In re Justin V.























Filed 2/25/13 In re Justin V. CA

>

>

>

>

>

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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




>

In re JUSTIN V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B242145 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK86485)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINDA L., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court of the County
of Los
Angeles, Philip Soto, Judge.
Affirmed.

Linda Rehm,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John
F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen
D. Watson, Senior Associate County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

>

L.L. (mother), the mother of minor J.V. (the minor),
appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition orders removing custody of minor
from mother and requiring monitored visitation with the minor to take place in
a therapeutic setting. According to
mother, there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal and the order
requiring a therapeutic setting for visitation was an abuse of discretion.

We hold
that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s removal
order and that the order requiring a therapeutic setting for visitation was not
an abuse of discretion. We therefore
affirm the disposition orders from which mother appeals.



FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND



On February 9, 2011, the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] alleging, inter alia, that
father and mother had subjected the minor to emotional abuse due to an ongoing
custody dispute between the two. That
same day, the juvenile court found a prima facie case, detained the minor, and
released him to mother. The juvenile
court ordered no visitation for father, but gave DCFS the discretion to
liberalize that order to monitored visitation in a therapeutic setting. The juvenile court also ordered an Evidence
Code section 730 evaluation of father, mother, and the minor.

On April 5, 2011, the juvenile court
sustained the allegation in paragraph c-1 of the petition alleging that father
and mother had emotionally abused the minor.
The juvenile court declared the minor a dependent of the court, removed
him from father’s custody, released him to mother, ordered href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">family maintenance services, individual
counseling, and conjoint counseling with the minor for mother. The juvenile court also ordered individual
counseling for the minor and reunification services and monitored visits for
father.

On or about
October 3, 2011, Dr. Sandra
Hah, a psychiatrist, submitted to the juvenile court her Evidence Code section
730 evaluations of father, mother, and the minor. Dr. Hah provided the following diagnoses and
recommended treatments: “1. As to the minor, the data is consistent with
a diagnosis of Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified and Mood Disorder Not Otherwise
Specified. He clearly suffers from
anxiety and mood dysregulation related to parental conflict and the uncertainty
of custody arrangements. Additionally, a
diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a possibility. [¶]
2. As to the mother, the data is
consistent with a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, although allegations of domestic violence have not been
verified. [Mother] minimized some of the
symptoms so she did not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of Major Depressive
Disorder but it is a possibility.
[¶] 3. As to the father, his history is consistent
with a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse although Alcohol Dependence cannot be ruled
out. In addition, [father] has issues
with anger and hostility which are significant, although there is no formal
diagnosis of such. [¶] 4. The
minor, [J.V.], would benefit from either individual psychotherapy, play
therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or a combination of all three. If his anxiety or mood symptoms worsen, he
may benefit from antidepressant medications such as selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors (SSRI’s).
Additionally, the minor should continue to have regular social
activities with peers and access to positive role models and mentors, both male
and female. Finally, it would be helpful
for the minor to be in family counseling with his mother and/or father to
facilitate working through situations of intense conflict and to help establish
healthy boundaries between mother and minor, and father and minor. [¶]
5. The mother, [L.L.], would
benefit from individual psychotherapy and more regular attendance at her
current domestic violence support group.
Additionally, it may help her feel more empowered as a single parent to
take parenting classes, particularly ones that are more focused toward setting
personal boundaries with children and decreasing enmeshment. [Mother] should continue to seek peer
friendship and support (as she has found in church groups), and minimize
isolation of herself and her son.
Finally, it is recommended that [mother] attend co-parenting therapy
with the father, [J.V.], to address issues of extreme hostility and conflict,
so they can positively and cooperatively rear their child, [J.V.]. [¶]
The father, [J.V.], would benefit from an outpatient alcohol treatment
program or a group, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as individual
psychotherapy. If his drinking behavior
worsens, as intensive inpatient treatment facility would likely be the most
appropriate form of alcohol treatment.
It is also recommended that he enroll in anger management classes, in
particular ones with special attention to domestic violence issues. It is also recommended that [father] attend
parenting classes that have a focus towards re-establishing trust and
connection with a child. Finally,
[father] is recommended to engage in co-parenting therapy with the minor’s
mother, [L.L.]. As stated above, the
objective of this therapy is to work through high conflict and hostility in
order to learn how to co-parent the minor, [J.V.], in a healthy and positive
manner.”

