Opinion
B302757
05-27-2020
In re N.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Emery El Habiby, 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, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19CCJP04251) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. Emery El Habiby, 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, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Divinity M. (Mother) is the mother of eight-year-old N.M. The juvenile court found that N.M. is a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), removed N.M. from Mother's custody, granted N.M.'s father, A.M. (Father), legal and physical custody of N.M., then terminated its jurisdiction over the child. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's jurisdictional findings and the court's orders removing N.M. from her custody and terminating its jurisdiction. We affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Our factual summary is derived from social worker reports and other evidence introduced without objection at the jurisdiction and disposition hearings.
N.M. was born in April 2012. In 2013, when she was about 10 months old, Mother was held for psychiatric observation in a hospital in Wisconsin. The circumstances surrounding that hold are disputed. According to Father, Mother had screamed at a Caucasian bus driver accusing him of planning a conspiracy to kill Black people. Police officers responded and detained her after she yelled at them. Shortly afterward, Father picked up N.M. during an argument, and Mother responded by screaming, " 'You can't take the baby. If I can't get to the baby, I will kill you and kill the baby.' " Father and N.M.'s maternal grandfather then took Mother to a hospital where she was held for evaluation. Mother denied making threats and claimed that Father and maternal grandfather tricked her into being committed. Mother was released after nine days and prescribed psychotropic medication, which she refused to take.
After her release, Mother left N.M. with Father and moved to California. Four or five months later, Father and N.M. joined her there. Mother later left with N.M. without telling Father where they had gone. In 2017 Mother obtained a default judgment for dissolution of her marriage and obtained sole custody of N.M. Father claims that he did not have notice of the proceeding and that Mother had generally kept her and N.M.'s whereabouts secret from him.
In April 2019, Mother left her employment and began working to establish a business selling marijuana-infused brownies. Around that time, Mother began showing signs that her mental health was deteriorating. Mother, for example, sent threatening messages to friends and family members and told one person that she wanted to kill "white people" and anyone that would come after N.M. She told another person she needed to acquire guns. She spoke to a friend about taking N.M. out of school, leaving the country, and "world teach her" [sic]. When Mother did take a trip outside the country, she made no plans for N.M.'s care; instead, she sent a group text message to friends after she had left asking them to pick up N.M. N.M. then "bounc[ed] around" among three or four people until Mother returned. On one occasion, Mother had N.M. sleep outside on a porch or balcony to protect her from "white people" whom she believed were coming to kill them. On another occasion, Mother had a manic episode during a barbeque during which she reportedly screamed and cried, said that " 'the white people are watching us,' " and got into a jacuzzi fully clothed. Another witness at the barbeque said she barricaded herself behind doors.
In the afternoon on June 19, 2019, Mother's neighbors contacted police after hearing Mother screaming loudly. According to one witness, Mother said in N.M.'s presence that "white people" were trying to harm them and kill N.M. Mother looked for a knife or gun and said that she was going to kill her neighbors and "those 'white people.' " A responding Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy described Mother as "disoriented," "hyperactive," "belligerent," "hostile," "highly agitated and paranoid," and reported that she "was yelling at non-existent neighbors and saying she would 'kill them if they came near her child.' " (Capitalization omitted.) Mother was also reportedly experiencing auditory hallucinations—i.e., hearing voices. The deputy sheriff determined that Mother was a danger to others and transported her to a hospital where she was held under section 5150. A friend of Mother's (Erin) took N.M. to Erin's home.
On June 21, 2019, a hospital social worker called a DCFS social worker to report that Mother said she wanted to kill N.M., but quickly recanted. The hospital social worker felt it would not be safe for N.M. to visit Mother at that time.
While Mother was in the hospital, DCFS social workers interviewed Erin, who had taken N.M. to her home. Erin said she recently "started to suspect that there was something wrong with" Mother, and referred to Mother's unsubstantiated concerns that N.M. had suffered racial discrimination and bullying at school. Erin described a recent get together with relatives where Mother "broke down, started crying," and screamed "about black people being in slavery because of white people," which frightened N.M. On another occasion, Mother claimed there were "white people" in her house and made N.M. sleep on the porch while Mother stayed up all night with a knife in her hand. Mother had told Erin that she had knives hidden everywhere in the house because she does not trust "white people" and will kill them if they come to get her and N.M.
