Opinion
H036392
10-28-2011
In re Y.L., et al., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.C., Defendant and Appellant; K.L., Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. JD20161, JD20162)
R.C. and K.L. are the parents of two sons, nine-year-old Y-O.L. and seven-year-old Y-S.L. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, removed them from R.C.'s custody, placed them with K.L., and dismissed jurisdiction. On appeal, R.C. (mother) contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jurisdictional findings. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On June 3, 2010, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department) filed petitions on behalf of the children pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (c) [serious emotional damage]. The petitions alleged that the children had suffered or were at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness and serious emotional damage because their mother emotionally abused them due to her serious untreated mental health issues. It was also alleged that she made irrational and baseless statements about their father, which caused the children to be afraid of him. The children were placed into protective custody on the same day.
The initial hearing report, which was dated June 9, 2010, summarized the children's extreme fear of their father and the school's concerns regarding the children's emotional health as a result of their mother's behavior. The children, who lived primarily with their mother, were the subjects of four referrals to the Department between January and May 2010. In January 2010, a mandated reporter stated that Y-O. claimed his father had a tendency to throw him on the bed when he was angry. The mandated reporter stated that the parents were engaged in an ongoing custody battle and believed that the mother was coaching her child to say negative things about his father in order to gain more custody time. Y-O. exhibited unusual behaviors, such as crying and twitching. After interviewing the children, Y-O.'s teacher and the father, the social worker concluded that the allegation of physical abuse was unfounded. The social worker also concluded that the allegation of emotional abuse was inconclusive because she was unable to interview the mother.
In March 2010, a mandated reporter stated that the children were suffering serious emotional abuse. It was reported that both children often wore the same clothes, which were not clean and had a "musty smell," to school. They were also dressed in girls' clothing, clothing that did not fit them, and layers of clothing when it was warm. The children appeared malnourished, and spent their entire lunch hour eating rather than playing with other children. The children also banged their heads if they did not get perfect scores on their schoolwork or redid their work until they got perfect scores. When the children did not have perfect grades, the mother would have them tell the teachers to change their grades. On one occasion, the mother refused to pick up Y-O. from school when he had a 105 degree fever because she wanted him to have a perfect attendance record. The children would twitch or lie when asked about their home situation. The father had 28 percent custody but the mother did not allow the children to visit him. When school personnel attempted to discuss issues with the mother, she refused to listen.
The following day, another mandated reporter provided additional information. This individual stated that the children cried "quite a bit at school due to the stress of having to achieve perfection." That morning, Y-O., who was trembling and sweating, had asked his teacher to change his attendance report. School personnel had attempted to address their concerns about the children with the parents. The social worker interviewed the children, Y-O.'s teacher, and the father. However, she was only able to communicate with the mother by e-mail, and closed the referral as inconclusive for emotional abuse by the mother.
On May 4, 2010, the reporting party stated that Y-O. was afraid of his father based on past physical abuse, which included throwing him on the bed, threatening to kill both children and the mother, and altering the shower doors so they would fall on the children. Y-S. reported that his father occasionally hit him on the face. The reporting party also stated that the mother possibly had mental health issues. Since there were no current allegations of abuse, there was no further investigation of the referral.
On May 20, 2010, the reporting party stated that the child had a bruise on his right cheek below his eye, and the child stated that his father hit him with a closed fist on the evening of May 19, 2010. According to the child, his father had "sudden mood swings." The mother did not seek medical attention for the child and she did not report it to the police. School personnel were concerned because the children cried easily, trembled, and one of the children's eyes twitched. Their mother's desire for perfection caused them a lot of stress. Though the children needed glasses, their mother refused to take them to get glasses and the children refused to go with their father to get glasses.
On the same day, the social worker interviewed the children and their mother. When the mother expressed fear of the father, the social worker discussed ways in which she could protect herself. The social worker discussed counseling for the children, but the mother said that they were doing fine. The mother also stated that the father had stopped paying child support and alimony. When the social worker spoke to the father, he stated that more than half of his paycheck was paid directly to the mother for support. The social worker also spoke to the principal at the children's school and obtained e-mails documenting her concerns regarding the children. The social worker later accompanied the mother and the children for the children's eye exam, and the father met them at the office.
