Opinion
F080019
12-18-2019
C.C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Vanji R. Unruh, under appointment by the Kern County Juvenile Dependency Court, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Feige, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. JD138574-00, JD138575-00)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Cynthia L. Loo, Commissioner. Vanji R. Unruh, under appointment by the Kern County Juvenile Dependency Court, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Feige, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner C.C. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued on September 16, 2019, at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her sons, now eight-year-old, D.R.-A., and three-year-old, Jason (the children). She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court's rulings. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
The children were taken into protective custody and placed in foster care by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) in May 2018 after mother was arrested for assaulting a department technician who told her she did not qualify for benefits. Mother threw a full, 10-ounce bottle of water at the woman, striking her in the face, and stated she wanted to kill someone. She then picked up a printer and threw it over a partition at the woman, missing her by a couple of feet. Mother was released and arrested again the next day on an active warrant. She violently resisted arrest, screaming at law enforcement and kicking the inside door of the patrol car hard enough to cause the door to visibly bow outwards. The deputy had to place leg restraints on her to prevent her from damaging the vehicle. She later claimed she had no memory of assaulting the employee, that she blacks out and does not remember what she does. She pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm and was incarcerated through November 2018.
The maternal grandfather told the investigating social worker mother was a good mother, but he acknowledged she had mental health problems. She had been admitted for psychiatric care on more than three occasions. Each time she was discharged with medication but did not have a primary care physician to order refills. Consequently, when she ran out of medication, her mental state deteriorated. The maternal uncle confirmed mother had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations and stated she was "not stable."
Mother's erratic behavior was well-known to law enforcement. In March 2017, she walked into the Los Angeles County Sheriff's station with the children, paranoid, and reported people were following her. She believed the deputies were some type of "secret, under cover unit" and was uncooperative with them. In March 2018, mother was stopped in Kern County by the California Highway Patrol because the children were unrestrained in the front passenger seat of her van. Mother exited the vehicle with the children and began to shout and walk away, ignoring the officer's commands. The officer tried to arrest her, but she resisted, stating "the pain is too much." She wanted to be shot and killed. She was involuntarily detained and was very aggressive in the emergency room. The children were turned over to their maternal grandfather.
The department initiated these proceedings by filing dependency petitions on the children's behalf, alleging mother's untreated mental illness placed the children at a substantial risk of harm and that she left them without provision when she was arrested. (§ 300, subds. (b)(1) and (g).) The petitions listed Deleon A. as D.R.-A.'s father and Jason S. as Jason's father. Deleon was deceased.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and found the allegations true. At the request of children's counsel, the court ordered mother to participate in a psychological evaluation to determine whether she would be able to regain custody of her children. In October 2018, the children were placed with a maternal relative.
Sheila Morris, PsyD, evaluated mother in November 2018. Mother reported her biological mother died when she was five months old, causing her to be placed in foster care. She was adopted at the age of three by a Los Angeles County social worker and lived with her for four years. She said, " 'those four years tremendously impacted [her] life' " and described her time in that home as " 'tortured.' " She was adopted a second time at the age of 12. She met Deleon when she was 18. They moved to Texas where she had D.R.-A. In November 2014, Deleon was murdered, leaving her a widow. She moved back to California and contacted her biological family. She was reunited with her brother in 2014 and her father two years later. In the interim, she met Jason S. and in 2016, gave birth to Jason.
Mother reported daily flashbacks and memories of being tortured. She said she had third degree burns on her feet from being forced to stand in hot water. Environmental stimuli, such as movies and seeing and hearing violence on television, triggered flashbacks. She was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility four times throughout her life. The first time occurred when she was about seven or eight years old. According to documentation of the incident, she was homicidal at that time. She was hospitalized a second time shortly after D.R.-A.'s birth. She felt sad every day, which she mistook for postpartum depression. She was hospitalized in 2017 because she thought the people who murdered Deleon were after her but the deputies at the station did not believe he was dead.
Mother told Dr. Morris she did not believe in taking medication and viewed it as a last resort. Dr. Morris reported, "She adamantly maintained, often on a tirade, that therapy has not been helpful, [she] has no belief in the system or labels, she has learned to stop being angry, and [stated] anger has not benefitted her life." Dr. Morris observed mother appeared unaware of how her mental illness may affect her children.
Dr. Morris diagnosed mother with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and an unspecified mood disorder. Her traumas included the deaths of her mother and husband, abuse by her caregiver and her placement in foster care as an infant and again after being removed from her abusive caregiver. She also experienced manic episodes and acted out aggressively toward others and displayed reckless behavior and hypervigilance. Mother also exhibited persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs about herself and the world. She did not believe herself worthy as a parent because of her past traumas. She experienced persistent negative emotional states, expressed through anger, depression and paranoia. She also displayed feelings of detachment from others and a persistent inability to experience positive emotions, such as happiness.
Dr. Morris did not believe mother was willing to follow through with services and refused to take medication to address her mental instability. She recommended mother attend ongoing and consistent individual psychotherapy, receive a complete psychiatric evaluation to determine the course of psychotropic medication to address her symptoms, and participate in parenting and anger management classes. Dr. Morris also recommended mother receive a follow-up evaluation in four to six months before reunifying her with the children.
The dispositional hearing, originally set for September 2018, was continued multiple times, primarily because the report of mother's psychological evaluation had not been completed. The hearing was conducted in March 2019. By that time, mother had moved to San Joaquin County. Her attorney asked the juvenile court to place the children with her under family maintenance services and not to include a psychiatric evaluation as part of her reunification plan. Jason S.'s attorney asked the court to order services for him. The court ordered the children removed from parental custody, denied Jason S. reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (11)) and ordered mother to participate in counseling for parenting, neglect, and anger management, psychotherapy and medication management. The court ordered twice-weekly supervised visitation for mother.
