Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. DP-014119, DP- 014120, DP-019327, DP-019328, Jane L. Shade, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance by counsel for the Minors.
OPINION
IKOLA, J.
Mother L.A. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order to the extent that the oldest of her four children, 11-year-old son J.G., was placed apart from his three siblings. Even if this issue had not been forfeited by mother’s failure to raise it at trial, we would conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in approving separate foster care placement for J.G. based on substantial evidence of J.G.’s behavioral history and Orange County Social Services Agency’s (SSA) difficulty in obtaining a single foster care placement for all four children. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
Mother has four children: son J.G. (born in 1999); son B.A. (born in 2005); daughter J.A. (born in 2007); and son C.A. (born in 2008). The children have three different fathers, but for purposes of this case we shall refer to J.H. as “father” because he is the presumed father of the two youngest children and is involved in the underlying facts of this dependency action.
In January 2010, SSA began investigating allegations of physical abuse reported by J.G.’s elementary school. In response to questioning, J.G. claimed father abused him by throwing objects at J.G. (such as shoes and, on one occasion, a bowl of ice cream). J.G. had 19 bruises on his body; J.G. claimed 14 of the bruises were caused by father.
All four of the children were detained and placed in a foster care facility on January 8, 2010. SSA filed a juvenile dependency petition on January 11, 2010. On January 12, 2010, the court approved of the detention of the children from their parents’ physical custody, and further approved their placement at a suitable facility or with a suitable foster parent.
On January 21, 2010, J.G. was removed from his initial foster facility placement (separating him from his three siblings). The foster mother “requested the child be removed due to the child inflicting injury to his four year old brother... causing [his brother] to have a bloody nose, kicking the foster mother; and the foster mother was overwhelmed with the care and attention the child required.”
In a February 1, 2010 interview, B.A. (then four years old) described various physical abuse suffered by himself and J.G. at the hands of father and mother. B.A. claimed J.G. had threatened to get a knife and kill B.A. B.A. also said children at school hit J.G. and made J.G. mad.
On February 3, 2010, J.G.’s foster parent reported that J.G. “had been suspended from school for one day for kicking the teacher....” On March 22, 2010, J.G. swung at an Orangewood staff member three times, connecting once. On another occasion at his foster home, J.G. threw a lamp at his foster parent. SSA could not find a foster home willing to accept J.G. due to his behavioral issues.
A July 8, 2010, psychological evaluation of J.G. included the following assessment: “[J.G.]’s impulsivity with respect to outbursts of aggression and anger appear to be due to confusion about how to respond and act appropriately. At the age of 11, [J.G.] has yet to experience a consistent home where he has learned about appropriate responses to adversity.”
The jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was continued on multiple occasions. The hearing finally proceeded on October 27, 2010. Mother and father stipulated to an amended factual basis for the dependency action, and the court found the children to be dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The court released all of the children to mother’s custody under certain “C.R.I.S.P.-like conditions.” Included among the conditions were requirements that father not live with the family and any visits by father had to be monitored.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
C.R.I.S.P. is an acronym standing for Conditional Release with Intensive Supervision.
The children were detained at Orangewood on November 22, 2010. SSA filed an ex parte application on December 6, 2010, informing the court of an alleged violation of the condition that father not have unmonitored contact with the children. On the positive side, according to his therapist in late December 2010, J.G. was “doing so much better since he has been returned to Orangewood.... The child... has not displayed any behavior problems.”
Trial began on December 13, 2010 and continued through January 5, 2011, with regard to dispositional issues. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that section 361, subdivision (c)(1), applied as to mother and father. The court ordered the children removed from the physical custody of parents and ordered SSA to provide reunification services to parents. The court approved the three younger children’s placement, and approved of J.G.’s temporary placement at Orangewood (but disapproved of Orangewood as a placement beyond the time necessary to find a more appropriate placement). The court found SSA adequately explained why it could not place all four siblings together, despite the importance of maintaining sibling relationships.
“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 or guardian’s physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
DISCUSSION
Mother appeals the judgments entered by the court in the dependency actions of her four children. (See §§ 300, 358, 360, 395.) She does not contest the propriety of the court finding her children to be dependents (§ 360, subd. (d)) and removing the children from her physical custody (§ 361, subd. (c)). Nor does mother find fault in general with the placement of children in foster care. (See § 361.2, subd. (e).) Mother instead claims the court erred by approving SSA’s separation of J.G. from his siblings. A juvenile court’s placement decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
“Where the court has ordered removal of the child from the physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361, the court shall consider whether there are any siblings under the court’s jurisdiction, the nature of the relationship between the child and his or her siblings, the appropriateness of developing or maintaining the sibling relationships pursuant to Section 16002, and the impact of the sibling relationships on the child’s placement and planning for legal permanence.” (§ 361.2, subd. (i).)
“It is the intent of the Legislature to maintain the continuity of the family unit, and ensure the preservation and strengthening of the child’s family ties by ensuring that when siblings have been removed from their home... the siblings will be placed in foster care together, unless it has been determined that placement together is contrary to the safety or well-being of any sibling.” (§ 16002, subd. (a).)
Failure to timely object to sibling placement issues forfeits any error. (See In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642.) As mother did not raise this issue below, she has forfeited her claim.
But even if mother had properly preserved her argument, we would find no abuse of discretion in the court’s placement order. The court was aware of the siblings’ relationship and the evidence pertaining to the nature of their relationship. There is substantial evidence (as detailed above) demonstrating J.G.’s violent outbursts and the potential danger to his siblings’ safety, as well as the concomitant difficulties faced by SSA in finding a suitable foster family willing to provide a home for all four children. The court considered the available evidence and appropriately applied the law. It is not our role to reweigh the evidence or contemplate whether the court should have exercised its discretion in a different manner.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, ACTING P.J., MOORE, J.