From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re J.R.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Feb 8, 2011
No. B225377 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK38280, Robert Stevenson, Juvenile Court Referee.

Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Melinda S. White-Svec, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.


TURNER, P. J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The mother, Christy F., appeals from the juvenile court’s June 18, 2010 jurisdictional and disposition orders as to the child, J.R. None of the mother’s arguments has any merit. We affirm the findings and order.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Events Leading To The Child’s Detention

The following factual recitation is derived from the detention reports and medical records. On January 2, 2010, the mother drove with the child to a hospital emergency room. A nurse observed the mother had visual hallucinations and appeared agitated and anxious. The mother said that black worms inside her were causing uterus problems.

The nurse referred the mother and child to a hospital social worker. The social worker spoke to the mother. The mother said she was being followed by the child’s father, she had moved several times, but he still found her and he was watching them all the time. The maternal grandmother was interviewed. The maternal grandmother said they had been trying to secure help for the mother. Two months ago, the mother said she was seeing spiders that were so big they had eyes as big as a dog. The mother was placed in foster care with the maternal grandparents when she was 12 years old. She was taken to counseling for about 2 years when she was 14; she was not given any medication. The hospital social worker also spoke with the child alone. The child understood that the mother’s thinking was abnormal.

That same day, the mother was also seen by a hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Erica Kass, during an out-patient consultation. The mother said she came to the emergency room because she was worried about the vermin that she had seen around her apartment. The mother said she was concerned the vermin might be affecting her health. The mother was also concerned the vermin was affecting the child. The mother was concerned about problems with her uterus and about worms and spiders that sometimes crawled on the floor of her apartment or crawled all over her. During the interview, the mother described the vermin as spiders, bugs and long worms that she saw at her home. The mother also saw the vermin in a sister’s home. The mother also claimed to have seen the vermin at her place of work. The mother said that the child’s father, whom she called the “sperm donor, ” was following her and his mistresses were plotting against her. The mother was paranoid that the “‘sperm donor and his various girlfriends’” were interested in stealing her inheritance. Dr. Kass found that in addition to seeing vermin, the mother also had auditory hallucinations. The mother also had tactile hallucinations, believing that bugs crawled on her skin. The mother also reported a weight loss of about 15 pounds in the last several months, which she could not account for and which was unintentional.

During the interview, the mother said she grew up in the foster system so she had seen therapists and taken an antidepressant before; but, she had never experienced seeing or hearing what she had experienced in the past three months. Dr. Kass, the psychiatrist, noted it was unclear what the mother did for a living. The mother reported working at different jobs for different people. The mother said she assisted at a mechanic shop and also worked as a caterer; however, the foster mother had no knowledge the mother worked for either a mechanic or a caterer. Dr. Kass diagnosed the mother as having audiovisual hallucinations and paranoia with poor insight and judgment. The mother’s thoughts seemed circumstantial, disorganized and overly detailed.

The mother denied drinking alcohol or using illicit drugs but admitted she had smoked marijuana once. According to Dr. Kass, the mother was not taking any medications prior to going to the emergency room. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine which remained in the urine for two to three days. Dr. Kass believed the mother’s symptoms were most likely triggered by recent methamphetamine use. According to the maternal grandmother, there were periods when the mother would disappear and go to what they thought was a job. But the maternal grandmother said it was unclear where the mother actually went. And the mother would return later, appearing more confused. Dr. Kass found the child appeared physically and emotional healthy with no sign of neglect. In addition, there was no indication the mother was gravely disabled as she was providing herself with food, clothing and shelter; therefore, she did not meet the criteria for a psychiatric hold in an inpatient facility. However, Dr. Kass was concerned about the child’s safety because the mother “has been clearly abusing methamphetamine” and had no insight into that fact. Dr. Kass recommended that the emergency room, with the help of the hospital social worker and nursing staff, notify the Department of Children and Family Services (“the department”) because of the mother’s “potential reckless drug use....” Emergency room staff contacted the department.

