Opinion
F087647
10-24-2024
In re B.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. N.T., Defendant and Appellant. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Jesse Frederic Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, Nos. JVDP-22000164, JVDP-22000165, JVDP-22000166, JVDP-22000167 Annette Rees, Judge.
Jesse Frederic Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
Appellant N.T. (mother) is the mother of B.P., J.P., N.P., and P.P. (collectively the children), who are the subjects of this dependency case. Mother appeals from the juvenile court's orders issued at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing February 22, 2024, which resulted in her parental rights being terminated. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother's court-appointed counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother's behalf.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Mother filed a letter brief chronicling her case timeline, explaining the reasons for her inconsistent visits with the children, alleging there is a "relationship and bond between" her and the children, and requesting that the juvenile court reverse its findings terminating her parental rights.
Mother somewhat confusingly asks that this court "allow [her] attorney the opportunity to write a disposition on [her] behalf." As noted, however, mother's counsel did file a brief on her behalf.
Following a review of the record, we dismiss the appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Procedural Background
On September 3, 2021, the Riverside County DPSS-CPS (Riverside CPS) filed a section 300 petition alleging the children (then ages 10, nine, five, and two) were at risk of harm due to mother's unresolved mental health issues, which resulted in mother threatening suicidal ideations in front of the children and being placed on a section 5150 hold. It was also alleged that mother had a criminal history, abused controlled substances, engaged in domestic violence with her boyfriend in the presence of the children, and had a prior child welfare history. Darryl P. (father) was incarcerated for attempted murder. The children were placed with maternal grandfather. The Riverside CPS recommended mother be given family maintenance services on the condition that the children remain placed with maternal grandfather.
On October 4, 2021, mother and maternal grandfather denied having any Native American ancestry.
A first amended section 300 petition was filed October 20, 2021, changing the wording in the original petition from "mother has a prior child welfare history for substantiated allegations of neglect due to domestic violence, and substance abuse," by crossing out the word "substantiated."
Section 300 Petition at Issue Here
On November 29, 2021, the Riverside CPS filed a second amended section 300 petition, adding the allegation that mother was not in the household and failed to provide her children with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, support and/or protection.
Detention Report and Hearing
The report prepared for the detention hearing chronicled mother's past history with the Riverside CPS, including incidents from 2018, 2019, and May of 2021, which were either stabilized or found to be inconclusive.
After a domestic violence incident in August of 2021, mother allegedly threatened suicide in the presence of the children and was hospitalized on a 5150 hold. Maternal grandfather agreed to care for the children, with mother in the home receiving family maintenance services. Maternal grandfather described mother as mentally unstable, with an alcohol problem, and that she engaged in domestic violence and public intoxication in front of the children in May of 2021.
Following her release from the section 5150 hold, mother did not have consistent communication or visits with the children at maternal grandfather's. Maternal grandfather requested the children be moved to foster care as he was unable to care for them without assistance. The children were taken into protective custody and placed in different foster homes on November 23, 2021, in Riverside County. Mother was on bedrest due to her current pregnancy, and unable to care for the children. B.P. was in the hospital being treated for Type 1 diabetes.
On December 1, 2021, the juvenile court adopted the temporary detention findings made on November 30, 2021, finding the children were at substantial risk of harm in mother's care. Mother was ordered visits twice a week and the siblings were ordered visitation once per month. The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply. Contested jurisdiction was scheduled for January 4, 2022.
Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings
In its original jurisdiction/disposition report, the Riverside CPS recommended the children be named dependents of the juvenile court, and that mother receive reunification services and undergo a psychological evaluation. It was recommended that mother participate in a domestic violence program that addressed anger management, individual and group therapy, a psychological evaluation followed by compliance with prescribed medication, parenting education classes, substance abuse treatment program with random drug testing, and to refrain from substance abuse including alcohol.
The Riverside CPS's addendum stated that B.P. was in one foster home, J.P. in another, and N.P. and P.P. together in a third. The report requested that the jurisdiction allegations be found true, the children be adjudged dependents of the court, and that mother be offered reunification services but father denied services..
