Opinion
E073883
03-27-2020
In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.T., Defendant and Appellant.
Jacques A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J274793) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Affirmed. Jacques A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
J.J. was six months old when plaintiff and respondent, the San Bernardino Department of Child and Family Services (the Department), removed him from his parents' care. J.J.'s parents submitted on the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings. After receiving reunification services for about 20 months, Father successfully completed his case plan. The Department determined, however, that Mother had not benefitted from her services and that she continued to suffer from mental health issues. The juvenile court therefore entered an "exit order" terminating jurisdiction over J.J., awarding Father sole legal and physical custody over J.J., and granting defendant and appellant, R.T. (Mother), monthly two-hour supervised visits with him.
On appeal, Mother contends the juvenile court's exit order was an abuse of discretion. We disagree and affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2018, when J.J. was six months old, the Department received a referral alleging that J.J.'s parents had gotten into an argument that led to Father breaking a television and Mother's laptop computer.
A social worker spoke with Father and Mother about the incident. Father admitted to breaking the television and laptop but denied hitting or choking Mother. He stated that Mother harassed him and threatened to report him for domestic violence. The social worker was concerned that Mother was exhibiting ongoing mental health issues, which exacerbated Father and Mother's domestic violence issues. Mother had previously sent Father text messages threatening him with physical violence, and also threatening to harm herself and J.J.
J.J. was placed in foster care. The Department subsequently filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b) (failure to protect) on J.J.'s behalf. At the Department's recommendation, the juvenile court temporarily detained J.J. from his parents.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In April 2018, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over J.J., removed him from his parents' custody, and ordered them to participate in family reunification services. The juvenile court granted Mother supervised two-hour visits once per week, but allowed the Department to transition her visits to unsupervised visits and overnight visits, subject to the juvenile court's approval.
Also in April 2018, Mother obtained a civil restraining order against Father that expires in 2021. The order provided that Father was not allowed to contact Mother or J.J. with limited exceptions. Father was permitted "[b]rief and peaceful contact" with Mother and J.J. "as required for court-ordered visitation."
Over the next year, Mother and Father participated in reunification services. Mother participated in therapy and counseling services to address her mental health issues, and also completed parenting, anger management, and domestic violence classes.
In June 2018, a psychologist reported that Mother had a "thought disorder" and exhibited paranoia and delusion. Mother also appeared to exhibit signs of mania, anxiety, and had a history of "extreme emotional volatility." She was diagnosed with Other Specified Personality Disorder with Borderline and Paranoid Features. The psychologist recommended that Mother receive trauma-focused therapy, anger management and domestic violence treatment, and a psychiatric evaluation for medication.
At the six-month reviewing hearing in October 2018, the Department reported that Mother appeared to be able to attend to J.J.'s needs during their supervised visits. Mother reported that she had enrolled in counseling and submitted a letter expressing her remorse and the skills she had learned in her court-ordered programs to remedy the issues that led to J.J.'s detention. The Department indicated that Father had completed his court-ordered programs and the Department was determining whether to return J.J. to his care. The juvenile court ordered continued reunification services for both parents.
At the 12-month review hearing in April 2019, the Department recommended J.J. be returned to Father under family maintenance. The Department stated Father would benefit from further parenting classes because he struggled with how to discipline J.J. But he had "completed all of his service[s]," "committed to the visitation schedule, and made substantial efforts to provide a safe and supportive home" for J.J. He had been "successful in meeting the needs of [J.J.]" and communicated with the social worker about "any concerns for [J.J.] and behaviors he is not familiar with."
The Department also recommended that Mother continue to receive family reunification services with additional unsupervised visits. The Department noted that Mother displayed appropriate care and techniques during her visits with J.J., who appeared happy during the visits. However, the Department concluded that J.J. should not live with Mother due to her unstable housing and behavior, although the "prognosis for reunification [was] good" if Mother would obtain "a stable and consistent living arrangement, and stabilize her behaviors." The Department observed that Mother's "main complicating factor [was] her continued irrational, and overly reactive, responses to mild interactions and conversations."
Mother had made progress in her case plan objectives, but mental health professionals believed she would benefit from continued mental health services. One of her treating psychologists considered Mother's prognosis to be "poor." Mother appeared disheveled, had slurred speech, and continued to exhibit other signs of mental illness.
Nonetheless, in late April 2019, the Department recommended extending Mother's visits to overnight and weekend visits at least twice per week. The juvenile court granted the Department's request on May 1, 2019.
In July 2019, however, the Department filed a section 342 petition on J.J.'s behalf alleging that Mother suffered from untreated mental health issues, which posed a risk to J.J. The Department reported that it had received a referral alleging sexual abuse to J.J. Mother had taken J.J. to the hospital, where she stated that Father's roommates had sexually abused J.J. During the subsequent investigation into the abuse allegations, Mother exhibited signs of mental illness. The Department was concerned that Mother's mental health issues had worsened.
A social worker determined that Mother's mental health issues posed a risk to J.J., terminated Mother's visit, and placed J.J. in Father's custody. The social worker and a responding law enforcement officer tried to explain what was happening to Mother, but she did not appear to understand.
