Opinion
F074289
03-29-2017
In re GABRIEL W., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBY W., Defendant and Appellant.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 516765, 516766)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Ruby W. appeals from the juvenile court's order issued at a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3) prohibiting her from attending her nine-year-old son Gabriel W.'s psychiatric appointments. We affirm.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Ruby is the adoptive mother of her great-grandsons, Gabriel and six-year-old Xander. She adopted them in 2012 because their biological mother was drug-addicted and in and out of jail.
In August 2013, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took Gabriel and Xander into protective custody after police responded to a call that a woman, approximately 70 years old, was in Walmart with a small child who had blood on his shirt and face. An officer located Ruby in the store pushing then two-year-old Xander in a shopping cart. Xander had significant injuries on his face and head, including numerous bruises, two black eyes, a split lip, a large welt on his forehead and other marks on the top of his head and forehead.
Ruby provided inconsistent statements as to the cause of Xander's injuries. She disclosed however that her adult grandson, Michael, who had a criminal record, had been living with her for approximately one month. She did not trust Michael and would not leave Xander alone with him. Following an investigation, the police arrested and charged Ruby and Michael with child abuse.
In November 2013, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children after sustaining allegations of serious physical abuse and failure to protect (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b)(1)), ordered them removed from Ruby's custody, and ordered her to participate in mental health counseling, parenting classes and weekly supervised visitation. The court also ordered mental health assessments and counseling for the children. The agency placed the children together in foster care.
Ruby made diligent efforts over the ensuing months to comply with her services plan and made sufficient progress that the agency recommended the juvenile court continue her reunification services at the six-month review hearing scheduled for April 2014. The agency questioned, however, her ability to ultimately resume custody of Gabriel because of his severe behavioral problems. He was under the care of a psychiatrist for hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, aggression, destructive behavior, mood swings, irritability, anxiety and trouble sleeping. He was also seeing a therapist twice a month.
The juvenile court continued Ruby's reunification services to the 12-month review hearing and beyond and she participated in her services plan throughout. However, she remained in denial about her role in the children's abuse and she could not manage their severe behaviors. Instead, she aggravated them. For example, when they tried to calm themselves during visits by creating personal space, she forced them to reengage by pulling their arms. Finally, when Ruby's prospects for reunifying with the boys had not improved after 18 months, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services.
In March 2015, following a contested 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Ruby's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered the agency to provide Ruby one visit a month for two hours. Ruby challenged the court's setting order by filing an extraordinary writ petition, which we denied.
Ruby W. v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County (July 7, 2015, F071270) [nonpub. opn.].
In July 2015, the juvenile court ordered Gabriel and Xander into long-term foster care at the section 366.26 hearing and set a post-permanency plan review hearing (review hearing) for January 2016. Minors' attorney informed the court that Gabriel and Xander were living in separate foster homes and their behavior had improved.
Gabriel adjusted fairly well to his foster care placement. He bonded with his foster mother and she was a source of comfort to him when he was upset. In addition, he and Xander visited each other weekly and had a significant relationship. However, Gabriel was defiant and disruptive at school. He angered easily and his anger escalated to aggression. He threw objects, overturned furniture and ran from the staff. A mental health clinician attributed his emotional outbursts to "pervasive feelings of unhappiness/sadness ... fueled by anxiety and fear ... rooted in a history of abuse and neglect."
In January 2016, Gabriel's social worker filed an application regarding psychotropic medication (JV-220). Attached was a statement from his psychiatrist, Dr. Gagandeep S. Popli, proposing to continue him on three psychotropic medications. In the medical history section of the form, Dr. Popli noted that Gabriel had been steadily gaining weight but was in good physical health otherwise. Ruby filed an opposition to the application (JV-222), expressing her concern about Gabriel's weight gain. She was particularly concerned about one of the medications, which was associated with weight gain.
In January 2016, at the review hearing, Ruby's attorney advised the juvenile court Ruby wanted to withdraw her opposition to the medication request. Ruby attended Gabriel's medical appointment the day before and his weight had stabilized so she was no longer as concerned. The court granted the medication request, continued long-term foster care as the children's permanent plan and set the next review hearing for June 2016.
In February 2016, Xander's social worker filed a JV-220 to include an additional medication. Xander was experiencing anxiety manifesting in restlessness, cloth-chewing and hiding behaviors. He was also observed playing with his feces at home and eating dirt at school. He was reportedly forced to play with his feces in the past by Michael while under Ruby's care. He also tried to disrobe in public. The juvenile court granted the application.
