Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. J236472. Gregory S. Tavill, Judge.
Teri A. Kanefield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Jeffrey L. Bryson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, J.
Appellant J.S. (mother) appeals from a jurisdictional order regarding her son, C.M. (the child). She contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code section, unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2010, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the child, alleging that he came within subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition contained the following allegations under section 300, subdivision (b): (1) mother had a history of drug abuse, which impaired her ability to provide adequate care and supervision for the child (b.1.); (2) mother had a history of mental health problems, which impaired her ability to provide adequate care and supervision for the child (b.2.); (3) the child’s alleged father, J.M. (father), had a history of domestic violence, which impacted his ability to provide adequate care and supervision for the child (b.3.); and (4) J.M. had a history of drug abuse, which impaired his ability to provide adequate care and supervision for the child (b.4.). The petition also alleged under subdivision (j) that four of the child’s half-siblings had been removed from mother’s custody due to her mental health problems and drug abuse; that mother failed to reunify with them; and that her reunification services were terminated on July 29, 2010 (j.5.).
Father is not a party to this appeal.
In the detention report, the social worker reported that the child came to the attention of CFS in December 2010, when Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (the hospital) reported that mother gave birth to the child. The hospital staff was concerned for the child’s safety based on the fact that mother had previously had four of her children removed from her custody. That day, the social worker observed the child, mother, and father at the hospital. She noted that the parents were bonding with the child, and that father was particularly attentive and nurturing. According to hospital records, on September 14, 2010, mother was drug tested at San Bernardino Community Hospital, which was during her pregnancy. She tested positive for methamphetamine. However, mother denied being drug tested. She said she was bipolar and was taking psychotropic medication, until her doctor took her off the medication due to her pregnancy. Mother said she planned to resume taking the medication once approved by her doctor.
Mother admitted that four of her other children had been removed from her care due to her mental health problems and drug abuse. Those children were declared dependents, and she received reunification services. Mother was provided with services for at least 12 months for three of the children, and six months of services for the other child. Mother failed to complete her case plans. The juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan for those four children.
On our own motion, we took judicial notice, by separate order, of the records in appellate case Nos. E051488 and E052806. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
Mother told the social worker that she had been obtaining services on her own since then, and that for the past three months, she had been in treatment through the Department of Mental Health. Mother said she had also attended parenting classes and grief counseling to deal with the loss of her children. The social worker reported that a clinician from the Department of Mental Health verified that mother had been actively participating in services and had demonstrated progress in the past three months. However, the social worker opined that mother had not shown sufficient progress over a substantial amount of time to determine that it would be safe for the child to be in her care.
The social worker refers to “San Bernardino Behavioral Health” and “San Bernardino Mental Health.” We assume that she meant the San Bernardino County Department of Mental Health (Department of Mental Health).
The social worker observed mother and father’s residence, noting that it was clean, and that the parents had formula, clothing, and supplies for the child. Father informed the social worker that he had a robbery conviction and had served six years in prison. He said he was on parole, but had not had any violations in the past 13 months. Father said he had been in a relationship with mother for at least one year. He was aware that mother’s other children had been taken from her custody. He said he would be able to care for the child if mother was not allowed to have him in her care. Father did not have a history with CFS, as the child was his first. Mother and father were living together at the time of the child’s birth. Mother agreed to leave their home, so that the child could be released to father. However, based on his criminal history, there was a need for court intervention to monitor father and assure the child’s safety.
The social worker stated that mother was previously provided reunification services, failed to reunify with her other children, and had her services terminated on July 29, 2010. The social worker concluded that the child was “at risk of neglect based on the fact that the same conditions of the mother’s incapacity due to mental problems and drug abuse still exist[ed].”
The juvenile court detained the child on December 15, 2010, and ordered the child to remain in father’s custody, under its supervision. The juvenile court further ordered the department to supervise and report.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on January 3, 2011, recommending that the juvenile court find the allegations in the section 300 petition true as alleged, and that no reunification services be provided to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). The report summarized mother’s history with the juvenile court, beginning with the 2006-2007 dependencies of J.W. and K.M.H. In addition, K.L.H. was on a family maintenance plan with her in 2007. During that time, mother drug tested positive once and refused to test on four occasions. Mother was provided with reunification services, including parenting classes, substance abuse treatment and testing, a psychological evaluation, and therapy. She successfully reunified with J.W. and K.M.H., and K.L.H. was allowed to remain in her custody. However, in 2009, they all had to be removed from her custody again “for the same issues and concerns.” In addition, mother gave birth to another child, S.C., who became a dependent in January 2010.
