Opinion
C083868
11-20-2017
In re M.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.A., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16JVSQ3083901)
A.A. (mother) appeals from the findings and orders made by the juvenile court at the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing concerning her minor child M.H. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (Unless otherwise set forth, statutory section references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother further contends the juvenile court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the minor because father was adequately caring for him and there was no need for the juvenile court to continue to supervise him. We affirm the judgment (orders).
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In 2004, mother was institutionalized for three months after committing battery on a family member. She was then hospitalized for mental illness. In 2005, she was diagnosed as bipolar. She was eventually prescribed medication and was stable for 10 years. In 2014, she became pregnant with the minor and stopped taking her medication. She continued to abstain from her medication after the minor was born in May 2015. She wanted to breastfeed and, "did not like the way [the medication] made her feel."
While mother was pregnant with the minor, she moved from Southern California to Shasta County. M.H. (father) remained in Southern California, where he shared custody of his three-year-old daughter. Father visited the minor for a week after he was born but had no other contact until the instant proceedings.
After the minor's birth, police began receiving calls regarding loud noises at mother's residence. On November 2, 2015, police responded to a 911 call due to sounds from mother's residence of asking for help and banging on windows and doors. On May 27, 2016, police were called due to sounds from mother's apartment of yelling and items hitting the walls. On August 17, 2016, police were called due to sounds from mother's apartment of a female screaming and items being thrown. The minor was also heard crying. On September 19, 2016, a neighbor called police after hearing a female screaming from mother's apartment. The neighbor also heard thumping noises.
On October 20, 2016, police were called at 8:34 a.m. due to sounds from mother's apartment of a female yelling for one hour and a child crying. At 12:09 p.m., mother called 911 and was "extremely irate." She screamed and yelled at the operator and said she was "having a break down, and needs someone to take her son." Mother also said, "she can't take care of him and is done with it." Mother called 911 again at 1:15 p.m., saying she needed the police and was "going crazy." The police arrived at 1:32 p.m. and found mother had calmed down. Mother said she would contact mental health services herself.
On October 23, 2016, police were again called due to "loud yelling" from mother's apartment, including a child screaming. Mother told police she was seeking medical help.
On November 15, 2016, police were again called due to screaming noises from mother's residence. According to the November 17, 2016, detention report it sounded as though the minor was being thrown against the wall. In addition, mother had threatened to kill the minor throughout the day. When officers arrived, mother was "out of control and extremely agitated." A social worker arrived and found mother "still agitated," including about her inability to get "decent mental health care." Mother was transported to a medical center for assessment. A social worker met with mother at the medical center, but mother said she did not understand why the minor was removed from her care. During their conversation, mother "started getting really loud" and complained about problems in her apartment. The social worker ended the meeting because mother "became very irate and started cussing and screaming."
According to the police report regarding the November 15, 2016 incident, mother was overhead yelling "obscenities," hitting the walls, and yelling, "I don't want to do this anymore!" In addition, the minor was overheard screaming as though he was injured, possibly having been thrown against a wall. One responding officer was still outside when he heard mother shouting, "I can't take it anymore." Mother opened the door to the police "in a complete rage," and police attempted to calm her down while she "continued to shout at the top of her lungs." The minor appeared to have been crying, and his eyes were puffy and red. Mother "rage[d] about numerous problems she was having," including problems with her apartment and being hit by her brother. Mother also told police her father was trying to get her kicked out of her apartment, becoming "progressively louder and more agitated" during the conversation. Mother also said she had a "tantrum," "kicking and flailing on the floor out of frustration." She had "episodes" every day, although the tantrum that day was the first in two weeks "where she just lost control." Mother told officers she "did not sleep and she could not take it anymore." Mother said she had been diagnosed as bipolar, had not taken medication since before the minor's birth, and was trying to get help. Given mother's "irrational state of mind and level of anger," police concluded she was possibly a danger to the minor and decided to detain him.
On November 16, 2016, the social worker tried to speak with mother via telephone. Mother "was screaming and [unable] to calm down throughout the conversation." Mother claimed the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) was threatening her. Mother also said the minor was the Agency's "meal ticket." Mother denied emotionally abusing her son and said she "was very stressed and had no one." Later that day, mother came to the Agency's offices and began yelling in the lobby. The social worker met with mother, who "threw several forms on the table," and claimed "no one was following protocol." Mother also yelled about code violations in her apartment and called the social worker names. The meeting ended when mother stormed out of the office.
