Opinion
G055727
07-26-2018
In re EMERY G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELIZABETH G. et al., Defendants and Respondents; EMERY G., Objector and Appellant.
Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Elizabeth G. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Evan W. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17DP0709) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Elizabeth G. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Evan W. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Minor.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
Emery G., a minor dependent of the Orange County Superior Court, has appealed from an order entered by the juvenile court after her jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court found jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), but returned Emery to the custody of her mother, Elizabeth G. Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) and Emery's presumed father have joined in Emery's appeal from the disposition order.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
We reverse the disposition order. We return the matter to the juvenile court, knowing it will have to hold a new disposition hearing, and will take into account the events reflected in this record and events and circumstances subsequent to the appeal. The present record requires reversal because it amply supports the minor's and SSA's fears that Emery's safety was in jeopardy if she was returned to Elizabeth in the absence of a psychological evaluation of her mental condition.
FACTS
The months between detention in June 2017 and the conclusion of the jurisdiction trial in November 2017 were so packed with incident that a chronological narrative is both overwhelming and confusing. A clearer picture requires disentangling several different threads.
Suicide
The precipitating event for this dependency case was Elizabeth's series of threats to commit suicide and, eventually, to kill Emery as well. These particular threats began on June 9, 2017, when Elizabeth called the answering service of her apartment complex eight times between 5:30 p.m. and 6:40 p.m. to complain that there was no hot water in her apartment and then to say she was suicidal. Police officers went to her apartment in Brea, but Elizabeth was not at home. The police report of this incident mentioned that Elizabeth was being evicted for nonpayment of rent and that she had a five-year-old daughter.
On June 22, Elizabeth made another threat through a text message to the apartment manager: "I'm going to commit suicide in the same apartment you want to kick my child and I [sic] out of, I cannot withstand the stress." The officers contacted Elizabeth at her apartment, and she denied sending the message.
On June 23, there was another threat: "blood everywhere." "Our demise will haunt you in your sleep." Responding officers were unable to contact Elizabeth.
Finally, on June 24, after another threat blaming the manager for any harm to her and her child, Elizabeth was placed on a 72-hour hold by Brea police officers. She was transported to a hospital, and her grandmother, Grace A., took care of Emery at Grace's residence.
Later in the proceedings, the Brea Police Department produced a record of a call from a friend seven months earlier, on November 28, 2016, regarding a text message from Elizabeth, who had just been dumped by a boyfriend (as described in more detail below): "I can't do it anymore. I'm done. Emery would have a nice life. I'm going to up her insurance policy. I'm gonna take the rest of my Xanax." The police visited Elizabeth on November 28 and relieved her of her Xanax.
Elizabeth herself reported to her psychiatrist that she had tried to commit suicide at age 11 and had been hospitalized.
When interviewed by a social worker at the hospital while on 72-hour hold, Elizabeth denied making the suicide threats. At the detention hearing in June, her counsel repeated this denial.
In an email to SSA on August 3, Elizabeth admitted to threatening the landlord with suicide. By August 24, she had apparently forgotten this admission and stated in an email that SSA had never proved the texts came from her; therefore SSA had no grounds for detaining Emery.
At trial, Elizabeth admitted sending the threatening texts to the landlord. She said she did so as "a form of intimidation or manipulation" and "false threats." "I wrote e-mails stating that they were basically going to cause our demise." By threatening murder and suicide, she testified, Elizabeth intended to manipulate or intimidate the landlord into stopping the eviction process. "I was just trying to scare them and basically just freak them out and make them do the right thing because I had paid my rent. It's a frustrating situation to be in when you've done the right thing and nothing happens."
Detention
Emery was detained on June 28, 2017. The jurisdiction hearing was set for July 20. Elizabeth was granted eight hours of monitored visitation per week. The court expressed the hope that Elizabeth would submit to a psychological evaluation to speed the reunification process along. Elizabeth responded, "I don't need help."
Elizabeth's Family
A social worker interviewed Elizabeth's grandmother, Grace, the day Elizabeth was placed on psychiatric hold. Elizabeth had dropped Emery off early that morning at Grace's home. Grace told the social worker she watched Emery almost daily while Elizabeth worked. Although Grace was in her 80s, she had support from family (her daughters) and friends.
The social worker also interviewed Emery on June 24. Emery said her mother was both "nice and mean" and stated she felt safe at Grace's home.
Elizabeth's relationship with her mother, Reina, and her aunt M.A. (Grace's daughters) was strained long before these proceedings began. At that time of her hospitalization, however, she got along well with her father and Grace. This did not last.
On the day of the detention hearing (June 28) and shortly thereafter, the social worker received messages from Grace, Reina, and aunt M.A. regarding Elizabeth. Grace wanted a restraining order against Elizabeth because she was harassing them in person and through threatening and aggressive text messages. Grace was afraid that she would be evicted from her residence if Elizabeth's conduct continued. Some days later, M.A. also complained to SSA of threatening and aggressive texts from Elizabeth.
Elizabeth had told a social worker that, although she and her mother were at odds, she loved her father. "He is the best. I love my dad." After reading what he had told a social worker about her mental health during an interview on July 3, Elizabeth changed her mind. She insisted he give back a cell phone she had given him after she "saw what he said about [her]," and she no longer spoke to him.
Elizabeth had relatives on her father's side in Florida whom she said were important to her.
Elizabeth's Mental Health
After Elizabeth was hospitalized on June 24, she began calling the police "non-stop. Law enforcement had to order the hospital to take [Elizabeth's] cell phone away due to the constant calls." She was also "badger[ing]" the hospital staff, and she remained agitated long after most psychiatric holds calm down. The hospital staff stated she was exhibiting signs of borderline personality disorder.
A social worker interviewed Elizabeth on June 24 while she was still at the hospital. During this interview, Elizabeth denied sending suicidal texts and maintained the police had no proof she had sent them. She threatened to file a federal lawsuit against the Brea Police Department - the first of numerous threats - because the department was being paid by her landlord to keep her in the hospital in order to make her miss her court date regarding her eviction. She accused the social worker interviewing her of being involved in this conspiracy (for pay), along with the landlord and the Brea Police Department, to make her miss her court date. She denied ever being violent, aggressive, or confrontational.
She repeated this accusation to the court at the detention hearing.
