Opinion
A165934
07-27-2023
In re DANIEL D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. MARIA D., Defendant and Appellant. SAN FRANCICO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD213045
STREETER, J.
Maria D., Daniel D.'s mother (mother), appeals from the juvenile court's order at a six-month review hearing conducted under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (c) to continue jurisdiction over Daniel, who was then placed at home with mother with the support of a court-ordered family maintenance plan. Mother argues the court's order is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm the court's order.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Initiation of Proceedings
In March 2021, the Agency filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 asking the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over 15-year-old Daniel for multiple reasons. These included that Daniel's father's ability to care for Daniel and his whereabouts were unknown; mother's ability to care for Daniel was impeded by her own mental health issues, for which she herself needed assessment and treatment; and Daniel was suffering or was at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional harm, as evidenced by mother's impeding his ability to engage in the mental health services he needed. The Agency more specifically alleged that Daniel needed treatment for diagnosed conduct and post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), including as a result of seeing his mother beaten as a young child and his being assaulted by his peers a year before the petition was filed; that child crisis and police had been called multiple times to the home; that mother reported in February 2021 that Daniel had badly beaten her, breaking bones; that she went away with him after he was put on a psychiatric hold and before he could be taken into custody, impeding his ability to obtain mental health support; that Daniel's psychiatrist reported in February 2021 that mother was impeding Daniel's ability to get the care he needed and her repeated accusations of his assaulting her were escalating; and that the family had an extensive child welfare history, including 21 prior child welfare referrals and two prior family maintenance services cases.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In addition to these petition allegations, the Agency reported to the court that Daniel's assault of his mother in February 2021 occurred after police had received 28 calls for service regarding Daniel in just the three previous years. Also, family service providers had opened 29 mental health episodes regarding Daniel since 2011 and were concerned "about the mother and [Daniel's] safety in the home due to a constant pattern of crisis and the minimal engagement in services." The Agency further reported that the roots of Daniel's mental health issues included trauma resulting from his being violently assaulted in November 2019 by an armed assailant and assaulted by his older sister in 2017. He and mother had received mental health services since October 2020, but their participation was "inconsistent." They "engage[d] in crisis support when necessary but not in ongoing mental health services once crisis moments . . . subsided."
The Agency also reported that Daniel's psychiatrist recommended he be placed in a residential treatment program; that mother needed her own mental health assessment, having been previously diagnosed with major depression, prolonged PTSD, dysthymic disorder with anxious distress, and other mental health issues; that mother ran" 'hot and cold'" about engaging in her own mental health support services; and that Daniel's professional mental health team believed he would not receive the mental health care he needed if "mother, hindered by her own untreated mental health [issues], continues to rely on crisis support as opposed to ongoing care and ignores or defies recommendations of Daniel's mental health team."
In April 2021, the Agency obtained a warrant to remove Daniel from mother's custody and planned to place him in a short-term residential treatment program (STRTP), initially with mother's approval. Daniel reportedly struck mother with a belt in early May 2021 and mother called 911, then hung up, and refused to allow the police to intervene thereafter. Eventually, mother opposed the Agency's efforts to remove Daniel.
In June 2021, at a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the dependency petition, ordered Daniel to be removed from parental custody, and ordered a reunification case plan, which included that mother participate in individual counseling in order to address "anxiety, depression, stress, coping mechanisms and trauma."
Mother subsequently filed two notices of appeal, which appeals were consolidated and later dismissed.
Daniel's violent and dysfunctional behavior continued. The Agency reported to the juvenile court that on different occasions, he punched mother, hit her with a "broomstick/metal towel bar," and verbally insulted her. He had a case pending with the juvenile probation department and refused to attend school. He was "5150'd to UCSF Benioff Hospital" in August 2021 after he fought with mother about his refusal to go to school, resulting in her sustaining minor injuries.
The Agency further reported that Daniel agreed to "go to a STRTP after numerous requests." However, he was "physically assaultive with staff," splitting the lip of one staff member, and "AWOL'd" on two occasions. A warrant was issued for his arrest.