On June 24, 2019, after Mother's involuntary hold had been extended, a social worker met with Mother in the hospital. Mother said that she had previously sought help from a mental health provider because Father was physically abusive to her and to help her deal with her mother's death in 2015. She denied, however, that she had any diagnosis and said she had never been prescribed psychotropic medication. The social worker asked Mother about the hospital social worker's report that Mother said she wanted to kill N.M. Mother denied it and said she loves N.M. and would never hurt her. She explained that she must have said she was going to kill the person who tried to kill N.M., and that the hospital staff misunderstood her.
Mother said she smokes marijuana to calm herself, but does not smoke in front of N.M. She would, however, have N.M. bring her a pipe or bong, which Mother kept within N.M.'s reach. N.M. said the marijuana smelled bad. Erin also reported that Mother would use marijuana frequently in N.M.'s presence and would tell N.M. to retrieve her bong.
A social worker spoke to Father by telephone. Since 2017 he had been living in Florida with his fiancée, their two-year-old daughter, and the fiancée's two children from a previous relationship. Father said that Mother had obtained custody of N.M. without his knowledge and, with the exception of one visit with N.M. in 2018, Mother had kept her and N.M.'s whereabouts secret from him. He reported that while they were married, Mother had stated several times that she was going to kill him and N.M. And, when Father called Mother in response to a recent text message from Mother, Mother told him she would kill him.
In March 2019, Mother emailed Father saying that N.M. had been bullied at school and was going to sue the school. Father told the social worker that the bullying was "all in [M]other's mind" because she " 'thinks she's a victim of racism.' " Father expressed concern that Mother would raise N.M. to be afraid of "white people" and to believe that "white people" will be bad to her. Father's fiancée, he noted, is "white."
Father said he was always loving and caring toward N.M. and believed that she would love him and would not mind living with him. He was " '100 percent' willing" to come to California to get N.M.
N.M. told the social worker that she feels safe with Mother, but does get scared when Mother shouts at her. N.M. said she walks to school by herself, makes meals for herself and often for Mother, cleans the house, and does the laundry. She said that she gets scared when Mother gets "upset with white people and tells her not to trust white people." N.M. wanted Mother to get help and loves her very much. She also said that she felt safe with Father's family and was willing to stay with them until Mother was well.
A social worker spoke with N.M.'s maternal aunt, Kamara. Kamara described an incident a year earlier when Mother " 'went off' " at N.M. and called her a " 'nigga.' " Kamara broke off her personal relationship with Mother at that point and said she refuses to have a relationship with Mother unless Mother gets mental health help. Kamara was disturbed by the incident in which N.M. slept on the balcony and "the things with white people." She believes that N.M. is neglected.
On June 26, 2019, the hospital released Mother. A doctor diagnosed Mother as "Bipolar Manic" and told a social worker that there was a high risk of another episode because Mother was refusing medication. After the hospitalization, Mother's therapist diagnosed her with "Depressive Disorder NOS, Other Psychoactive Induced Psychotic Disorder," and with post-traumatic stress disorder.
On June 27, 2019, a social worker visited Mother at her home. Mother said there was nothing wrong with her and she would not hurt anyone. She denied any mental health issues and said that she had "Seasonal Affective Disorder" around her mother's birthday and the anniversary of her death.
Father arrived in California with his fiancée on June 28, 2019 to seek custody or placement of N.M.
On July 2, 2019, social workers and sheriff's deputies removed N.M. from Mother's custody and DCFS placed her with Mother's friend Erin.
B. The Dependency Proceedings
On July 5, 2019, DCFS filed a petition under section 300 for dependency jurisdiction over N.M. DCFS alleged two factual bases for jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). First, that Mother "has mental and emotional problems including a diagnosis of Bipolar Manic Disorder and homicidal ideation which render the mother unable to provide regular care for the child[ ]. On [June 19, 2019], and on prior occasions, the mother was hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the mother's psychiatric condition. On [June 19, 2019], the mother threatened to kill the child and neighbors. In 2019, the mother failed to take the mother's psychotropic medication as prescribed. The mother demonstrates agitated and erratic behaviors."
Second, Mother "has a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of marijuana which renders the mother incapable of providing regular care of the child. On prior occasions in 2019, the mother was under the influence of marijuana while the child was in the mother's care and supervision."
Mother's mental and emotional problems and her substance abuse, DCFS alleged, "endangers the child's physical health and safety and places the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger."
