Opinion
F079321
12-02-2019
In re H.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent, v. ADRIANNA S., Defendant and Appellant.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena R. Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. JVDP-19-000077, JVDP-19-000078, JVDP-19-000079)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena R. Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Smith, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Adrianna S. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's findings at disposition that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to her three children, H.D., X.G., and I.S., if they were returned to her custody, and there are no reasonable means of protecting the minors without continued removal from her custody. The removal findings were based on mother's untreated alcohol abuse, failure to supervise the minors, failure to ensure the minors attended school, and failure to provide necessary medical care. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Mother received voluntary family maintenance services from March 3, 2011, until June 8, 2012. Mother completed services and the case was dismissed.
The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) received a referral on February 25, 2019, raising concerns about mother's lack of supervision of the three minors, alcohol abuse, and domestic violence. The caller stated that on February 22, seven-year-old X.G. and ten-year-old I.S. were unaccompanied at a homeless encampment while mother was unaware of their whereabouts. On February 19, mother was observed engaged in a domestic dispute while the three minors were present and watching from inside a car. When mother eventually drove away, I.S. was in the front seat but not secured with a seat belt.
References to dates are to 2019 unless otherwise specified.
The caller also reported "second hand information" that the minors were "hanging out" at "all hours of the night" and " 'running amok;' " the minors were stealing from other people at the homeless encampment and destroying property; mother was under the influence of alcohol and driving around the encampment in that condition; and the whereabouts of teenaged H.D. presently were unknown.
On March 1, a social worker attempted to contact the minors at school; none of the three minors were in school. One principal told the social worker the family was being referred to the Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) because of excessive absences. The social worker went to the homeless encampment where mother and the children were residing and found X.G. and I.S. running around unsupervised. Mother stated H.D. refuses to go to school, I.S. tells her to " 'f*** off' " when she tries to get him ready for school, and she had problems with all three children listening to her and obeying her.
On March 11, the social worker was notified that X.G. had gotten mother's can of mace and sprayed himself in the face; emergency medical workers responded. On March 19, the social worker was notified that mother was two and one-half hours late picking up X.G. and I.S. from a group event.
The public health nurse obtained the medical records of the minors. H.D. had myopic degeneration of his left eye and had not been seen for a follow-up appointment for his eye in July 2018 as recommended. In October 2018, H.D. was hospitalized with a serious sinus and ear infection. While there, it was determined that H.D. had hypertension; mother discharged him against medical advice. H.D. had not been seen at any follow-up appointment for that condition.
On March 25, social workers contacted mother at a motel and expressed concerns about mother leaving the minors unsupervised and her alcohol use. The social workers asked about the fact that the majority of mother's EBT transactions were at a liquor store. Mother reported that alcohol was her drug of choice. Mother stated H.D. was in juvenile hall and I.S. was in the homeless encampment. Social workers found I.S. at a skate park about four miles from the homeless encampment.
H.D., X.G., and I.S. were all placed in protective custody at 2:45 p.m. on March 25.
A petition was filed on March 27 alleging allegations pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) as to mother. The petition alleged that mother willfully or negligently failed to supervise the minors and that mother's abuse of alcohol created an inability on mother's part to provide regular care for the minors.
References to code sections are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother appeared at the April 2 detention hearing. The juvenile court detained the minors and scheduled a jurisdiction and disposition hearing. During the hearing, the juvenile court noted that mother had been provided referrals for services and the juvenile court encouraged mother to follow through on the referrals "as soon as possible."
A case plan was developed for possible return of the children to mother's custody by November. The plan provided that mother attend, actively participate in and successfully complete a parenting program; submit to a substance abuse assessment and follow all recommendations from the assessment; and participate in random drug testing.
A first amended petition was filed on May 3. The amended petition noted that mother had a criminal record that included shoplifting, theft, vehicle theft, and possession of a narcotic controlled substance.
The jurisdiction and disposition report recommended removal of the minors from mother's custody and care. The report noted mother's history with child protective services dating back to 2003, and her criminal history. The report stated H.D. was in juvenile hall, where he was attending school and receiving counseling to develop and utilize coping, anger management, and communication skills. An appointment had been made for a follow-up visit to check on his eye condition.
I.S. was healthy and on target developmentally but needed mental health counseling. A clinician had been assigned to him. X.G. was healthy and on target developmentally. He was not in need of mental health services. The minors X.G. and I.S. were in a foster home placement.
Mother's social history could not be completed. Two appointments with mother had to be cancelled because of conflicts. Attempts by the social worker to reschedule the appointments were unsuccessful because mother failed to respond.
The agency did not recommend return of the children to mother's custody. Although mother had found housing with the assistance of a local program, she was experiencing "stress" due to having to pay rent. Mother also was working on obtaining a valid driver's license. She had not, however, engaged in services to address her alcohol abuse or lack of parenting skills. Mother had not even completed a substance abuse assessment or participated in the intake assessment for other services.
