Opinion
B297962
05-06-2020
In re ARLENE S., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff, v. DIOCELINA V., Defendant and Appellant; ARLENE S., et al., Respondents.
Law Office of Karen B. Stalter and Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Marissa Coffey and Marissa Coffey for Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19CCJP00453A-C) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Martha Matthews, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Karen B. Stalter and Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Marissa Coffey and Marissa Coffey for Respondents.
____________________
Diocelina V. (mother) appeals from a dispositional order denying her request for custody of her three children, Arlene S. (born April 2003); Joni S. (born June 2004); and Julian S. (born May 2008). Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that placement with mother would be detrimental to the children's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Therefore, we affirm the order.
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) initiated this proceeding on behalf of the children. However, at the jurisdictional-dispositional hearing, DCFS recommended that the children be placed with mother. Therefore, DCFS is not a respondent in this appeal. Instead, the three children have filed a responsive brief asking that we affirm the juvenile court's decision that returning them to the care of mother would be detrimental to their well-being.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The family
Mother and Raul S. (father) are the parents of the three children. The parents were never married. Prior to the petition being filed, the parents started to argue. Mother, who was also having health problems but no health insurance, moved to Mexico, leaving the three children with father. Mother claimed that though she tried to keep in contact with father, she could not always do so and thus was not always able to check on her children. Mother did not have the resources to return to the United States to care for her children. At the time the petition was filed, mother was still in Mexico.
Father does not appeal.
Initial referral and investigation
On January 20, 2019, DCFS received a referral that the children had been left at the home of a distant relative because father was homeless and did not have the means to support the children's daily needs. The children were filthy and it appeared that they had not bathed in weeks. Mother was in Mexico and could not return to care for the children.
The maternal relative, Hilda S., stated that father dropped off the children at her home and left. They were hungry, smelled horrible, and had dirt and grime caked on their skin. Hilda felt sorry for them and took them in, however, she did not have the space or resources to provide long-term care for them. She was unable to reach father for several days.
A DCFS social worker interviewed the children. Arlene (then 15 years old) reported that mother was living in Mexico with her sister, but Arlene could not recall how long mother had been there or the last time she saw mother. Arlene did not know why mother left. She added that father used to have an apartment for them, but the landlord told them to leave. Father took the children to Washington for a few months, but then he wanted to return to California. The police stopped father for speeding on the highway, and then took his car because he did not have a driver's license. Without a car, they started walking down the highway. Again they were stopped by police who then took them to a nearby small town. They had no money, so a man from a church took them to a restaurant, bought them food and tickets to return to Los Angeles, where they took the metro to Hilda's house. Arlene was in high school in special education classes because she had a hard time learning.
Joni (then 14 years old) was also interviewed. He reported that he did not visit with his mother because she went to Mexico to live with her sister. Joni reported that mother left two years earlier and he did not know why his mother left. He did not know where his father was. Joni confirmed Arlene's account of the last several months of their lives. Joni, too, attended high school special education classes, but did not know why he was in special education.
Julian (then 10 years old), reported that father did not have a home for them. Julian confirmed his siblings' story of the last few months of their lives. He stated that they went to Washington, where father looked for a job. On their way back, father was driving "way too fast." The tow truck came and took their car, and father told them they were going to walk back to Long Beach. After they were assisted in getting back to Los Angeles, father dropped them off and left them and they had not heard from him since.
Mother was interviewed on January 21, 2019, by telephone. She stated her belief that father was caring for the children. She had gone to Mexico after she and father had begun arguing regularly while she was having major health issues. She went to Mexico for affordable health care and services. She left father in charge of the children. Mother could not always reach father because he would not answer the phone and sometimes would not pay the phone bills. Mother claimed that she could not check on her children and had no idea what was going on. Mother denied that she or father had any drug or mental health problems.
