From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Yvette R. (In re Antonio R.)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 31, 2012
No. D060336 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)

Opinion

D060336

01-31-2012

In re ANTONIO R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YVETTE R., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SJ12446A-B)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.

Yvette R. appeals a judgment following the six-month review hearing in the juvenile dependency case of Antonio R. and Leah R. (together, the children). Yvette contends she was not provided reasonable reunification services and the court abused its discretion by denying her request for unsupervised visits. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In March 2007, before the children were born, their father Edgar R. was arrested after physically abusing Yvette (together, the parents), leaving a bruise on her face and a bite mark on her abdomen. In November there was a child welfare referral for Edgar's emotional abuse of the children's older half sister. The half sister said it bothered her when the parents argued. Because the half sister denied seeing any physical fighting, the referral was closed as inconclusive.

In April 2009 Antonio was born. A maternal uncle later reported that when Antonio was about five months old, Edgar threw Antonio on the couch when Edgar was angry at the uncle.

In May 2010 Leah was born. Her only caregivers were the parents, the maternal grandparents and a maternal great-aunt, D.D., who babysat the children while the parents were at work. When D.D. came to the parents' home to babysit on Monday, August 30, Yvette said Leah had been fussy all weekend. D.D. noticed a bruise on Leah's cheek and asked Yvette what had happened. Yvette said she did not know. That day D.D. noticed that Leah was "more serious" and slept more than usual. On August 31, Leah cried a lot while D.D. was caring for her. That evening, the parents told D.D. she did not need to babysit the next day, as they were going to stay home with the children.

On September 1, 2010, the parents called 911 and reported Leah had stopped breathing. Leah resumed breathing just before the paramedics arrived. She was rushed to the hospital. She was found to have two skull fractures, a subdural hematoma and bruises on her face and leg.

Edgar told police detectives he had dropped Leah in the shower two or three weeks earlier. He also said that during the same shower, he had slipped while holding Leah and she had hit the back of her head against the shower wall. Edgar did not tell Yvette what had happened or seek medical attention for Leah. Yvette claimed she did not know how Leah had been injured.

D.D. denied Leah suffered an accident while in her care.

On September 2, 2010, a social worker interviewed the parents. Edgar said the previous week, Antonio had thrown a toy truck and hit Leah in the face. Yvette said that incident had occurred on Thursday or Friday, and on Saturday night she had noticed a bruise on Leah's face. Yvette did not know how the other injuries had occurred. After being told that Edgar had admitted having an accident in the shower with Leah, Yvette recalled that once Leah had cried more loudly than usual when in the shower with Edgar. Yvette could not remember the date of the incident, but noted that Leah was red after the shower. At that time, Yvette did not seek medical care for Leah.

On September 3, 2010, the parents told the social worker "that the more they think of it, the more they are certain that [Leah]'s fall did not occur until after they returned from Las Vegas." The parents were in Las Vegas, without the children, from August 22 to 26.

Yvette claimed a bruise on Leah's lower leg was probably caused by the way Yvette held her while changing her diaper. Child abuse expert Jenn Davis, M.D., concluded "it was difficult to picture a way that this hold could have caused that bruise." Dr. Davis said Edgar's statement regarding the incident in the shower might explain Leah's skull fractures, but not the facial bruises or the subdural hematoma. Dr. Davis stated the subdural hematoma and the bruises occurred at different times and were suspicious for inflicted trauma. The parents' inability to explain those injuries increased the suspicion.

On September 8, 2010, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed dependency petitions for one-year-old Antonio and nearly four-month-old Leah (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (j)). The petitions alleged Leah's two skull fractures, subdural hematoma and multiple facial bruises would ordinarily not be sustained except as the result of unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions of the parents. Leah was detained in the hospital, a foster home and then in the maternal grandfather's home. Antonio remained in the home of the maternal great-grandmother under a safety plan.

In late September 2010, Yvette told the social worker she believed Edgar "when he said it was an accident." When the social worker pointed out that Dr. Davis said Edgar's explanation did not account for all of the injuries, Yvette responded that she did not know what had caused them.

On December 15, 2010, the court entered true findings on the petitions, ordered the children placed with relatives and ordered reunification services. At the six-month review hearing on July 19, 2011, the court found Yvette had been provided or offered reasonable services and ordered the continuation of those services. The court ordered that visits would remain supervised.

REUNIFICATION SERVICES

The "[A]gency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parent's problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult. [Citation.] However, in most cases more services might have been provided and the services provided are often imperfect. [Citation.] 'The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.' " (Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598-599, quoting In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) "We determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's [reasonable services] finding, reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling." (Katie V., at p. 598.)

Yvette complains it took the Agency four months to refer her to individual therapy. She also complains the social worker testified the safety plan Yvette was preparing in therapy lacked specificity, but had not told her of this earlier, and had not told her or her therapist what details were missing. Yvette concludes she was not offered six months of reasonable services.

