Opinion
B326115
02-14-2024
In re ALEXANDER G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. MARIA L., Defendant and Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Michelle D. Spencer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP03375A-C Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle D. Spencer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHAVEZ, J.
Maria L. (mother) challenges dispositional orders of the juvenile court requiring that she complete a full case plan after the juvenile court took jurisdiction over her three minor children, Alexander G. (born January 2006), Chris G. (born November 2010), and Abigail G. (born April 2017). Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to create a case plan narrowly tailored to accommodate her medical condition. We affirm the orders of the court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Initial referral and investigation
The family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on August 27, 2022, when DCFS received a referral alleging the parents snorted cocaine and mother may have overdosed, based on 16-year-old Alexander's call to 911.
A social worker met with Bell Gardens Police Officer Salmon, who responded to the 911 call. When he arrived at the home it was a mess with trash, old food, roaches, and human waste on the floor. Father had locked himself in the bathroom, and when he emerged he was soaking wet. Law enforcement found a rolled up dollar bill containing what they assumed to be a controlled substance. Father told law enforcement he and mother "did coke" that day. Father was arrested, and mother was transported to a medical facility.
The social worker called the medical facility and was told mother was in critical condition after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke. She had not spoken and was unresponsive. Mother's doctor did not know mother's prognosis or if she would regain function. Mother tested positive for amphetamines, and it was believed that mother's drug use induced a stroke.
The social worker met with the children at the police department. Abigail was wearing a dirty dress and said there was not a lot of food at the family home because the family had no money. She said she was unable to get the clothes she needed for school. Abigail reported that Alexander took care of her and mother. Abigail denied being abused but reported mother and father yelled at and hit and punched each other. She was unaware of any alcohol or drug use, but said mother and father were yelling the previous night. Abigail could not recall the last time that the house was not a mess or free of cockroaches.
Chris was in the sixth grade. He denied abuse but reported mother and father frequently argued, and he had seen them push and hit each other. Father was usually the aggressor. Chris denied observing any alcohol consumption and denied knowing about drugs.
Sixteen-year-old Alexander was clean and appropriately dressed. He reported having sufficient food, bathing regularly, and having his basic needs met. Alexander denied being abused but reported being depressed since his older brother Andrew moved out of the home in June. Alexander had to take care of his younger brother and sister. He said he pushed negative thoughts out of his mind because he knew he was responsible for them. Mother and father yelled and screamed a lot in the home and Alexander had seen them push each other. Alexander tried to keep his siblings in the bedroom when the parents fought. Alexander reported mother occasionally drank alcohol and had hangovers.
Regarding the events of August 27, 2022, Alexander reported father asked him to go to the store in the morning to buy seltzer water. Mother and father were in their bedroom, and Alexander saw only father. Alexander typically brought the parents seltzer water when they were hungover. Alexander did as he was told, and father instructed him to go back to the store to purchase more. When Alexander arrived with the second bottle of seltzer, father went into the bathroom and left the bedroom door open. Alexander looked in the room and saw mother on the floor. He was scared when mother did not respond to him. Alexander kept his siblings out of the room and called his brother Andrew, who said to call 911. Alexander kept his siblings out of the way while the paramedics did their jobs.
Father went to the bathroom, made a mess, and was all wet when he emerged. Father was handcuffed and arrested. Alexander was not sure what happened but thought it might have something to do with the parents drinking alcohol. Alexander was concerned about mother and whether she would recover.
The social worker spoke by telephone with Andrew, who moved out of the home and joined the California Conservation Corps in June 2022. Andrew confirmed receiving Alexander's telephone call that mother was on the floor and that he instructed Alexander to call 911. Andrew reported that mother drank in moderation and was not an alcoholic. Mother was the responsible one in the family. Father drank. Andrew reported, "My dad was pretty bad in the early days when I was young too. First he was addicted to video games and then I think he started using drugs. It makes his mind not there. I don't know what kind or anything. He would be there in the bathroom all day long if he had drugs and he would have bad hygiene on the drugs." Andrew recounted fighting between father and mother in the home, and said father was the aggressor. The parents would hit and push each other.
