Opinion
E052993
10-03-2011
In re P.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.J., Defendant and Appellant.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIJ119731)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
J.J. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's orders made at her six-month status review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred because (1) the order for mother to address anger management issues is improper; and (2) the anger management order is not authorized by section 362. We affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. DETENTION
P.J. (born August 2008) was one when she was initially detained on May 5, 2010; Mother was 27 years old on that date. Mother rented a three-bedroom house with P.J.'s maternal grandmother (Grandmother). During the evening on May 5, 2010, the West County Narcotics Taskforce executed a search warrant at the home. At the home were (1) Mother; (2) Mother's boyfriend, Miguel Aguilar (Aguilar); (3) Grandmother; (4) P.J.; (5) Grandmother's seven-year-old daughter, K.A.; and (6) Grandmother's 17-year-old daughter, E.B.
During the search of the home, the taskforce found 4.5 grams of methamphetamine in the ashtray of Aguilar's car, and a methamphetamine pipe on a five-foot high shelf in the garage. The taskforce also found a scale and baggies in a clear plastic storage bin in the garage, approximately two feet off the ground. The storage bin also contained children's clothing and a child's "sipping cup." The garage also served as the family's laundry area; there was a child's sandbox in the garage. Detective Crutchfield found a used marijuana pipe in an Easter basket on Mother's bed—P.J. shared the bedroom with Mother.
Mother acted erratic during the taskforce's search—she was yelling uncontrollably. Mother was argumentative and "shouted her disdain repeatedly, regarding the search warrant." It appeared to Investigator MacRae that Mother may have been under the influence of a stimulant. During the search, Mother was asked to stop yelling due to the children being present. Mother responded, "'They're used to me yelling at them.'" Aguilar also appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. Grandmother denied knowing that the drugs were at her house. E.B. said she often smelled marijuana in the garage. Mother and Aguilar were arrested and charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and child endangerment. Mother and Aguilar were taken to the Jurupa sheriff's station. Grandmother was cited for misdemeanor child endangerment. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b).)
The taskforce contacted the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the "Department"). A Department employee found that P.J.'s clothing smelled of urine and vomit, P.J.'s hair was matted, and she needed a bath. E.B. said Aguilar did not reside in the house; however, he visited daily and occasionally spent the night. E.B. said she had not seen drugs in the house, but Mother often spent time in the garage and she smelled marijuana on Mother's clothes. E.B said P.J. and K.A. occasionally played in the sandbox in the garage. K.A. did not appear to be abused or neglected. Grandmother believed Mother smoked cigarettes and tobacco from a "'hooka pipe.'" Grandmother said Mother had a history of substance abuse problems; she was last known to use drugs two years prior. The Department detained P.J; K.A. and E.B. were left in the care of their mother, Grandmother.
Mother told the Department Aguilar did not reside in the home, but that he often spent the night. Mother denied knowing about the various drug paraphernalia found in the car and at the house, and said the items must belong to Aguilar. Mother was aware that Aguilar had a history of abusing methamphetamine, but did not think he was currently using drugs. Mother admitted the last time she used methamphetamine was "last Saturday night"; however, prior to that, she had not used methamphetamine for a year. Mother admitted that she does use marijuana regularly. Mother said the marijuana helped her deal with her anxiety, and that she tried prescription drugs, but they made her ill. Mother stated she usually smoked "'a few puffs every morning,'" and that she was the primary caretaker of P.J. throughout the day. Mother was not working, but she received cash aid and Medi-Cal.
On May 7, 2010, the Department filed a petition against Mother alleging that Mother abused marijuana and methamphetamine while at home with P.J. The petition further alleged that Mother was arrested on or about May 5, 2010, for being under the influence of a controlled substance; possessing a controlled substance for sale; and child endangerment. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The Department alleged that Mother neglected P.J.'s health and safety because she knew or reasonably should have known "her boyfriend stores drug paraphernalia including but not limited to a methamphetamine pipe, digital scale, and zip lock baggies, in the garage," and the items were accessible by P.J. The Department asserted that Mother suffered from anxiety and self-medicated with marijuana. The Department alleged Mother was incarcerated and unable to provide care and support for P.J. (§ 300, subd. (g).) In regard to P.J.'s alleged father, the Department asserted he was not a member of P.J.'s household and did not make himself available to provide the child with food, shelter, medical care, and protection—the alleged father was reportedly incarcerated. (§ 300, subd. (g).)