A department social worker, Eleanor Clements, arrived at the emergency room and spoke with medical personnel, the mother and the child. The emergency room physician and another doctor told Ms. Clements that they would not place the mother on a psychiatric hold. But the physicians indicated the mother needed to stop using amphetamines. The doctors believed the paranoia and visual hallucinations were related to the amphetamine abuse. An emergency room nurse informed Ms. Clements the mother tested positive for methamphetamines.

The mother denied having visual and auditory hallucinations. The mother told Ms. Clements the following: “‘[T]he sperm donor ([the] name she calls [the child’s] father)... brought a vermin into my house and it is multiplying all over my daughter’s back glass window in her bedroom. They have moved to my [sister’s] house now, ... and she is beginning to see them. They are so easy to see. It hides from us, then you see it.’ [T]he vermin are black and are about four inches long and two inches wide and they multiple constantly and they are constantly changing shapes. [The child] is having liver problems and she will have an ultrasound next week. [‘]We keep seeing the vermin. It is in my uterus and I am having problems.’” The mother claimed the father had been following her for nine years and he had a posse of friends she heard talking all the time. She stated the father and the women “‘broke stuff of mine, ’” ran up her electric and water bills, and stole her mail. The mother further claimed the group stole her mother’s death certificate. In addition, the father’s “‘poss[e] of friends’” stole her social security card according to the mother. Also, the mother said the group stole the child’s social security card. When asked if she took any psychotropic medications, the mother stated she took cough and nose medication and medication for ankle inflammation caused by the vermin. When asked if she took illicit drugs, she stated: “‘No, I went to a party and I was around some stuff at Christmas. I was not worried, my daughter was with my parents. In my life I did some weed. My son fabricated that I hit him and they sent my daughter [] home with me.’”

The department social worker, Ms. Clements, also interviewed the child. The child shared a bed with the mother. When asked if the mother used drugs, the child stated: “‘Yes, my mom makes cigarettes from Newport 100’s, because mom told me that people are in her mind. She yells at them and curses them... and she says they won’t leave.’” The child also was unafraid of the mother. The mother had stated that the child had liver problems and needed a scan in the upcoming week. A physician stated the child’s physical condition was within normal limits and the youngster had no major physical illness or disease.

On January 4, 2010, the social worker tried to telephone the mother. But the mother did not answer her phone. The social worker spoke with the maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother stated: “‘We have for years been trying to help our adopted daughter. She was hearing voices most of her life, but no one would listen to us regarding her [auditory] hallucinations. They said because her mother died in prison that that was the reason she was hearing voice[s]. Also, [the child] has no other relatives to care for [her]. We pick up [the child] all the time to keep her safe. We are older now and would love to take [the child], but her mother needs to get the right help so she can take care of [the child] by herself. We worry [that the child] isn’t taken care of as we would take care of her.’” The maternal grandmother was told that the child did not have underwear or socks in the 48-degree weather. The maternal grandmother expressed worry the child did not have appropriate clothes that were clean. The maternal grandmother also stated that the mother had real problems with hallucinations and caring for the child. The maternal grandparents had put the mother into apartments near the church. But the mother moved because the child’s father lived next door. The maternal grandparents have never met the child’s father or seen him and believed the mother made up his name. According to the maternal grandmother: “[‘]She’ll tell complete strangers that she just inherited 30 million dollars from a rich uncle. She likes to not tell the truth. I spoke to her today and she is not ready to take care of her daughter.’”

The January 6, 2010 detention report discussed the mother’s prior involvement with the department. On June 18, 1999, the child’s half-brother was hospitalized for a broken arm. During the examination, the half-brother was found to have an old fracture while he was in the care of the mother. The mother was convicted of child cruelty, possible injury/death under Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a) and placed on 36 months’ probation. On March 28, 2001, the juvenile court placed the half-brother with the mother under the department’s supervision. On April, 27, 2001, the department filed a supplemental petition alleging the half-brother had bruises to his cheeks, chin, eyelids, forehead and under his eyes. His whole face was bruised. He also had scratches and bruises on his neck, back and torso. On May 21, 2001, the juvenile court placed the half-brother in foster care and ordered permanent placement services be provided. On November 5, 2004, the half-brother was reunified with the mother and the case was closed. On February 3, 2005, the juvenile court sustained another section 300 petition, finding that the half-brother had a number of special behavioral and development problems and the mother had a limited ability to meet these needs. The mother requested that the half-brother be placed with the department until appropriate services were in place to assist her in meeting his special needs.

