Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. NJ013072, Harry M. Elias, Judge.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
Maria S., mother of minor son Daniel S., appeals a juvenile court order granting the Agency's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to require Maria's visits with Daniel be supervised. Maria contends the court erred by granting the petition because there were no changed circumstances and supervised visitation was not in Daniel's best interests. We affirm the order.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Daniel was born in November 1999. In March 2005 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition on behalf of Daniel under section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged Daniel was at risk of suffering harm because he had been exposed to physical altercations between his parents. Specifically, Daniel's father pushed Maria to the ground and choked her.
According to Agency reports, Maria had a long history with child welfare services. In addition, Maria suffered from significant mental health problems that remained untreated. She had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder several years before and admitted she discontinued taking medications prescribed to treat her condition. A few days before the Agency filed a petition on behalf of Daniel, Maria suffered from an anxiety attack that required medical intervention. The Agency social worker requested that Maria be closely monitored until she could show she would commit to taking her medication on a regular basis. The court held a detention hearing and after considering the evidence, ordered Daniel detained in out-of-home care.
The social worker's jurisdiction and disposition reported indicated Maria's mental health had not improved. The social worker spoke with Maria's former therapist and learned she suffered from bipolar mood disorder with schizophrenic symptoms. Her mental condition required her to regularly take medication in order to stabilize her condition. Without the medication, Maria's therapist believed Maria would not be able to safely parent and care for Daniel.
The social worker further reported that Daniel was a special needs child. He exhibited developmental delays and Maria had not been able to meet his needs. His mental development was delayed. Daniel exhibited aggressive tendencies toward other children. During an interview with a social worker, Daniel indicated he had seen his parents physically abuse each other and that his father had abused him as well. The social worker recommended therapy for Daniel and that his visits with Maria be closely supervised by a professional in a therapeutic setting.
The court held a contested jurisdiction hearing and found the allegations in the petition to be true. The court ordered that Maria and Daniel submit to psychological evaluations.
Maria submitted to a psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Vail. Dr. Vail diagnosed her as suffering from a mood disorder. Maria exhibited childlike behaviors and was not able to function as an independent adult. She did not appear to understand that Daniel required special care to address his developmental and speech delays. Dr. Vail believed Maria would have difficulty living independently and recommended visits with Daniel remain supervised and modified to unsupervised only with the agreement of both Maria's and Daniel's therapists.
Daniel's psychological evaluation report by Dr. Grame described Daniel as "severely traumatized." He continued to show developmental and speech delays. He also suffered from nightmares, showed signs of aggression and displayed cruelty toward animals. In addition, he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and required a significant amount of therapy. Dr. Grame recommended visits between Daniel and Maria remain supervised because unmonitored visits could further traumatize Daniel.
The court held a contested disposition hearing, declared Daniel a dependent and ordered Maria to comply with her case plan. Visits were to remain supervised and take place in a therapeutic setting.
During the next six months, Maria made progress with her case plan and the Agency requested that although her visits with Daniel should remain supervised, they could now take place in a nontherapeutic setting. The court granted the Agency's request. Maria continued to make progress and had secured employment. Daniel had been placed in a residential treatment center where he participated in therapy to address his behavioral issues. He also was scheduled to begin conjoint therapy sessions with Maria. At the six-month review hearing, the court continued Maria's reunification services for an additional six months and gave the Agency discretion to allow for Maria to begin unsupervised contact with Daniel.
The Agency continued to monitor Maria's progress through 18 months of services. In its 18-month review report, the Agency recommended that services be terminated and that another planned permanent living arrangement be provided for Daniel. The social worker's reports showed Maria had not been participating in family therapy or individual therapy on a regular basis. Her behavior had become erratic, her statements to personnel working at Daniel's group home were incoherent and she believed people could read her mind.
In May 2007 the Agency filed a section 388 petition seeking an order that Maria's future visits with Daniel be supervised. The Agency alleged as changed circumstances that Maria's behavior had become unstable and that she made threatening comments to individuals working at Daniel's group home. The Agency asserted it would be in Daniel's best interests to have supervised visits.
