Filed
5/29/13 In re L.T.
CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
In re L.T., et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B243091
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK85010)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Respondent,
v.
PATRICK T.,
Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior
Court of
County. Terry
ThanhTruong, Referee. Affirmed.
Lauren K. Johnson, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
_______________________________
Patrick
T. (father) appeals from an order returning his children, L.T. and A.T., to
their mother after they were declared dependents of the court. We conclude substantial evidence supports the
order and affirm.
In
one week in August 2010, the Los Angeles
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the department)
received three child abuse referrals regarding five-year-old L.T. and her
sister, two-year-old A.T. The first referral
alleged father physically abused their mother, Abby T. (mother) in front of the
children, and when L.T. attempted to intervene, pushed her down, injuring
her. An investigation revealed father
had a criminal history and alcohol abuse problems, frequently engaged in
physical violence with mother, and was under a two-year restraining order
enjoining him from living in the home where mother and the girls lived with the
paternal grandfather. When contacted by
a DCFS social worker, mother engaged in a profanity-laden tirade but eventually
agreed to enroll in domestic violence
counseling and not to allow father back into the home.
A
second referral that same day alleged mother used methamphetamines and
physically abused the girls. When DCFS
investigated, mother launched into another screaming, profanity-laden tirade
and refused to undergo drug testing.
A
third referral four days later alleged mother neglected the children, screamed
at them outside the home, and used drugs.
Mother at first avoided DCFS’s social worker, and when contact was
eventually made, screamed and swore at the social worker and refused to
participate in a Team Decision Making (TDM) meeting.
Two
months later, in October 2010, L.T. reported father was living in the home and
slept on the couch, and upon investigation a DCFS social worker discovered
mother had told a CalWorks social worker that father would provide childcare in
the home. When a DCFS social worker
arrived at the home with police officers, mother denied having seen father or
knowing where he lived. She agreed to
attend a TDM meeting but three days later called to cancel it.
L.T.
stated she felt safe with mother and father in the home, was happy with mother,
and mother was nice to her. Her teacher
reported L.T. was adjusting fairly well to kindergarten.
DCFS
filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code
physical altercations in the children’s presence. At the detention hearing on November 5, 2010, the juvenile court
detained the children from father and released them to mother’s custody, with
father given monitored visitation in DCFS offices only. Mother was ordered to take part in domestic
violence counseling and submit to on-demand drug testing.
In
December 2010, father’s parole officer visited the house and found father
living there. On December 22, 2010,
father punched mother in the face, pushed her into a window, and pushed her to
the ground and held her there, threatening to snap her neck if she called the
police. He was arrested on charges of
battery and violating probation.
On
January 14, 2011, father reported that mother loves the children and was “a
decent mother.†He felt the children
were “better off in her care than being removed from her care,†and observed
that mother would “have some drinks but she never gets drunk.†Father said he had never seen mother
incapable of caring for the girls.
At
the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on January 26, 2011, the juvenile court
sustained the dependency petition pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) of
section 300, ordered mother and father to participate in a domestic violence
program, ordered mother to continue to submit to drug tests and participate in
a substance abuse program if she missed or failed a test, and ordered father to
complete a parenting program and follow all conditions of his probation.
In June 2011 mother twice tested
positive for methamphetamine but vehemently denied to a DCFS social worker either
having tested positive or using the drug, and told the social worker, “I just
want you guys to get the fuck out of my life.â€
However, she admitted to a Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)
worker that she used methamphetamines to self-medicate for depression and felt
overwhelmed and stressed out. She
reported she was attending domestic violence counseling but had no letter of
progress, and agreed to enroll in a substance
abuse program and submit to drug tests.
In July 2011 mother missed two drug tests. She and the girls continued to live with
paternal grandfather. Father was
homeless.
In July 2011, mother yelled and cursed at DCFS social
workers during a TDM meeting while the children were present. She told social workers she suffered from
severe depression and had applied for Social Security benefits. Father reported mother became verbally
abusive toward L.T. and A.T. when she was under the influence of
methamphetamines or alcohol, and had told him, “I should get a gun and blow my
brains out.†He expressed concern for
the children’s safety and reported mother had been using methamphetamines and
alcohol consistently for several weeks.
He said the girls would often become frightened and anxious around her,
which the girls confirmed in later interviews.
The paternal grandfather reported he could no longer
supervise mother and the children because she was becoming increasingly hostile
and verbally aggressive toward him while the children were present. She constantly yelled and cursed at the girls
and told him she “should just take-off with the children.â€
On July 15, 2011, when confronted at home about her
positive and missed drug tests, mother reported she had been unable to enroll
in a residential treatment program and
became abusive to the DCFS social worker and was restrained by police. L.T. and A.T. were removed from the home and
placed in foster care.
By August 2011, mother was in the
Prototypes Women’s Center (Prototypes), a residential treatment facility, and
had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and was receiving
and was incarcerated for a probation violation.
On September 8, 2011, the juvenile
court ordered that mother undergo a psychological/psychiatric evaluation. The results of this evaluation were
apparently never forwarded to the court or made part of any DCFS report.
