Opinion
H051038
09-13-2023
In re X.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; V.M., Petitioner, SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21JD026971
Greenwood, P. J.
V.M. (Mother), mother of 13-year-old X.M., seeks extraordinary writ relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in removing X.M. from her care. We construe Mother's petition as a challenge to the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Mother's writ petition.
Subsequent undesignated references to rules of court are to the California Rules of Court.
Mother, who is representing herself in this matter, does not cite any legal authority or to the record. Given the nature of her challenges to the juvenile court's orders, we nonetheless address the merits of Mother's contentions as we understand them.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. Factual And Procedural Background
X.M. is a special needs child with medical, developmental and mental health needs that require him to be connected to services and to receive medication. He has been in the protective custody of the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department) since June 19, 2021, after Mother was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold by the police pursuant to section 5150. Mother suffers from recurring and untreated mental health issues.
A. Incidents Leading to the Department's Protective Custody of X.M.
In April 2021, Mother made several 911 calls, claiming that someone was kidnapping and assaulting her children. Mother was living in an apartment with her children, X.M. (age 11) and his two half-siblings (ages 2 and 4). The responding police officers did not see any evidence to support Mother's claims and, instead, found Mother to be paranoid and behaving erratically. The responding social worker also observed Mother to be paranoid, hypervigilant, anxious, and having active delusions. Mother had not consumed food or fluids in the last 36 hours and had made eight calls to 911 in the last 24 hours, claiming that her neighbors were beating children and engaged in sex trafficking. The responding officers found the conditions of the apartment unsuitable and unlivable for children. They observed broken glass, wood and window blinds on the ground, spoiled milk in baby bottles, clutter, dirty diapers, standing water, and a sticky and dirty floor. Mother was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold pursuant to section 5150, and all three children were taken into protective custody. At the hospital, Mother admitted to "doing a little cocaine[,]" tested positive for methamphetamine, and was diagnosed with psychotic disorder. A week later, the children were returned to Mother after she produced a negative drug test, participated in a child and family team meeting, and agreed to follow up with a mental health assessment.
X.M.'s half-siblings are also dependents of the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court but are not subjects in this instant writ petition. On December 16, 2022, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mother and the father of X.M.'s half-siblings. On December 20, 2022, Mother filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition with respect to those orders in all three juvenile court cases. Mother, however, did not file a writ petition by the due date. Accordingly, we closed that matter on February 15, 2023.
In June of 2021, Mother moved from Sacramento to San Jose, informing a relative that her children had been "switched" and that it was not safe for them to stay in Sacramento because someone was coming into their apartment at night while she was asleep. Mother asked the relative to care for X.M.'s younger half-siblings while Mother and X.M. stayed at a shelter in San Jose. The relative who picked up X.M.'s half-siblings observed that the children were dirty, "smelled like feces," and had "rashes on their bottoms." At the shelter, Mother was aggressive with staff and appeared to be suffering from delusions, distortions of reality, and paranoia. Mother continued to claim that her children were "switched," "kidnapped," being made part of a "trafficking ring," and that she was being followed. Mother claimed someone kidnapped X.M.'s half-siblings, that Mother can "hear them screaming[,]" and that her children "were taken from a basement and killed."
Due to concerns over Mother's behavior, the San Jose Police Department again placed Mother on a section 5150 hold and placed X.M. in protective custody. The police and responding social worker observed X.M. in dirty clothing, with dirt on his neck, arms, legs and hands. X.M. stated that strangers at the shelter had been providing him with food. When asked about a scar on his left forearm, X.M. stated it was caused by Mother hitting him with a broom and cutting him by accident. The Department thereafter filed the section 300 petition for X.M., which it later amended to include X.M.'s father after his identity and whereabouts had been determined.
X.M.'s father has a violent criminal history. Although reunification services were offered and X.M.'s father made moderate progress in the case plan, he became disengaged and unresponsive over time and eventually agreed it was best to terminate reunification services. The juvenile court terminated reunification services for X.M.'s father in May 2023, and X.M.'s father did not seek review of the order.
