Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J188872A
Kline, P.J.
Appellant Belinda W. appeals from the juvenile court’s order placing her daughter, Kianna B. (now 16 years old) in the home of foster parent, Deborah W. She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed Kianna with Deborah W. in that the placement was contrary to Kianna’s best interests. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts of this dependency matter, through July 11, 2006, are set forth in this court’s unpublished opinion (In re K.B. (A115889), filed on August 16, 2007, and will only be briefly summarized here. In addition, only those facts relevant to the issue raised in this appeal will be discussed in any detail in this opinion.
This dependency matter began in December 2003, when the Alameda County Social Service Agency (Agency) filed an original dependency petition alleging that Kianna, then eight years old, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j). The petition also included allegations related to a younger sibling and three older half-siblings. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the children stated that they were hit with brooms, extension and vacuum cords, rods, and shoes, and were kicked and had their hair pulled almost daily, and that appellant used crack and hard liquor daily. The petition also alleged that the children had marks and bruises on their bodies and that the condition of the home was filthy and in disarray. Following the January 26, 2004 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition true, removed the three oldest children from parental custody with reunification services to be provided, and placed Kianna and her younger brother in appellant’s home with family maintenance services.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
On May 3, 2006, the Agency filed a section 387 supplemental petition, alleging that appellant was noncompliant in meeting essential aspects of her family maintenance case plan, and the juvenile court ordered Kianna and her brother detained on May 4, 2006. At the July 11, 2006 disposition hearing, the juvenile court denied appellant reunification services as to both children because she had failed to reunify with their half-siblings and because family maintenance services had been provided for over two years without alleviating or mitigating the problems causing the initial dependency. The court ordered a permanent plan of a planned permanent living arrangement, with visitation for appellant, after finding that a section 366.26 hearing was not in the best interest of the children because they were not proper subjects for adoption and there was no one willing to accept legal guardianship. Appellant appealed and, on August 16, 2007, we affirmed the juvenile court’s orders in an unpublished opinion. (In re K.B. (A115889).)
Pursuant to the juvenile court’s orders at disposition, Kianna was placed in foster care. She remained in the same placement from July 2006 until August 2007, when she was placed with her maternal grandmother. In a May 2008 status review report, the social worker reported that Kianna continued to live with her maternal grandmother. She also reported that Kianna’s cognitive abilities were below average and that her school attendance and performance were problematic.
After Kianna’s maternal grandmother died in September 2008, Kianna was placed in a foster home for several months until she was placed with her cousin, Yvette M., in December 2008. While placed with Yvette M., it was reported that Kianna, who was in middle school, was doing well academically and participating in therapy.
On March 30, 2010, the Agency filed a section 387 supplemental petition alleging that the previous disposition, placement in the home of Yvette M., was ineffective in that Kianna refused to return to Yvette M.’s home “because she yelled a lot and did not buy her things, ” and because Kianna did not wish to attend therapy any longer. In the report prepared for the April 1, 2010 detention hearing, the Agency recommended that Kianna be detained and that she be placed in the emergency foster home of Deborah W. The court ordered Kianna detained on April 1, 2010. At an April 5, 2010 hearing, the court found that the permanent plan of placement with Deborah W., with a goal of returning her home, was appropriate, and ordered this as the permanent plan.
In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed on April 16, 2010, the social worker reported that Kianna did not want to remain in the care of Yvette M. and that they were not able to communicate without discord and mistrust. Kianna reported that she was making a good transition to the foster home, she was attending her previous school, was doing her homework on a regular basis, liked the foster home, and remained in contact with relatives. She said she would be comfortable living with Deborah W. until possibly being placed in a relative’s home. She was interested in being placed long-term with her maternal cousin, Jazmine G. The Agency was in the process of approving Jazmine G. for placement.
Kianna, who was in the eighth grade, continued to be eligible for special education services due to her learning disabilities; she had accommodations in all her classes. However, she frequently missed her first and second period classes, which was affecting her academic progress. She was having weekly therapy to address her diagnosis of adjustment disorder. Kianna was apparently very adept at “ ‘splitting’ her family members against one another. It’s therefore imperative that the adults in her life make a concerted effort to communicate with one another in order to prevent the ‘splitting’ from occurring.”
The Agency recommended that the permanent plan for Kianna be permanent placement in a foster family agency home with the goal of placement with a relative. It also requested that Kianna’s placement in the home of Deborah W. be approved and that her previous placement with Yvette M. be vacated.
At the April 20, 2010 uncontested hearing on the section 387 petition, the juvenile court set aside the order placing Kianna in the home of Yvette M. and approved placement in the home of a licensed foster parent.
On August 20, 2010, the Agency filed an ex parte application with the court, requesting that Kianna’s placement with her maternal first cousin, Jazmine G., be approved and that the placement with foster parent Deborah W. be vacated. On August 27, 2010, the court ordered the placement change requested by the Agency.
