Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SJ12177, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge.
McINTYRE, J.
Brian T. appeals jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning his son, Brian G. (the minor). He contends substantial evidence does not support the court's findings and orders. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2009, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of the two-year-old minor under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) on the basis of the minor's mother's (T.G.) mental illness. (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The petition also alleged Brian had failed and had been unable to protect and supervise the minor. The petition additionally initially alleged under section 300, subdivision (g) that the minor had been left without provision for his support. The allegation under section 300, subdivision (g) was later dismissed.
The minor was removed from T.G. when she was hospitalized for mental illness. T.G. had told her doctor she had been in an abusive relationship with Brian, but she then told the social worker Brian had not been abusive, but he did not provide any support, and, when she asked him to take care of the minor, he refused. The court ordered the minor detained.
The social worker reported Brian said he had been providing support for the minor since the minor's birth and he and T.G. had lived together for six months when the minor was an infant. He said he had regular contact with the minor. He reported T.G. had a history of lying to him and was easily angered, but he was not aware of her mental health problems. He said she and the minor had been living in various places and he did not always know their whereabouts. Brian has custody of his five children from a previous marriage. He said he wanted the minor placed with him if he was not returned to T.G., but he would need to speak with his other children and make child care and financial arrangements.
The court gave the social worker discretion to detain the minor with Brian. The social worker made appointments to evaluate Brian's home for placement, but Brian canceled appointments and did not contact the social worker so his home could be evaluated.
At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings on July 14, 2009, the former social worker testified Brian indicated he had been aware T.G. was depressed, taking medication, seeing a therapist and moving from place to place, but he had not attempted to obtain custody of the minor. She said Brian visited the minor at Polinsky Children's Center (Polinsky), but not when he was in foster care, and, although she urged Brian to make an appointment so his home could be evaluated, he had not done so.
The current social worker testified Brian had not appeared for scheduled meetings, and, because he had not made his home available to be evaluated, the minor was placed in the home of T.G.'s friend. She said she had not seen Brian interact with the minor because Brian had not visited the minor in his foster home.
Brian testified he spoke with the social worker the day after T.G. told him the minor was detained. He said he had missed some visits and appointments because he had been ill and was trying to obtain a bigger residence. He testified he and the minor had a good time when he visited him at Polinsky, but he had not visited at the current foster home because he did not believe it was a good placement.
The court found the allegations of the petition under section 300, subdivision (b) to be true. It declared the minor a dependent child of the court, ordered him removed from T.G.'s care, found it would be detrimental to place him with Brian, ordered him placed in the care of a non-relative extended family member and gave the Agency discretion to place him with Brian with concurrence of minor's counsel.
DISCUSSION
I
Brian contends the court erred by finding true the allegation under section 300, subdivision (b) that he had failed and was unable to protect and supervise the minor.
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.) Determinations of credibility of witnesses and resolutions of conflicts in the evidence are for the trier of fact. (In re Tanis H. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1226-1227.) "[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.)
A petition is brought on behalf of the child, not to punish the parent. (In re La Shonda B. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 593, 599.) The focus of the statute is to avert harm to the child. (In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536.) If the actions of either parent place the child at substantial risk according to the provisions of section 300, the juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over the child. (In re Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202; In re Jeffrey P. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1553-1554.)
Substantial evidence supports the court's finding of jurisdiction. T.G.'s mental illness placed the minor at risk. Her psychiatrist said she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features and post traumatic stress disorder. She made slow progress after her release from the hospital. T.G.'s mental illness alone supports a finding of jurisdiction despite the fact that Brian's lack of action in not taking over care of the minor when T.G.'s mental health was deteriorating may not be sufficient for a finding of negligence.
II
Brian asserts the court erred by finding it would be detrimental to place the minor in his care.
Section 361.2, subdivision (a) provides:
"When a court orders removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall first determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child."
The finding of detriment under this section must be made under the standard of clear and convincing evidence. (In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.) "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.) The reviewing court will not reverse the court's order in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 1104.)
The court found it would be detrimental to place the minor with Brian because Brian had not made his home available so the social worker could evaluate it to determine whether it was a safe and appropriate placement for the minor. The social worker informed Brian it was necessary for the Agency to visit his home and to speak to those who live there. Brian missed scheduled appointments with the social worker and said he would contact her so his home could be evaluated, but he did not do so. He indicated he was going to move to a larger apartment to make room for Brian, but he never made his home available to be evaluated. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding it would be detrimental to place the minor with him.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.