Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK74176 Robert L. Stevenson, Referee.
Michelle L. Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Denise M. Hippach, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MOSK, J.
INTRODUCTION
Karen D., mother, appeals from the juvenile court’s order removing her daughter, E.B., from her custody. Mother contends that insufficient evidence supports the removal order and the juvenile court should have considered other alternatives to removal. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mother, age 21, has three children—four-year-old B.K., three-year-old J.K., and two-year-old E.B. In August 2008, B.K. and J.K. were removed from mother’s custody due to mother’s history of domestic violence with B.K.’s and J.K.’s father and because mother allowed her brother and sister to possess and use marijuana in the children’s home and in their presence. Mother failed voluntary family reunification services with respect to B.K. and J.K.
Mother’s custody of B.K. and J.K is not at issue in this appeal.
In its November 13, 2009, Detention Report, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) reported that upon E.B.’s birth in May 2009, mother contacted her social worker to inform the social worker of E.B.’s birth. Shortly thereafter, in June 2009, mother and father, K.B., agreed to a voluntary family reunification contract to assist in the return of E.B. to her parents. Pursuant to the contract, mother was to participate in individual counseling to address domestic violence, a parent education program, and a substance abuse program. Father, who is not a party to this appeal, was to participate in a parent education program.
In October 2009, a team decision making meeting was held to assess the parents’ progress. Mother’s aunt, T.D., who had custody of B.K. and J.K., was present at the meeting and expressed concern about domestic violence in the parents’ relationship. Ms. D. stated that mother had called her crying and said that father had pushed her. Ms. D. stated that mother had difficulty controlling her anger and had been asked to leave maternal grandfather’s home because she became so angry that she had punched holes in a wall and broken a window.
On November 9, 2009, E.B. was removed from mother’s care and placed into protective custody due to mother’s lack of compliance with her voluntary family reunification contract and allegations of domestic violence between mother and father. On November 13, 2009, the Department filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) with respect to five-month-old E.B. The petition alleged that mother and father had a history of engaging in violent altercations including father pushing mother. The petition further alleged that remedial services had failed to ameliorate the family’s problems.
All statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
At the November 13, 2009, detention hearing, the juvenile court did not find a substantial danger to E.B.’s physical health or emotional well being. Because the juvenile court did not find a prima facie case to detain E.B. from mother’s custody, the court ordered temporary placement and care of E.B. to be vested with the Department with E.B. immediately released to mother’s custody. The juvenile court ordered the Department to make unannounced home visits and mother to continue participating in her programs.
In its December 1, 2009, Jurisdiction and Disposition Report, the Department reported that mother claimed the “information” in the Detention Report was “all a lie.” Mother believed that Ms. D. lied because she wanted to keep B.K. and J.K. Mother stated that she and father argued, but that father never placed mother or E.B. in danger.
According to the report, Ms. D. stated in a recent interview that she was less concerned with the domestic violence between mother and father and more concerned with mother’s overall inability to control her anger. Ms. D. stated that mother was “the one with the problem, ” and that mother had injured herself physically and blamed father. Ms. D. stated her view that mother had “a lot of issues” that she needed to resolve and that mother might be “bi-polar or something.” Paternal grandmother stated that she believed that mother and father would benefit from an anger management or domestic violence program. Paternal grandmother stated that she had seen mother and father “get into it physically” one time.
Mother stated that she had dropped out of high school in the 10th grade. Mother had never been employed and was supported by maternal grandfather. Upon E.B.’s release to mother, mother applied for government assistance programs. Mother reported that she was no longer in a relationship with father, and that as of May 2009, she had been enrolled in parenting, domestic violence, and individual counseling through Pride Health Services. A Pride Health Services representative confirmed that mother was enrolled and participating in her services.
The adjudication hearing was set for January 26, 2010. The January 26, 2010, Interim Review Report stated that mother had moved out of her sister’s home in December 2009. At that time, mother stated that she and E.B. would reside temporarily with maternal grandmother. The report stated that mother was having difficulty getting along with her relatives and continued to move from relative to relative. Mother had not consistently attended her parenting, domestic violence, and individual counseling. In a March 10, 2010, letter, mother’s behavioral counselor at Pride Health Services stated that “[mother] has further issues that need to be addressed. Although [mother] has completed Parenting, she hasn’t grasped the concept of effective parenting.” Mother’s counselor “strongly” recommended that mother “seek out a licensed therapist for further services.”