After the social worker was able to reach father by telephone, he reported that he was homeless and did not have a job. Father degraded himself, saying "I am a nobody. I don't know what to do. My life is totally dead. It has been dead for awhile." Father reported that he had a "deep hatred" for what he did to himself and his children. Father stated, "I don't deserve anything because I am a total failure." When the social worker noted that father sounded depressed, father admitted that depression had begun to affect him when mother left. Father confirmed the children's story about the trip to Washington, adding that they came back because it did not work out in Washington. Father stated, "What kind of father am I? I am worthless. I lost my car. I don't have money. I have nothing of value to give my children. So, I left them at their aunt's house. I have nothing for them." Father denied mental health issues, although he admitted to attempting suicide when mother left him.
Paternal aunt Estella S. reported that father had been depressed for "a long while." Estella was aware that father was suffering from depression and felt that it was keeping him from being responsible for himself and his children. Estella believed father's depression was getting worse.
Both mother and father claimed to be aware of all three of their children's learning disabilities. Mother stated, "I don't know what to tell you. It's been a while since I been [sic] with my children. I know they are enrolled in special class[es] and have IEPs. I just can't remember what are their educational delays [sic] and mental health status."
Prior child welfare referrals
The family had four prior child abuse referrals. The most recent referral was December 2017. Father was sleeping in a car near the apartment where the children were staying. Father appeared to be both in a bad mental and emotional state. It did not appear that the father was providing for the children because they were not suitably dressed, smelled bad and looked dirty. The youngest child appeared malnourished and very slim. The allegation was deemed unfounded.
In April 2017, a female child accused four boys of sexual abuse. Julian was one of the named boys. The referral was deemed unfounded.
In March 2017, Arlene was very upset at school, and had trouble articulating details and thoughts. She was, however, able to express that an adult cousin "cut the window." It was determined that there was a man residing in their home who may have mental health problems as Arlene reported that he was "crazy." He may have cut a hole in the curtains when he was upset. The referral was deemed inconclusive.
In May 2015, mother initiated a 911 call, reporting that she wanted to end the relationship with father, who became upset. Father got a knife and stabbed himself in the abdomen. The children were at home at the time of the incident but did not witness it. Although the children were not witnesses, they were aware of what transpired. Father was taken to the hospital; his injury was not life-threatening. The referral was deemed unfounded as the children did not witness the incident and father remained out of the household.
Neither father nor mother had any reported criminal history.
Petition and detention hearing
On January 23, 2019, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of Arlene, Joni and Julian. The petition alleged that father made an inappropriate plan for the children's ongoing care and supervision, and that father was unable to provide the children with ongoing care and supervision. Mother was not mentioned in the allegations.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The detention hearing took place on January 24, 2019. Father was present. The children were not enrolled in school, were not in contact with mother, and could not recall the last time they spoke with her. Mother's counsel requested a continuance because she had not been able to get in touch with mother. The court made emergency detention findings and continued the hearing so that mother's counsel could make contact with mother.
The continued detention hearing was held on January 30, 2019. Mother was non-offending under the petition, but she submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Mother had provided some names of relatives to be contacted for possible placement. However, if no one was available to care for the children, mother requested that they be returned to her care. The court ordered DCFS to contact the local agency in Mexico and ask them to conduct a courtesy home assessment in order to develop a recommendation as to whether the children could safely be released to mother. Mother was granted monitored telephone contact, and DCFS was given discretion to liberalize such contact.
Jurisdiction/disposition report
DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on February 27, 2019. The children remained in foster care. Father reported that he remained homeless and unemployed, and did not have a relative to care for the children.
Mother reported that she was born in Mexico and came to the United States when she was 19 years old. Her four sisters and two brothers all reside in Mexico. Mother completed the sixth grade in Mexico. Mother met father in 2000 and they mutually agreed to separate in 2016. Mother stated that they separated because they did not want the children to see them arguing. Mother denied that the disagreements ever escalated into physical altercations. Mother left the United States for Mexico in June 2017, because she had diabetes and was unable to receive medical service. She was not in the United States legally and did not have insurance. Mother left the children with father and believed he was "doing ok" with them. Mother tried to keep in contact with father but sometimes he would not answer or pay the phone bills. Mother was not employed and lived with a male companion for approximately five months in Acapulco. Mother said she would look for a job to provide for her children. She previously had worked cleaning houses and caring for children. Mother wanted custody of the children in Mexico.
