Opinion
C085328
07-24-2018
In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.R., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JD237238)
K.R. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's custody and visitation orders following its termination of dependency jurisdiction over J.A. (minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 364 & 395; statutory section references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise set forth.) Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order giving M.A. (minor's father) sole legal and physical custody of the minor. She also contends, in passing, that the court's visitation order was made in error. We affirm the court's orders.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
During a domestic violence incident in December 2015, father and mother struggled over a cell phone. Mother jumped on father, and father pushed mother down, pinning her down and shaking her and hitting her thigh with a closed fist. Mother scratched father's car with a key. In February 2016, mother signed an informal supervision agreement to participate in services designed, in part, to address domestic violence issues. Father signed a similar agreement in March 2016.
On May 12, 2016, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family, and Adult Services (Department) filed a juvenile dependency nondetaining petition on behalf of the minor (then age two) pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] alleging the minor was at substantial risk of physical harm, abuse, and/or neglect due to the parents' history of domestic violence in the presence of the minor and his half sibling (then age 12), and due to mother's failure to participate in services pursuant to the February 2016 informal supervision agreement. The petition further alleged mother had a history of engaging in domestic violence in her prior relationship with E.R. (the father of the minor's half sibling, R.R.).
The initial hearing report stated mother failed to enroll in domestic violence and anger management classes or to complete a mental health assessment, had not cooperated with her assigned social workers, and had not made herself or the minor available for the required number of in-person monthly contacts with the social workers. Mother had also reportedly been untruthful as evidenced by the fact that she provided false information to the court in R.R.'s custody case.
According to the report, law enforcement had responded to 14 calls to the parents' home since March 2015, the most recent of which was the domestic violence incident referenced in the petition. The social worker reported that mother failed to acknowledge her role in the situation and blamed her problems on father, whom she claimed suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). When the social worker informed mother the minor and his half sibling could not remain in the home so long as both parents were there, mother elected to leave both children in the care of E.R. Mother agreed to a safety plan on December 24, 2015, and made arrangements for the minor and R.R. to stay with E.R. in Placer County. Less than a month later, the Placer County court mediator informed the social worker of her concerns regarding mother's possible mental health issues and her ability to adequately care for the minor, noting mother had stormed out of the mediator's office cursing after an abrupt outburst during a meeting.
In February 2016, mother was reportedly living with the maternal grandmother and had been living apart from father for approximately two months. She denied any mental health problems but agreed to complete a mental health assessment to rule out any concerns. She also denied any physical domestic violence, stating she had only been a victim of verbal abuse. While she agreed to participate in domestic violence classes, she had not done so, claiming she participated in services in "another county" for which she could provide no verifying documentation.
Mother refused to work with one social worker and failed to communicate by telephone or in person or to schedule a home visit with another who was attempting to help engage her in services.
On April 21, 2016, the social worker attended a custody hearing in Placer County regarding the minor's half sibling, R.R. Mother and E.R. were both present at the hearing. The court asked mother whether she had followed through with the recommended services in Sacramento County. Mother claimed she "complied with services as she completed a psychological evaluation," had attended three domestic violence classes, and was otherwise told by "the head of" Child Protective Services (CPS) that she need not participate in services because they were "totally voluntary." E.R. informed the court that each of mother's statements "was a lie." Mother's social worker in the Sacramento County case, who was also present in the courtroom, informed the court in a closed hearing that mother had not followed through with her case plan services, had not made herself or the minor available for home visits, and was uncooperative with and refused to work with the social workers. The court was also informed that mother would only work with a supervisor at CPS and that mother refused to complete a mental health assessment through CPS because she "had her own private person that she was going to complete it with."
According to the report, father had difficulty maintaining boundaries with mother. He allowed mother, the maternal grandmother, and the maternal uncle to move into his house and then instituted formal eviction proceedings to have them removed, only to allow them to move back into his home. Father stated mother and her family had called law enforcement on him approximately 30 times in a three-month period, and had attempted to get him committed to a mental hospital to prevent him from evicting them again. Father also continued to go to mother's home to pick up the minor for visits despite the knowledge that it would be more appropriate for a third party to do so.
On May 17, 2016, the juvenile court found continuance of the minor in mother's home was contrary to the minor's welfare and released the minor to father's care. Thereafter, the court found father to be the presumed father and ordered the minor to remain in father's care subject to the Department's supervision. The court issued an order for visitation with mother and ordered that reunification services be provided to both parents.