While in the hospital, Elizabeth asked to have Emery visit her. The hospital staff vetoed this request because of Elizabeth's behavior; security had to intervene multiple times to stop her confrontations with the staff - for example, for walking around in the hallway wearing only a bra. Elizabeth, for her part, accused the staff of violating her civil right to walk around wearing whatever she wanted. She said the staff was also violating her civil right to have Emery visit her. Elizabeth's family was not allowed to visit her in the hospital because of her erratic behavior.
When the social worker interviewed Elizabeth's mother, Reina, on June 24, she recounted a history of behavioral problems with Elizabeth, beginning at age five. At one point, Elizabeth was receiving disability insurance for mental health problems. Elizabeth's mother, aunt, and grandmother (Grace) informed the social worker that Elizabeth becomes "hostile, angry, combative, and aggressive" whenever she does not get her way. Elizabeth's father also reported her false accusations and disturbing actions when younger. Grace stated that Elizabeth was getting worse and "[n]ow [Emery] is being affected.
This report caused Elizabeth to repossess her father's cell phone.
Elizabeth was transferred from the hospital to Orange County Evaluation and Treatment Services on June 26. She was released from the latter facility on the same day because she did not meet the criteria for a lock-down facility.
During a telephone conversation on June 26, Grace informed the social worker that Elizabeth needed help, that she was sick, and that she could become violent and dangerous. During a telephone conversation on the same day, Reina stated, "Elizabeth needs a psychiatric evaluation."
A social worker interviewed Elizabeth by phone on July 10, in connection with the allegations of the petition. Elizabeth claimed not to know why the police had instituted the 72-hour hold on her. She stated that she had developed anxiety after "a bad break up because he was my first love" and that she had been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at age 17. When the social worker attempted to explain SSA's mental health concerns, Elizabeth stated she would hire a private attorney and that she had already had a psychiatric evaluation in connection with a gestational surrogacy application. The phone call had to be terminated because Elizabeth was becoming upset and raising her voice.
Elizabeth saw Dr. W., a psychiatrist, intermittently. Dr. W.'s notes indicated that Elizabeth had first consulted him in April 2015, at which time Elizabeth informed him that she had tried to commit suicide at age 11. Their sessions lasted about 20 minutes. Dr. W. diagnosed her as having ADHD and prescribed medication. She saw Dr. W. approximately every three to six months for refills.
During a visit in November 2016, Elizabeth told Dr. W. that she was depressed after finding out her boyfriend had a live-in girlfriend. Her family took care of Emery during this period. Dr. W. prescribed medication for depression and encouraged Elizabeth to find a therapist. In December 2016, Dr. W. prescribed Xanax for anxiety. Dr. W. told SSA during a subsequent phone interview that Elizabeth "doesn't share a lot with him," and he opined that she was "'definitely someone who could benefit from therapy.'"
The report stated November 2017, but November 2017 had not happened yet.
Elizabeth claimed her mental health was not an issue and she did not need a psychological evaluation because she had passed a psychological evaluation to be a gestational surrogate. She authorized (in an email) the release of her "cleared psych evaluation done [one] year ago" from this agency.
On July 7, SSA received a screening report of a phone consultation and clinical assessment conducted on February 16, 2016, for the surrogacy agency. Elizabeth claimed to have been in a "committed relationship" in April 2011 resulting in Emery's birth, a relationship that ended in January 2012. (Emery was born in April 2012.) She stated her family supported her plans to be a surrogate. She denied taking medication, even though Dr. W. had been prescribing medication for ADHD since April 2015. "As to the personality test, it was noted that [Elizabeth] presented herself as an emotionally stable and confident person who can also deal fairly well with ambiguity. She was described as being a careful planner and her thinking was orderly and without mental confusion. She was an organized person who demonstrated rationale [sic] and skillful decision making. It was noted that her responses indicate a person exhibiting stable levels of anxiety, anger, depression, and stress. The test indicated Elizabeth accurately saw herself as an optimistic person, who enjoys life to the fullest and sees challenges as an opportunity to grow and learn. It was noted [Elizabeth] demonstrated stability in terms of maturity, intellectual functioning, and interpersonal relationships."
At trial, Elizabeth claimed not to know which of two men was Emery's father.
SSA interviewed a representative of the surrogacy agency regarding the report. The representative stated that the psychological evaluation was based on the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and that all the information in the report was self-reported. SSA also interviewed the licensed clinical social worker who administered the MMPI. She explained that the interview with Elizabeth was conducted over the phone and through Skype and all the information was self-reported. The test does not screen for child abuse, stability, or parenting level.
After SSA's conversation with the psychologist, Elizabeth threatened to sue the social workers if she lost her contract with the agency.
In October 2017, Elizabeth agreed to begin seeing a therapist. She would not, however, sign a release allowing SSA to speak to the therapist. At trial on direct examination, she testified that she would "reluctantly" sign a release. Then on cross-examination she testified that she would not sign a release.
Foster Care
When Elizabeth was hospitalized on June 24, Emery was staying with Grace, who routinely cared for her while Elizabeth worked. Elizabeth told the social worker on that date that Emery was "safe and well," "fine," and "safe" with Grace. Elizabeth also suggested that her mother, Reina, would live with Grace and take care of Emery if she were no longer in Elizabeth's custody. The next day, while still in the hospital, Elizabeth stated she was happy that family was taking care of Emery. The day after that, Elizabeth stated that she did not want Emery to be placed at Grace's home because it was a senior citizen home and she preferred the home of a friend, with whom Elizabeth was also living. In early July, she emailed SSA that she could not understand why "a 90 yr old woman [i.e., Grace] and a paralyzed 70 something yesterday [sic; "year"?] old was placement choice was a brilliant idea I don't under[stand] however I do understand common sense is not common." She characterized Emery's placement with Grace as "your [i.e., SSA's] placement choice."
On July 11, Emery was placed in the home of a couple, the C.'s, who were family friends of Elizabeth and who had known Emery since her birth. Elizabeth was insistent that Emery be placed with the C.'s, and Emery expressed great satisfaction with this placement. Emery remained with the C.'s throughout the period covered by this appeal. From mid-July to mid-August, Mr. C. monitored Elizabeth's visits with Emery.
"I like them and I want to stay with them."
Emery's School and Child Care
At the outset of the case, Elizabeth claimed that Emery was attending pre-school at a Montessori school in Anaheim with funding from Children's Home Society. At the detention hearing, Elizabeth told the court that Emery had been going to Montessori for child care since she was six months old, and that her employer, Disney, was paying for it. She said she had recently lost her child care. She sent multiple emails to SSA in early July demanding that Emery go to school.
