Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. DP013405 & DP013406, Carolyn Kirkwood, Judge.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Kathleen Murphy Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Minors.
OPINION
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
Antonio G. appeals from an order limiting his right to make educational decisions for his teenage daughters, Tiffany and Maria. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the order, but we disagree and affirm.
Tiffany was born in 1992, a year before Maria. Their mother used drugs and left them when Maria was just three days old. Antonio later married, but in 2003 he separated from his wife and moved here from Florida with his daughters. They stayed with Antonio’s parents, but things were far from tranquil. Antonio often physically and verbally abused his daughters. And when he lost his job in the spring of 2006, the abuse became a near-daily ritual. He also drank regularly, which fueled his violent behavior. Not surprisingly, the girls lived in great fear of their father.
Mother’s whereabouts are currently unknown; she is not a party to these proceedings.
Antonio’s ill behavior was not limited to his home life. He also has convictions for disorderly conduct, drug possession, grand larceny, resisting arrest and fraud.
During this time, the girls were attending middle school. However, in April 2006, Antonio took Tiffany to Florida for nearly a month. Her grades suffered from this and because of “all that [was] going on at [] home with her father.” Eventually, she was expelled for partaking in a school walkout and disrespecting the principal, and Maria was expelled for skipping detention and using foul language. Maria also stabbed a boy with a pencil. Although she was in the appropriate grade for her age, she was three years behind academically. Antonio claimed he talked to school officials about his daughters’ behavior, but he could not remember to whom he spoke.
On May 6, 2006, the minors were detained after Antonio threatened to kill Tiffany. Following a brief stint at Orangewood Children’s Home, the minors were placed with their paternal grandparents. Antonio was not allowed in the home, but he was granted monitored visitation. The reunification plan required him to drug test, undergo counseling, and attend anger management and parenting classes.
The minors completed the school year, but their academic performance was poor. They also engaged in self-injurious behavior, and Maria often got in trouble for acting out. Antonio wasn’t helping matters. He repeatedly violated the visitation schedule and was overbearing and manipulative in terms of interacting with his daughters. Because the grandparents were unable to keep him from coming into their home, the minors were confidentially placed in the foster care system.
That did not improve Maria’s lot. She repeatedly tried to injure herself and was ultimately admitted to College Hospital, where she attempted suicide and was diagnosed with depression. She was then placed in a group home, but that did not work out either. She twice ran away to Antonio, and instead of returning her immediately, he spent several unsupervised hours with her. Due to Maria’s volatile behavior, she was readmitted to College Hospital.
Tiffany adjusted much better to her foster family, enrolling in school and making friends. However, when Antonio visited her in October 2006, he told her she could not go home because he was not following his case plan. He also told her that her mother might be dead. The next day, Tiffany ran away with her boyfriend. She was gone two weeks and did not attend school. Antonio’s response was negative: he threatened to send her to Puerto Rico and to castrate and kill her boyfriend. The threats just caused Tiffany to run away again. When Antonio found her at the boyfriend’s house 10 days later, he broke down the doorframe in a drunken rage. He then forcibly escorted Tiffany to his car and spent several hours with her before taking her to Orangewood.
During this period, Antonio attended counseling, but he was having trouble grasping the concepts discussed there. His parenting and anger management courses were not going well either, and he was not drug testing. Although he submitted two tests in July 2006, he refused to test after that. He also found it difficult to control himself while dealing with others. He verbally abused and threatened the social worker, was hostile and rude to the minors’ caretakers, blamed others for his problems and had difficulty following the court’s orders. He repeatedly tried to influence the girls’ decision about where they wanted to live, and on several occasions he told them he was going to take them to Florida or Puerto Rico. In his view, the case was all a big misunderstanding, and he did not need any help with his daughters.
In January 2007, Tiffany was living with her paternal aunt Janet. One day, Antonio picked her up from school and did not drop her off at Janet’s house until six hours later. Following this unauthorized visit, Tiffany was quiet and withdrawn, and the following day she ran away with her boyfriend. When Antonio found her, he sent her to live with her grandparents in Puerto Rico, where she stayed until March. During this time, Tiffany was extremely depressed and did not attend school.
Maria, meanwhile, continued to struggle, going from one placement to another. She was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and often engaged in violent, self-destructive behavior. When Antonio visited her one day, he used foul language and expressed great frustration over her situation. Although he didn’t say who his target was, he told Maria he was going to kill someone. On the heels of this visit, Maria’s condition deteriorated further. She was so difficult and violent she was returned to College Hospital for the sixth time. The social worker believed part of the reason she had difficulty settling into her placements was that Antonio repeatedly gave her false hope she would be reunified with him. He often told her he was going to take her to Puerto Rico or Florida, and she seemed to believe him. The social worker felt this contributed to Maria’s oppositional behavior.
