Opinion
A100684.
10-27-2003
In re NANCY G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MARIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMA G., Defendant and Appellant.
Introduction
Norma G., the mother of 13-year-old Nancy G., appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional order of the Marin County juvenile court adjudging Nancy a dependent child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c) and ordering reunification services. She contends there was insufficient evidence for the court to assume jurisdiction over Nancy. We shall affirm the order.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Facts and Procedural Background
Born in Guatemala in October 1988, Nancy was raised by her mothers family. Norma left Nancy with her family when Nancy was less than one month old. Nancys father had abandoned them before Nancy was born and Norma has consistently refused to provide more information regarding Nancys paternity. According to Nancy, she was raised in Guatemala by her uncle and his wife. Nancy thought her uncle and aunt were her parents until she met her mother at age eight.
The social history of the family is sketchy as Norma G. would not meet with the social worker. At the hearing, Norma G. testified she left Nancy with her maternal aunt, her great-uncle and his wife, and her grandmother.
Norma had two daughters, Nancy and her older sister Karla (now age 23). Norma moved to the United States without her daughters, married and had twin boys. Karla came to the United States when she was approximately 14 years old. Norma and Karla had many relationship problems which, at times, required intervention by the Marin County Department of Social Services (department) and by the police.
Norma had visited Nancy on two occasions before she brought Nancy to the United States at age 11 in the spring of 2000.
On May 5, 2000, a referral was made to Child Protective Services (CPS) regarding allegations of physical abuse of Nancy by Norma. "[Norma] hit Nancy with a belt on the back of her neck and back of her leg. Nancy had marks on the back of her neck and leg. It was also reported that this mother has had several boyfriends, one of whom molested her daughter, [K]arla . . . , when [K]arla was a minor. It was also reported that mothers current husband was out of the home due to domestic violence."
On July 20, 2000, CPS received a report that Nancy (who had been in the United States for less than 2 months) had run away at Karlas urging and had been found in North Carolina. Other places in the record refer to this incident as Karla kidnapping or abducting Nancy and taking her to North Carolina where Nancy was left on her own or with strangers. Nancy stated she lived in constant fear during this time. After about one month Nancy was returned to Norma. Immediately following her return, an informal contract with the department provided in-home family therapy for four weeks. Lourdes Vargas, MFT, provided therapy in the home during that time. Although Nancy was eligible for further services and CPS offered services to Norma at least three times, Norma consistently refused voluntary services and placement for Nancy, refused to sign all papers for placement, and refused to listen to alternative ways of parenting. Norma blamed the department for all the problems that have occurred between herself and her two daughters. According to therapist Vargas, "Mother was found to be set in her negative parenting style and unable to understand alternative approaches to parenting."
On February 14, 2001 it was reported to CPS that two days earlier, "Mother accused Nancy of taking money—a dollar from her brother. Mother grew very angry and hit Nancy with a wooden spoon on her back, legs, and arms. The dollar was later found under the table."
On September 24, 2001, a friend of Nancys told a school counselor that Nancy was at the friends aunts home. Nancys mother came to the home, "yelling and screaming at Nancy for being at the house, grabbed Nancy by the hair, slapped her, pushed her, and dragged Nancy down the stairs. Nancys mother threatened to send Nancy back to Guatemala. Nancy was terrified to make this report."
On March 27, 2002, Nancy was interviewed by social worker Leslie Johnson, M.S.W. Johnson stated: "Nancy is afraid of her mother, afraid of her mothers violence, the belittling, the yelling and screaming, hitting, and hair pulling. Nancy stated that she is afraid of the threats her mother makes regarding forcing Nancy to return to Guatemala. Nancy is requesting placement until her mother gets the help she needs. Nancy has stated she wants to stay in the United States and continue her education. She was abused when she lived in Guatemala and has no desire to return there."
On March 29, 2002, the department filed a petition alleging Nancy has suffered or there is a substantial risk that she will suffer serious physical harm inflicted by Norma (§ 300, subd. (a)) and that Nancy "is suffering, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious emotional damage evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others" as a result of the conduct of her mother. (& sect; 300, subd. (c).) Nancy was detained and placed in a foster home.
