Opinion
D059166
08-04-2011
In re ANDREW L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARCY B., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. J516999A-B)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.
Darcy B. appeals a juvenile court order requiring she have no contact with Michael L., the father of her two sons, Andrew L. and Matthew L. (together, the children). We affirm the order.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) moves to dismiss Darcy's appeal, arguing the issue of the appeal is moot because subsequent to the no contact order from which Darcy appeals, the juvenile court issued a three-year restraining order forbidding her from contacting Michael except as arranged by the Agency to facilitate her supervised visitation with the children. We deny the motion to dismiss the appeal. While the restraining order has an end date and will remain in effect for three years, the order requiring Darcy to have no contact with Michael has no end date and could continue indefinitely. We also deny Darcy's motion to strike the Agency's brief because it refers to the restraining order issued after the date of the order from which she has appealed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Andrew became a dependent child of the juvenile court at his birth in February 2008 because of Darcy's abuse of prescription drugs and alcohol. The court ordered Andrew placed with Michael, that Darcy and Michael comply with their case plans and that Darcy have supervised visits.
Matthew was born prematurely to Michael and Darcy one year later in February 2009. He spent one month in a neonatal intensive care unit before going home. In March, because Darcy had not complied with her services plan regarding Andrew, the court terminated her reunification services. It continued Andrew's placement with Michael.
After Michael took Matthew home from the hospital, he did not take him for any followup pediatric care or immunizations. In July 2009, when Matthew was five months old, Michael took him to a hospital emergency room because Matthew had a fever, was lethargic and had blood in his nose. Hospital personnel noted Matthew was filthy and appeared not to have been receiving adequate care. It was discovered that Darcy had been providing some of the care for both children.
The Agency petitioned on Matthew's behalf under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that Matthew had serious detrimental conditions that would not occur except as a result of a parent's neglect or unreasonable acts; that Michael had not provided adequate care to the children; and that Michael had allowed Darcy to care for Matthew while there was a court order forbidding her to have unsupervised contact with Andrew. The Agency also filed a supplemental petition under section 387 on Andrew's behalf, alleging Michael had violated court orders by allowing Darcy to have unsupervised contact with him. The court ordered both children detained in foster care.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Based on information received from the medical director of the Chadwick Center at Rady Children's Hospital that Matthew had a subdural fluid collection in the right front parietal lobe indicating prior trauma, the Agency filed an amended petition under section 300, subdivision (a), alleging that Matthew's physical condition indicated he had suffered trauma. The court found the allegations of the petitions true, continued the children's removal from parental custody and ordered reunification services.
Subsequently, there were indications that Matthew had an underlying metabolic disorder, and doctors became less comfortable with the diagnosis that he had suffered prior trauma. On the Agency's motion, the court dismissed the section 300, subdivision (a) allegation regarding Matthew and modified the section 300, subdivision (b) allegation to delete the language referring to the fluid collection in his right front parietal lobe. It ordered the children placed in foster care, continued reunification services to the 12-month hearing and denied Darcy's and Michael's requests to dismiss Matthew's petition in its entirety. This court affirmed the orders in In re Andrew L. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 683, 688-691.
For the 12-month hearing, the Agency recommended terminating Darcy's services, extending Michael's services and ordering no contact between Darcy and Michael. In addition, the social worker reported Darcy had been posting information about Andrew's case on the Internet.
In October 2010 Darcy was arrested for filing a fraudulent prescription. She was not present in court on October 26, the date set for the 12-month hearing, but was represented by counsel. The court ordered Darcy to remove information about the children from the Internet and set a continued date for the hearing.
Darcy was not present in court on December 15, 2010, the date set for the 12-month hearing. The court denied her counsel's request for a continuance. Darcy's counsel opposed a no contact order between Darcy and Michael. Michael's counsel joined the Agency in requesting a no contact order.
The court ordered that there be no contact between Darcy and Michael. It found reasonable services had been ordered or provided, and that Michael had made substantive progress in the provisions of his case plan, but Darcy had not made progress. It ordered that Andrew be placed with Michael and that family maintenance services be provided; ordered Matthew placed in licensed foster care; terminated Darcy's reunification services; limited Darcy's rights to make educational and medical decisions regarding the children; and ordered the Agency to arrange supervised visitation for Darcy with each child.
DISCUSSION
Darcy contends the court erred by ordering that she and Michael have no contact. She argues there was no factual basis for the order, and it will prejudice her ability to visit Andrew and know about his health and well-being.
"The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this discretion." (In re Jose M. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1103-1104.) The court must consider the totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions concerning the child. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) Orders regarding visitation may be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
Darcy has not shown an abuse of the court's discretion. The court issued the no contact order to ensure Andrew's placement with Michael would stabilize without interference from Darcy. Darcy and Michael had a volatile relationship, and Darcy had disrupted the children's placement in the past and had been acting erratically. The social worker said Darcy's behavior had jeopardized Michael's ability to have the children returned safely to his care. Darcy was not prevented from visiting the children. The Agency had arranged to transport Andrew from Michael's home to the visitation center for visits with Darcy and to return him home. Also, the court directed that Michael provide monthly reports to the Agency on Andrew's care and on the medical and education decisions made on behalf of the children, and that the Agency provide this information to Darcy.
Darcy's argument that the court's order was based solely on allegations by Michael's counsel that she was harassing Michael is inaccurate. The social worker's reports detailed Darcy's unstable behavior, including her harassment of the social worker, the visitation monitor and the former foster parent, and her pattern of making remarks about Michael, her posting of information about Andrew on the Internet and her attempt to obtain prescription medicine through illegal means. Darcy's therapist had terminated therapy and said Darcy missed appointments and was constantly in crisis. The therapist said at each therapy session it was necessary to deal with the current crisis in Darcy's life and, as a result, they were unable to work on the protective issues. The order prohibiting contact between Darcy and Michael is well supported and does not show an abuse of the court's discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
IRION, J. WE CONCUR:
MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.