A nurse at the medical facility where mother was admitted reported mother had been admitted to the emergency room with alcohol intoxication and altered medical status. Mother had an intraparenchymal hematoma in the left frontal lobe measuring 5.3 centimeters causing effacement of the frontal sulci and effacement of the left lateral ventricles with a two-centimeter rightward midline shift. There was also mild hydrocephalus of the right lateral ventrical. Mother received a positive toxicology report for amphetamines in her system, and there was a possible history of alcohol abuse. Mother had been observed to open and close her eyes and make movements with her body, but she did not respond or speak.
The police report generated after the August 27, 2022 visit to the family home documented that methamphetamine was seized from the home, and father reported an extensive history of drug abuse dating back 15 years. Father admitted locking himself in the bathroom when law enforcement arrived because he was flushing cocaine down the toilet. Father also admitted he and mother used cocaine, and mother consumed multiple alcoholic beverages in the family home the previous night.
As father was in police custody, DCFS was unable to interview him. The three children were placed together in a foster home.
Petition and detention hearing
On August 30, 2022, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.Counts a-1 and b-3 of the petition alleged that mother and father engaged in domestic violence in the children's presence. Count b-1 alleged that father had a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of cocaine and alcohol, and count b-2 alleged that mother has a history of substance abuse and is a current user of alcohol, cocaine and amphetamine. Count b-4 alleged that the home was found in an unsanitary condition, creating a detrimental and endangering home environment and placing the children at risk of serious physical harm or damage.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
A detention hearing was held on August 31, 2022. The parents were not present. The court found DCFS had presented a prima facie case that the children were minors described by section 300 and ordered the children removed from the home and care of both parents.
Arraignments
Father's arraignment was held on September 8, 2022. At the hearing, the attorney that was supposed to be appointed for mother indicated that mother was unable to communicate with counsel, and they were unable to establish an attorney-client relationship. The court asked counsel if she was asking for appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL). The attorney responded that mother appeared to be improving but remained unable to communicate. The court noted if mother's condition improved, the attorney might be able to accept an appointment. Otherwise, the court would consider a request to appoint a GAL. Mother's arraignment was continued to September 30, 2022. On September 30, 2022, mother's attorney was again unable to accept appointment due to mother's medical condition. The court again continued her arraignment to October 18, 2022, and then again to October 28, 2022. On October 28, 2022, mother appeared by telephone and entered a general denial.
First amended petition
On October 13, 2022, DCFS filed a first amended petition adding three new allegations. Counts a-2, b-5 and j-1 alleged that father physically abused Chris, and that Alexander and Abigail were at risk of physical abuse.
Jurisdiction/disposition report
DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on October 13, 2022. Mother had a criminal history including a 2019 arrest in connection with an incident of violence involving father. Mother pleaded no contest and was ordered to complete a 52-week domestic violence program and 24 hours of community service. Mother completed her programs. Her plea was modified on May 3, 2021, to not guilty, and the case was dismissed.
Alexander reported he was doing very well in his foster home, although he was having trouble sleeping because Abigail was waking up scared during the night. Alexander enjoyed the family environment in the foster home and was happy to be free from worry about his father hurting his mother. Alexander was consistent with his description of the events of August 27, 2022. He reported the family home had been clean prior to the time Andrew moved out because he and Andrew cleaned it. Since then, the house went from "getting messy to worse," despite Alexander's efforts to help his mother clean.
Chris reported father as having a harsh personality and the only thing Chris liked about father was his cooking. Father never cleaned and would forget to cook because he got distracted by games. Father would hurt mother. Once Chris heard mother yelling at father in the middle of the night to stop punching her. Another time father got mad at mother while she was cooking soup and splashed it on her. Chris was worried about father's alcohol consumption but denied seeing drug paraphernalia in the home. Chris reported mother rarely drank alcohol. He acknowledged the home was messy because father would not help mother keep it clean. Father punished Chris by slapping him or hitting him on his thigh with a belt.
Abigail confirmed her mother and father fought a lot, both verbally and physically. She could not provide any information regarding her parents' drug use.