B. Jurisdiction, Disposition, and Interim Hearings
For the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in August of 2021, the Department prepared and submitted the social study report and addendum reports detailing the events that led to X.M. being in protective custody, subsequent interviews and observations of the family. Following her section 5150 hold, Mother continued to express delusional thoughts that her children were switched, being tortured, and that someone was following her. Mother denied any mental health or substance abuse issues, claiming she had not used any drugs, including marijuana, since the April 2021 incident when she consumed what she thought was cocaine but then tested positive for methamphetamine. While at the hospital during her second section 5150 hold, Mother refused to give a urine sample. During one of her subsequent supervised visitations with the children, Mother agreed to submit to a drug test. However, when she was informed that the test would be taken immediately, Mother left the office before the drug test could be completed.
X.M.'s maternal grandmother and aunt each stated that Mother had a history of mental health issues that appeared to be getting worse. The maternal family had been concerned about Mother's ability to care for X.M. and his half-siblings but had been afraid to become involved because Mother made threats and false allegations of sexual abuse against them. The maternal aunt reported that X.M. had never consistently been in school because Mother was always moving, and that, of all the siblings, X.M. had been through the most trauma. Consistent with the maternal aunt's description, there had been at least 20 child welfare referrals since 2013 (when X.M. was 3 years old), raising concerns that X.M. was subject to general and severe neglect, physical abuse by Mother, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse by Mother.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Mother waived a trial on jurisdiction and submitted based on the petition. The juvenile court admitted the social study report and its addendum reports into evidence. At the conclusion of the uncontested hearing, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Mother with the following case plan: (a) parent orientation class; (b) parenting class for children with special needs; (c) counseling/psychotherapy for substance abuse, domestic violence and mental health; (d) a psychological evaluation; (e) random and "on demand" drug and alcohol testing; (f) a substance abuse assessment; and (g) development of an aftercare relapse prevention plan. Mother could have supervised visitation with X.M. for a minimum of two times a week for two hours each visit. The juvenile court also appointed a guardian ad litem for Mother, and set the matter for an interim review hearing in three months.
By the time of the interim review hearing, Mother's participation in her case plan had been minimal. Based on the status review report admitted into evidence, Mother had not completed most of the requirements of her case plan, except for the orientation class and her psychological evaluation. Mother denied having agreed to the case plan and denied any substance abuse issues. Mother took only two out of the 10 drug tests and missed a total of 56 phone calls for random drug testing. Of the drug tests completed, one was normal and the other was positive for marijuana.
Mother's visitation with X.M. was not going well either. The visits often led to aggression amongst the children, foul language, and disagreements between Mother and the supervising staff. Visitations with X.M. had to be done separately from his half-siblings to reduce conflict. Prior to the interim review hearing, X.M. declined several visits with Mother, stating that he "hated his mother and his siblings[,]" and that "if he was forced to come to visits he would harm himself or runaway [sic]." Mother, however, denied that her children had any behavioral issues or trauma while they were with her and claimed that it was the Department and foster care providers causing her children to exhibit such issues. Mother threatened to sue the Department, was uncooperative with the guardian ad litem and her appointed attorney, and claimed that reunification services were not necessary for her to reunify with her children.
At the conclusion of the interim review hearing, the juvenile court authorized therapeutic visits for Mother.
C. The Six-Month Review Hearing
By the time of the six-month review hearing, based on the addendum report admitted into evidence, Mother had started individual therapy and attended five sessions of a domestic violence support group. Mother was able to find employment, as well as rent and furnish a home. Mother received a provisional diagnosis for amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder, unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder. However, Mother continued to deny any substance abuse or mental health issues, did not complete the parenting class for children with special needs, denied the reasons that led to her children being in foster care, continued to accuse the Department of malfeasance, refused to communicate with her guardian ad litem, and failed to participate in child family team meetings. Mother did not complete the substance abuse assessment and made no effort to work on a relapse prevention guide.