The jurisdiction and disposition hearings, respectively, were continued to August 18, 2010, and September 23, 2010.
In a March 11, 2010, Progress Report, the Department informed the juvenile court that following E.B.’s release to mother, there had been “conflicts, chaos and difficulties surrounding” the social worker’s access to E.B. The Department stated that it had “always” suspected that mother was leaving E.B. with others based on mother’s accounts of E.B.’s whereabouts. The Department reported a March 4, 2010, telephone call from I. Brown in which Ms. Brown stated that she had been caring for E.B. “most of the time” for about three months. Asked to explain what she meant by “most of the time, ” Ms. Brown stated that two or three months prior, mother asked Ms. Brown’s 19-year-old sister to babysit E.B. for a few hours. One week later, mother had not returned to pick up E.B. or called to check on E.B. or to explain her whereabouts. Ms. Brown decided then to take E.B. into her care and E.B. had been with her “most of the time” thereafter. The social worker detained E.B. and placed her in a foster home.
On March 12, 2010, the Department filed a section 342 petition as to E.B. The petition alleged that mother physically abused E.B.’s sibling J.K. by inflicting a burn on his elbow. The Department’s March 12, 2010, Detention Report states that Ms. D. observed a circular burn on J.K.’s arm when he returned from an unmonitored visit with mother. Ms. D. called mother about the burn, and mother stated that J.K. had the burn when he came into her care and she noticed the burn while bathing J.K. When Ms. D. asked J.K. about the burn, J.K. responded, “Mommy did it.” A medical exam determined that the burn was “suspicious for physical abuse” and that more information was needed. Mother denied inflicting the burn on J.K.
On March 15, 2010, the juvenile court ordered E.B. detained from mother. The juvenile court ordered monitored visitation for mother. E.B. was placed in a foster home with H. Gardner. Later, in August 2010, E.B. was re-placed in Ms. Brown’s home.
On April 13, 2010, mother enrolled at Okuli Counseling Services (Okuli), a program that provided various counseling services. Among other services, mother participated in parenting, anger management, domestic violence, and self-improvement counseling. Mother’s cousin, K. B., Okuli’s director, paid for mother’s services. A May 5, 2010, letter from Okuli stated that mother had timely attended all of her sessions and had participated with a good attitude. Mother had tested negative on her random drug tests. A July 12, 2010, letter from Okuli stated that mother had “very good” attendance, she had shown “very good” composure, and had gotten along well with her peers. The letter described mother’s progress as “very good” and stated that mother looked forward to “having groups” with her peers. Mother’s peers saw mother as a positive role model because her attitude had changed and she had made “great progress” with her bad attitude and anger management issues.
An August 16, 2010, letter from Okuli stated that mother was discharged on July 1, 2010. The letter stated that mother had been “very responsible” and had participated in Okuli’s outpatient program. According to the letter, Okuli last provided mother with services on August 6, 2010. Mother told her social worker that she was no longer participating in the programs at Okuli because she did not want to see Ms. B. anymore.
Mother lived with Ms. B. temporarily for a period that ended on July 20 or 21, 2010. When Ms. B. asked mother to move out, mother came to Okuli “cussing and arguing” because she was upset about having to leave Ms. B.’s home. Ms. B. reported that mother had “a lot of growing up to do.” Ms. B. stated that mother did not take the initiative to do anything, including obtaining services or visiting her children. According to Ms. B., if she did not take mother to visit her children, mother would not visit them—mother would not take the bus. Ms. B. stated, “I had to do basic, step-by-step instruction, telling her to hold her kids, hug her kids, cuddle her kids.” Ms. B. encouraged mother to take care of her “priorities” before spending time with friends, but was met with a bad attitude. According to Ms. B., everyone was working harder to help mother than mother was working to help herself.