In support of the allegation in the current case, that mother had a history of drug abuse, which impaired her ability to care for the child, the social worker reported that mother had been dealing with substance abuse problems for years. On April 26, 2006, J.W. was removed from her custody when she was arrested for child endangerment, due to mother and J.W. being in a residence where a warrant was served due to drug activity. During that time, mother participated in dependency drug court and resided in a substance abuse residential treatment facility. At the outset of the current case, the juvenile court ordered her to drug test on December 15, 2010, and she tested positive for alcohol.
Regarding mother’s mental health problems, the social worker reported that mother had an extensive mental health history. According to previous reports, mother had bipolar and schizophrenic disorders, but had “not been medicine compliant since giving birth” to K.M.H. The social worker stated that mother’s mental health issues were the reason CFS continued to be involved. Mother was currently on felony probation, and her probation case was being handled by the mental health unit. Mother reported that she was currently under the care of Dr. Dittemore of the Department of Mental Health, and that she had been prescribed medication. However, the social worker stated that it was “uncertain” how long mother had been receiving psychiatric services.
In support of the allegation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j), the social worker reported that the issues that brought mother’s four other children to CFS’s attention were her mental health problems, substance abuse problems, and her repeated arrests; all of these issues affected her ability to care for her children. Her criminal history included several misdemeanor charges from 2005 to 2009, as well as convictions for receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), battery of a police officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b)), fraudulent use of credit cards (Pen. Code, § 484g), and failure to provide for a child (Pen. Code, § 270).
The social worker opined that the child would be at risk of severe neglect if left in mother’s care and custody. The social worker stated that the most significant problems were mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues, and her failure to address them successfully. Mother had demonstrated “erratic, explosive, and unpredictable” behavior in front of her children. The social worker opined that mother’s “past erratic behaviors and poor decision making place[d] herself and her children at risk, ” and further stated that mother had “a history of disregarding Court orders, such as drug testing and participating in a case plan.”
The social worker did, however, note that mother had initiated services on her own, since her services were terminated in her previous dependencies. She began participating in substance abuse services on October 13, 2010, in a five-month “intensive outpatient program.” However, a progress report stated that her attendance was “a problem.” As of February 11, 2011, she had only attended four out of the 16 groups she was scheduled to attend.
The social worker was concerned with the capability of mother to continue with the services and her willingness to comply with the recommendations of her doctor and service providers. The social worker opined that there had not been enough time between the termination of reunification services in mother’s other dependency cases and the current case to establish whether or not she would remain compliant and continue to address her needs.
The social worker noted that father had been cooperative with CFS and had taken the responsibility to care for the child. He still had areas of concern, though, including his criminal history, lack of attendance at his domestic violence class, and a recent positive drug test. However, he was willing to participate in any services recommended by CFS and had expressed his desire to have the child remain in his custody. Thus, the social worker recommended that no services be provided to mother, pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), and that the child remain in father’s custody, under a family maintenance service plan.
The juvenile court held a jurisdiction hearing on February 15, 2011. Father signed a waiver of rights, admitting the allegations in the petition. The juvenile court admitted as evidence the social worker’s report dated January 6, 2011. Mother presented no affirmative evidence. The juvenile court found the allegations true as alleged in the petition. The juvenile court ordered mother to drug test that day, but mother said she was taking three medications that would “make [her] dirty for three different things.” The juvenile court instructed her to tell the person testing her exactly what she was taking. Mother agreed, but then never made it to the testing site.
The disposition hearing was held on March 1, 2011. After hearing mother testify on her own behalf, the juvenile court asked father if he and mother were still together, and he said no. The juvenile court noted that mother had been trying to address her problems for five years, and was failing. Mother agreed. The juvenile court ordered that no reunification services be provided to mother, pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11). The juvenile court found father to be the presumed father of the child, declared the child a dependent of the court, and placed him in father’s custody, under CFS’s supervision, and ordered father to participate in family maintenance services.