On May 26, 2010, the social worker met the children at their mother's house to supervise a visit with their father. Even after their mother assured them that it was safe, they refused to enter their father's car. The social worker, the children, the father, and the maternal grandmother walked to McDonald's for dinner, and the social worker then drove them to the father's home to play video games. The social worker suggested that the family enroll in counseling, but the father did not think that the mother would participate.
On June 2, 2010, the school principal reported that the children had arrived at school wearing several layers of clothing even though it was a warm day. Since their faces were very red, they were each persuaded to remove two jackets and a sweatshirt. However, their T-shirts did not cover their stomachs, and they were allowed to wear one jacket so they could return to class. Y-O was not wearing his glasses.
The social worker recommended that detention for the children be continued. Her recommendation was based on the children's extreme anxiety and fear of their father, concern by both school and family court personnel regarding the children's emotional well-being in their mother's care, and a letter provided to family court by the mother. The mother claimed that the letter was written by Y-O., but the social worker concluded that it was not written by a nine-year-old child. On June 9, 2010, the juvenile court ordered that the children be detained.
The jurisdiction report dated June 21, 2010 provided additional information regarding the father's relationship to his children. The father had filed for dissolution of marriage in February 2009, and there was a temporary visitation order that allowed him to visit the children every Wednesday evening and every other weekend. However, his attempts to visit, including taking the police to assist him, were unsuccessful. On December 30, 2009, the police responded to the home. Y-O. answered the door, handed the officers a typed note, which stated that the children were afraid of their father and wanted an emergency restraining order, and closed the door. The officers then spoke with the mother, who stated that Y-O. had written the note. Out of his mother's presence, Y-O. stated that his mother typed the note. The father was not able to visit the children until the social worker accompanied him on May 26, 2010.
The letter states in part: "I want to report a domestic violence crime committed by our dad. . . . There is a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse of our dad! Could you please call the judge in the family court to get an emergency restraining order via telephone communication for us first because the family court may not open and we couldn't go ourselves? [¶] My brother and I are extremely afraid to be alone with our dad because he is so violent and I hear he said he will kill our mom or sell us! Our dad also hits my mom with his strong arms in front of my brother and myself. He also threatens my mom to involuntarily comply with his various requests. I am a top student in my school but my dad goes to my school to tell my teacher untrue things about me to destroy my image and reputation. However, fortunately, my teacher doesn't believe what my dad says. [¶] . . . [¶] By the way, may you please let the judge who is handling the case via telephone know that there may be soon a temporary custody order in effect from Santa Clara Family Court. We would like seeking [sic] a custody order as part of the restraining order. We also want the restraining order to contain additional protections to ensure we are safe in our school."
While investigating the allegations of physical abuse by the father, the social worker interviewed the children, the father, the maternal grandmother, the paternal uncle, the maternal uncle, and school personnel. She learned that some of the mother's statements were false, and that the children were unable to provide any details about the physical abuse allegations. Based on this investigation, the social worker concluded that there had been no physical abuse by the father.
The social worker noted that she had supervised three visits between the children and their father, and there had been a significant change in the relationship since the children had been out of the mother's care. During the first visit, they would not enter the room in which the father was sitting without encouragement from the worker. They then began playing a board game with him after about 40 minutes. At the second visit, the children showed no fear of their father. However, Y-O. twice whispered something in Y-S.'s ear, and he temporarily stopped engaging with his father. Y-S. would then forget and begin talking to his father again. Y-O. also began to engage in minimal conversation. During the third visit, the children accepted candy from their father, fully engaged with him, and seemed relaxed when they played games with him.
The jurisdiction report summarized reports from school personnel about the mother's excessive taking of photographs of the children. On one occasion, it was raining, and the mother had both children remove their tennis shoes, put on sandals and roll up their pant legs to pose for photographs. When Y-O. began to cry, a teacher told the mother to take the children home. On another occasion, the mother took photographs during a parent-teacher conference. The mother also took photographs of Y-O. prior to taking him home on the day that he had a high fever. The school principal noted that the mother had been asked to stop taking photographs at the children's previous school.
School personnel also reported that the mother requested that the children's grades be changed. After the teacher refused the mother's request regarding Y-O., he asked the teacher to do so and explained that it was for his mother. Y-O.'s teacher reported that he cried almost daily in class when his work was not perfect. He would spend much time erasing and redoing his work. He seldom smiled. Y-S.'s teachers reported that he exhibited similar behaviors. One day, Y-O. began crying when his partner was not doing his work. He cried so much that he missed a spelling test. When the mother was told about his crying, her only concern was when he could make up the spelling test.