At a detention hearing held on July 8 and 9, 2019, the court ordered that N.M. be removed from Mother's custody, placed in DCFS's custody, and released to Father under DCFS's supervision. The court ordered daily monitored video calls between Mother and N.M. The court also ordered that Mother have no contact with Father.
Father returned to Florida with N.M. on July 19, 2019. According to Father, N.M. was acclimating to the home, eating and sleeping well, and getting along with her stepsiblings. Father enrolled N.M. to start second grade and would soon initiate therapy for her.
On July 23, 2019, Mother and N.M. held their first video visit, monitored by Father. In an email to the social worker after the visit, Father reported that Mother told N.M. that N.M. needed to find out what Father's fiancée did for a living and what attracted Father to her. Father further reported that Mother asked N.M. "questions but before [N.M.] could answer she'll tell [N.M.] 'stop interrupting me[.] [D]id they tell you what to say, are they telling you what to say! [S]top lying to me! [S]top lying to me! [I] [n]ever yell at you at home but this is out of your character. Are they coaching you on what to say[?] I know your Dad very well.' " After the visit concluded, N.M. "started crying saying that 'my mom was scaring me.' "
The social worker informed Father that Mother's behavior during the visit was inappropriate and that Father could terminate calls in the future to prevent further distress to N.M.
Less than one day after the visit, Mother sent a text message to Father saying, "I'm healed," and an email with the subject line of "send this to [Father's fiancée]." In the email, Mother purports to attach an email from Father in 2012 in which he admitted to destroying the family.
Later that day, before the second video visit was to take place, Mother was involuntarily hospitalized after being found wandering around her apartment complex in a paranoid state and speaking unintelligibly. She was initially combative with hospital staff and refused medication.
Father and his fiancée married on July 29, 2019.
After her release from the hospital in August 2019, Mother underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with "Bipolar I Disorder" and "Post[-T]raumatic Stress Disorder." She began attending counseling sessions and, according to the counselor, was " 'doing very well,' " making " 'progress,' " " 'medication compliant,' " and " 'making good decisions.' "
In a letter dated September 19, 2019, N.M.'s therapist reported that although N.M. "admits to 'loving' her mother, she also admits to sometimes fearing her and being confused by her actions and words." N.M. "espouses the value of respecting people without regard to color" and expressed "confusion as to why her mother 'hates' white people." When the therapist asked N.M. about living or spending time with Mother, she said she "wants to stay with her father. She has some awareness that her mother may be 'sick' and not a 'bad' person, but she states it would not be good for them to live together." Father's home offers N.M. "a sense of safety, a cheerful milieu, a structured daily life with appropriate boundaries that are respected." N.M. also "easily expresses her happiness and her desire to remain in Florida."
In DCFS's jurisdiction/disposition report, social workers concluded that N.M. "appears to have stabilized and is thriving under the father's care and supervision." DCFS recommended the court sustain the dependency petition and terminate jurisdiction with a family law order granting Father sole custody of N.M. with monitored visits for Mother.
In October 2019, Mother traveled to Florida and had an in-person visit with N.M., monitored by a social worker. The social worker reported that N.M. "was super excited to see her mother and jumped into the mother's arms when she saw her." Mother, who appeared to be under medication, was appropriate throughout the visit.
On November 5, 2019, Mother's therapist wrote to the social worker stating that Mother continues to address parenting, self-care, trauma, and emotional management in her therapy sessions. She participates in therapy "with active engagement and processing" and "is making efforts to cope and problem solve with current stressors."
The juvenile court held the jurisdiction hearing on November 18, 2019. Mother testified that she has been diagnosed with bipolar depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and she is addressing her issues through therapy and medication. She denied that N.M. had ever slept outside of the house. Mother has used marijuana since she was 19 years old, at first recreationally and more recently to address her depression and anxiety. She denied using marijuana around N.M. and stopped using it entirely in June 2019. She denied threatening to kill anyone or saying she would hurt N.M.
After hearing argument, the court sustained each allegation in the petition and declared N.M. to be a child described by section 300, subdivision (b).
At the disposition hearing, DCFS requested that the court award custody to Father and terminate dependency jurisdiction. Counsel for N.M. and Father agreed with DCFS. Mother's counsel requested that the court maintain jurisdiction. The court terminated jurisdiction and ordered that Father have sole legal and physical custody with monitored visits for Mother.
Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting Jurisdiction
Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings under section 300, subdivision (b). We disagree.