B. The Juvenile Court's First Six-Month Review
In an October 28, 2021, six-month status review report, the Agency recommended the juvenile court continue jurisdiction over Daniel, who was missing at the time. The Agency wrote, "Both [Daniel] and [mother] have mental health concerns that need further attention. FCS is attempting to get [Daniel] back into a STRTP, but [the Agency] is not able to locate [Daniel] .... [M]other would like services to be in-home, but given the severity of [Daniel's] behavior, [the Agency] has recommended for [Daniel] to become a 602.... [¶] There is a need for continuing Court intervention . . . and return of the child at this time would be detrimental ...."
Subsequently, mother disclosed to the Agency that Daniel had been back home ever since he went "AWOL" from a STRTP on October 7, 2021. In an addendum report, the Agency recommended that the juvenile court vacate its prior order committing Daniel to out-of-home placement and return him to mother's custody subject to a family maintenance plan that included wraparound services (WRAP services), individual therapy for Daniel, family therapy, and Daniel's regular school attendance, and required that mother avoid impeding Daniel's obtaining of mental health support and attend to her own mental health needs. On December 23, 2021, the court adopted the Agency's recommendations.
C. The Juvenile Court's Second Six-Month Review
1. The Agency's May 2022 Status Review Report
As we will discuss, under section 364, which governs a court's review of cases in which a child is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent, the juvenile court was required to conduct a review every six months of Daniel's case and terminate its jurisdiction unless the Agency showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the court should continue jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Agency submitted its second six-month status review report, dated May 17, 2022, in which it recommended the juvenile court continue its jurisdiction over Daniel and the ordered family maintenance plan. Regarding mother's attention to her own mental health issues, the Agency reported mother had changed therapists in November 2021. Her present therapist reported last having a session with her in March 2022, and mother had thereafter "missed her appointments. She either forgets or comes to the facility requesting a session." The therapist "attempted to call the mother but the mother does not call back or her message box is full," and, according to the therapist, mother was" 'not really in treatment'" anymore. Mother recently had stopped taking a prescribed antidepressant because it made her very anxious. The Agency thought mother's "lack of follow-through and participation" were impediments to her fully addressing her mental health needs. Mother said she had learned breathing exercises in therapy to help her slow down, as she could "come with high energy at times to people and not make sense."
The Agency reported it had requested WRAP services for the family in December 2021, but that the provider, Seneca, had waitlisted the family until March 2022, when it began providing WRAP services to Daniel. It was to commence individual and family therapy with him as well. A Seneca supervisor/therapist, and the Agency social worker, reported that Daniel had been respectful to them.
According to the Agency, Daniel's behavior had "improved," but there were still "some concerns." On March 16, 2022, he "punched a security guard at his school due to [his] allegedly smoking marijuana and not being in school." He had an expulsion hearing before the school district set for May 26, 2022. Prior to this incident, the Agency added, Daniel's "academic counselor described an event where she was meeting with [Daniel]. In the meeting [Daniel] was upset that he received all F's the past semester and he used foul language and broke some of the counselor's items in her room." Daniel was "failing his classes and not attending school." Also, "weeks" after he punched the security guard at his school, mother contacted a probation officer assigned to Daniel's delinquency case (the record indicates Daniel was on informal probation in a delinquency case that stemmed from his assaulting mother, and said Daniel "assaulted her and was out of her control." The Seneca WRAP team reported that the situation had "calmed down" after they had met with the family that same day.
The Agency further reported that Daniel was open to receiving therapeutic services, was "happy" to be working with Seneca, and liked spending time with his Seneca case manager. The Seneca supervisor/therapist said it was hard at first to schedule things with the family, but lately they were working more closely together. "[S]chool [was] the main stressor" for mother, and Daniel was a" 'good kid.' "
The Agency also reported that it attempted to conduct a Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting with the family in March 2022, but the family did not attend the meeting due to an "incident at school." The family did not attend all of the CFT meeting in May 2022 because "[m]other hanged up [sic] the call."
The Agency concluded, "There is a need for continuing Court intervention because: [Daniel] continues to demonstrate concerning behaviors at school and home even though it has improved. Seneca WRAP services barely began in March of 2022 and [the Agency's protective services worker] would like to ensure that [Daniel] receives mental health services through Seneca for another period of time to reach stability and therefore, safety."
