Opinion
B298052
03-05-2020
In re MIRANDA R., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. NAYELI N., Defendant and Appellant.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19CCJP00809A-B) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Victor G. Viramontes, Judge. Affirmed. Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Nayeli N. (mother) appeals from orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over her children, Miranda (born 2003) and Abram (born 2018), and removing them from her custody. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) that her history of substance abuse, current abuse of marijuana, and mental and emotional problems endangered the children's physical health and safety and placed them at risk of harm. We affirm the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Detention and section 300 petition
On January 28, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral alleging severe neglect of Abram. The caller reported that mother smoked marijuana before and after Abram's birth and that she breastfeeds the infant. The caller also expressed concerns about mother's mental health.
The social worker met with mother the following day at the maternal grandmother's home, where mother and the children were residing. Mother said she was depressed but denied having any current mental health issues. She had been involuntarily hospitalized in 2017 after an apparent suicide attempt during which she ingested lily sap and poison ivy while Miranda was in the home. Mother admitted smoking marijuana on a daily basis. She said Abram's father, Daniel L. (father) provided her with the drug and that father was a methamphetamine addict. Mother agreed to stop breastfeeding Abram and signed a safety plan.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
The social worker interviewed Miranda and Melissa, a 16-year-old maternal aunt who also lived in the maternal grandmother's home. Both Miranda and Melissa said they knew that mother used marijuana and when she did so, they both helped care for Abram.
Father did not reside with the family in the maternal grandmother's home but arrived at the home during the social worker's investigation and agreed to be interviewed. He confirmed that mother smoked marijuana while breastfeeding Abram. He also admitted that he was a current user of both marijuana and methamphetamine.
Mother and father both gave verbal consent for the social worker to remove Abram from their care so they could seek treatment for their respective problems. Both parents also agreed to drug test. Mother tested positive for marijuana and father tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana on January 30, 2019.
The Department obtained a removal order for Abram and Miranda on February 4, 2019. On February 6, 2019, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Abram and Miranda alleging, under counts b-1 and b-3, that mother's history of substance abuse, current use of marijuana, and mental and emotional problems placed the children at risk of harm. Count b-2 alleged that father had a 19-year history of illicit drug abuse and that he was a current user of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana, placing Abram at risk of harm.
At the February 7, 2019 detention hearing, the juvenile court found father to be Abram's presumed father and Oscar R. to be Miranda's presumed father. The court ordered Abram and Miranda detained from mother and father and ordered the Department to provide mother and father with referrals for weekly random drug testing. The juvenile court subsequently ordered both children to be placed with the maternal grandmother after mother moved out of the home.
Oscar R. is not named in the section 300 petition and is not a party to this appeal.
Jurisdiction and disposition
In its April 2019 jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department reported that the children were placed in foster care because the maternal grandmother lived in public housing and was awaiting housing authority approval to have the children placed in her home. Miranda was placed with the maternal grandmother in late March 2019.
Miranda told the social worker in March 2019 that she was aware of mother's marijuana use but denied seeing mother use the drug in the home. She acknowledged that mother had emotional problems and had "a difficult time letting go of the past."
In a February 2019 interview, mother told the social worker she had used methamphetamine only once and denied abusing marijuana. She said her doctor prescribed marijuana after she suffered a mild stroke in 2012 and that she had used marijuana from time to time since then. Mother admitted being involuntarily hospitalized in 2017 but denied having any mental or emotional health problems. She was participating in parenting education classes and had enrolled in individual counseling. Between March 19, 2019 and April 4, 2019, mother had two negative drug tests and two missed tests. She had four subsequent negative drug tests between April 22, 2019 and May 13, 2019.
Mother visited regularly with Abram and Miranda throughout their respective placements. The visits went well and mother was loving and attentive during the visits. Miranda said she had a good relationship with mother and was glad mother was getting help.
The maternal grandmother confirmed mother's marijuana use and said mother used the drug to help her sleep. She said Miranda or Melissa would care for Abram when mother used marijuana. The maternal grandmother believed mother was depressed and needed help.
At the May 21, 2019 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court entered the Department's reports into evidence. Father pled no contest to the petition, and the matter proceeded to a contested hearing as to mother. After hearing argument from the parties, the juvenile court amended the petition by interlineation and sustained the petition as amended. The court declared Miranda and Abram dependents of the juvenile court and ordered the children removed from parental custody. The court ordered mother to participate in random drug testing, and upon any missed or positive test, to enroll in a full drug rehabilitation program. The juvenile court further ordered mother to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and to participate in mental health counseling and individual counseling to address case issues.