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) provides for juvenile court jurisdiction when the "child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the . . . inability of [the] parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's . . . mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse." Here, DCFS alleged that N.M. should be declared a dependent under this provision because Mother's mental health problems and her use of marijuana endanger N.M.'s physical health and safety and place N.M. at risk of serious physical harm. The court found the allegations true.
We review the court's jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence and will affirm the findings if they are supported by reasonable, credible evidence. (In re Jonathan B. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119.) In conducting this review, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the court's findings and we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support those findings. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) "We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts." (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) If the findings are supported by substantial evidence, we will affirm even if "substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence." (Ibid.; accord, In re Jesus M. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 104, 113.)
The findings that Mother suffered from mental illness are not disputed. As Mother asserts, however, harm to a child is not presumed from the mere existence of mental illness (In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1050), and "[t]here must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur." (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136.)
Here, there was evidence that Mother suffered from mental illness since at least 2013, when, according to Father, she accused a bus driver of conspiring to kill others, yelled at responding police officers, threatened to kill Father and N.M., and was held for psychiatric evaluation for nine days. Father stated that Mother made similar statements about killing him and N.M. numerous times during their relationship and threatened to kill him during a phone call made around the time of Mother's June 2019 manic episode. There was also evidence that while Mother was in the hospital, in June 2019, she threatened to kill N.M. Although Mother promptly recanted the statement, a hospital social worker considered the comment serious enough to warn the DCFS social worker not to bring N.M. to the hospital to visit Mother. In addition to the evidence of threats to kill N.M., there was evidence that Mother had threatened to kill anyone who came to get N.M. Even if such threats were not directed at N.M., the court could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial risk of harm to N.M. if Mother used violence in response to a perceived threat to N.M.
Mother points to her recent efforts to deal with her mental illness through therapy and medication as evidence that she no longer poses a risk of harm to N.M. Her participation in therapy prior to June 2019, however, did not prevent her involuntary psychiatric holds in June and July, and the court was not required to accept her recent willingness to take medication in light of her history of refusing medication. (In re A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1050 [parent's history "may be predictive of future dangers"].)
Mother relies on In re A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th 1044. In that case, the mother of two children, ages 11 and 15, suffered from schizophrenia and had shown signs of mental illness for several years. In October 2016, after the mother stopped taking prescribed medication, she accused the children of trying to poison her and threw a shoe at the younger child, hitting her. (Id. at p. 1046.) The older child physically restrained the mother while their father called law enforcement. (Ibid.) As a result of this incident, the mother was hospitalized under section 5150 and DCFS filed a dependency petition based on section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court found the allegations true, and this court reversed.
Our decision in In re A.L. was fact dependent. The shoe-throwing incident was the first time the mother had "become physical with family members" (In re A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1047), and "the first time the family sought assistance from law enforcement" (id. at p. 1051). The mother had stopped taking her medication prior to the incident and she resumed the medication when she returned from the hospital. (Ibid.) No one was injured during the incident and the evidence showed that the children were well cared for despite the mother's mental illness. (Ibid.) Because the father or the paternal grandmother was always home, the children were never alone with the mother. (Id. at p. 1047.) The father was present when the incident occurred and "acted quickly to obtain appropriate help." (Id. at p. 1051.) Moreover, the older child was aware of the mother's schizophrenia, had researched the subject, and knew how to deal with her manic episodes. (Ibid.)
In the instant case, although Mother never threw anything at N.M., her threats of killing N.M. and others posed a much greater risk to N.M. than the risk the mother posed to her children in In re A.L. Mother had experienced numerous manic episodes resulting in three psychiatric holds and, if another episode occurred, there would be no adult living with her who could call the police and no one who could protect N.M. by physically restraining Mother. Even Erin, who had intervened to care for N.M. when Mother was hospitalized in June 2019, would not be available because Mother no longer trusted her or considered her a friend. And, in contrast to the well cared for children in In re A.L., seven-year-old N.M. had to raise herself to a large extent by doing laundry, preparing her own meals, and walking to school by herself. According to Erin, Mother would give N.M. "basic instructions and tell her, 'don't bother me.' " Because of these factual differences, we reject Mother's reliance on In re A.L.
Our conclusion that there is substantial evidence to support the finding based on Mother's mental illness is enough to affirm the jurisdictional order; we need not address the finding based on Mother's substance abuse. (See In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 428, 451 [when a dependency petition alleges multiple bases for jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction if any one of the bases is supported by substantial evidence].)