One of the Children's Home Society programs for child care funding is the CalWORKS program, which is subsidized by the state. A representative from Children's Home Society reported to SSA that Elizabeth had applied for child care funding most recently on April 25, 2017, and had been approved on June 28, the same day as the detention hearing.
Telephone conversations with people at the Montessori school revealed that Elizabeth had previously lost her funding for Emery's child care and had not paid for a period of three weeks after that. Elizabeth had been bringing Emery to Montessori since she was two years old, but Emery had never attended consistently except for a two-month period. The school had had "numerous conversations" with Elizabeth regarding inconsistent attendance, to no avail. Emery's most recent attendance had been two days in April and two days in June 2017, the last of these days being June 9.
Elizabeth stated Emery had not been attending school because she was waiting for "funding." CalWORKS does not fund private school tuition at the elementary school level, only child care.
Elizabeth had first applied to Children's Home Society for child care in 2013, but her file had been closed multiple times because she had not turned in the necessary documents. She had obtained funding within the previous two years, making her eligible for current funding. Because Emery was no longer in Elizabeth's custody, however, CalWORKS would not be paying for Emery's child care through her, but would pay for child care through the caregivers, if they needed funding and qualified for it. SSA could submit a referral for the caregivers.
Elizabeth repeatedly threatened to sue the social workers for making her lose her funding from CalWORKS. She asserted she was now "100% financially responsible for child care" she could not afford, even though Emery was, at that point, not in her custody. She also claimed SSA was responsible (and would be sued) for losing Emery's "Montessori education," even though Emery had been attending the school only sporadically, and Children's Home Society did not fund tuition.
Elizabeth's claims regarding Emery's child care through CalWORKS were never reconciled with the reports from Grace and Mr. C. that Grace took care of Emery while Elizabeth worked. At trial, Elizabeth testified that Grace took care of Emery "on and off."
Emery was placed with the C.'s in mid-July, at Elizabeth's request. For a month everything was peaceful on this front, with Mr. C. monitoring Elizabeth's visits. In mid-August, however, the issue of Emery's kindergarten arose. Elizabeth insisted that Emery was going to attend a school in Brea. But the school Elizabeth had selected was too far from the C.s' house to be feasible. As Mr. C. explained, Emery would have to get up at 5:00 a.m. to be at this school on time. The C.'s enrolled her in a school near their home. When visited by a social worker at school, Emery expressed her enjoyment at being there.
In Mr. C.'s words, Elizabeth "went berserk" over the school issue. There was an argument at the C.s' house, observed by Emery, and Elizabeth took back some school clothes that people in Florida had sent to Emery. The C.'s were subjected to so many threatening text messages that Mrs. C. had to block Elizabeth's phone number. SSA also came in for its share of phone calls and emails threatening lawsuits and other dire consequences if Emery was not enrolled in Brea. Then there was a phone call to an emergency line on August 13 during which Elizabeth demanded that social workers and the police go to the C.'s immediately "because 'someone is going to be killed if my daughter starts school and I miss it.'"
"I am allowed by law to make educational decisions pertaining to Emery [and] this will not end well for you."
Elizabeth asserted that she was registering Emery at the Brea school anyway. She threatened to go to the school where the C.'s had enrolled Emery and withdraw her from the school. On August 21, the court heard argument on a request for a school of origin order, by Elizabeth, to require the C.'s to transport Emery to Brea for school. The court denied the request. Emery stayed at the school near the C.'s and made good progress there.
As a result of this controversy over Emery's school, Elizabeth stated that she wanted someone from SSA to monitor her visits instead of Mr. C. Mr. C. made the same request.
Elizabeth's Interactions with SSA
As set forth in the detention report, a social worker contacted Elizabeth on June 26, the day she was released from her psychiatric hold, to tell her about the detention hearing on June 28. Elizabeth asked to have Emery moved from Grace's home to the home of a friend in Corona (not the C.'s) with whom she was currently living. She refused to provide information about Emery's father or about an ex-boyfriend whom she identified as Emery's "legal father." Elizabeth stated she was attending classes at Cal State Fullerton and working as a "debt negotiator." She denied mental health problems and stated she was being treated for ADHD by Dr. W.
A telephone call between Elizabeth and the assigned social worker on the day of the detention hearing (June 28) did not go well. The social worker attempted to set up an interview with Elizabeth, who remarked that since she was not "Kim Kardashian," she had to work and could not meet with the social worker. An offer by the social worker to meet during her lunch hour was rejected, because Elizabeth did not want to mix her personal life with her professional life. She told the social worker that she did not want Emery to be placed with her family; she had provided a list of friends for placement. When the social worker tried to explain the placement process, Elizabeth accused her of being negligent for not providing visits and told her that an attorney was sitting in Elizabeth's car listening to the phone conversation and recording it. At this point, the social worker ended the call.
The record contains a series of entries for "July 28, 2017." The date is erroneous; the jurisdiction/disposition report in which these entries occur is dated July 20. In addition, the entries refer to a meeting in court; the detention hearing took place on June 28. One entry also referred to Emery's still living in Grace's home; Emery was moved on July 11. We assume the correct date for these entries is June 28.
SSA's jurisdiction/disposition report also contained the texts of a barrage of e-mails over the next few days from Elizabeth. The recurring themes of these emails were (1) lack of a car seat for Emery and threats to "call[] the cops" and to hold someone "accountable"; (2) Emery's school, a Montessori in Anaheim, which was going to exclude her if she did not show up, and loss of child care; (3) Emery's mistreatment in her present placement with Grace some of which Elizabeth characterized as "very ghetto"; and (4) repeated threats to sue. This last threat was repeated on July 10 when the social worker went over the allegations of the petition with Elizabeth to get her responses for the report. Again the social worker had to end the conversation because Elizabeth was raising her voice.
The emails are dated in the report July 2, 2017, but then a response by a social worker is dated June 3, 2017. We assume the emails started after the detention hearing on June 28.
Grace was using a booster seat Elizabeth had provided. As of June 30, Emery was 46.5 inches tall and weighed 57 pounds.