Gabriel continued to do well in his foster care placement and bond with the family. He utilized his coping skills and managed his behavior at home. He struggled to practice appropriate social skills at school and his foster mother was trying to help him employ his coping skills there. Despite his behavioral problems, he excelled academically.
The agency recommended the juvenile court continue foster care as the children's permanent placement at the June 2016, review hearing. In its report, the agency informed the court of an incident in March 2016, after a visit with Ruby. Gabriel acted out aggressively at the foster home. He threw metal lawn chairs in the pool and started trying to destroy things. He told his caregiver that Ruby informed him he would be returning home soon and that she redecorated and painted his bedroom for his arrival. Ruby initially denied discussing the boys' return home but then disclosed that Xander asked her if she was finished with her "homework." She said that finishing her "homework" meant that the boys would come home. The social worker told Ruby long-term foster care remained the boys' placement goal and asked her not to discuss the possibility of returning home with the boys.
In June 2016, prior to the review hearing, the social worker filed a JV-220 to continue Gabriel on his psychotropic medication. Ruby filed a JV-222, opposing the application because she did not know what Gabriel's most recent blood test values were and if they were elevated as a result of the medication. She explained that the social worker did not allow her to attend Gabriel's last appointment with Dr. Popli. She attended the appointment before that and Dr. Popli noted that certain blood test values were elevated. Because she was not permitted to attend the last appointment, she was not able to inform herself and ask any pertinent questions such as whether additional blood tests were indicated.
The juvenile court addressed the JV-220 at the review hearing in June 2016. Ruby's attorney explained Ruby needed to be included in Gabriel's psychiatric appointments so she knew what the doctor was prescribing and could provide an informed consent or opposition. She objected to not being included in the appointments. The court explained that Ruby was entitled to notice of the request to administer the medication but that the court approved the request. The court also advised Ruby of its concern that she discussed the prospect of Gabriel returning to her custody at visits.
County counsel objected to the juvenile court ordering Ruby to attend Gabriel's psychiatric appointments, pointing out that she visited the children once a month and was, therefore, not involved in their daily activities. Consequently, counsel pointed out, she did not have anything constructive to offer Dr. Popli in making medical decisions concerning Gabriel. In addition, Ruby took the opportunity at the appointments to whisper inappropriate comments to Gabriel.
The juvenile court granted the request for psychotropic mediation and ordered that Ruby not be present at Gabriel's appointments. The court warned Ruby not to discuss returning home with the children and not to whisper to them during visits. The court found the children's placement was necessary and appropriate and set a review hearing for December 2016.
DISCUSSION
Ruby contends the juvenile court lacked a valid basis for excluding her from Gabriel's psychiatric appointments and its order preventing her attendance impeded her ability to assist Gabriel. Therefore, she argues, the court's order must be reversed. We disagree.
The juvenile court has the power under section 362, subdivisions (a) and (d) to issue "all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of [a dependent] child, including medical treatment, ..." (§ 362, subd. (a)) and to "direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of [that] child ..." (id. at subd. (d)). This statute confers " 'broad discretion' " on the juvenile court to " 'determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests,' " and we review those orders deferentially, asking only whether they constitute an abuse of discretion. (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311.) We find no abuse of discretion.
Dr. Popli and Gabriel's foster mother had achieved some improvement in Gabriel's behavior through medication management, coping techniques and reducing or eliminating sources of stress. Ruby's interaction with Gabriel, however, aggravated him and triggered his violent behavior. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court properly determined that Gabriel's best interests would be served by excluding Ruby from his psychiatric appointments. Ruby does not persuade us otherwise.
In our view, appellate counsel's presentation of the issue borders on abandonment. (See People ex rel. 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Building Permit Consultants, Inc. (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 280, 284.) Counsel contends the juvenile court's order should be reversed but does not argue that it was error. Counsel concedes that the court's authority "on the issue of medical treatment, is found in section 362" and that its decision limiting the medical rights of a parent is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Further, counsel attempts to bolster the argument by distinguishing In re R.W. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1268, a case that has nothing to do with the juvenile court's power to exclude a parent from a child's medical appointments. Rather, R. W. addressed the juvenile court's power to limit a parent's educational decisions. (R.W., at p. 1270.) --------
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.