The children became extremely anxious when questioned about their home life. They became very somber, spoke softly, made gasping sounds, and cried. They also appeared to give scripted answers, and would shut down if asked for details. Both children were given preliminary diagnoses of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. School personnel, the therapists, and the social worker noted that the children seemed happier and more relaxed after they were removed from the mother's home.
According to school personnel, the children wore clothes that caused them to be teased by other children. Y-O. sometimes wore a lavender Tinker Bell poncho or a jacket with "poofy" feminine sleeves. Both children wore girl's jeans and pink socks. When school personnel attempted to discuss the issue with the mother, she denied that there was a problem.
The mother did not acknowledge any mental health issues, denied that events occurred as reported, stated that it was a difference in perception between her and the school, or blamed the father. Though the mother requested counseling referrals, the social worker did not know whether she had initiated the services.
The father explained that he did not aggressively pursue custody of the children, because he cared about the mother and did not want to cause her pain. He also stated that she had been the primary caretaker since the children were born. He had enlisted other family members, the police, and his family law attorney to enforce his right to visitation.
The mother's request that the jurisdiction hearing be expedited was granted. The court held a hearing to determine whether there was a prima facie showing that the children came within section 300. This contested proceeding began on June 21, 2010, and continued through July 6, 2010. A preliminary issue was whether the children, who had been subpoenaed by the mother, would testify.
Sharon Burgan, a licensed clinical social worker and supervisor in dependency intake, testified as an expert in risk assessment, diagnosis of mental health disorders, attachment, and child development. Though she did not interview the parents or the children, she reviewed the detention packet and the protective custody warrant application, and she spoke extensively with the social workers. In Burgan's opinion, it would be extremely detrimental for the children to testify. She noted that the children manifested physical behaviors, such as shaking, twitching, crying, and gasping between words. In her view, the children were suffering severe emotional damage.
Burgan described the elements of parental alienation: visitation is cut back; the parent/child relationship with the targeted parent is truncated; the child develops fears of the targeted parent; and the child develops fear of the individual who is alienating them because that person is trying to control him or her. In her opinion, parental alienation was occurring in the present case because the father was unable to have court-ordered visits even with police assistance. She also noted that the children were afraid of their father and claimed that he was abusive, but were unable to provide any specific information about the abuse.
Burgan testified that the children exhibited perfectionist tendencies as a result of the mother's pressure. She explained that one of the children asked the school to change a "tardy" and a grade, and grade school children do not make these requests unless someone else has suggested it. Burgan acknowledged that the children stated that they felt safe and comfortable with their mother.
George Miranda, a licensed marriage and family therapist and member of the staff at the mental health clinic at the receiving center, testified as an expert in assessing mental health issues as they related to the impact of trauma. When Y-S. was brought to the center, he was timid, guarded, agitated, and had pressured speech. Miranda met with Y-S. three times at the clinic. In his opinion, it would potentially be damaging for Y-S. to testify.
Miranda diagnosed Y-S. with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. He noted that Y-S. was timid, hypervigilant, withdrawn, and had a tendency to gasp for air. Y-S.'s gasping for air was not dependent on the subject matter being discussed but appeared to be related to his overall anxiety. Y-S. appeared more relaxed and was not gasping at the third visit on June 24, 2010. According to Miranda, an "adjustment disorder is prompted by some severe stressor that the child . . . is experiencing," and is "time limited." He was unable to state whether Y-S. was experiencing stress due to his removal from his mother, police or social worker involvement, or placement in an artificial environment. In his view, the lessening of symptoms in a short period of time did not indicate that the child was resilient. He explained that the symptoms might lessen because the child was moved from a harmful environment to a safe and comfortable one. Miranda felt that Y-S. needed further mental health services. According to Miranda, a child's removal from a parent, even an abusive one, is a significant trauma.
Lisa Arieta-Hayes, a licensed clinical social worker and an employee of Legal Advocates for Children and Youth, testified as an expert in risk assessment, assessing the mental health of children, and the impact of trauma on children. She opined that neither child should be compelled to testify in the proceedings. Both children demonstrated the gasping behavior, and she believed that the gasping behavior was a physical manifestation of anxiety. The children did not want to talk about their family. In her opinion, the children were suffering severe emotional damage.