At the January 4, 2022, contested hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition on the allegations, ordered the children removed from mother and father, and ordered reunification services for mother but denied them for father. Mother was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation. The juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply. A six-month review hearing was scheduled for July 12, 2022.
Both B.P. and J.P. were diagnosed with various mental issues and orders were granted for the administration of psychotropic medication.
Mother s Psychological Evaluation
On March 2, 2022, mother was diagnosed with probable generalized anxiety disorder, milder PTSD, and major depressive disorder in a "currently improved state." The doctor recommended mother continue counseling, find a permanent residence, "probably" return to her medications after her current pregnancy, and acknowledge how her past behaviors with alcohol and substance abuse impacted her children.
The doctor concluded that mother possibly minimized or denied the issues leading to the children's removal and "[u]ntil she enters a program of some sort of substance abuse training where she fully admits and acknowledges the extent to which her behavior has historically impacted the children's lives, ... they should remain in protective custody."
Motion to Transfer Out
On June 22, 2022, Riverside CPS requested transfer of the case to Stanislaus County, since mother had established residency in Ceres.
Six-Month Review Hearing
At the six-month review hearing July 12, 2022, the juvenile court found mother's progress in alleviating the issues necessitating placement was "adequate but incomplete." Reunification services and visitation were continued. A 12-month review hearing was set for November 29, 2021.
Transfer Orders and Hearing
On July 18, 2022, the Stanislaus County Juvenile Court signed the transfer-out orders, accepting the case from Riverside County.
ICWA Developments
On July 26, 2022, mother filed a parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020 Form) for the children, denying any Native American ancestry. On August 7, 2023, mother stated that she may have Native American ancestry with the Apache tribe and father may have ancestry with the Hopi, Cherokee, and Blackfeet tribes. That same day, paternal grandmother denied any Native American ancestry on father's side of the family.
On August 10, 2023, maternal great grandfather denied knowing any family members who were enrolled in a Native American tribe, lived on a reservation, or received services from a tribe, but that his deceased father mentioned having Native American ancestry without identifying a tribe. Paternal aunt denied having Native American ancestry.
On August 25, 2023, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the United Keetowah Band, the Jicarella Apache Nation all stated no Native American ancestry applied in this case.
Acceptance of Transfer Report and Hearing
On August 25, 2022, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) requested that the children be adjudged dependents of the Stanislaus juvenile court and that mother continue to receive reunification services. The four children remained in three separate placements. Mother had resided in Stanislaus County since October 2021, having planned to relocate there prior to the children being detained. She was now living there with her boyfriend and her four-month old baby. She worked full time, but had visited the children via video, although at times had done so while driving. Due to the travel distance between the children and mother, the agency could not facilitate in-person visitation.
The agency's report stated that mother had completed parenting classes on December 29, 2021, and participated in a psychological evaluation on March 2, 2022. Mother was referred to Sierra Vista for a domestic violence program, but as of August 23, 2022, had not yet contacted them. Mother had various excuses for not doing so - that there was no physical violence between herself and her boyfriend, that she had been in the hospital prior to the birth of her current child, and that she then went back to work.
Mother completed a substance abuse assessment in Riverside County but was not recommended for a program because she denied using alcohol or drugs. Mother had not provided information about the circumstances that led to the children being detained. The agency submitted a referral for another substance abuse assessment in Stanislaus County, believing mother was not forthcoming about her substance abuse history.
Mother tested positive for marijuana on August 11, 2022. At the time of the report, the agency had not received documentation that mother had followed through on the substance abuse assessment referral.
The social worker opined that mother's efforts at services had been affected by her pregnancy, employment, and county of residence. As a result, mother only visited the children in person twice during the last reporting period.
The agency recommended that the juvenile court approve the prior case plan.
On August 30, 2022, the juvenile court adopted the agency's recommendations and orders, as amended, and approved the transfer into Stanislaus County.