On September 8, 2010, the Agency filed another section 387 supplemental petition, in which it alleged that placement with Jazmine G. had been ineffective because Kianna had been transient for approximately one month; Jazmine G. lost her housing at the end of July 2010 and was presently unable to obtain stable housing. In the detention report, the social worker reported that Kianna and Jazmine G. had moved out of their apartment when appellant moved into the in-law unit in front of the apartment. Because they were not comfortable living so close to appellant, they moved out without first securing new housing, and had been unable to find housing over the past month. Kianna had requested placement with her previous foster parent, Deborah W., because she felt that Jazmine G. was unable to “handle her business.”
On September 9, 2010, the juvenile court ordered Kianna detained.
In a status review report, filed on September 17, 2010, the social worker recommended that the permanent plan for Kianna be placement in the home of Deborah W., with the goal of legal guardianship. Kianna had stated that she had not visited regularly with appellant since July due to the “drama” she experienced with her mother living in the home in front of her placement with Jazmine G.
Kianna had previously been referred for an assessment for developmental delays, which could qualify her for Regional Center services, but the assessment still had not been completed. She had recently been approved for SSI. She was in the ninth grade at a high school in Berkeley.
Kianna reported that “she enjoys living with [Deborah W.]. She stated that she initially wanted to leave [Deborah W.’s] home and be placed with [Jazmine G.] because she liked the idea of living with family and felt connected with [Jazmine G.]. However, she reported that things were chaotic with [Jazmine G.] and that [Jazmine G.] did not ‘handle her business well.’ She is excited to be living with [Deborah W.] again. [¶] [Deborah W.] report[ed] that she is happy to have Kianna back in her home. She reports that Kianna is a wonderful young lady.” Deborah W. had inquired about the possibility of becoming Kianna’s legal guardian. She wanted to help guide Kianna into becoming a successful and happy adult. She was willing to ensure that Kianna maintained contact with her family, but wanted to provide her with a consistent and safe living environment. The social worker wanted to give Kianna a few months to adjust to being back in Deborah W.’s home before she considered changing the permanent plan to guardianship.
At the September 22, 2010 hearing on the supplemental petition, the juvenile court adopted the Agency’s recommendation and ordered that the permanent plan of placement be with Deborah W., with a specific goal of legal guardianship.
In the report prepared for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, filed on September 21, 2010, the social worker reported that Kianna had been placed with Deborah W. since September 9, 2010, that Kianna was complying with Deborah W.’s rules, and that Deborah W. had been transporting Kianna to school every morning. According to the high school attendance staff, Kianna had been missing a few classes. Appellant did not believe Kianna’s placement with Deborah W. was appropriate because she believed that Deborah W. was allowing Kianna to do as she pleased.
In an addendum report filed on October 5, 2010, the social worker reported that appellant was against Kianna continuing to be placed with Deborah W., and preferred that Kianna be placed in a group home. Appellant believed that Kianna had too much freedom with Deborah W. According to appellant, Deborah W. allowed Kianna to stay with her adult boyfriend and only come home when the social worker was visiting the home. Appellant also had friends who had seen Kianna walking the streets or at the boyfriend’s house since she was placed with Deborah W.
Kianna, who was now 15-1/2 years old, had told the social worker that her boyfriend was a 17-year-old classmate and football player at her high school, and showed the social worker a picture of him in his football uniform posing on the football field. She also said she came straight home every day after school. The social worker had made an unannounced visit to Deborah W.’s home on the evening of September 30, 2010, due to appellant’s allegations, and Kianna had been at home.
The social worker recommended that the order placing Kianna in the relative home of Jazmine G. be set aside and that her placement in the home of foster parent Deborah W. be approved.
At the October 13, 2010 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, appellant testified that, during Kianna’s prior placement with Deborah W. some months earlier, she had seen Kianna in Berkeley with her 19-year-old boyfriend, Brion. They were next door to a laundromat, where there were prostitutes and drugs. Also during the prior placement with Deborah W., appellant had talked to Kianna on the phone two or three times a week and Kianna said she was at her boyfriend’s house nine out of ten times, even though she was supposed to be at Deborah W.’s house. Since the current placement began, appellant had not seen Kianna with Brion. Also during the prior placement, appellant saw Kianna inside the Berkeley BART station with a “whole bunch of boys” in the afternoon, during school hours. Kianna also had once stayed overnight at appellant’s house during the earlier placement. Appellant did not tell the Agency about this. Appellant also knew that Kianna had spent the night at Brion’s mother’s house as well as at Jazmine’s house during the prior placement with Deborah W.