The record for the period between July and November 2017 includes dozens of abusive and belligerent emails from Elizabeth, accompanied by dozens of threats to sue, file police reports, and go to the media. Between October 12 and November 7 alone, SSA received 54 emails from Elizabeth in addition to numerous texts. The subjects of the emails ranged from the mundane (information about her therapist), to the exotic (scheduled embryo transplant in New York), to the bizarre (video of a former friend smoking crack). And repeated threats to "sue the pants off of each and every one of you."
Visitation
Visitation was a source of endless conflict between Elizabeth and SSA. Her first visit after her release from the hospital, at Grace's home on June 26, had to be ended early, because she made Emery cry. Elizabeth accused Grace of not taking proper care of Emery. Grace asked that future visits take place somewhere other than her residence because of Elizabeth's past aggressive conduct, which included breaking flower pots. She also refused to have Elizabeth live with her.
At the detention hearing on June 28, the court allowed Elizabeth eight hours per week of monitored visitation. Elizabeth took the position that she was in complete charge of visitation and it would be at a place and time of her choosing.
At first, Elizabeth demanded that a social worker monitor the visits. The visits had to accommodate her work schedule, so they were set up for two hours on two weekdays and four hours on Sunday.
For the first visit after detention, on July 2, Elizabeth told SSA she wanted the social worker to transport Emery to a certain restaurant, then transport her to another location. Elizabeth also wanted other adults and children to participate in the visit. She demanded that the caretakers (at that point, her mother and grandmother) not transport Emery.
The social worker contacted Elizabeth to explain the parameters of the visit. The caretakers, not the social worker, would be transporting Emery. The visit had to take place in one location, not several. Other people could not be involved. As this explanation was taking place, Elizabeth began talking over and yelling at the social worker. Finally Elizabeth hung up. She then sent five emails changing the location of the visit and criticizing the social worker for suggesting the restaurant, even though the original meeting place had been her choice. These criticisms included the now-routine threats to sue and to inform the judge.
Elizabeth's response to this information was "this was her visit and that she could go where she wants to."
After Emery was placed with the C.'s on July 11, Mr. C. monitored the visits, and he was more than flexible about scheduling them to suit Elizabeth. She told Mr. C. that the visits were to be at her convenience. SSA corrected that notion, telling Mr. C. the visits took place on a schedule.
After her falling-out with the C.'s in August over Emery's school, Elizabeth insisted on having a social worker monitor her visits, and she evidently expected a social worker to be available immediately and willing to travel. Of course, it took some time to arrange for a social worker to monitor the visits. Visitation at the New Alternatives site was approved on August 15, two days after the blow-up with the C.'s.
SSA then attempted to set up a schedule for visits. Elizabeth told the New Alternatives representative that she was not available Monday nights, but only on Tuesday and Thursday during the week. No monitor was available for those days, so Elizabeth was placed on a wait list. On August 24, the social worker informed Elizabeth that a monitor had been found for the following Thursday and also one for Sunday. She was still looking for a Tuesday monitor and asked if any other day was possible. The visits were set up for the New Alternatives site.
SSA policy requires the first few visits monitored by social workers to take place at an agency site; if all goes well, other sites can be arranged.
Elizabeth would have none of this. More emails and threats to sue followed. She insisted that her visits were "of [her] choosing" and that the social workers must follow her orders. She refused to visit at New Alternatives, "like a lowlife ghetto person," and informed SSA that on Sunday she and Emery were going to church and then to lunch "like Emery and I used to do before you abrupted our lives that's where the visit will be it's not my problem who or how but you do have to make up the hours and you will provide someone to conduct a visit on Sunday unless you want me to add further damages to my demand letter stated I don't care how long it takes I will get financially compensated for all this pain and suffering with no grounds to justify the separation between mother and daughter and don't forget you violated my Hyppa [sic] rights and my educational rights as my daughter is attending an LA County school when she supposed to attend country Hills elementary in the city of Brea since we have been living here for the past five years and it would be in her best interest to keep her at the same school and I have a bounce around to two different elementary schools in one year but I guess you really don't care about the children[.]" When SSA explained that the Sunday visit had to take place at New Alternatives, Elizabeth stated, "Sunday visits will be at my choosing as they have always been" and threatened to file a federal discrimination suit.
"I will not be doing any visits at a center location I will continue to pick the location as I have been since the beginning of this process so since you owe me 12 hours you will provide a social worker to conduct a supervised visit this Sunday."
This is a representative Elizabeth email.
She claimed to have already filed a civil rights complaint against a specific social worker.
SSA made an extraordinary effort to accommodate a visit in Brea on August 29, sending two social workers to monitor. The visit generally went well, although Elizabeth initially criticized the monitors for "ambush[ing]" her by sending two people. "I am going to document this because no one told me." The next visit, on a Sunday, had to take place at a visitation center, pursuant to policy. SSA had set up four visits in early September at visitation centers. Elizabeth refused to visit at a center on those dates.
At trial, Elizabeth represented that she had been having visits in the community during the second part of August and that they were arbitrarily switched to center visits. She attributed this change to her informing SSA that she had plane tickets for herself and Emery for a visit to Boston in November. In fact, she'd had only one SSA-monitored visit, the one on August 29, in the community at the time.
When Elizabeth turned up for visits, they generally went very well. Emery was happy to see her, and they did fun things together, such as going to a nail salon or Romp-O-Rama. Elizabeth had to be redirected only a few times, and she did not argue with the monitor about these redirections.
The problem was that Elizabeth's visits were inconsistent. When she did not get her way or it did not suit her, she refused to visit. For example, on the day the C.'s and Elizabeth argued about which school Emery would attend (August 13), Elizabeth left after only an hour of a four-hour visit. Mr. C. reported that in the period between July 16 and August 16, Elizabeth visited for 20 hours and missed 31 hours. When told that her visits had to take place at New Alternatives, after the falling-out with the C.'s, she initially refused to go, insisting that only a "lowlife ghetto person" had to visit there.
At trial, Elizabeth testified that she missed two weeks (16 hours) because she was "upset."
Elizabeth did not visit in person with Emery from the middle of August to the middle of October. Finally, it seemed to dawn upon her that the person who was suffering from this intransigence was Emery, not SSA, and she visited, beginning on October 12. Although these visits were not free from controversy (and threats of lawsuits), they were generally positive.
During this period, Elizabeth and Emery had "very infrequent Face Time" visits.