On June 30, 2010, the juvenile court granted the children's motion to quash the subpoenas.
The mother testified that the children might take extra breaths when they were talking very fast. She thought it was a "possibility" that the children gasped when they were nervous. She also thought that the witnesses' demonstrations of the gasping was "very much exaggerated." She never said anything negative about the father to the children and she never interfered with the visits between them and the father. She also stated that she did not demand perfection in their work and she did not change the children's clothing in response to the teacher's complaints. She thought the children liked to be photographed.
The father testified that he lived with his children until March 2008. The family court order of April 2010 allowed him to visit his children every Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and every other weekend from 5:00 p.m. on Friday to 7:30 p.m. on Sunday. He observed that they would not go with him unless they received explicit approval from their mother to do so, and even then they might not go with him if they sensed by her body language that she did not want them to go. After he obtained the court order, he requested police assistance a few times. At the end of May, the children entered his car for the first time to go to dinner after the mother and the maternal grandmother also entered the car.
According to the father, he and the mother disagreed about whether Y-O. needed glasses. They also disagreed about whether Y-O. gasped. The father thought that the children gasped when they were very nervous.
The father denied physically abusing his children. In 2008, he had an argument with the mother and went into another room to watch television. The mother told Y-O. to go into the room and take away the remote, which he did. The father lost his temper, picked Y-O. up, and put him on the bed.
The father was called by the school because his children cried often and were under stress. There were a couple of meetings at the school and three meetings with the school psychologist. He also thought that the school's expectations regarding the children were different from those of the mother, and the children would cry because they could not cope with the differences. He also told the school that the mother did not interact with others "that much" so she might not know what was acceptable clothing. When he received an e-mail from the school about the children's clothing in March 2010, he forwarded it to the mother's brother and "things improved."
The children told their father that they were scared of him, but he did not know why. Since the children were removed from the mother's home, the father had been participating in supervised visits with them and his interactions with his children were improving.
Judy Patrick, a dependency investigator with the Department, testified as an expert in risk assessment and abuse in neglected children. Based on her investigation, she concluded that the mother had made false allegations that the father had physically abused the children and emotionally abused her. Patrick acknowledged that Y-O.'s teacher and the principal saw a mark on his face the day after he claimed that his father hit him on May 19, but Patrick could not determine if the mark was from abuse because the social worker observed no marks within two hours of the call. Though Y-O. also claimed that his father hit him on June 2, he told Gina Sandoval, a social worker, on June 3 that their visit had been fine, and he felt safe at the visit. On June 4, he told Patrick that when his father hit him on June 2, witnesses were present. However, none of the witnesses corroborated his claim.
Patrick believed the mother was causing emotional harm to the children by alienating them from the father and by pressuring them to be perfect. In her opinion, the children were suffering serious emotional damage. According to Patrick, the foster mother reported that neither child had asked about their parents or when they would be going home, which was uncommon in their age group. Patrick did not think the children were at risk with the father, but concluded that it was premature to place them in his custody because they "still show some hesitation at visitation in certain circumstances."
Based on her observations of visits with the mother, it was clear to Patrick that the children cared very much about her. However, Patrick had concerns about the mother taking photographs of the children. Patrick stated that it was "hard to describe, but the pictures are very posed." She explained that "regardless of what the children are doing, they immediately stop what they are doing, smile very big for the camera and then immediately go back to what they were doing . . . . [I]t appears to be somewhat controlling." The children look annoyed when they have to pose for the photographs.
According to Patrick, the children suffer from severe anxiety when they feel pressured, are questioned about their parents, or fail at anything at school. She also explained that the children experienced anxiety when their classmates teased them about their ill-fitting or inappropriate clothing. Though she was not qualified to diagnose specific mental health disorders, Patrick observed behaviors that indicated they suffered from anxiety, such as flat affect, extremely rigid bodies, no eye contact, crying, and agitation.