The social worker was already familiar with mother due to a referral in October 2016 regarding mother's screaming in her apartment and yelling threats to the minor, including that she would kill him. Mother had previously told the social worker that, "she scares herself" and "knows that she needs medication." Mother also told the social worker she was scared for the minor and did not want him seeing her like this. Although mother said she would never hurt the minor, "I just can't handle what's going on." During this conversation, the minor looked as if he was going to cry, but he "paused to go to his mother." The social worker attempted to connect mother with mental health services, but "there has been no follow through on [mother's] part."
On November 16, 2016, the Agency filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minor, alleging serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The November 17, 2016, detention report expressed concern that the minor "may be harmed or at risk of harm should [mother's] mental health continue to be untreated and he would be left without a stable, safe caregiver." The report also noted the social worker had suggested options for mental health services and support persons, but mother "would at times be accepting and articulate that she wanted and needed help, and then at a subsequent visit she would yell at [the social worker] and not be willing to follow through with any mental health or safety plan." Mother told the social worker she wanted help and was a "24 hour mother and I can't take it, but I'm not taking it out on my son." The report also stated calls to law enforcement regarding mother's "continuous screaming" began in May 2015, although the first police report provided in the report was dated November 2, 2015. The report also noted father told the social worker that he wanted to "be there" for the minor and take care of him.
The juvenile court held a detention hearing on November 17, 2016. During the hearing, mother's counsel described health records for the minor showing he was up to date on his immunizations. According to counsel, the notes from July 7, 2015, "indicate that [mother] is very caring towards [minor]," with the minor taking comfort with mother during the exam. The July 7, 2015, notes also showed the minor was "well nourished, well developed," in "no acute distress," and acting appropriately for his age. The March 1, 2016, notes showed the minor was "happy and smiling," "alert and oriented," and acting appropriately for his age. The August 2, 2016, notes described the minor as "active and happy most of the time." He was "awake and alert," well nourished, and acted age appropriately. Mother argued there were no concerns with her home, she could safely care for the minor, and she had been unsuccessfully seeking mental health care. Still, she told the court she was "stressed," did not have a support system, and faced possible eviction the following week, with nowhere else to go. During the hearing, father requested the minor be placed with him, in the event the minor could not be returned to mother. The juvenile court ordered the minor detained finding mother had a mental health problem that placed the child at risk of harm. The court also expressed concern about mother's "potential homelessness."
Between November 21, 2016 and November 28, 2016, the juvenile court received seven letters from mother. In these letters, mother complained about the social workers, foster parents, police, 911 dispatcher, and landlord. She also sent a copy of an October 31, 2016, letter she sent to the U.S. Department of Justice complaining about her treatment by local police, and a copy of a waiver for the Agency to obtain her mental health records. She also sent a copy of the 2012 dismissal of her conviction for the 2004 battery, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4.
On December 5, 2016, the Agency requested the minor be placed with father. On December 6, 2016, the juvenile court held a hearing regarding the Agency's request. Mother objected, stating she was concerned about father's ability to care for two children. She also expressed concern "about [father's] drug and alcohol usage," and his smoking. Mother also "felt uncomfortable" with father, because she had once seen him rocking the minor "really fast [with] an angry look on his face." Mother testified that father once threatened her when he feared she was pregnant, saying he would kick her in the stomach and "kill the unborn child." Mother also argued father "doesn't like working," and failed to contribute any child support. The juvenile court granted the Agency's request and placed the minor with father.
On December 17, 2016, mother sent another letter to the juvenile court, enclosing the release she signed for medical information regarding alcohol and drugs. Mother stated she felt the social worker "illegally misrepresented these forms." Mother also attached a three-page e-mail detailing the difficulties she had obtaining appointments regarding her case plan.
The January 4, 2017, disposition report recommended terminating the dependency and giving legal and physical custody to father. According to the report, mother "sees herself as a realistic and routine person." She told the social worker "she feels she is easy to get along with, likes to read, keep up with current events, cooking, and being a mom." Mother told the social worker her goals were to become independent and start working so she could provide for herself and the minor. Since 2005, mother's main source of income had been disability and social security.