According to the June 2016 jurisdiction/disposition report, mother claimed she had not received an order from the court to begin services between December 2015 and April 2016, and that she "passed" her psychiatric evaluation. She denied any history of domestic violence in her prior relationship with E.R., stating she ended the relationship because E.R.'s daughter attempted to kill her.
The addendum report filed June 8, 2016, stated the social worker received an e-mail from mother on June 7, 2016, during which mother stated she had called and visited the service providers and had documented proof that the classes were full. Mother also stated, "I have not had my home visit nor have I received information regarding a new social worker I have rights and they are being violated." When the social worker contacted two service providers, Strategies for Change and A Community for Peace, she was informed the domestic violence groups were not full and mother would need to contact the providers directly to schedule an intake and show up on time to begin attending class. The social worker provided the information to mother, who stated she was "suing the Department for violating her rights" and claimed CPS was keeping her child from her despite that it was father who was arrested for domestic violence. Mother continued to argue and then abruptly hung up on the social worker. Thereafter, mother e-mailed the social worker twice reiterating that she intended to sue the Department for violating her rights and that she perceived CPS to have illegally removed the minor from her care.
The second addendum report filed July 6, 2016, stated mother's visits with the minor were appropriate and mother was affectionate with the minor. The social worker stated mother reported she had begun domestic violence classes and planned to participate in parenting classes and individual counseling through A Community for Peace. The social worker informed mother she would need to participate in the services through an approved agency and confirmed that A Community for Peace was not an approved service provider, mother told the social worker she was "full of shit." Despite numerous attempts, the social worker was unable to contact A Community for Peace to ascertain mother's progress in services. It was also reported that mother claimed she had paid for and participated in a mental health assessment by a clinician who was not associated with the Department, but refused to provide the social worker with a copy of the report and stated she would not participate in another assessment.
According to the third addendum report filed July 11, 2016, mother obtained a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation from Dr. R. Ryan Gunton, a doctor of her own choosing who was not Department approved. Dr. Gunton reported mother's basic cognition was appropriate. He noted his evaluation was based on a single interview with mother and should be considered as a supplement to other mental health information. The Department recommended that mother participate in a mental health assessment by a Department-approved provider.
The fourth addendum report filed August 8, 2016, stated mother had completed an assessment at A Community for Peace and begun domestic violence counseling on June 29, 2016, but had not returned since. Mother also attended the group counseling and education program but her disruptive behavior was triggering to other participants, particularly when she repeatedly exclaimed she did not know why CPS took her child or why she had to participate in services. The social worker reported that supervised visits between mother and the minor were appropriate and generally positive, although mother did not always interact with the minor.
On August 18, 2016, at the conclusion of the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court sustained the allegations in the petition and adjudged the minor a dependent of the juvenile court. The court ordered continued placement of the minor with father and family maintenance services to both parents. In particular, the court ordered both parents to participate in professional counseling to address issues of domestic violence and anger control. The court further ordered regular visitation between mother and the minor at the Department's discretion.
According to an in-home review report filed January 20, 2017, monthly in-person contact with mother required the presence of two social workers due to past statements and allegations by mother and maternal relatives against the Department. Mother reportedly skirted around discussions of court-ordered case plan services and became verbally aggressive with Department staff, threatening to sue CPS. On October 12, 2016, during an in-home visit that included mother and the maternal uncle, N.R., verbal threats were made toward the two social workers who were present. In particular, N.R. stated, "I should set CPS on fire, but I'll burn you two first, after I hang you." Mother stated, "[W]e should send you back to the fields." As a result of these threats, the Department issued an internal security threat advisory.
On June 27, 2016, the social worker met with mother, the maternal grandmother, and the maternal grandmother's caregiver at mother's home. Mother told the social worker she intended to complete all of her court-ordered services through A Community for Peace. When the social worker informed mother that A Community for Peace was not an approved provider and attempted to provide mother with alternate service providers, mother refused the information.
Mother reportedly completed her intake and assessment for domestic violence education with A Community for Peace, and attended six group education sessions in June and July 2016. She completed her intake with Dr. Jackie Nelson at Strategies for Change on September 16, 2016, and participated in her first group session. Dr. Nelson reported mother attended an individual counseling session but refused to sign any documentation on the advice of her attorney. Mother did not show up for a prescheduled follow-up session on September 19, 2016. Although mother eventually participated in four sessions of individual counseling, Dr. Nelson expressed concern about mother's ability to benefit from services due to mother's continued resistance to participation.
