Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James Edwards, Judge. Super.Ct.No. J217419 (Retired judge of the San Bdno. Sup. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6, of the Cal. Const.).
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
OPINION
Gaut, Acting P.J.
Mother appeals from a dispositional order placing B.S., her 10-year-old daughter, with paternal relatives in Florida, because the placement would impair her reunification efforts and preclude in-person visitation. Because Florida is B.S.’s home state, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In the State of Florida, B.S. was the subject of several referrals, resulting in an order awarding custody of B.S. to her father, L.S. in 2003. B.S. lived with her father continuously from that point until May 31, 2007, when mother, who had moved to California, requested a visit with B.S., promising to return B.S. to Florida on July 24, 2007.
On October 3, 2007, B.S., then 10 years of age, was detained along with her twin one-year-old half-siblings, after mother attempted suicide in front of the children by cutting herself with a razor, and reportedly swallowing a razor blade. Mother was involuntarily hospitalized, and the father of the half-sibling twins was jailed for being intoxicated and unable to care for the children. The emergency response social worker found the home to be filthy, with very little food. Further, the twins were wearing soiled and wet diapers . Finally, law enforcement officers found a glass methamphetamine pipe in the residence.
A dependency petition was filed by the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) alleging neglect due to the mother’s substance abuse problems and mental health problems (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)), and leaving the children without provision for their support. (§ 300, subd. (g).) The court ordered an evaluation of B.S.’s paternal aunt’s home in Florida, pursuant to the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC).
All further references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise stated.
At the jurisdictional hearing, mother and the father of the half-siblings submitted on the petition and the reports, but objected to the proposal to place B.S. in Florida with paternal relatives. The jurisdiction report revealed mother and the father of the half-siblings had argued, and mother became suicidal, resulting in her taking an overdose of pills (as opposed to swallowing a razor), and cutting herself with the razor. B.S. was traumatized by this incident and showed signs of depression.
The report also revealed that mother had been married to B.S.’s father, L.S., in Florida, but mother had abandoned B.S. and her father in 2003. B.S. had lived with L.S. continuously since that time. Mother and the father of the half-siblings had been diagnosed with Hepatitis C. Based on this information, the court made true findings as to the allegations of the petition and found that B.S. and her half-siblings came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).
By the time of the contested disposition hearing, the children had been in five different placements. The reports prepared in advance of the hearing indicated the mother and the father of the half-siblings were homeless and thinking of moving to New Mexico to be near mother’s family. In addition, it was learned that the father of the half-sibling twins had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, for which psychotropic medication had been prescribed. DCS initiated relative placement evaluations for the maternal relatives in New Mexico (for placement of the twins), and B.S.’s paternal aunt in Florida (for placement of B.S.). The ICPC evaluation of B.S.’s paternal aunt in Florida was approved, and B.S. looked forward to going home.
At the hearing as to disposition, the social worker testified that she had recommended placement of B.S. in Florida because B.S. had a relationship with family there, including her father, with whom she had lived from birth until May 2007, and the child wanted to return. In recommending placement in Florida rather than in New Mexico, the social worker considered the fact that mother had lost custody of another child before her marriage to L.S. and B.S.’s birth, and had not reunified with that child. The social worker also considered the fact B.S. had been raised by her father, L.S., and she preferred to be with him. The worker acknowledged there was a bond between mother and B.S., but B.S. still made it clear where she wanted to be placed. In the social worker’s opinion, it was more likely that L.S. would be reunified with B.S. because Florida had previously awarded him custody of B.S. B.S.’s counsel agreed, informing the court (1) she really, really wanted to go to Florida; (2) she had telephone contact with mother for a long time prior to coming to California; and (3) she had two sisters (L.S.’s daughters from a previous relationship) in Florida and she wanted to be able to see them.
The court followed the recommendations of the social worker: the court declared B.S. to be a dependent and approved a reunification plan for the parents. The court placed B.S. with her paternal aunt in Florida upon receipt of written confirmation of the ICPC approval of the placement by the Florida authorities. After B.S.’s transfer to Florida, the court authorized mother to have telephonic contact with B.S. one time per week, and granted the social worker authority to liberalize the telephone contact. Mother appealed the placement of B.S. in Florida.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing B.S. with relatives in Florida, because the distance prevented mother from exercising regular visitation and reunifying with her daughter. Mother also appears to challenge the trial court’s failure to fashion a specific schedule of face-to-face visits between B.S. and mother. Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that removal of the child from the mother’s home was necessary for the child’s protection, so we do not need to discuss whether there was sufficient evidence of detriment. (§ 361, subd. (c).)
We have strong reservations about the assertion of jurisdiction over B.S. by the juvenile court, given its awareness of a prior child custody order made by the Florida court system, and DCS’s acknowledgment that Florida was “home” for B.S. (See Fam. Code, § 3421, subd. (a)(2).) We requested supplemental briefing on this issue. Given the fact father was in jail in Florida at the time B.S. was detained, the juvenile court could not have simply returned B.S. to her father’s custody. The court thus had emergency jurisdiction. (Fam. Code, § 3424.)
Assuming the court had proper jurisdiction to conduct a disposition hearing, we review the juvenile court’s custody placement orders under the abuse of discretion standard of review. (Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863.) The court is given wide discretion and its determination will not be disturbed absent a manifest showing of abuse. Under this standard, broad deference must be shown to the trial court. (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.)
It is true that the proximity of the parents to a placement is among the factors to be considered when faced with a request for placement with a relative. (In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 680.) It is also true that visitation is a critical component of a reunification plan. (In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1113-1114.) However, the court must also consider the fact that there were two parents entitled to reunification services, one of whom was previously awarded custody of B.S., and is domiciled in Florida. Further, an important factor for the court to consider is the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(6).)
The linchpin of the analysis of whether a relative placement is proper is whether it is in the child’s best interests. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 321; see also, In re Robert L., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) We cannot find an abuse of discretion here where (a) Florida is B.S.’s home state; (b) B.S. has lived in Florida all her life until the May 2007 visit when mother failed to return B.S. to her father’s custody; (c) B.S. has other half-siblings in Florida, with whom she has established a long-term extended family relationship; (d) she has an established relationship with her paternal aunt, the proposed relative placement; and (e) she wanted to go there. As the court observed, the only reason B.S. was in California, and, by extension, before the juvenile court, was because mother had not sent her home as promised.
Mother also argues that the court’s failure to order a minimum level of in-person (“physical”) visitation was erroneous, insofar as the lack of such contact insures mother will not be able to reunify with B.S. or to demonstrate a beneficial parent-child relationship at the permanency planning hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) In this regard, mother also asserts the court gave DCS unfettered discretion as to whether “physical” visitation would be available to mother.
The failure to provide for visits has only been found to be unreasonable where the location of the visit was not excessively distant. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1364 [no error in failing to insure visits for incarcerated parent where prison located a day’s drive away].) Cross-country visitation involves excessive distance, so the court ordered weekly telephonic contact. Given the scarcity of state fiscal resources, the failure to provide travel expenses or to insure regular in-person visitation between mother and B.S. was not unreasonable. The court’s order does not prohibit mother from obtaining approval for in-person visits if she pays for her own travel expenses. However, mother has not demonstrated that the juvenile court has authority to order DCS to pay travel expenses to facilitate regular cross-country visitation. (See, Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Svcs. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1093.)
On the record before us, we do not find an abuse of discretion in placing B.S. with her paternal aunt in Florida.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: King, J., Miller, J.