ANALYSIS
The Juvenile Court Properly Took Jurisdiction of the Child
Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). We conclude that mother’s claim fails.
A. The Juvenile Court Properly Took Jurisdiction of the Child Pursuant to the Allegations Regarding Father
The juvenile court found the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), to be true as alleged, and thereby found that the child came under its jurisdiction. Mother contends that there was no substantial evidence to sustain the allegations concerning her (i.e., b.1., b.2., and j.5). However, she concedes that the juvenile court properly took jurisdiction over the child on the grounds alleged regarding father (i.e., b.3. and b.4).
“When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence. [Citations.]” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) In other words, “‘the juvenile court’s jurisdiction may rest on a single ground.’ [Citation.]” (In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 83.)
Mother concedes that “[a] reviewing court need not consider attacks on particular jurisdictional findings if other valid grounds support the court’s jurisdiction over the child.” Here, father waived his rights and admitted the allegations in the petition, and he did not appeal the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. Since father admitted the allegations in the petition, the juvenile court properly took jurisdiction over the child. Therefore, we need not consider whether the other statutory grounds for jurisdiction were supported by the evidence.
Although mother agrees that the juvenile court was authorized to take jurisdiction over the child, she proceeds to argue that father “was called a ‘non-offending parent’ by the department, ” and he was “thus entitled to custody.” She presumes that if father was “nonoffending, ” he was “perfectly capable of providing care.” She then argues that, if there was insufficient evidence for jurisdiction concerning her, and father was the “nonoffending” parent, this case “never should have been a dependency.” While CFS did use the term “nonoffending” to describe father, it did not use the term in the sense that mother now claims. CFS recommended that the juvenile court take jurisdiction of the child based on father’s history of domestic violence and substance abuse. Furthermore, the juvenile court approved CFS’s case plan for father and ordered him to participate in family maintenance services. Father was not “perfectly capable” of caring for the child, as mother presumes.
Mother further claims that, as a result of the allegedly improper finding of jurisdiction, she was wrongly denied custody of the child. She argues that this court should hear her appeal “in the interests of justice and because a Constitutional right is at stake.” She relies upon In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 688 (B.G.), which says that a parent’s interest “in the companionship, care, custody, and management of [her] children is a compelling one, ranked among the most basic of civil rights.” However, B.G. is distinguishable. The B.G. court concluded that the court’s jurisdictional determination was defective because of a failure to give the mother notice of the hearing. The court recognized that “the state, before depriving a parent of this interest [in the care and custody of a child], must afford him adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.” (Id. at pp. 688-689.) Here, mother had notice of the jurisdiction hearing, appeared at it, and failed to raise any objection to the juvenile court’s findings.
B. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Juvenile Court’s Jurisdiction
In any event, the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), with regard to mother. The evidence was undisputed that mother had a history of both substance abuse and mental health problems. She now argues that a history of drug use, without evidence that she was currently using drugs, was not grounds for jurisdiction. She similarly contends that “[a] history of mental illness, when a mother is currently under the care of a psychiatrist and doing well, is not grounds for jurisdiction.” Mother further argues that there was no specific evidence of how her history of drug use or mental illness might endanger the child.
“Section 300, subdivision (b) provides the court may adjudge a minor to be a dependent child of the court if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent’s inability to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s mental illness [or substance abuse]. ‘In determining whether the child is in present need of the juvenile court’s protection, the court may consider past events. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, overruled on other grounds as stated in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn 6.) Section 300, subdivision (j), provides that the court may adjudge a minor to be a dependent child if “[t]he child’s sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.” It further states that “[t]he court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.” (§ 300, subd. (j).)
“The standard of proof required in a section 300 dependency hearing is the preponderance of evidence. [Citation.] [¶] ‘If there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, a reviewing court must uphold the trial court’s findings. All reasonable inferences must be in support of the findings and the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 168 (Basilio T.).)