Since the last interim hearing, Mother had missed nine drug tests and 75 phone calls to call in for random drug testing. X.M. continued to refuse visits with Mother and his siblings, despite encouragement from his support team and from his foster parent. X.M. continued to have "thoughts of hurting people and often talk[ed] about killing his mother and hurting his brothers." At the recommendation of the Department, the juvenile court continued reunification services for Mother and supervised visitation.
D. The 12-Month Review Hearing
Prior to the next review hearing, the Department filed a request to suspend X.M.'s visitations with Mother. X.M. had repeatedly refused to participate in visits with his mother and siblings, and at a recent visit, X.M. said he wanted to "punch and beat [his] mother[,]" kill her, and he "balled his fists and puffed his chest out . . . and appeared as though he was going to hit his mother." X.M.'s foster parent reported that X.M. was afraid of Mother. X.M. had asked for a kitchen knife so he could stab his mother and he was having nightmares about her. There was a growing concern that visitations with Mother were becoming a trigger for X.M. and it was having a significant negative impact on his emotional and mental health. Following a hearing, the court suspended visitation between Mother and X.M and between X.M. and his half-siblings, but permitted Mother to communicate with X.M. through cards and letters vetted by the Department. Once visits were suspended, the social worker and foster parent reported that X.M.'s physical and verbal aggression decreased at school and at home.
By the 12-month review hearing, Mother's progress remained minimal. Mother completed her individual therapy sessions and made improvements to comply with random drug testing and obtained normal results. However, Mother attended only five out of the ten required parenting classes, claiming that she completed all the classes and that the center's information about her absences was wrong. Mother continued to deny any substance abuse or mental health issues, refused any such services, refused to complete the substance abuse assessment, and did not make any progress on a relapse prevention guide. The social worker reported that, although Mother completed some of her case plan, "she has not demonstrated that she has alleviated the conditions that brought the children to the attention of the court." Mother was unwilling to change, listen, take information, direction or guidance. Mother continued to accuse the Department of "illegally" taking her children and causing them harm, refused to communicate with her guardian ad litem, and continued to threaten to sue the Department and to inundate it with excessive e-mails and text messages.
The juvenile court continued reunification services for Mother until the next hearing.
E. The 18-Month Review Hearing
Based on the status review report admitted into evidence, Mother's progress on her case plan had not improved by the time of the initial 18-month hearing in December of 2022. Mother continued to deny any substance abuse or mental health issues, refused to acknowledge the circumstances that led to her children becoming dependents of the court, continued to blame the Department for taking her children, and refused to take any further steps to complete her case plan, claiming that she had completed all services. Since the 12-month review hearing, Mother had missed six random drug tests. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mother as to X.M.'s half-siblings but continued the hearing with respect to X.M. to determine if X.M. could return to his father's care.
By the time of the continued 18-month review hearing on May 19, 2023, based on the reports admitted into evidence, Mother's telephone was no longer in service, Mother had not engaged in any additional services and had expressed disinterest in participation in any services. Mother was unwilling to meet with the social worker, would only communicate with the social worker by e-mail, and continued to blame the Department for taking her children. Although Mother's visitation with X.M. remained suspended, Mother made no inquiries regarding X.M.'s well-being, nor did she attempt to work with the social worker to initiate communication with X.M.
The court continued the 18-month hearing several times from December 2022 to May 19, 2023, over concerns regarding proper notice to X.M.'s father.