On March 29, 2012, DCFS filed a section
387href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] petition alleging that the
“previous disposition had not been effective in the protection or
rehabilitation of the [minor].”
Specifically, DCFS stated the following in paragraphs s-1 and s-2 of the
petition: “s-1. The child’s mother [L.L.] created a
detrimental home environment for the child [J.V.] by emotionally abusing the
child. Such emotional abuse consisted
of, but is not limited to, the continued custody issues, visitations for the
father [J.V.] and the continuing disparagement of the father and other maternal
relatives to the minor, to the extent that the child has been emotionally
isolated from the father and other relatives.
Such conduct on the part of the child’s mother [L.L.] places the child
at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as evidenced by
severe anxiety, depression and withdrawal that the child displays. [¶] s-2. On numerous occasions, the child’s mother
[L.L.] has displayed mental and emotional problems including, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder. Further, on prior
occasions the child’s mother [L.L.] has not provided continuous Mental Health
services for herself or her son. Due to
the mother’s limitations, the mother is unable to provide regular mental health
care for her son. Such mental and
emotional condition on the part of the mother endangers the child’s physical
and emotional health and safety and places the child/children at risk of future
physical and emotional harm and damage.”

In the
accompanying March 29, 2012, detention report, a childrens’social worker (CSW)
explained the reasons for the section 387 petition as follows: “This family came to the attention of DCFS on
11/17/2010 when a day referral alleged the [minor] was placed on a [section
5585] hold. [The minor] was hospitalized
on a [section 5585] hold on 11/17/2010, for reporting not wanting to visit
father and would kill himself or father and was diagnosed with major depression. Prior to discharge, [the minor] was taken
from the hospital/Alhambra BHC by mother against medical advice on 11/21/2010. The family has had 17 prior investigations
with the department and a Voluntary Family Maintenance Case with the
department. All of the family’s prior
referrals with DCFS . . . relate [to] the parents conflict with
one another. Mother and father have been
divorced for the past 10 years. During
this time the parents have been in battle with one another utilizing the Family
Law Court System which has been detrimental to the [minor’s] well being. [¶]
Mother has continued to be resistant to mental health services both for
herself and her son. [The minor] has met
with Department of Mental Health [(DMH)] staff Ms. Keyondria Bunch PhD., yet
only in the presence of . . . mother.
[The minor] continues to report that he is scared of . . . father and
that father will hurt him. Numerous
attempts have been made to link [the minor] and mother with services. Previously, mother has stated that she does
not wish to receive services through DMH, instead she previously wanted to take
[the minor] for treatment at Glen Roberts Child Study Center where she reported
to have been denied in November due to insufficient medical coverage. CSW and DMH have also tried to refer mother
to full Service Partnership yet mother refuses in home services. Department of Mental Health continues to
express concern for [the minor] with strong recommendation that mother and [the
minor] follow through with mental health assessment and treatment. Measures are to be taken to ensure this
follow through with continued Department of Children and Family Services to
ensure that the [minor] is in a stable, consistent, and supportive environment
that will support and facilitate continued mental health treatment, attendance
in school, and appropriate choice in [the minor’s] daily functioning. Family law court appointed [the minor’s]
attorney Sandra Etue reported ongoing child alienation issues on behalf of
mother and [the minor] reporting to her on many occasions to be fine with
visiting with father and reporting understanding that mother does not want [the
minor] to visit with father or any other member of her own family. Mother has alienated herself and the [minor]
from all maternal family members for perceived slights and alienation with the
father. Mother’s alienation of these
family members has eliminated valuable family support to [the minor], who
previously ha[d] good existing relationships with [his] [maternal grandfather]
and uncle. Mother’s continued anxiety and
paranoia has caused the [minor] undue stress, confusion and symptoms of
depression. This has caused vicarious
traumatization to the [minor] and places him at risk for several mental health
distortions and cognitions requiring intensive mental health intervention. As to the Family Law Court minute order dated
02/01/2011, Family Law Court found that it is not in the [minor’s] best
interest to exclude father from [the minor’s] life.”