The Department was concerned by Mother's bizarre text messages, pictures, and videos. Among other things, Mother texted Father, stating "You take [J.J.] and I take [J.J.'s unborn sibling] we can meet somewhere in another state later." Mother also texted a relative, "Tell [Father] to take [J.J.] and leave. [¶] I'll do the same with our daughter. We can meet some place later. But we have to leave." J.J. was placed with Father under family maintenance while Mother continued family reunification services.
In August 2019, the social worked reported that Mother had maintained her mental health for four months after receiving services, but then her mental health deteriorated. She exhibited "'periods of marked emotional, cognitive or behavioral dysfunction.'" The social worker also reported that Father was asked to vacate his low-income residence after Mother reported it was overcrowded. Mother did not appear to be concerned that J.J. might become homeless as a result, because she appeared to "react[] out of vengeance towards [Father]," rather than concern for J.J. Mother told the social worker that she would prefer to keep J.J. in foster care over having him placed in Father's care.
The social worker additionally stated that Mother made unsubstantiated allegations that Father neglected J.J., and her paranoia caused her to believe the Department, the military, and Father conspired against her. Mother also believed that her attorney and the social worker were involved in an inappropriate relationship. The social worker was concerned that Mother was not mentally stable given her paranoid and irrational state.
In October 2019, the Department recommended that the juvenile court terminate Mother's reunification services, maintain J.J. with Father, and terminate jurisdiction. Although Mother had participated in services and had improved in some respects, the social worker believed that Mother had not benefitted from services. Among other things, Mother failed to seek treatment for her mental health. At the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Mother testified that she no longer needed mental health services or medication because her symptoms had been alleviated and she was stable.
The juvenile court sustained the section 342 petition. It found true the allegation that Mother continued to suffer from an untreated mental health condition. The juvenile court also found that Mother had not benefitted from services and still suffered from mental health issues. The juvenile court further found that Father had completed his case plan and J.J. was doing well in Father's custody. The juvenile court therefore entered an "exit order" terminating its jurisdiction over J.J., granted Father sole legal and physical custody, and awarded Mother one two-hour visit with J.J. per month.
Mother timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues the juvenile court erred by (1) granting Father sole legal and physical custody and (2) reducing her visits with J.J. to once per month for two hours. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
"Section 362.4 provides that when the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a dependent child, and there is a pending family court case, the juvenile court may issue an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the minor, which order 'shall' become part of the family court file and 'shall continue' unless 'modified' or 'terminated' by that court. [Citation.] An order entered pursuant to section 362.4 is commonly referred to as an '"exit"' order." (In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455.)
In making an exit order, the juvenile court must employ a strict best interest standard. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 974.) The juvenile court "must look to the totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the child." (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.)
The order must be filed in the superior court and may be modified in a family law proceeding if the parent shows a significant change of circumstances and establishes that modification of the order is in the best interest of the child. (§§ 302, subd. (d), 362.4, subds. (b), (c); Fam. Code, § 3021; Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1165.)
We review a juvenile court's exit order for an abuse of discretion. (In re Cole Y., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1456.) Under that standard, we will not disturb the court's decision unless we find it exceeded the limits of discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. (In re Aaron R. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 697, 705-706.)
B. Analysis
We conclude the trial court's custody and visitation orders contained in its exit order were not an abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence shows J.J. would have been at risk of harm in Mother's care due to her untreated mental health issues. By contrast, substantial evidence shows that J.J. would be safe in Father's care. There is also substantial evidence that Mother did not benefit from about 20 months' worth of family reunification services. The record also shows Mother has a continuing need for further mental health services to address her significant and ongoing mental health issues.
Given the potential harm to J.J. that Mother's behavior and mental illness could cause, the juvenile court's exit order was not an abuse of discretion.
On appeal, Mother suggests J.J.'s interests were not best served by limiting her visits and granting Father sole physical and legal custody because she was improving, it was "conceivable" that she would have benefitted from continued services, and she loves J.J. While Mother had successfully engaged in several aspects of her reunification plan, she had not significantly benefitted from services. Most importantly, the record establishes that Mother still suffers from serious mental health issues, yet she denied having mental health issues. Further, Mother also apparently suggested to Father that they flee the state in an apparent attempt to avoid the Department, and lodged several unfounded complaints that J.J. was being sexually and physically abused and neglected while in Father's care. Mother's actions therefore reflect an unwillingness to abide by court orders or coparent with Father. In short, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that it was in J.J.'s best interests for Father to have sole legal and physical custody over him with limited visits with Mother.
While we commend Mother's efforts, the record shows that she had not benefitted from 20 months of reunification services and required continued mental health services. While it may be that she will make progress in the future, childhood does not wait for a parent to become adequate. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.) We note that the juvenile court's order does not forever preclude Mother from sharing legal custody of J.J. If the circumstances that caused the juvenile court to award Father sole legal and physical custody change, Mother may seek joint legal custody. (§ 362.4; In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 714.)
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.