The court held an evidentiary hearing to address the section 388 petition. The court received in evidence the Agency's reports and heard testimony from the social worker and Maria. The social worker testified that according to Maria's therapist, Maria needed to regularly take her medication. Maria had resumed individual therapy about one or two months before the hearing but she stopped attending conjoint therapy sessions with Daniel. The social worker opined that Maria's mental health was unstable at this time and that she not be granted conjoint visits with Daniel until she showed a recommitment to taking her medications.
Maria testified she enjoyed visiting Daniel and wanted her visits to remain unsupervised. She admitted she was not currently taking medications. She further denied making incoherent statements to the group home staff. At one point during Maria's testimony, counsel asked Maria to elaborate whether "some people" were watching over her. Maria replied, "No . . . . I just have a famous cousin. He's Artie [F.] use to work for the President. I know they're just protecting my best interest for anybody else because I'm Isabel [F.] You understand they do follow me. I wanted to make sure I'm safe[,] that's all."
After considering the testimony of the social worker and Maria, the court granted the Agency's section 388 petition and ordered Maria to have supervised visits with Daniel. The court provided discretion to the social worker to lift supervision in the event Maria's condition improved. The court continued Daniel's placement at the licensed group home. Maria timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I.
Maria contends the court erred by granting the Agency's section 388 modification petition. Maria asserts her circumstances had not changed sufficiently to warrant modifying her visits with Daniel from unsupervised to supervised. She further asserts the proposed modification was not in Daniel's best interests.
Maria argues the trial court did not make any express findings as to why the Agency's section 388 petition was granted. The Agency agrees no express findings were made. However, the reviewing court may imply the necessary findings if there is substantial evidence in the record to support them. (See In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1544.) As set forth in the discussion of this opinion, the record in this case contains substantial evidence to support the granting of the section 388 petition. The trial court's order, therefore, is not defective.
A.
Under section 388, a party may petition the court to change or set aside any previous order of the court in the juvenile dependency action. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415-416 (Jasmon O.).) The petitioning party has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, a change in circumstances or new evidence and the proposed change is in the child's best interests. (§ 388; Jasmon O., supra, at pp. 415-416.) Whether a previous order should be modified and a change would be in the child's best interests are questions within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.); In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47 (Casey D.).) The juvenile court's order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination. When two or more inferences reasonably can be deduced from the facts, we may not substitute our decision for that of the trial court. (Stephanie M., supra, at pp. 318-319; Casey D., supra, at p. 47.)
B.
As changed circumstances, the Agency alleged Maria's behavior had become unstable. The record shows that in the early stages of the dependency proceedings, Maria did make progress with services, regularly took her medications and as a result, was authorized to participate in unsupervised visits. However, by the 18-month review hearing, Maria's behavior had become erratic and she admitted to no longer taking her medications. Five months before the hearing, Maria stopped participating in individual and conjoint therapy on a regular basis. The court could reasonably infer that the absence of medication and continued therapy contributed to Maria's unstable behavior and impaired thinking. In addition, Maria's therapist believed she could not safely parent Daniel without being medication compliant. Based on the record, Maria's circumstances had changed.
In addition to showing changed circumstances, there was evidence to show it was in Daniel's best interests to require supervised visitation with Maria. Before the dependency proceedings began, Maria suffered from a long history of mental illness that included a diagnosis for mood disorder. She also had an extensive history with child welfare services containing allegations of child neglect. Daniel's own developmental health was in need of special care and attention. When the court made the order for unsupervised visits, it was on the condition that Maria continue with therapy and medications to address the problems surrounding her current mental health. At the time of the hearing on the Agency's modification petition, there was evidence documented by the Agency and supported by Maria's therapist showing Maria's mental state was no longer stable. Maria had stopped attending therapy and was no longer taking medication. These facts, along with Daniel's psychological evaluation stating further visitation with Maria in an unstable state could traumatize Daniel, show that Maria's ability to safely supervise Daniel had been brought into question. Daniel had suffered significant trauma before becoming a dependent and continued to need special care. Under these circumstances, the court properly evaluated the evidence in context of Daniel's need for safety and security, and found his best interests would not be served by allowing unsupervised visitation with Maria. The court did not abuse its discretion by granting the Agency's petition.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, J., McDONALD, J.