Appellant testified that she had heard that Deborah W. took Kianna “on a field trip down to the prostitution stroll... and told her to look at all of the little girls out on the street.” Appellant also knew that Deborah W.’s boyfriend, Sylvester, who was at Deborah W.’s house often, is a pimp. She did not know this from personal knowledge, but “word gets around on the streets.” Appellant did not believe there was any drug use in Deborah W.’s house, nor did she believe Kianna was taking drugs.
Appellant was aware that Kianna had had trouble getting to school on time and was missing school before she lived with Deborah W. Appellant was not requesting that Kianna be placed with her at present.
Kianna’s 22-year-old sister, Latoya W., testified that she had seen Kianna the previous Saturday evening in Berkeley. Kianna was with Brion, another boy, and two other girls, hanging out and talking in front of Brion’s house. Latoya did not know if Kianna and Brion were currently girlfriend and boyfriend. Nor did she know how old Brion was, although she knew that he had been a high school student when she met him two years earlier. About two weeks before the hearing, on September 29 or 30, she had also seen Kianna and two other girls in front of a laundromat in Berkeley during school hours. Latoya had concerns about Kianna being around Deborah W.’s boyfriend, who was a pimp and who put a friend of Latoya’s on the “hoe stroll” when she was under age. She did not know if Deborah W. and her boyfriend were still together, nor did she know of Deborah W. being involved in prostitution. Kianna had told Latoya that Deborah W. took her on a field trip to show her girls on the “hoe stroll” on East 14th. She had no concerns about drug use in Deborah W.’s house, but knew that Brion’s mother used crack cocaine and that Kianna had stayed with Brion’s mother during the previous placement with Deborah W.
Latoya believed that Deborah W. allowed Kianna “to do whatever she wants to do as long as she is getting paid for her.” The social workers always said Kianna was in a stable placement, such as at Yvette’s house and Jazmine’s house, but she was not actually stable there and was in fact getting her own way. Latoya knew that she could speak to the social workers about any concerns regarding Kianna’s well-being, but had not done so before the day of the hearing.
Kianna’s social worker, Meghan MacDougall, testified that she had spoken to Deborah W. a week earlier and Deborah W. said she does not have a boyfriend at this time and she was shocked at the allegation by Kianna’s family. She previously had a boyfriend but was no longer with him. He was not a pimp; he worked for the Port of Oakland while she was seeing him. Deborah W. also said that if she had a boyfriend, she would go through the “appropriate channels to make sure that his background is cleared.” Deborah W. also told MacDougall about a trip to the “prostitution stroll.” She said that when Kianna was placed back in her home, there was concern about her not always being where she was supposed to be in her previous home. Deborah W. told Kianna, “I want to show you what it could be like, ” put her in the car, took her to “prostitute row, wherever that is, ” and said, “this could happen and this is where I don’t want you to be.”
Regarding school attendance, Kianna had had attendance issues, including tardies and unexcused absences in her previous placements. When Kianna was initially placed with Deborah W., an official at her Berkeley middle school told MacDougall that Kianna’s attendance had gotten better and that he had conversed with Deborah W., who dropped Kianna off at school in the morning to make sure she got to class. Currently, it was MacDougall’s understanding that Deborah W. was driving Kianna to school every morning and had not received any phone calls from the high school regarding Kianna missing school. Deborah W. had taught Kianna how to use BART, and she was taking BART home after school.
On cross-examination, MacDougall acknowledged that Kianna’s school attendance record for the first five weeks of her most recent placement with Deborah W. showed numerous tardies and unverified attendance in individual classes. She believed that Deborah W. was doing the best she could, making sure Kianna got to school. But once there, it was difficult for the foster mother to do anything if the school did not notify her.
Since this most recent placement with Deborah W., starting in September, MacDougall understood that Kianna would come home after school and spend time at home. In her earlier placement with Deborah W., Kianna would spend a lot of weekends with Jazmine G. because they were doing pre-placement visits. In the previous few weeks, someone from the Agency made an unannounced visit to Deborah W.’s home at 9:00 p.m. to verify that Kianna was there. MacDougall also had made an unannounced visit to the home and seen Kianna about two weeks earlier at 5:00 p.m. As Kianna’s social worker, MacDougall said she would continue to follow up on any issues that were raised at the hearing, to make sure that Kianna is safe.
MacDougall also confirmed that Kianna was placed with Deborah W. after the mother of Kianna’s boyfriend Brion called the Agency and said that Kianna had been staying with her for several days and she had not heard from Jazmine G. MacDougall understood that Brion was also attending Kianna’s high school. Kianna told a social worker that Brion was 17 years old, but that had not been verified.
Deborah W. had indicated to MacDougall that she was interested in becoming Kianna’s legal guardian “because she cares for Kianna and feels like she can get through to her and make a difference in her life. She wants to provide her with stability.” MacDougall believed Kianna and Deborah W. “have a very warm relationship with one another, ” and Kianna had continued to express that she feels comfortable and safe in Deborah W.’s home.
