Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J517795, Martin W. Staven, Judge.
O'ROURKE, J.
Mary D. appeals juvenile court jurisdictional and dispositional orders declaring her daughter, A.D., a dependent child of the court and removing A.D. from her custody. She contends substantial evidence did not support the jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and did not support removal under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). We affirm the orders.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On May 7, 2010, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of 11-year-old A.D. on the basis of Mary's mental illness. The petition alleged Mary said people were following her and someone was poisoning her; she moved frequently to avoid these people; she kept A.D. out of school to keep her safe; and she said she had not been the same after using hallucinogens while in college. The court ordered A.D. detained in foster care.
Mary's relatives reported Mary had been acting strangely and they were concerned about A.D. Mary told the social worker her brother-in-law had threatened to kill her and the maternal grandmother tried to kidnap A.D. and take her to the Philippines. A nurse who evaluated Mary provided her with referrals for mental health treatment and advised her to address her mental health issues before they grew worse. Mary said she did not believe she had any mental health problems and refused to have a psychiatric or psychological evaluation. A.D. told the social worker she and Mary moved frequently to get away from people who were following them and she did not go to school because it was safer to stay home. She was two years behind her classmates and was quiet and withdrawn and did not engage with other children.
The psychologist who evaluated A.D. reported A.D. did not have learning disabilities, but had learning deficiencies because she had not been attending school. A.D. told the psychologist she used to hear tiny voices calling her, but after she went into foster care, she no longer heard the voices. A.D. said she had a hard time sleeping because she worried about what would happen to her and she was afraid of the other children at school. The psychologist diagnosed her with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and recommended therapy and academic support.
A.D. had to be moved from her first foster home because Mary threatened the foster mother when the foster mother attempted to have Mary shorten her daily telephone calls to A.D. Mary also disagreed with A.D.'s second foster mother about the length of her calls.
At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing the social worker testified Mary reported she had to move frequently because people were following her and trying to poison her and A.D. also said they moved a lot because Mary said people were stalking them. Mary refused to release any information about mental health treatment, and the social worker had no information that Mary had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness. Family members told the social worker Mary had threatened them. The social worker said Mary asked the Agency to take A.D. into protective custody because she did not believe she could protect her from those who were stalking her, and she did not want A.D. to stay with family members. The Agency had offered voluntary services to Mary to help her retain custody of A.D. without court intervention, but she refused.
It was stipulated that were A.D. to testify, she would say she had always felt safe with Mary, she was not afraid when she was with her and she wanted to be with the maternal grandmother.
Mary testified that at one time she had been afraid because she believed her former boyfriend and his associates were following her, and she had changed residences five times in six months for her safety. She said she no longer feared her former boyfriend because she had obtained a restraining order against him. She said she had noticed people were loitering around A.D.'s school and she believed A.D. was not safe there. She said she had been arrested for vandalism after an altercation with her brother-in-law because he made inappropriate advances toward A.D. Family members had obtained a restraining order against her and she had requested a restraining order against her brother-in-law. Mary testified the maternal grandmother attempted to kidnap A.D. and intended to take her to the Philippines.
After considering the evidence and argument by counsel, the court found the allegations of the petition true and removed custody of A.D. from Mary.
DISCUSSION
I
Mary contends the jurisdictional order must be reversed because the Agency did not allege how her mental illness placed A.D. at risk, and substantial evidence does not support the court's jurisdictional findings.
To the extent that Mary is alleging the petition failed to state a cause of action, the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action by alleging Mary's mental illness resulted in her acting in ways that placed A.D. at risk, including moving frequently, keeping A.D. out of school and telling A.D. people were stalking her and trying to poison her, causing A.D. to be fearful and depressed.
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) " ' " ' "The rule is clear that the power of the appellate courts begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion reached by the trier of fact." ' " ' " (In re Tanis H. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1227, citations omitted.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '... view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' [Citation.]" (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Mary's belief she was being followed and people were trying to poison her, causing her to move frequently and keep A.D. out of school, supported a finding she was mentally ill and her illness caused harm to A.D. and placed A.D. at substantial risk of further harm. Mary said she was being stalked by a former boyfriend and she accused the maternal grandmother of trying to kidnap A.D. She said people had followed her when she moved to Las Vegas and these people loitered around A.D.'s school. She said "the welfare" watched her and caused her to be approached by men who thought she was a prostitute. She believed her former boyfriend was using electronic equipment to track her whereabouts. A nurse who assessed Mary reported her mental health problems were causing A.D. to be fearful and she warned Mary to seek help before her condition worsened. A.D. was at risk from Mary's unpredictable behavior. A.D. told the social worker she and Mary had to move frequently to get away from people who were following them and trying to kill Mary. Also, Mary had threatened family members and they reported Mary would sometimes take A.D. and disappear, and A.D. said they did not always have enough to eat.
Mary argues because she obtained a restraining order against her former boyfriend she was no longer afraid and so she would not continue to move and she would keep A.D. in school. Mary, however, also saw danger from numerous other sources, including family members and government officials and staff. A.D. already had suffered harm from Mary's actions. She said she heard tiny voices calling her name when she was with Mary. The psychologist who evaluated A.D. said that, although A.D.'s statement could be evidence of early onset psychosis, it was likely Mary had influenced A.D. to adopt her paranoid ideas and A.D.'s depression and anxiety were causing her to have physical symptoms. Substantial evidence supports the finding Mary's mental illness had caused A.D. to suffer serious physical harm or illness and she was at risk of suffering further serious harm.
II
Mary asserts the dispositional order removing A.D. from her custody should be reversed because there was not substantial evidence to support removal under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). She argues she was addressing the problems that led to the dependency, and A.D. said she felt safe with her and is happiest when she is with her.
Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides a child may not be removed from a parent's custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1), unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:
"There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor's parent's... physical custody."
The focus of the statute is to avert harm to the child. (In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536.) At disposition the juvenile court considers all relevant evidence that refers to the allegations of the petition, and it considers the conditions as they existed at the time of the hearing. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824.) The court is required to consider the parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances. (In re Troy D. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 889, 900.) "The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this discretion." (In re Jose M. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1103-1104.)
Substantial evidence supports the court's determination that there were not reasonable means to protect A.D. without removing her from Mary's care. The court considered evidence Mary believed people were following her and would harm her and she frequently moved and kept A.D. out of school. A.D.'s anxiety and depression caused her to have physical symptoms. Family members feared that Mary would take A.D. and "simply disappear." The nurse who assessed Mary warned that without treatment her symptoms could grow worse, but Mary denied that she had mental health problems.
In In re H.E. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 710, 719-723, the court ruled a juvenile court may remove custody from a parent based on substantial danger to the child's emotional well-being. Mary argues her situation is different because A.D. did not show severe emotional distress and, instead, the removal was causing her emotional harm. The psychologist who evaluated A.D., however, said Mary likely influenced A.D., causing A.D. to have paranoid thoughts, and A.D. expressed her anxiety and depression in physical symptoms. A.D. said she heard voices when she was with Mary, but they stopped after she went into foster care. Mary continued to be mistrustful and fearful, worrying that the grandmother might kidnap A.D. and that her former boyfriend was tracking her through her email and social networking accounts. The court's order removing A.D. from Mary for A.D.'s protection is supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., NARES, J.