In re Joseph B.
Filed 1/9/14 In re Joseph B. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re JOSEPH
B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANGELO B. et
al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
D064328
(Super. Ct. No. CJ1118)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
San Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie
A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
Angelo B.
Rosemary
Bishop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
Jamie M.
Thomas
E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E.
Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Angelo
B. and Jamie M., the parents of Joseph B., appeal the juvenile court's
jurisdiction and disposition order under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).
left Angelo following a fight between Jamie and Angelo. Joseph was detained in protective custody
after Jamie checked herself in to a mental
that she had thoughts of harming Joseph. The court determined removal was necessary and
it would be detrimental to place Joseph with either parent based upon evidence
of mental health issues, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Angelo challenges the jurisdictional finding
that he had been unable to protect and supervise Joseph and further challenges
the dispositional finding in which the court declined to place Joseph with
Angelo. Jamie contends there is no
substantial evidence to support the court's finding that it would be
detrimental to return Joseph to her care, claiming her
stabilized. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.
Detention
In
January 2013, when Joseph was 11 months old, Jamie, checked herself into a mental
health facility reporting she had thoughts of hurting Joseph. Jamie has a history of mental illness
including a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder
requiring medication, which she had not been taking for several months.
Joseph
came to the attention of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency
(Agency) after the Agency's child abuse hotline received a report that Jamie
and Joseph had recently moved to San
Diego, perhaps to get away
from the baby's father. The report
indicated that friends watched Joseph because they were scared of what Jamie
would do. Jamie had dropped Joseph off
in a carrier at a childcare parking lot.
She had also been kicked out of her mother's home and they had stayed in
several places where drugs were used.
The referral stated that Jamie could not cope with the baby and had
thoughts of wanting to physically harm him.
Jamie
reported to the investigating social worker that her relationship with Joseph's
father, Angelo, was very abusive. Angelo
would come home high on methamphetamine or alcohol and would hit her and force
her to have sex with him. She reported
that Angelo beat her up in front of her older daughter.
Jamie
and Joseph lived in Nevada with Angelo until June of 2012 when Jamie was escorted from the
property by the sheriff following an incident of domestic violence, which Jamie
said occurred because she would not allow Angelo to have sex with her. After this incident, she and Joseph ended up
living out of her car. Jamie felt
overwhelmed and had not taken her medications since October 2012 because she
was not able to provide an address for Medicaid benefits. Jamie admitted to a history of substance
abuse, including use of methamphetamine within recent months.
When
Jamie's cousin learned that Jamie and Joseph were homeless, she invited them to
stay with her. Jamie arrived in California at the
end of December 2012, but had left Joseph in the care of a friend until she could
stabilize her mental health. The cousin
drove to Las Vegas, Nevada, to get the child. The
cousin reported she was concerned that Jamie would go back to Nevada and resume
a relationship with Angelo.
Joseph
was detained in protective custody due to Jamie's unstable mental health and because
there was concern she would flee with Joseph to resume a violent and
dysfunctional relationship with Angelo.
Jamie
reported having a hard time connecting with the child and feeling a lot of
resentment towards him. She saw him as a
reminder of a bad relationship and the product of someone who abused and raped
her for years. However, she also
reported that she loved Joseph, he was her hope, and she felt that she would
not have a purpose to live without him.
The social worker confirmed domestic
violence episodes with Angelo. In
September 2010, both Jamie and Angelo were arrested for domestic battery on
each other. Angelo stated he obtained a
temporary restraining order against Jamie.
In March 2011, Angelo's brother called sheriff deputies reporting Angelo
forcibly entered a home and began fighting the residents. Earlier, Angelo had fought with his brother,
grabbed his neck and tried to strangle him, but Ryan, one of the residents,
intervened. Ryan also intervened in a
fight between Jamie and another woman, putting Jamie in a chokehold. Angelo confronted Ryan about the incident and
fought with him. The brother reported
that every time Angelo drinks alcoholic beverages, he gets very violent.
The
Agency filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b). The detention report recommended Joseph be detained
because there was substantial danger to the physical and emotional health of
the child and there was no reasonable means by which he could be protected without
removing him from the parents' or guardians' physical custody. There was substantial evidence that Jamie was
likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court because Jamie wanted to return to Nevada to obtain
housing. Jamie had unresolved mental
health issues and had been both a victim and perpetrator in domestic violence.
II.
Detention Hearing
Since
the child had lived out of state within the prior six months, the court
exercised emergency jurisdiction over the child at the detention hearing and
indicated it would make an inquiry under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.).