On September 29, 2022, DCFS was informed that mother was being discharged to a rehabilitation center later that day. DCFS was unable to obtain any information regarding mother's condition until mother's case manager obtained mother's consent for the release of information to the investigating social worker. The case manager agreed to assess mother and contact the social worker with an update.
On October 6, 2022, the DCFS social worker spoke with the owner of mother's facility, who agreed to attempt to determine if mother was capable of consenting to a release of information to the social worker. The owner reported mother was unable to walk and had paralysis on the right side of her body. On October 7, 2022, the owner sent the social worker an e-mail that mother "does not appear to understand what's going on or what is needed." Father also reported that mother remained confused, stating, "When we talk to her it seems like she understands, but the things that she answers don't make sense."
On October 12, 2022, the social worker spoke with "Sandy" at mother's facility. Sandy reported that mother was strong-willed and able to push herself around in a wheelchair. Mother was depressed and cried a lot, especially at night. Mother would get upset at times and raise her voice. Sandy permitted the social worker to speak with mother. Mother knew her name, but the social worker had trouble understanding her. Mother told the social worker she had three boys and a girl but could not provide their names or ages. Mother was unable to provide any information with respect to the section 300 petition. Mother repeatedly said she did not know where her mother was and that she wanted to see her. When the social worker asked mother questions about her relationship with father, mother would respond by saying or spelling words that did not make sense.
In an interview on October 5, 2022, father denied the counts in the section 300 petition regarding domestic violence and abuse of Chris. Father admitted using cocaine on August 26 and 27, 2022, but denied having a problem. Father said he and mother drank beer and he used cocaine the night before mother was found unresponsive on the floor.
The children loved mother, missed her, and worried about her well-being. Alexander and Chris expressed anger towards father and wanted no contact with him. Mother had one monitored telephone conversation with the children, during which mother talked to the children, but they had difficulty understanding her. Mother called the children a second time, but then Alexander did not want to speak to her. The caregiver reported that Alexander said talking to mother made things worse.
Mother's prognosis was unknown by DCFS. Father was unsure of mother's ability to consent to the release of her medical records. Mother remained confused, said things that did not make sense, and needed full-time care.
DCFS recommended the juvenile court declare the children dependents of the court and order reunification services be provided to the parents. DCFS also recommended the court order mother to participate in a parenting program, a substance abuse program that included aftercare, weekly random drug and alcohol testing, and individual counseling to address case issues.
Jurisdiction/disposition hearing
The combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing took place on October 28, 2022. Mother and father participated by telephone. The attorney who had been in contact with mother was available for appointment and prepared to proceed with adjudication that day. She was appointed as counsel for mother. Following argument, the court sustained counts a-2 (physical abuse by father of Chris); b-1 (father's substance abuse); b-2 (mother's substance abuse); b-3 (domestic violence); b-4 (unsanitary home); and b-5 (father's physical abuse of Chris). Counts a-1 and j-1 were dismissed.
Mother's counsel informed the court that mother acknowledged she was unable to care for the children at that time. Mother was barely verbal at the beginning of the case; however she had recovered to the extent she was released from a medical facility and was now home. Mother was still struggling with paralysis and mobility in one leg, memory and was sometimes confused. Due to these conditions, mother did not ask the court to release the children to her that day.
As to mother's case plan, mother's counsel argued: "The court does have to order a case plan based on what is possible for a client in this moment; and, as of right now, mother is still in recovery, and we don't know the extent that she'll be able to fully recover."
Mother's counsel asked that the court strike most of the case plan for mother and instead order individual counseling so mother could address her issues with drugs and alcohol and her issues with domestic violence and parenting all with one person in one spot, given her mobility issues. Mother's counsel also asked that DCFS be ordered to transport mother to any drug testing and be required to file a petition pursuant to section 388 to request additional services.
The court inquired whether there was evidence available of mother's condition in order to make an assessment regarding mother's ability to engage in the reunification programs and was told DCFS did not have current information as to mother's condition, as DCFS had not yet even reported that mother was home. The court noted it did not see any evidence proffered by mother with respect to her inability to complete programs, other than "anecdotal references by counsel."
