Opinion
C100092
07-16-2024
In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. B.M., Defendant and Appellant. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP-2023-0000233)
Duarte, J.
Appellant B.M., mother of minor J.C., appeals from the juvenile court's judgment at disposition adjudging the minor a dependent and removing her from parental custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361, 395.) She contends the requirement that she participate in substance abuse services and testing as part of her reunification case plan was an abuse of discretion. We disagree and affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2023, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) received a report of suspected child abuse or neglect regarding the (then) six-year-old minor, J.C., and her 14-year-old half sister, P.M. It was reported that mother was living in an abandoned home with the minor and P.M., along with numerous unhoused individuals. The minor was small for her age and had rotten teeth. There was minimal food in the house and the reporting party observed cocaine and marijuana on the table in the home. Law enforcement went to the abandoned home for a welfare check on the minors and to follow up on reports of an argument between mother and her boyfriend. A law enforcement officer contacted mother at the abandoned home; mother refused to disclose the minors' location.
P.M. is not a subject of the current appeal.
The social worker attempted to contact the minor at her school on March 2, 2023, but was told the minor was picked up early from school that day. The minor's father also came to the school and asked why the minor was not there. Various people, including mother, the minor's aunt, and mother's friends were known to pick up the minor from school. The social worker left a voice message for mother and went to the abandoned home, but it appeared empty. A few days later, mother left a voice message for the social worker stating she no longer had custody of her children and to stop trying to contact her. Law enforcement began investigating the whereabouts of the minor.
Mother was arrested later in March 2023 on over 100 criminal charges. While incarcerated, she told law enforcement officers that she had given permission for the minor to live with her friend, Melissa. Mother's adult daughter, T.S., reported that Melissa "uses drugs just as the mother does." T.S. was concerned for the minor's safety. T.S. also told the social worker that P.M. lived with her father and provided his phone number.
The social worker confirmed that P.M. was living with her father but had been visiting mother twice a week at the abandoned house. She never spent the night there, but she reported she did not see any drugs at the house other than the people smoking "weed cigarettes" and drinking alcohol. The social worker attempted to contact Melissa at the address provided but three aggressive dogs blocked access through the front gate.
On May 18, 2023, the social worker met with mother at the county jail. Mother refused to sign any forms. She said her children were safe, claimed the minor was living with the father in Sacramento, and told the social worker to stop looking for her children.
On June 2, 2023, the social worker located the minor through Lodi Unified School District records. The minor was living with Melissa and Melissa's father. Melissa told the social worker that she was caring for the minor at mother's request, provided a power of attorney document, and said she was in the process of filing for legal guardianship. She said the minor's father lived in the Sacramento area, although he was possibly homeless. She agreed to contact him on social media on behalf of the social worker.
Melissa's sister, who "had a 'CPS case,'" had been living with them until recently when she was moved to a psychiatric facility or residential substance abuse treatment program. Melissa's young son and niece also lived in the home. Melissa's father, who cared for the children at night while Melissa was at work, was discovered to have an extensive criminal history and acknowledged a history of drug use, although he claimed to be clean and sober. The social worker recommended he enroll in and complete a Chemical Dependency Counseling Center (CDCC) self-referral before the guardianship assessment. The social worker met with mother, and mother signed a safety plan agreeing that the minor should remain in Melissa's care until mother was out of custody and obtained safe housing.
On June 28, 2023, the social worker was informed that Melissa's father had tested positive for MDMA, alcohol, and methamphetamine at his CDCC intake, had gone to group counseling under the influence of drugs and tested positive again for MDMA, alcohol, and methamphetamine, and was falling asleep in the group session. When confronted by the social worker, he said he ". . . only uses a little" and that it is exhausting watching the children every day and night, but that Melissa needs his help. The social worker obtained a protective custody order, and the minor was detained.
On June 30, 2023, the Agency filed a section 300 petition alleging the minor came within the provisions of subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect), (g) (no provision for support), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition alleged that: 1) the minor was left with an inappropriate caretaker after mother was arrested on over 100 criminal charges; 2) mother had a history of substance abuse from which she had failed to rehabilitate; 3) mother lived in an abandoned home with other unhoused individuals and that cocaine and marijuana were observed in that home before her arrest; and 4) the minor's father was unhoused and had not provided for the minor's necessities and emotional needs. (§ 300, subds. (b)(1), (g).)
The petition further alleged, pursuant to subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), that in April 2008, two of mother's other children had been the subjects of section 300 petitions based in part on mother's ongoing history of substance abuse, that mother had continued to test positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, benzodiazepine, and amphetamine in August 2009, and that after 18 months of reunification services mother was not able to successfully reunify with either child.
P.M. had also been removed from mother's custody in 2009. Mother had been associating with other drug users, which placed P.M. at risk, and mother admitted at that time that her drug use interfered with her ability to parent her children. Further, in September 2017, the Agency had received a report that mother smokes methamphetamine.
