Opinion
G062248
07-10-2023
In re ISAAC L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. LUIS M., Defendant and Appellant. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 16DP0787A Vibhav Mittal, Judge. Affirmed.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
OPINION
BEDSWORTH, J.
INTRODUCTION
Luis M. seeks reversal of the juvenile dependency court's jurisdictional finding as to his now seven-year-old son, Isaac L. Luis and Isaac's mother, Jessica L., are no longer together, and the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) recommended the court terminate Isaac's dependency case and give Luis sole custody because Luis was able to provide a safe and protective home for him. The court declined to terminate jurisdiction, instead choosing to keep a shared custody arrangement in place. Luis claims he is a nonoffending parent, and should not be ordered to participate in services, and should be given sole custody of Isaac without any period of family maintenance review. Given the history of conflict between Luis and Jessica, however, we find there was substantial evidence in the record to support the court's decision to keep Isaac's case open rather than terminate jurisdiction.
Jessica did not timely appeal the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and we have thus denied her request to appoint counsel and file a respondent's brief. She is not a party to this appeal.
FACTS
Jessica gave birth to Isaac in 2016. At the time, her older child, T.L.B., was a dependent of the juvenile court having been brought into protective custody in April 2015 on allegations of neglect, domestic violence, and unsanitary conditions in the home. At the time of Isaac's birth, Jessica was following her case plan and was close to getting T.L.B. back. Also, Jessica and Luis were seeking to peacefully coparent Isaac and there were no allegations about Luis. Consequently, SSA decided a noncustodial petition was sufficient for Isaac rather than taking him into custody. Isaac's 2016 dependency case was closed on February 20, 2020. Luis and Jessica have had a shared custody arrangement ever since, whereby Luis has custody of Isaac during the week and Jessica has him on the weekend.
The domestic violence was with Jessica's then boyfriend, Brendan B., T.L.B.'s father. Since T.L.B. is not Luis' child, her case is not germane to Luis' appeal, and we only describe it to the extent it is necessary to understand Isaac's case.
Jessica has a history of mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and major depression. These issues have, in the past, led to her being placed on involuntary psychiatric holds approximately three times prior to the triggering incident in this matter.
Jessica's mother indicated that her daughter had also been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder.
On June 11, 2022, Jessica's mother, Amanda, went to Jessica's apartment to take her to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation because Jessica had been acting strangely for several days. She claimed strange men were coming to her patio, eating her food, and beating her up. Upon Amanda's arrival, Jessica continued to say strange things and became more upset. Amanda was scared to leave her grandchildren alone with Jessica when she was in this state so she stayed to help around the house so Jessica could take a shower. Instead, Jessica began barricading the front door to prevent Amanda from leaving. She was acting in a menacing manner, taking knives and scissors from a kitchen drawer and placing them in the living room. Amanda sought to leave, but Jessica prevented her, telling her "'you will not leave, you will stay here today.'"
Isaac and T.L.B. were living with Jessica in the apartment at the time.
Amanda was finally able to escape and run outside to call 911. When neighbors came outside to see what was happening, Jessica began telling them Amanda was harming the children. When police arrived and she was told she would be taken to the hospital, Jessica attempted to jump off a second-story landing. She was taken to the hospital and placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold. During this episode, the children were described as "'hysterical and crying.'" Isaac later confided to his aunt that he was hiding under the bed and crying.
A protective custody warrant was issued for both children on June 15, 2022. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered Isaac to be placed with Luis with protective orders to prevent any unauthorized contact with Jessica. Once Jessica was able to present herself to the court, it ordered that she receive a minimum of six hours of monitored visitation per week. SSA was given discretion to liberalize her visitation if circumstances were appropriate.