Mother failed to attend the first coparenting class despite having been provided with the appointment information two weeks prior. Although mother did participate in subsequent sessions, Dr. Nelson felt coparenting services should be terminated due to both parents' inability to gain any insight given their level of conflict in their relationship. Dr. Nelson opined that mother suffered from narcissistic personality disorder and displayed "a lack of remorse for not only her actions but also the effect her actions have had on other people including [father] and [the minor]." Dr. Nelson further opined that mother "has not and will not benefit from individual psychotherapy at this stage in her life, as she lacks internal motivation to change and her external motivation is both temporary and superficial."
According to the report, mother also failed to attend a scheduled appointment to complete her mental health assessment. The service provider, Margaret Beauford, LCSW, expressed concern regarding mother's temperament during telephone calls, describing mother as "hostile." Mother denied having missed the appointment and stated her attorney instructed her not to complete the mental health assessment. Beauford eventually informed the social worker she was no longer willing to try to engage mother, reporting mother had been verbally aggressive, used profanity, and hung up the phone on her after insisting mental health assessments should take no more than 30 minutes. Thereafter, mother refused to schedule or participate in a mental health assessment through another provider.
The report stated mother consistently participated in twice-weekly visitation with the minor. Visits reportedly went well and mother attempted to engage with the minor, who often spent time playing independently or watching movies. However, an incident occurred during a visit on January 17, 2017, when mother attempted to record CPS social worker Laznique Craft and visitation supervisor Modesta Barajas and told Barajas, "[Y]ou're a low income employee who probably has a green card." Following the visit, the social worker received various calls and e-mails from mother claiming it was the staff who attempted to record the visit. Mother also accused Barajas of "roughly plac[ing] the [minor] in the county vehicle following the visit and pull[ing] out of the parking lot abruptly," and called police to conduct a welfare check on the minor. Law enforcement officers assessed the minor and found no injuries or signs of abuse or neglect. Mother also expressed concerns about staff supervising her visits with the minor, resulting in a temporary suspension of visitation to allow the Department to conduct an investigation into mother's concerns.
Noting mother had engaged in most of her court-ordered case plan but refused to complete a mental health assessment, the Department recommended continued services for mother. However, in an addendum report filed one week later, the Department recommended termination of dependency jurisdiction with sole legal and physical custody of the minor to father and supervised visitation for mother.
An additional addendum report was filed on April 3, 2017, stating mother had completed individual counseling with Dr. Nelson, who reported that mother consistently presented as "very angry, guarded and entitled" and, in Dr. Nelson's opinion, mother had not benefitted from participation in individual counseling. Dr. Nelson had no recommendations for additional services stating mother was unwilling to "take advice, interventions, or wisdom from others, especially those involved with the [CPS system], or someone she feels is of less status/lower than she is." As for coparenting counseling, Dr. Nelson noted both parents struggled with healthy communication and instigated conflict by purposely sharing things to ignite anger in the other. She also noted that the only "fair fighting" rules the parents were able to follow were no physical contact and no yelling, and neither parent appeared able to identify personal responsibility regarding their involvement with CPS. Dr. Nelson concluded that neither parent benefitted from coparenting counseling and recommended that both parents reengage in coparenting therapy to minimize the risk of additional trauma to the minor. Dr. Nelson also recommended that both parents participate in individual counseling to address feelings of grief, loss, betrayal, and anger.
The contested in-home review hearing commenced on May 5, 2017. The court first obtained confirmation from the Department as to its recommendation that dependency be terminated with sole legal and physical custody granted to father and supervised visitation for mother. Next, the court heard testimony from a number of witnesses, summarized as follows:
Laznique Craft, CPS Social Worker
Laznique Craft testified that mother completed domestic violence services and individual counseling, and attended domestic violence counseling. Mother reported to Craft that she completed four mental health assessments, but submitted only one assessment conducted by Dr. Gunton, who was not an approved provider. Craft provided the assessment to Dr. Nelson.
Craft testified that she always recommended that mother's visitation with the minor either be supervised or monitored. She recommended supervised visits based in part on multiple incidents of mother's inappropriate discussions with Department staff in the minor's presence and mother's refusal to be redirected. The recommendation for supervised visitation was also based on mother's failure to provide structure for the minor, and the fact that mother made negative statements regarding the minor's speech difficulties in the minor's presence to the effect that she did not believe the minor was actually receiving speech therapy and questioned whether the speech services he was receiving through CPS were adequate. Craft had concerns that any negative statements made in the minor's presence could be internalized by the minor. Craft noted that mother also made a derogatory statement to Craft about Craft's ethnicity.
Craft testified there were concerns about mother's attentiveness during visits. In particular, visitation staff noted numerous times that mother handed the minor food and directed her attention elsewhere while allowing the minor to walk around having stuffed the food into his mouth without chewing it.
