother's counsel noted mother had completed her services, and requested the court order conjoint counseling between mother and minor and order unsupervised visits. Minor's counsel asked that conjoint counseling "not be a condition precedent for the unsupervised visits to occur ...." The court ordered conjoint counseling between mother and the children and that "participation in the conjoint counseling was not a prerequisite to having unsupervised visitation with their mother unless the children request it." The court continued the matter for a contested hearing.
In the addendum report filed April 7, 2022, the social worker reported that mother had "provided proof that she completed 48 individual counseling sessions since the beginning of the case. The letters and certificates were filed with the Court on February 24, 2022, by the mother's attorney. The documents filed by the mother's attorney indicate the following: The mother completed an intake with Alternatives for Domestic Violence (ADV) for parenting education on February 22, 2022. The mother completed 26 sessions of individual therapy through CORC Family Counseling as of February 23, 2022. The mother completed 16 sessions of individual therapy through ADV as of February 15, 2022. The mother completed five personal empowerment classes and three individual sessions at Laura's House for domestic violence as of July 9, 2021. The mother completed Triple P Parenting as of May 6, 2021 and Nurturing Parenting as of May 13, 2021. The mother was enrolled in a 10-week domestic violence course with Safe Family Justice Center as of April 8, 2021."
Mother's latest therapist "explained that the mother is showing progress towards her goals in therapy sessions and demonstrating the skills that they discuss." Mother had shown "remorse and awareness about what she ha[d] done poorly in the past with her children." Mother completed her therapy, and the therapist believed that a total of 16 sessions was sufficient for mother's immediate needs. "They explored relationship boundaries, safety strategies, self-care practices, communication, and coping skills to reduce anxiety and trauma symptoms. She showed improved self-esteem." Nevertheless, the social worker opined that it was "apparent that the mother has not fully benefitted from the myriad of services she has been participating in as she continues to blame the children for instances of past abuse and neglect."
At a meeting with the department, mother, and the children, it was agreed the department would arrange unsupervised visitation with mother soon. Minor was not initially ready to participate in therapy with mother, but later indicated she wanted to. Minor stated she wanted to have unsupervised visits with mother. Minor later wanted to cancel a visit with mother. Minor reported that her visits with mother had gotten much better. When unsupervised visitation occurred, minor said the visit went well.
At the contested 12-month review hearing on April 12, 2022, the department continued to recommend continuing mother's reunification services for another six months. Minor's counsel submitted on the recommendation noting, "I'm glad to read that Mother and [minor] had a positive [unsupervised] visit early in April after having some difficulties. So I'm glad things are on the right track." Mother's counsel presented no evidence, noting that he had "set the hearing contested in order to seek unsupervised for Mother. The Department did take Mother to unsupervised visitation, I believe, April 1st or thereabouts."
The court found mother was "making adequate progress towards alleviating or mitigating the causes which necessitated placement" and that there was "a substantial probability that the children may be returned to the care of the parents prior to the next review hearing." The court found mother was consistently and regularly making contact with minor, making progress in her treatment plan, and demonstrating a capacity and ability to provide a safe home for minor. The court continued reunification services for mother. The court set conjoint therapy to "begin in June or thereafter."
In the section 366.22, 18-month status review report filed July 13, 2022, the department requested a 60-day continuance to determine if father could acquire housing to take custody of the children. The social worker failed to provide any updated information regarding mother's participation in services other than to report that mother continued with individual counseling. "The group counselor between the mother and children has been unable to assess the parent-child-relationship adequately because of poor group attendance and session cancellations."
Mother continued to have biweekly, unsupervised visitation with minor. According to the social worker, "The children have all shared to myself and multiple parties that they would prefer to not live with the mother. They shared that visiting with her is acceptable, but the younger girls described that they have to 'walk on eggshells' and be intentional about not contributing to tension when they are with the mother." "The children have expressed desires to live with the father, however the older girls have aspirations that they feel [] neither of the parents could help them to accomplish. The children returning home to either parent depends on the mother's ability to reach resolution to the relationship issues with the minors that cause them to doubt that living with her will be different from when they first came to the attention of the Department." The court granted the department's request for a continuance.