In addition to the allegations of physical harm, the petition alleged that Norma has told Nancy "that `because she is my mom, she can kill me at any time she wants. Nancy believes this to be true." The petition also alleged that "Nancy has exhibited suicidal ideation[]s as a result of the verbal abuse and emotional withholding of her mother Norma. Nancy stated that she has thoughts of killing herself due to the situation she is in." The petition specified numerous instances of Norma belittling Nancy, alleging, among other things:
"Nancy is told by her mother that she is stupid, that she does not have a brain in her head. Nancy is a straight A student in school.
"Norma told her daughter Nancy that she was a disgrace to her, that Nancy had come to her to ruin her life, that because of what Nancy did, it was the last time her mother would tolerate her mistakes, and that if Nancy wanted an enemy, she has one now. Nancy is known at school and at Canal Ministries for being a child with no behavior problems.
"Norma told her daughter Nancy that Nancy could not count on her anymore, that Nancy would be in her home but that Nancy could not talk to her or even look at her.
"Nancy stated that her mother told her that `because she is my mom she can kill me at any time she wants.
"Nancy exhibits severe anxiety in that her breathing becomes observably labored, her skin becomes sweaty, and she complains of headaches, when speaking about the abuse. Nancy becomes terrified at the thought of anyone trying to speak with her mother on Nancys behalf. Nancy is in fear of the repercussions of her reporting the abuse.
"Nancy stated that her mother is continually comparing her to her sister [K]arla [], that she will be a prostitute and be on the streets with the gangs doing drugs. [K]arla [] is 21 years old, is working, has a child, and is not on the streets doing drugs. She is not on Welfare. [K]arla was removed from her mother, Norma[] for the same allegations filed in this petition with regards to Nancy [].
"Norma [] threatens to send Nancy back to Guatemala where Nancy was abandoned by her mother . . . . Nancy has disclosed that her maternal great-aunts were verbally abusive to her in Guatemala. Nancy is a Resident of the United States and wants to stay here to complete her education."
Norma refused to meet Magin Borrajo, the social worker assigned to write the jurisdictional report, without her attorney present. At a meeting on April 11, 2002, at legal aid offices, Norma failed to turn over to the department documents which the court had ordered her to provide regarding Nancys immigration status. She claimed her car had been burglarized and the documents stolen. She blamed the social worker and the department for the problems of her family and requested a different social worker be appointed. She continued to focus on her previously stated plan to send Nancy back to Guatemala. A new social worker, Erin Lynch, was assigned to the case, but Norma continued to refuse to work with the department or to accept services.
The report prepared for the jurisdictional hearing related that Norma refused voluntary services and refused to meet with the social worker to discuss alternatives to filing of the petition. She told the social worker that "she knows how to parent her daughter, that she will go to court, that the judge will give her daughter to her, and she will send her daughter back to Guatemala. [Norma] stated that it was the fault of Social Services that her daughter [K]arla [] is a prostitute, and basically no good. . . ." [¶] "Surprisingly, the child is doing extremely well emotionally and academically. She is greatly motivated to get ahead in life and, with her caring foster parents and the protection of the Court, she has a promising future."
At the contested jurisdictional hearing held June 7, 2002, social workers Borrajo and Lynch testified and their reports were admitted into evidence. Borrajo testified that he had met with Nancy who confirmed the factual allegations of the petition and told her that her mother has pulled her hair, hits her, and pushes her and that she is afraid of Norma.
Social worker Lynch testified that Nancy had continued to state that she is afraid of Norma and did not want to visit with her. Lynch had been unsuccessful in persuading Norma to accept services, although Nancy was receiving therapy in foster care. Lynch had attempted to tell Norma about Nancys feelings, but [Norma] doesnt believe me. My understanding of what [she] has said to me is that she thinks the Department is manipulating her daughter and that were making her daughter say these things." "Basically [Norma] has refused to work with the Department. Refused services. Pretty much refused everything."
