Opinion
B331654
04-29-2024
In re M.G.Z. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.Z.C., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 23CCJP01795, Nancy A. Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WEINGART, J.
M.Z.C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's assertion of jurisdiction over her children M.G.Z. (born 2008), Cesar G.Z. (born 2011), and Chelsea G.Z. (born 2014). At the jurisdiction hearing, the court sustained a count in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging Mother's mental health challenges rendered her unable to provide regular care and supervision of the children. We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction and affirm.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We limit our summary of the factual and procedural background to what is necessary to adjudicate this appeal.
A. Mother's March 25, 2023 Suicide Attempt
Mother and the children live with paternal grandparents in Los Angeles County. The children's father, Jose G.U. (Father), lives in another county and is no longer in contact with the children or providing for their welfare; he is not a party to this appeal.
Mother struggles among other issues with depression. On March 25, 2023, while at the family home, Mother wanted to kill herself with a knife. Mother told the children that she was going to hurt herself with a knife and that she would hurt the children if they called the police. A neighbor heard screaming and called police, who responded and placed Mother on an involuntary hospital hold pursuant to section 5150. While Mother was hospitalized, the children stayed at home with paternal grandparents.
Mother later told an investigator from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that she had a panic attack on March 25, 2023, because she was afraid strangers were going to assault her and M.G.Z. Mother did not recall threatening to harm herself or the children with a knife. Mother later denied using the knife in connection with a suicide plan or that the children had to take the knife from her, and claimed she was cooking.
In connection with her involuntary hospitalization, Mother was prescribed multiple medications to treat anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. Although Mother initially told the investigator she was regularly taking these medications, she later stated that she stopped because the medications made her mouth swell. Mother also told the investigator that Mother had not seen a psychiatrist or a therapist in the six weeks following her release from the hospital.
M.G.Z. initially denied a knife was involved; she later stated that Mother had said she wanted to kill herself while trying to grab a knife from the kitchen table. Before Mother began screaming and threatened to commit suicide, she was under the delusion that paternal grandfather was dead. M.G.Z. and Cesar both said Mother was screaming while having a seizure, Mother went to grab the knife off the kitchen table and that they had to restrain her, and that M.G.Z. asked a neighbor who had heard the screams to call the police. Cesar said Mother was trying to use a knife to hurt herself and he and M.G.Z. kept Mother away from the knife while Chelsea tried to grab it.
M.G.Z. believed Mother had been depressed since separating from Father four or five years earlier, and said that this was the first time Mother's mental health issues had escalated. M.G.Z. also said she did not believe Mother was taking her prescribed medications because Mother had told the child that the medication made Mother feel lazy.
When initially asked about the March 25th incident, Chelsea started to cry and refused to talk. Chelsea later said she saw M.G.Z. and Cesar stop Mother from grabbing a knife and then try to calm Mother down; while they were doing so, Chelsea quickly grabbed the knife and threw it behind a counter so Mother could not reach it.
All three children said they were not afraid of Mother, but feared Mother would again attempt to hurt herself if she suffered another panic attack.
B. DCFS Files a Section 300 Petition
On May 26, 2023, DCFS filed a petition under section 300. Count b-1 of the petition alleged Mother had "mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of [a]nxiety and depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, and paranoid behavior, which renders [her] unable to provide regular care and supervision of the children." More specifically, count b-1 alleged that on March 25, 2023, Mother "was involuntarily hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of [Mother]'s psychiatric condition" and "attempted to commit suicide with a knife in the presence of the children. The children intervened by restraining [Mother] and keeping the knife away from [her. Mother] failed to obtain recommended mental health treatment" and "failed to take . . . psychotropic medication as prescribed."
The petition also alleged three other counts (counts b-2, c-1, and j-1) that the juvenile court later dismissed.
C. Post-petition Events
In early July 2023, Mother confirmed to DCFS that she continued not to take her prescribed medication due to side effects. Mother also still had not seen a therapist.
A hospital social worker stated Mother was able only to use county services for mental health issues, and record evidence indicates that available programs had waiting lists. Mother later provided a DCFS social worker with contact information for a woman who Mother claimed was her therapist. However, this woman told DCFS that she was not a therapist; rather, she was part of a hospital preventive program and had worked with Mother on two occasions.
In July 2023, Mother told DCFS she continued to have hallucinations. DCFS thereafter learned that Mother had recently been hospitalized after exhibiting paranoid behavior and suffering a panic attack. Mother believed people were following her and told family members that she wanted to move to Mexico with the children. The following day, Mother told family members that she felt worse; paternal grandfather then took Mother to a hospital for treatment. While Mother was hospitalized, paternal grandparents cared for the children.