The court appointed an “education attorney” to represent the minors’ educational interests. She determined it was imperative that Maria receive testing to ascertain whether she had special educational needs and, if so, what those needs would entail. Testing could not take place, however, until Maria was able to maintain a stable placement for 60 days. In addition, Antonio would have to sign various forms and releases before the testing could occur. Antonio’s cooperation in this regard was a concern because during the course of the case, he had not been forthright in providing paperwork the social worker had requested. And he was not cordial or cooperative with the education attorney. When she sent him forms that needed signing, he did not return them in a timely manner. It wasn’t until the court set a hearing on whether to limit his right to make educational decisions for his daughters that Antonio finally got around to signing the forms.
This is not a term of art. An attorney with background in education issues was appointed to represent the minors with regard to issues. We adopt the phrase used below to refer to her.
At the hearing, the social worker testified Antonio had failed to address his daughters’ ongoing academic and behavioral issues, and he also had great difficulty following court orders and cooperating with his service providers. In light of his dismal track record, the social worker was concerned Antonio would not fully appreciate or respond to the emotional and educational needs of his children. The education attorney echoed those concerns.
Minors’ counsel on appeal claims the educational attorney should been designated as a respondent in this proceeding. However, because the educational attorney is not an adverse party, we cannot agree. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 902.)
For his part, Antonio conceded he did not understand Maria’s diagnosis or how her condition could deteriorate so quickly. He also rejected the idea his daughters had special educational needs. He said he just “want[s] to get [his] family away from California.” In response to social services’ claim he was unwilling or unable to recognize the special needs of his children, Antonio protested, “Excuse me—my daughter is pregnant in Puerto Rico. That’s not my fault.” He claimed the reason he was slow in turning around the paperwork the education attorney sent him is because he wanted his attorney to look it over first.
Unmoved by Antonio’s excuses, the court stated it was “deeply troubled by [his] conduct during the course of this case.” Describing Antonio as “aggressive and lacking in self-control,” the court believed his behavior and attitude were “inconsistent with a parent who can adequately address the children’s educational needs.” The court therefore suspended his right to make educational decisions for his daughters and vested that right in his sister Janet.
Antonio contends this ruling is not supported by substantial evidence, but we disagree.
“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.)
A parent’s right to decide how his or her children should be educated is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65; In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1066.) However, that right is not absolute. In dependency proceedings, the court may, to the extent necessary to protect the child, limit a parent’s right to make educational decisions for his or her child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (a).)
Obviously, the educational decisions affecting Maria and Tiffany are going to be complex and involved due to their special needs. Maria, in particular, has shown that she will require intensive assistance to overcome her problems, educational and otherwise. Yet, Antonio has displayed little understanding of those problems and, in fact, he told the social worker he does not believe that Maria has any special educational needs. He points out that prior to dependency proceedings she was attending school at the appropriate grade level for her age. However, at that time she was actually three years behind academically. And once dependency proceedings began, her fragile mental and emotional state deteriorated rapidly. It is clear she was already on the brink by the time she was declared a dependent of the court. Antonio’s inability to recognize this, and to come to terms with her problems, bodes poorly for his ability to make decisions regarding her educational needs.
As the case proceeded and Maria’s problems intensified, it became clear she needed testing to assess her educational needs. However, a condition for such testing was stability in Maria’s personal life. Unless she could remain in a stable placement for 60 days, she could not receive the testing she needed. Unfortunately, Antonio’s erratic behavior and negative influence prevented Maria from achieving this stability. He consistently violated visitation rules, discussed inappropriate issues with her and gave her false hope she would be able to go home with him. This hindered Maria’s ability to settle down in any one placement for any significant amount of time. In short, instead of being a positive force in Maria’s life, Antonio has contributed to many of her problems and has been an obstacle to her recovery.
Tiffany does not have the emotional and behavioral problems that plague her sister. Even so, Antonio’s actions have been detrimental to her. On the eve of dependency, he took her out of school for a month. And after she was expelled, he threatened to kill her. Although she managed to settle into her placements initially, Antonio caused her to run away time and again. His actions were a tremendous hindrance to her stability and well-being, particularly when he sent her to Puerto Rico in early 2007. Tiffany was severely distraught and did not attend school during her two-month stay there.
Of course, Antonio also has problems of his own, but during the course of this case he has demonstrated neither the ability nor the desire to overcome them: He drug tested for a brief spell, but then gave it up; he attended counseling, but struggled with abstract concepts; he went to anger management classes, but was kicked out for being disruptive; and he took some parenting classes, but was dropped for poor attendance. To make matters worse, he has steadfastly refused to take any responsibility for his children’s problems. His modus operandi has been to blame others or “the system” for the family’s situation, and his defiant attitude and confrontational nature have been in full display throughout the case. He has been hostile and combative toward just about everyone who was involved in the reunification plan, including the attorney who was specially appointed to look out for the minors’ educational interests. His actions and attitude have not been those of a parent who is capable of making educational decisions for his children. And as the trial court recognized, “past behavior can be a pretty good indicator of future behavior.”
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the court’s ruling — as we are required to do — we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the decision to limit Antonio’s right to make educational decisions for his daughters. Accordingly, we reject Antonio’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J., ARONSON, J.