At the conclusion of the hearing, following arguments of counsel, the juvenile court ordered that the Agency file a progress report in 60 days, on December 14, 2010, regarding Kianna’s “school situation. I want to know that she’s in the house at 4:00 o’clock. She supposedly said that she is. I think that will suffice. If we see a big change in her school attendance, that would be good.” The court clarified that “I’m not ordering the Agency to look into alternative programs or lock-downs or prostitution rings in the neighborhood. I don’t believe there is evidence of that. I do believe that a lot of it was conjecture.” The court otherwise maintained all prior orders.
When appellant’s counsel had earlier said that he would like the court “to order the Agency to investigate an alternative possible placement, ” the court had responded, “Where would that be, in another foster home, a lock-down situation, a hospital?” Counsel responded that he did not know.
On November 9, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Kianna’s Placement with Deborah W.
Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered that Kianna be placed in Deborah W.’s home in that the placement was contrary to Kianna’s best interests.
More precisely, appellant asserts that the “Agency abused its discretion in placing Kianna with Deborah, and the juvenile court abused its discretion in approving the placement.” Appellant is incorrect in describing the abuse of discretion standard of review as applicable to the Agency’s conduct in the present circumstances. The sole question here is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that Kianna be placed with Deborah W., not whether the Agency also abused its discretion in making the initial placement. Two cases cited by appellant to support her claim that the Agency’s discretion in its placement decision is at issue—In re Shirley K. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 65, 71-72 and Department of Social Services v. Superior Court (1998) 58 Cal.App.4th 721, 734—are inapplicable here in that they both addressed the Social Service Department’s discretion with respect to placement only after the court had terminated parental rights and referred the child to the Department of Social Services for adoptive placement.
A custody determination in a dependency proceeding is “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court” and “should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.).) “ ‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 318-319.)
After termination of reunification services, the focus of dependency proceedings shifts to the best interests of the child. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) “In any custody determination, a primary consideration in determining the child’s best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity.” (Ibid.)
In the present case, appellant asserts that the juvenile court did not consider Kianna’s best interests when it ordered her placed with Deborah W. She cites the testimony of appellant and Kianna’s half-sister, Latoya, at the October 13, 2010 hearing regarding things they had seen and heard that allegedly demonstrated that Deborah W. was not properly supervising or caring for Kianna. The court, however, indicated that it believed that much of this evidence was “conjecture.” A great deal of the testimony also related to events that supposedly occurred during Kianna’s prior placement with Deborah W. as well as with incidents that purportedly took place during the school day, of which neither the Agency nor Deborah W. had been informed.
Appellant claims that the court only found that evidence regarding a supposed “prostitution ring” was conjecture. We do not read its comments about “a lot of it [being] conjecture” so narrowly.
Indeed, evidence presented at the hearing showed that the Agency had investigated appellant’s testimony regarding what she had heard about Deborah W.’s supposed “pimp” boyfriend and about Kianna only being home when the social worker was expected, and found those allegations untrue. In addition, although Kianna’s school attendance was still not ideal, Deborah W. dropped her off at school every morning and had received no calls from the school about her attendance. As appellant acknowledged, Kianna had had ongoing school attendance issues prior to her current placement. Moreover, the social worker believed Kianna and Deborah W. had “a very warm relationship with one another” and Kianna felt safe and comfortable in the placement. Deborah W. had committed to providing a consistent and safe living situation for Kianna and had inquired about the possibility of becoming her legal guardian.
Deborah W. had acknowledged taking Kianna to observe the “prostitution stroll” as a means of warning Kianna of what could happen to her if she did not stay on the right path.
The juvenile court reasonably relied on this evidence in determining that placement with Deborah W. would provide Kianna with the stability she needed, and was therefore in her best interests. (See Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) We will not accept appellant’s invitation to reweigh the evidence. (See id. at pp. 318-319 [when two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from facts, appellate court may not substitute its decision for that of trial court].)
We also observe that on appeal appellant challenges Kianna’s placement with Deborah W., but does not claim that there were any alternative placements available that would have been more suitable. Appellant had requested that the Agency place Kianna in a group home and, at the October 13, 2010 hearing, appellant’s counsel asked the court to investigate alternative placements. However, in this appeal, she has not suggested what other placement the court could have ordered or any other resolution that would have better served Kianna’s best interests than the placement with Deborah W.
We conclude the juvenile court acted in Kianna’s best interests and did not exceed the bounds of reason when it ordered that Kianna be placed with Deborah W. and that the Agency file a progress report in 60 days regarding Kianna’s school attendance and whether she was getting home by 4:00 p.m. each day after school. In short, there was no abuse of discretion. (See Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.)
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
We concur: Haerle, J., Richman, J.