At
the January
24, 2011 hearing, the court found the
Agency made a prima facie showing that Joseph was a child described by section
300, subdivision (b), and that initial removal was necessary.
substantial danger to the physical health of the child and there was no
reasonable means to protect his physical or emotional health without removing
him from parental custody. The court
ordered the Agency to evaluate Jamie's cousin's home for placement. If Joseph was to be placed with the cousin, the
court gave the social worker discretion to allow Jamie to reside in the home,
but in a supervised setting, and only if Jamie was actively engaged in
services.
III.
Jurisdictional Hearings
In
February 2013, Jamie supported placement with her cousin and "vehemently
expressed that she would not want [Angelo] to be considered for a possible
placement option." Angelo, however,
wanted Joseph placed with him and stated he could provide his son with a stable
and nurturing home. The Agency's
jurisdiction/disposition report informed the court Joseph had not yet been
placed with Jamie's cousin because Jamie was living in the home and she was not
actively engaged in services.
At
the February
14, 2013 hearing, Angelo appeared through
appointed counsel and entered a denial to the petition. The court ordered the Agency to provide
voluntary services to Angelo and allowed telephonic or Skype visitation. The court indicated it would make the
appropriate inquiry with Nevada regarding the UCCJEA and would set a special hearing regarding this
issue. After discovering that no
proceedings had been filed in Nevada regarding this child, the court proceeded with jurisdiction.
Jamie
later moved out of the cousin's home to accommodate Joseph's placement with the
cousin. He did well and Jamie had
liberal supervised visits.
In March 2013, the court found the
allegations in the petition true and sustained the jurisdictional allegations under
section 300, subdivision (b). The court
noted that disposition was contested by both parents. The Agency recommended that Joseph remain
placed with the cousin and that Jamie receive reunification services, but live
out of the home. Jamie asked that she be
allowed to move into the home with Joseph or that the child be placed with the
cousin. Because Angelo requested custody,
the Agency requested an expedited evaluation of Angelo's home pursuant to the
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). (Fam. Code, § 7901
et seq.).
IV.
Hearings
title="">[6]
A.
While Jamie participated in services
for several months, Jamie sent a number of concerning text messages in April 2013
indicating she intended to kill herself.
In May, she moved back to Las
Vegas, Nevada. She now hoped Joseph would
be placed with Angelo.
In
a May home interview, a Nevada social worker reported that Angelo initially stated
he had been sober since 2010, but then admitted to drinking at least a "six-pack
a week." The social worker also
observed that he appeared anxious and exhibited symptoms similar to withdrawal
symptoms, such as tics and sweating profusely.
B.
When
the contested disposition hearing proceeded in June 2013, Angelo admitted he had
three convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) in the 1990's, the
third being a felony. In 2002 his
probation was revoked after he tested positive for methamphetamine and he
served 16 months in prison.
He
claimed he went to a voluntary treatment program for 28 days when he worked for
a commercial airline in Texas. He also said he participated
in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, but he stopped attending AA meetings in
2005 claiming he had not had anything to drink for eight years.
He
was convicted of a misdemeanor DUI in Las Vegas in
2009. He claimed he had his grandmother's
prescription pain medicine when he was pulled over. However, he obtained the DUI after he tested
positive for marijuana. He was placed on
a three-year probation, which again required classes.
Angelo
admitted he told the Nevada social worker that he drinks "a six-pack a week." He testified, however, that he only drinks three
or four drinks when he goes to karaoke.
He denies drinking and driving and denies that he drinks when the
children are around. During the same
interview in Nevada, Angelo reported for the first time that he had been treated for
bipolar disorder and last took medication for that condition in 2004.
Angelo was arrested for domestic
violence with Jamie in 2010 in which they both claimed to be the victim. Angelo was also arrested following the
altercation with his brother in March 2011.
He pleaded to a lesser charge and paid a fine.
Angelo
asked the court to place Joseph with him arguing that he did not do anything
wrong to have Joseph kept from him. He
believed he was in the best position to take care of Joseph and he has a
support system. If given custody of
Joseph, he could bring Joseph to work with him at his mother's real estate
office, where other relatives would care for him or he would put Joseph in
daycare.
Angelo
testified that if Joseph was placed in his care, he would be willing to refrain
from the use of alcohol or controlled substances, participate in AA or
Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings and participate in random drug testing.
Angelo
was aware that Jamie moved back to Nevada and he had
no problem with Jamie having visits. Angelo testified he speaks to Jamie all the time
by phone or by text. He socialized with
her since she returned to Nevada. She has a job and he helped
her out with a place to stay.