DCFS argued that individual counseling would not sufficiently address the issues in the case, and mother needed "a lot of help with learning how to appropriately parent or learning how to have a safe and appropriate home environment." DCFS suggested a six-month hearing would allow time to see how mother's condition progressed. DCFS pointed out mother had not requested that a GAL be appointed, meaning she is able to effectively communicate and had apparently significantly improved in the last couple of months. DCFS reminded the court that the issue was determining what needs to be done so the family can reunify, adding that an individual counseling program alone would be insufficient to address the issue.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that continuation in the home of the parents created a substantial danger to the physical health of the children and there were no reasonable means by which the children's health could be protected without removing them. Mother was ordered to participate in a domestic violence support program for victims, a full alcohol and drug program, random and on-demand drug testing, a 12-step program, conjoint counseling with father, developmentally appropriate parenting, and individual counseling.
The juvenile court ordered DCFS to exhaust all available funding streams to assist mother with transportation to participate in her programs. At mother's counsel's request, the court ordered DCFS to refer mother to a parent partner program to assist her in complying with the court's orders.
Notice of appeal
On December 20, 2022, mother filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court's orders of October 28, 2022.
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable law and standard of review
After a juvenile court has taken jurisdiction over a child, it has discretion to issue dispositional orders for reunification services the child and family may need to be reunited and free of court supervision. (§ 362, subd. (a); In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 345-346.) "The juvenile court has wide latitude in making orders necessary for the well-being of a minor. By statute, the court may make 'all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child ....' (§ 362, subd. (a).) However, the same statute limits such orders to those that are designed to eliminate the conditions that brought the minor to the attention of the court. (§ 362, subd. (c).)" (In re Jasmin C. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 177, 180.) The juvenile court may address known issues harmful to the child even where such issues are not the direct cause of the child's detention. (See, e.g., In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311; In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.)
Reunification services "'implement "the law's strong preference for maintaining the family relationship[] if at all possible."'" (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.) This is because "services enable [parents] to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain custody of their dependent children." (Ibid.) The juvenile court's dispositional orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311; In re Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.)
II. No abuse of discretion occurred
Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering a full case plan for mother without regard for her serious medical condition. Mother cites In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323, 333, for the proposition that "'[f]amily reunification efforts must be tailored to fit the unique challenges suffered by individual families ....'" The K.C. court went on to say that "'the juvenile dependency system is mandated by law to accommodate the special needs of disabled and incarcerated parents.'" (Ibid.) Mother argues where a parent has obvious barriers to completing a case plan, "such a plan, doomed to fail, is an abuse of discretion." (In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 618.) Mother argues that the dependency court doomed mother to failure when it ordered her to complete a full case plan including drug and alcohol counseling, random weekly testing, parenting, individual counseling, participation in a domestic violence victim support group, and conjoint counseling with the children if recommended by each child's therapist, despite mother's medical condition.
The record reveals that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the full case plan described above. When mother's counsel objected to the plan on the grounds that it was not sufficiently tailored to mother's medical condition and it was overly burdensome, the juvenile court inquired as to what evidence was available as to mother's current condition.Specifically, the court inquired whether there was evidence available of mother's condition in order to make an assessment regarding mother's ability to engage in the programs. Mother's counsel conceded that DCFS did not have current information as to mother's condition, as DCFS had not yet reported that mother was home. Mother's counsel agreed "[DCFS] is a little bit outdated with respect to her prognosis." The court noted it did not see any evidence proffered by mother with respect to her inability to complete programs, other than "anecdotal references by counsel." The juvenile court was not required to accept as evidence the unsupported representations of counsel in court.
Because mother's counsel objected to the case plan on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored to the family's needs and was overly burdensome given mother's condition, we reject DCFS's argument that mother forfeited her challenge to the case plan.