The juvenile court found that P.J. came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and therefore ordered that P.J. be detained. The juvenile court ordered that services, such as parenting classes, be provided as soon as possible.
C. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION
The Department filed an amended petition removing the allegation that Mother was incarcerated and unable to provide care and support for P.J. (§ 300, subd. (g).) It was confirmed that P.J.'s alleged father was in Pleasant Valley State Prison. P.J. was placed in a confidential foster home. Mother moved into her godfather's home, in Menifee. The home had a room for P.J., which was adjacent to Mother's bedroom.
During an interview on May 25, 2010, Mother said she usually smoked marijuana twice per week when she was anxious or suffering from insomnia. Mother denied being under the influence of marijuana when caring for P.J., but then said marijuana helped to calm her nerves so that she could care for P.J. Mother explained she usually smoked one hour before P.J. woke up, but she also admitted eating marijuana laced brownies. Mother did not believe that she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance for sale, but did believe that she was charged with two other offenses.
Mother informed the social worker that she did not neglect P.J., and pointed out the methamphetamine was in the car, not the house, and "the scales may not have had residue on them." Mother again denied knowing that Aguilar was using methamphetamine. Aguilar admitted the methamphetamine in the car belonged to him; however, he said he did not know about the items in the garage.
P.J.'s foster mother said Mother and P.J. visited on Mondays and Fridays for two hour time periods. The foster mother reported P.J. and Mother were "'very close,'" and that Mother and P.J. would cry for most of their visits. The foster mother said Mother's crying would trigger P.J.'s crying. Mother called the foster mother two to three times a day to check on P.J.
Mother was referred for a medical evaluation at Perris Mental Health; parenting education at Catholic Charities; substance abuse treatment at Riverside County Department of Mental Health; and random drug testing at Inland Urgent Care. As of June 21, 2010, Mother had not made any progress with her various referrals.
On July 29, 2010, the Riverside County Central Intake Center received an allegation of neglect against P.J.'s foster mother. It was alleged that P.J. had a burn on the back of her leg, a bump between her eyebrows and, one month prior, had suffered four bruises on the front of her legs. P.J. was taken for a medical evaluation, and it was concluded the allegations were unfounded. Nevertheless, due to Mother's complaints about the care P.J. was receiving, the foster mother resigned as P.J.'s foster mother.
On July 8, 2010, Mother informed the Department that her godfather lost his Menifee rental home, and that she was living with Grandmother in Riverside. Mother had been referred to a counselor in Perris, so the Department asked if Mother would prefer a local counselor. Mother rejected the offer, because she planned to move again when her godfather found a new residence. When August arrived and Mother still had not met with the counselor in Perris, the Department referred her to a counselor in Riverside.
On July 6, 2010, Mother was admitted to Riverside Center for Change Family Preservation Court, which concerned substance abuse treatment. Mother submitted to three random drug tests, which were all negative. Mother also attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
DNA tests revealed that the man whom Mother alleged to be P.J.'s father was not P.J.'s biological father. As a result, the alleged father's name was removed from the petition. The juvenile court found the allegations in the amended petition to be true. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The trial court further found that the unknown father had failed to provide P.J. with care and support. (§ 300, subd. (g).)
The juvenile court ordered Mother to participate in reunification services, which included counseling, assessment for psychotropic medication, parenting classes, life skills classes, outpatient substance abuse treatment, and substance abuse testing. The court continued P.J.'s out-of-home placement, but awarded Mother unsupervised overnight weekend visits.
D. SIX-MONTH REVIEW HEARING
Mother said she did not know who P.J.'s Father might be. Mother continued to reside with Grandmother. Mother obtained a job running errands for a couple who were having health issues. Mother earned $400 to $500 per month. The couple was fond of Mother and P.J., and offered to let Mother and P.J. live in their home in Moreno Valley. Mother was also receiving food stamps. Mother completed her online high school diploma program, and was studying to be a notary public, with the goal of becoming a paralegal. The Department found that Mother had one charge against her for the May 5, 2010, incident, which was being under the influence of a controlled substance, but the charge was dismissed on May 24, 2010.