Sandoval testified as an expert in risk assessment. She became involved with the family on May 20, 2010, when there was a report that Y-O. had a mark on his face. She did not see any mark. The mother told her that Y-O. said that he was hit while visiting his father the previous day. However, Y-S. said that no one had been hit during the visit. Sandoval found the physical abuse allegation unfounded. The children's teachers had told her that the children's twitching, crying, and gasping had gotten worse since the beginning of the year. School personnel were concerned that the children focused on eating food provided by the school rather than playing with other children during the lunch recess, which Sandoval had never observed in other investigations. There were a couple of incidents in which the mother agreed to take a sick child home only after the principal agreed that the child would not be marked absent, thereby preserving his perfect attendance record. The mother told Sandoval that she did not think the children needed eye exams because a Chinese doctor had told her that they could see without glasses. The mother also told her that she did not take Y-O. to the doctor after he reported that the father had punched him in the head. During her investigation, Sandoval described the mother as tearful, very tired, and unkempt. The school had also complained that the mother took photographs obsessively. Sandoval observed this behavior when the mother took 20 photographs during the eye exam, noting "even the doctor kind of stopped and looked and was not sure what was the focus of getting the children their exam or photographing each moment."
Yu Mei L., the maternal grandmother, testified that she arrived at the mother's house on May 11, 2010. The children ate breakfast every morning and did not wear clothes made for girls. The mother's house was always clean, the mother "never" said anything negative about the father, and the children have always been "pretty happy." She believed the father had physically abused the children and been physically violent towards the mother. She was not concerned about the mother's mental health.
Following argument, the juvenile court found that the Department had made a prima facie showing that the children came within section 300, that the initial detention was justified, and the continuance of detention was necessary to protect the children.
In August 2010, the Department filed a fourth amended petition. The petition alleged that the mother: repeatedly disparaged the father, thereby causing the children to suffer extreme anxiety and fear of him; exhibited compulsive behaviors, including incessant photographing of the children and hoarding; put unreasonable pressure on the children to produce perfect schoolwork and have perfect attendance, which resulted in the children experiencing extreme anxiety; routinely dressed the children in clothing that was several sizes too small, was inappropriate for the weather, and exposed them to ridicule by other children; and did not recognize that any of her behavior was problematic. The petition also alleged that mental health professionals had diagnosed the children as suffering from adjustment disorders with anxiety and depression, and that the father failed to take appropriate steps to protect the children.
The jurisdiction/disposition report, which was dated August 23, 2010, stated that the children had been placed with their maternal grandmother on August 20, 2010. Both children wet the bed. However, it had not yet been determined whether it was an emotional or a medical issue. Y-O. was wearing his glasses consistently, and the father agreed to schedule an appointment to determine whether he required surgery to correct a "lazy eye." Both children had limited social skills with peers, but their skills were improving. They also continued to make gasping sounds when anxious. They were excellent students. During the first month of school Y-O. had had only one crying incident related to his work. Y-S. was happy and comfortable in his classroom.
The children attended a six-week counseling program for children of divorce. Initially they were very shy, but eventually they became active participants in the group. On August 24, 2010, the children began attending weekly counseling sessions at Eastfield Ming Quong. Their therapist gave them an intake diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder based on their anxiety levels.
The social worker had observed significant changes in the children while they were in out-of-home care. They had become much more relaxed, particularly with their father. Y-S. laughed, jumped up and down, and was very articulate, though Y-O. was less overt with his emotions. Both children were going to attend Success Camp, which was a program to help children learn social and leadership skills.
The social worker concluded that the children could not be safely returned to the mother's care because the mother refused to take any responsibility for damaging the relationship between the children and their father or to recognize the emotional damage that her behavior had caused her children. The mother also lacked insight into how harmful her behaviors regarding school were to her children and denied any responsibility for the children's fragile emotional states.
The social worker acknowledged that the children still verbalized that they did not want to live with their father. However, their interactions with him no longer reflected any reservations on their part. She noted that the children were very comfortable during an unsupervised visit, and Y-O. asked if they could stay longer. The maternal grandmother was willing to provide after school care for a few months until the paternal aunt moved in with the father.
The mother attended one parenting education class, and then told the social worker that she no longer wished to continue. The mother also attended four counseling sessions. She stated that the allegations against her were false. The mother's visits were discontinued because she spoke in such a soft voice that the social worker could not hear what she was saying to the children, and she would position herself between the children and the social worker. The mother informed the social worker that she only wanted to participate in visits that were supervised by one of her relatives. During a visit that was supervised by the maternal uncle, the mother upset the children by implying that she was not going to be involved in their lives in the future. The maternal uncle no longer wanted to supervise visits.