B. Section 300 Petition

On January 6, 2010, the department filed a petition on behalf of the child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The petition alleges the following counts: (b-1) the mother has mental and emotional problems including paranoia and auditory and visual hallucinations; (b-2) the mother placed the child in a detrimental and endangering situation by driving under the influence of methamphetamines; (b-3) the mother has a history of illicit drug abuse and is a current user of methamphetamines; (b-4 and g-1) the father’s whereabouts are unknown; and the father has failed to provide the child with the necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.

C. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

In its February 3, 2010 jurisdiction/disposition report, the department social worker, Charles Matthews, reported he was unable to contact the mother to obtain her statement. The father’s whereabouts was unknown but a due diligence request had been submitted. Mr. Matthews interviewed the child. Mr. Matthews described the child’s concern about the mother, “The minor... reports she is scared when her mother hears voices in her head and curses at them and she is told by her mother the voices don’t leave.” The child told Mr. Matthews she wanted to live with her grandparents. The foster mother reported that the mother called most days to speak with the child. The calls appeared to benefit the child.

The maternal grandparents became the mother’s foster parents and adopted her when she was 12 years old. As the mother became older, she became more willful and was removed from their home several times. However, they remained close to the mother even while she was in placement. The maternal grandparents stated the mother had little or no contact with her biological parents. They wanted the mother to secure help for her problems. The maternal grandparents wanted the child to be returned to the mother.

D. Pre-Resolution Conference and Addendum Report

In the March 2, 2010 addendum report, the department reported on the interview with the mother. The mother stated she lived with her biological father briefly and was in a group home before she was placed with her foster parents. While under the department’s supervision, she lived in at least 13 placements. Her first child was born shortly after the mother turned 17. The mother was vague as to the reasons her son was taken from her but stated the youngster was returned to her twice. The mother admitted that her son has a broken arm and other injuries and he has not been in her care for over four to five years.

The mother stated that she had complained to the police on two occasions because the father was following her, breaking into her home and taking her documents. She claimed the father bought a black widow spider and put it into her home. The social worker explained: “[The mother]... had taken her daughter to the UCLA Medical Center because [the child] was reporting something was sticking her in the back and [the mother] thought her daughter had liver problems. [The mother] denied being under the influence but reported she was taking [four] different kinds of medication.” The mother went to a party on December 31, 2009, and had a few drinks. The mother left the child with a babysitter. The mother felt the hospital staff was not telling the truth and trying to cast her as being mentally unstable. The mother stated she does not have any mental problems. The mother claimed to be capable of caring for the child. The mother reported that since the last court date, she was present at all her visits and they have gone very well. The department social worker, Charles Matthews, recommended an Evidence Code Section 730 psychiatric evaluation of the mother be ordered to determine whether she suffered from mental illness. The maternal grandparents stated that they cared for the child for the past three weekends and enjoyed the visits. However, their schedule did not permit them to monitor any visits unless they took place on Sunday when the mother and the child attended church.

E. Multidisciplinary Assessment Team Report

The February 26, 2010 Multidisciplinary Assessment Team report discussed the therapist’s interviews with: the mother; the maternal grandmother; the child; the child’s teacher; and the foster mother. The foster mother and school teacher reported that the child was aggressive with peers. The child would yell, chase and hit other children. According to the foster mother, the child has acted this way from the time of detention but was getting less aggressive over the past couple of weeks. The child’s school teacher stated the youngster was struggling with socialization and academic performance. The child appeared depressed and angry. The therapist likewise noted that the child appeared sad, angry and frustrated. The child missed the mother. The child wanted to care for the mother. The child wanted to cook and clean for the mother. The mother denied the child displayed these behaviors when they lived together and had no problems at home or school.