Norma testified at the jurisdictional hearing. She blamed her daughter, Karla, for the problems she had with Nancy. She admitted striking Nancy on one occasion. She believed Nancys only problem was that Nancy didnt listen to her. She blamed the department, therapist Vargas, the school counselor and Nancys teacher for their interference. She admitted threatening to send Nancy back to Guatemala when she did not listen or obey. She also testified that on a daily basis between March when Nancy arrived in the United States, until May 2000, when she was taken by Karla, Nancy was a disappointment to her. Since then, Norma testified that Nancy was a disappointment to her "[e]very day. Every day and every minute. And she doesnt want to listen to me because her sister was there, and she told her that shes not nothing in your life and you [dont] have to listen to her because she abandoned you in Guatemala."
On redirect by counsel seeking to clarify that Norma understood the question, Norma reiterated that Nancy had been a disappointment to her since returning from North Carolina and that Norma had told her so:
"[Q] . . . Since having Nancy, bringing Nancy home from North Carolina in July of 2000 —
"[A] Yes.
"[Q] — Nancy lived with you since then, right?
"[A] Yes, she did.
"[Q] Has she been a daily disappointment to you?
"[A] Yes, I told her.
"[Q] Every day you tell her that?
"[A] Every time she do I say, "Nancy —
"[A] Every time she disappoint me. But not every day."
The court sustained the section 300, subdivision (c) petition. Although it did not find by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been serious physical harm as defined by the code, it did find that Nancy is at risk of suffering severe emotional damage due to the situation in the home at the present time. "[T]aken in totality, I believe that theres a history, even based on the mothers testimony here, of a struggle thats led to some serious emotional damage."
At a contested dispositional hearing held September 11, 2002, social worker Lynch testified, her reports were admitted and she was made available for cross-examination. Nancys therapist Lourdes Vargas testified as to visitation she had observed between Nancy and Norma. As stated in her report of a visit occurring on May 5, 2002, when Norma first saw Nancy she told her she was getting fat, asked her if she liked foster care and laughed. She continued to make belittling comments to Nancy and at one point accused her of being pregnant and insinuated that she was a prostitute. She also told Nancy that her brothers are sick from Nancys leaving and the injustice of the current CPS situation. Her comments were geared toward making Nancy feel responsible for her brothers feelings and for her current tribulations. She accused Nancy of lying and being disrespectful of her. Refusing suggestions that she keep her tone and comments more positive, Norma continued along these lines and the therapist terminated the visit after five to eight minutes, suggesting Norma try again another time. In her report of a supervised visit on May 9, 2002, Vargas stated that "Normas behavior during the entire visit was blaming and accusing of Nancy. She made statements that were geared to create guilt feelings and instill fear in Nancy. She blamed Nancy for what she is putting her through, she blamed her for causing her brothers pain. She told her that she is respo[n]sible for [] the situation they are in and that she only needs to obey her. She told her not to get counsel from anyone in placement as she only needs to follow the rules at home. She brought up all the things Nancy did in the house that were wrong and accused her of being [a] bad influence on her brothers. She told Nancy that she is going to end up a prostitute like her sister [K]arla and accused her of planning this placement all along with [K]arla. She told Nancy that all along she [Nancy] has been in touch with [K]arla. Eventually, when Nancy broke down and cried, Norma told her not to play the victim." Vargas opined in the report that the visits "are very emotionally damaging to Nancy. For the prior visit she was scared to meet with her mother but complied. This last visit, she tried to be optimistic going into it but ended up upset and crying. I tried to be respectful of Norma and give her an opportunity to change her tone as I sense she is in much pain but she is just unable to be supportive towards her daughter." Vargas suggested less frequent visits and giving Norma time to consider going into therapy. At the disposition hearing, Vargas testified, "What Ive seen is that [Norma] has a real provocative limited parenting approach that elicits a reaction and a defensiveness from Nancy. And also elicits feelings of guilt, shame, blame, and responsibility. And it hasnt changed in the two visits that I supervised." Vargas testified that she believed this interaction was very damaging to Nancy based upon her observation of how Nancy was taking these comments.
Evidence was also presented that Norma had attempted to use her son to smuggle a note to Nancy at school. The school counselor intervened to prevent delivery of the note, as such communication was in violation of the courts order. The note is in the record. It was a litany of blame and criticism, urging Nancy to distrust the department and telling her that she would end up in the street. It also told her that the department would destroy her dreams. It concluded: "Masiel was a foster child and she can tell you what life that is and she was never able to finish High School, you will not be able to be a pediatrician in two years, itll be 4+4+4=12 years or more. Think about it, it is all a lie. Your mother."