On October 28, 2010, the Department requested that the children be placed with their father. The children had been visiting him consistently during the previous three months, and they had grown more comfortable with him. The juvenile court authorized placement to begin on November 2, 2010.
The addendum report, which was prepared for a November 8, 2010 hearing and written on October 15, 2010, stated that the mother had not visited the children since September 4 because she would only participate in visits supervised by family members. The mother requested a visit on Y-S.'s birthday in October, but the father was already scheduled to visit the children on that day. The Department was also unable to arrange for a Mandarin-speaking social worker to supervise a visit on that day. The mother asked to be enrolled in another parenting class.
The children, who were accompanied by the maternal grandmother, visited the father twice a week, but they refused to visit overnight. Though the social worker observed that the children were relaxed and having fun with the father, they continued to state that they did not have a good visit, were afraid of him, and did not want to visit him.
The addendum report, which was prepared for a November 9, 2010 hearing and written on November 8, 2010, stated that the mother had visited the children on October 21 and 27, and the visits went well. However, she missed her visit on November 3 because she was ill. The children spent the night at their father's house on October 29 after receiving much encouragement from the social worker and the maternal grandmother. After the maternal grandmother returned home on November 2, 2010, the father picked the children up from school. Y-S. went with his father without any problems, but Y-O. was resistant and expressed concern that his father would hurt him. The principal and the social worker reassured him that the social worker would make sure that they were safe. He eventually went to his father's house. A few days later, the father reported that things were going smoothly. The following day, a social worker conducted a home visit. The children stated that they did not want to live with their father and wanted to live with their mother. The statements were "rather rote in manner." The father reported that there were no crying incidents, and that the children were eating and sleeping well.
The social worker recommended that the case be dismissed with custody awarded to the father. The family would receive therapeutic support under an informal supervision agreement.
On November 10, 2010, the juvenile court held a contested hearing on the fourth amended petition. The initial hearing report dated June 9, 2010, the jurisdiction report dated June 21, 2010, the jurisdiction/disposition report dated August 23, 2010, with two attachments, and two addendum reports dated November 8 and 9, 2010 were admitted into evidence. Following argument, the juvenile court found that the allegations of the fourth amended petition were true. The juvenile court then placed the children with their father, and dismissed jurisdiction.
II. Discussion
The mother contends that the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
"Section 300 jurisdiction hearings require a preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof. (§ 355, subd. (a).) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record for substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order and affirm the order even if there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding. [Citations.] The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the order. [Citations.]" (In re A.M. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1387-1388.)
Section 300, subdivision (c) provides in relevant part: "The child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent . . . ." (§ 300, subd. (c).) Thus, a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) requires that the Department prove: (1) a child is suffering serious emotional damage or is at substantial risk of serious emotional harm if jurisdiction is not assumed; (2) offending parental conduct; and (3) causation. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379 (Brison C.)
The section 300 jurisdictional findings must be based on circumstances that exist at the time of the hearing. (In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134.) Past infliction of harm does not establish a substantial risk of future harm unless there is some reason to believe that the acts may continue in the future. (Ibid.)
The mother first challenges the juvenile court's finding that her disparagement of the father caused the children to suffer extreme anxiety and fear of him. She argues that there was "plenty of evidence to support a possibility that the children's fear of father [was] based on father's behavior." She refers to the children's allegations of abuse, the maternal grandmother's statement that she saw the father "flick" Y-S.'s cheek, the father's shouting in the children's presence, and her reluctance to report the father's abuse.
However, the mother has ignored the standard of review on appeal. This court must draw all inferences in favor of the juvenile court's order and does not determine the credibility of witnesses. (In re A.M., supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388.) Here, the father denied that he abused his children, and there was substantial evidence that the mother's conduct in connection with the father caused serious emotional harm to the children. The mother made false abuse allegations against the father. On December 30, 2009, Y-O. gave the police a note that the mother had written. The note claimed that the children were afraid of their father because he was violent towards them. Though Y-O. claimed on other occasions while in his mother's care that his father was physically abusive, he was unable to provide any details regarding the abuse. Moreover, individuals whom he claimed had witnessed the abuse did not corroborate his allegations. The mother also thwarted the father's efforts to visit the children by refusing to open the door when he arrived. Even with police assistance, the father was unable to visit his children. The children would accompany their father only after receiving explicit approval from their mother. As Burgan testified, the present case included all the elements of parental alienation. Thus, the evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that the children's extreme anxiety and fear of their father was the result of the mother's conduct.