On one of the days SSA had scheduled for a visit at a center, Emery and Mr. C. were on the way to the visitation center when they learned that the visit had been canceled. At that time, Emery had not heard from Elizabeth in approximately two weeks.
Services
The day after the June 28 detention hearing, SSA contacted Elizabeth about services. She was informed that the court had authorized drug testing, which Elizabeth claimed not to need as she had never had a drug problem. She also stated that she did not have time to drug test, so SSA offered a drug patch. Elizabeth agreed. She then pressed SSA to get her drug patch immediately.
After SSA sent the paperwork required to set up a drug patch test, Elizabeth complained that the testing location was too far from her work. SSA changed the location to accommodate her. As of the time of the jurisdiction trial (September 19), she had not put the patch on.
Elizabeth admitted to smoking marijuana, which, as she repeatedly said, was legal. When asked whether she smoked in front of Emery, Elizabeth said no; she smoked "on [her] way to work" and "on [her] own personal time." Since she had her own car and drove herself to work, presumably she was smoking marijuana while driving. She also tested positive for marijuana on the day of the 72-hour hold, when she was about to pick up Emery at Grace's home. At trial, Elizabeth categorically denied smoking marijuana and denied telling a social worker she did so.
Elizabeth also refused to agree to counseling or therapy as she did not need it. After the detention hearing, she consented to a psychiatric evaluation (a 730 evaluation), although the court had not yet ordered one. On August 3, Elizabeth retracted this consent and refused to submit to a 730 evaluation. She reiterated this refusal on August 26. As of the time of trial, she had not had a 730 evaluation or any other services. At trial, she reiterated her refusal to have a 730 evaluation because it had been recommended by a social worker.
Employment and Finances
At trial, Elizabeth testified that she worked for Disney for three-and-a-half years, including the time she was pregnant with Emery (in 2011). According to the information Elizabeth gave Dr. W., her psychiatrist, she worked for T-Mobile in October 2015, for the City of Irvine in March 2016, and then in human resources in March 2017, after taking some time off. She told SSA she was working as a debt negotiator or did administration work in regard to credit for Americor Financial in Irvine in June 2017, when Emery was detained. At the detention hearing, she stated she had started this job on April 27, 2017.
At the detention hearing, Elizabeth said she had worked for Disney for the last five years and that it was her prior job. She did not mention T-Mobile, the Irvine job, or the human resources job.
If her report to Dr. W. is true, Elizabeth was changing jobs about every six months between 2015 and 2017.
The record does not contain any independent verification of Elizabeth's employment, such as a current pay stub. She claimed to be starting a new job in Boston in November 2017. She purchased one-way plane tickets to Boston for herself and Emery for late November 2017.
At trial, a social worker testified that she had not confirmed Elizabeth's employment because she did not want interference with her professional life. The social worker did not ask for a pay stub.
The record also does not contain an independent verification of her classes at California State University at Fullerton, which purportedly took all day on Saturdays. The social worker testified at trial that Elizabeth had given SSA a class schedule, but the schedule is not in the record. At one point, Elizabeth claimed to be getting an AA degree from Cal State Fullerton. At trial, she testified that she had been taking a six-month extension class, which had "just finished" as of November 2017, and had received a certificate at completion. The certificate never made it into evidence.
Elizabeth's financial situation was never clarified. She testified she was living in a one-bedroom, low-income, subsidized apartment when Emery was detained and she repeatedly referred to her subsidized child care through CalWORKS. She also stated she had contracted to be a surrogate because she and Emery needed the money. Nevertheless, she claimed to own property in Barstow (a home) and/or Victorville and said she and a friend had bought investment property in Boston. She also referred to a rental property she bought as an investment. She castigated SSA for the decline in Emery's lifestyle, asserting that Emery had previously enjoyed expensive trips, activities, and designer shoes.
At trial, Elizabeth testified that she was going to Boston "to look at and buy a multi-family home" with a friend.
Emery's Fathers
During her first interview with a social worker, at the hospital where she was placed on a 72-hour hold, Elizabeth refused to reveal any information about Emery's father. She claimed that Emery's father last saw her when she was six months old. A search of the child welfare system revealed that Emery's father was Evan W.
Shortly after her release, Elizabeth informed SSA that she met Evan when she was 14 and that she "lost [her] virginity" to him. So, nine years later, she resumed a relationship with him on purpose to get pregnant and thereby be revenged on him for this. She had initially considered adoption for Emery, but changed her mind after the baby was born. She stated that Evan was a "druggie" and had a DUI conviction. She refused to let SSA notify him of Emery's detention. She insisted that SSA stop trying to involve him in the proceedings.
At trial, Elizabeth stated for the first time that Evan had raped her when she was 14. She appeared to mean forcible rape, not statutory rape.
Evan reported that Elizabeth became pregnant by him when she was 15 and had an abortion.
A search of law enforcement databases revealed that Evan had a criminal record, mostly for alcohol- and drug-related offenses.
A due diligence search for Evan was unsuccessful, but a search of court records turned up a child support order dated October 25, 2012, and paternity test results indicating that Evan was Emery's biological father. Evan was not on Emery's birth certificate. In February 2016, Elizabeth petitioned the court to deny Evan visitation.
At the detention hearing, Elizabeth's counsel told the court that Elizabeth believed Evan was Emery's biological father. She had further informed her counsel that Evan had never contacted Emery or held her out as his child.
SSA finally located Evan in October 2017. He was completing a drug rehabilitation program. He reported that he had ended his relationship with Elizabeth because of her mental health issues. After Evan tried to reestablish a relationship with Emery, Elizabeth told Evan to stay away, informing him that she had a gun. He testified at trial that he had last seen Emery when she was 21 months old and had visited her between her birth and 21 months between 15 and 20 times. He also testified that he had paid child support for at least 18 months. He had held Emery out as his child.
After being released from the 72-hour hold, Elizabeth told SSA that she had had no contact with Evan for five years. She said Evan had not seen Emery since she was six months old.
Evan's mother reported that he and Elizabeth used cocaine and marijuana and that Elizabeth and Emery lived with Grace for the first 18 months of Emery's life. Evan also reported that he and Elizabeth used cocaine from 2010 to 2011.
Elizabeth sent SSA a copy of a declaration of biological paternity signed by another man under penalty of perjury in December 2016, more than four-and-a half years after Emery's birth, a declaration she also signed. On June 26, the day of her release from the hospital, Elizabeth told SSA she did not want this man involved in the case. The man also informed SSA that he did not want to be involved in Emery's dependency proceedings. Although counsel was appointed for him, he did not attend any court hearings.