On January 4, 2012, mother was
discharged from Prototypes for noncompliance with house rules. An assistant director at Prototypes reported
the following: “From the initial enrollment
date, [mother] exhibited intense bouts of extreme anger and hostility, and
engaged in severe verbal profanity towards her children, her peers, and
staff. [Mother] verbalized that she did
not want to remain in treatment because treatment was ‘too controlling,’ and
the only reason she stayed in treatment was due to her DCFS requirements with
the children. Numerous peers and staff
witnessed [mother] being verbally abusive towards her children.
. . . [¶] On December 17, 2011, [mother] was put on a
therapeutic contract which was to give increased assistance to her in regards
to her extreme level of anger and rage.
[She] was counseled on the terms of the contract, and was informed of
the potential consequences if she deviated from the contract. [Her] request to change mental health
therapists was also granted, and she was given immediate access to the
therapist of her choice. [¶] On December 21, 2011, it was reported by her
roommates that [mother] had spanked her child, and used profanity towards her
child. When confronted on her behavior,
[mother] made threatening remarks . . . to her roommate. [She] was once again counseled on her
therapeutic contract, and informed if she violated the contract once more that
she would be discharged from treatment.
[¶] On January 4, 2012, it was
reported from her roommates that her daughter had wet the bed and [mother]
began cussing at her daughter . . . , and when the roommates
told [her] to stop cussing at her daughter, [she] proceeded to curse at
them. At this point, [mother] was
discharged from treatment. [¶]
. . . [¶] It is my clinical
opinion, as well as the treatment team[’]s, that [mother] would benefit from
continued residential treatment with the modification of entering treatment
without her children. Based on the level
of anger, hostility, and control issue that [she] exhibits, I believe she needs
to first work on deep seated issues stemming from her own childhood before she
will be capable of being an appropriate parent to her children.â€
Mother’s counselor at Prototypes
reported that mother was “out of control and it’s not healthy for the children
to be around her when she is acting like this.â€
DCFS reported that “[b]ased on the fact that mother . . . has
been spanking, cursing, and call[ing] her children names, after continuous
treatment at Prototypes; the Department has serious concerns regarding the
safety of the children. Overall, this
particular family can be categorized as being ‘high’ risk for future
abuse. Thus the Department believes that
continued detention and placement of the children is necessary to protect the
children’s safety.â€
The children were placed with a
maternal aunt. The aunt reported that
visits between mother and the children were “chaotic,†and mother found it
difficult to deal with the children at times.
Mother stated, “‘I don’t believe
that it is “good†idea for the children to be with m[e] right now and I think
that girls were returned to me too soon.
I really need to work on my own issues before the girls come back to me. I want the girls to stay with my sister,
until I finish my programs.’†Father
agreed that mother was “not ready to have the girls back.â€
On January 20, 2012, mother had a
positive toxicology test.
In February 2012 mother reentered
Prototypes. In April 2012 her counselor
reported mother had identified relapse triggers and was using coping skills,
maintained good attendance and participation with her various therapy groups,
and appeared active in her recovery.
Mother regularly tested negative for drugs and alcohol and attended
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings one or two times per week. She completed domestic violence and parenting
education classes, “parenting center vocational training,†and a “seeking
safety†curriculum, and received a certificate for active participation in
anger management classes. Monitored visits
with the children between February and April 2012 went well, and in May 2012
visitation was increased to unmonitored day visits on Prototypes grounds. These visits also went well, mother’s
counselor reporting that mother was learning how to implement her new parenting
skills. In July 2012 visitation was
increased to overnight visits from Saturday to Sunday. The counselor reported these were successful
and expressed no concerns about them.
The maternal aunt reported that the children seemed happy after the
visits and the children reported they enjoyed them and wanted to continue
visitation.
Mother nevertheless reported
sometime between February and July 2012 that she needed more time to work on
her sobriety and domestic violence, anger management, depression and parenting
needs prior to regaining custody of her children. She stated she would be ready to have the
children return to her care “within the next 6 months.â€
The children’s maternal aunt said
she would be interested in legal guardianship if they could not be reunified
with their parents.
At a six-month review hearing on
August 2, 2012, both mother and father sought family maintenance services and
return of L.T. and A.T. to their respective custody. Counsel for the children requested that they
be returned to mother in light of her substantial compliance with the case
plan, but DCFS recommended that they not be returned to mother until she
obtained transitional housing and stable employment, which the Department said
would occur in 30 days.
The juvenile court found that based
on mother’s compliance with the case plan, return of the children to her would
not create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection or
physical or emotional well being. It
ordered the prior placement order terminated, remanded the children to mother,
and ordered DCFS to continue family maintenance services. In the end, the court told mother, “Let me
make myself very clear. Let me make
myself very, very clear to you. If you
mess up one more time and I have to remove your children yet another time,
you’re not going to get them back by me.
