Opinion
B308364
05-17-2021
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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) Jean M. Nelson, Judge THE COURT:
Ashley S. is the mother of A.S., born in 2019. This is Mother's third appeal since the court sustained a dependency petition in May 2019. The court found that A.S. faces a substantial risk of harm due to Mother's failure or inability to adequately supervise, protect or provide regular care for the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We affirmed the court's jurisdiction and disposition orders in In re A.S. (May 1, 2020, B298229) [nonpub. opn.]. Two months after A.S. was born, Mother was involuntarily hospitalized under section 5150. She screamed at her terrified newborn to "shut up," "had thoughts of hurting the baby," and was unable to cope. The court found evidence of "a mental health problem" exacerbated by Mother's marijuana use, which interferes with her prescribed medications. The court removed A.S. from Mother and ordered monitored visits, drug tests, counseling, and use of prescribed psychotropic medications. (In re A.S., supra, B298229.)
At the six-month hearing, the court did not return A.S. to Mother's custody because conditions leading to A.S.'s removal were not eliminated. She required coaching to feed and soothe A.S., and her home was too unsanitary for an infant. We upheld the order giving Mother a mix of monitored and unmonitored visits to protect A.S.'s safety and well-being. (In re A.S. (Oct. 30, 2020, B304450) [nonpub. opn.].)
Mother is currently appealing the order made at the 12-month review hearing. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.) Mother submitted a supplemental brief.
The record shows that respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) directed Mother to resume drug testing in February 2020. DCFS had a reasonable suspicion Mother was using drugs. She failed to appear for testing.
Undesignated dates refer to the year 2020.
Mother visited consistently. On February 28, she stuffed A.S.'s diapers with paper towels after forgetting to bring diapers and refusing the ones provided by A.S.'s caregivers. Visits generally went well though Mother sometimes forgets baby wipes, diapers, and food, despite her coach's suggestion to make a checklist. She brings snacks, not "actual food." The two seem bonded but Mother has trouble when A.S. becomes fussy. Mother says odd things, such as "your grandfather is basically dead to us," which the child does not understand.
Mother's home had piles of cat litter and "stuff." She was advised that no visits could take place there until it was clean and free of safety hazards. Mother did not follow up by cleaning and seeking a reassessment. DCFS was concerned that Mother's mental issues hinder her ability to think objectively.
In June, DCFS reported that Mother did not consent to special services recommended by A.S.'s doctor in 2019. Mother explained that she did not want A.S.'s caregivers to participate in the child's speech and development services. Mother was unemployed and cited the DCFS case as the reason for not seeking a job. She complied with court orders by participating in counseling, parenting classes and mental health services. She seemed to be taking prescribed medications.
Mother's coached visits with A.S. went well. They expressed warm, positive feelings, and were emotionally connected; Mother focused on A.S., guided her activities, and was calm and loving when visits end. She arrives with toys and snacks, used new coping skills, and was able to redirect A.S. when the child was upset. During Mother's visits without a coach, she "has been observed to have difficulty with the child." A.S. and Mother both became ill in March and were unable to visit. That month, in-person visits were suspended and Mother's visits with A.S. went online during the coronavirus pandemic.
Mother continued to ignore DCFS's demand for drug tests, instituted when her behavior changed in February. DCFS asked the court to order drug tests and extend services for six months to assess Mother's progress.
DCFS made efforts to ensure that in-person visits resumed in May. On June 10, the court denied Mother's request for unmonitored visits, writing that she "often and recently acted in erratic ways." Her refusal to drug test raised concerns that she was avoiding detection of marijuana use and might fail to follow safe practices to avoid transmitting COVID-19 during unmonitored visits.
In October, DCFS reported that A.S. is learning to walk, enjoys healthy foods, and is comfortable in the caregivers' home. Mother accused them of "trying to steal" A.S. Mother was starting a nonprofit business from her home. She was scheduled for five drug tests between July 1 and September 3; the first and last tests were positive for marijuana and she failed to show up for three tests. During twice-weekly monitored visits, Mother was attentive to A.S., provided snacks, books and toys and put her to sleep. They seem to have a good bond. Mother's home was not in good condition but after a DCFS worker visited, Mother sent pictures showing the home being cleaned and a significant improvement. Due to Mother's recalcitrance, A.S. had still not received services to avoid developmental delays.
The parenting program coach reported that Mother actively participates in visits with A.S. They are working on bonding and attachment. Mother said she has not learned anything new "in a long time." Nevertheless, she would like to continue parenting classes to learn about A.S.'s needs as the child grows older. Mother accused the drug testing site of using "dirty pee" to show she was using marijuana. Mother said she is too busy with job interviews and her start-up business to test for drugs.
Mother's psychiatrist denied that Mother's antidepressant medication would render a false positive for marijuana, contrary to what Mother told DCFS. Mother had not met with her therapist since June and was not returning phone calls. The therapist opined that Mother was making progress on managing her anger but was "triggered" by DCFS. Mother said DCFS harassed her by demanding drug tests and instructed the lab to make "alterations" to Mother's urine samples; she also said the testing center "faked" her failure to show up for random tests.
At the 12-month hearing on October 2, minor's counsel joined DCFS and asked the court to extend reunification services. Mother asked the court to return A.S. to her care immediately because she has overcome her initial struggles to feed and soothe A.S. Mother's depression and anxiety are being treated. Her marijuana levels are low. She promised to drug test and continue in therapy.
Over DCFS's objections, the court ordered unmonitored visits, with DCFS having discretion to liberalize to overnight visits. The court did not return A.S. to Mother's care because it wanted to see her reach "a more sustained period" of stability. Mother was in partial compliance with the case plan. The court had concerns about Mother's use of marijuana in conjunction with psychotropic medications while caring for a toddler. Mother was ordered to drug test every other week. The court agreed to Mother's request that visits occur in her home, if it was assessed to be safe. It found that returning A.S. to Mother's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment.
The court must return the child to parental custody at the 12-month hearing unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning the child would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).)
The record supports the court's finding of a substantial risk to A.S. In 2020, Mother either tested positive for marijuana or refused to test for drugs. Marijuana use counteracts the benefits of her prescribed medication. The court showed confidence in Mother by allowing her visits to be unmonitored.
Mother's supplemental brief is rife with self-serving accusations of government bias. She contends that things would be better "if the courts had not been a nuisance in my life" but takes no responsibility for her own actions in using marijuana, failing to keep a sanitary home, and taking in a roommate who, in Mother's words, was "a convicted felon" and "psychotic" who caused a violent altercation in Mother's home. (In re A.S., supra, B304450.) The courts' concern is the safety of the child, not the convenience of the parent.
Mother calls social workers "barely" human, yet the record shows they ensured robust support from parenting coaches for over a year, while Mother learned to care for A.S. Mother terms her hospitalization under section 5150 "unnecessary" though she had thoughts of hurting A.S. and was on the phone with mental health services for seven hours before police arrived. (In re A.S., supra, B304450.) The hair follicle test Mother mentions arose four months after this appeal and is not before us.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. /s/_________
LUI, P. J. /s/_________
ASHMANN-GERST, J. /s/_________
HOFFSTADT, J.