In re C.R.



















Filed 5/13/13 In re C.R. CA2/6











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION SIX




>

In re C.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	2d Juv. No. B245355 (Super. Ct. Nos. J1395601, J1395602) (Santa Barbara County)
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.W., Defendant and Appellant.

A.W., the mother of C.R.
and M.A., appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating her href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">visitation rights with her children after
the juvenile court terminated her family reunification
services. The href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services
(CWS) filed a juvenile dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300)
on October 11, 2011.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] We conclude, among other things, that the
court did not abuse its discretion in terminating visitation. We affirm.

FACTS

On October 6, 2011, a motorist saw M.A., A.W.'s
two-year-old son, on a sidewalk wearing only a diaper "near a busy traffic
road." A.W. had left him in the
care of C.R., her 10-year-old daughter, at a motel. After A.W. left the children unattended, C.R.
fell asleep and M.A. left the motel and went outside near traffic.

A law enforcement
officer contacted A.W. and asked her to "return to the motel." A.W. responded she "could not return
immediately." She "did not
appear to be concerned and did not seem to think there was a problem with the
arrangements she made for the children."


The conditions in the
motel room where the children had been living were "deplorable." A 30-gallon "bag of garbage" was
near one of the beds, the children were "unkempt" and had "no
clean clothes." The clothes they
had were "moist" and contained "mold." C.R., a fifth grader, had not attended school
regularly and had been "discharged from the school due to
absences . . . ."
A.W. had not taken C.R. or M.A. to any medical examinations since they
arrived in Santa Barbara County. When asked if the children "are up to
date on their immunizations," A.W. responded that she "cannot
remember."

CWS determined that
"[a]lthough transitional housing has been available and offered to the
family, the mother's lack of cooperation and unwillingness to follow [the]
shelters' rules has led to the termination of services." CWS placed the children in a "confidential
licensed shelter home." The
juvenile court found that the children were persons who came within Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300 and "[c]ontinuance in" A.W.'s home was
"contrary" to the children's welfare.

On November 17, 2011, CWS filed a
jurisdiction/disposition report stating that the children should be declared
"dependents" of the court, and A.W. should be offered family
reunification services. It prepared a
case plan requiring A.W. to, among other things: 1) "obtain and maintain the resources
necessary to provide her children with a safe and stable living
environment," 2) demonstrate her ability to "adequately parent her
children," and 3) "address her mental health needs" and attend
therapy sessions.

After a jurisdiction
hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of child neglect by A.W. as
alleged in the dependency petition were true.
It declared the children to be dependents of the court, and it found CWS
had prepared a reasonable case plan. It
ordered CWS to provide family reunification services to A.W.

In a May 2012 status
review report, CWS requested the juvenile court to terminate family
reunification services. It said A.W. did
not complete her case plan requirements.
A.W. failed to find employment and did not "pursue
employment." She did not complete
her parenting classes and did not comply with CWS's direction to attend therapy
sessions. She did not find housing. She was asked to leave a shelter because
"she was involved in an altercation with another resident." CWS said A.W. did not show an ability
"to adequately supervise and protect her children from harm, and provide
for their basic needs."

On June 28, 2012, the juvenile court terminated
family reunification services. It found
the "current situation" is "essentially the same as when the
children were removed." There was
no showing A.W. made progress in obtaining a stable home environment for the
children. It noted she made some efforts
to obtain counseling, but progress in that area "was not significant." In reviewing the services provided to A.W.,
the court found CWS used "their best efforts to help" her.

In October 2012, CWS
submitted an addendum report requesting the juvenile court to terminate A.W.'s
visits with the children because it was not in the children's "best
interest."

After an evidentiary
hearing, the juvenile court found, "[T]here is clear and convincing
evidence that visitation between the mother and children is contrary to the
children's safety and well-being. The
Court orders that pending the 366.26 hearing . . . there shall be no
further visitation."href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]

DISCUSSION

Substantial
Evidence

A.W. contends the
juvenile court erred because there is no substantial evidence to support the
court's findings on terminating visitation.
We disagree.

We view the record in
the light most favorable to the challenged order. We must draw all reasonable inferences from
the record in support of it. We do not
weigh the evidence, assess credibility or resolve conflicts on factual issues,
as that is exclusively the domain of the juvenile court. (In re
Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450-451.)

"Once reunification
services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the child for
permanency and stability." (>In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th
295, 309.) After the termination of
reunification services, the court must set a hearing (§ 366.26) to
"implement a permanent plan for the children." (Marilyn
H., at p. 309) "The court
shall continue to permit the parent . . . to visit the child pending
the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the
child." (§ 366.21, subd. (h).)

A.W. claims the record
does not support findings that visitation would be detrimental or contrary to
the children's best interests. We
disagree.