Father was born in Mexico and came to the United States when he was 18. He completed the first grade in Mexico, but could not continue because his parents could not afford to pay for more schooling. Father admitted that he attempted to commit suicide after an argument with mother. He stated that he stabbed his stomach. However, father denied any current suicidal thoughts or health problems. He also denied drug or alcohol use. Father denied physical altercations with mother but stated that they agreed to end the relationship due to frequent arguments. Father expressed a desire for the children to have a stable home and finish their education. If mother would ensure the children's safety, father would agree to the children living with mother in Mexico.
Arlene said she did not want to live in Mexico, but when asked why, she replied "I don't know." Arlene was unable to articulate a reason why she did not want to live in Mexico with her mother. She added that she speaks to her mother regularly on the phone and felt safe with her.
Joni had recently been speaking by telephone with his mother, and the conversations were good. However, he had not seen her in three years. Joni did not want to live in Mexico with mother. He thought it was too hot in Mexico. He could not articulate any other reasons that he had for why he did not want to live there.
Julian said he wanted to live with father. He missed his father. Julian did not want to live in Mexico with mother because it was too dangerous. He could not elaborate on why he thought it was dangerous in Mexico.
The children were evaluated for their medical needs. Arlene appeared to have a speech impediment and cognitive delays. Joni and Julian also appeared to have cognitive delays. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) was identified as a possible cause of the children's difficulties. DCFS was unsuccessful in finding a relative willing to take in the children.
FAS "is defined by evidence of growth deficiency, a set of subtle facial anomalies and evidence of significant central nervous system (CNS) damage/dysfunction occurring in patients exposed to alcohol during gestation."
Jurisdictional hearing
The jurisdictional hearing was held on March 14, 2019. Father pled no contest to the amended allegations. Mother remained non-offending in the petition. The court signed father's case plan so that he could begin receiving services immediately, but continued the disposition hearing to obtain more information regarding the possibility of placement with mother in Mexico.
Interim review reports
DCFS filed an interim review report on April 24, 2019, after social workers had additional interviews with the children regarding their relationship with their mother.
Joni did not want to go to Mexico to live with mother because it is too hot. He also recalled mother disciplining him and his siblings using a "chancla," or sandal. He recalled mostly getting hit on his arm. When mother hit him in this way, it would leave marks or bruises on his arm. However, Joni stated that he was not afraid of mother.
Arlene does not always want to talk with mother and does not answer the phone. Arlene missed father. She was sad that mother moved to Mexico but did not want to go there. Arlene reported that she was happy here and wanted to stay. When asked why, Arlene responded that she did not want to have problems with her "ex-boyfriend." Arlene did not elaborate on this statement. Arlene said her parents did not discipline her when she was with them.
Julian said that mother would hit him and his siblings with a "chancla," belt and cord. Julian drew a picture of an electrical cord. Julian reported that mother would hit him and his brother when they were bad. Julian remembered marks on his body. He did not want to go to Mexico to be with mother.
When the social worker interviewed all three children together, all of them stated that they did not want to go to Mexico to be with mother. The social worker asked them how mother would discipline them. Julian shouted "chancla, belt and cord." Joni and Arlene agreed with Julian.
Mother denied the children's allegations that she ever hit any of the children, though she admitted that Julian had always been hyperactive, and she would raise her voice at him more than the other children. When informed of Julian's allegations that she hit him with a chancla, belt and cord, she denied it completely. Mother said Julian "would also tell the school that she would hit him and the school would address it with the mother, but the school knew about Julian's hyperactive behavior and they knew he was lying." Mother admitted having told Joni in the past that she would hit him with a sandal, but she never actually hit him with a sandal or anything else. Mother also denied that father ever hit the children. Mother was aware that she would have to have patience with Julian, and felt that she could manage his behavior.
Father denied ever witnessing mother physically disciplining the children.
The children's foster mother was also interviewed. She confirmed that the children did not want to go to Mexico. She said that they had told her that mother would hit them with hangers and electrical cords. The foster mother expressed concern that the children would not be able to receive the services that they need in Mexico. Neither mother nor father called Arlene to wish her a happy birthday the previous day. The foster mother reported that mother does not call her to see how the children are doing, and father had not had any visits with the children.