Additional ICWA Developments
During the month of September 2023, the Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Eastern Bank of Cherokee Indians, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Hopi Tribe of Arizona all stated that no Native American ancestry applied in this case.
On September 25, 2023, the agency concluded there was no reason to know that the children were Indian children and requested the juvenile court find the ICWA did not apply. The agency included the extensive list of contacts made to relatives for placement. On October 2, 2023, the juvenile court found that, pursuant to section 224.2, ICWA did not apply.
Over the remainder of the case, additional letters were received from various tribes indicating the ICWA did not apply: the Blackfeet Nation, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, the Fort Sill-Chiricahua-Warm Spring Apache Tribe, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes-Hopi Tribe.
12-Month Review Hearing
The report prepared for the 12-month review hearing requested discretion to commence a trial visit for all the children in the home with mother, all of whom were now in Merced County. Mother continued to live with her boyfriend and their mutual child.
During the reporting period, mother was medication compliant, participated in counseling, and began domestic violence sessions. She reported using marijuana. The report stated that, during this reporting period, mother had "slowly started to engage" in services. She maintained employment, had housing, and was motivated to reunify with the children, but still needed to be more involved in the children's issues, including B.P.'s diabetic care and B.P. and J.P.'s mental health services. Visits with the children were described as "a bit chaotic," due to B.P. and J.P.'s disruptive behaviors. Mother's progress was described as "good", and the agency recommended return to mother as the children's permanent plan.
At the December 21, 2022, 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court adopted the recommendations of the agency, and ordered that the children could begin overnight visits with mother. An 18-month review hearing was set for May 16, 2023.
Amended Case Plan
On February 10, 2023, the agency filed an amended case plan, incorporating mother's trial visit and the goal of returning the children home to mother in July 2023. 18-Month Review Hearing Report
In the agency's report dated May 16, 2023, the agency now recommended that the juvenile court terminate mother's reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Trial visits for B.P. ended April 22, 2023, when he was admitted to the hospital for a second time, due to Diabetic Ketoacidosis. The trial visit for J.P. was also ended in April 2023.
During the reporting period, mother engaged in services with "fair progress." She remained employed, attended individual counseling and domestic violence sessions, and tested negative for illegal substances, but tested positive for THC. She had now been evicted from her home and, according to the report, "demonstrated poor critical thinking and parenting skills, and placed the [children] at high risk of general neglect." A new CPS investigation remained open.
The social worker had made an unannounced visit to mother's home on March 9, 2023, and found the children alone. Mother had an unauthorized male friend in the home, which was in violation of the safety plan.
On March 22, 2023, mother was evicted from her home. Her new apartment was assessed as temporary housing until mother was able to move into an apartment which could accommodate all of the children.
B.P. was admitted to the hospital on April 13, 2023, and again on April 19, 2023, both times due to Diabetic Ketoacidosis.
On April 21, 2023, a referral was filed against mother for general neglect, stating mother was becoming more "treacherous" and "calculated" in avoiding responsibility for her poor choices. While B.P. did not want to live with mother due to her inability to properly care for his diabetes, the other three children did want to live with mother.
The 18-month review hearing was eventually set for a contested hearing on August 8, 2023.
Addendum Report
On July 18, 2023, the agency filed an addendum report and recommended termination of family reunification services for mother and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. After receiving a progress report from mother's therapist on June 29, 2023, the agency stated that it "remains alarmed" as to how mother "fragments events to stay in victim mentality." Mother had not informed the agency about B.P.'s medical emergencies and failed to make herself available for diabetes training, although mother stated she did. The agency also reported that mother failed to take responsibility for poor oversight of her phone content, which included pornographic pictures that were accessible to the children.
The agency concluded that mother had a hard time implementing her coping skills, protective parenting skills, decision making, problem solving, and communication. Mother neglected to realize that her choices could have resulted in B.P.'s death.
The visitation logs of mother's visits consistently noted how poorly she parented. She was unable to manage, regulate and set boundaries; to be proactive and problem solve; to prioritize the needs of the children over her needs; and manage the ability to care for the children.