The disposition report described the minor's twice-weekly, two-hour visits with mother, which stopped once the minor was placed with father. Mother played with the minor, read to him, and provided food. When mother was "focused on [the minor], she has warm interactions with him and appears to enjoy playing with [him]." Still, mother would begin to withdraw and become downcast when she realized the visits were ending. Also, at the start and end of each visit, mother "would begin wailing, crying, and apologizing to [the minor] for not being with him," causing the minor to become visibly anxious and begin sobbing. In addition, mother had attempted to send clothes home with the foster parent, at one point demanding a personal inventory of everything she provided. After one visit, mother took photos of the foster mother's car, requiring the Agency to arrange pick-up and drop-off of the minor so as to protect the foster family's privacy.
The disposition report also noted mother had been attending and engaging well in a weekly parent engagement group. Still, mother was not willing to sign releases for the social worker to speak with any mental health providers. Mother also asked to remove her previously signed releases regarding drug and alcohol medical information. In addition, police had been called by mother's neighbors, due to mother banging on her walls, shouting, and yelling death threats to other tenants. The report stated mother "has demonstrated frequent and intense escalating behaviors . . . since coming into contact with the Agency." Due to mother's behaviors and safety concerns, the Agency cancelled a child and family focus meeting scheduled for December 16, 2016. Mother's "patterns of escalation with Agency staff," also caused the Agency to require mother to schedule an appointment before coming into the office.
In addition, the disposition report described mother's erratic behavior during a physician visit with the minor on December 2, 2016, in which mother grew very upset over the minor's diaper rash. The physician explained such rashes were common and not a sign of neglect, but mother "raise[d] her voice angrily," and "rant[ed] aggressively" that social services was failing the minor. The minor was in mother's arms during her outburst and began to cry. Mother continued to protest as the social worker tried to put the minor in the Agency car; she proceeded to stand next to the car while shouting loudly at the social worker. Mother later called police multiple times to report child abuse regarding the rash, and was eventually arrested on charges of annoying phone calls and obstructing a police officer. Mother also called police to report the foster parents were sexually abusing the minor.
Between December 21 and 23, 2016, mother sent four letters to the juvenile court, including: (1) a call log to demonstrate her efforts to obtain mental health services, (2) an e-mail unsuccessfully requesting the rescheduling of her family meeting at the Agency, (3) a five-page e-mail chain with the social workers, who mother alleged were discriminating and harassing, and (4) eight pages of e-mails with her family members, which mother described as showing "their practice of illegal eviction methods and possible false statements made to the police department."
Between December 28 and 30, 2016, the juvenile court received 17 letters from mother, which included evidence mother argued supported her case and complaints about the police and social workers. Between January 6 and 12, 2017, the juvenile court received seven additional letters from mother, including claims she had not received a fair hearing, allegations that father would be an inappropriate caregiver, and complaints about the Agency and her previous counsel.
The juvenile court held a jurisdiction and disposition hearing on January 13, 2017. Mother testified she had never hurt or abused her child, and she did not think father would be a good caregiver for the minor. According to mother, she had a natural tendency to speak loudly and did not have an anger problem. She testified the November 15, 2016, incident resulted from her stress as a single mother. Mother testified she had difficulty finding mental health care due to her insurance. She had been to the doctor the day before the hearing and had started taking medication. Her next appointment was scheduled on January 17, 2017.
The juvenile court found that mother had made "minimal progress" toward mitigating the causes necessitating placement, while father had made "substantial progress." In addition, mother had "severe mental health issues that are impacting [the minor's] safety," and had become "aggressive and threatening to Agency staff." The juvenile court sustained the allegations, declared the minor a dependent of the court, and ordered legal and physical custody of the minor to father. The juvenile court also terminated dependency for the minor. Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I
The Jurisdiction Finding
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b). We disagree.