Ms. B. stated, “[Mother’s] attitude is very irritating. She was stressing me at my house and I refuse to speak with her now. I was putting in more effort in helping her than she was putting in for herself. And the more I did, the less she did. I don’t want to see her. I don’t want to have anything to do with [mother]. She is not doing anything for her kids. She doesn’t need them kids right now. I think the boys should stay where they are. I am interested in [E.B.], but if I have [E.B.], I would not be willing to monitor the visits with Mother. I wash my hands of [mother]. The negative energy that she gives off is very uncomfortable. It’s ongoing. It’s never a break. I am willing to adopt [E.B.] if necessary.”
Regarding E.B.’s placement with Ms. B., the Department informed the juvenile court that Ms. B. and her husband had “extensive” criminal histories and that Ms. B. also had a history with the Department.
On August 18, 2010, the juvenile court held the adjudication hearings on the section 300 and section 342 petitions. As to the section 300 petition, the juvenile court dismissed the allegation under subdivision (a), and sustained amended language under subdivision (b). The amended language stated that mother had a history of unstable and conflicted relationships resulting in mother frequently changing residences, leaving E.B. with a caretaker with no arrangements for her care, and engaging in domestic violence with E.B.’s father. Dr. Andrea Dunkelman, a burn surgeon at the Grossman Burn Center, testified that the injury J.K. suffered to his elbow appeared to be an accidental “friction burn.” Based on Dr. Dunkelman’s testimony, the juvenile court dismissed the section 342 petition.
Dr. Dunkelman explained that “friction burns” actually are abrasions and not burns.
Ms. D. testified at the adjudication hearing that she and mother did not talk, but added that mother’s attitude had changed after she moved in with her cousin—apparently Ms. B. Ms. D. testified that mother was more respectful and no longer called Ms. D. names. Mother also had resumed visiting her children, having previously refused to go to Ms. D.’s house. Mother had visited her children at Ms. D.’s house one time, about one or two weeks before the hearing. Ms. D. was willing to have E.B. placed in her home and to have mother visit her children in Ms. D.’s home as long as mother’s attitude remained positive and not hostile. Ms. D. also was willing to have mother live with her as long as mother was positive and going to school. Based on Ms. D.’s testimony, the juvenile court continued the disposition hearing to determine if it would be appropriate to release E.B. to mother’s care on the condition that mother and E.B. resided in Ms. D.’s home.
In its September 23, 2010, Supplemental Report, the Department reported that mother was no longer interested in living with Ms. D., and Ms. D. was no longer interested in having mother live with her. The Department further reported that a social worker told mother that she could visit E.B. whenever she wanted, but that mother had to call in advance. Mother stated that she did not want to have any contact with Ms. Brown. The social worker told mother that she could pick up E.B. from the Department’s office. Mother asked if Ms. Gardner, E.B.’s previous caregiver, could supervise the exchange. The social worker asked mother if she had inquired of Ms. Gardner if Ms. Gardner was willing to supervise the exchange. Mother stated that she did not have time to call Ms. Gardner. The social worker told mother that the exchange also could take place at a local police station. Mother stated that she did not like the police and was not going to go to a police station for the exchange. The social worker told mother that mother had to take some initiative to prove she wanted her children returned to her care. Mother responded that the social worker was not doing her job—the social worker was not making the calls to arrange for mother to visit E.B. Mother further stated that when the social worker started doing her job, then the social worker could call mother. Mother hung up the telephone.
In its September 23, 2010, Last Minute Information for the Court, the Department informed the juvenile court about a conversation with mother concerning mother living with Ms. D. and mother’s participation in her programs. In that conversation, mother stated that she would live with Ms. D. “[i]f that’s what it takes for me to get my kids back.” However, mother also expressed her reservations about living with Ms. D. Mother stated, “the problem is that the home is too small and there are already a lot of people there. Also I can’t live there because I don’t get a long [sic] with [Ms. D.’s] daughters. It wouldn’t work out. But I want my kids.” As for mother’s programs, mother stated that she attended counseling on Saturdays, but had missed three sessions because she did not have the money to pay for them. Mother admitted that she was not enrolled in domestic violence, parenting, or anger management counseling.