2. The Testimony of the Agency's Social Worker
At the August 2022 section 364 review hearing (August 2022 hearing), the court heard testimony from Andres Rios, the Agency's protective service worker assigned to Daniel's case and the author of the May 2022 Agency status review report. We discuss his testimony to the extent it adds to what we have already summarized from the Agency's May 2022 report.
Rios said Seneca began providing WRAP services in March 2022, but did not begin providing individual and family therapy services until May 2022, when the Seneca case manager first realized Seneca was to provide those services as well. Seneca WRAP service providers were no longer engaged with Daniel's family because "[t]hey have been having a hard time communicating with the family, both the case manager and the individual therapist and the family therapist." The Seneca family therapist met briefly with Daniel on June 30, 2022, but the family was not returning the therapist's calls.
Rios understood from mother that the case was causing her "a lot of stress" because she was applying for citizenship and her lawyer had said this dependency case could negatively affect her application. Rios further testified, "Mom has also expressed some very confusing statements to me surrounding that the therapists that are assigned-honestly, I don't really understand Mom's train of thought on this. She often calls and will say, like, she wants a psychologist. She wants a psychiatrist for [Daniel] and, yes, unfortunately due to stuff that is out of my control system-wise the family was waitlisted, but now the therapists are in place, and I don't understand why mom is not taking them. [¶] She has expressed to me that the case manager from Seneca has been teaching her son how to buy guns. I have spoken with this case manager . . ., who told me that he is not teaching her son how to buy guns, and that . . . only Daniel has brought it up to him, and he has only been exploring the topic." The case manager said he told Daniel about the dangers of having one, particularly given Daniel's anger issues, and to focus his energy on something else, like buying a car.
Rios further testified that Daniel had been expelled from his school district, apparently as a result of his punching a school security guard, and was to attend Youth Chance High School, a county school that was "a last resort" for youth in need of support. Mother had enrolled Daniel in another school due to a school district error, which, Rios said, was not the family's fault. Daniel was not yet enrolled in Youth Chance, although the school year was to start in about two and a half weeks. He had recently completed summer school.
Rios also described two recent troubling incidents. First, Daniel's probation officer reported that mother left a voice mail message in July indicating she wanted Daniel out of the home. Mother denied to Rios that she had done so. Second, Rios had recently referred mother to "housing," an apparent agency that Rios did not otherwise identify, because of a rat infestation problem the family was having at home. When Rios later contacted housing to advocate on mother's behalf, the staff did not want to speak with him because mother and Daniel had "assaulted their staff," which resulted in some sort of legal matter.
Rios also acknowledged on cross-examination that he had met monthly with mother and Daniel for the previous six months. They had repeatedly reported getting along better with each other, and had not reported any incidents occurring between them. They said they had learned to deescalate their arguments by separating themselves from each other, leaving the house to engage separately in enjoyable activities, and leaving each other alone until they relaxed. Also, mother would call Daniel's probation officer or a mobile response team the Agency referred her to for support.
Asked if he believed the conditions that led to the initiation of Daniel's case still existed, Rios said, "Yes. I still worry about it especially with school coming around the corner" and Daniel not yet enrolled in Youth Chance, because he was worried about mother and Daniel "getting into it with each other." He added, "And again, I want to give the family credit. Mother is a good mom. She tries her best, and I believe Daniel is a good kid, but I would like to see them engage with Seneca WRAP and the therapeutic services that they are trying to offer to them."
3. Mother's Testimony
Mother also testified at the August 2022 hearing. She said she was asking the court to terminate its jurisdiction over Daniel "[b]ecause there is no violence at home" and there had not been since well before the previous Christmas. Daniel went "someplace outside" when he became agitated and she walked the dog. Further, "[i]f it were the case that he would get very agitated or out of control, I would call like I have done in the past child crisis, or if it is necessary, the police, and I . . . haven't had the need to do that." Also, they both were exercising regularly, traveling, and making jokes with each other. She denied leaving a message in July 2022 that she wanted Daniel out of the home.