The therapist reported that the foster mother felt uncomfortable during the mother’s monitored visits with the child. The assessment report states, “[The foster mother] states at their first visit mother made comments about needing [the child] to return home so [the child] could take care of her.” The foster mother felt these comments were inappropriate. The assessment report concluded that the mother needed a monitor who could correct and redirect these types of comments. During a visit, the therapist observed the mother being very playful with the child. The mother appeared to relate to the child as a sister-type figure, speaking to the youngster as an equal or peer.

F. Psychiatric Evaluation of Mother

The May 27, 2010 psychiatric evaluation of the mother was based on the detention and jurisdiction/disposition reports and an April 20, 2010 interview. Dr. Suzanne M. Dupée, a psychiatrist, conducted the examination. The mother said she had been hearing voices for about two months. The mother said the voices were really loud and would wake her up in the morning. The voices said strange things to her and she often could not figure out what they said. She said there were at least 10 different voices in her head; she did not recognize the voices. The mother reported that she still heard the voices and she believed it was from a hex. The mother had experienced visual hallucinations of “hexes” flying on the wall. The mother admitted to auditory and visual hallucinations and there was evidence of paranoia. Dr. Dupée believed the mother’s insight and judgment were poor.

Dr. Dupée diagnosed the mother with schizophrenia and polysubstance dependence. Dr. Dupée concluded with a reasonable degree of medical certainty the mother suffered from untreated schizophrenia. Dr. Dupée’s diagnosis was based on the mother’s auditory and visual hallucinations and chronic paranoia. Dr. Dupée believed that the mother endangers the child’s safety. The endangerment results from the mother’s untreated mental illness and her methamphetamine use. Dr. Dupée noted that methamphetamine abuse in an already psychotic individual will exacerbate the patient’s symptoms. Dr. Dupée recommended that the mother: seek psychiatric treatment; be placed on antipsychotic medications; concurrently undergo therapy with a licensed therapist; and undergo random drug testing.

G. Interim Review Report

In the June 18, 2010 interim review report, a department therapist reported that the mother could not be contacted and had not enrolled in any of the programs to which she was referred after the detention hearing. According to the foster mother, the mother had not visited or called the child since February 16, 2010. Likewise, the grandparents reported they had not seen the mother for several months. They expressed alarm because the mother had not come to church, which she usually did one to two times per month. The child also stated that she had not seen the mother for quite a while. The child sometimes saw her mother on Sundays at church. The child stated that she liked her current placement and loved her school. The child spent weekends at her grandparents’ home and, in her words, had “lots of fun” with them.

H. Adjudication/Disposition Hearing

The adjudication/disposition hearing was held on June 18, 2010. During the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court received into evidence the department’s reports and foregoing documents. The mother’s prescription for promethazine D.M., flucticasone propionate nasal spray and loratadine were marked for identification only. The mother testified that on or about January 2, 2010, she was taking promethazine D.M. for her uterus problem, fluticasone, Monistat and a diet drug, ephetramine. The mother testified she had not been on the diet pills for long; she only had 10 tablets. The mother testified she was not overweight but she took diet pills to keep her weight from fluctuating. The mother testified concerning an interview with an unidentified social worker. During the interview, the mother explained that she was on medication but he did not ask her for the names of the medications she was on. The mother testified she told the hospital staffers that she was taking medication and that it was in her car. The mother stated that the hospital staff would not let her go out to her car to get the prescription drugs because she was already admitted into the hospital.

I. Juvenile Court Findings

The juvenile court sustained the petition. The juvenile court found the mother’s paranoia and delusions endangered the child’s physical and emotional health. Further, the juvenile court found the mother’s methamphetamine use endangered the child. The allegation the mother had driven the child while under the influence of methamphetamines was dismissed.