Craft also testified that mother was uncooperative and resistant to Craft, she refused to communicate with Craft verbally and insisted that all communication be via e-mail, she asked Craft not to call her, she refused to see Craft if Craft showed up to an appointment late, she made statements on several occasions about not wanting Craft as her social worker and feeling as if she was somehow in danger if she interacted with Craft, and she was not redirectable. Mother insisted on completing her services through A Community for Peace, which was not a Department-approved provider, and refused Craft's referrals to other approved providers.
Craft changed her initial recommendation for ongoing jurisdiction because, after reviewing reports from service providers and discussions with her supervisor, the Department believed mother did not benefit from the services she had participated in and could not benefit from additional services. That lack of benefit from services left the minor in a "state of possible danger." Craft relied in part on Dr. Nelson's concerns about mother's mental health and ability to manage her mood and interact with other people, as well as Dr. Nelson's recommendation that mother complete a mental health assessment prior to being allowed unsupervised contact with the minor. Craft shared Dr. Nelson's concerns and stated she often found mother to be "very irritable," resistant to interaction with Department staff, "very confrontational," and difficult to redirect or calm.
Craft felt mother was a danger to the minor due to mother's continued engagement in conflict with adults in the minor's presence and despite being redirected. Craft recalled four or five instances during visitation when mother tried to engage Craft in a heated discussion and Craft tried unsuccessfully to redirect mother. Craft did not think mother had developed the skills necessary to avoid being in a relationship involving domestic violence because mother often instigated confrontations. Craft recalled an incident when mother filed a complaint against a family services staff member, to whom mother had reported having scabies. When Craft asked mother to provide medical documentation to clear her of any scabies infection, mother initially refused to do so and made accusations against the Department, stating it was most likely the family service worker who had scabies and was blaming mother for it. Mother eventually provided the requested documentation approximately one week later. On another occasion, mother told the same family service staff member she was a "low-paid employee who probably just has a green card." Craft recalled another incident when, during visitation in March 2017, mother appeared to be recording the visitation and refused to put her phone away when asked to do so. The visit was terminated and, when mother refused to leave, security personnel removed her from the building. During another incident, mother became irritated and refused to be redirected. The minor was present during these interactions.
According to Craft, although discussions of moving mother to unsupervised visitation occurred frequently amongst CPS staff, most frequently in January 2017, Craft's supervisor would not approve unsupervised visitation due to multiple staff concerns regarding mother's ability to manage her mood.
When asked whether she believed the minor was at risk of emotional abuse, Craft testified that, based on her discussions with Dr. Nelson, mother's personality disorder would cause her to put her own personal needs before the personal needs of the minor, something which could be assessed as a risk factor for emotional abuse. Craft testified that Dr. Nelson recommended mother not begin unsupervised visitation until she completed a mental health assessment by an approved provider. Craft also testified that, during a home visit at which the family social worker, Ebony Sylvester was present, mother told her, "We should send you back to the fields," and the maternal uncle said, "I should set CPS on fire, but I'll burn you two first after I hang you." Mother often instigated confrontations with Craft, the family social worker, other family services staff, and Department management.
Craft had concerns for the minor's safety if visitation with mother were not supervised based on her concerns about the parents' interaction with each other, mother's inability to avoid making negative comments to the minor about his speech delay, and the potentially negative impact interactions between mother and her family members could have on the minor. Dr. Jacquelynn Nelson
Dr. Nelson testified she had concerns about mother's potential emotional abuse of the minor. Dr. Nelson did not believe mother got anything out of the services provided by the Department. She opined that mother could be an emotional detriment to the minor for several reasons. First, throughout Dr. Nelson's treatment of and provision of services to mother and coparenting therapy with father, there were numerous situations where Dr. Nelson did not feel the minor's needs were given priority over mother's needs. For example, Dr. Nelson felt mother "would rather fight that fight of getting things stricken from the record and kind of clearing her name rather than just completing services and closing the case and kind of moving forward." There were times when Dr. Nelson felt mother "would rather just fight the fight than do what is best for her son." Second, Dr. Nelson was also concerned about what effect mother's narcissistic personality disorder would have on the minor. Third, Dr. Nelson was concerned about the residual anger that both parents carried forward and whether they would be able to put their own personal issues aside in order to coparent with the minor's best interests in mind.