A June 22, 2022, letter from mother's therapist updated the agency on mother's progress with domestic violence and individual counseling, as well as her explanations for why the children were detained, what occurred at trial visits, the social worker's unannounced home visits, the eviction, B.P. hospitalizations, the inappropriate pictures on her phone, and drug testing.
The 18-Month Review Hearing
At the 18-month contested review hearing August 8, 2023, and continued on October 10, 2023, the juvenile court found mother's progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating placement of the children was poor, and found clear and convincing evidence that the children remained dependents and terminated reunification services. Mother was advised of her writ and appeal rights. The section 366.26 hearing was set for January 31, 2024.
Section 366.26 Hearing
The report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing requested that mother's parental rights be terminated and recommended a permanent plan of adoption for all of the children.
The caregivers of the children - B.P. and J.P. in one home and N.P. and P.P. in another - both wanted to adopt the respective children in their care and neither wanted a post-adoption contract agreement with mother.
During the reporting period, each child had had four visits with mother. Of the 17 possible visits from May 2023 to January 8, 2024, mother had three visits, was a no show for 11 visits, and canceled three visits. The agency opined that mother put her needs over those of her children and was inconsistent with visitation, and she neglected to care for B.P.'s diabetes properly. The report opined that the children did not have a "substantial, positive, emotional attachment" to mother or father and termination of that relationship would not harm the children to an extent, outweighed on balance, by the security of a new adoptive home. All of the children were thriving in the homes of their respective caregivers.
The contested section 366.26 hearing was held on February 22, 2024. Counsel for the children stated that B.P., J.P., and P.P. wished to be adopted by their current caregivers; N.P. wanted to return home to mother because mother had less rules than the caregivers did. All of the children were doing well in their respective caregivers' homes. Counsel asked that mother's parental rights be terminated.
Mother's counsel objected to the agency's recommendations, adding "this draconian 20th century law does not allow for a large scope of evidence at these proceedings, as such, we do not have any additional evidence to present."
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were likely to be adopted, and found no legal exception to choosing adoption as the permanent plan, finding there would be no detriment to the children under In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614. The juvenile court found the children were loved and bonded to their caregivers and, although it was not N.P.'s stated interest to be adopted, it was in her best interest.
In addressing the parent-child beneficial relationship exception to adoption, the juvenile court did not find regular visitation and contact by mother and father; had no evidence to support a finding of a substantial, positive, emotional attachment between the children and mother; and no evidence of detriment to the children in terminating mother's parental rights, "given the lack of contact and any substantial, positive relationship."
The juvenile court reaffirmed its ruling that the ICWA did not apply. It then terminated mother and father's parental rights and adopted the plan of adoption for all the children. The juvenile court granted the caregivers' request for designation as prospective adoptive parents.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant's burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If the appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Mother's letter brief has been considered by this court. In her letter, mother chronicles the history of her case, and states that she and the children have had many happy times together, and that she has a relationship and bond with them. Mother describes the reasons for her missed visits as due to "illness, car trouble ... due to being late for check in due to traffic conditions," or having to work and not being able to reschedule the visits "due to the rules set for them." Mother ends her letter acknowledging that she has made mistakes, but that "[e]very single person makes mistakes." She states that she is not asking for her "whole case to be changed," but that she wanted to keep her parental rights to she could be a part of her children's lives.
While we do not doubt mother's love for her children, her letter brief furnishes no valid argument with supporting legal authorities for the purported claims of error. (See In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994 [parents must" 'present argument and authority on each point made' "].) Nor does mother show that these claims of error, assuming they were true, constitute a basis for reversing the underlying orders. Our review of the challenged orders confirms counsel's determination that no arguable issues exist.
In sum, mother has not raised any arguable issues stemming from the section 366.26 hearing. Further, we have reviewed the record as it relates to the hearing under section 366.26, and we have found no arguable issues for briefing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841-842.) Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.
[*] Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.