The juvenile court declared the child a dependent under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). Family reunification services for the mother including participation in Adult Full Service Partnership services with a licensed therapist were ordered. The mother was required to take any psychotropic medication prescribed to her. The mother was ordered to submit to eight weekly random on demand drug tests. If the mother missed or had a positive drug test, she was required to participate in a drug program with random testing. The mother was ordered to continue having monitored visits with the child with the department having discretion to liberalize visitation.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdictional Findings

The mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b). Section 300, subdivision (b) states in part, “The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent... to adequately supervise or protect the child, ...or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent... to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent... to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s... mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.” On appeal, the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings under section 300, subdivision (b) that the mother’s mental and emotional problems and drug use endangered and placed the child at risk of physical and emotional harm. The mother suffered from untreated mental illness, including paranoia and auditory and visual hallucinations. The mother was seen by an emergency room nurse, social worker and hospital psychiatrist on January 2, 2010. They all concluded she had hallucinations. The hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Kass, also found that the mother had paranoia. The mother was afraid the father was following her and plotting to acquire her inheritance. The department social worker who arrived at the emergency room, Ms. Clements, also documented the mother’s hallucinations. The mother believed there were vermin in her home. The mother also believed there were vermin in a sister’s residence. The mother believed the father and his posse of friends were: following her; running up her gas and electric bills; and stealing her mail. The mother also thought the otherwise unspecified group was attempting to steal: her and the child’s social security cards; the child’s birth certificate; and her mother’s death certificate. The detention report relates, “Maternal grandmother stated, ‘She was hearing voices most of her life....’” The child was frightened when the mother heard voices in her head and cursed at them. Further, Dr. Dupée concluded the mother suffered from: untreated schizophrenia; chronic paranoia; methamphetamine abuse; and polysubstance dependence.

Also, there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the mother’s mental illness endangered the child and created a substantial risk of harm to the youngster. The child stated that she was frightened when the mother claimed to hear voices in her head and cursed at them. The child was found with no underwear or socks in 48-degree weather when the mother arrived at the emergency room. The maternal grandmother stated they “had to pick up [the child] all the time to keep her safe.” And the maternal grandmother stated, “‘The mother has real problems with hallucinations and taking care of [the child].’” In addition, the mother was found to have been physically abusive towards the child’s half-brother. The older half-brother suffered a broken wrist and later had bruises to his cheeks, chin, eyelids, forehead and under his eyes as well as scratches and bruises on his neck, back and torso while under the mother’s care. It is unclear whether the mother understood she had injured her son. She was vague about why her son was removed from her custody and stated that her son had fabricated the claim that she had hit him. The mother’s poor insight and judgment and untreated paranoia and hallucinations endangered the child and created a substantial risk of harm.

The mother further argues that there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court’s finding under count b-3 because she does not have a history of drug abuse. Although the mother denied using illicit drugs, she admitted that she had smoked marijuana once. On January 2, 2010, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine, which remains in the urine for two to three days. The hospital doctors told the department social worker, Ms. Clements, that the mother needed to stop using amphetamines. The hospital staff stated the paranoia and visual hallucinations were related to the mother’s amphetamine use. The hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Kass, diagnosed the mother with substance-induced psychotic disorder. Dr. Kass also noted, “In speaking to the patient’s mother, it appears that although the patient denies drug use, there are periods where she will disappear and go to what they think is a job, but is unclear where she is actually – she comes back and she appears more confused and altered.” Dr. Kass found there was concern about the child’s safety given the mother’s clear methamphetamine abuse and denials of drug use. There was also more recent evidence in the June 18, 2010 interim review report that the mother disappeared for a period of time without telling anyone. The department social worker, Mr. Matthews, was unable to contact the mother during that time. The mother also stopped visiting and calling the child after February 16, 2010 and did not attend church on Sundays, worrying the maternal grandparents. According to Dr. Kass, the disappearances are related to drug use. We need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

B. Continuance Request

The mother argues she was denied due process when the juvenile court denied her continuance request. We review this contention for an abuse of discretion. (In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 180; see In re Angela R. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 257, 265-266.) The mother contends that she and her counsel, Victor Ozoude, were unaware they were going to need testimony about how her medications metabolize into amphetamine until after the juvenile court refused to admit her prescription bottles into evidence. Although the mother's medications were only marked for identification, the juvenile court permitted her to testify about the medications used. At the adjudication hearing, the mother testified about the prescription drugs and diet pill that she was on when she tested positive for amphetamine. Notably, she did not testify that she was taking any of the drugs identified in the hospital drug test report that could have accounted for the positive test result. Moreover, although she testified that she told the hospital she was taking medications, the hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Kass, reported that the mother was not on any medication. Further, Dr. Kass noted that the mother had reported a weight loss of 15 pounds. But the mother did not tell Dr. Kass about any diet pills.

