Opinion
A169063
08-02-2024
In re H.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.P., Defendant and Appellant. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JD-035976-01)
SIGGINS, J.[*]
In this appeal in an ongoing juvenile dependency matter, A.P. (mother) argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to modify an order that completely restricted her educational rights with respect to her daughter H.H., and instead granted educational rights to the minor's court-appointed special advocate (CASA). As we explain, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, so we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
H.H. was 14 years old when she was removed from her family home by the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) and placed in foster care in Vallejo on February 23, 2023. At that time, H.H. was attending school at the Oakland Military Institute (OMI) and it was agreed that H.H. would stay at her school of origin. However, while the social worker was trying to work out plans for transportation to OMI from Vallejo, the caregiver told the social worker that she intended to enroll H.H. in a local public school. H.H. confirmed to the social worker that, while she was a little nervous to try a new school, she was willing to do so in order to maintain her current placement where she felt safe and comfortable.
In March 2023, H.H. started attending a local junior high school. The social worker was told that the Vallejo City Unified School District (Vallejo School District or district) was trying to obtain the minor's individualized education plan (IEP) from OMI. In late April, however, the social worker learned that the district could not obtain the IEP because mother would not authorize the minor's transfer to the Vallejo school.
An individualized education plan is authorized by federal law to prescribe educational objectives and outcomes for children with assessed learning challenges. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.)
At the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on May 3, 2023, mother waived her rights and submitted the matter to the court. H.H. was declared a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The basis for removal was mother's inability to protect H.H. from excessive physical discipline imposed by her stepfather. H.H. remained in the Vallejo placement and reunification services were ordered. A six-month review was set for October 2023.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Reunification is complicated in this case both because H.H. does not wish to return home and because a three-year criminal protective order was issued in February 2023 protecting H.H. from her stepfather who remains in the family home and parents the other children who live there with mother.
Mother remained opposed to H.H.'s school transfer, and in late May 2023, she told the social worker that she wanted H.H. to return to OMI. Mother said she tried to communicate with the Vallejo school, but her calls and e-mails went unanswered. Meanwhile, Mother would not authorize the release of H.H.'s IEP to the Vallejo School District, and H.H. went without the services prescribed by her IEP during the spring semester in 2023.
In late June 2023, H.H. told the social worker that she did not want to return to OMI, and she was looking forward to going to the local high school in the fall. In late July, mother told both OMI and Vallejo school officials that she was in charge of H.H.'s education and wanted her daughter reenrolled in OMI and withdrawn from the Vallejo School District. Mother was concerned that the Vallejo School District could not meet the requirements of H.H.'s IEP, yet she continued to deny consent for them to access the plan. Mother also did not articulate any plan for H.H.'s transportation from Vallejo to OMI to attend classes.
H.H. was re-enrolled in OMI and was to attend an orientation meeting on July 28, 2023. Instead, she began classes at Jessie Bethel High School (Bethel High) in Vallejo on August 7. At the time, H.H. wanted to better her relationship with mother, but did not want to reunify. She was looking forward to her attendance at Bethel High as a fresh start. The presumed father supported H.H.'s plan to continue school in Vallejo near her placement. These events led the Agency to seek an ex parte order limiting mother's educational rights with respect to H.H. In particular, the Agency requested that H.H.'s CASA be given co-authority over H.H.'s educational rights in order to continue H.H.'s education at Bethel High and obtain her IEP from OMI. The court issued an order to this effect on September 6, 2023.
The presumed father appears to have had little contact with H.H. over the years but had been having unsupervised overnight visits with her during these dependency proceedings and was working on restoring his relationship with her and supporting her relationship with his adult children.
While mother's educational rights were restricted, the presumed father retained any educational rights he possessed. However, it appears the CASA became the primary educational decisionmaker for H.H.
In advance of the six-month review hearing, the Agency filed a report indicating that mother had participated in visitation with H.H. from June to August 11, 2023 and engaged in family therapy with her from July to August 11, before H.H. indicated she did not want to continue. H.H. considered the therapy sessions" 'more hurtful than helpful.'" She felt blamed by mother for the dependency proceedings and stated that mother was often" 'harsh'" with her, a sentiment the family therapist corroborated. She was disappointed that mother had never apologized for her stepfather's behavior and would not bring her siblings to visits. Family therapy was set to resume when H.H. appeared ready to re-engage with mother.
H.H. was at grade level in school and intended to engage in extracurricular activities. She felt safe, comfortable, and supported in her current placement. She attended weekly individual therapy sessions and felt supported while working to develop her coping and communication skills and increase her self-esteem. H.H. was reported to be finding her own voice and becoming a strong advocate for her needs and well-being.
The CASA filed a generally positive report on H.H.'s placement and her social and emotional health. She also reported that H.H. was enjoying classes at Bethel High and that her new IEP was imminent. The CASA was awaiting reports on grades and attendance.
At the initial calling of the six-month review hearing on October 10, 2023, mother's attorney sought reconsideration of the educational rights order. She also requested a continuance due to her failure to receive the social worker's report. And she expressed concerns regarding the reasonableness of the services provided to mother. The court continued the matter to October 24 for further hearing.
