Opinion
B298229
05-01-2020
In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ASHLEY S., Defendant and Appellant.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. Los Angeles County (Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP02108A) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court found that appellant Ashley S. (Mother) is unable to care for her infant A.S., who is at risk of serious harm due to Mother's mental illness and drug use. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) On appeal, Mother challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and (2) the disposition order removing A.S. from her custody, requiring monitored visits, and directing her to attend counseling, be tested for drug use, and take prescribed psychotropic medications.
Unlabeled statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings and the disposition order is within the scope of the court's broad discretion. Mother could not cope with a newborn and was hospitalized under section 5150. Her history of mental illness, coupled with the absence of family support and use of a drug that interferes with prescribed medications, convinced the court that A.S. needs special protection until Mother can provide the care a baby requires. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother gave birth to A.S. in January 2019. Two months later, Mother was hospitalized under section 5150 with postpartum depression. Unable to cope with A.S.'s crying, she "was screaming at the child to 'shut up' and observed [A.S.] stiffen up in fear." Mother did not want to harm A.S. and "called for help before things 'escalated.' " In the emergency room, Mother yelled obscenities at a social worker from respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), who arrived to take A.S. into protective custody while Mother was hospitalized.
Mother has a history of mental illness and made a suicide attempt. She lacks a support system. She is estranged from her parents and A.S.'s father. She smokes marijuana to calm herself. Mother took A.S. to the hospital a month after birth; the baby was dehydrated and so underweight that her ribs were showing.
Mother told hospital staff she "had thoughts of hurting the baby" but did not act on them. She was released with a prescription for an antidepressant medication. She began calling DCFS repeatedly, demanding A.S. The baby was returned to Mother one day later.
Mother told the social worker she was filled with anxiety and had yelled at A.S., who would not stop crying despite being fed, rediapered, and given attention. Since A.S.'s birth, Mother sought but was denied assistance from mental health agencies that could help her gain control over her emotions. Before police arrived to take her to the hospital, Mother was on the phone with psychiatric emergency services for over seven hours.
After A.S. returned to her care, Mother called DCFS incessantly to threaten any social worker who might come to her home to assess A.S.'s welfare. Concerned for Mother's mental health, DCFS obtained a removal order for A.S. from the trial court. Mother cursed and threatened the social worker who carried out the removal order. DCFS categorized A.S. as being at "high risk" for abuse.
DCFS filed a petition alleging that A.S. is at risk of serious harm because Mother is unable to provide regular care or protect or supervise A.S. owing to mental illness, postpartum depression. and current use of marijuana. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Mother denied the allegations.
The court found a prima facie case for detaining A.S. It stated that Mother's mental state prompted the hospital to place her on an involuntary hold because she presented a danger to herself or others, and she has started medication for a "type of problem [that] just doesn't go away after several days[.]" Until Mother is fully diagnosed and treated, she poses a substantial threat to A.S.'s physical and emotional health. The court authorized monitored visits at the DCFS office because Mother made threats against A.S.'s caregivers.
In April 2019, DCFS reported that Mother did not understand why she was hospitalized under section 5150. She yelled at A.S. because she felt overwhelmed and needs parenting help. At age 12, she was clinically depressed from being bullied and attempted suicide. She said, "I do not have any family member or friend for support."
Mother feels better since starting three prescribed medications and is "ready for my baby [to] come home in my care." She is in a program designed to promote parenting skills, emotional bonding, parent-child activities, and healthy development. She recently tested positive for marijuana. She described A.S.'s father as someone with serious mental health issues. He was upset to learn she was pregnant and has made no effort to see A.S. or provide care or financial support. The maternal grandmother is unwilling to care for A.S. and did not return a phone call from DCFS.
Mother visits A.S. three times per week for two hours at the DCFS office. She is excited to see the baby and is loving, caring, and nurturing. However, she becomes "really tense and nervous" when A.S. cries and "does not know how to deal with it or why [the] baby is crying." Mother feels "safe and supported by having [DCFS] staff in [the] room with her" during visits. She is sad when visits end and frustrated that A.S. is bonding with the caregiver, who brings all A.S.'s necessities to the visits. Mother does not bring anything for the baby.
Mother seems motivated to participate in counseling and parenting programs. Nevertheless, DCFS opined that it is not safe to return A.S. to Mother's care due to her past and current mental illness and lack of a support system. Mother appears agitated and is stressed if the baby cries. DCFS recommended that Mother improve her parenting skills and mental state before reunifying with A.S., who requires close supervision and great care in infancy. DCFS was unable to locate A.S.'s father.
The court ordered drug testing for Mother and a report describing her progress in the parenting program. A month later, DCFS reported that Mother tested positive for marijuana on April 30, May 10, and May 15. She did not disclose her marijuana use to her psychiatrist, who "highly does NOT recommend for mother to mix her current psychotropic medications with marijuana since that will prevent her having effective outcome from her medications to address her current mental health needs." She "continues to panic when [A.S.] starts crying during the visit." Mother found her housemate intoxicated and passed out in the living room; he is cruel to her.
The parenting program wrote that Mother eagerly attends appointments. She has made "some progress" in learning about healthy parenting methods, bonding, attachment, and infant development. She fears losing her housing. She brought a stroller containing cat feces to a visit with A.S.
The maternal grandfather (MGF) came to visit Mother from out of state. Mother said she has seen MGF only twice in her life since age two, when her parents divorced. MGF and his wife are willing to advise Mother on the telephone but cannot take custody of A.S. He found cat feces all around Mother's home and asked DCFS to assess whether the home is safe for a baby. He voiced concern about Mother's history of substance abuse.