The sustained allegations state in relevant part: "b-1 The children [Miranda] and [Abram's] mother . . . has a history of substance abuse including methamphetamine and is a current abuser of marijuana which renders the children's mother incapable of providing regular care for the children. On 01-30-13, the mother had a positive toxicology screen for marijuana. The child Abram is of such young age requiring constant care and supervision and the mother's substance abuse interferes with providing regular care and supervision of the child. The mother's male companion Daniel [L.], failed to protect the child Abram, when the . . . father knew about the mother's substance abuse and provided the mother with marijuana while pregnant with the child Abram. The mother's substance abuse endangers the children's physical health and safety and creates a detrimental home environment, placing the children at risk of serious physical harm and damage." "b-2 The child [Abram's] father, Daniel [L.] has a 19-year history of illicit drug abuse and is a recent user of amphetamine, methamphetamine and marijuana which renders the child's father incapable of providing regular care for the child. On 01-30-19, the father had a positive toxicology screen for methamphetamine, amphetamine and marijuana. The child is of such young age requiring constant care and supervision and the father's illicit drug use interferes with providing regular care and supervision of the child. The father's use of illicit drugs endangers the child's physical health and safety and creates a detrimental home environment, placing the child at risk of serious physical harm and damage." "b-3 The children [Miranda] and [Abram's] mother . . . has mental and emotional problems including depression which renders the mother unable to provide regular care for the children. In 2017, the mother was involuntarily hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the mother's psychiatric condition. Such mental and emotional condition on the part of the mother endangers the children's physical health and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical harm and damage."
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Justiciability of mother's appeal
In this appeal, mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to her conduct only -- she makes no challenge to the jurisdictional findings against father. The Department argues that because the issues raised in mother's appeal have no effect on either the juvenile court's assumption of dependency jurisdiction or the dispositional order, mother's appeal is not justiciable because it will have no practical impact.
A juvenile court need only find that one parent's conduct has created circumstances triggering section 300 for the court to assume jurisdiction over the child. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491.) "For jurisdictional purposes, it is irrelevant which parent created those circumstances. A jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been established. [Citation.] As a result, it is commonly said that a jurisdictional finding involving one parent is '"good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent."' [Citation.] For this reason, an appellate court may decline to address the evidentiary support for any remaining jurisdictional findings once a single finding has been found to be supported by the evidence. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 1492.)
An appellate court may, however, address the merits of the jurisdictional findings against one parent when that finding could be prejudicial to the parent, could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings, or could have other consequences for the parent beyond jurisdiction. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) Father is the presumed father of Abram only, and the jurisdictional findings against him do not apply to Miranda. For this reason, we address the merits of mother's appeal. As we discuss, substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts' jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
II. Jurisdiction
A. Applicable law and standard of review
Section 300, subdivision (b) authorizes the dependency court to assume jurisdiction over a child when the child has suffered, or is at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm because of the parent's failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child. A substantial risk of serious physical harm can be established by proof of an identified, specific hazard in the child's environment, or by the failure to rebut the presumption that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an inherent risk to the physical health and safety of a child of "tender years." (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219 (Christopher R.).) With respect to a child of "tender years," a finding of substance abuse or mental illness is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent to provide regular care, resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm. (Ibid.)
We review mother's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450 [jurisdiction]; In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 145-146 [disposition].) Under that standard, "the issue is whether there is evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the finding. In making that determination, the reviewing court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the challenged order, resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor of that order, and giving the evidence reasonable inferences. Weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving conflicts in evidence and in the inferences to be drawn from evidence are the domain of the trial court, not the reviewing court. Evidence from a single witness, even a party, can be sufficient to support the trial court's findings. [Citations.]" (Alexis E., at pp. 450-451.)
B. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings that mother's marijuana use placed the children at risk of harm. Abram was less than a year old and was a child of "tender years" at the time of the adjudication hearing. Mother's substance abuse and mental health issues accordingly constituted prima facie evidence of her inability to provide regular care for Abram, placing him at substantial risk of physical harm. (Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1219.) Mother presented no evidence to rebut that presumption. While mother argues there was no evidence that her marijuana use or depression caused Abram or Miranda to suffer any actual harm, the juvenile court need not wait until a child is seriously harmed to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
That mother tested negative for drugs during the two months preceding the May 2019 adjudication hearing does not alter the result. By mother's own admission, her marijuana use was both chronic and longstanding, dating back to 2012. She used marijuana while pregnant with Abram and continued to do so daily after his birth and while breastfeeding him. Mother's subsequent attempt to minimize the negative effects of her drug use underscores the risk of harm her conduct presents to the children.
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that mother's unresolved mental health issues placed the children at risk of harm. Mother was involuntarily hospitalized in 2017 following her attempted suicide while Miranda was in the home. An upfront assessment (UFA) performed in 2017 indicated that mother appeared paranoid and exercised poor judgment. The maternal grandmother acknowledged that mother needed help for her depression, and Miranda confirmed that mother had emotional problems and had "a difficult time letting go of the past." Although mother admitted feeling depressed at the time the children were detained, she denied having any mental or emotional issues and claimed she had never been diagnosed with any mental health problems.
In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, on which mother relies, does not support her position. The mother in that case had been diagnosed as impaired and delusional as the result of long-term marijuana use three years before her two-and-a-half-year-old and two-month-old children were detained. She had never been hospitalized or involuntarily committed, there had been no current evaluation of her mental condition, there was evidence of only a one-time use of marijuana during the mother's pregnancy, and there was no evidence that she was unable to care for the children. (Id. at pp. 826-827, 829.) Here, in contrast, mother had a long history of marijuana abuse and used marijuana on a daily basis while the children were in her care. She had also been involuntarily hospitalized after an attempted suicide, admitted feeling depressed and hopeless at the time children were detained, but never received a mental health evaluation or treatment. David M. is accordingly distinguishable.
In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044 (A.L.), In re Rebecca C. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 720 (Rebecca C.), and In re Destiny S. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 999 (Destiny S.), which mother also cites, are equally distinguishable. In A.L., the appellate court reversed the juvenile court's assumption of jurisdiction over a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old after their mother, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, suffered a manic episode and began throwing objects at the children. The 15-year-old son was able to restrain his mother while the children's father called law enforcement for assistance. The mother was subsequently hospitalized, resumed taking her medication, and returned home. The children were aware of their mother's mental illness and were never left alone with her; either the father or paternal grandmother was always in the home.
Here, mother's mental health and substance abuse issues remained unresolved at the time of the adjudication hearing. Although she had recently tested negative for drugs, her marijuana abuse had been chronic and longstanding. Abram was a child of tender years in need of constant care and supervision. Mother's reliance on Abram's 15-year-old sibling to care for him while mother used marijuana did not mitigate her inability to parent the children while she was intoxicated.
Rebecca C. and Destiny S. involved children (13 and 11 years old, respectively), who, unlike Abram, were "'old enough to avoid the kinds of physical dangers which make infancy an inherently hazardous period of life.' [Citation.]" (Destiny S., supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1001, 1004.) Neither of the children in Rebecca C. or Destiny S. were tasked with responsibility for caring for an infant sibling while their mother used drugs, and there was no evidence that their respective mothers suffered from mental health issues. The 13-year-old in Rebecca C. denied knowledge of her mother's drug use (Rebecca C., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 723), whereas in this case Miranda, the maternal grandmother, and a maternal aunt were fully aware of mother's marijuana use.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b).
III. Disposition
To remove a child from a custodial parent, the juvenile court must find that "[t]here is or would be substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home." (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) "'A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of (2) parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and (2) potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent.' [Citations.]" (In re D.D. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 985, 996.) We review the juvenile court's selection of a dispositional order for a minor under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 145-146.)
The same evidence that supports the juvenile court's assumption of jurisdiction over the children also supports the court's dispositional order. Mother's long-term, chronic marijuana use, her daily use of marijuana while nursing Abram, her minimization of the effects of her drug use, her denial of any substance abuse issues and her failure to address her depression and mental health problems are substantial evidence in support of the juvenile court's removal order.
DISPOSITION
The orders establishing juvenile court jurisdiction over the children and removing them from parental custody are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ We concur: /s/_________, Acting P. J.
ASHMANN-GERST /s/_________, J.
HOFFSTADT