On September 20, 2022, the department filed an addendum report in which the social worker recommended the court terminate the parents' reunification services and set a section 366.3 hearing. Minor planned on attending the hearing. Minor said she typically spent her sessions with mother" 'getting into fights.'" She said the sessions were" 'not really helping.'" Notwithstanding, minor said she would continue to attend sessions. She wanted visits with mother to be longer but did not want to return to her custody. Minor believed mother was not" 'mentally ready'" to regain custody of the children.
The conjoint therapist reported that only minor attended the most recent session with mother. The therapist noted that "mother has made improvements and that she has 'demonstrated accountability and applies parenting skills.' The therapist further explained that the mother has been 'actively listening and allows the two youngest girls to express themselves without blaming.' The therapist explained that the mother and [minor] are working on 'rebuilding their relationship and they are working well together.' "
The social worker again noted that "mother often takes a stance of the case that continues to blame the children for the abuse and neglect they suffered while living in the home. Due to the ongoing concerns with the parent-child relationships between the mother and children, and the children's wishes not to reunify with her, it is not appropriate for the children to return to the care of the mother at this time."
At the hearing on September 26, 2022, mother's counsel submitted on the department's recommendation as to the three eldest children, but requested the hearing be continued as to minor so that she and mother could get more counseling. Minor's counsel submitted on the recommendation to continue the matter: "I think continuing counseling will be very important. There is an authorization for [minor] to have overnight visits with mother. I would like to see overnight visits happen prior to the next hearing date." "I think the department can be flexible in accommodating overnights . . . to see how the family does."
Counsel for the department had no objection to continuing the matter for 60 days for mother and minor to continue in family therapy. The court terminated mother's reunification services as to the three older children but continued the hearing as to minor for 60 days.
In the addendum report filed November 21, 2022, the social worker continued to recommend the court terminate mother's reunification services as to minor. On October 13, 2022, minor discontinued family therapy with mother. Minor "explained that the therapy was not helping them. [She] described the sessions as unfocused ...." Minor wanted overnight visits with mother but "did not necessarily want to return to live with the mother." She feared that if she reunified with mother, mother would not allow her to maintain contact with her sisters.
Mother and minor had an overnight visit on November 5, 2022. Minor said the visit went well but she still did not know whether she wanted to reunify with mother. On November 19, 2022, mother and minor had a second overnight visit. Minor said she realized that her mother was not willing to change; minor wanted to continued visiting with mother but now wanted to reunify with father.
On January 17, 2023, the department filed another addendum report in which the social worker continued to recommend mother's reunification services be terminated. On December 27, 2022, minor said she was unsure whether she wanted to reunify with mother. Minor later said she just wanted to" 'age out'" of the system. Minor chose not to convert a scheduled overnight visit on December 30, 2022, to a day visit. On January 9, 2023, minor wanted to extend an overnight visit with mother so she could attend church with mother. The social worker noted mother had completed all case plan objectives and continued to visit with minor.
At the contested hearing on January 20, 2023, the department and minor submitted on the recommendation to terminate mother's reunification services. Minor's counsel noted minor "is happy with the current visitation arrangement, which would allow for visits one time per week, with an authorization for overnight visits with the child's wishes to be taken into account. [¶] She does want to continue to visit with her mother, have a relationship with her mother. She simply does not want to live with her mother."
Mother's counsel objected to termination of reunification services arguing the department had not met its burden of showing a substantial risk of physical or emotional harm to minor should she be returned to mother's custody. Mother had completed her case plan: she "has not only done the full case plan, she also did additional case plan items including extra therapies, different types of therapies, trainings on teenagers, domestic violence, which was not part of her original case plan. Mother asked for that, as well, as the Court can see, 64 therapy sessions in the current update with that particular therapy." "I believe we have a situation where it's clear from today's report that [minor] is basically considering how she wants her life to go in terms of which is better for her." "We're on very dangerous grounds here if a teenager can use the dependency court to not have to deal with a stricter parent."