At trial, Elizabeth testified that she "possibly" signed the declaration and she "possibly" gave a copy to SSA. She "most likely" had the original of the declaration.
At trial, Elizabeth claimed to be unsure about who Emery's biological father was, despite the support order and paternity test results. She testified that she did not remember about the paternity test, but she did remember the child support order. Or she "possibly" remembered both the test and the order. She also reconsidered her testimony that Evan had never contributed anything to Emery's support; she allowed as how she had "possibly" received child support from him. Evan testified that part of his wages were garnished for child support until he became unemployed.
"Not a pack of diapers, not a pair of socks, not a rattle."
At the end of trial, the court found Evan to be Emery's presumed father. The other man was dismissed from the proceedings. Evan was allowed visitation, and Elizabeth was cautioned not to "bad-mouth" him to Emery. The court agreed that Elizabeth had thwarted Evan's visitation with Emery.
Who Took Care of Emery
Elizabeth's grandmother, Grace, had cared for Emery since birth. Elizabeth became depressed after a boyfriend dumped her (explained in more detail below), and she left Emery with her grandmother for an extended period, stating that otherwise she would hurt Emery. According to Reina, when Elizabeth was in a relationship, she did not properly care for Emery.
Elizabeth testified at trial that she moved out of her grandmother's home in September 2012, when Emery would have been about five months old. She lived for another six months with a friend's mother.
The C.'s also took care of Emery on some nights and once a month on weekends before her detention. Elizabeth would call them at the last minute to watch Emery, and they would sometimes keep her overnight. When Emery was placed with the C.'s in mid-July, Mr. C. anticipated no problems with her adjustment: "'She is used to being here. This is normal for her.'"
On February 7, 2015, the Brea police were contacted at 2:00 a.m. because Elizabeth had left Emery with a sitter and had not returned. She was supposed to be back at midnight, and the sitter could not reach her. She was still not home at 2:30 a.m. Elizabeth showed up at about 4:00 a.m.
In April 2017, Elizabeth dropped Emery off at a friend's house for the day, saying that she was "going through something" with a boyfriend and needed to get away. Elizabeth did not return to pick up Emery for a week.
Child Abuse Reports
There were three of these. The first was Elizabeth's report against her mother and grandmother for abusing Emery. The report was investigated and determined to be unfounded. Nonetheless, Elizabeth threatened to sue for "the placement [SSA] picked." She continued to harp on the "abuse" even after being told of the result. Emery was then moved to the C.s' home because of the friction between Elizabeth and her relatives. As Reina stated, "We were going to call and tell [SSA] to please move [Emery] because we don't want any problems and that is all Elizabeth is causing."
The second abuse report was Elizabeth's against Mr. C. This report too was determined to be unfounded.
The third report, dated September 26, 2017, was against Elizabeth. She was caring for a friend's daughter, N. According to the police report, the incident came to light three weeks after it happened, when N. spoke to a school counsellor. N.'s mother left N. with Elizabeth and then was unable to raise her on the phone. N.'s mother sent another friend to Elizabeth's residence to contact her and also asked the Brea police to investigate. Neither the friend nor the police obtained any response from Elizabeth. Elizabeth dropped N. off at her mother's house the next day.
The Brea police report gives the date of the incident as September 3, 2017. The SSA report gives the date as September 22. From the police report, it appears that September 22 was the date on which a school counsellor contacted N.'s mother regarding the incident.
Elizabeth testified a trial that N.'s grandmother told her on the phone not to let N. go with the friend who was knocking on Elizabeth's door. N.'s grandmother also called the Brea police with this information.
N. was interviewed twice about the incident. She told the same story to both the police officer and the social worker. She stated that when Elizabeth heard the friend knocking on the door, she grabbed N. by the arm and forced her into a closet, after shutting off the lights and the television. N. recognized the friend's voice and began to cry, at which time Elizabeth covered N.'s mouth with her hand. Both the friend and the police ultimately left the residence.
N.'s mother, who considered herself a close friend of Elizabeth, told the social worker handling N.'s case that when Elizabeth returned N. to her house, Elizabeth threatened harm to her and her children because of the call to the police. Elizabeth insisted that N.'s mother call the police back and tell them she had made a mistake. N. corroborated Elizabeth's threats to her mother.
Elizabeth had proposed this person's home as a possible placement for Emery at the beginning of the case. At the detention hearing, Elizabeth's counsel described her to the court as "her very, very good childhood friend," who was prepared to testify about Elizabeth's excellence as a mother.
N.'s mother also told the social worker that she had had to drive to Riverside County Jail to bail out Elizabeth after her drunk-driving, hit-and-run arrest (described below). Elizabeth had turned up at N.'s mother's house drunk and had refused to turn over her car keys. Elizabeth had also stated that she had nothing to live for without Emery and that she might as well die.
It was not until the social worker handling Emery's case read this report, in October, that she learned about Elizabeth's DUI arrest in July.
At trial, the court refused to add allegations regarding the child abuse report to the amended petition because the matter had not yet been tried. It was therefore not going to serve as a basis of jurisdiction. The evidence was not, however, excluded from the record.
The DUI Arrest
On July 15, 2017, Elizabeth was arrested for a DUI hit-and-run. According to the California Highway Patrol arrest report, she rear-ended another car and then left the scene. Elizabeth failed several field sobriety tests. When the arresting officer asked her if she wanted to take the optional alcohol screening test, Elizabeth began to argue and to request a lawyer. She agreed to take the test, then began telling the officer about her custody case.
Elizabeth was transported to the CHP's Riverside area office for a breath test or blood test. On the way, she demanded the officers' identification numbers, claiming that she was pregnant and going to have a miscarriage. She was "argumentative as she repeated the same questions over and over." She told the officers she had a boyfriend who was a police officer, but declined an offer to call him because he beat her. She was then taken to Riverside Community Hospital, where she became belligerent with the hospital staff. She was booked at the Riverside Police Department. N.'s mother bailed her out. Elizabeth's license was suspended on November 11, 2017.
In August, a propos of visitation, Mr. C. reported to SSA that Elizabeth told him she was attending weekly AA meetings. When SSA inquired about the meetings, Elizabeth became incensed. She claimed that "AA" referred to the degree she was getting from Cal State Fullerton. At trial, Elizabeth testified that the course she had been taking at Cal State was a Saturday extension course for which she received a certificate.