Mother said she also wanted the court to terminate its jurisdiction because "I have been missing my appointments for my citizenship for my interview and many appointments, and I need to obtain a job to better care of my son. I am a bit disappointed with the services that [the Agency] provided. I have been on a waitlist for so long."
As for her attending to her own mental health needs if the court terminated its jurisdiction, mother said she would keep seeing her psychiatrist, exercise regularly, visit with a friend, and continue to see her therapist, who she had seen the previous Friday and planned to see every week or two, depending on the therapist's availability. She said she had seen her psychiatrist nine days before.
As for attending to Daniel's mental health needs, mother said she wanted the court to terminate its jurisdiction so that she could choose adequate services for Daniel over a long duration through her private insurance; she added, "keeping a case open just to obtain services I don't think makes sense." She wanted to take him to La Raza, where he had previously received treatment, and where there were not only psychologists, but also psychiatrists and family doctors. She had tried to have Daniel seen at La Raza, but was told they would not see him while the dependency case was open, as she was also told by another possible provider. She preferred La Raza over Seneca because La Raza had specialized professionals with lots of education and a license to practice regarding behavioral issues that addressed Daniel's needs, and could determine if he needed medication. She also intended to engage in family therapy at La Raza.
Mother said she did not want to engage with any of Seneca's services. She explained, "The only therapist that has been assigned through Seneca has been showing some weapons to my son, and pictures of weapons on his cell phone, and I don't think that is appropriate or helpful for my son." She did not want Daniel "near more of those services. I want him to have professionals like the one I said so they can address the issues my son has ...."
Asked by the court if it was true that, "[w]hile it did take a while for Seneca services to get started, once they were in place, you didn't follow through with any of them," mother said, "It is true, your Honor, but I know what my son needs and what he doesn't, and given that the first contact that we had with Seneca was this professional that showed these pictures of weapons to my son, honestly, I did not want anything else to deal with them, and I had contact with Seneca prior to this case being open, and I don't want to deal with them." Asked by the court why it should think she would follow through with La Raza in light of her failure to do so with Seneca, mother said her son was her "whole life," that she had in the past reached out to professionals to evaluate and provide care for her son, and that she would do so in the future.
As for her plans for Daniel's education, she said she and Daniel were going to look at the school "they are recommending to see if we both like it," and claimed there were alternatives available as well. She also understood Daniel's delinquency case would be dismissed in October. (Rios testified that he did not know if this was the case.)
4. The Juvenile Court's Decision to Continue Its Jurisdiction
After hearing argument from counsel, the court continued its jurisdiction over Daniel, explaining its reasons as follows. It first commented that, although things had changed and "seem[ed] to have gotten better over time despite the late services being provided," it could not forget that the family "was in a huge crisis back in February of 2021" because of Daniel's assault of mother and the other concerns stated in the petition. Referring to mother's testimony, the court thought it was "not the best way, not the best mechanism" in dealing with conflicts with Daniel for her to be "calling the police, calling probation, calling the agency, calling the crisis team if there is an issue or concern that the mother cannot take care of herself." The court was also concerned that Daniel may have resisted assaulting mother in the recent past only because of the pending dependency and delinquency cases. It also found that mother had failed to participate regularly in court-ordered mental health services for herself, which constituted prima facie evidence (under section 364, subdivision (c), as we will discuss shortly) that the conditions that led to the court's assertion of jurisdiction still existed.
Given these circumstances and after reviewing the Agency's May 2022 status review report, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions that would justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction still existed or were likely to exist if supervision were withdrawn. It continued its jurisdiction over Daniel and ordered family maintenance services be continued as well. It instructed the Agency to look into having Seneca assign a new case manager to the case and, further, asked mother and the Agency to work together to determine if services could be provided to the family through La Raza.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the court's order.
II. DISCUSSION
Section 364 governs review hearings for dependent children who have not been removed from one or both parents. (§ 364, subd. (a); In re R.F. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 459, 469.) The juvenile court is required to review the status of the case every six months. (§ 364, subd. (a); In re Pedro Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 12, 20.) In doing so, it" 'is not concerned with reunification, but with determining whether continued supervision is necessary in the family home.'" (In re R.F., at p. 469.) The court makes its section 364 determination "based on the totality of the evidence before it, including reports of the social worker who is required to make a recommendation concerning the necessity of continued supervision." (In re N.O. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 899, 922-923; § 364, subd. (b).)