Dr. Nelson was also concerned that mother never completed a mental health assessment by an approved provider. Dr. Nelson confirmed having read the report completed by Dr. Gunton, but she did not give the report much weight because it did not include any psychological testing and "was just simply a bio-psychosocial or an interview." Dr. Gunton's assessment was of no help to Dr. Nelson because it was based entirely on mother's self-reporting; no records were reviewed, no interviews were done, and no psychological measures were taken. In other words, according to Dr. Nelson, nothing was done to prove or disprove mother's self-reports.
When asked what behavioral observations she observed that supported her diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, Dr. Nelson referred to mother's "arrogance, her hautiness [sic], her self requirement to carry herself at a higher level than everyone else, the way she would talk down to people, the way she would interact, the way she would just have this self knowledge, this self belief that she was better than everyone else around her"; mother's "interaction style" and the way she treated father without empathy and "the complete and utter disregard for any of his experiences throughout their relationship"; mother's "general disrespect of others" and her "racist slanders as further proof of her kind of disrespect and her feeling that she's above people" and "her not feeling that she needed to comply with CPS or CPS requirements because she was above them"; and mother's "entitlement as far as being on the phone during a session or feeling that sessions aren't likely to accommodate her." Dr. Nelson had no doubt about her diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.
Dr. Nelson testified that although mother admitted she had a domestically violent relationship with father, mother did not take any responsibility for her part in it and felt she was the victim. Throughout the entire CPS case, mother generally expressed that she was the victim and was being wronged in some way. Mother felt she was being victimized by CPS and CPS was out to get her. However, Dr. Nelson had no information to suggest that mother was being treated unfairly.
Dr. Nelson described her relationship with mother during treatment as "[u]nstable, lacking of trust or respect, demeaning, disregarded." Mother did not value Dr. Nelson's education, experience, or credentialing. At times, mother would be angry, irritated, or dismissive of Dr. Nelson, and "there was no way to predict her moods or how she would view or interact with" Dr. Nelson from session to session. The majority of Dr. Nelson's therapy sessions with mother were spent with mother venting or expressing her frustrations. Dr. Nelson was careful about attempting to counsel mother on a particular issue because mother believed she did not have any mental health issues or issues related to her parenting or her ability to interact with others, thus making it difficult to try to treat "someone who doesn't acknowledge there is any room for treatment."
Dr. Nelson testified that, pursuant to the facilitator's report, mother was participatory, engaged, and talkative during domestic violence classes and, because she attended all 12 classes and was fully engaged, she earned a certificate of completion. However, Dr. Nelson stated that despite mother's engagement in domestic violence sessions, she did not benefit from those sessions because she did not internalize the information, apply it to her life, or take any responsibility or ownership of her part in the circumstances. Dr. Nelson did not believe mother would benefit from any additional services.
Father
Father testified regarding a sexual encounter he had with mother during the proceedings. He felt it was an effort by mother to manipulate him and then use it against him in trial. Father stated it was in his best interest not to be in a relationship with mother because she "tends to be vindictive" and "tends to coerce people." While father felt he had the ability to discuss issues regarding the minor with mother, he was concerned about mother's reaction or response. Father testified there were 20 to 30 incidents since October 2015 when mother became argumentative with him during phone calls or text messages. During the past six months, mother tried to make father angry during counseling sessions and tried to manipulate what he said, she went against the wishes of the CPS social worker regarding the minor's medical care and speech therapy, and on numerous occasions, she expressed her displeasure at how father was raising the minor and what CPS had done to facilitate the minor's needs.
Father believed mother's visits with the minor should be supervised because he felt mother and her family were a danger to the minor, mother did not put the minor's needs or safety before her own, and mother had a tendency to become angry in front of the minor. Father believed mother had a combative nature and could not control her anger when it came to issues she saw as unfair to her or when an authoritative figure tried to help her with parenting. He also believed mother had not learned anything from their coparenting sessions.
Father described an incident when mother was ordered by a judge in a prior proceeding to relinquish the minor to father. Mother told the judge that the minor was across the street at a Starbucks. When father and a bailiff went across the street, the minor was not there. Mother informed the bailiff that the minor was at a different location. The CPS case worker and the bailiff had to "hunt [mother] down" and she did not relinquish custody of the minor until almost two hours later. Father had concerns that mother might become upset and refuse to relinquish the minor or that mother might attempt to kidnap the minor, given her posts on social media that she was looking for property in Texas.