In support of her argument that there was no evidence of how her history of drug abuse or mental illness might endanger the child, mother asserts that “substance abuse is not enough, without more, to show that a child is at risk of abuse or neglect under subdivision (b).” She further contends that the juvenile court was “never told the specific grounds for jurisdiction in the previous cases.” Mother’s argument overlooks the evidence regarding her past dependency proceedings. “While jurisdiction must be asserted on the basis of conditions which exist at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the court is not required to disregard the mother’s prior conduct. [Citation.] ‘[P]ast events can aid in a determination of present unfitness.’ [Citation.]” (In re Troy D. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 889, 900.)
We note that CFS filed a request for judicial notice on February 14, 2011, with regard to the records from the dependency proceedings of mother’s other children. The juvenile court acknowledged that it had the request for judicial notice at the jurisdiction hearing; however, it did not expressly grant the request at that time. The request was eventually granted at the disposition hearing.
Here, the evidence showed that mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues caused her four other children to be removed from her care. Mother was diagnosed with bipolar and schizophrenic disorders, and she was not consistently compliant with taking her medication. The record shows that the juvenile court took jurisdiction of mother’s other children after sustaining allegations that she had substance abuse problems and a severe mental health illness, which interfered with her ability to provide adequate care, supervision, and support for her children on a consistent basis. In her previous dependency cases, mother was provided with a range of services, including a parenting class, substance abuse treatment and testing, a psychological evaluation, and therapy. During her reunification period, her behavior was “explosive, erratic, and unpredictable.” She denied that she suffered from mental health or substance abuse issues, and she failed to take responsibility for the removal of her children. On several occasions, she stated that she was not going to change. She did not complete her services, and on July 29, 2010, the juvenile court found that mother had failed to participate regularly or make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plans regarding her four other children. The juvenile court terminated services and ordered a permanent plan of adoption to be implemented. We note that her parental rights as to those four children were terminated on January 19, 2011.
Furthermore, the evidence before the court also showed that mother had a criminal history, that she had exhibited erratic and unpredictable behavior in front of her children, that she had poor decision-making skills, and that she had failed to resolve her mental health and substance abuse issues. Moreover, only about six months had passed between the time the reunification services in her other dependency cases were terminated and the time of the jurisdiction hearing in the current case. Thus, given mother’s history of mental health and substance abuse problems and her recent failure to properly address these issues, it was reasonable to infer that the child was at substantial risk of suffering neglect similar to what the child’s half-siblings had suffered.
Mother cites several cases in support of her argument. However, these cases are distinguishable. For example, she cites In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (David M.). In that case, the appellate court found there was no evidence that the mother’s substance abuse and mental health issues, and the father’s mental health issues, impacted their ability to care for the child. (Id. at p. 830.) The court noted that there was no current information on the mother’s drug use, since the social services agency relied on information that was several years old. (Id. at p. 831.) In contrast, the evidence in the instant case showed that mother neglected her other children due to her substance abuse and mental health issues, that her children were removed from her care, and that she failed to properly address or resolve these issues.
Mother also cites In re B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685 and Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322. Like David M., supra, 134 Cal.App.4th 822, neither of these cases involved a mother who neglected four of her other children due to substance abuse and mental health issues, had dependency proceedings with regard to them, and failed to reunify with them.
Furthermore, contrary to mother’s assertion that there was no evidence of her current drug use, the record shows she tested positive for alcohol at the outset of this case, on December 15, 2010. The record indicates that mother recognized that she had a substance abuse problem, in that she, on her own, enrolled in an “intensive outpatient program” prior to the jurisdiction hearing. We note that her attendance was poor, as she had only attended four out of the 16 groups she was scheduled to attend, as of February 11, 2011.
We also note that mother tested positive for drugs on February 4, 2011. She claimed that the positive test was due to her use of Sudafed. However, this evidence was apparently not before the juvenile court at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.
Mother also claims that she was currently under the care of a psychiatrist and that she was “doing well.” However, while the social worker did note that mother’s behavior had improved, the social worker was still concerned about mother’s willingness to comply with the recommendations of the providers, as well as her capability of continuing with services. Given mother’s past record, this concern was valid.
In sum, mother had a lengthy history with CFS, and she had failed to successfully address the issues that kept bringing her to CFS’s attention. Given the extent of her serious issues, there had not been enough time to establish whether she would continue to, or successfully, address her substance abuse and mental health needs. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, as we must, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P.J., RICHLI, J.