[¶] Is that understood
. . . ?†Mother said, “Yes,
ma’am.â€
Father appeals from the order
returning the children to mother’s care.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the order returning
L.T. and A.T. to mother was unsupported by substantial evidence because as of
the date of the hearing neither the court nor DCFS had received a copy of the
psychiatric evaluation that was ordered back in September 2011 and which mother
purportedly underwent in December 2011.
Father argues that lack of a report on mother’s psychiatric evaluation,
and her lack of permanent transitional housing or employment, prevented the
juvenile court from returning the children to mother. We disagree.
Section 366.21, subdivision (e),
which governs six-month review hearings in dependency proceedings, provides in
pertinent part: “At the review hearing
held six months after the initial dispositional hearing . . . , after
considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the
return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal
guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a
substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child. The
social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.
. . . The failure of the
parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress
in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return
would be detrimental. In making its
determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report
and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate
appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or
progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent
to which he or she availed himself or herself to services provided, taking into
account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized,
detained, or deported parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those
court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child. [¶]
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal
guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the
return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall . . . order
any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the
child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian.â€
“The dependency scheme is based on
the law’s strong preference for maintaining family relationships whenever
possible. [Citations.] When a child is removed from parental
custody, certain legal safeguards are applied to prevent unwarranted or
arbitrary continuation of out-of-home placement. [Citations.]
Until reunification services are terminated, there is a statutory
presumption that a dependent child will be returned to parental custody.†(In re
Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.) As relevant here, section 366.21, subdivision
(e) requires the juvenile court at the six-month review hearing to return the
child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that return of the child would create a substantial risk of
detriment to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being.
“The Agency has the burden of
establishing detriment. [Citations.] The standard for showing detriment is ‘a
fairly high one. It cannot mean merely
that the parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the
reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable
than an available foster parent or other family member.’ [Citation.]
Rather, the 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. [Citations.]
[¶] In evaluating detriment, the
juvenile court must consider the extent to which the parent participated in
reunification services.
[Citations.] The court must also
consider the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the
conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement.†(In re
Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1400.) We review the record for
substantial evidence in support of the court’s determination. (Id.
at pp. 1400-1401.)
“‘“When the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, the reviewing
court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, evidence
which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of
the trier of fact. [Citation.] In making this determination, all conflicts
[in the evidence and in reasonable inferences from the evidence] are to be
resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of fact and credibility
are questions for the trier of fact.
[Citation.]â€â€™ [Citation.] While substantial evidence may consist of
inferences, such inferences must rest on the evidence; inferences that are the
result of speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.†(In re
Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258-1259.)
Here, the uncontroverted evidence
showed that mother substantially completed her case plan and has been sober for
approximately six months. The Prototypes
counselor reported that mother was committed to her treatment, that she appeared
to have benefitted from the services provided, and that she made changes in her
life that are in her children’s best interests.
Mother has acquired knowledge of positive parenting and is able to
employ anger management techniques. She
has stable and “appropriate†housing at a long-term shelter where she can
safely parent her daughters. In essence,
mother did everything DCFS asked of her, including eliminating the conditions
that led to the children’s out-of-home placement. Further, the children were happy with
mother’s improved behavior during regular visits. Nothing in the record indicates that mother
is incapable of adequately parenting the girls, and DCFS presented no specific
and objective evidence to show the children would suffer detriment, including
serious psychological or emotional injury, if they were placed with mother at
the Prototypes facility. The juvenile
court’s order returning the children to mother was thus supported by
substantial evidence.
Although father argues the trial
court’s order placing L.T. and A.T. with mother was unsupported by substantial
evidence, he omits from his argument any reference to evidence showing mother
complied with the case plan, including that she maintained good attendance and
participation with her various therapy groups, including anger management
classes, was active in her recovery, regularly tested negative for drugs and
alcohol, attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly, and completed
domestic violence and parenting education classes, vocational training, and a
“seeking safety†curriculum. Father
ignores that months of monitored and unmonitored visits with the children went
well and mother’s case manager at Prototypes reported mother had identified
relapse triggers, was using skills to cope with them, and was learning to
implement her new parenting skills. The
children seemed happy after visits with mother and reported they wanted
visitation to continue.
“An appellant must fairly set forth
all the significant facts, not just those beneficial to [himself].†(In re
S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 402.)
Here, father focuses only on the lack of a report detailing the results
of mother’s December 2011 psychological evaluation and cites only evidence
favorable to his position, ignoring all to the contrary. “Such briefing is manifestly deficient. [¶]
‘The rule is well established that a reviewing court must presume that
the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact, and an appellant
who contends that some particular finding is not supported is required to set
forth in his brief a summary of the material evidence upon that issue. Unless this is done, the error assigned is
deemed to be waived. [Citation.] It is incumbent upon appellants to state
fully, with transcript references, the evidence which is claimed to be
insufficient to support the findings.’
[Citations.]†(
877, 887-888.)
We need not further discuss the
evidence supporting the juvenile court’s orders because by failing to challenge
its sufficiency and failing to discuss the issue in any meaningful way, father
waives any challenge to its sufficiency.
(Foreman & Clark Corp. v.
Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881; Bullock
v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 677;
v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 765, 782.)
The
juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