A dependency petition was filed on June 17, 2022. In it, SSA alleged that Isaac should be removed from Jessica's custody pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c). For section 300, subdivision (b)(1), SSA alleged Jessica was placing Isaac at substantial risk of serious bodily harm by her failure or inability to protect or supervise him or to provide regular care due to mental illness.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) allows the juvenile court to exercise jurisdiction over a child if he "has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness" due to several enumerated forms of abuse or neglect. Subdivision (c) authorizes jurisdiction if "[t]he child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care." The juvenile court ultimately dismissed the subdivision (c) allegation in the petition, and that dismissal was not appealed, so we focus only on the subdivision (b)(1) allegation.
Though Jessica was the main subject of concern in the dependency petition, Luis and Jessica were alleged to have a "conflictual relationship." They have had conflicts in the past over exchanges of custody, which have to take place at the Irvine Police Department. Jessica had reported Luis physically assaulted her during a custody exchange in May 2021, and she obtained a temporary restraining order which expired that July, after a finding of no domestic violence by the court. Luis denied assaulting Jessica and claimed she made it up so that she could get a modification of the custody agreement.
In the weeks that followed the detention hearing, Luis provided a safe and stable environment for Isaac. His residence was observed to be clean, well-kept, and well-supplied for Isaac. Isaac was enjoying school and had started playing recreational soccer. Luis ensured Isaac was receiving therapy to help cope with the trauma he had experienced and was behaving in a protective way toward him. He also made reasonable efforts to ensure Jessica had her approved visitation with Isaac. In July 2022, Isaac indicated he wanted to live with Luis.
Once she was released from the hospital, Jessica, for her part, began participating in services. She began attending therapy sessions in August 2022. She attended her visitation regularly and, according to the summaries provided by SSA to the court, she was appropriate with the children during the visits. On at least one occasion, Isaac cried when it was time for their visit to end, telling Jessica he wanted to go home with her. SSA felt she was working hard towards reunification and she reported she was taking Buspar for anxiety. She had stable housing and was receiving SSI benefits.
But SSA's confidence was in Luis' parenting skills and ability to keep Isaac safe. Therefore, as the jurisdiction/disposition hearing approached, it recommended the juvenile court terminate Isaac's dependency case with exit orders and give Luis full custody of him.
The juvenile court held a multi-day hearing, during which it took testimony from the social worker, Jessica, and her therapist. During her testimony, Jessica indicated her June 2022 breakdown had been preceded by bouts of anxiety because of antagonistic interactions between her and Luis. She testified hostile situations can trigger her anxiety and she had been working with her therapist to help her cope with those situations. Her therapist testified she would be worried about Jessica's ability to cope in situations where she was overwhelmed and "overly triggered," and that might place the children at risk.
After hearing the testimony, the juvenile court adjudged Isaac a dependent under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) for failure to protect, and ordered custody to be shared between Luis and Jessica while family maintenance services were ongoing. It set hearings to review the case plans and a six-month review hearing for July 6, 2023. Luis appeals.
DISCUSSION
Luis contends the juvenile court erred in its decision because the sole allegation against him in the dependency petition was insufficient to support jurisdiction and was not true at the time of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. Moreover, Luis points out, Isaac had been doing well in his care for several months and was not at risk of harm, so court supervision was no longer necessary.
Since Luis does not challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings as they relate to Jessica's conduct, we could decline to evaluate the merits of Luis' appeal. (See In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 ["'[A] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent. [Citations.]' [Citation.]"].) But we choose to exercise our discretion to review the merits of Luis' challenge to the jurisdictional finding against him because it could potentially have consequences to him going forward in the dependency matter and to any future custody proceeding he has with Jessica.
"'"In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. 'In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.' [Citation.] 'We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.'"' [Citations.]" (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 602 (Cole L.).) Here, without making any judgment of our own about Luis and Isaac, we find the trial court's jurisdictional finding was supported by substantial evidence.