The children gave the same information in later interviews. Julian said he had only spoken once to his mother on the telephone. Julian did not want to go to Mexico because he thought it was boring there. When asked again about discipline, Julian reported he had been hit with chanclas, wires, and hangers. Arlene had not spoken to her mother or father since the previous interview. Arlene claimed that mother would sometimes hit the children with a sandal or hanger. When asked about how she felt about going to Mexico with mother Arlene responded, "this is my country. I want to stay here."
Joni had not spoken to his mother or father since the last interview either. Joni did not want to live with mother. He explained that the "United States is my place and I feel like living in the United States." Joni reported being hit by mother with "the chancla [sandal], gancho [hanger], cinto [belt], and wire." Joni said that he was hit "a lot" by mother when he was in eighth grade.
The social services agency in Mexico, DIF, provided an assessment of mother's home situation in Mexico. Mother had reported that she left her family four years earlier because she had problems with the father of her children and she had health problems. She left the children with their father thinking that they would be fine with him. Mother and her current partner were considered low income people. Neither mother nor her male companion had a criminal record. Mother was not employed. Her partner earned $7,600 pesos monthly working in a hardware store. Mother showed an interest and disposition to recuperate her children.
DCFS changed its recommendation to home-of-parent mother in Mexico. Mother was non-offending in the petition. The DIF report was positive and indicated that mother appeared motivated to reunite with her children. DCFS noted that while the children recently disclosed that mother would hit them with objects such as hangers, cords, belts, and sandals, none of the four prior referrals indicated any physical abuse by mother towards the children. Further, both mother and father denied any such violence towards the children. DCFS requested that the court order Los Angeles County to provide the cost of transporting the children via one-way tickets to Mexico with a round-trip ticket for DCFS staff.
Dispositional hearing
At the April 30, 2019 dispositional hearing, DCFS recommended that the minors be released to mother in Mexico, with a 30-day stay of the order to allow time to obtain passports for the minors and arrange their travel plans. Minors' counsel objected to the release of minors to mother, explaining that they had not seen their mother in three years and had no relationship with her. They were worried about moving to an unfamiliar country, and had safety concerns given the alleged physical abuse. Counsel expressed that the children were adamantly opposed to release to their mother. Minors' counsel recommended proceeding slowly, with visits at the consulate's office, a progress report, and perhaps a summer visit in Mexico. She argued that it would be detrimental to send the children to Mexico because of all the services they were receiving in California. Father joined the minors' position.
The court found DCFS's recommendation "somewhat confusing." Mother had left the children three years prior and had not seen them since. In addition, it appeared that mother made no effort whatsoever to ensure her children's well-being. Further, all three children had made consistent statements regarding physical abuse, and expressed fear about returning to mother's care.
DCFS noted that it was not until recently, when potential plans were made to send them to Mexico, that the allegations of physical abuse arose. The court found it disturbing that DCFS unilaterally made a decision regarding the credibility of the minors' allegations of physical abuse.
The court noted that pursuant to section 361.2, when removal from a previously custodial parent is ordered, the court is required to place the children with the previously noncustodial parent unless that placement would be detrimental to the safety, or physical or emotional well-being of the children. The court found that there was "ample" evidence to make the finding of detriment before it. The court noted:
"It would, obviously, be detrimental to the safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being of the children, who have already been through a lot of trauma, to send them, precipitously, to a parent they have not seen in two or three years and a parent who they say has been physically abusive in the past. I'm not doing that. I'm surprised [DCFS] would ask me to."
Arlene said "thank you" after the court's order.
The juvenile court ordered visitation for both mother and father. Mother was granted monitored, in-person visits at a location accessible to mother, such as the consulate at the United States-Mexican border. DCFS was to assist mother with transportation costs. DCFS was also to facilitate unmonitored phone calls between the minors and mother.
It was unclear what services would be available to mother in Mexico, therefore the court specified that mother should participate in services if they were available to her. The court stated, "Mother . . . is not required to do something that is impossible." With this qualification, the court ordered mother to participate in a parent education program focusing on special-needs children or a program of individual counseling focusing on the same issues. DCFS was ordered to speak with mother about the children's allegations of physical abuse, as well as her plan to meet the children's developmental and educational needs.