Minor's counsel replied that minor was "able to articulate what she wants for herself and where she's comfortable and where she's not comfortable." Minor "is trying to establish her own identity at this age, and she just doesn't have the confidence in her mother that she will be supportive throughout her transitioning to adulthood." Minor "felt torn, but she has made her choice, and those were her words, she's made her choice." The department replied, "I think giving [minor] the ability to refuse visitation, but then forcing her to return home just doesn't go well together. This child is very much aware of what she-I think what she needs and what she wants right now as far as the parents are concerned." "[E]ven if the Court doesn't see any substantial risk of physical harm, there is risk of emotional harm in forcing this child to return to a home where she does not feel safe and comfortable."
The court observed that it would take into consideration minor's wishes, but not "give them heavy weight." "But what is clear to the Court is . . . all these children, including [minor], were living in pure chaos, and Mother was responsible for that." "She had at the time sole legal and sole physical custody of the children, and these children were running wild. And Mother did very little to try to resolve that situation."
"So no one should be surprised that these kids don't want to go back to that chaotic behavior, even the chance of. And I appreciate Mother has made changes, and she's working to overcome the problems which brought her in front of the Court. But this problem took years to create, and it's probably going to take years to resolve, and the law does not give Mom years to resolve those issues."
The court found "return of this child to her parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, physical, or emotional well-being of the child. The Court would note especially the emotional well-being of this child." The court further found that mother had "failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plan, and there's no substantial probability that the child may be returned to them if given another six months of services." Thus, the court terminated mother's reunification services. "Visitation between the Mother and child will continue as previously set/ I believe it's one time per week, including overnight visits. Those visits will continue."
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court's finding that it would be detrimental to return minor to her custody. We disagree.
"The dependency scheme is based on the law's strong preference for maintaining family relationships whenever possible. [Citations.] When a child is removed from parental custody, certain legal safeguards are applied to prevent unwarranted or arbitrary continuation of out-of-home placement. [Citations.] Until reunification services are terminated, there is a statutory presumption that a dependent child will be returned to parental custody. [Citation.] As relevant here, section 366.22, subdivision (a) requires the juvenile court at the 18-month review hearing to return the child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return of the child would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's physical or emotional wellbeing." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400 (Yvonne W.).)
"The Agency has the burden of establishing detriment. [Citations.] The standard for showing detriment is 'a fairly high one. It cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable than an available foster parent or other family member.' [Citation.] Rather, the risk of detriment must be substantial, such that returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child's physical or emotional well-being. [Citations.]" (Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400, italics omitted.) "[U]nder this statute a court has broad discretion to evaluate not only the child's physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being. In an appropriate case, all that might be required is a finding such a placement would impair the emotional security of the child." (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481,1490.)
"In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider the extent to which the parent participated in reunification services. [Citations.] The court must also consider the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement. [Citations.]" (Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400.) "In cases such as this, '[w]e are looking for passing grades . . ., not straight A's.' [Citation.]" (In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1168.)
"This court views the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the court's finding that [minor] would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to [mother's] custody. [Citation.] In so doing, we consider the evidence favorably to the prevailing party and resolve all conflicts in support of the trial court's order. [Citation.] 'Substantial evidence' means evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value; it must actually be substantial proof of the essentials that the law requires in a particular case. [Citation.] In the absence of substantial evidence showing such detriment, the court is required to return the minor to parental custody. [Citation.]" (Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1400-1401.)
Here, sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that return of minor to mother's custody would present a substantial danger to minor's physical or emotional well-being. First, there was ample evidence that mother had physically abused the children. Mother admitted choking and hitting them. She admitted she would "grab the back of their neck and squeeze . . . to inflict enough pain to regain control of them."
C.S.1 reported that mother and the children had been hitting each other. She described being spanked with a laundry drying cords and handles. C.S.1 reported mother using a dog leash to spank K.S., resulting in her buttocks bleeding. C.S.2 said mother had hit her on the left hand, had been hitting her since she was six or seven years old, and had recently slapped her. She said mother would whip her with whatever she found around five times per day. C.S.2 reported that when she was younger, mother would drink and punch the children.