Angelo
planned to go to Texas during the summer to stay with his ex-wife and Joseph's
half-brother and two half-sisters while the kids were out of school. He also wanted to assist his daughter, who
has cerebral palsy, after a scheduled surgery.
He denied that there would be any domestic violence issues between him
and his ex-wife.
The
court found it would be detrimental to place Joseph with Jamie. While Jamie did actively participate in
voluntary services, the court was concerned that she moved back to Las Vegas and
removed herself from services and assistance.
The court was also concerned about the suicide threats, which suggested Jamie
was not able to provide stable and protective care for her child.
The
court also found it would be detrimental to place Joseph with Angelo at the
time, but requested additional information to consider Angelo's placement request. The court based its finding on Angelo's
significant substance abuse history including a series of DUI's that the court
described as "very troubling and clearly escalating."
The
court also found detriment based upon Angelo's history of domestic violence
with Jamie, including an incident of violence in the presence of a child. The court stated, "What is particularly
concerning to the court is what I assessed, after having watched father on the
stand, is his lack of insight of his role in terms of the domestic violence. The reports before the court are quite
clear. Father blanketly denies—and I
have concerns about his credibility at this point—that he was ever physical
with mother, that he hit mother, although, she had very significant bruising,
and reported on more than one occasion that father had been violent towards
her. [¶] Father's assessment of this was that he was,
essentially, the victim at all times, and would, essentially, allow her back in
. . . his life. The reason I
find this troubling as to the question of placement today of Joseph with the
father is that nothing has been addressed with respect to father's view of
domestic violence. [¶] And while he gave the court some explanations
. . . generally how domestic violence can impact a child, he does not seem to
have an awareness about protecting himself and his role in terms of protecting
Joseph. [¶] Moreover, the court also has concerns about
the father's ability to accurately assess mother's situation. And even when he thinks that she is in a mental
health crisis, he continues to engage with her."
The
court was also concerned that Jamie and Angelo were now living in proximity to
each other again and were communicating.
The court concluded it had real concerns, "based on the record
before me today, that there is not a protective system in place such that
Joseph could be put with father, can be protected from domestic violence,
verbal and otherwise between the parents."
The
court ordered Angelo be drug tested, he enroll in a domestic violence program,
and his case plan include a full substance abuse assessment. The court also wanted additional information
about services available to Jamie and what services might be available to
Angelo in Texas if he went there for an extended visit. The court continued the disposition hearing for
this additional information.
C.
Prior to the next hearing, Jamie submitted
information indicating she was accessing services in Nevada, she was no
longer homeless, and she had a weekly income. The social worker noted that,
based on recent telephone conversations, Jamie's mental health appeared to be
stabilized. She was more lucid and
routinely expressed interest in Joseph's well being. The social worker, however, wanted to speak
with Jamie's psychiatrist before recommending unsupervised visits.
Angelo
completed a chemical dependency assessment in Texas, which
indicated he meets the criteria for dependence, but that he is in sustained
remission. He also submitted to random
drug testing, which was negative. Angelo
was enrolled in, but had not yet started, a domestic violence program in Texas. The Nevada report made
the home study contingent on completion of a drug and alcohol evaluation, a
mental health evaluation and proof of employment.
D.
At
the continued hearing on July 23, 2013, Angelo was living
in Texas with his ex-wife and their children. He was getting paid by Texas to act as a
caregiver for his special needs daughter.
While he and his ex-wife were discussing getting back together, there
were no immediate plans for reunification.
Jamie
now opposed placement with Angelo because he was not living in Nevada and she was
concerned that Angelo needed to obtain the services recommended by the Agency. She also requested reunification services
with Joseph.
The
court denied Angelo's request for reconsideration of the detriment
finding. While the court commended
Angelo for the steps he had taken, the court indicated that the same concerns
existed as they did at the contested jurisdiction hearing and the court wanted
a completed ICPC evaluation. The court also
wanted confirmation of attendance at AA or NA meetings, as well as alcohol and
drug testing and reports regarding his domestic violence treatment.
The
court granted Angelo an extended visit with Joseph so that he could spend vacation
time with his half-siblings and could visit relatives, including his mother in Las Vegas. The court ordered that Joseph's visit with
his mother be supervised by someone other than Angelo.
The
court reiterated its findings for removing Joseph from Jamie and making a
detriment finding as to Angelo. The
court ordered the Agency to prepare a case plan for Angelo and an ICPC for
Jamie.
DISCUSSION
I.
Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional
Finding
A.
"A
dependency proceeding under section 300 is essentially a bifurcated proceeding.
The court first determines whether the
minor is a dependent child subject to the jurisdiction of the court within the
description set out in section 300. . . . [¶] Once the court has determined the minor is a
person described by section 300 and has assumed jurisdiction it 'shall then
proceed to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made
of the minor . . . .' (§ 356.)
. . . Before a dispositional order which awards custody to
a nonparent without the consent of the parents can be rendered, there must be a
clear and convincing showing an award to the parents would be detrimental to
the child and that an award of custody to a nonparent is essential to avert
harm to the child and required to serve the best interests of the child." (In re
Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 535, italics omitted.)
At
the jurisdiction phase, under section 355, subdivision (a), the Agency is
required to " 'prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child who
is the subject of a petition comes under the juvenile court's jurisdiction.' " (In re
Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379.) "The basic question under section 300 is
whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the
defined risk of harm." (
1126, 1134.) For the court to exercise
jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be "evidence
indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial
risk of serious physical harm or
illness." (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)
"On
appeal, the 'substantial evidence' test is the appropriate standard of review
for both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. [Citations.]
The term 'substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is
evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (In re
J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.)
"It is the trial court's role to assess the credibility of the
various witnesses, to weigh the evidence to resolve the conflicts in the
evidence. We have no power to judge the
effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the
credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the
reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. [Citations.]
Under the substantial evidence rule, we must accept the evidence most
favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable evidence as not
having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact." (In re
Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
B.
Angelo
argues on appeal that there was no substantial evidence to support the jurisdictional
finding that he was unable to protect and supervise Joseph. Angelo did not raise this argument before the
juvenile court. Instead, at the
jurisdiction hearing, his counsel merely requested that the petition be amended
to strike the word "failed" from the petition, arguing that he did
make a report once he learned Joseph had been taken from Nevada. The court amended the petition as requested leaving
the allegations that Angelo had been unable to protect and supervise
Joseph. The court sustained the petition
and made a true finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). Angelo's acquiescence waived his right to
claim error as a basis for reversal on appeal.
(In re N.M. (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 159, 166 ["It is well settled that attacks on the legal
sufficiency of a petition cannot be made for the first time on appeal"];
see also In re Marriage of Hinman (1997)
55 Cal.App.4th 988, 1002 [" 'An appellate court will ordinarily not
consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings . . . where an objection could
have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate
method. [Citations.]' [Citation.]
Failure to object to the ruling or proceeding is the most obvious type
of implied waiver"].)
Even
if Angelo did not forfeit the right to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence regarding jurisdiction, he cannot prevail on such a claim. The purpose of dependency proceedings is to
protect children, not to punish the parents.
"Therefore, the court takes jurisdiction over children (§ 300); it
does not take jurisdiction over parents. Moreover, the court has jurisdiction over the
children if the actions of either parent
bring the child within one of the statutory definitions in section 300. [Citation.] The court gains jurisdiction over a parent
when the parent is properly noticed. [Citation.]" (In re
Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202, italics added.)
In
this case, Angelo does not dispute that the Agency properly sought detention of
Joseph when Jamie was in a state of distress.
At the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the court had information
regarding Jamie's unresolved mental health issues as well as her history of substance
abuse and domestic violence charges. This
alone was sufficient for the court to take jurisdiction over the child.
In
addition, however, there was evidence that Angelo was unable to protect or
supervise Joseph. Jamie's reports of
domestic violence at the hands of Angelo were confirmed by police reports, and an
order from another court prohibiting Angelo from having contact with Jamie
during visits with her daughter.
Additionally, the Agency expressed concern about placement with Angelo
due to his criminal history.
Angelo
argues that he "took appropriate steps when mother left the state with
Joseph" by filing a report with child welfare officials in Nevada in December
and by "refus[ing] to continue his relationship with mother, due to her
behavior." However, as the court
pointed out, there is no indication that Angelo intervened to care for or
protect Joseph during the months that Jamie and Joseph were homeless in Nevada when they
were bouncing from house to house. It also
does not appear that Angelo came to see the child until March 2013, months
after he was detained.
Based
upon the record in this case, we conclude there was substantial evidence to
support the court's jurisdictional finding.
II.
Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's
Dispositional Finding
A.
"After
the juvenile court finds a child to be within its jurisdiction, the court must
conduct a dispositional hearing.
