From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re S.W.

Court of Appeal of California
Apr 24, 2009
No. H033351 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2009)

Opinion

H033351.

4-24-2009

In re S.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDRENS SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.N., Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published in Official Reports


On June 27, 2008, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, in which it alleged that 16-year-old S.W. (minor) was at risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of her mothers failure or inability to protect her (§ 300, subd. (b)) and that minor was suffering or at risk of suffering serious emotional damage because she had no parent capable of providing appropriate care (id., subd. (c)). The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and adjudged minor a dependent child of the court. M.N. (mother) appeals from the order, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support it. We disagree and affirm.

Hereafter all unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother had voluntarily placed minor in a residential program at the Bill Wilson Center (Wilson), a community care center, in February 2008 due to minors not following rules at home. Minor stayed at Wilson for several weeks and returned home in March 2008, although she continued to participate in Wilson programs. On or about June 7, 2008, minor attended a Wilson youth leadership meeting, returning home at about 10:00 p.m. Mother evidently believed minor had been due home earlier so that when minor returned at 10:00 p.m., mother told her she was "done with" her and reportedly locked her out of the house. Minor appeared at Wilson the following day.

According to the Departments jurisdiction/disposition report dated July 23, 2008, when Wilson personnel contacted mother by telephone, mother insisted that she did not want minor back in her home, refused to come get her daughter, and said she wanted to relinquish her parental rights. Mother was unwilling to "put up with" her disobedience and her habit of stealing. Mother believed minor was depressed, dysfunctional, and incurable. Mother told one Wilson staff member that she was willing to do "whatever it takes" to relinquish her responsibility for minor. Wilson staff reported that mother had a pattern of attempting to relinquish her parental responsibilities.

Minors father did not request placement and was not involved in the dependency proceedings.

Mother and minor had participated in therapy during minors first stay at Wilson but therapy had not been very effective. Many family sessions "dissolved into fault-finding sessions" in which mother "found reasons to blame every problem on [minor]." Mother "seemed quite emotionally abusive to [minor]" and she "seemed unable to stop herself from constantly telling [minor] that whatever she had done was not good enough." In fact, mother spoke "only in negatives" about minor. "There simply was nothing positive the mother could find to say about her daughter." For her part, minor would "begin to shrivel up in her mothers presence." Mother participated in some aftercare therapy sessions but "remained quite rigid in her expectations and in her blame."

This was not mothers first contact with the dependency court. Mother had a history of psychological problems and minor had been a dependent child of the court from 1996 through 2000, due to allegations that mother had physically abused her. Over the years mother had had several psychological assessments, each of which offered a different diagnosis and treatment plan. One examiner described her as a "chronically angry woman who harbors hostile and aggressive impulses" and "has limited internal resources," and "is susceptible to episodes of seriously distorted thinking, aggressive acting out, and severely impaired judgment." Mother refused to accept many of the diagnoses and was wary of using psychotropic drugs. Treatment goals associated with the first dependency involved mothers emotional volatility, angry outbursts that led to physical violence, ability to take responsibility and resolve conflicts, limit and boundary setting, and managing symptoms of depression.

Minor had a history of significant emotional problems, including an intense need for adult attention, an inability to accept limits, and tantrums. In 1997, she was diagnosed as suffering from reactive attachment disorder, anxiety disorder, physical abuse, and parent-child relationship problem. Minor had behavior problems in school. During the 2005-2006 school year, when she was in the eighth grade, minor was repeatedly cited for defiance and other behavior problems and was ultimately expelled following allegations that she had taken a gun to school.

According to Wilson staff, when minor arrived at Wilson in June 2008, she "seemed very overwhelmed and anxious expressing strong feelings of helplessness and hopelessness when faced with general life circumstances. She seemed specially weighed down by moms constant negativity toward her and it seemed to have been affecting her self-esteem, mood and daily functioning at school and home. [Minor] displayed various somatic symptoms, such as headache, tenseness on her back and constant fatigue. [Mother] also reported that [minor] has a restless leg syndrome. [Minor] displayed an extreme desire to maintain control/power in most life situations, such as school, family and peer relationships, which resulted in defiance and non-compliances [sic] with authorities." When one social worker mentioned to minor that mother was willing to participate in parenting classes, minor "sounded as if she had become panic-stricken," and told the worker, "[Y]ou cant send me back there to live. She will absolutely kill me. Shell blow poison into my mouth and kill me." Minor reported that it was "difficult and frightening" to live with her mother because her moods go "up and down." She was worried about being sent home because she did not think she could bear mothers repeatedly telling her that she was tired of raising her and that she did not want her anymore. By July 8, 2008, treatment had resulted in "a slight decrease of her anxiety."