K.S. said mother would slap the children in the face, hurting them. There was evidence mother had bit C.S.2 and had burned K.S.'s foot. There was evidence mother had slapped minor on the head. The children said they felt unsafe in the home with mother. The court found true the b-1 allegation that mother had hit, slapped, choked, and grabbed the children.
Second, mother could not control the children, which affected their emotional well-being. The department did not take the children into protective custody until there had already been several incidents of mother being unable to control the children. C.S.1 had been left in charge of the children and C.S.1 ended up on the roof under suspicion of being under the influence of a stimulant or psychoactive drug. In another incident, the children had been roaming unsupervised, returning home only for food. They were suspected of stealing packages; they had thrown objects at mother, poked her with sticks, called her names, chased her, and locked her out of the house. The children had broken doors and windows in the home. One of the children had jumped on mother's car and threatened to break the windows while mother sat inside. Two of the children had fought each other and hit minor. When the children allowed mother back into the house, one of the children pointed a knife at her and threw it at mother's feet. The children had made fun of C.S.1 for trying to kill herself. In a third incident, minor and K.S. were found walking on a highly trafficked street at night. They indicated they had jumped out of mother's vehicle four hours earlier.
Moreover, the department had received eight prior referrals regarding the children. Four were deemed unfounded, one was evaluated out, one was deemed inconclusive, and two had been substantiated. Furthermore, mother expressed relief that the children had been taken from her custody due to her inability to control them. The juvenile court found "mother had zero ability to control apparently any of the children."
Third, conjoint therapy had failed. The court had ordered conjoint counseling, in which the department wanted to see progress before liberalization of visitation. Minor was reluctant to participate in such therapy, but later acquiesced. Minor said she typically spent her sessions with mother" 'getting into fights.'" She said the sessions were" 'not really helping.'" Minor later discontinued family therapy with mother. She "explained that the therapy was not helping them. [She] described the sessions as unfocused ...."
Fourth, minor, at best, expressed ambivalence about returning to mother's custody; at worst and finally, she determined she did not want to return to mother's custody. Minor had cancelled a visit with mother. She told have multiple parties she would prefer to not live with the mother. Minor said she had to" 'walk on eggshells' and be intentional about not contributing to tension when" she visited mother. Minor wanted visits with mother to be longer but did not want to return to her custody. She believed mother was not" 'mentally ready'" to regain custody. Minor wanted overnight visits but "did not necessarily want to return to live with the mother." Minor later said she still did not know whether she wanted to reunify with mother. Still later, she said she realized that mother was not willing to change; minor wanted to continue visiting with mother but now wanted to reunify with father. Later, minor said she was unsure whether she wanted to reunify with mother. Minor's counsel noted that minor "simply does not want to live with her mother." Minor "felt torn, but she has made her choice, and those were her words, she's made her choice."
Fifth, the social worker had concluded that mother had not benefitted from her case plan. She opined that it was "apparent that the mother has not fully benefitted from the myriad of services she has been participating in as she continues to blame the children for instances of past abuse and neglect." The social worker later noted that "mother often takes a stance of the case that continues to blame the children for the abuse and neglect they suffered while living in the home. Due to the ongoing concerns with the parentchild relationships between the mother and children, and the children's wishes not to reunify with her, it is not appropriate for the children to return to the care of the mother at this time."
Sixth and finally, the court did not solely consider minor's wishes when rendering its finding. The court observed that it would take into consideration minor's wishes, but not "give them heavy weight." "But what is clear to the Court is . . . all these children, including [minor], were living in pure chaos, and Mother was responsible for that." "She had at the time sole legal and sole physical custody of the children, and these children were running wild. And Mother did very little to try to resolve that situation." "And I appreciate Mother has made changes, and she's working to overcome the problems which brought her in front of the Court. But this problem took years to create, and it's probably going to take years to resolve, and the law does not give Mom years to resolve those issues." The court further found that mother had "failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plan, and there's no substantial probability that the child may be returned to them if given another six months of services." Thus, substantial evidence supported the court's finding of detriment.
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile's court's finding of detriment is affirmed.
We concur: MILLER J. RAPHAEL J.