Father believed mother's family was an emotional danger to the minor based on the fact that the maternal grandmother is "very manipulative" and "tends to over-express issues" and "exacerbate situations that are already tense." During the period of time the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle lived with father, they called the police on father numerous times and made false accusations against him, claiming he had PTSD and trying to have him arrested or placed on a psychiatric hold. Father believed the maternal uncle had anger management issues and mother's family as a whole had a tendency to escalate things rather than de-escalate things. Father testified that mother tended to mislead people and lie, so he felt it was necessary to have a third person present during the minor's medical and speech therapy appointments to minimize the potential for an argument.
Mother
Mother denied making derogatory statements to the social worker or ever being hostile toward anyone working on her case. She denied ever yelling or screaming at father, having a physical altercation with father, telling police father threw her down on the ground, pinned her, and kept shaking her, or telling police father hit her on her thigh with a closed fist. She also denied ever having a physical altercation with E.R.
Mother stated she had approximately five psychological evaluations and was never diagnosed with any type of mental or emotional disorder. She acknowledged the court's order that she complete a mental health assessment and that CPS referred her to providers to complete that assessment, but stated she did not go to the referred providers because one was no longer affiliated with CPS and the other had evaluated father in the past. Mother claimed she asked Craft for another referral and, when she did not receive one, she had an assessment done on her own and provided Craft with a copy of the report.
Mother testified she and father participated in and completed coparenting services with Dr. Nelson. The coparenting sessions gave her better insight into "where [father's] mind was." She also participated in and completed domestic violence classes and felt she learned how to avoid domestic violence relationships.
Mother denied ever making any derogatory remarks about the minor's speech impediment. She did not learn the minor was in speech therapy until she began cocounseling with father. She claimed she asked Craft numerous times if she could participate in the minor's therapy but was told she could not attend the speech therapy sessions because they were held in father's home.
Mother testified she believed CPS's removal of the minor was "illegal." She also felt Dr. Nelson's diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder was unfounded because Dr. Nelson did not have enough evidence or time with mother to make any type of diagnosis. When asked whether she felt she gained anything from the services she participated in, mother said, "[N]o." In particular, she did not gain anything from her individual counseling sessions with Dr. Nelson. She did learn something from her domestic violence for victims classes, including setting boundaries and using her safety plan of stepping back and walking away.
Mother stated her part in the removal of the minor and CPS intervention was "allowing certain behaviors [of father] to take place in my home." She stated her relationship with father was unhealthy for the minor due to "a lot of unresolved issues and a lot of miscommunication" between her and father. She further stated that, if she were to get into a new relationship, she would recognize red flags or trigger points to prevent domestic violence from occurring by re-evaluating whoever she was with and listening to others who notice things in her relationship. E.R.
E.R. testified he was in a relationship with mother from 2003 to 2007. They never married, but they had a child together, R.R. During that time, there were instances of domestic violence in their relationship. The police were called approximately six or seven times over a two-and-a-half-year period, and another five or six times after the relationship ended. E.R. testified that mother was violent toward him on several occasions. The maternal uncle was also involved in several of those violent incidents. E.R. was eventually granted custody of R.R. The minor was temporarily placed with E.R. on Christmas Eve 2015.
E.R. recalled domestic violent incidents involving mother that occurred after his relationship with her ended. For example, in 2012, he went over to mother's house to pick up R.R. The maternal uncle was present and became involved in a verbal argument between E.R. and mother. After E.R. took R.R. to school and returned home, the police came to his house based on accusations that he threatened to harm mother and the maternal uncle. E.R. denied doing so. He witnessed numerous incidents of violence between mother and members of her family, including the maternal grandmother and both of the maternal uncles. He also witnessed mother yell and scream at R.R.
E.R. testified that mother yelled and screamed at him during and after their relationship. She screamed obscenities at him during their custody proceedings related to R.R. between December 2015 and May 2016 because she felt he and father were conspiring against her to take away her children.
According to E.R., there were a number of domestic violence incidents involving mother and father, as reported to him by mother and R.R. between late-2014 and early-2015. Mother claimed there were numerous incidents involving father fighting mother, maternal grandmother, or R.R. Mother told E.R. that father threatened to beat R.R. and pushed R.R. up against a wall. Mother also claimed father verbally abused R.R. However, E.R. testified that R.R. contradicted much of what mother told him, none of which was ever substantiated. E.R. testified about an incident in September 2015 when he was working out of town and mother called him and claimed father had brandished a gun in the house and threatened to shoot everybody. The police intervened but did not remove R.R. from the house. When E.R. returned home, R.R. informed him that none of what mother said was true, and in fact there had been an argument between mother, father, the maternal grandmother, and the maternal uncle. Several days later, mother told E.R. that father had been diagnosed with PTSD. However, E.R. was told by a social worker that it was mother who had mental health issues. E.R. testified that mother had a history of "drama-starting" and making things up.