" 'Section 364, subdivision (c) establishes a statutory presumption in favor of terminating jurisdiction and returning the child to the parents' care without further court supervision.'" (In re N.O., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 923.) Specifically, it provides that the court, after hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, parent, guardian, or child, "shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary." (§ 364, subd. (c).) 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. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary." (§ 364, subd. (c).)
We review a juvenile court's decision to continue its jurisdiction under section 364 for substantial evidence. (In re J.F. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 202, 209.) We "do[] not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or draw inferences contrary to the finding of the trial court." (Ibid.) Rather, we" 'accept[] the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard[] the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact.' [Citation.] For evidence to be sufficient to support a trial court's finding, it must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value." (Ibid.)
Mother argues the juvenile court erred because its decision to continue jurisdiction over Daniel is not supported by substantial evidence. She contends that by the time of the August 2022 hearing, she and Daniel had "established their ability to peacefully co-exist," his "behavior outside the home also substantially improved," and he was "respectful toward service providers and appeared open to engaging in treatment." Thus, despite the Agency's delays and mother's resistance to court-ordered services, Daniel's behavior stabilized. Mother further contends she demonstrated an ongoing commitment to manage Daniel's mental health that should have alleviated any lingering concerns the court had about his care. Also, she continued to engage in therapy and psychiatric treatment to reduce her anxiety, and "consistently demonstrated her commitment to provide Daniel with the care he required now and in the future."
Mother acknowledges her own failure to participate in court-ordered mental health services constituted prima facie evidence under section 364, subdivision (c) that the conditions that led to the dependency had not been resolved. But she argues Daniel's and her progress in addressing their problems, as well as the Agency's delays in implementing their family plan, provided sufficient evidence to rebut section 364's presumption under Evidence Code section 602 (which states, "A statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption"). She concludes that, while she and Daniel "may not have achieved straight A's," they "proved they could comfortably maintain a passing grade."
Mother's arguments are unpersuasive. Regardless of whether she presented evidence rebutting the presumption created by her failure to participate in court-ordered mental health services, more than enough substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions existed which would justify the court's initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300, or that those conditions were likely to exist if supervision was withdrawn. (§ 364, subd. (c).)
The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over Daniel in 2021 after finding all of the Agency's petition allegations to be true. The Agency's allegations and reports included that Daniel had repeatedly assaulted mother; mother said in February 2021 that Daniel had beaten her to the point of breaking bones; there had been numerous calls and reports regarding Daniel's behavior in the preceding years; mother repeatedly had impeded efforts to provide Daniel mental health services that he needed; and mother herself needed mental health assessment. Further, the family's child welfare history included 21 prior referrals, substantiated allegations of general neglect and emotional abuse, two family maintenance cases and a family reunification case. According to the Agency, mother would reach out in times of crisis regarding Daniel, but failed to follow through regarding any on-going care for him, resulting in a cycle of violence in the home.
These problems continued throughout much of 2021. This includes substantial evidence of Daniel's continued assaults of mother, both mother and Daniel impeding the Agency's efforts to provide Daniel with the mental health services he needed, Daniel and mother resisting his out-of-home placement in defiance of the court-ordered case plan, Daniel twice disappearing from his STRTP placement, and mother sheltering him for over a month when he disappeared from a STRTP placement in October 2021, without her notifying the Agency of his whereabouts.
The Agency repeatedly tried to work with the family, even recommending that the court vacate its out-of-home placement order and recommending it place Daniel back at home with mother supported by a family maintenance plan, which the court ordered in December 2021.