The mother's reliance on In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549 is misplaced. In re Alexander K. held that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding under section 300, subdivision (c) because there was no evidence of abusive behavior by the father. In contrast to that case, here, there was evidence that the mother alienated her children from their father and caused their extreme fear of him.
Noting that the children's extreme fear of their father had dissipated by the time of the hearing, the mother next claims that the children were not at risk of harm. (In re Nicholas B., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134.) However, the mother refused to take responsibility for damaging the children's relationship with their father and failed to recognize that they had suffered emotional damage as a result of her behavior. Thus, there was some reason to believe that her conduct would continue in the future, thereby placing the children at substantial risk of future harm. (Ibid.)
The mother also contends that there was no evidence that the children's "desire to succeed academically was in response to anything" she did. We disagree.
Here, there was substantial evidence that the mother exerted unreasonable pressure on her children, who were only seven and nine years old, to achieve perfect grades and attendance. She asked their teachers to change their grades. When Y-O.'s teacher refused her request, she had Y-O., who was trembling, twitching, and sweating, ask his teacher to do so. The children also spent much time in school redoing their work so that it would be perfect, and cried excessively when their work was not. Y-O. also banged his head and seldom smiled. The mother displayed no concern for the emotional damage she was inflicting on her children. When she was told that Y-O. cried so much that he missed a spelling test, she was only concerned about when he could make up the test. The mother was also obsessed with their attendance records. When the children became sick at school, she took them home only after the principal agreed that they would not be marked absent.
The mother next asserts that there was no evidence that the children suffered emotional harm due to their inappropriate clothing. The children's clothing included girl's jeans, pink socks, and a lavender Tinker Bell poncho. On warm days, the children would be dressed in layers of coats and sweatshirts and toddler-sized T-shirts that covered half of their stomachs. Other students teased the children about their clothing. When the children's teachers spoke with the mother about the situation, she denied that the clothing was inappropriate or causing the children any embarrassment. Thus, the mother's response to the issue regarding the children's clothing showed that she was either indifferent or unable to respond to the emotional needs of her children.
The mother contends that there was insufficient evidence that the children were suffering serious emotional damage.
Burgan and Arieta-Hayes testified that the children were suffering severe emotional damage, and manifested physical behaviors, such as shaking, twitching, crying, and gasping. According to Burgan, the mother had alienated the children from their father and pressured them to be perfect. Miranda diagnosed Y-S. with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, though he was unable to state the cause of his stress. Both children were also diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder based on their anxiety levels. Thus, there was substantial evidence that the children were "suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety . . . ." (§ 300, subd. (c).)
Though the mother next argues that she was not the cause of the children's anxiety, the record establishes otherwise. As previously stated, the mother caused the children to have extreme fear of their father and placed unreasonable pressure on them to perform perfectly at school. Thus, the present case is readily distinguishable from Brison C., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th 1373. In Brison C., the parents made abuse allegations against each other during a custody dispute. (Id. at p. 1375.) The respondent found that the allegations were unfounded, but it brought a section 300 petition and alleged that the child was suffering serious emotional damage due to the parents' custody dispute. (Ibid.) Brison C. held that, even if the parents' conduct prior to removal constituted emotional abuse, there was insufficient evidence at the time of the hearing that he was suffering serious emotional damage or that he was at risk of doing so. As the court explained: "The evidence shows only that Brison, an otherwise reasonably well-adjusted child who performed well at school and displayed no serious behavioral problems, despised his father and desperately sought to avoid visiting him. Standing alone, this circumstance is insufficient to support a finding that Brison is seriously emotionally damaged. Further, by the time of the hearing the parents had recognized the inappropriateness of their behavior and made good faith efforts to alleviate the problem." (Id. at p. 1376.) In contrast to Brison C., here, the children were not well-adjusted and they exhibited behaviors of severe anxiety and fear due to their mother's conduct. Moreover, unlike the parents in Brison C., the mother has been unable to recognize or accept responsibility for her role in causing the children's serious emotional damage, thus placing them at substantial risk of further serious emotional damage.
Since there was substantial evidence to assume jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c), this court need not consider the mother's claim that there was insufficient evidence to assume jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 330.)
III. Disposition
The order is affirmed.
Mihara, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: Duffy, J. Walsh, J.
Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.