At the September 23, 2010, disposition hearing, the parties stipulated that if called to testify, mother would testify that she was willing to move in with Ms. D., “as of that day, ” and that she had been attending individual counseling with a licensed therapist. The juvenile court stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to find trustworthy mother’s stipulated testimony that she would live with Ms. D. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial risk of detriment to E.B. if she was returned to mother. The juvenile court declared E.B. to be a dependent of the court and removed her from mother’s and father’s custody. The juvenile court found that mother, “after all this time, has not made the sufficient progress to maintain a safe home environment for” E.B. The juvenile court ordered family reunification services for E.B. and mother. Mother was ordered to complete parenting and individual counseling. Mother was permitted monitored visits with E.B.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s order removing E.B. from her custody. Mother further contends that the juvenile court had a reasonable alternative to removing E.B. from her custody. According to mother, the juvenile court could have placed E.B. with mother in Ms. D.’s home or another appropriate home under strict supervision. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order.
I. Relevant Principles and Standard of Review
As relevant here, section 361, subdivision (c) prohibits the juvenile court from removing a child from his or her parents’ custody “unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence” that “(1) 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.” (§ 361, subd. (c); see also California Rules of Court, rule 5.695(d).) “A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and proof of a potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child. [Citations.]” (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136.)
Although the standard of proof in the juvenile court is clear and convincing evidence, our standard of review remains the same: we review the juvenile court’s disposition order for substantial evidence. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) “[W]e review the record in the light most favorable to the dependency court’s order to determine whether it contains sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings by clear and convincing evidence.” (In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 441.)
II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Order Removing E.B. from Mother’s Custody
In removing E.B. from mother’s custody, the juvenile court found that mother, “after all this time, has not made the sufficient progress to maintain a safe home environment for” E.B. There was evidence that while mother had some interest in being a parent, she had little interest in parenting. Mother had custody of E.B. from November 13, 2009, to March 12, 2010. During that time, there is evidence that mother effectively abandoned E.B. in the care of a 19-year-old babysitter for an extended period of time. According to Ms. Brown, mother asked Ms. Brown’s 19-year-old sister to babysit E.B. for a few hours. Mother did not return for E.B. in a few hours, however, or even in a few days. Nor did mother call Ms. Brown’s sister to check on E.B. or to explain her whereabouts. When mother had not returned after a week, Ms. Brown’s sister called Ms. Brown for help. Ms. Brown then took E.B. into her care and cared for E.B. most of the time for three months.
Mother attempts to minimize such conduct, arguing that her abandonment of E.B. with Ms. Brown’s sister appears to be a “one-time incident” and that the juvenile court ultimately placed E.B. with Ms. Brown. But the juvenile court could conclude that leaving an infant with a 19-year-old for an extended period without first determining whether the 19-year-old was available, qualified, and equipped to care for the child endangers the child’s safety and cannot be excused as a one-time event. Moreover, while it is true that mother apparently abandoned E.B. only one time, she did leave E.B. in the care of another—Ms. Brown—for the better part of three months. That E.B. ultimately was placed with Ms. Brown some five months later does not retroactively sanction such conduct. There is not significant evidence that if E.B. was returned to mother’s custody mother would not leave E.B. in the care of someone else if mother again felt the need to take a break from parenting.
As for mother’s contention that the juvenile court could have placed E.B. with mother in Ms. D.’s home, the juvenile court considered that option, but the juvenile court could conclude that based on the evidence, mother’s behavior and poor attitude prevented it. At the August 18, 2010, adjudication hearing, Ms. D. testified that she was willing to have mother and E.B. live with her. Based on that testimony, the juvenile court continued the disposition hearing to determine if it would be appropriate to release E.B. to mother’s care if mother and E.B. resided in Ms. D.’s home. The Department’s September 23, 2010, Supplemental Report, stated that mother was no longer interested in living with Ms. D., and Ms. D. was no longer interested in having mother live with her. Ms. D. stated that mother had been disrespectful to her and her daughters and mother’s attitude changed too fast. The Department’s September 23, 2010, Last Minute Information for the Court reported that mother was reluctant to live with Ms. D.—Ms. D.’s house was too small, too many people lived there, and mother did not get along with Ms. D.’s daughters. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court was justified in rejecting the placement of E.B. with mother in Ms. D.’s home as an option to removing E.B. from mother’s custody.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.KRIEGLER, J.