Thereafter, there was some months' delay in services being provided to the family, apparently for reasons beyond the Agency's control. But regardless, when Seneca WRAP services became available in March 2022 and individual therapy for Daniel and family therapy became available in May 2022, mother impeded the delivery of those services. Based on her wild contention that Seneca's case manager was teaching Daniel how to buy guns-which was credibly refuted by Rios's testimony of what the case manager told him-and even though Daniel was happy to engage in Seneca's services, mother refused to allow him or any family member to participate in any Seneca services, again in defiance of the court-ordered case plan, and Seneca service providers stopped engaging with the family because the family would not communicate with them. Mother did not participate in the March CFT meeting, perhaps understandably because it took place the same day that Daniel had an incident at school, but she also hung up on the CFT team at the May 2022 meeting. At the August 2022 hearing, she insisted that all was fine at home, that she knew what was best for her son, and that she could rely on crisis services like the police in case of any problems she had with Daniel. This was essentially the same stance she had taken when the Agency and the court determined it was necessary to intervene in the first place. In short, as of the August 2022 hearing, mother had yet to allow the Agency-or anyone for that matter-to provide Daniel the mental health services that the court had determined he needed.
Further, there is substantial evidence that mother was not complying with the court-ordered case plan requirement that she attend to her own mental health needs. Despite her contentions at the August 2022 hearing that she had in the preceding weeks engaged with her therapist and psychiatrist, there is undisputed evidence that from at least March 2022 and into May 2022 she had failed to engage with either, not returned her therapist's calls, stopped taking prescribed medication and, according to her therapist, not really in any kind of treatment. This kind of "hot and cold" behavior regarding her own mental health needs was precisely what the Agency and the court found concerning at the beginning of the case.
Just as importantly, there is substantial evidence that, including because of these failures to engage in court-ordered mental health services, Daniel continued to engage in assaultive and dysfunctional behavior. Although the court-ordered case plan required that he regularly attend school, he had refused to so, received failing grades, lashed out at a school counselor by breaking things when the counselor attempted to address his failing grades, and punched a school security guard, resulting in his expulsion from school in the Spring of 2022. His completion of summer school was a start, not a completion, of his efforts to turn around this seriously concerning behavior, which itself was a source of a great deal of tension between him and mother from the beginning of the case. That as of the August 2022 hearing he was not yet enrolled in school for the fall, even if because of an error by the school district, was further cause for concern.
And indeed, there is ample evidence that Daniel continued to engage in other assaultive behavior in the months immediately preceding the August 2022 hearing, including towards mother. Regardless of mother's denials, there is substantial evidence that she reported to Daniel's probation officer in April 2022 that he had assaulted her, and she called the probation officer again in July 2022 wanting him removed from her home, which suggests he was continuing to engage in assaultive, or at least concerning, behavior towards her. Further, Rios testified that, shortly before the August 2022 hearing, both Daniel and mother had engaged in assaultive behavior towards housing staff that was so serious as to prompt a legal matter of some kind. In other words, there was more than enough substantial evidence that Daniel had engaged in assaultive behavior repeatedly in the months before the August 2022 hearing, which behavior was a significant reason for the court's initial assertion of jurisdiction over him.
Mother discusses four cases at some length in arguing that the court should have ended its jurisdiction over Daniel. (See In re J.F., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 202; In re D.B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1073; In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142; In re N.O., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th 899.) We need not discuss them in any detail because they are all inapposite. None of them involve anything like the circumstances here, where the juvenile court decided to continue jurisdiction under section 364, subdivision (c) in the face of significant, largely undisputed evidence that the parent was continuing to impede the Agency's efforts to provide much-needed mental health services to a very troubled child, mother was continuing to ignore her own mental health needs, and the child was continuing to engage in assaulting and dysfunctional behavior, all contrary to the court-ordered case plan and all of which had caused to court to assert its jurisdiction over the child in the first place. Further, if, as mother insisted, she and Daniel had greatly improved in their relations with each other, they had at best reached a fragile peace, the endurance of which the court could reasonably doubt in the absence of Daniel or his mother engaging in court-ordered, much-needed mental health services and Daniel's continued engagement in assaultive and concerning behavior both in and outside the home. Although mother contended before the juvenile court that she would ensure that both Daniel and she would seek mental health support through her private insurance if the court terminated its jurisdiction, the history we have summarized here provided the court with ample good reason to doubt that she would do so without court supervision.
In short, we see no reason to disagree with the court's decision to continue its jurisdiction under section 364, subdivision (c), particularly when we consider it under our substantial evidence standard of review.
III. DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BROWN, P. J. FINEMAN, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.