Yvette also argues the social worker required additional information in the safety plan regarding domestic violence. Yvette misreads the social worker's testimony. The social worker testified Yvette had prepared a safety plan with respect to domestic violence, and the social worker wanted information from the therapist regarding Yvette's progress with domestic violence issues.

The Agency's jurisdictional and dispositional report, filed on September 30, 2010, stated the parents had been given referrals to services. At a hearing the same day, Yvette's counsel disputed that statement. The court ordered the Agency to provide referrals to the parents if it had not done so, or to provide referrals again. At a hearing on October 19, Yvette's counsel complained the Agency had not provided a referral or an authorization for a 52-week child abuse parenting course. The social worker stated an authorization would be submitted that day and would take about a week to be processed. On November 15, Yvette began an approved domestic violence group program. At a hearing on November 22, her attorney complained Yvette was having trouble enrolling in a 52-week week child abuse course because there was only one approved provider, Edgar had been referred to that provider and the parents were required to have separate providers. The social worker said Yvette did not have a referral because the Agency did not have a clinician. The court noted that any referrals were voluntary because the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing had not taken place but suggested the Agency "speed up the process." At the December 15 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court ordered reunification services for Yvette including individual therapy, a domestic violence program and a parenting course, all with approved providers.

The Agency arranged for Yvette to address child abuse issues in the domestic violence program because the social worker was unable to find a child abuse program.

In high risk cases such as this one, a delay of two months between an order for therapy and the furnishing of referrals is typical. Therapists in high risk cases must have a higher level of experience, meet with patients more frequently and write more reports. This limits the number of openings for high risk clients. Here, the first social worker searched unsuccessfully for a therapist for Yvette. When social worker Adriana Gutierrez was assigned to the case in January 2011, she continued the search. On February 3, Gutierrez gave Yvette therapy referrals. In mid-February, Yvette told Gutierrez that none of the referred therapists were accepting new clients. Yvette repeatedly contacted Gutierrez about referrals, and on March 21, Gutierrez gave her more referrals. Yvette began therapy on April 21, four months after the court ordered services.

The instant case was high risk due to the severity and location of Leah's injuries, her age, the circumstances surrounding the injuries and her parents' failure to admit the injuries.

By the time of the six-month review hearing, Yvette had completed a parenting class, and her visits were going well. She was progressing in the 52-week domestic violence program but had not completed it. She was eagerly participating in therapy, but still maintained Leah's injuries were accidental.

The safety plan Yvette was writing with her therapist was a step toward addressing Yvette's failure to obtain medical care for Leah in a timely manner. The social worker believed the plan needed more specificity, although she had not yet relayed this to Yvette's therapist. The specificity the social worker sought was a plan to seek medical care if Leah's crying was out of the ordinary. This was an issue the therapist had addressed with Yvette, not a new requirement imposed without notice (cf. David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 773-774, 793-796).

Leah's injuries were significant and cannot be explained by Edgar's having dropped her in the shower. The parents' inability to explain what reasonably appear to be nonaccidental injuries was troubling to the court, and raises the question how Yvette can guard against further injuries. Although there was a delay in obtaining an approved therapist for her, the Agency did the best it could under the circumstances. The domestic violence program Yvette began one month before the court ordered services covered some of the same subject matter as individual therapy. Overall, the Agency provided reasonable services. Substantial evidence supports the finding Yvette was offered reasonable reunification services.

SUPERVISED VISITATION

By the time of the July 2011 six-month review hearing, Yvette still maintained that Leah's injuries were accidental, despite the medical findings. At the hearing, the court ordered supervised visits of greater frequency and length, with the goal of proceeding to unsupervised visits as soon as the court knew more about why or how Leah's injuries occurred and had confidence the children would not suffer future injuries.

The court did not, as Yvette asserts, condition unsupervised visitation on the parents' admission they intentionally injured Leah.
The Agency requests augmentation of the record on appeal with a report filed in November 2011, which states that Yvette now has unsupervised visits. We grant the request, but decline the Agency's suggestion that we treat the issue as moot.

The juvenile court must consider the child's best interests when making a visitation order. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) "No visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The court here was reasonably concerned about Yvette's failure to acknowledge the problem of unexplained, nonaccidental injuries to Leah. This lack of acknowledgment gave rise to a reasonable concern the children's safety would be jeopardized if they were left unsupervised in Yvette's care. Additionally, at the time of the hearing there was a risk that Yvette might expose the children to risk by leaving then alone with Edgar. Because supervision was necessary to ensure the children's safety, the court acted well within its discretion by denying unsupervised visitation at the six-month review hearing. (In re Alexandria M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1095-1096.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

__________________

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

__________________

McDONALD, J.

__________________

O'ROURKE, J.


Summaries of

San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Yvette R. (In re Antonio R.)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 31, 2012
No. D060336 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)
Case details for

San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Yvette R. (In re Antonio R.)

Case Details

Full title:In re ANTONIO R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

No. D060336 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)