Nancy also testified that she did not feel that she was safe with her mother; that "she scares me right now." She testified that Norma "is real violent to me and sometimes starts throwing things at me. And I get really scared. I mean, I really feel uncomfortable. And sometimes I try to kill myself to get out of there because of how my fear is." Nancy testified she would be "okay" with a supervised visit and would like to see her half-brothers. Asked whether if her mother received help in counseling and changed her ways from where they made her feel unsafe, Nancy would want at some point to go home, Nancy responded: "Yes. If she changes. Like I said before, my goal is to have a good relationship with her. But at the moment I see that she hasnt done anything to change. And I still feel like Im in danger there." She also told the court that "Im trying as hard as I can to be successful. Im trying hard in studies in school. Thats been a big step for me. But Im trying as hard as I can. And I would like one day to at least have some relationship with my mom." Norma cross-examined Nancy, asking why she didnt want to come home and maintaining that Nancy had been happy at home. Nancy responded she did not want to go back home and that she hadnt been happy there. "Everybody knows, even my therapist knows that I tried to kill myself so many times and begged her so much before I knew there was some kind of services for me to get out of my house. I begged her [Norma] so much, `Let me go back, and `I dont want to be here. And she denied those things to me. So, I tried to look for help. And I finally found it. I took the step."
At the conclusion of the hearing the court found clear and convincing evidence that Nancy was suffering from severe emotional damage and that removal was necessary to protect her. Reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal. It declared her a dependent under section 300, subdivision (c), with care, custody and control within the department for placement in a suitable foster home. The court ordered regular and frequent visitation at least every two weeks.
This timely appeal was filed on November 1, 2002.
Discussion
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Norma asserts there was insufficient evidence to uphold jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c). We disagree.
A. We apply the substantial evidence standard of review. "The petitioner in a dependency proceeding must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child who is the subject of a petition comes under the juvenile courts jurisdiction. . . . On review, this court will view the juvenile court record in the light most favorable to that courts order. . . . We may not reweigh or express an independent judgment on the evidence, but must decide only whether sufficient evidence supports the findings of the juvenile court. . . . Issues of fact and credibility are matters for the trial court alone; we may decide only " ` "whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion reached by the trier of fact". . ." " (In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 859-860, citations omitted.)" (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.)
Section 300, subdivision (c) states that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged a dependent thereof where: "the minor is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care. . . ."
"`The statute thus sanctions intervention by the dependency system in two situations: (1) when parental action or inaction causes the emotional harm, i.e., when parental fault can be shown; and (2) when the child is suffering serious emotional damage due to no parental fault or neglect, but the parent or parents are unable themselves to provide adequate mental health treatment. [¶] In a situation involving parental "fault," the petitioner must prove three things: (1) the offending parental conduct; (2) causation; and (3) serious emotional harm or the risk thereof, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior. (In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557.)" (In re Shelley J., supra, at p. 339.)
Section 300 contemplates that jurisdiction may be based upon any single subdivision. (In re Shelley J., supra.)
B. Norma argues the department never "made the case" that Nancy had suffered or was at risk for serious emotional damage and that there was no "proof" that any damage was caused by Norma. We disagree.
Evidence was presented that Nancy had confirmed the factual allegations of the petition. While Norma disputed some of the factual allegations regarding physical abuse, she did not deny the belittling statements attributed to her. Indeed, her testimony allowed the court to view for itself Normas attitude toward Nancy and her complete focus on shifting responsibility for Nancys problems to others: Karla, therapists, social workers, and the school.
Social worker Johnson testified that Nancy was "afraid of her mother, afraid of her mothers violence, the belittling, the yelling and screaming, hitting, and hair pulling" and was afraid of her threats to return Nancy to Guatemala. The petition alleged, and Nancy confirmed to social worker Barrajo, that Norma told her that because she is Nancys mother she can kill Nancy any time she wants. Nancy believed this to be true. In terms of the actual harmful effect on Nancy, the petition alleged and Nancy confirmed that she "has exhibited suicidal ideation[]s as a result of the verbal abuse and emotional withholding of her mother . . . . Nancy stated that she has thoughts of killing herself due to the situation she is in."