At the
March 29, 2012, detention hearing, the juvenile court found that DCFS had made
a prima facie case for detaining the minor and showing that a substantial
danger existed to the physical and emotional health of the minor. The juvenile court further found that there
were no reasonable means to protect the minor without removal from mother’s
home, that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need
for such removal, and that continuance in mother’s home was contrary to the
minor’s welfare. The juvenile court detained
the minor, removed him from mother’s custody, and ordered him placed with any
suitable relative. The juvenile court
also ordered monitored visitation for mother and father with a DCFS approved
monitor.

In the May
18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition report, a CSW reported that she interviewed
mother who told her the following:
“Mother stated that she does not isolate the minor. Mother stated that she refuses to allow
father to have contact with the minor due to his past actions and
behaviors. Mother stated that she
believes that her relatives are on father’s side and therefore has refused to
allow them to have contact. Mother
stated that she had only allowed her brother [J.L.] minimal contact. [¶]
Mother stated that she did acquire mental health services for the minor,
but had difficulties due to confusion about insurance and her inability to
continue to pay for services on her own.
Mother states that she does not have any mental health issues that she
needs to address.”

The CSW
also interviewed father and provided the following: “Father stated that mother has progressively
increased the minor’s isolation from father and the entire family since the
minor’s birth. Father states that he
believes that mother has increased the isolation because the minor is getting
older and is starting to ask more questions about why he cannot see his
family. Father reported that the
activities that mother allows the minor to participate in involve mother’s
constant presence. Father shared that he
is concerned about the mental state of the minor and hopes that the minor can
get the help that he needs. [¶] Father stated that mother has had mental
health issues for nearly a decade. Father
reported the several judges in Family Law court ordered mother to participate
in mental health services. Father stated
that he believes that mother is refusing to allow the minor to receive mental
health services because then mother would begin to lose her control over the
minor.”

According
to the CSW: “Mother and father continue
to have a caustic relationship despite the apparent anxiety and depression the
minor is experiencing. Despite the
detention and placement of the minor, mother continues to deny any mental
health issues that she may have or that the minor may have. This fact is concerning with regard to the
history that mother presents in only superficially acquiring mental health
services for the minor. Additionally,
during monitored visitation mother disparages father, the current caregiver,
maternal uncle [J.L.] and the maternal grandfather. Mother also—despite repeated attempts at
redirection from the CSW and DCFS monitors—continued to tell the minor that at
this court hearing the minor will return to her care. This combination of remarks makes the minor
visibly upset and causes the mother and minor to argue and become frustrated
with one another during the visits.
[¶] Father continues to exhibit
inappropriate anger towards the mother, [the] minor and this CSW. Mother reports that father is leaving
threatening voicemail on . . . mother’s home phone. Mother has yet to supply the voicemail and
therefore DCFS cannot confirm. Father
had stated that he ‘will go to the Jim’s (caregiver) business and demand to see
the [minor] if visits are not set-up.’
These acts continue to frighten the minor and cause the minor to grow
only more distant from the father.”

In a May
18, 2012, last minute information for the juvenile court, a CSW reported that
mother initiated individual counseling
in April 2012 and had attended four sessions.
The CSW further reported that mother had also enrolled at a counseling
center and attended eight sessions of parenting classes.