The Dog
Elizabeth's aunt M.A. emailed the social worker on July 6 about Elizabeth's dog, which Elizabeth had asked Grace to take to a shelter when she was hospitalized at the end of June. Not wanting to take the dog to a shelter, Grace asked M.A. (her daughter) to keep the dog, which Grace had witnessed being abused by Elizabeth. M.A. reported that Elizabeth was texting her "incessant[ly]," threatening to sue her and to break into her house to get the dog.
On July 31, Elizabeth emailed SSA asking the social workers to intervene and claiming to have filed a police report about the stolen dog. She claimed the dog was a service animal.
Nothing in Dr. W,'s notes as cited in the record indicates that Elizabeth had or needed a service animal.
On August 28, M.A. emailed a social worker saying that she was still getting harassing text messages from Elizabeth about the dog. The day before, she had received messages that vengeance is best served on a cold platter, she would pay for not returning the dog, and she would be hit blindly.
On September 18, M.A. sent the social worker a series of screen shots of additional text messages from Elizabeth, dated September 17, stating, among other things, that a lawsuit was not enough to replace the dog "so when you least expect it your house will be ransacked and all your antiques broken with a baseball bat[.]" "[Y]ou should have returned my dog and now you will pay and the best part of revenge is that it [is] served on a cold platter so you will never know when it is coming to you[.] This phone number is also a disposable number with no location on it so sleep with one eye open and you will learn your lesson[.]" "This is not over and you're going to regret the day you didn't return the [dog] you're going to regret falsifying reports that I have a copy of since my grandmother never had a restraining order on me."
Elizabeth's counsel stated to the court that she denied sending the messages.
The Brea Police Officer
The officer met Elizabeth in mid-October 2016, while responding to a call at her apartment complex in Brea. She emailed him afterwards, asking him to call her back. He did so, and they began a relationship that the officer regarded as merely sexual. Elizabeth constantly texted the officer; he finally blocked her number while he was on duty as the texts were becoming a nuisance.
Around Thanksgiving of 2016, the officer decided to break off the relationship, because Elizabeth regarded it as something more than physical. He also suspected that a series of mysterious and disquieting text messages came from her. After the breakup, the officer received a text message stating, "If you thought your ex was a headache, this situation will be the worst."
The period of the breakup coincides with Elizabeth's receiving medication for depression from Dr. W.
In early December 2016, the officer's roommate, who was his ex-fiancée, told him that Elizabeth had called her as well. Elizabeth besieged the roommate with text messages. Finally, the roommate phoned Elizabeth and told her that the officer had been interested only in a physical relationship with her. A few days later, Elizabeth emailed the officer representing that she was pregnant. He did not believe her. Elizabeth continued to text the officer's roommate, until he saw Elizabeth in person and told her to stop. On January 13, 2017, more than a month after the officer had ended his relationship with Elizabeth, the roommate received a scurrilous text with a naked picture that the officer identified as being a picture of Elizabeth.
The report gave the phone number from which the text and picture were sent. A few days later, an investigating officer called the number and left a callback message. Elizabeth called back within the hour.
The purpose of sending the naked picture to the officer's roommate was to establish that Elizabeth was more attractive than the roommate.
A profile was posted to the Brea Police Department's Facebook page under the officer's name on January 15, 2017. The text read, "I have been a dishonor to the badge and uniform I wear. Sorry my brothers in blue." Pictures of three people appeared on the profile: the officer, the roommate, and Elizabeth. The same day in the afternoon, fliers were scattered around the parking area for the police department with the same Facebook picture of the officer. The fliers read, "BREA PD'S EMBARRASSMENT," and included various accusations, including "takes women's virginity under false pretense[s]." Video surveillance footage showed two women tossing the fliers out of a car window in the early afternoon.
Elizabeth told Dr. W., in November 2016, that the breakup had caused her to be seriously depressed. At about the same time, she left Emery with Grace, stating, according to M.A., "'I need to leave Emery because I will [hurt her] if she is in front of me.'" Elizabeth then "disappeared for a few months."
At the detention hearing, Elizabeth told the court that the Brea Police Department had acted in bad faith when reporting her suicide threats because of her complaints to internal affairs about the police officer. The Brea Police Department reports of the incident do not include any reference to internal affairs complaints by Elizabeth.
The Relationship between Elizabeth and Emery
Emery told SSA that Elizabeth was both "nice and mean" and "she hits me all over my body but I love her so much." Before Emery left Grace's home in July, Grace and Reina reported that sometimes Emery was fine and sometimes she cried and wanted her mother. Elizabeth's maternal relatives and those of her friends who weighed in on the subject all agreed that Elizabeth and Emery loved each other. Emery told a social worker that she was worried about Elizabeth.
Emery's reports of abuse must be viewed somewhat skeptically. She told Elizabeth and a social worker, for example, that Grace locked her in her room. When a social worker investigated the charges of abuse, which were determined to be unfounded, she found that the door to Emery's room did not have a lock. The court was entitled to take this with a grain of salt, but we don't know if it did. Nothing further was said about it.
Mr. C., who had known Emery since her birth, stated that Elizabeth did not give Emery much attention, and Emery tried to gain her attention by misbehaving. The reports also record instances when Elizabeth would leave Emery with other people for significant periods of time.
Jurisdiction and Disposition Trial
The jurisdiction and disposition trial finally got underway on September 19, 2017. It wound up on November 28. Elizabeth, Evan, and two social workers testified. The trial had to be continued several times as new information turned up. For example, trial had already started when SSA found Evan. In addition, on the first day of testimony, SSA did not yet have the Brea police reports about the suicide threats in June 2017 that resulted in the 72-hour hold.
At the conclusion of trial, the court commended Elizabeth for her "great job" with Emery as a single mother, holding down a job and going to school. The court also commended her for being protective of Emery, although this protectiveness caused problems for Emery.