Wilson staff described minor as "committed, resolute, goal-directed, self-effacing, and extraordinarily personable." Departments social worker concurred with that assessment, noting that "[minors] intelligence, humility, determination, ability to ask for help, and to form bonds with those who want to help her, gives her a real foundation upon which to build a new life for herself . . . ."

In an addendum report dated August 28, 2008, the social worker reported that minor had a history of suffering from periods of unexplained paralysis, the last incident having occurred in March 2008. The social worker was of the opinion that minors "problems with headaches, back tension, restless legs, constant fatigue, and periods of seeming paralysis are her bodys way of showing [minor] is, indeed, experiencing profound internal stress." The social worker opined that minor might be suffering from "some form of a conversion reaction" which is a mental health problem, often caused by the childs repression of trauma. Although the symptoms could be the result of emotional problems, the physical symptoms were "very real."

Minors caseworker at Wilson reported that minor was on track to transition into the Bill Wilson Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP). Minor had some behavioral problems that involved breaching the house rules; her caseworker assessed the breaches as "typical behavior for any teenager." The caseworker was concerned that, if the juvenile court did not take jurisdiction, Wilson would be unable to hold her spot in the THPP. The worker was concerned that minor would suffer further detriment if she were unable to continue with the Wilson program.

Mother contested the jurisdictional and dispositional issues and the matter was tried on September 2 and 3, 2008. Minor testified that she was still afraid to go home because she did not feel safe around mother, "knowing that were not on good terms and just our past history." Mother yelled at her and said mean things, such as calling her "stupid" and "fat." Mother would yell about chores, minors room not being clean, or being on the telephone when she was not supposed to be on the telephone. Minor had no desire to return to mothers home; she did not feel that she could accomplish her goals living with her.

Mothers testimony was remarkably consistent with the description of her interactions in therapy with minor. Her testimony about minor was unremittingly negative. Mother explained that she had put minor in therapy when she was two and half years old because mother believed she was "exhibiting behaviors at that time that didnt seem normal for a two-year-old." Mother stated that, "from birth," minor had been "exhibiting other things that may have suggested that she was, you know, depressed." Now, mother said she could not trust minor. Minor did not want to do her chores and would not agree to her punishments. If mother took away her iPod, minor would simply re-take possession of it. Minor would pretend to do her homework when she was really viewing My Space. Mother said, "I just felt like the respect level of whatever I said wasnt there." The "final straw" came when mother found the screen off in minors bedroom window. That is when mother first took minor to Wilson, where minor resided for about a month. Staff at Wilson noted that minors problems did not seem so serious and they thought that mother and minor ought to be able to work through their problems together. But minor did not want to go home. Then in March 2008, minor suffered an episode of paralysis and was taken to the hospital. She returned home shortly thereafter.

Mother described the incident that led to minors returning to Wilson in June 2008 as minors having come home in the evening "and we were getting into verbal conflict that I thought was going to be physical. As a parent, I thought the appropriate thing to do was to have her take some time out as well as me and to go to a neighbors house to avoid any physical confrontation."

When asked if mother was willing to "do services" in order to be a better parent to minor, mother stated, "I dont know how to answer that question." She felt she had already done everything she could. She accused Wilson personnel of being "not as truthful as they could be" and did not believe that Wilson had been a positive experience for minor. She complained that Wilson staff, like minors teachers at school, perceived minor as a different person than the person she was at home. According to mother, minor was untruthful and manipulative.

Mother stated that Wilson was "definitely not a place where I would want my daughter to stay." However, mother was unable to confirm that she would be able to take minor home and meet her needs if she were released to mother. Mother just knew that minor should not live at Wilson. When asked "[a]t what point do [you] think you would be ready for her to come home to you," mother responded with a discussion of how she could be charged with negligence if the girl continued to refuse to follow her rules. Mother did not believe that parenting classes would make her a better parent. She did not think she would benefit from further services but she would not oppose services for minor.

