Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. JD112645-00, Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.
Teri A. Kanefield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Judith M. Denny, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
CORNELL, J.
Appellant Courtney W. challenges the juvenile court’s disposition order removing K. from her custody on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence. We will affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Courtney is the mother of three children. K. is her youngest child. The Kern County Department of Human Services (DHS) had received several referrals regarding Courtney’s two elder children, S. and T., beginning in 1992. A July 2002 referral alleging sexual abuse of S. and T. by a neighbor was received, which was “evaluated out” with no in-person response.
In November 2002, a referral alleging S. had been physically abused by her mother was received. It was deemed unsubstantiated when the child indicated she had been injured when she fell while playing a game with Courtney.
In March 2003, a referral alleging general neglect of S. was received and substantiated. S. had an “ongoing history” of a rash that was not being treated and was getting worse. S. also reported that her mother was “sick.” When sick, Courtney would get angry and hit S. with a belt. An allegation of general neglect of T. was found to be inconclusive.
On December 12, 2005, another general neglect referral was received. Courtney was 29 weeks pregnant and tested positive for amphetamine and “THC” (tetrahydrocannabinol). Courtney’s medical history established that she had 10 pregnancies, with two children living at home.
In February 2006 another general neglect referral was received. This referral involved K., who was born in February. Although Courtney did not test positive for drugs at birth, she had tested positive several times during the pregnancy. When interviewed by a social worker, Courtney denied any use of illegal substances. When reminded that she had tested positive for illegal substances several times during her pregnancy, Courtney stated she did not “know how it got into her system.” Courtney had passed out behind the wheel of a car in January 2006. She tested positive for barbiturates at the time of that incident. Courtney and K.’s father, Brandon, agreed to participate in voluntary family maintenance services.
The voluntary plan called for Courtney to submit to random drug testing, attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and participate in parenting and substance abuse counseling. She also was required to maintain a safe environment and provide for the children’s medical and dental needs. Courtney was advised that if she failed to comply with the voluntary plan as outlined, it could result in court intervention to remove the children from her custody.
Two random drug tests during February 2006 were negative. Courtney participated in Narcotics Anonymous classes but did not enroll in parenting classes. The social worker indicated, however, that the recommendation would be to close the case after the conclusion of two months of services.
In July 2006, a referral was received alleging general neglect. Courtney had an outstanding PG&E bill and her utility services had been turned off.
On October 9, 2006, a referral alleging physical and emotional abuse was received. Law enforcement had responded to a report of domestic violence. Brandon and Courtney had argued and Brandon punched, slapped, and “body slammed” Courtney in the parking lot of their apartment complex. K. was present during the incident.
The investigation of this incident disclosed that the power never had been restored to the apartment after it was turned off on July 19, 2006. There were extension cords running from a neighbor’s apartment draped throughout the apartment.
Brandon was unemployed because he had tested positive during a random drug test administered by his former employer. Both Courtney and Brandon tested positive for illegal substances on October 11, 2006.
S. was interviewed. She stated that Courtney and Brandon fight “all the time.” She and her brother are scared when the two fight. S. told the social worker that she and her brother are afraid for K. because either Courtney or Brandon is always holding K. when there is a fight and they are afraid the baby will be dropped and “die.” S. has nightmares about K. dying. S. also told the social worker that her mother has slapped her in the face and spanked her. S. also stated that when she could not find a report sent home by her teacher, Courtney hit her hard enough to knock her to the floor.
T. also was interviewed. T. complained that there was not much food in the house. He had not received any breakfast the morning of his interview. His clothes were dirty. He was having nightmares. T. and S. both told the social worker that they visited with their father on weekends and wanted to live with him. The social worker opined both children exhibited symptoms of depression and showed anxiety when describing their life with Courtney.
Courtney voluntarily placed S. and T. with their father after the October 2006 referral. Courtney was advised that she had to leave the family home permanently with K. or face further action by DHS. DHS facilitated arrangements for Courtney to enter the Alliance Against Family Violence (AAFV) Program. Initially, Courtney failed to follow through on the referral, but after a few days she did.
Courtney requested six months of family maintenance services instead of the usual 30 days. As part of the AAFV Program, Courtney was to obtain a restraining order against Brandon. Instead, Courtney had contact with Brandon several times.
On November 8, 2006, Courtney denied agreeing to a six-month plan and insisted she did not want services past the required 30 days. She claimed she had a restraining order against Brandon, but that the court order allowed Brandon visitation with K. In reality, no visitation was provided for in the restraining order.
On November 14, 2006, the social worker was advised by AAFV that Courtney continued to see Brandon and was maintaining a continuing relationship with him, although Courtney had told AAFV she did not know Brandon’s whereabouts. The AAFV worker also was of the opinion that Courtney still was using drugs.