We review a juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and disposition orders for substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) We view the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the determinations. (Ibid.) Our role is not to reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the juvenile court. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the question is whether substantial evidence supports the finding, not whether a contrary finding might have been made. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)
The juvenile court may not take dependency jurisdiction over a child unless the court finds the child to be a person described by one or more of the section 300 subdivisions. A child falls within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to . . . provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness." " 'In determining whether the child is in present need of the juvenile court's protection, the court may consider past events.' " (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another ground as stated in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
Despite mother's contentions, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order, the evidence showed that mother's mental health problems placed the minor at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or abuse. Mother was behaving erratically and violently while caring for the minor, as shown by the seven times police were called regarding mother's screaming and banging on walls between November 2015 and November 2016. The minor was heard crying and screaming during these episodes on August 17, and October 20 and 23, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the minor was overheard screaming as though he was injured, possibly thrown against a wall. Mother also threatened to kill him. Mother told police that she "just lost control" during her "tantrum" that day. The frequency of mother's out-of-control behavior is exhibited by mother's statement to police that she had "episodes" every day, excluding the previous two weeks. When the minor was removed, mother directed her aggressive and out-of- control behavior against the social workers, including yelling at them, throwing forms on the table, and exhibiting "patterns of escalation with Agency staff."
When the minor was diagnosed with a diaper rash, mother "rant[ed] aggressively" that social services was failing the minor and called police to report child abuse. Mother's out-of-control behavior also continued at home, as evidenced by the continued calls to police about mother banging on her walls, shouting, and yelling death threats to other tenants. Moreover, despite telling the social worker in October 2016 that she "knows . . . she needs medication," mother failed to get treatment for her mental health condition until the day before the January 2017 hearing. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding that mother's mental health created a risk of future harm to the minor.
II
The Minor's Placement with the Father
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the minor because, by the time of the January 2017 hearing, he had been placed with father and no longer was at risk. Mother relies on In re A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675 (A.G.) and In re Phoenix B. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 787 (Phoenix B.) for the proposition that, in such a situation, the juvenile court should have dismissed the petition. We disagree.
In Phoenix B., the minor was detained and a petition was filed after the mother was involuntarily hospitalized due to a mental breakdown. (Phoenix B., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 789-790.) The day after the initial detention hearing, the minor was released to the father because he " 'appeared to be able and willing to care for the minor.' " (Id. at p. 790.) Within three weeks, the department of social services moved to dismiss the dependency petition, noting that the mother intended to seek custody and suggesting the appropriate forum was the family court. (Ibid.) The juvenile court granted the motion. (Id. at p. 791.) The appellate court affirmed the judgment, reasoning the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because the record indicated the father was providing appropriate care. (Id. at p. 794.)
In A.G., the mother was mentally ill and "incapable of caring for the minors," but the father was able to ensure the minors' safety. (A.G., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 685.) The juvenile court sustained the petition filed on the minors' behalf. (Id. at p. 681.) At disposition, the father asked the juvenile court to terminate the dependency case with a family law order giving the father sole custody of the minors, and counsel for the minors joined in the request. (Id. at p. 682.) The department requested family services for the father. (Ibid.) The juvenile court declared the minors to be dependents of the courts, ordered them removed from the mother, awarded legal and physical custody to the father, and terminated the juvenile court jurisdiction. (Ibid.) The custody order was filed in the family court. (Ibid.) The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the family court. (Id. at p. 687.) Relying on Phoenix B., the appellate court reasoned the juvenile court should have dismissed the petition, staying the order until the father could obtain a custody award from the family court. (Id. at p. 685.)
Unlike Phoenix B. and A.G., here neither the Agency, the minor, nor father sought dismissal of the petition in order to seek a family court custody order. In addition to this critical procedural difference, as explained in In re Nicholas E. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 458 at page 465, "[n]othing in [A.G.]--or either of the cases on which it relied--purported to authorize a juvenile court to skip the evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction or to apply a rule of abstention just because a nonoffending parent could gain custody of the child in an ongoing family court proceeding." Such a rule would be "inconsistent with the long-standing principle that dependency proceedings have primacy over family court proceedings when it comes to child custody matters." (Ibid.)
Moreover, the "primary concern" of dependency law is to protect children. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491.) Dependency jurisdiction can be triggered by the conduct of one parent even when the other parent is nonoffending. (In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1212; see also Phoenix B., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 793 ["imposition of juvenile dependency jurisdiction depends on the child's welfare," and courts may "go forward with the proceedings" if the required jurisdictional findings can be sustained and "the child's welfare warrants dependency"].) Here, the juvenile court properly exercised its jurisdiction over the minor to protect him from substantial risk of harm from mother. Contrary to mother's contentions, substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings against mother and this is an appropriate use of the dependency system. Mother demonstrates no error in the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional order.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
HULL, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. MAURO, J.