The barrage of negative emotional messages from Norma to Nancy—that Nancy was stupid, that all the problems of the family were her fault, that she was a daily disappointment to Norma, that she should distrust her therapist and the department, that she would end up a prostitute on the street, and so on—amply support Nancys statement that her mother "tells me stuff that makes me feel like Im worth nothing. I feel really scared of her." These constant negative messages, coupled with Normas apparent inability to see her part in causing Nancy pain and her refusal to work with the department to remedy the situation, strongly evidence that return to Normas custody would present a continuing risk of serious emotional harm to Nancy.
Moreover, although the court did not find true that Nancy was at serious risk of physical harm, the evidence of Normas behavior with regard to Nancy yelling at her, hitting her, pulling her hair, pushing her and so forth—further support the finding that Nancy was at risk of serious emotional harm if returned to her mothers custody.
Nor, as Norma contends, are we talking about "run of the mill flaws in our parenting styles . . . ." (In re Alexander K., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 559.) In re Alexander K., supra, held that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (c), where all the findings focused on the childs behavior and reactions, rather than upon the fathers conduct. The court did not quarrel with the sufficiency of the evidence that the child feared the father and was emotionally disturbed, but concluded that there was no evidence as to why this was so, absent evidence of abusive conduct on the fathers part, the court concluded that the childs resistance to visits, statements that he did not want to see his dad again, and his vomiting and complaining of nausea following visits "cannot support a finding of emotional abuse perpetrated by appellant." (Id. at p. 560, italics in original.)
In re Alexander K., supra, is factually distinguishable, as the facts here clearly support a finding of emotional abuse perpetrated by Norma. That other factors arguably contributed to Nancys emotional distress (e.g., her abandonment by Norma in infancy, her discovery at age eight that her "parents" were not her parents and that Norma was her mother, and her abduction by Karla shortly after arriving in the United States) did not undermine the courts finding Nancy was suffering and was at risk of suffering severe emotional distress as a result of Normas conduct.
Alternatively, it is absolutely clear on this record that Norma is "unable . . . to provide adequate mental health treatment" for Nancy. (In re Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 339, In re Alexander K., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557.)
C. Norma argues that the absence of a mental health evaluation or testimony from "experts" prevent us from finding substantial evidence in support of the finding of jurisdiction. No authority cited by Norma or found by us indicates that such expert testimony is necessarily required for a finding of jurisdiction. Certainly, psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony may be very helpful in making such determination. But the record here amply supports the courts findings.
We note the departments assertion that Norma has waived the lack of a mental health evaluation of Nancy by failing to raise it in the court below or to cross-examine Vargas on the issue. (Cf., In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338-1339 [father waived claim that the juvenile court should have required a bonding study before terminating his parental rights].) Having determined expert testimony was not required, we do not address the waiver issue.
The testimony of the social workers concerning Nancys emotional state and Normas behavior, Nancys confirmation of the allegations of distress, including her suicidal ideation and Normas statements and conduct in causing that distress were adequate evidence, particularly when combined with Normas own testimony and the courts opportunity to observe her attitude and behavior for itself.
Furthermore, the testimony of family therapist Lourdes Vargas, MFT would constitute both expert and percipient witness testimony. Vargas was in the unique position of having treated Nancy in the weeks following her return home from North Carolina and later in the foster home placement having observed visitation between Nancy and Norma. Vargas related to the court the negative comments Norma made to Nancy and opined without objection that she believed through watching Nancy that those comments were "absolutely" very damaging to Nancy. Vargas had opined in the social study, which was admitted into evidence, that "Mother was found to be set in her negative parenting style and unable to understand alternative approaches to parenting."
Comments of Nancys therapist Sandra Leiberman, MFT to the social worker were included in the disposition report to the effect that "Nancy continues to express feelings of fear regarding her mother and that Nancy is afraid of being returned to her mothers care."