Further, the mother and her counsel had sufficient time to prepare for the adjudication, which was continued twice. The adjudication hearing was first set for March 2, 2010, later continued to April 26, 2010 and finally held on June 18, 2010, five months after the January 6, 2010 detention hearing. Under section 352, subdivision (b), the juvenile court must complete the disposition hearing within 60 days after the detention hearing and cannot continue the disposition hearing unless there are exceptional circumstances requiring a continuance. Here, the mother and her counsel, Mr. Ozoude, had time to find a medical professional prior to the June 18, 2010 hearing but did not do so. The mother’s inability to submit opinion testimony to negate her positive drug test is not an exceptional circumstance that would require a continuance of the disposition hearing where she and her counsel had five months to retain a properly qualified medical professional.

C. Disposition Order

The mother also challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional order. The mother contends there is no evidence of substantial danger. Section 361, subdivision (c), provides, “A dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents or guardian or guardians with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances...: [¶] (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 or guardian’s physical custody.” On appeal, we review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings by clear and convincing evidence. (In re E. B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 578; In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 441.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s dispositional order. Dr. Dupée concluded the mother suffers from untreated schizophrenia based on auditory and visual hallucinations and chronic paranoia. Dr. Dupée believed the mother endangered the safety of the child. The endangerment resulted not only from the mother’s untreated mental illness but also from her methamphetamine use. Dr. Dupée noted that methamphetamine abuse by an already mentally ill individual will exacerbate psychotic symptoms. Dr. Dupée recommended the mother seek psychiatric treatment, be placed on antipsychotic medications, undergo therapy with a licensed therapist and undergo random drug testing. Further, the mother failed to participate in drug testing and disappeared for a period of time without contacting the maternal grandparents, the child or the department. According to the maternal grandparents, the mother had on prior occasions disappeared and would come back later appearing confused. According to the hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Kass, the mother’s occasional disappearances and subsequent confused and altered state of mind suggested drug use.

Finally, the mother was found to have poor insight and judgment by both Dr. Kass and Dr. Dupée. The mother related to the child as a sister-type figure. Oddly, the child saw the need to care for the mother. The foster mother felt uncomfortable during the mother’s monitored visits because the mother made comments about needing the child to return home. The purpose was to allow the child to care for the mother. Moreover, there is no indication that the mother realized she had mental problems. The mother told the social worker, Mr. Matthews, that “the hospital” was not telling the truth and trying to cast her as being mentally unstable. She also stated she did not have any mental problems. The maternal grandmother reported they “‘had to pick up [the child] all the time to keep her safe.’” Further, the maternal grandmother said, “‘The mother has real problems with hallucinations and taking care of [the child].’”

The mother also argues that the juvenile court erred by removing the child from her custody without exploring other alternatives. We review this argument for an abuse of discretion. (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532; In re Jose M. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1103-1104.) No abuse of discretion occurred. The mother suggests these alternatives could have included: having an acceptable relative move into the home; placement of the child under the supervision of a department social worker and services to remedy the situation that led to the petition; or the mother retaining custody subject to family maintenance services. However, the only alternative proposed by the mother’s counsel at the disposition hearing was to have the mother enroll in a “program” and placing the child in the home. Furthermore, the juvenile court could find none of the other alternatives were feasible. The maternal grandmother stated there were no other relatives to care for the child. The maternal grandparents were only able to monitor visits on Sundays at church. It was unreasonable for the maternal grandparents to move in with the mother. Placement of the child under the department’s supervision and provision of services to remedy the situation that led to the petition was not an option given that: the mother denied she had mental illness or a drug problem; disappeared from February to June 2010; and had not started therapy or participated in any programs referred to her by the hospital or the department. No abuse of discretion occurred.

IV. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition order are affirmed.

We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., KRIEGLER, J.


Summaries of

In re J.R.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Feb 8, 2011
No. B225377 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)
Case details for

In re J.R.

Case Details

Full title:In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

Citations

No. B225377 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)