Because of the continuances, a six-month review hearing was not conducted.
In April 2019, mother filed a modification petition for each child, asking the juvenile court to place the children with her under family maintenance. She alleged that she completed a parenting class, anger management and a psychological evaluation and did not need medication. She also suspected the children were being abused or neglected in foster care and that it was not being reported. The juvenile court denied her section 388 petitions, because they did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances. In handwritten notes on its orders, the court stated mother needed to attach verification that she complied with her case plan.
In May 2019, mother filed a second section 388 petition on behalf of each child, asking for family maintenance and alleging she completed her services plan. She attached documentation to support her request. The court denied the petitions because they did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances or promote the children's best interests. The court recommended mother contact her attorney for assistance.
In June 2019, the juvenile court convened the 12-month review hearing and set it as a contested hearing at mother's request.
In its report for the hearing, the department advised the juvenile court that mother completed parenting and anger management counseling. She also signed a release of medical information in June after refusing to do so. Medical records obtained by the department revealed she had several psychiatric visits dating back to May 2018 and was prescribed psychotropic medication. However, she stopped taking medication, opting instead to use spirituality to treat her PTSD. In February 2019, she received a mental health reassessment during which it was noted she had a history of not taking medication. It was recommended she participate in case management, psychiatric monitoring, group counseling and individual therapy to address symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks, flashbacks and anger outbursts. In March 2019, mother was evaluated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Atul Sheth, who noted that she was vague and not forthcoming about her history. She told him she did not want medication; she did not believe it would help. He noted that her attitude was "guarded" and her behavior "defiant and projective." She declined any further intervention and stated she was there to fulfill the terms of her parole. In the "Discharge Plan" section of his evaluation, he reported that she relied on her faith and did not trust medicine or science. She believed she was entitled to her parental rights and was seeing a therapist. In June, mother requested a letter from a recovery specialist stating that medication was not part of her mental health treatment. The specialist told her she would need to discuss the issue with the psychiatrist.
The department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother's reunification services. Although she partially complied, she was unwilling to treat her mental illness through psychotherapy and medication management. Consequently, the children could not be safely returned to her custody.
The contested 12-month review hearing was conducted on September 16, 2019. Counsel presented their positions by argument only. Mother's attorney argued mother complied with her services plan and resolved the problem that required the children's removal. As to the department's representation that she was unwilling to treat her mental illness with medication, her attorney asserted that the psychiatrist did not recommend medication. She asked the court to return the children to mother with family maintenance services or order reunification services to continue and transfer the case to San Joaquin County, mother's county of residence.
In ruling, the juvenile court commended mother on her improved demeanor and cooperation with the department but could not rule in her favor. The court found it would be detrimental to return the children to mother's custody because of her failure to progress in individual counseling and take psychotropic medication. For that reason, as well as her failure to regularly visit the children, the court found there was not a substantial probability they could be returned to her custody by the 18-month review hearing, which if scheduled would have to be conducted in November 2019. The court also found the department provided mother reasonable reunification services and her progress in completing them was moderate. The court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 14, 2020. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court ignored evidence of her progress and therefore erred in not returning the children to her custody or continuing reunification services for her. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court's rulings.
At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's return would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) The failure of the parent to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs constitutes prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. (Id. at subd. (f)(1)(B).)
If the juvenile court does not return the child, it may continue the case for up to six months if there is a substantial probability the child will be returned to parental custody within 18 months from the time the child was initially removed. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) To find a substantial probability of return, the juvenile court must find the parent regularly visited the child, made significant progress in resolving the problem prompting the child's removal, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child's safety, protection, and well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).)
The juvenile court must terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing if it finds the parent was provided reasonable reunification services and there is not a substantial probability of return. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(4).) Since mother does not challenge the court's reasonable services finding, the question is whether the evidence supports the court's finding there was not a substantial probability of return.
We review the juvenile court's findings and orders for substantial evidence. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378.) In so doing, "we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. [Citation.] 'We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.' " (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688-689.) We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's decisions not to return the children to mother's custody and to terminate her reunification services.
The standard of review is not, as petitioner's appellate counsel asserts, abuse of discretion.
Contrary to mother's assertion, the juvenile court acknowledged her improved demeanor and progress in the parenting and anger management components of her case plan. However, the court found the children could not be safely returned to her custody because she refused to meaningfully address the very issue that required their removal—her untreated mental illness. Specifically, she refused to take medication. Consequently, the court found that her progress was moderate, not substantive. Thus, there was prima facie evidence of detriment.
Mother contends there is no evidence she required medication. She points to Dr. Sheth's discharge plan and the lack of a recommendation for it. Dr. Sheth's decision not to recommend medication, however, is not evidence mother did not need it. She made it clear to him she did not want it and was not going to take it. She declined any further intervention. Consequently, there was no need for him to prescribe medication that she was not going to take. Further, mother's need for psychotropic medication is well-documented in her medical history. According to the record, multiple mental health providers who evaluated her prescribed it or recommended it. Untreated, mother's mental illness predisposed her to erratic and potentially violent behavior. Under the circumstances, the court's decision not to return the children to her custody was not error.
Mother's refusal to take medication also supports the juvenile court's finding there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to her in the two months remaining before an 18-month review hearing would be scheduled. She had a long history of noncompliance with medication and 16 months of refusing medication during these proceedings. Consequently, there was no reason to believe she would become compliant in the two months preceding the 18-month review hearing. Even if she did, there is no reason to believe she would have achieved sufficient benefit from medication to demonstrate the children could be safely returned to her custody.
We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.