Modesta Barajas
Barajas supervised visits between mother and the minor beginning in late November 2016. Barajas testified regarding an incident when mother informed Barajas that she had been exposed to scabies. Mother later accused Barajas of having been exposed to scabies and of making an allegation that mother had scabies in an effort to cover her own exposure. Mother demanded that Barajas provide documentation from a physician clearing Barajas of scabies. Barajas provided that documentation; mother initially did not. Around that same time, Barajas informed the parents that she might not be available to supervise a visit due to a scheduling conflict but was attempting to find someone else to supervise in her place. Mother told Barajas to "stop making false allegations" against her and accused Barajas of making up the scabies to accommodate the scheduling conflict. Barajas also described how, following a visit, mother made snide remarks to Barajas while carrying the minor to Barajas's van. Mother told Barajas she needed to change her attitude and said Barajas was "a low-income employee working on a green card." Mother later complained that Barajas was too rough in placing the minor in his car seat.
Barajas also testified about an incident during one visit when Barajas and Craft thought mother was recording them. When Craft asked mother to put her phone away, mother refused. Craft explained to mother that it was contrary to CPS policy to record visits. Mother became agitated, flashed her phone toward Craft, and said something similar to, "If you had half a brain, you'd know that you weren't being recorded." Barajas pushed the panic button to summon security personnel, who escorted Barajas to her car with the minor.
At the conclusion of the contested in-home review hearing, the juvenile court terminated the minor's dependency status and ordered that father have sole legal and physical custody of the minor, concluding in part as follows: "The totality of the evidence indicates that Mother has anger management challenges. The evidence also indicates that Mother regularly interacts with others in a combative and condescending manner, which can foreseeably give rise to conflict. The evidence suggests that Mother will likely not show [the minor] the empathy a child needs to develop, she will set an unhealthy example for him when she engages others with condescension, and she may expose him to physical harm if her demeaning and sometimes racially derogatory statements provoke third parties to react in a physically violent manner (as apparently happened too often in her relationship with Father)." The court further ordered supervised visits for mother.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating jurisdiction and issuing exit orders giving father sole legal and physical custody of the minor. Mother also mentions, in passing, that the court's visitation order was "not made in consideration of the [minor's] best interest" and "[n]o reasonable inference supports the . . . visitation orders."
The Department argues there was no abuse of discretion in the court's order giving father full legal and physical custody of the minor. The Department further argues mother forfeited her claim regarding the juvenile court's visitation order by failing to present her claim under a separate heading or support her claim with reasoned argument and citations to authority. We agree with the Department on both counts.
I
Sufficiency of the Evidence/Abuse of Discretion
" 'If a child has been declared a dependent of the juvenile court and placed under court supervision, the status of the child must be reviewed every six months.' [Citation.] The applicable standards at the six-month review hearing differ depending on the child's placement." (In re Maya L. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 81, 98.) Section 364, subdivision (a) provides the standard when "a child under the supervision of the juvenile court . . . is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian" (see In re Pedro Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 12, 20), and when a child has been removed from the physical custody of a parent but later returned to the home under court supervision (see In re Shannon M. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 282, 290-291; Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 313-315 (Bridget A.)).
At the section 364 review hearing, "the court is not concerned with reunification, but in determining 'whether the dependency should be terminated or whether further supervision is necessary.' " (In re Pedro Z., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 20.) "The juvenile court makes this determination 'based on the totality of the evidence before it.' " (In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1155.) "The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn." (§ 364, subd. (c); see also Bridget A., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 304.)
"When a juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a dependent child, it is empowered to make 'exit orders' regarding custody and visitation." (In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1122-1123.) When terminating jurisdiction and issuing custody orders, the juvenile court must consider the best interests of the child. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973.) This concern underlies the system's primary goals of child safety, family preservation, and timely permanency and stability for the child. (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227.)
We review a juvenile court's decision to terminate dependency and to issue exit orders for abuse of discretion. (See Bridget A., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 300.) We will not disturb an exit order " ' "unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination." ' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; Bridget A., at p. 300.) The test for abuse of discretion is whether the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason. If two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, we may not substitute our decision for that of the juvenile court. (In re Stephanie M., at pp. 318-319.)