At the May
18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued the
hearing to June 5, 2012. In a June 5,
2012, last minute information for the juvenile court, a CSW reported that the
minor had been referred to the Department of Mental Health for an assessment
and referral to a service provider. An
assessment was scheduled for June 7, 2012.
As for mother, the CSW reported that mother continued to be enrolled in
individual counseling and had completed her parenting course. The CSW also reported that mother visited the
minor regularly but at times continued “to respond inappropriately to the
minor’s verbal and non-verbal signals as evidenced by mother’s refusal to
accommodate the minor’s schedule in planning visitation. During visitation mother . . . continued to
discuss case issues and continue[d] to disparage the current caregivers.” Moreover, based on statements made by mother,
the CSW believed that mother might leave the state with the minor.

At the June
5, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court admitted Dr.
Hah’s Evidence Code section 730 evaluations, the March 29, 2012, detention
report, the May 18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition report, the May 18, 2012,
last minute information, and the June 5, 2012, last minute information. The juvenile court also heard testimony from
the minor and mother, as well as the arguments of counsel. The juvenile court then found the allegations
in paragraphs s-1 and s-2 of the section 387 petition true and sustained the
petition. As to disposition, the trial
court found and ruled as follows:
“Having found the petition true, I will again declare the minor a
dependent under section 300 and find by clear and convincing evidence under WIC
[section] 361[, subsection] (C) there’s a substantial danger if the child were
returned home to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child, and there’s no reasonable means by which the
child’s physical health can be protected without removing the child from the
parents’ physical custody. [¶] Order that the minor be removed from the
parents with whom the child resided at the time the petition was filed. Reasonable efforts were made to prevent or
eliminate the need for removal from the home of the custodial parent. [¶]
Suitable placement orders are to continue in full force and effect. Placement with the maternal uncle is approved
of at this time. [S]o we’ll go ahead and
agree to have [the minor] placed there.
The Department will have discretion to place with any appropriate relative. [¶]
Case plans will be implemented for both mother and father as provided by
County Counsel. Mother is advised that
services need to be completed within the 12-month period, or if not, we could
terminate reunification services and go to a permanency plan where a plan of
adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care could be
implemented. [¶] If visits go out of the therapeutic placement
and move into a monitored or unmonitored placement, mother is advised and
warned that these visits are not to take place outside of the seven counties or
southern California, and she’s not to remove the child from the State of
California or the United States without prior court approval. Doing so could lead to a custody warrant for
the minor and possibly even an arrest warrant for the mother.”







>DISCUSSION

>

A. Standards of Review

Mother’s
challenge to the juvenile court’s order removing custody of the minor from her
is governed by a substantial evidence
standard of review. (In re Kristin H.
(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) Under
this standard of review, we examine the whole record in a light most favorable
to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court and defer to the lower
court on issues of credibility of the evidence and witnesses. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th
728, 733-734.) We determine only whether
there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that
supports the trial court’s order, resolving all conflicts in support of the
determination and indulging all legitimate inferences to uphold the court’s
order. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1
Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) And we may not
substitute our deductions for those of the trier of fact. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal. App.
3d 540, 547.) When the standard of proof
at the trial court is “clear and convincing evidence,” the court’s finding is
upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the court’s finding. (Crail
v. Blakely (1973) 8 Cal.3d 744, 750 [standard of clear and convincing
evidence for trial court and “was not intended as a standard for appellate
review”].)