At the May 9 combined hearing on jurisdiction and disposition, mother's counsel requested a continuance, stating mother "did not really realize the critical importance of the substance abuse assessment ...." The juvenile court continued the matter to May 16.
At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on May 16, the juvenile court noted that it had read and considered the jurisdiction and disposition report. Mother did not attend the substance abuse assessment that had been scheduled after the May 9 hearing and failed to complete a drug test during that period. She also had missed two visits with X.G. and I.S. The minors were upset when she missed visits.
The juvenile court sustained the first amended petition and found the minors came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) as to mother. The juvenile court found that mother had failed to properly supervise the minors, failed to address medical needs of the minors, failed to ensure school attendance, exposed the minors to domestic violence when in mother's custody, and had substance abuse issues with alcohol. The juvenile court also noted that mother previously received family maintenance services and the family had a "very significant prior CPS history."
As for disposition, the juvenile court found "based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is or would be a substantial risk of detriment if the children were to be returned to the care of a parent at this particular moment, and there are no reasonable means by which they can be protected without removal from their parents' physical custody." The factual findings made to support jurisdiction were adopted to support the dispositional findings.
The juvenile court described mother's progress as "fair" and ordered that mother be provided with continued reunification services. The juvenile court encouraged mother to start engaging in services and "do everything that you need to do according to the case plan."
DISCUSSION
Mother contends substantial evidence did not support removing the minors from her custody at disposition. We disagree.
Standard of Review
Jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; we do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment. (In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 51.) The standard of review for a disposition order is also substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) An appellate court does not substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile court. (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 918.)
On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order, we review the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports them. In so doing, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the juvenile court's findings and orders; we review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's determinations; and we defer to the juvenile court on issues of fact and credibility. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.)
The appellant, in this case mother, has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or order. (In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.) The substantial evidence standard is a difficult hurdle to overcome; if there is any substantial evidence, an appellate court must affirm. (D.M. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1128.)
Jurisdiction may rest on a single finding. (D.M. v. Superior Court, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1127.) Evidence from a single witness can be sufficient to support the findings. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are based on a preponderance of the evidence. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.)
Disposition Order
In determining an appropriate disposition, the juvenile court also had before it the first amended section 300 petition and the social studies, including the supplemental social studies. Juvenile courts may consider the social studies, and the hearsay statements contained therein, as evidence. (§ 355, subd. (b); In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 885-886.)
The disposition order removed the minors from mother's care and ordered reunification services be provided to mother. A juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the minors' interests and to fashion a disposition order in accordance with this discretion. (In re A.L. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 138, 142-146.)
To remove a minor from the parent's care at disposition, the juvenile court must find that there is a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or emotional well-being of the minor if returned home. (§§ 342, 361, subd. (c)(1).) The parent need not be dangerous, and the minor need not actually be harmed before removal is appropriate; the focus is on avoiding harm to the child. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136.)
Here, mother had obtained new housing, but that is all she accomplished between March 27 when the initial petition was filed and May 16 when the continued jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held. Mother had not taken the initial step of completing a substance abuse assessment, even when the hearing was continued from May 9 to May 16 for her to do so. In addition, mother did not attend and complete a parenting program. She also missed visits with the minors, which distressed them.
Moreover, the agency did make reasonable efforts to avoid removal of the minors from the home. A case plan was established for mother, providing that she attend and complete a parenting program; participate in a substance abuse assessment and follow through on all recommendations from the assessment; and participate in random drug testing. Mother utterly failed to fully comply with, or complete, any component of her case plan.
Mother does not challenge the section 300, subdivision (b) jurisdictional findings, all of which remained largely unaddressed because mother had (1) failed to participate in the services required by her case plan, including completing a parenting course; (2) failed to complete a substance abuse assessment; (3) missed a random drug test, which is therefore deemed positive; and (4) missed or arrived late for scheduled visitation with the minors. At disposition, the juvenile court encouraged mother to start engaging in the services called for in her case plan.
Mother failed to demonstrate a commitment to completing the case plan. Mother failed to realize the critical importance of following through with the components of the case plan and even when provided a further opportunity to do so, failed to follow through. Mother had a significant history with child protective services and had previously received voluntary family maintenance services, from which she apparently did not learn any lasting parenting skills or to not abuse alcohol or other substances, or presumably the instant case would not have been filed.
Here, the juvenile court removed the minors from mother's custody and ordered reunification services. Such a disposition protects the minors' interests when mother has failed to follow through on components of her case plan and thus failed to address the matters that gave rise to jurisdiction. (Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863.)
DISPOSITION
The disposition order and findings are affirmed.