Opinion
B307564
06-29-2021
In re P.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. B.P. et al., Appellants.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant S.P. Serobian Law, Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant B.P. Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, and Jenna Morton, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County No. 20JD-00082 of San Luis Obispo Charles S. Crandall, Judge
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant S.P.
Serobian Law, Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant B.P.
Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, and Jenna Morton, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
PERREN, J.
S.P. (mother) and B.P. (father) (collectively “parents”) appeal the juvenile court's order removing their son P.P. from the family home. They contend substantial evidence does not support the removal order and that, at a minimum, P.P. should have been placed with mother in his maternal grandparents' home.
Mother filed an opening brief in which father joined. Father did not file a reply brief.
This case represents the 22nd referral to Child Welfare Services (CWS) since 2012. Sixteen of those referrals involved father's substance abuse, history of domestic violence and physical abuse of P.P. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that returning P.P. home would put him at risk of harm and ordered that he be placed with his maternal grandparents. The court emphasized the “serious issues with both parents' behavior in terms of making sure that [P.P.] is safe.” We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2020, CWS received a report from a mandated reporter alleging that parents had been attending school meetings while under the influence of drugs. The reporter also believed that P.P.'s sister, 15-year-old H.P., had been using drugs.
After an unsuccessful attempt to reach mother by phone, a social worker made an unannounced home visit on May 11, 2020. Only mother and nine-year-old P.P. were present. Mother said she did not call the social worker back because she distrusted CWS and believed contact with social workers traumatized her children. Mother allowed the social worker to see P.P. but would not allow her to interview him without a warrant. P.P. appeared happy and in good health.
The social worker spoke to the reporting party about the referral. The reporting party noted that H.P. had changed noticeably since enrolling in school. She now had homemade tattoos and was failing her classes. Earlier in the year, H.P. admitted she had been under the influence of alcohol, cocaine and possibly marijuana in her home. When confronted, mother denied this.
H.P.'s home instructor asked to be taken off her case due to feeling unsafe in the home. The instructor reported that H.P. and her parents appeared to be under the influence and that father exhibited threatening behavior.
Two deputy sheriffs executed a protective custody warrant for H.P., who had been missing. Mother tried to prevent them from entering the home and was uncooperative and resistant even after seeing the warrant. After mother was handcuffed, P.P. started swearing at the deputies. Mother told him to film the interaction on her phone, which he did.
Much of the home was unkempt, cluttered and odorous, but not hazardous, including the room where mother and P.P. slept. The room where H.P. kept her things contained a pack of cigarettes. Mother said H.P. smokes marijuana and cigarettes and takes antidepressants. Mother indicated that father, H.P. and H.P.'s boyfriend slept in the master bedroom.
The master bathroom contained a pipe believed to be used for marijuana or methamphetamine. A further search revealed empty syringes, syringes with dark liquid believed to be heroin, spoons, burnt foil indicative of smoking crushed medication, medication for an unknown person, and more pipes believed to be used for smoking methamphetamine and marijuana. P.P. said father “is making [those pipes] for [H.P.] and her friends.” Mother acknowledged that P.P. goes into the master bedroom and bathroom but said “if he does go in there, he's watching Youtube.”
According to mother, marijuana was the only drug used in the home. The social worker expressed concern about the drug paraphernalia, father's extensive criminal history and recent reports he was using drugs. Mother said father moved back into the home about a year ago. She had previously left him because he was using drugs. Mother denied using drugs herself.
P.P. admitted father threatened him and could be physically abusive when he was mad, but said he felt relatively safe at home. P.P. said that when father is angry, however, he would feel safer wearing his football armor because “he's a strong guy.” When asked about P.P.'s statements, mother denied that any physical violence occurred in the home but admitted that when father “gets mad, he yells very loud” and “blows up.”
The social worker and deputies agreed the children should be placed in protective custody. When P.P. was informed of that decision, he became aggressive, started swearing and picked up a baseball bat in an apparent attempt to use it as a weapon. Mother calmed him down and after P.P. left, she was arrested for child endangerment.
The social worker contacted the maternal grandparents, who were willing to take P.P. but not H.P. They said H.P. had been “a major problem the last two years” due to her clinical depression. The grandparents were cleared for placement of P.P., who was brought to their home.