Mother’s
challenge to the juvenile court’s order requiring her monitored visits to take
place in a therapeutic setting is governed by an abuse of discretion standard
of review. (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356.) “In an area analogous to the relative
placement issue—custody and visitation orders—the appropriate standard is abuse
of discretion. (Foster >v. Foster (1937) 8 Cal.2d 719,
730 [68 P.2d 719]; In re Marriage of
Carlson (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1330, 1337-1338 [280 Cal.Rptr. 840].) ‘The reviewing court must consider all the
evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary
conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. [Citation.]
The precise test is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude
that the trial court order advanced the best interests of the child. [Citation.]
We are required to uphold the ruling if it is correct on any basis,
regardless of whether it is the ground relied upon by the trial judge. [Citation.]’
(In re Marriage of Carlson, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p.
1337.) The trial court is accorded wide
discretion and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent ‘a
manifest showing of abuse.’ (Gudelj> v.
Gudelj (1953) 41 Cal.2d 202, 208 [259 P.2d 656].)” (In re
Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th
1057, 1067.)



>B. Removal
from Mother’s Custody

Mother
contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s
order removing custody of the minor from her.
According to mother, the evidence showed that nothing had changed since
the juvenile court’s original disposition order that gave custody of the minor
to mother and therefore removal was not warranted.

The
juvenile court removed custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c) which
provides in pertinent part: “(c)
A dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of his or
her parents or guardian or guardians with whom the child resides at the time
the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and
convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs
(1) to (5), inclusive, and, in an Indian child
custody proceeding, paragraph (6):
[¶] (1) There is or would be a
substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there
are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected
without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s physical
custody. . . . The court shall consider, as a reasonable
means to protect the minor, the option of removing an offending parent or
guardian from the home. The court shall
also consider, as a reasonable means to protect the minor, allowing a
nonoffending parent or guardian to retain physical custody as long as that
parent or guardian presents a plan acceptable to the court demonstrating that
he or she will be able to protect the child from future harm.”

There was
evidence that circumstances had changed since the time of the original
disposition order, which change warranted the removal order. That evidence included Dr. Hah’s evaluations,
which provided that mother suffered from general anxiety and posttraumatic
stress disorders and the minor suffered from anxiety and mood disorders. According to Dr. Hah, mother and the minor
both needed individual and conjoint counseling, but mother continually failed
to attend counseling and failed to arrange it for the minor. There also was evidence that mother isolated
the minor from father and her own relatives, conduct which was detrimental to
the minor’s anxiety and mood disorders.
And, a CSW reported concerns that mother might take the minor out of
state in order to avoid compliance with the case plan put in place at the
original disposition hearing.

That evidence was sufficient to
support a reasonable inference that continuing in mother’s custody would be
detrimental to the minor’s emotional well being. There was evidence that despite having been
afforded almost a year to comply with the case plan and obtain needed
counseling for herself and the minor, mother refused to comply and denied
needing any sort of counseling. There
was evidence supporting the removal order as necessary to ensure that the minor
received the recommended and court-ordered counseling and, given mother’s
refusal to comply with the case plan, there were no other reasonable means to
protect the minor’s mental health.



C. Monitored
Visits in Therapeutic Setting

Mother
argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that her
visitation with the minor take place in a therapeutic setting. According to mother, there was no evidence
demonstrating that a therapeutic setting was necessary for visitation.

As
discussed above, the juvenile court’s visitation order is reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard. Under that
standard, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have concluded from
the evidence that visitation in a therapeutic setting was in the minor’s best
interests. The evidence showed that,
despite being afforded almost a year to obtain counseling for herself and the
minor, mother continually refused to comply with that requirement in the
original disposition order. Thus, the
therapeutic setting requirement was rationally related to ensuring that the
needed counseling would take place.
There was also evidence, based on the CSW’s concern, that mother might
leave the state with the minor, and therefore the therapeutic setting was a
rational means for preventing mother from absconding with the minor. And, the juvenile court granted DCFS
discretion to liberalize the conditions on visitation if mother demonstrated
that she was willingly complying with the case plan. There was sufficient evidence to support the
conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
visitation in a therapeutic setting.



DISPOSITION



The
disposition orders of the juvenile court from which mother appeals are affirmed.

NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS









MOSK,
J.





We concur:







ARMSTRONG,
Acting P. J.







KRIEGLER,
J.