Mother's counsel did not request continuation of the hearing for the purpose of assessing mother's medical condition. Instead, counsel pointed to admittedly outdated information from DCFS's reports. Mother did not offer to authorize the release of mother's medical information, nor did she request a medical evaluation. The evidence before the court suggested mother's condition had improved. In contrast to previous hearings, mother's counsel reported mother was able to accept appointment and was prepared to proceed with the hearing. Mother's attorney specifically noted that mother "was able to give directions as to the allegations, as she does appear to be improving slowly." Due to her improved condition, mother had returned home. In the absence of recent medical information showing that mother was medically unable to carry out the proposed case plan, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the programs necessary to achieve reunification.
As DCFS points out, there are several notations in the record showing that DCFS was unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain mother's authorization to release her medical records.
The cases cited by mother are distinguishable. In In re K.C., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at page 326, as part of the case plan, the father was instructed to participate in a psychological evaluation and, if necessary, medical evaluation. The psychological evaluation concluded that father might benefit from psychotropic medication. When the father went to a pharmacological clinic for treatment, he was turned down, as he did not meet their criteria. The child welfare agency made no attempt to secure the evaluation elsewhere. Under those circumstances, the agency failed to provide reasonable services to the father prior to seeking termination of parental rights. (Id. at p. 329.) Here, mother did not request a medical evaluation for her own benefit or for the benefit of the court in creating the case plan.
In Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, the mother suffered from serious mental health conditions. Mother challenged an order terminating reunification services, contending that the reunification services she received were inadequate because the social worker "thought she was not taking her medication, observed mother's struggle with mental health during the case, and believed additional mental health services could be helpful if another six months were provided." (Id. at p. 419.) The Patricia W. court found there was no substantial evidence that reasonable services were provided to the parents, in part because the agency failed to "identify mother's mental health issues and provide services designed to enable her to obtain appropriate medication and treatment" and "to provide services designed to help her stay on her medication." (Id. at p. 422.) Here, in contrast, mother was not required to participate in any medical evaluations, nor did she request any such evaluations. The record shows DCFS made efforts to secure mother's medical records in order to properly evaluate her circumstances, but was unable to do so due to mother's failure to consent.
In In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, the juvenile court removed three children from their developmentally disabled mother. As part of the reunification plan, the mother was required to obtain suitable housing and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills. When she was unable to do so, her parental rights were terminated. The Court of Appeal reversed the termination of parental rights, noting the record showed that mother was "obviously . . . developmentally disabled." (Id. at p. 1329.) Under the circumstances, the appellate court found the agency had failed to adequately assist the mother in finding housing, had failed to make accommodations for the mother's special needs in providing reunification services, and failed to enlist the assistance of the local regional center. (Id. at pp. 13281329.) The present matter is distinguishable. Due to the inability of DCFS to obtain mother's medical records, the agency had no way of assessing mother's present needs or making appropriate recommendations. Counsel for mother also failed to present any recent evidence after mother's improvements in communication and move home. The juvenile court thus had no means of assessing mother's condition.
Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415 similarly involved developmentally disabled parents. The Tracy J. court found that the child welfare agency did not provide adequate reunification services because it unreasonably limited visitation services, failed to inform the parents of the child's medical appointments, failed to instruct the parents on how to care for the child's medical condition, failed to secure the assistance of a public health nurse, and failed to refer them to an agency providing parenting instruction and independent living skills to individuals with disabilities. (Id. at pp. 1426-1428.) Further, in spite of recommendations that the mother undergo a medical evaluation, no such evaluation occurred. (Id. at p. 1428.) Under those circumstances, there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that reasonable reunification services were provided to the family. (Ibid.) The matter is distinguishable from the present case, in which there is insufficient evidence to ascertain mother's medical status.
In re J.P., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at pages 624-630 is also distinguishable because it involved a parent with a known and unaddressed language barrier. No such barrier is presently known in this case.
The programs ordered by the juvenile court were designed to address the serious problems that brought the children to the attention of the court. There is no evidence in the record that mother's medical condition at the time of the dispositional hearing prevented her from participating in such programs. However, the juvenile court made some accommodations based on the conditions described by mother's counsel. Given mother's apparent continued mobility issues, the court ordered DCFS to assist with transportation for mother. In addition, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to provide mother with a referral for parent partner assistance. On the record before us, no abuse of discretion occurred.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur: LUI, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.