On November 15, 2010, a Department employee spoke to Mother by telephone. Mother said, "'I don't know why you are not giving back my daughter, because other cases that are more severe have their children back.' 'I am a marijuana user not a meth user.' 'I never used meth.'" Mother denied she previously admitted abusing methamphetamines, and denied Grandmother reported Mother had previously used methamphetamines.
Mother's individual therapist, Phil Laney, stated Mother was bipolar, with a recent episode of depression. On December 15, 2010, Laney informed the Department that he terminated Mother as a patient, because Mother missed three appointments. Laney felt Mother had power and control issues, and was in denial about her situation. According to Laney, Mother said the juvenile court had awarded her custody of P.J., but the Department, and specifically the social worker, were refusing to return the child to her physical custody. The social worker persuaded Laney to continue working with Mother. Laney agreed, and said he would focus on Mother's anger management issues and accepting responsibility for her actions.
At the six-month review hearing, Mother's attorney said, "Your Honor, for mother, I will be submitting. I did ask her about the anger management and Mr. Laney. Mother got a new job so she will be making more consistent appointments. . . . [¶] [S]he's going to make a more concerted effort to be not only punctual but consistent in her anger management."
The juvenile court directed "the Department not to place [P.J.] with [M]other on family maintenance unless Mr. Laney reports . . . that [Mother] is dealing with her anger management issues." The juvenile court stated that it was "leaving that [issue] to the discretion of the Department." The court then clarified, "I want to make it clear, I don't want the child placed unless we have a mother successfully dealing with her anger management issues." In closing, the court said to Mother, "Keep up the good work, and you really have to concentrate on dealing with anger management issues. [¶] If you do and everything else is going well, I think the Department will probably end up placing your child back with you before the next hearing."
Mother's juvenile court attorney then spoke to the court. Mother's attorney reminded the court that they were discussing Mother's individual therapy sessions, and that Mother's issues involved substance abuse and mental health troubles—not anger management. The juvenile court responded, "I understand that, but it does look like an issue that she does need to deal with." The court concluded that Mother's progress with her case plan was adequate, but incomplete.
DISCUSSION
A. CONDITIONAL ORDER
Mother contends the juvenile court erred because it conditioned the return of P.J. to Mother's physical custody on specific statements being made by Laney. We disagree.
The Department asserts that Mother has forfeited an appeal related to the anger management aspect of the juvenile court's ruling, because she did not object at the juvenile court. While the Department's contention is well taken, we choose to address the merits of Mother's appeal because the issues are easily resolved.
--------
At a status review hearing, "[t]he failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental." (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) The juvenile court must "order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian." (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) In other words, if a parent is not making progress in a program, then there is prima facie evidence that the child should not be returned to the parent, and the court must order services that will assist the parent in regaining physical custody of the child.
Mother presents this issue as one in which the juvenile court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Since Mother has framed the issue as an act in excess of jurisdiction, which is an entirely legal question, we will apply the de novo standard of review. (Baqleh v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 478, 485.)
In the instant case, Mother was not making substantive progress in her court ordered individual therapy because she needed to work on her anger management issues and accepting responsibility for her actions. As a result of Mother not making progress in this area, the court ordered that Mother continue to participate in individual therapy, and focus on working on the anger management issues. The court's orders follow the statutory mandates as the juvenile court was ordering services that it believed would "facilitate the return of the child" to Mother's custody, as evinced by the court's statement that Mother would likely regain physical custody if she succeeded with her anger management therapy and "everything else [was] going well."
In sum, the juvenile court's order conditioning P.J.'s return, in part, on Mother's successful participation in individual therapy was appropriate because it follows the statutory mandates. Accordingly, we find no error.
Mother contends the trial court erred because it conditioned the return of the child on "specific statements from [Mother's] therapist." Contrary to Mother's position, the juvenile court stated that Mother would likely regain physical custody of P.J. if she "concentrate[d] on dealing with anger management issues" and "everything else is going well." There was nothing indicating that Laney needed to make a specific statement in order for Mother to regain physical custody of P.J. As a result, we find Mother's argument to be unpersuasive.