The juvenile court found, "There is no question that [minor] has problems and this Court feels that mother has done her best to try to deal with the issues that [minor] presented. [¶] However, it has not led to a situation where [minor] and mother can exist in a way thats really productive or safe for either of them." The court further found, "We have to somehow bridge the gap that I think adolescence has created here. In this case, I think that gap is sufficiently severe, that the Court does feel that its necessary and appropriate to assume jurisdiction and at least place [minor] in the best place that we can find and that will meet her needs." The court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Departments report, which included the findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that there would be "substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child if the child were returned home," that mother "is unwilling to have physical custody of the minor," and that minor "is suffering severe emotional damage" and "there are no reasonable means by which the childs emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the physical custody" of her mother. The court ordered minor to be placed in a community care facility and ordered mother to participate in parenting classes and individual counseling as well as mother/daughter counseling provided through Wilson.

II. DISCUSSION

A section 300 dependency hearing concerns two issues. The court first determines whether the child falls within one of the categories set forth in section 300. If so, the court may declare the minor a dependent child of the court. (In re Corey A. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 339, 345-346.) At the dispositional hearing, the court decides where the child will live while under its supervision. (Ibid.) Mothers sole argument on appeal relates to the jurisdictional aspect of the proceedings. She maintains that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jurisdictional allegations. Our standard of review is well-settled: "In juvenile cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate court asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible." (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547.)

The Departments petition and the juvenile courts jurisdictional order were based upon section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c) (hereafter subdivision (b) and subdivision (c)). We focus first upon subdivision (c), which states that a child may be adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court if the child "is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at a 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. . . ." Thus, subdivision (c) authorizes intervention by the juvenile court 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 re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557; In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.) The petition alleged, and the juvenile court found, that minors situation was of the second type, namely, that she suffered or was at risk of suffering serious emotional damage and that she had no parent capable of providing appropriate care. The evidence is sufficient to support this conclusion.

Section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c) provide, in pertinent part: "Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶]. . . [¶] (b) 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 or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the childs parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parents or guardians mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.
. . . [¶] (c) The child 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. . . ."

Substantial evidence supports the finding that minor suffered serious emotional harm. Minor was very anxious when she arrived at Wilson in June 2008 and her anxiety had improved only slightly after a month of treatment. She was adamant that she did not want to return home, was fearful of mothers mood swings, and was worn out by mothers repeated rejection of her. Minor suffered a constellation of somatic problems for which no physical source had been identified; the social worker believed that the physical symptoms were manifestations of "profound internal stress." Mother argues that the social workers opinion is mere speculation and insufficient to support a finding that minor suffered serious emotional harm. Mother admits, however, that a physical source for minors symptoms had not been identified. Accordingly, the trial court was entitled to accept the social workers opinion that the physical symptoms could have had an emotional source.

Mother maintains that, even if minor had suffered emotional harm, as of the time of the September 2008 trial, minor seems to have progressed rather well. The question, however, is whether the circumstances that existed at the time of trial still subjected the minor to the risk of harm set forth in the petition. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824.) Mother describes no change of circumstances that would eliminate the risk that minor would suffer serious emotional harm if returned to mothers care. Indeed, if minors emotional status had improved by the time of trial, the improvement occurred during the three months she resided at Wilson, out of mothers custody.

Mother maintains that the juvenile courts findings suggest that the court believed this case involved unexceptional mother/daughter tension and determined to take jurisdiction simply to allow minor to continue in the Wilson program. She further argues that the courts oral decision, which was sympathetic to mothers situation, conflicted with the allegations of the petition. According to mother, a child can only come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a result of a finding that the parents action or inaction was wrongful. Mother insists that the jurisdictional order must be reversed because there is no evidence that mother caused minors emotional problems. But since the petition was based upon the second clause of subdivision (c), the Department did not have to prove mothers fault; it merely had to show that mother was not capable of providing appropriate care. Mother does not address this aspect of the case. Yet there is ample evidence to support the finding that mother was incapable of providing appropriate care for minor. Indeed, mother admitted as much. Mother would not agree to taking minor back into the home, could not say when, if ever, she would be capable of providing appropriate parenting to minor, and insisted that she (mother) would not benefit from further services. Thus, mother was admittedly incapable of providing appropriate care so that the requirements of subdivision (c) were clearly met.

Since there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile courts determination that the minor came within the provisions of subdivision (c), we need not address mothers claim that there was insufficient evidence to find jurisdiction under subdivision (b). Section 300 contemplates that jurisdiction may be based on any single subdivision. (In re Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 330.)

III. DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

Elia, J.

Mihara, J.


Summaries of

In re S.W.

Court of Appeal of California
Apr 24, 2009
No. H033351 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2009)
Case details for

In re S.W.

Case Details

Full title:In re S.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Apr 24, 2009

Citations

No. H033351 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2009)