The contested jurisdiction hearing was set for December 12, 2023. When the parties appeared for the hearing, mother's counsel represented that mother had proposed a change in the language of the section 300 petition jurisdictional allegations and, with those changes, mother was prepared to submit on jurisdiction as negotiated. The only issue remaining was whether mother would need to attend drug court, to which she objected. Consistent with the negotiated resolution, the Agency amended the section 300 petition to state that mother was facing "68 criminal charges" and was not available to care for the minor as she was not offered bail and remained incarcerated in the county jail. Also, the allegations that mother had a history of substance abuse from which she had failed to rehabilitate, that she lived in an abandoned home with other unhoused individuals, and that cocaine and marijuana were observed in that home before her arrest, were stricken. Mother submitted on the remaining allegations, as did the minor's father. The juvenile court found a factual basis for jurisdiction as alleged in the petition.
The Agency recommended reunification services be provided to the parents.
Mother also submitted on the disposition report, except for the proposed case plan requirement that she be assessed for drug abuse and participate in drug court. She argued drug court was not appropriate or necessary, as the only remaining basis for jurisdiction was the improper caretaker allegation. Minor's counsel asked that mother at minimum be assessed for substance abuse issues.
The juvenile court adjudged the minor a dependent child, ordered her removed from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for the parents. The court asked mother if she was willing to drug test that day and mother responded, "No. I am not." The court expressly found mother not credible regarding her substance abuse issues, noting that the evidence before it included that mother's adult daughter said mother was a current drug user, mother associated with known drug users, and she had a long criminal history with convictions for fraud and theft (which she denied). The court explained that it had planned to have mother drug tested that day to ascertain her needs as they related to substance abuse, but she had refused. The court then ordered mother be assessed and participate in drug court. In entering this order, the juvenile court emphasized that this requirement for reunification was not punishment and asked mother to be honest in order to receive any treatment and assistance that may be necessary.
Mother appealed from the order. The matter was fully briefed in this court on May 15, 2024.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in requiring her to participate in drug court as part of her case plan. She argues there was insufficient evidence that drug abuse continued to be an issue for her. We find no abuse of discretion here.
A. Applicable Law
The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California's children; family preservation is the first priority once proceedings have commenced. (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.) At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court must order services for minors and their parents to facilitate reunification of the family, unless it makes a finding such services need not be provided. (§ 361.5, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(g).) Reunification services are typically understood as a benefit provided to parents, because such services enable them to demonstrate parental fitness so as to regain custody of their dependent children. (In re Nolan W., at p. 1228.)
Under section 362, subdivision (d): "The juvenile court may direct any and all reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child who is the subject of any proceedings under this chapter as the court deems necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this section." The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest and to fashion dispositional orders in accord with this discretion. (In re Jose M. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1103-1104; In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 996.) We will not reverse the juvenile court's determination in this regard absent a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006 (Christopher H.)
" '[A] reunification plan formulated to correct certain parental deficiencies need not necessarily address other types of conduct, equally deleterious to the well-being of a child, but which had not arisen at the time the original plan was formulated.' [Citation.] However, when the court is aware of other deficiencies that impede the parent's ability to reunify with [her] child, the court may address them in the reunification plan." (Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1008.) "The juvenile court has authority to require a parent to submit to substance abuse treatment as part of a reunification plan as long as the treatment is designed to address a problem that prevents the child's safe return to parental custody." (In re Nolan W., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1229.)
B. Analysis
Here, as we have recounted, mother's documented history of substance abuse dates back to 2008, when her two oldest children were declared dependents of the court. During the ensuing 18 months, mother repeatedly tested positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, benzodiazepine, and amphetamine. She was unable to reunify with either child and was still testing positive for methamphetamine in August 2009. The Agency received additional report regarding mother smoking methamphetamine in September 2017, when one of her other children was nine months old.
Before her March 2023 arrest, mother had been living in an abandoned house where a reporting party observed cocaine and marijuana on the table, and P.M. stated people were smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol. When mother was arrested, she left the young minor in the care of a known drug user, who was reported to "use[] drugs just as the mother does." The secondary caregiver in the home was also a drug user and was found to be caring for the minor while under the influence of MDMA, methamphetamine, and alcohol.
The foregoing facts form a factual basis for the court's order regarding assessment and treatment, notwithstanding the fact that the Agency agreed to remove the jurisdictional allegations based on mother's substance abuse from the section 300 petition. (See Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1007-1008.) Thus, the juvenile court's order was not an abuse of discretion.
Mother argues there were no reports that mother was, in fact, using drugs and emphasizes that she denied having a current substance abuse problem. However, as the juvenile court found, mother's adult daughter reported that mother was currently using drugs, and the court believed the daughter over the mother's denials.
Issues of fact and credibility are the province of the juvenile court. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) That court expressly found mother's statements claiming current sobriety lacked credibility, and believed the other evidence of current drug use, both circumstantial and direct, recounted above. The court could reasonably make this finding, particularly in light of mother's history of unresolved substance abuse, her dishonest and evasive representations leading up to the discovery of the minor's whereabouts, and her substantial criminal history consisting of fraud and theft convictions, for which she continued to deny responsibility.
We see no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Robie, Acting P. J. Wiseman, J. [*]
[*]Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.