The court sustained the petition on May 23, 2019. It stated that the "evidence shows there is a mental health problem and it doesn't simply go away, it takes time to address. And what is clear to me is that there is not enough evidence showing that the problem has fully gone away." Though Mother is not currently at risk of harming herself or A.S., the court needs to see her progress in counseling. She still panics when A.S. cries. She did not tell her psychiatrist about her marijuana use and is being deprived of the full benefit of her prescribed medication. The court found that the unsanitary condition of Mother's home "reflects a problem with [her] mental health" and is unsafe for a vulnerable child.
Moving to disposition, the court declared A.S. a dependent and removed her from parental custody. It ordered Mother to participate in random drug testing; if any test is missed or positive, she must complete a substance abuse program. She must participate in a parenting program, attend psychological counseling, and take all prescribed medications. Visits with A.S. must be monitored.
DISCUSSION
1. Jurisdictional Findings
Mother contends that her mental health issues and marijuana use do not justify the sustained jurisdictional findings. We review to see if substantial evidence supports the order and " ' "draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court." ' " (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
We start with the precept that courts give special protection to "a child 'of such tender years that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an inherent risk to [his or her] physical health and safety.' " (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216.) Infants like A.S. are especially vulnerable and require special protection.
Sustained findings require "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 by the inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness . . . or substance abuse." (§ 300, subd. (b).) The primary concern is the child's best interests. The court need not wait to intervene until the child is actually harmed. (In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 996, 1003.)
The record supports the court's finding that Mother's use of marijuana endangers A.S.'s health and safety. When an infant is involved, "the finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm." (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 767.) Although "mere usage" of marijuana "without more" may not support dependency jurisdiction (id. at p. 764), in this case there is more on which to base a jurisdictional finding. A psychiatrist stated that marijuana interacts with Mother's psychotropic medications and "prevent[s] her having [an] effective outcome from her medications to address her current mental health needs." Four successive drug tests showed that Mother uses marijuana but did not disclose it to her psychiatrist, who would have counseled her about its deleterious effects on her medical treatment.
The record supports the court's finding that Mother's mental illness affects her ability to parent and places A.S. at risk of serious physical harm or illness. Mother has experienced serious depression. She attempted suicide at age 12 and had postpartum depression warranting hospitalization under section 5150 because she was a danger to herself or A.S. Mother sought help because she recognized that screaming "shut up" traumatized A.S. Mother did not want things to "escalate" and told hospital staff she "had thoughts of hurting the baby."
When A.S. was briefly returned to her care, Mother called DCFS repeatedly to threaten anyone who might come to her home to check on A.S. She cursed and threatened the social worker who carried out the court's removal order. The court reasonably found that "the nature and extent of Mother's reaction early on in the case reflects [her] mental health problems" and was not "normal." Mother expended great effort being angry at DCFS instead of focusing on A.S.'s comfort and well-being.
The evidence shows that Mother continued to panic when A.S. cried, despite a month of parenting lessons and assistance from DCFS staff during visits. If Mother becomes panicked during assisted two-hour visits, A.S. cannot safely live with Mother. Moreover, Mother's home is unsanitary, she visited A.S. with a stroller containing cat feces, and her housemate abuses alcohol.
A.S. requires constant care and protection. She is incapable of seeking help from others while in infancy. The court did not presume harm to A.S. from the mere fact of Mother's mental illness or drug use. (In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1050; In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 453.) Instead, it had reliable evidence that Mother's drug use affects her recovery from mental illness, and she is still unable to cope with an infant's behavior. The record supports the court's conclusion that Mother's mental health or drug use cause her to act in ways that jeopardize A.S.'s safety and pose a substantial risk of harm. (In re Travis C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226-1227.)
2. Disposition Order
The juvenile court has broad discretion to make an appropriate disposition order to protect a child under its jurisdiction. (§ 358; In re Brianna V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311; In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.) The order must be reasonable and designed to eliminate the conditions that led to the sustained petition. (§ 362; In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1229.) We must uphold the disposition unless the court exceeded the bounds of reason. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319; In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 851.)
The court perceived a substantial danger if A.S. is returned to Mother's care and no reasonable means are available to protect her physical and emotional health and well-being without removal from parental custody. The evidence supports the court's determination. Mother admittedly shouted at and terrified A.S. because Mother felt overwhelmed.
The record shows that Mother is still overwhelmed. She panics when A.S. cries despite weeks of help from DCFS staff and a parenting instructor. She lacks a support system of family or friends to help care for A.S. Given A.S.'s tender age, it was not unreasonable to remove her from parental custody and require monitored visitation until the court is sure that Mother progresses in her treatment and can safely minister to A.S.'s needs.
The court can order services that "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program." (§ 362, subds. (c), (d).) A service plan formulated to correct parental deficiencies and create a suitable home—including drug testing, treatment, or counseling to address anger issues—is not an abuse of discretion. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1005-1008.)
Contrary to Mother's argument, the court's case plan is not "ludicrous, punitive, and detrimental to the family" nor has she shown "successful parenting of the minor." Mother self-medicates with marijuana, without the knowledge or approval of her doctor. This impedes her recovery because marijuana interferes with her prescribed psychotropic medications. Mother lacks insight into her involuntary hospitalization, though hospital records indicate that she "had thoughts of hurting the baby"; she was unable to control her anger, shouted at the infant, and feared things would escalate. She cannot successfully parent A.S. if she panics when the baby cries. For these reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering drug testing to reveal whether Mother is continuing to use marijuana; mental health counseling to address Mother's frustration and anger; and hands-on mentoring to learn parenting skills. The court's orders were necessary, appropriate, and designed to address the problems leading to dependency jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
LUI, P. J. We concur:
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
HOFFSTADT, J.