CWS noted that it had
provided "thirty-nine twice a week two-hour visits" for A.W. with her
children. But she missed 10 visits, and
for each missed visit, the children were transported to the area and "were
left waiting for [A.W.] to arrive to a visit that was not going to
happen." A.W. was "over forty
minutes late" to four visits and 15 minutes late to five other
visits. For these supervised visits, the
CWS case aide "went out of her way to help [A.W.] by picking her up at
different bus stops" to "help facilitate the visits." In April 2012, A.W. requested the visits be
reduced to only once a week even though her CWS case worker advised her this
reduction would be "detrimental to her and her children." In May, A.W. requested twice a week
visits.

After the juvenile court
terminated family reunification services, the court reduced the visits to once
a month. A.W. went to three visits, but
cancelled her October 12, 2012, visit.
C.R. "expressed disappointment" and told the CWS worker that
she was "sad" A.W. "did not come for the visit."

The CWS case aide
documented that the visits "were often chaotic" and A.W. "did
not always come prepared." A.W.
disobeyed instructions by her CWS worker and the case aide. They told her not to bring "sugary
drinks, cookies, and candy." But
A.W. brought these prohibited foods to the visits. She also was not prepared and forgot to
"bring items to the visits."
As a result, the case aide had to drive A.W. to a market "which
decreased her visitation time."
A.W. asked the CWS case aide to watch M.A. while she shopped. The aide had to "continually"
remind her that she needed "to include both children during her visit
time." At various times, A.W.
"expected" C.R. "to supervise her brother." CWS noted that by doing this, A.W. was
"re-enforcing the parenting role" she had previously imposed on
C.R. During most visits, she spent time
with C.R. "and ignored" M.A.

CWS noted that A.W.
"was unable to provide appropriate
supervision for three-year old [M.A.] during
almost all of the visits." (Italics added.) On "more than one occasion," she
allowed M.A. "to run off towards busy streets, without trying to stop
him." This placed the child
"at imminent >risk of being hit by a car or
truck." (Italics added.) She allowed M.A. to be "alone in a
shopping cart at Wal-Mart" while she was two aisles away, "placing
him at imminent risk of either hurting himself, or allowing a stranger to
abduct or hurt her child." She did
not intervene when M.A. was playing "alone" too close to a "duck
pond at the park," which "could have resulted in drowning." She allowed M.A. "to play out of her
sight on different playgrounds without checking on him, placing him at risk of
being hurt or abducted." She did
not follow the recommendations of the CWS case aide on how to control M.A.'s
"frequent tantrums." She
ignored M.A. "when entering elevators or escalators." On one occasion, after hearing M.A. cry, she
had to "'jerk him by his sweatshirt hood' to prevent him from
falling."

CWS said M.A. has "emotional
dysregulation." After "visits
with [A.W.], he regresses, and throws
tantrums . . . ."
But "[a]fter a few days, these behaviors decrease." C.R. "began to appear withdrawn during
visits with [A.W.]." She was
"emotionally shut down during visits, and crying silently" because
A.W. did "not address her . . . emotional needs." CWS said that A.W.'s "inconsistent
visits throughout the past twelve months . . . [have] affected both
children emotionally." After a
visit with A.W., M.A. "will spend an entire weekend screaming, kicking,
and tantruming. His current home wants
to provide [M.A.] with stability . . . ." CWS determined that A.W.'s "inability to
provide consistent and stable parenting during visits is detrimental to [the
children's] emotional stability" and does "not benefit either
child."

A.W. contends the
juvenile court should have ordered psychological counseling. But CWS referred M.A. to a counseling
program. It attached a report from a
"staff clinician" of the Great Beginnings Program at "CALM"
who confirmed that M.A. had "difficulty regulating emotional states"
after "visitations with" A.W.
The court could reasonably infer this was consistent with CWS's
determination about the impact of the visits on the child's emotional
stability.

A.W. notes that she
testified that she missed visits because of transportation problems and C.R.
"was fine" during visits. But
the issue is not whether some evidence supports her position, it is whether substantial
evidence supports the judgment. Only the
trial judge may decide A.W.'s credibility.
(Lohman v. Lohman (1946) 29
Cal.2d 144, 149 ["a trial judge is not required to accept as true the
sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence directly
contradicting it"].) The juvenile
court's finding that "clear and convincing evidence" showed that
continued visitation "is contrary to" the children's "safety and
well-being" was a rejection of A.W.'s testimony. The evidence is sufficient.

We have reviewed A.W.'s
remaining contentions and we conclude she has not shown error.

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.









GILBERT,
P.J.

We concur:







YEGAN, J.







PERREN, J.



Arthur
J. Garcia, Judge



Superior
Court County of Santa Barbara



______________________________





David A. Hamilton, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Dennis A. Marshall,
County Counsel, Maria Salido Novatt, Sr. Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.