B. Removal of N.M. from Mother
Mother contends that the court's dispositional order effectively removed N.M. from her custody and that the evidence was insufficient to support removal. We disagree.
Under section 361, subdivision (c), "[a] dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents . . . unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of," among other circumstances, "a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor's parent's . . . physical custody." In evaluating the propriety of removal, the "court may consider a parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances." (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 170.) "The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child." (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)
We review the challenge to dispositional orders for substantial evidence. (In re A.E. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 820, 826.) In determining whether substantial evidence supports the court's order, "we do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh the evidence. Instead, we review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order to decide whether substantial evidence supports the order." (Ibid.)
Here, there was evidence of Mother's threats to kill N.M. and others, of her interest in acquiring guns, and her statement to Erin that she kept knives "everywhere" in her house. This evidence and the absence of a third person in the home who could protect N.M. in the event Mother experiences a manic episode, is sufficient to support the court's decision to remove N.M. from Mother.
C. Custody Order and Termination of Jurisdiction
Mother contends that the court erred by terminating jurisdiction under section 361.2, subdivision (b)(1), because substantial evidence supported a need for continued supervision after N.M. was placed with Father. We find no error.
Under subdivision (a) of section 361.2, if, as here, a court orders removal of a child from one parent, the court shall determine whether there is a parent of the child with whom the child was not residing who desires to assume custody of the child. If so, "the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds 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); see In re Austin P. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1132 (Austin P.).) The juvenile court relied on this provision to place N.M. with Father, and Mother does not challenge the court's decision to do so.
Under section 361.2, subdivision (b), if the court places the child with such a parent, the court has three alternatives. First, the court may order that the parent become the legal and physical custodian of the child and terminate the court's jurisdiction. (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(1).) This is the decision the court made in this case.
Second, the court may order that the other parent "assume custody subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court" pending a home visit and report by a social worker. (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(2).) And third, the court may order that the other parent "assume custody subject to the supervision of the juvenile court" and provide reunification services to either or both parents (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(3)).
The selection of an alternative is a matter within the juvenile court's discretion and will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of such discretion. (In re K.B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 972, 981; In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179.) We review any factual findings for substantial evidence. (In re A.J. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 525, 535, fn. 7.)
If we assume the court terminated jurisdiction under section 361.2, the decision was not an abuse of discretion. The court's decision to terminate jurisdiction is supported by the opinion of N.M.'s therapist and the opinion of social workers. N.M.'s therapist reported that N.M. "clearly wants to stay with her Father" and told the therapist that it would not be a good idea to live with Mother. Father's home, the therapist reported, offers N.M. "a sense of safety, a cheerful milieu, a structured daily life with appropriate boundaries that are respected," and N.M. has expressed "her desire to remain in Florida." In a last minute information report, social workers stated that N.M. "appears to have stabilized and is thriving under the father's care and supervision." Based on "all facts of the case," DCFS recommended that Father be given "full custody," with monitored visits by Mother, and the court should terminate jurisdiction. The court relied on this recommendation and Mother has failed to show that the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Mother contends that the decision must be reversed "because substantial evidence supported a need for continued supervision after the child was placed with the father." This misstates the applicable standard of review for two reasons. First, as DCFS points out, the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re K.B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 981; In re Nada R., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1179.) Second, even under a substantial evidence standard, we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's decision, not, as Mother suggests, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decision she would have preferred.
Mother's misunderstanding of the standard of review is evident in her reliance on In re Austin P., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th 1124. In that case, the court removed the child from the mother and placed the child with the previously noncustodial father. (Id. at p. 1128.) The court, however, maintained jurisdiction over the child and rejected the father's request to terminate jurisdiction. (Ibid.) The father appealed. The Court of Appeal held that there was substantial evidence to support the court's decision and, therefore, it had not abused its discretion by continuing jurisdiction over the child. (Id. at pp. 1134-1135.) The court did not hold, as Mother suggests, that where substantial evidence exists to support continuing jurisdiction the court must continue jurisdiction and errs by terminating jurisdiction. In re Austin P., therefore, does not help Mother. Mother's reliance on facts that would have supported a decision to continue jurisdiction is similarly inapt. Mother's burden on appeal is not to show that substantial evidence would have supported the decision she desired, but that the court abused its discretion in making the decision it made. She has failed to meet that burden. (See In re Janee W. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1453.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:
CHANEY, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.