At the hearing, Mother did not present evidence, call any witnesses nor contest the Department's recommendation to terminate reunification services for X.M. Based on the evidence admitted, the juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services for X.M., and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
F. Mother's Writ Petition
On the same day the juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services, Mother filed her notice of intent to seek writ relief for the orders regarding X.M. On May 30, 2023, we received a letter from Mother explaining why X.M. should return to her custody. On June 30, 2023, Mother filed her petition for extraordinary writ, challenging the orders entered on December 16, 2022 (order granting a continuance of the 18-month review hearing) and on May 19, 2023 (order terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing). Mother requested we direct the trial court to return X.M. to her custody and she also checked the box in her petition for "other" relief, stating she wants "relief from juvenile dependency court transfer to sixth appellate district."
Mother's writ petition states that she is challenging the order entered on "5/22/2023" but what she calls the "Notice of Appeal" attached to her writ petition indicates that she is challenging orders entered on "May 26, 2023." Both dates appear to be typos as the record does not reflect any orders entered on either May 22 or May 26, 2023. Based on the context of Mother's argument, we assume that Mother challenges the order entered on May 19, 2023, when her reunification services were terminated.
Mother's writ petition contains very little information for us to determine the basis for her requested relief. The petition includes what appears to be copies of her tax and employment records and a "Notice of Appeal" that she filed in the juvenile court stating, "I need to challenge order of juvenile dependency court for them to show proof and get my kid's back home out of there [sic] placement." The letter that Mother submitted on May 30, 2023, however, does provide her explanation for seeking writ relief. The Department's opposition to Mother's petition addresses and responds to the points raised by Mother in this letter. Accordingly, we will treat Mother's letter received on May 30, 2023, as part of Mother's writ petition and address the issues raised by Mother as well as we can understand them.
In this writ proceeding, as to the order terminating reunification services, Mother appears to argue that she did nothing wrong to justify X.M.'s removal from her care in the first place, that X.M. was placed in foster care due to perjurious statements and fabrications by the Department, that she cooperated in every respect with the Department, and that X.M. will be "fine" and "happy" in her care because she loves her children and has their best interest at heart. The Department contends that the juvenile court properly terminated reunification services for Mother as there was substantial evidence showing that returning X.M. to Mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to X.M.'s safety, and physical and emotional well-being. Mother also appears to believe that the juvenile court erred when it granted a continuance in December. For the reasons we explain below, we deny Mother's writ petition.
A. Standard of Review
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court must return a child to the physical custody of his parent "unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) The Department bears the burden of proof. (Ibid.) "[T]he risk of detriment must be substantial, such that returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child's physical or emotional well-being." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400, original italics.)
In making its determination at the review hearing, the juvenile court "shall review and consider the social worker's report and recommendation[,] . . . the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided[.]" (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) The juvenile court "must also consider progress the parent has made towards eliminating the conditions leading to the children's placement out of the home." (In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141-1142 [the mother's lack of awareness for the needs of her children and failure to recognize her actions that necessitated the dependency proceedings are sufficient to show detriment.])
We review the juvenile court's finding of detriment for substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Ct. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763.) "The issue of sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the same rules that apply to other appeals. If there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. [Citation.] We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. [Citation.]" (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
B. The December 2022 Continuance Order
Mother identifies the December 2022 continuance order in her writ petition but does not provide any explanation as to why she challenges that order. We note that we have no legal basis to review the December 2022 order in this writ proceeding. Mother filed this writ petition under rule 8.452 to "review [an] order setting hearing under [§] 366.26[.]" The December 2022 order, as to X.M., is not an order setting a hearing under section 366.26. It is an order granting the Department's request for a continuance of the 18-month review hearing. Accordingly, the December 2022 order falls outside the scope of rule 8.452 writ relief, and we cannot review it under that rule.
To the extent Mother is seeking non-statutory writ relief for the continuance order, we cannot review it because her petition does not attach the order or provide any explanation of why she believes the order was issued in error. (Rule 8.486 ["If the petition does not include the required record or explanations or does not present facts sufficient to excuse the failure to submit them, the court may summarily deny a stay request, the petition, or both."]; Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186187 [petitioner seeking review by means of a petition for extraordinary writ must provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to permit such review].) For these reasons, we deny Mother writ relief based on the juvenile court's December 2022 continuance order.