Here, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing exit orders granting father full legal and physical custody of the minor and supervised visits between mother and the minor. The court, in its written order, first acknowledged that exit orders regarding custody or visitation are "guided by consideration of the child's best interest." Next, the court noted that father's ability and capacity to safely parent the minor was unquestioned, whereas mother's capacity to do so was questionable. In particular, the court relied on the testimony of Dr. Nelson regarding mother's failure to benefit at all from services, her failure to take responsibility for her part in anything that gave rise to the CPS case, and the fact that her narcissistic personality disorder manifested itself in behaviors that could cause or lead to physical or emotional harm to the minor. The court also relied on the testimony of CPS and family service workers attesting to mother's repeated aggressive, profane, and racially charged communications during the course of the proceedings and the fact that her "inflammatory and provocative comments to others could foreseeably give rise to future verbal conflict, which might escalate to physical violence," which would in turn be harmful to the minor. The court relied further on mother's refusal to complete a mental health assessment by an approved provider and her attempts to control and manipulate the situation to reach her desired result, as well as her behavior during visits with the minor that included a lack of attentiveness and inappropriate statements in the minor's presence. Finally, the court relied on evidence of mother's current and past inaccurate and misleading statements to the court, including a mischaracterization of text messages from father in an attempt to discredit his otherwise credible testimony.
There is ample evidence in the record to support the juvenile court's determination that giving father full legal and physical custody of the minor would be in the minor's best interest. The dependency proceedings were initiated due to domestic violence between the parents, both of whom signed an informal supervision agreement to participate in services designed, in part, to address the issue of domestic violence. Father participated in services and demonstrated he benefited from them by, among other things, utilizing newfound skills to better communicate with mother and by taking responsibility for his part in the issues that led to CPS involvement. On the other hand, mother initially refused to enroll or participate in services. She eventually completed most of the referred services; however, not only did she testify that she did not gain anything from those services but staff and service providers such as Dr. Nelson reported she failed to demonstrate having benefitted from them. For example, despite significant documentary and testimonial evidence to the contrary, mother denied being hostile to or making derogatory or racially insensitive remarks toward anyone working on her case. She also denied ever yelling or screaming at father or having a physical altercation with him, and denied ever having a physical altercation in her prior relationship with E.R. Mother testified CPS intervened and the minor was removed due to father's behaviors, not hers. While she admitted being in a domestically violent relationship with father, she took no responsibility for her part in it and instead portrayed herself as a victim in her relationship with father and in nearly every aspect of the proceedings overall, something Dr. Nelson attributed at least in part to mother's narcissistic personality disorder.
Dr. Nelson also noted that, with respect to those services mother participated in and completed, including individual and coparenting counseling and a domestic violence program, mother tended to always prioritize her needs over those of the minor and was more interested in fighting to clear her own name than to complete services and reunify with her child. Even more concerning to Dr. Nelson was the fact that mother refused to complete a crucial element of her case plan--a mental health assessment by an approved provider--and instead enlisted a psychiatrist of her own choosing, Dr. Gunton, who completed what Dr. Nelson described as merely a psychological interview. The resulting assessment provided little insight into mother's mental health status, as it was based entirely on mother's self-reporting and without Dr. Gunton having reviewed records, completed interviews, or taken psychological measures.
Finally, there was evidence of numerous instances of mother's untruthfulness with staff, social workers, E.R., the court in her Placer County custody proceedings, and the juvenile court in these proceedings. Mother's lack of honesty coupled with her propensity to instigate confrontations, often in the presence of the minor, and her refusal to be redirected or take responsibility for her words and actions, created a sustained environment which was potentially emotionally detrimental to and did not inure to the best interests of the minor.
We reject mother's claim that she took responsibility for contributing to the domestic violence and completed her case plan and, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the parents were still engaging in domestic violence or any other evidence to support continued dependency jurisdiction, the minor's best interests were best served by ordering shared legal and physical custody between both parents. Mother's only claim of responsibility was that she allowed father's behaviors, not that she had any part in the circumstances giving rise to CPS intervention. Similarly, as previously discussed, mother completed most of her case plan (with the exception of completing a mental health assessment by an approved provider) and was able to articulate things she learned, but failed to demonstrate having benefitted from those services by internalizing learned skills and applying them to her life, instead putting her own needs before those of the minor in her interactions with nearly everyone and anyone involved in the proceedings.
II
Visitation Orders
Finally, mother claims the court's visitation orders "were not made in consideration of the [minor's] best interest." To the extent this observation, made in passing and without a separate heading or citation to authority, is intended to constitute an argument, it must be deemed forfeited. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [each point in appellate brief must be supported by citation of authority]; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 [lack of authority or analysis constitutes forfeiture]; People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1159.)
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering full legal and physical custody of the minor to father with supervised visitation for mother.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
HULL, J. We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. RENNER, J.