D. Adjudication/Disposition Hearing
On August 4, 2023, the juvenile court held an adjudication hearing to address its jurisdiction over the children. The court found DCFS had proven count b-1 by a preponderance of the evidence and assumed jurisdiction over the children pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). In so ruling, the court highlighted evidence that "[a]ll of the children had consistent statements about [Mother's] mental health breakdown on March 25th," that "they all played a role in intervening and prevent[ing] her from harming herself," and that "they all fear that she will have another mental health episode where she will actually harm herself."
As to disposition, the court ordered the children to remain placed in parental custody, with Mother to have "primary custody" on the condition that she and the children live with paternal grandparents. The court granted family maintenance services and continued its jurisdiction over the children.
Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
"' "We review the [dependency court's] jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. [Citation.] We consider the entire record, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court's findings and affirming the order even if other evidence supports a different finding. [Citation.] We do not consider the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence." [Citation.] "The parent has the burden on appeal of showing there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order."' [Citation.]" (In re M.D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 836, 851.) B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court's
Assertion of Jurisdiction
As relevant here, section 300, subdivision (b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction whenever a child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent's failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child and/or the parent's inability to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's mental illness. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A) &(D).) "The existence of a mental illness is not itself a justification for exercising dependency jurisdiction over a child." (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 563.) Rather, substantial evidence must demonstrate "how the minors have been or will be harmed and harm may not be presumed from the mere fact of mental illness of a parent." (In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1318.)
The appellate record discloses substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings that Mother's mental and emotional problems placed the children at substantial risk within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Mother suffered from anxiety, depression, and paranoid behavior, and was not taking her prescribed medications. On March 25, 2023, Mother threatened to commit suicide with a knife after having a paranoid delusion, and told the children she would harm them if they called the police. This forced M.G.Z. and Cesar to intervene by restraining Mother, while Chelsea grabbed the knife to get it away from Mother. The children feared that Mother would again attempt to hurt herself in a future panic attack.
Mother concedes the March 25, 2023 incident was serious and posed a risk of harm to the children, but contends there was no evidence the children were still at risk by the time of the jurisdiction hearing. We disagree that the risk of substantial harm was no longer present. The children feared Mother would suffer another breakdown, and with good reason. In the four months after the March 25, 2023 incident, Mother continued to feel overwhelmed, failed to take her prescribed medications, had not seen a therapist, had hallucinations, and had another panic attack in July 2023 after experiencing paranoia that resulted in another hospitalization. Given what occurred on March 25, 2023, and Mother's failure to take adequate steps to prevent a future similar incident, there was a substantial on-going risk Mother would have another mental health crisis that posed substantial risk to the children's physical and emotional well-being. A dependency court" 'need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.' [Citation.]" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
Mother's attempt to analogize the facts of her case to those of In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129 and In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044 fails. In re James R. found insufficient evidence that a mother's mental health issues placed her children at risk of harm based on her lack of suicidal ideation and a lack of evidence that she was a danger to herself or others, and uncontradicted evidence that the father was strongly bonded to the children and was able to protect them from the mother if the need arose. (In re James R., supra, at pp. 136-137.) Here, in contrast, the juvenile court had evidence that Mother's mental and emotional problems, including her suicidal ideation, had placed the children at risk of harm. Father was not present or willing to protect the children.
While paternal grandparents lived in the home with Mother and the children, the fact the children themselves had to intervene on March 25, 2023 to disarm Mother demonstrates that residing in paternal grandparents' home was insufficient to protect the children. Although paternal grandparents offered to keep the children away from Mother if she had another episode and attempted to rearrange their schedules to make sure someone was always home with the children, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude this was insufficient to eliminate the substantial risk Mother continued to pose to the children. When "evaluating whether . . . an ongoing risk of serious harm exists," courts should consider things such as "the nature of the past conduct and 'the present circumstances, which might include, among other things, evidence of the parent's current understanding of and attitude toward the past conduct that endangered a child, or participation in educational programs, or other steps taken, by the parent to address the problematic conduct in the interim ....' [Citation.]" (In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.) Here, the past conduct was serious, Mother minimized and denied her actions on March 25, 2023, and Mother had done very little to address her continuing mental health challenges following the March 25th incident.
In re A.L. held that DCFS failed to establish a causal link between a mother's mental illness and potential risk to her children where the only incident of violence occurred when the mother threw objects during a manic episode when she had stopped taking her medication, the mother had since resumed taking her medication, and the father and children (who were 15 and 11 years old, respectively) had demonstrated an awareness of how to deal with mother's mental health issues. (In re A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1046-1051.) Here, in contrast, Mother was not taking her medication, the suicidal incident with the knife in front of the children was more severe and dangerous than one parent throwing objects, the children feared Mother would again attempt to harm herself, and Cesar and Chelsea were not yet teenagers. As such, the juvenile court did not reversibly err in finding a nexus between Mother's mental illness and the children being at substantial risk of suffering harm.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdiction order is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, P. J. BENDIX, J.