Opinion
B299828
02-04-2020
In re HANNAH T.U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.U., Defendant and Appellant.
Linda Vogel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19CCJP02969) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. Linda Vogel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
M.U. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders made after the court adjudged his daughter, Hannah T.U. (born in 2003), a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Father contends that substantial evidence did not support the jurisdictional finding. We disagree, and accordingly, we affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The family consists of Father and his daughter, Hannah.
The minor had been living with her mother, H.J. (the mother), and maternal relatives in Washington until about 2008, when a court in Washington removed Hannah and her half siblings from their mother's custody. Father gained custody of Hannah, and in 2012, they moved to California.
The mother did not appear in the underlying proceedings and is not a party to this appeal.
In May 2013, Hannah and Father first came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) based on a referral alleging general neglect because the family home was filthy and filled with multiple marijuana plants. The referral was deemed unfounded and closed.
In March 2018, DCFS received another referral that the then 15-year-old Hannah had sent text messages to several friends saying she was going to kill herself with one of Father's guns. Police investigated; at the family home, Hannah showed them one of Father's guns, counterfeit money, and multiple marijuana plants. They also observed that the home was in a filthy condition. A psychiatric evaluation team assessed the minor, and they placed her on a 72-hour involuntary hold. Following investigation, the referral was deemed inconclusive and closed.
In February 2019, DCFS received a referral alleging that Father physically and emotionally abused Hannah. It was reported that after arguing, Father pushed Hannah, causing her to hit a table and crash into a wall. Father continued, "getting in [Hannah's] face as though he was going to hit her again." Hannah stated that Father had unregistered guns in the home and that several times he told Hannah that "he could help her commit suicide by using [one of his] guns." Hannah felt "horrible" and was afraid to return home. She also reported Father watched violent and extremist videos. The referral was closed after Hannah reported that their relationship had stabilized.
On May 8, 2019, DCFS received a referral alleging that the police had arrested Father and had taken him into custody for a probation violation. Police also confiscated multiple guns from the home. Hannah reported that Father was trying to modify his firearms so they could fire rapidly. The police contacted DCFS after the Father refused to cooperate in making a caretaking plan for Hannah.
In November 2018, Father had been convicted of forgery and had been placed on probation, pursuant to which he was prohibited from possessing any firearms. His May 2019 arrest for possession of altered firearms was charged as felony charges because of his probation violation.
The social worker who initially interviewed Hannah reported that she had dirty hair and dirty clothing and "foul body odor." The minor described her relationship with Father as strained. In addition to occasional arguments, Hannah confirmed the allegations that Father had pushed her a couple months earlier. Hannah was also worried about the videos that Father watched, which she described as "extremist videos." She acknowledged having suicidal thoughts in the past. She stated she was doing well in school and had many friends.
The social worker also interviewed the paternal grandmother by telephone. They discussed Hannah's possible placement with her in Bakersfield. The paternal grandmother stated that Father sold marijuana and used marijuana to help him cope with "mental health" issues. The paternal grandmother also reported that Hannah had "threaten[ed] to kill herself on the [social media website] Facebook while having a gun to her mouth."
Hannah denied that she had threatened to commit suicide on social media.
The DCFS social worker interviewed Father about the allegations that he had guns and marijuana on the property, that he used marijuana, that he watched violent and extremist videos, and that he had mental health issues. Father admitted he kept four guns in a safe, including three smaller handguns and a semiautomatic gun. When confronted with a recent photograph of his home, showing multiple marijuana plants and marijuana drying equipment, Father denied selling marijuana and replied it was not unlawful to have marijuana in California. He also denied that he watched violent videos, claiming the videos were religious and for "Bible [s]tudy." Finally, as to his mental health, he reported that he had stopped taking prescription medication for an anxiety disorder, and now self-medicated with marijuana.
On May 10, 2019, DCFS filed a dependency petition on behalf of Hannah under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging the minor was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm based upon Father's mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of anxiety disorder and a failure to take prescribed psychotropic medications (count b-1), Father's current use of marijuana (count b-2), and Father's possession of boxes of marijuana and marijuana drying equipment within Hannah's access (count b-3). At the detention hearing, the court found Hannah was a person described by section 300 and detained her.
DCFS's jurisdiction report contained additional information about Father's criminal history. He was convicted of forgery in November 2018 and placed on probation for 36 months. In May 2019, police arrested him for altering identification marks on a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm. The DCFS report also referenced that Father had taken photographs of court personnel and police officers during his November 2018 criminal proceedings, and he had posted the photographs along with threatening messages on the social media about his arresting officer and court personnel. Additionally, Father had posted a message on social media in March 2019 that he had visited the California Tactical Academy, where the instructors had "helped him set up his rifle scope for better accuracy." (Boldface omitted.) The report also included information that Father was "buying parts to modify [his] guns for 'rapid fire.' " (Boldface omitted.) When confronted with his posted messages, Father explained that he did not intend the posts "as a threat and that if he was [sic] going to hurt someone, he would have done it [already]."
