Linda C. v. Superior Court

Linda C. v. Superior Court








Filed 1/6/12 Linda C. v. Superior Court CA5




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LINDA C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

F063373 (Super. Ct. No. 10CEJ300209-1) OPINION

THE COURT^*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian M. Arax, Judge.
Linda C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-

Linda, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined and contested hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388^[1] petition and six-month review of reunification services terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter M.^[2] We will deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In September 2010, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) removed then seven-year-old M. from Linda’s custody after discovering that Linda was exhibiting paranoid and delusional behavior and severely neglecting M. Linda isolated M. to a single room in their home, blocked the sunlight from entering and placed thumbtacks point-side up along the furniture so that M. could not climb. Linda persistently sought out medical treatment for a skin disorder that M. did not have and did not take her to the dentist even though M.’s teeth were rotting. When M. was removed, she had only four teeth, was still in diapers and had never attended school. The department placed M. in foster care.
The juvenile court adjudged M. a dependent child and declared the whereabouts of her father unknown. The court also ordered a plan of reunification that required Linda to complete parenting instruction and a mental health evaluation. The court set the six-month review hearing for May 2011.
Linda completed a mental health assessment in October 2010. The therapist recommended that she complete a psychological evaluation but did not believe she was a candidate for therapy and did not recommend it. Linda was subsequently evaluated by clinical psychologists, Dr. Marilyn Stewart Harris, Ph.D. and Dr. Laura A. Geiger, Psy.D. They both concluded that Linda suffers from a mental disability that renders her unable to adequately care for M. and utilize reunification services. Drs. Stewart Harris and Geiger diagnosed Linda as suffering from recurrent major depression. Dr. Geiger additionally diagnosed her as having a delusional disorder.
In April 2011, the department filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to terminate Linda’s reunification services based on the psychologists’ opinions. The department also filed its report for the six-month review hearing informing the juvenile court that M. was fully potty trained and attending kindergarten. That same month, the juvenile court ordered visitation reduced to once a month.
In July 2011, the juvenile court convened a contested and combined hearing on the department’s section 388 petition and the six-month review of services. Over several days, spanning July through September 2011, the juvenile court heard testimony from various social workers involved with Linda’s case, Drs. Stewart Harris and Geiger and Linda.
Social worker Paula Graves testified that she instructed the parenting class that Linda completed. She said that Linda took the task of improving her parenting skills seriously and demonstrated that she benefitted from the parenting instruction. Therapist Tammy Exum testified that she supervised visitation between Linda and M. She said that M. was generally happy to visit Linda and that Linda never missed a session, arrived early and came prepared with activities. Ms. Exum also testified that Linda was open to suggestions for improving her parenting and followed her direction. She opined that Linda understood the negative impact her behavior had on M.
Teri Roltgen, M.’s therapist, stated she diagnosed M. with posttraumatic stress disorder consistent with trauma. She said she found that M.’s behavior regressed following visits with Linda. Consequently, in February 2011, she recommended that the department reduce visitation. She did not believe that M.’s regressive behavior was the result of missing Linda but that the contact aroused emotions and many memories. She also said that M. worried about Linda’s wellbeing.
Dr. Geiger testified that Linda suffers from a delusional disorder with somatic (“body issues”) and persecutory aspects. The somatic delusion had to do with M. having a skin disorder. Linda also reported having been treated for bulimia.
Dr. Geiger further testified that Linda had an unusual and rigid “belief system” and had no insight into her delusional behavior. She said Linda blamed other people, made up excuses and denied having problems. Dr. Geiger did not believe Linda would benefit from services even though Linda did well in her parenting class. She explained that delusional disorders are extremely difficult to treat and that Linda, at 47 years of age, had a fixed pattern of thinking. She explained that someone with a delusional disorder can manage their presentation in order to maneuver through society but that it took a long time in treatment to change their thought process and irrational fixed delusional beliefs. Dr. Geiger did not believe that Linda had become capable of properly parenting M. in the eight months since she evaluated her and she did not believe it probable that Linda would be able to adequately care for M. in 18 months.