C. The May 2023 Order Terminating Reunification Services and Setting Section 366.26 Hearing
With respect to the May 2023 orders setting the section 366.26 hearing, we understand Mother's arguments to be that (1) X.M. was illegally placed in the "foster care system" due to false information, and (2) the juvenile court erred in finding that "[r]eturn of the child . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).)
Mother first takes issue with the findings that led to the original jurisdictional and dispositional orders. At the dispositional hearing in August of 2021, the juvenile court declared X.M. a dependent of the court and placed X.M. into foster care following an uncontested hearing. Mother did not appeal the August 2021 order and the time to do so has long passed. (Rule 8.406(a)(1) [notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the order.]) Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review issues related to jurisdiction and disposition. (Rule 8.406(a)(1); see also A.M. v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 506, 512 [disposition orders in juvenile dependency proceedings are directly appealable]; In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150 ["an unappealed disposition . . . is final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order. [Citations.]"].)
Mother next contends there is no basis to keep X.M. away from her because she cooperated with the Department and X.M. will be "fine" and "happy" in her care. We assume she is challenging the trial court's factual findings that returning X.M. to Mother's care would pose a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of X.M. (See § 366.22, subd. (a)(1); In re Dustin R., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1141-1143.)
But the social study and status review reports considered by the juvenile court detail multiple instances where Mother failed or refused to participate in the services offered by the Department. By the time of the 18-month review, Mother's progress in addressing her substance abuse and mental health challenges was minimal. Mother did not complete the substance abuse assessment and made no effort to work on a relapse prevention guide, despite repeated requests. While Mother participated to some degree in the case plan, she refused to acknowledge the conditions that caused the underlying dependency proceedings (i.e., her substance abuse issues and her unstable mental health). Mother remained steadfast that she had no substance abuse issues and no mental health issues, even though she tested positive for methamphetamines in April of 2021 and had been placed on two section 5150 psychiatric holds between April and June of 2021. She missed six random drug tests between the 12-month and 18-month review hearings. She blamed the Department for taking her children and refused to communicate with her Guardian ad Litem. Finally, by the time of the 18-month review, Mother did not engage in any additional services and was not interested in participating in services.
The Department's reports also detailed multiple incidents demonstrating Mother's limited awareness of X.M.'s needs. There is an extensive history of child welfare referrals since 2013 over concerns that X.M. may be the subject of physical abuse and severe neglect by Mother. When X.M. was taken into protective custody in June of 2021, he was dirty, was being fed by strangers at a shelter, and had a visible scar on his arm from being previously hit by Mother. Supervised visitation thereafter between Mother and X.M. resulted in conflict and aggression. By the time of the 18-month review hearing, there had been no visits between X.M. and Mother for over a year because X.M. expressed suicidal and homicidal thoughts if forced to visit with Mother. Mother, however, continued to blame the Department and others for X.M.'s behavior, including his unwillingness to have a relationship with her and his fear of her. After visitation was suspended, Mother did not ask about X.M.'s well-being or attempt to communicate with X.M. under the guidelines set by the Department. In this writ proceeding, Mother, without citing evidence from the record, continues to accuse the Department of "coaching" X.M. as the reason for X.M.'s refusal to visit with her, although there is substantial evidence that he is fearful based on his past experiences with Mother.
We recognize that Mother at different times attempted to participate in the programs designated by the Department to address her mental health and substance abuse challenges. We also recognize that in spite of her personal challenges, Mother loves X.M. But under the standard of review we are required to apply by law, we conclude that the evidence before the juvenile court was sufficient to show a substantial risk of detriment to X.M.'s well-being if returned to Mother's care. The juvenile court properly set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
III. Disposition
Mother's petition for extraordinary writ is denied. The decision shall be immediately final as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
WE CONCUR: Grover, J., Lie, J.