The report also disclosed that when dependency investigators asked Hannah about Father's mental health issues, she stated: " 'something was not connecting with him; he would act strange, he would always be on edge and he'd be angered easily and the next second, he would be all nice . . . . I found out through [the paternal grandmother] that he has PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], [a]nxiety and [d]epression and there might be more. He never told me [that] he might have mental health issues, [and] we never talked about it. Since last year[ ] his strange behavior increased . . . he watched a lot of extremist videos, and he'd be like, " 'I am the person they are talking about in [the] Bible, and that people would wake up. He would watch a lot of religious extremist [videos].['] " She also did not believe Father was taking his prescribed medication for his mental health issues and stated that he was not receiving mental health counseling. Finally, she disclosed that Father's mental health issues had negatively affected their relationship and that she believed he needed " 'a lot of help.' " Hannah did not want to return to Father's home until he received mental health services; she reported that she was afraid that he might hurt her.
Father told the investigator that he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder in 2014, and prescribed various medications by a physician at a veteran's hospital, but that he stopped taking them because of the side effects. Father had been " 'self-medicating with marijuana.' " Father also stated he was not receiving any mental health services. Father denied that his mental health issues had affected his parenting.
Based on the obtained information, DCFS recommended that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over Hannah, remove her from parental custody, and order family reunification services for Father, with Father's case plan to consist of individual counseling, a psychological evaluation, a parenting program, and monitored visitation.
On July 18, 2019, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Father's counsel asked for the court to dismiss the petition while Hannah's counsel asked the court to sustain counts b-1 and b-2 and dismiss count b-3. The court then dismissed counts b-2 and b-3 and sustained count b-1 as follows: "The child Hannah['s] . . . father, [M.U.], has mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of [a]nxiety [d]isorder. On prior occasions, the father failed to take the father's psychotropic medication as prescribed. Such mental and emotional condition[s] on the part of the father endangers the child's physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home environment and places the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger." Continuing to disposition, the court ordered Hannah to be removed from parental custody and for Father to receive family reunification services.
Father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
When asked to assess whether sufficient evidence exists to support a juvenile court's findings, our task begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or not, to support the juvenile court's conclusion. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) We do not reweigh, judge the value of or resolve conflicts in evidence, nor do we exercise independent judgment or evaluate the credibility of witnesses. (In re B.D. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 975, 986.) Jurisdictional findings are reviewed in a light most favorable to the challenged order; all conflicts and reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the order. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450-451.)
A juvenile court may determine that a child is subject to the court's jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that "[t]he child has suffered, or there is 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," the willful or negligent failure of the parent to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or the inability of the parent to provide regular care for the minor due to the parent's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).)
Father objects to the juvenile court's finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), arguing that no evidence exists that he inflicted actual harm on his daughter and that none of the evidence concerning his mental health, his criminal actions, threatening behavior, possession of multiple firearms or his taste in violent and extremist videos justified the court exercising jurisdiction. We agree that the one reported physical altercation was insufficient to support jurisdiction, but conclude that the facts support jurisdiction based on the other grounds of section 300, subdivision (b)(1).
Substantial evidence discloses that Father has a history of mental health challenges which had intensified in the year before the petition was filed. He suffered from anxiety disorder and had refused to take his prescribed medication. Father may also have suffered from untreated PTSD, depression, and other possible mental or emotional disorders. And his behavior appears to have become more erratic after his conviction in November of 2018 when he threatened law enforcement officers and court personnel during his criminal case. In early 2019, Father argued with Hannah, telling her that he would assist her in committing suicide with one of his guns. Father pushed Hannah during an argument, causing her to hit a table and crash into a wall and then continued "getting in [Hannah's] face" as though he was going to hit her. Hannah reported that Father acted strangely and had dramatic mood swings. The family home was filthy, and Hannah did not appear to have clean clothes or proper hygiene. Father had multiple guns in the home, and according to Hannah, was buying parts to modify them to rapid-fire. He watched extremist and violent videos, which according to Hannah, caused him to act in a paranoid and aggressive manner. Hannah told the social worker that Father's mental health problems harmed their relationship; she was afraid of him and did not want to return home because she feared that Father would hurt her. From the totality of this evidence, the court could reasonably find that Father's conduct and his lack of mental and emotional stability, impaired his ability to parent and placed Hannah at substantial risk of harm under subdivision (b), especially given Hannah's prior suicidal ideation and her vulnerable emotional state. The juvenile court need not wait for the risk of harm to ripen into actual injury. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [" 'The court need not wait until a child is . . . injured to assume jurisdiction.' "].) Thus, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b).
Father's sole challenge to the disposition order removing Hannah from his physical custody is premised on his argument that the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings lack evidentiary support. Because substantial evidence supports those findings and Father makes no argument specific to the removal order itself, the disposition is also affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile dependency court is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur.
CHANEY, J.
BENDIX, J.