Dr. Stewart Harris opined that Linda would not benefit from reunification services not only because of her mental disability but also because she did not accept responsibility for her actions and acknowledge the significance of her conduct. She also testified that any parenting skills Linda demonstrated in a parenting class or visitation would not necessarily carry over into the home.
Linda testified about her reasoning and actions that resulted in M.’s neglect. She said she noticed M.’s dental decay in early 2007 but did not have the money to pay for dental care. That same year, she inherited money and received a divorce settlement but believed that it would cost $10,000 to fix M.’s teeth so she waited. She also waited because M.’s dental decay was so advanced that she was afraid that child protective services would be notified if she took M. to a dentist. Finally, she decided to take her to the dentist after she saw a movie in which a child had untreated dental decay that impacted her brain. As far as potty training, Linda testified that she started training M. when M. was two years old but Linda was going through divorce proceedings that consumed her time. She explained that she did not enroll M. in school because she was afraid her ex-husband would find a way to get custody of M. However, she also explained that he did not attend the custody hearing and had no relationship with M. She said she wished she had told the judge that she had gone out of her way to prevent any attachment because the marriage was rocky and she did not want M. to attach to him until she was convinced that the marriage was going to work. Her fear was that her ex-husband would get in contact with M. at school, establish a relationship with her and then go back to court claiming there was a preexisting relationship.
Linda was asked whether she agreed that she traumatized M. She said she did not know if her lapses traumatized M. but believed that M. was “freaked out” by the rapid changes she experienced after being removed. Linda explained that, as part of her parenting class, she was given material that assigned numerical values measuring stress as related to specific experiences a child might have. She said she calculated M.’s stress score to be very high within the first 25 days of her removal.
Linda was also asked what she had changed and how she would prevent further isolation. She said she removed all of the “odd-looking” modifications to her home and was socializing, she had taken yoga and was attending ballroom dance classes. In addition, she was no longer fearful of her ex-husband. She hoped that M. would maintain a relationship with her foster parents and continue to attend church with them.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court granted the department’s section 388 petition, terminated Linda’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered that visitation remain monthly. In doing so, the juvenile court acknowledged that Linda is intelligent, articulate and earnest, and that she dutifully participated in her services and made external changes to her life. However, the juvenile court concluded that Linda has a mental disability that prevents her from benefitting from reunification services. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Linda acknowledges that she suffered some type of mental health condition or disorder when M. was removed but contends that she is no longer suffering such a condition or disorder. She further contends that she fully participated in her court-ordered services and demonstrated that she can benefit from reunification services. Instead of terminating her services, she argues, the juvenile court should have offered her mental health treatment. She asks this court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing, order that reunification services be continued and that visitation occur weekly. We decline to so do.
Under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2), the juvenile court may deny a parent reunification services if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent suffers from a mental disability, as defined in the Family Code, that renders him or her incapable of utilizing such services. Family Code section 7827 defines the “mentally disabled” parent as one suffering a mental incapacity or mental disorder that renders the parent unable to adequately care for and control the child. A finding of mental disability must be supported by the opinion of two mental health experts who meet the qualifications set forth in Family Code section 7827.
Where, as here, the juvenile court ordered reunification services, the department may petition the juvenile court to terminate reunification services if “[i]t appears that a change of circumstance or new evidence exists that satisfies a condition set forth in subdivision (b) … of Section 361.5 justifying termination of court-ordered reunification services.” (§ 388, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
In this case, two psychologists evaluated Linda and concluded that she suffers from a mental disability that renders her unable to benefit from reunification services. They both testified that she continues to suffer from a mental disability and were not swayed by evidence that she completed parenting instruction and demonstrated appropriate parenting skills while under supervision. Further, the juvenile court carefully listened to all of the evidence and had the opportunity to evaluate Linda’s demeanor and responses during her testimony and concluded that she could not sufficiently utilize reunification services to safely resume custody of M. Having reviewed the appellate record, we concur. We find no error in this record.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.