[Citation.] At the dispositional
hearing, the court must decide where the child will live while under the court's
supervision." (In re N.M., supra, 197
Cal.App.4th at p. 169.) "A removal
order is proper if based on proof of a parental inability to provide proper
care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the child if he or she
remains with the parent.
[Citation.] 'The parent need not
be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is
appropriate. The focus of the statute is
on averting harm to the child.'
[Citation.] The court may
consider a parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances." (Id. at
pp. 169-170.)
"Before
the court issues a removal order, it must find the child's welfare requires
removal because of a substantial danger, or risk of danger, to the child's
physical health if he or she is returned home, and there are no reasonable
alternatives to protect the child.
[Citations.] There must be clear
and convincing evidence that removal is the only way to protect the child." (In re
N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at
p. 170.)
While
the parents emphasize the requirement for the juvenile court to find "clear
and convincing" evidence of detriment before ordering removal at a disposition
hearing, this is not the standard applied on appeal. We again apply the substantial evidence rule
to review the court's factual determination regarding disposition. As we have explained, " 'on appeal
from a judgment required to be based upon clear and convincing evidence, "the
clear and convincing test disappears . . . [and] the usual rule of conflicting
evidence is applied, giving full effect to the respondent's evidence, however
slight, and disregarding the appellant's evidence, however strong." [Citation.]'
[Citation.] 'We have no power to
judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence [or] to
consider the credibility of witnesses . . . .' " (In re
Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580-581, fn. omitted.)
As
with the jurisdiction finding, the evidence supports the disposition finding. The record shows that the court carefully
considered the evidence and weighed the credibility of the witnesses in making
its determination that it would be detrimental to place Joseph with either
parent at the time. We agree with the
juvenile court that it is commendable that both parents have accessed services
and appear to be making strides to improve their situations. However, at the time of the disposition
hearings, the court had serious ongoing concerns about the ability of either
parent to protect and care for Joseph.
B.
Unlike in Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1751, where
a therapist had only vague concerns about parenting insights, in this case Jamie
has a documented mental illness that requires medication and treatment. While she did seek treatment, she left California without
completing that treatment and her therapist expressed concern about her mental
health and the ability for her to provide a safe residence for Joseph. This along with the fact that she sent a series
of suicide notes before moving back to Nevada was substantial
evidence to support the court's conclusion that Jamie was significantly
unstable to provide stable and protective care for Joseph at the time. The fact that Jamie has since accessed care
in Nevada and appears to have had some success in stabilizing her mental
health is positive and may lead to reunification, but that issue is not before
us.
C.
With
regard to Angelo, the court acknowledged that under section 361.2 it was required
to consider placement with him as the noncustodial parent unless it found by
clear and convincing evidence that placement with that parent would be "detrimental
to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (In re
Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.) The court made this finding and it is
supported by substantial evidence.
The
record supports the court's concern about Angelo's long history of substance
abuse, going back to his teens, and dependency upon multiple substances, which
led to criminal behavior and interfered with his ability to maintain
employment. The court had justifiable
concerns that even after three DUI convictions, Angelo violated his probation
by testing positive for methamphetamine.
Then, after serving time in prison for the violation, he again tested
positive for driving under the influence of marijuana. While Angelo claims he has been sober since
2010, he disclosed to a Nevada social worker that he still engages in social drinking every week
while playing games or going to bars.
The
Legislature recognizes that providing children with "a home environment
free from the negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for
the safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being of the child." (§ 300.2.) It is for this reason that the court properly
required Angelo to participate in a complete substance abuse assessment as well
as drug and alcohol testing and documentation of his participation in AA and NA
meetings.
The
record also supports the court's finding based upon concerns about domestic
violence. While Angelo suggested that
the incidents of domestic violence with Jamie were due to her mental health
issues and that he was the victim, the court did not find his testimony
credible. Even if his testimony were to
be believed, the court found it troubling that Angelo would continue to engage
with Jamie, particularly while he is seeking placement of the child. In addition, there was evidence that Angelo's
ex-wife left him after an incident where Angelo became physical and it scared
her enough to call the police. At the
time of the continued disposition hearing in July 2013, Angelo had not yet
started a domestic violence program.
Under
these circumstances, the court properly found detriment to place with Angelo and
ordered him to address both the domestic violence and substance abuse issues.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
indicated. An order under section 300 is
an appealable judgment. (§
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Jamie has an older
daughter from another marriage who lives with her father. Jamie had unsupervised visits with that
child until the girl's father reported Jamie was "losing it" during
visits. The judge in that case ordered
Jamie to continue with her medication, maintain sobriety and to not allow
Angelo around her daughter during visits.