Notice of appeal
On May 10, 2019, mother filed a notice of appeal from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. However, mother notes in her opening brief that she challenges only the juvenile court's finding of detriment and the removal order.
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable law and standard of review
At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court must decide whether a child falls within any of the categories set forth in section 300. (In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082.) If so, the child may be declared a dependent of the court. (Ibid.) "'Then, at the dispositional hearing, the court must decide where the child will live while under its supervision, with the paramount concern being the child's best interest. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
The juvenile court has the authority to remove a child from a parent's physical custody pursuant to section 361. If the court does so, and there is a previously noncustodial parent who desires to assume custody of the child, the court "shall" place the child with the parent "unless it find that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 361.2, subd. (a).)
"[U]nder this statute a court has broad discretion to evaluate not only the child's physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being. In an appropriate case, all that might be required is a finding such a placement would impair the emotional security of the child." (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490.) A clear and convincing standard of proof must be applied to deny initial placement with the noncustodial parent. (In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.)
In assessing the juvenile court's determination of detriment on appeal, the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review. However, we must bear in mind the heightened standard of proof at the trial court level. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) Under this standard, we must determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or not, to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547.) "In making this determination we must decide if the evidence is reasonable, credible and of solid value," such that the court's decision is appropriate based on clear and convincing evidence. (In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1326.) We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent and make all legitimate inferences in favor of upholding the juvenile court's orders. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1361.) "'If there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of a juvenile court, a reviewing court is without power to weigh or evaluate the findings.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 1361-1362.)
II. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding of detriment
The underlying purpose of dependency law is to protect the welfare and best interests of the dependent child. (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1424.) In making its finding of detriment, the juvenile court was authorized to consider all relevant factors, including the children's safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) Considering all those factors, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's decision in this matter.
The children adamantly resisted leaving the only country they have ever known and going to their mother, whom they had not seen in several years. The evidence suggested that mother essentially abandoned the children, leaving them in the custody of father, who had shown signs of emotional instability. Mother confessed to being aware of father's violent suicide attempt, in which he stabbed himself in the abdomen while the children were home. After she left them, mother did not maintain consistent contact with the children. She claimed to be unaware that father was struggling with unemployment and homelessness. She was also unaware of the particulars of the children's special needs, and how those needs would have to be addressed. There was a suggestion that the children's special needs were the result of FAS, caused by mother drinking alcohol during her pregnancies. The children did not waver in their resistance to being with their mother. The juvenile court correctly inferred that they would suffer harm to their emotional well-being if forced to a different country with a parent who left them in difficult circumstances and who was not fully informed regarding their special needs.
The children also provided consistent testimony regarding physical abuse. All three children provided the same accounts of the type of physical abuse they were subjected to at the hands of their mother. While DCFS suggested that this was made up by the children in order to avoid being sent to Mexico to live with mother, the juvenile court was not required to interpret it that way. The evidence was of the type typically considered by courts to be reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (See In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 104 ["'"[t]he testimony of a single witness is sufficient to uphold a judgment"'"].) The juvenile court was permitted to consider this as evidence that the children might be physically harmed in the custody of mother.
Furthermore, the juvenile court was permitted to consider the services the children were receiving in California. All three children had special needs which were being addressed. They were developmentally delayed, and required the special education services that were in place for them. It was unclear whether the children would be able to obtain such services in Mexico under mother's care. The juvenile court was authorized to consider these circumstances in determining the children's physical and emotional wellbeing.
Considering the above factors, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that immediate removal to Mexico to live with mother would be detrimental to the children.
Mother argues that the minors' views about placement are not dispositive. Although she acknowledges the children's expressed concerns about going to live with mother, she contends that their testimony did not present clear and convincing evidence that placement with mother would be detrimental. Mother relies on In re C.M. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1394 (C.M.) as support for her position that a minor's desire to live elsewhere is not dispositive when a noncustodial parent wishes to obtain custody.