Next, Mother contends the juvenile court erred by conditioning P.J.'s return on a requirement that was not part of the original reunification plan. Contrary to Mother's position, the case plan has always required Mother to participate in individual therapy. To the extent Mother is asserting that the anger management issue, within individual counseling, is an additional requirement, we find the argument to be unpersuasive, because as set forth ante, the juvenile court must "order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian." (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) In this case, the juvenile court found Mother's anger to be "an issue she does need to deal with." As a result, the trial court ordered that Mother's individual therapy focus on anger management. Thus, to the extent the trial court ordered an "additional" service, it did so within the statutory mandates. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
In a third argument, Mother asserts that her failure to address one component of individual therapy should not prevent P.J. from being returned to her physical custody. Mother asserts her anger issues have "questionable relevance to [P.J.'s] safety," and therefore, it is not necessarily detrimental to return P.J. to Mother's physical custody. Contrary to Mother's position, the evidence reflects that when the taskforce executed the search warrant at Mother's home, Mother could not control her yelling. When Mother was asked to calm down for the sake of the children at the house, she refused and said, "'They're used to me yelling at them.'" Mother admitted she self-medicated with illegal drugs in order to control her emotions. Mother's lack of control over her emotions and reliance on illegal drugs presented serious safety issues for P.J., as evinced by the used marijuana pipe in an Easter basket, in the bedroom Mother shared with P.J. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Mother's argument that P.J. should be returned to her custody despite her failure to address her anger issues.
B. SECTION 362
Mother contends the juvenile court erred by requiring Mother to address her anger management issues because the order violates section 362. Section 362, subdivision (c), provides in relevant part: "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child is a person described by Section 300." Mother argues that her anger issues were not the cause of P.J. being declared a dependent of the court, and therefore the juvenile court erred by requiring her to participate in the anger management portion of her individual therapy. We disagree.
Mother asserts the substantial evidence standard of review should be applied when analyzing this issue. For the sake of judicial efficiency, we will apply the substantial evidence standard, rather than provide a lengthy analysis of which standard of review is most appropriate. When reviewing a record for substantial evidence, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, and determine whether there is any evidence of reasonable, credible, and solid value to support the findings. (In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 84.)
One of the allegations that led to P.J. being removed from Mother's care was as follows: "The mother suffers from anxiety, fails to seek mental health treatment and self medicates with marijuana." (§ 300, subd. (b).) The evidence supporting this allegation was Mother's admission that she self-medicates "to cope with her 'chemical imbalance' including anxiety." Accordingly, one of the reasons P.J. was removed from Mother's care was Mother's failure to seek appropriate mental health care for herself.
Laney diagnosed Mother as having symptoms of anxiety, anger outbursts, and mental and emotional irritability. In regard to anger being an emotion that Mother has difficulty controlling, the record reflects that when the taskforce executed the search warrant at Mother's home, Mother could not control her yelling. When Mother was asked to calm down for the sake of the children at the house, she refused and said, "'They're used to me yelling at them.'" Mother's outpatient substance abuse program commented that Mother was showing "a significant improvement in controlling her anger."
The foregoing is reasonable, credible, and solid evidence that Mother suffered from anger issues, and it was a mental health problem for which she was not seeking appropriate treatment at the time P.J was detained. Therefore the juvenile court's order that Mother address her anger issues before regaining physical custody of P.J. was responsive to the "conditions that led to the court's finding that the child is a person described by Section 300." (§ 362, subd. (c).) In sum, the juvenile court did not err.
Mother argues that her episode of yelling during the execution of the search warrant was not evidence of her "general demeanor, much less evidence that her anger posed a risk of harm to [P.J.]" We agree that the yelling incident alone is not evidence that Mother required anger management as part of her individual therapy. Rather, the yelling episode supports Laney's diagnosis that Mother has unaddressed anger outbursts that need to be addressed in a mental health setting. Thus, while we agree with Mother's argument, it does not persuade us that the juvenile court erred, because we must look at the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, which means we must look at all the evidence favorable to the judgment, including Laney's diagnosis, and the comment from Mother's substance abuse treatment program. When all the evidence is considered together, there is substantial evidence that Mother suffered from an anger issue that was not being adequately addressed at the time P.J. was detained.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.