The social worker spoke with P.P.'s adult brother Antoni, who said that he would not be surprised if H.P. was using drugs, and that he had heard she was experimenting with cocaine. Antoni agreed that father angers easily and “will rant for hours.” He also reported that mother is afraid of father, and that she worries father will lash out at her if she says anything negative about him to CWS. Although Antoni denied witnessing physical violence, he said father yells intensely, makes threats and leans over you, getting in your face and taking a “power position” when he is mad.
The social worker offered assistance to mother if she was afraid of father, but mother distrusted CWS and was uninterested in help. Mother later said she was afraid to call 911 when father was present, but then recanted, telling the social worker she was advised not to speak with CWS further and that she would only agree to drug test at a private lab. The social worker assumed mother had been influenced by father.
At the time of the July 1, 2020 disposition report, neither parent had engaged in any of the services listed in the preliminary case plan and neither one seemed to understand why CWS was concerned about the drugs and paraphernalia found in the home. The maternal grandparents reported that P.P. was doing well and was welcome to continue staying with them. They were willing to have mother over for in-person visits when allowed.
By August 5, 2020, H.P. was still missing and father had not made any contact with CWS. Although P.P. expressed a desire to return home to mother, CWS was concerned about mother's refusal to cooperate with CWS, refusal to drug test with an approved facility, denial about the obvious drug use in her home, failure to keep boundaries with father, failure make any efforts to locate H.P. and the continued state of the family home.
The juvenile court held a joint jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. In taking jurisdiction of P.P., the court cited father's mental instability and lack of accountability as demonstrated in court hearings. It also observed that mother had aligned with father, raising concerns that she would not protect P.P. from father.
These same concerns prompted the removal order. The court noted that both parents expressed fear and distrust of CWS and law enforcement “bordering on paranoia.” The court observed that mother “is very protective” of father and that this co-dependent relationship raises “serious issues... in terms of making sure [P.P.] is safe.”
DISCUSSION
Removal is proper if the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here 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... physical custody.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have suffered actual harm before removal is appropriate. (In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135-136.) The statute's purpose is to avert harm to the child. (Id. at p. 136.)
We review the juvenile court's dispositional findings for substantial evidence. (In re T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 136; In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 155 (V.L.) We “‘view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party... and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.' [Citation.]” (V.L., at p. 155.) The testimony of a single witness, even an interested party, is sufficient to support the trier of fact's findings. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)
Consistent with the holding in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, when the “statute requires a fact to be found by clear and convincing evidence, and... there is a substantial evidence challenge, the reviewing court must determine whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the existence of that fact to be highly probable.” (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 149.)
Mother claims substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's order removing P.P. from her home. She contends the record fails to support the finding that a substantial danger to P.P.'s welfare would exist if he is not removed from her custody. She also asserts that a reasonable alternative to removal would have been to place P.P. with her in her parents' home. We are not persuaded by either argument.
The social worker, Matt Thompson, testified that it was his opinion that P.P. would be at a substantial risk of harm if returned to the family home and that there was no reasonable alternative means to protect P.P., including allowing mother to live with P.P. and her parents. His opinion was based on mother's inability to protect P.P. from the substance abuse occurring in the home, to maintain boundaries with father and to cooperate with CWS. Thompson emphasized mother's obstruction of CWS's contact with P.P. and her pressuring him to withhold information from CWS. Counsel for both minors agreed with Thompson.
Father's testimony corroborated Thompson's testimony. Father admitted he would only follow the social worker's guidelines if he agreed with them, refused to say where he was living, declined to commit to his case plan, refused to agree to drug testing, denied his drug use and admitted he had seen H.P. despite the outstanding protective custody warrant.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that without P.P.'s removal from the home and mother's care, the risk of harm to him would be highly probable. (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 149.) Parents' lack of cooperation with CWS and lack of insight into the risk of harm caused by their conduct justified the removal. (See, e.g., In re Maria (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 71 [parent's refusal to cooperate with child welfare agency and denial that children were at risk of harm supported removal], disapproved on another ground in In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 780-781.)
We may not second guess an order that is supported by substantial evidence. (In re V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 156.) This includes the juvenile court's decision to deny mother's request to live with P.P. in her parents' home.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P. J., YEGAN, J.