As ably summarized in Cole L.: "A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three elements: (1) the parent's or guardian's neglectful conduct or failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. [Citations.] ¶ Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing [citations.], the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. [Citations.] The court may consider past events in deciding whether a child presently needs the court's protection. [Citations.] A parent's '"[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions" if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.' [Citations.] 'To establish a defined risk of harm at the time of the hearing, there "must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur."' [Citation.]" (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-602.)
Here, the allegation regarding Luis and Jessica's contentious relationship suggested that their custody exchanges of Isaac were often marked by conflict, and in one instance, the exchange resulted in a physical assault. While Luis denies assaulting Jessica, the police report of the incident indicates Jessica was involved in some sort of physical altercation. She told police that Luis pulled her hair and stomped on her cell phone because he believed she was recording the exchange. The responding officer saw no physical sign of injury on Jessica, but there may have been none if her hair was pulled as opposed to some other type of assault. And when the officer examined Jessica's phone, it was non-operational and its screen was shattered. A separate court determined no domestic violence occurred, and the restraining order expired. But we have no further detail on the basis for that finding and what light it sheds on the parties' relationship. And Luis did not testify about his relationship with Jessica.
More importantly, we do not think the "conflictual relationship" allegation can be viewed in a vacuum, as Luis urges. It is but one piece in the overall framework of Isaac's relationship with his parents. Section 300's underlying goal is providing "'"maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm."'" (In re M.M. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 703, 720.) Even if Luis were to get custody of Isaac with visitation to Jessica, they would need to ensure the exchanges were not going to put Isaac at risk of harm. Jessica's mental wellness hinges on her ability to both avoid and overcome her triggers, and one of those triggers, by her own account, is the caustic relationship she has with Luis. Jessica's therapist felt such triggers were the biggest danger to Jessica's ability to safely parent T.L.B. and Isaac. As of the hearing, Jessica was still participating in services and was working toward reunification. The juvenile court's objective, therefore, is still family preservation, and we feel it rightly recognized this in its ruling. So long as Luis and Jessica must interact, the risk of harm to Isaac from any spiraling conflict between them remains.
Indeed, the juvenile court was merely maintaining the status quo prior to the inception of the case by giving Luis and Jessica shared custody.
Luis cites In re A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675 (A.G.) to argue he is a nonoffending parent, and his custody issues with Jessica are better resolved in a family court. In A.G., as in this case, the mother suffered from mental illness which impeded her ability to parent, but the children's father was always willing and capable of caring for them. (Id. at p. 686.) The parents were still together at the time the dependency proceedings began, but were headed toward divorce. (Id. at pp. 679-680.) The father was very concerned about the mother's hallucinations, delusions, and other mental and emotional problems, and took steps to move the children away from her. (Id. at p. 678.) The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependents, terminated its jurisdiction and awarded sole custody to the father. (Id. at p. 682.) The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the court erred by sustaining a petition "that alleged only that Mother is mentally ill and is unable to care for the minors where Father has always been, and is, capable of properly caring for them." (Id. at p. 683.) The matter was thereafter remanded to the family court for an appropriate custody order to the father with visitation for the mother. (Id. at p. 686.)
The situation here is starkly different from A.G. in two respects. First and foremost, there is an allegation in the dependency petition implicating Luis' conduct in the risk of harm to Isaac. In A.G., there was no allegation about the father's behavior contributing to a risk of harm to the minors. Second, the mother in A.G. was clearly not getting better. She expressed delusional thinking at the jurisdictional hearing, and was apparently refusing to take her medication. (A.G., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 680681.) Here, Jessica was working on improving her mental health and developing coping strategies.
All things considered, we cannot quarrel with the juvenile court's decision to keep Isaac's case open for some time so it could monitor Luis and Jessica's compliance with its orders and see how they were progressing in positively coparenting and sharing custody of Isaac. While we do not mean in any way to impugn SSA's good faith in making dispositional recommendations, the trial court's ruling admirably balances Isaac's needs with the interests of both his parents during this critical time. We are in no position to do anything but commend its efforts.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. GOETHALS, J.