In C.M., the child lived with her mother in the maternal grandparents' home. The child's father provided financial support and maintained a relationship with her. Following mother's arrest for an altercation between mother and maternal relatives in the home, a petition was filed on behalf of the child. Her father, who was nonoffending, requested custody. (C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1397-1398.) The child was "adamant" that she did not want to reside with her father because she did not want to leave her maternal grandmother or change schools. (Id. at p. 1399.) Under these circumstances, this court held that a child's wishes are not dispositive. (Id. at pp. 1402-1403.) The C.M. court reversed the juvenile court's finding of detriment, stating that insufficient evidence supported it. While there were no allegations of substance abuse or domestic violence against father, the C.M. court specifically noted that there was also "no evidence of any recent, much less current, domestic violence by father." (Id. at p. 1404.)
C.M. is distinguishable. There were no allegations by the child against her father. In addition, while the child would have had to change schools, she was "not being moved halfway across the country." (C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404.) The father lived locally. And finally, there was evidence that the father had maintained contact and a parental relationship with the child. The matter before us is distinguishable in all of these aspects.
Mother also relies on In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Patrick). In Patrick, the child's mother had left the father when the child was 11 months old, and despite the father's efforts to locate them, he never did. When the social services agency located father in Washington State, he flew to San Diego to meet with the social worker and was happy and excited to see his son. He desired to have the child, who was by then a teenager, placed with him, but was willing to proceed slowly in order to allow his son time to adjust. (Id. at p. 1257.) The juvenile court made a finding of detriment based on the child's wishes, and his anxiety to move to his father's home, among other things. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that "where a child has a fit parent who is willing to assume custody, there is no need for state involvement unless placement with that parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child. [Citation]. When the parent is competent, the standard of detriment is very high. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1263.)
The matter before us is different. Unlike the father in Patrick, who was left by the child's mother -- here, mother left her children. Further, unlike the father in Patrick, who actively searched for his son -- mother made no effort to see the children during the time she was gone. In addition, mother was aware that father had emotional problems, including an attempt at suicide. Despite this warning that father may not be a stable parent, mother did not protect the children from father's emotional instability or even maintain consistent contact with them. Finally, there were allegations of abuse on the part of mother that had not been thoroughly investigated.
Mother cites several cases to support her position that, while the minors were entitled to have the juvenile court consider their wishes, they were not entitled to decide placement. (See, e.g., In re Abram L. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 452, 464; In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1570; In re Luke M., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1424-1427.) However, as discussed above, the juvenile court did not permit the children to decide their placement. Instead, the court considered all of the relevant circumstances, including mother's decision to leave the children, their special needs, their lack of a recent relationship with their mother, and the recent allegations of abuse.
Mother further argues that the minors' recent allegations of abuse, just as plans to send them to Mexico were being made, were insufficient to support the finding of detriment. Mother again points to C.M., in which the noncustodial father had a 1994 conviction and a dismissed misdemeanor arrest for domestic violence. (C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1402.) The petition did not include any allegations of domestic abuse against the father, and there was no evidence of any recent or current incidents of such violence. (Id. at p. 1404.) Mother argues that the children's allegations of abuse occurring years ago was similarly insufficient.
However, the recent allegations of abuse were not the only factors, nor the deciding factors, in this case. Viewing the evidence in its entirety, the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard of detriment. Mother had essentially abandoned the children to a father who had shown signs of depression and emotional instability. She did not maintain a close relationship with them or make any effort to see them. She was unaware of the nature of their special needs, and had not shown that she could meet such needs. In addition to these factors, the children had recently made allegations regarding physical abuse. The combination of these factors was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding of detriment.
Mother's counsel denied that mother was prohibited from traveling in and out of the United States.
While it is not relevant to our review of the finding of detriment, we note that the juvenile court did not rule out a future grant of custody to mother. Mother was granted visits and telephone calls, and DCFS was ordered to provide mother with travel costs to facilitate the visits. DCFS was to report on mother's plan to care for the children, including what schools they would attend, what after-school care she might need for them, and "what her plan would be if the children were returned to her."
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ We concur: /s/_________, Acting P. J.
ASHMANN-GERST /s/_________, J.
HOFFSTADT