Cases relied upon by Norma for the proposition that expert mental health testimony was required do not support that assertion. In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 430 arose in the context of termination of the fathers parental rights. The dissent "dismiss[ed] much of the evidence relied upon by the superior court as insubstantial because it was offered through the testimony of psychologists." (Id. at p. 430. Countering that dismissive attitude toward such evidence, the majority acknowledged that "[w]ithout the testimony of psychologists, in many juvenile dependency and child custody cases superior courts and juvenile courts would have little or no evidence, and would be reduced to arbitrary decisions based upon the emotional responses of the court. It cannot seriously be argued that such evidence should be excluded, or denied substantial weight." (Id. at p. 430.) The courts statement is a far cry from requiring such evidence in every case. Indeed, in In re Jasmon O., supra, the court continued to recount other evidence in support of the determination. That evidence is quite similar to that presented here. "Further, there was other evidence of the fathers incapacity in this case,including testimony of observers who noted the fathers strange inability to relate to the child. . . . Finally, the father himself unwittingly provided evidence in support of the superior courts decision, demonstrating a total lack of understanding of his childs predicament." (Id., italics added.) The same could certainly be said of Norma.
In re Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th 322 and In re Anne P. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 183, 191, which Norma cites as examples of the juvenile courts routinely relying upon expert opinions to support there findings, do not persuade us that either professional psychological assessments or expert testimony are a statutory prerequisites to the assumption of jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c).
Nor may we discount Nancys statements of her feelings (including her suicidal ideation when in her mothers custody) or her attribution of them to Normas behavior. Norma cites In re Brison C. (2001) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, in which the child was the subject of a bitter custody dispute between his parents. The court reversed the juvenile courts finding of jurisdiction under section 300 and remanded to the family law court, holding there was no substantial evidence showing that the boy was seriously emotionally damaged or in danger of becoming so unless jurisdiction was assumed. The boys deep dislike and fear of his father was the sole indication of emotional difficulties in that case and the threat of suicide was conditioned upon Brisons father being awarded custody and the boy had no plans to follow through on the act. In the absence of other indications of severe anxiety or depression, this evidence was insufficient to support a finding he was emotionally disturbed to such a degree that he came within section 300. (Id. at p. 1381.) Importantly, with respect to showing that Brison was at risk of suffering serious emotional damage if jurisdiction was not assumed, the court relied upon the fact that "[b]oth parents have recognized the inappropriateness of their past behavior . . . [and] have expressed a willingness to change their behavior patterns and to attend counseling and parenting classes." (Ibid.)
Such is emphatically not the case here. Although she is doing well in foster care, Nancys continuing fear of her mother, her feelings that she is not "safe" with her mother, her testimony that her mothers statements make her feel "worth nothing" and the therapists observations that Normas comments do harm Nancy and that they are very damaging to her, eliciting feelings of "guilt, shame and blame," suffice to show Nancy has sustained serious emotional distress from Normas conduct. Further, Normas absolute refusal to address the issues causing Nancys distress and her rejection of any suggestion that she might have any responsibility for Nancys condition serve to distinguish this case from In re Brison C., supra, and show that Nancy would be at risk of serious emotional damage in Normas custody.
Nahid H. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1051, overturning the trial courts denial of further reunification services to the mother, is not to the contrary. The appellate court described the record before it as providing "little support" for the position that if the children were returned to the mothers care they would suffer serious emotional damage and characterizing the record as "remarkable for the absence of psychological evaluations or structured therapy involving either the mother or the minors to ascertain and ameliorate the causes of the estrangement between them . . . ." (Id. at p. 1070.) Unlike Nahid H., the record here clearly shows that there is estrangement between Norma and Nancy and that Norma has rejected any intervention to ameliorate the causes of that estrangement. Moreover, the court in Nahid H. did not dismiss the dependency, but ordered the juvenile court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and order the development of a reunification plan. (Id. at p. 1072.)
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the courts finding Nancy is a child described by section 300, subdivision (c) in that she has suffered or is at risk of suffering serious emotional damage as a result of Normas conduct.
We affirm the orders of the juvenile court adjudging Nancy G. a dependent of the court and ordering her placement in foster care.
We concur: Haerle, J. and Ruvolo, J.