The court also observed that Elizabeth had come "close to perjury" on the paternity issue and that she "insists on how things should be and throws fits when things don't go the way [Elizabeth] plans on." This was the pattern with the management of the apartment building in June: "When [Elizabeth] was in fear that perhaps she was going to be evicted, [she] started texting threats of suicide. The world doesn't work that way. You can't force people to do what you want them to do and when they don't do it, you can't throw fits because at this time it came at the expense of Emery." "And if [Elizabeth] believes that she's going to be able to force her will upon this court or upon [Evan], Emery is going to suffer at [Elizabeth's] hands." Elizabeth decided on her own, unbeknownst to Evan, to keep Emery, instead of putting her up for adoption as previously planned, "and did everything in her power to discourage [Evan] from being involved with this child." "So [Elizabeth] wants to manipulate the world around her in order to fit her needs and how she believes Emery should be raised." "Your [Elizabeth's] behavior is not exemplary, all right. You are the direct cause of why this case came here even though nothing serious has happened to Emery[.]" The court also cautioned Elizabeth not to interfere with visits between Evan and Emery or criticize him to her. "I've heard you in court since September, okay. You cannot react, discourage [Evan] or [Emery] from spending time with each other."
The court found allegations of the first amended petition regarding Elizabeth's threats to harm herself and Emery, her mental health issues, and her unresolved problems with marijuana and alcohol true by a preponderance of the evidence. Emery was declared a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (b). The court found that vesting custody of Emery with Elizabeth "serve[d] [Emery's] best interest" under section 361, subdivision (c).
The court ordered visitation for Evan and imposed conditions on Emery's release to Elizabeth. SSA would make unannounced visits once a week for a month, with visits to taper off if there were no problems. Elizabeth was ordered to undergo a 730 evaluation and to continue weekly therapy sessions. The records of the dependency proceedings were to be released to Dr. W. and to Elizabeth's therapist, and Elizabeth was ordered to sign a release so that the therapist could communicate with SSA. "What about my privacy?" Elizabeth objected. "You just lost that right to that privacy," the court told her.
Emery has appealed from the disposition order. SSA and Evan have joined in the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides in pertinent part: "A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents or guardian or guardians with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive . . . : [¶] (1) There is or would be 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 or guardian's physical custody."
The juvenile court established jurisdiction over Emery pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), and declared her a dependent of the court pursuant to section 360, subdivision (d). Section 300, subdivision (b), places a child under the court's jurisdiction if there is a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the child or if the parent cannot provide regular care because of mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. We review the court's orders on jurisdiction and disposition for substantial evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences to support the court's determinations. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 51.)
Section 360, subdivision (d), provides: "If the court finds that the child is a person described by Section 300, it may order and adjudge the child to be a dependent child of the court."
This record certainly supports the juvenile court's conclusion that Emery was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or that Elizabeth's mental illness and/or substance abuse could interfere with Emery's regular care. The question before us is whether substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion SSA did not show by clear and convincing evidence that (1) returning Emery to Elizabeth's custody would substantially endanger Emery's physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being and (2) no reasonable means, other than removal, existed to protect Emery's physical health? (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
The juvenile court made no explicit findings either as to the likelihood of substantial danger to Emery's safety if Elizabeth regained custody or as to the existence or non-existence of reasonable means to protect Emery short of removal. We infer, however, that the court believed the conditions imposed on Elizabeth - unannounced visits by SSA, a 730 evaluation, weekly therapy, communication between SSA and Elizabeth's therapist - would protect Emery. It would not make sense to return her if this were not the case.
We disagree. The record in this case paints a terrifying picture of a person with a tenuous hold on reality and no concept at all of the truth. Elizabeth may not have injured or killed anyone yet - despite her many threats - but Emery's safety cannot rest on the chance that she won't. Although most of Elizabeth's threats have involved adults, there was one instance when she left Emery with relatives, saying that she would hurt Emery unless Emery was out of her sight. Fortunately, relatives were able to step in then, but Elizabeth has now alienated most of them. What if she reaches that point again and cannot offload Emery?
The juvenile court was mistaken when it said Elizabeth had "come close to perjury" on the issue of Emery's paternity. She committed perjury; there was no "close" about it.
Elizabeth regards Emery as her property, and all her complaints rest on her perception of her own rights. In all her dealings with others as recorded in SSA's reports, Elizabeth showed no ability to think of anyone but herself or to deal with the world as it actually is. The juvenile court recognized this: Elizabeth "insists on how things should be and throws fits when things don't go the way [she] plans on. The world doesn't work that way. [Elizabeth] wants to manipulate the world around her in order to fit her needs and how she believes Emery should be raised." A young child cannot be placed in such an environment and emerge unscathed - physically or emotionally.
For example, Elizabeth objected that a release allowing her therapist to talk to SSA - a condition or regaining custody - violated her right to privacy.
We must here commend the patience and professionalism of the social workers who were involved in this case. No matter how rude, abusive, and bullying Elizabeth became in her communications, the social workers never, so far as this record indicates, responded in kind. On the contrary, they went out of their way to try to accommodate even her unreasonable demands. They ignored personal verbal attacks and simply did their job as best they could. Their refusal to be provoked kept an already fraught situation from escalating even further.
We suspect there may have been considerable private under-the-breath muttering, but it never reached the surface.
The juvenile court was correctly less accommodating. When Elizabeth started to lecture the judge, the judge ordered her to be escorted out of the courtroom.
But we cannot get around the large hole in this record: the absence of a 730 evaluation, which Elizabeth was still refusing to undergo at the time of trial. (Cf. In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1647-1649 [730 evaluation showed mother's anger and hostility placed child in volatile, stressful situation; return to mother detrimental].) Without such an assessment, it was impossible to determine whether Elizabeth is merely a difficult and unpleasant person with minimal social skills or whether she is someone with serious pathology who could become violent toward or around Emery when stressed or thwarted. A wrong guess - and a guess is what returning Emery to Elizabeth's custody amounted to - could have devastating consequences.
We are aware that a good deal of time has passed since Emery was returned to Elizabeth. We cannot know what has transpired during this period. Our reversal necessitates a new disposition hearing, so the juvenile court will be able to evaluate the situation as it exists now. To be clear, the record as it presently stands supports removal of Emery from Elizabeth's custody as of November 2017. Since that time, we assume Elizabeth has complied with the court's orders regarding a 730 evaluation and therapy. There are probably more reports from SSA in the file as well. The juvenile court will take all this information into account, plus any additional testimony it deems necessary, and determine whether Elizabeth has improved enough that Emery would be safe in her custody.
DISPOSITION
The disposition order of November 28, 2017, is reversed. The matter is returned to the juvenile court for a new disposition hearing.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: THOMPSON, J. GOETHALS, J.