On November 15, 2006, the social worker went to the hospital where K. had been admitted for treatment of pneumonia. Brandon was present at the hospital. He acknowledged that he had been seeing K. and Courtney almost every day and stated that Courtney had asked him to move back in with her and K.
On November 15, 2006, K. was placed into protective custody because of Courtney’s noncompliance with the voluntary services plan. Courtney had withdrawn from substance abuse counseling; had failed to serve the restraining order on Brandon; had continued to see Brandon and allow Brandon access to K., in violation of the terms of the restraining order; and was minimally compliant with AAFV services. In addition, the social worker noted that domestic violence issues were unresolved and utility services had not been restored to the family home.
At the detention hearing, K. was ordered detained out of the home. In December 2006, Courtney stated she wanted to move to Louisiana to live with her father and wanted K. placed with him. On December 2, 2006, Courtney left the women’s shelter without notice. She later reported violent contact with Brandon, but she did not report the incident to the police.
The combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held on January 22, 2007. The juvenile court found that there was a substantial danger to K.’s physical or emotional well-being if she were to be placed with Courtney. The juvenile court ordered K. placed out of the home and ordered reunification services provided to Courtney.
DISCUSSION
Courtney challenges the juvenile court’s disposition order. She concedes that the evidence established that she had a substance abuse problem and a history of domestic violence in the home. Courtney contends, however, that these issues were resolved as of the date of the disposition hearing; therefore, the disposition order is unsupported by the evidence. She is mistaken.
When a parent challenges a dispositional finding, the question is whether substantial evidence supports the finding. (Kimberly R. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1078; In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580-581 [although a trial court makes findings by the elevated standard of clear and convincing evidence, substantial evidence test remains the standard of review on appeal].) The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there was substantial evidence to support the finding or order. (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.) In making this determination, all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the prevailing party. (In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 16.) The juvenile court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it exceeds the bounds of reason. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) When two or more inferences reasonably can be deduced from the evidence, or two or more conclusions reached, a reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the juvenile court. (Id. at p. 319.)
As relevant here, before the juvenile court may order a child physically removed from his or her parent, it must find by clear and convincing evidence that the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the child if he or she remains with the parent. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136.) The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child. (Ibid.; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536.)
We conclude that application of the appropriate standard of review requires that we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order because it was supported by substantial evidence.
Courtney had a history of referrals to DHS. Referrals dating back to 2003 had been substantiated. Courtney tested positive for amphetamines in October 2006. Her substance abuse problems dated to at least 2004, when she was arrested and pled no contest to possession of marijuana. Courtney was provided with voluntary family maintenance services for two months in early 2006. The voluntary services terminated on March 30, 2006, and the case was closed. During this time, Courtney tested negative for illegal substances. Yet, problems persisted and an October 2006 referral was substantiated, and Courtney again tested positive for illegal substances.
After social workers intervened in October 2006, Courtney again was provided with voluntary services. During the period from October 9, 2006, to November 15, 2006, Courtney denied using illegal substances, even though she tested positive; she failed to follow through with obtaining and serving a protective order on Brandon and instead maintained contact with him and lied about the contact to social workers; and she sought to terminate voluntary services after one month, even though she acknowledged that her domestic violence and substance abuse issues remained unresolved.
“‘[P]ast events can aid in a determination of present unfitness.’ [Citation.]” (In re Troy D. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 889, 900.) The juvenile court accurately noted that Courtney had been in a relationship with Brandon characterized by “a long-term pattern of domestic violence” and by repeatedly allowing Brandon to reenter her life after instances of violence. The juvenile court also noted that Courtney had a pattern of entering substance abuse counseling when receiving services and then relapsing and testing positive after services ended. The juvenile court found that Courtney had made minimal progress toward alleviating the causes for K. being removed from the home.
To her credit, Courtney did embark on an aggressive plan to improve her life during the 30 days before the dispositional hearing. The juvenile court commended her for her efforts. With her history, however, it is logical for the juvenile court to want more than one month’s efforts before allowing a young child back into an unstable home.
The ultimate test is whether it was reasonable for the juvenile court to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393-1394.) Courtney clearly failed to take seriously the problems that led to intervention until after K. was placed into protective custody on November 15, 2006, as a result of Courtney’s failure to comply with her voluntary plan. Even if the evidence is not overwhelming, given the deference that must be accorded to a juvenile court’s factual findings, there was substantial evidence to support the disposition order. (In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169.)
Furthermore, the juvenile court ordered that reunification services be provided to Courtney, including counseling for domestic violence as a victim, substance abuse counseling, and parenting classes. She also was to submit to random drug tests. Presumably, if Courtney complies with the case plan and addresses the issues that led to removal, there is a substantial likelihood she will be reunited with K.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: WISEMAN, Acting P.J., HILL, J.