On October 24, 2023, mother's attorney requested a contest with respect to the six-month review recommendations, arguing that H.H. should be returned to mother's care, there was a lack of reasonable services, and mother had completed her case plan. The contested hearing was set for November 2023. The juvenile court then turned to the educational rights issue.
Mother's counsel expressed concern that H.H. had been removed from OMI, her school of origin, and had been denied the benefit of her IEP or a new assessment by the Vallejo School District. She denied that mother was uncooperative and noted that the CASA had not contacted mother to discuss H.H.'s special needs. Counsel made clear that it was not just the unilateral move from OMI that warranted modifying the educational rights order. Neither the Vallejo School District nor the CASA had shared any information with mother about H.H.'s status or progress in the Vallejo school. It was important to mother that the new school had some historical context for H.H. and her academic needs as reflected in her IEP.
Mother remained opposed to H.H.'s attendance at Bethel High. In her opinion, transportation to Oakland from Vallejo never should have been an issue. She thought it could have been arranged as part of H.H.'s IEP if she were to be reassessed for attendance at OMI.
Agency counsel stressed that it sought the educational rights order because mother had not cooperated with releasing the IEP records to the Vallejo School District, unenrolled the minor from her Vallejo school, and attempted to enroll her back in OMI against H.H.'s express wishes. Counsel saw no collaboration from mother with respect to H.H.'s best interests and desires. And he did not believe anything had changed appreciably since the court first restricted mother's educational rights.
Minor's counsel reported that H.H. was happy at Bethel High and had started the IEP assessment process with the Vallejo School District. At the time of the hearing, H.H. was not interested in potential reunification with mother and did not want mother to be her educational rights holder. She was hoping instead to be permanently placed with an older adult sister. H.H. was very happy with her CASA and wanted the CASA to continue to oversee her education.
Presumed father's attorney expressed dismay the caregiver in this case had "been allowed to just run amok in terms of changing the school." Counsel recognized that H.H. was happy where she was but blamed the Agency for the process breaking down. Father planned to join mother's contest with respect to the six-month orders because he felt that return to a parent was in his daughter's best interests at that point.
The CASA reported that the IEP process in Vallejo had been moving as quickly as possible once she was granted educational rights. She worked with OMI to get the IEP sent to the new school by October 4. And the assessment was scheduled for the day of the hearing, October 24.
The juvenile court was disappointed in the Agency and its deficient handling of H.H.'s move from OMI. But the court's focus was the current situation and not the circumstances that existed several months before the hearing. H.H. was no longer interested in attending OMI and was happy at Bethel High. She expressed her desire not to return to mother's custody and contact with mother was emotionally difficult for her. While the court recognized mother as a strong advocate for H.H., she did not appear to accept that circumstances were very different than when the dependency began and H.H. was attending OMI. There was also a history of efforts to thwart the Agency's attempts to get relevant educational information to the Vallejo schools.
While the court expressed concerns that there should have been better efforts by the Agency to maintain the school of origin, that time had passed. In light of H.H.'s feelings about her new school and her desire not to have contact with mother, the court declined to change the order transferring educational rights to H.H.'s CASA. Thereafter, mother's counsel requested a directive that the CASA listen to mother's concerns about H.H.'s educational needs. The court agreed that mother had a lot of historical information that should be provided to the IEP assessors and requested that the Agency hear her views.
Mother timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Section 361 provides that "[i]n all cases in which a minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that the minor is a person described by Section 300, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child" by his or her parent or guardian, including "the right of the parent [or] guardian . . . to make educational . . . decisions for the child," as long as the limitations imposed do not "exceed those necessary to protect the child." (§ 361, subd. (a)(1); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.6495.651, 5.695(b)(3).) In reviewing the juvenile court's decision to suspend a parent's education decisionmaking rights, we apply an abuse of discretion standard, keeping in mind the focus of dependency proceedings is on the child rather than the parent. (In re R.W. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1277.) "All educational decisions must be based on the best interests of the child." (In re Samuel G. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 502, 510.)
References to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to modify the order vesting H.H.'s educational rights in the CASA. Like the juvenile court, we are dismayed by the caregiver's unilateral action to move H.H. from OMI and the Agency's acquiescence in that move. (See rule 5.651(e).) But as the court properly assessed, by the time of the six-month hearing, H.H. was engaged in her new school and enjoying her classes. Her relationship with mother was tenuous. She felt mother placed blame on her for the events that led to the dependency proceedings, and family therapy was suspended because H.H. considered the process too hurtful. Mother also appeared insistent on H.H.'s return to OMI, and even at the six-month hearing, expressed her opposition to H.H.'s attendance at Bethel High. She described transportation from Vallejo to OMI as an issue that could be addressed in a new IEP. As the juvenile court observed, it did not appear that mother could accept that circumstances had changed from the beginning of the dependency.
On this record, we cannot conclude that H.H.'s best interests required the juvenile court to modify the order placing H.H.'s educational rights in the
CASA. Moreover, in light of mother's steadfast opposition to H.H.'s attendance at Bethel High and her difficult relationship with her daughter, shared responsibility for educational decisions between mother and the CASA does not appear to be a feasible or sensible alternative. The order does not exceed what was necessary to protect H.H.'s best interests. Denial of the motion to modify was not an abuse of discretion.
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order restricting mother's educational rights is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUMES, P. J. LANGHORNE WILSON, J.
[*] Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.