In re Luke H.
Filed 9/11/12 In re
Luke H. CA3
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento
----
In re LUKE H., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
C069827
(Super.
Ct. No. JD231552)
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEBORAH H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Deborah H., the
mother of 17-year-old Luke H., appeals from the findings and orders of the
County Juvenile Court adjudging Luke its dependent, removing him from
mother’s custody, placing him with nonrelated extended family member (NREFM)
Catherine A., and designating her, rather than mother, as the holder of
Luke’s educational rights.
On appeal,
mother contends the juvenile court’s order designating Catherine A. as the
holder of Luke’s educational rights was an abuse of discretion. We shall affirm the findings and orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Originating Circumstances
In April 2011,
the Sacramento County Department of Health
and Human Services (the Department) received a referral from a mandated
reporter expressing grave concerns about Luke’s mental health related to
ongoing abuse and exploitation. The
reporter also expressed concern for Luke’s adopted siblings who reside in
mother’s home and suffer from various disabilities. In addition, the reporter expressed concern
that mother was unlawfully breeding and keeping a large number of dogs in a
room used by a disabled sibling.
An investigating
social worker met with Luke at the residence of his girlfriend. Luke reported that mother emotionally abuses
him in that she makes him stay home for no known reason, uses sleep deprivation
as punishment, yells at him for hours at a time, calls him “gay†or “butt
pirate,†accuses him of having been “butt buddies†with a deceased mentor,
makes fun of his having been conceived by artificial insemination, and jokes
about him not knowing his biological father.
During arguments, mother sometimes uses against Luke his previous suicide
attempt at age 10. When Luke is not
listening to mother, she routinely threatens to “5150†him, i.e., commit him
involuntarily to a mental health facility.
abuse, he has irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), and other stress-related issues.
Luke explained that he did not feel safe with mother and, if forced to
return to her, he would kill himself.
The next day,
mother arrived at the residence of Luke’s girlfriend (the N. family) and
demanded that Luke enter her car so she could take him home. Social workers and police officers were
present. Mother was advised that Luke
did not feel safe with her and would hurt himself if returned to her care. Mother directed the social workers to get
Luke into her car or put him in protective custody; they chose the latter and
placed Luke at a receiving home.
Two days later,
mother agreed to a voluntary placement of Luke with the family of his best
friend, the F. family. Luke was released
from protective custody.
During a mental
health assessment, mother denied the allegations and believed that outside
influences on Luke had exacerbated “‘normal’†parent-teen conflicts. Specifically, mother believed the Department
and the family of Luke’s girlfriend had “‘undermined’†her parenting authority
and had worsened any problems that existed between her and Luke.
A mental health
assessment of Luke revealed that he felt significant distress while in mother’s
care due to chronic negative interactions with her. Mother’s style of communicating and
interacting is domineering and intrusive.
Luke perceived his home situation as intolerable and did not wish to
return to mother’s care until significant changes were made.
Shortly after
the assessment, mother returned Luke to her residence. She agreed to individual counseling for
herself and Luke, as well as family counseling.
However, mother
would not allow Luke to return to his 10th grade class at a private
school. Without seeking mother’s
approval, which he knew she would not give, Luke had obtained counseling under
the auspices of the school. According to
Luke, mother may have believed that, by doing so, Luke was undermining the
“commandment†that he “honor [his] mother.â€
Luke opined that mother was using his schooling as “leverage†and was
threatening to send him to a public school.
In late April
2011, Luke told social workers that mother had placed bells on his bedroom door
and allowed him to leave her sight only when using the bathroom. Since returning to her care, he needs to use
the bathroom often and has blood in his stool.
He believed his only options were suicide, absconding until age 18, or
returning to protective custody.
Luke’s counselor
reported that Luke often feels hopeless and powerless in his home environment
and has considered suicide as a means of escape. During his recent removal from mother’s
residence, his suicidal ideation had diminished but returned when placed back
at mother’s home.
On April 29,
2011, the juvenile court approved a protective custody warrant that was
executed the same day. Luke was returned
to the family of his best friend and expressed relief that he no longer was in
mother’s care.
Petition
On April 29,
2011, a petition was filed alleging that Luke came within Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c),
in that he was suffering serious emotional damage as a result of mother’s
conduct. The petition alleged that
mother degrades and belittles Luke, deprives him of sleep as a form of
punishment, yells at him for hours past his bedtime, threatens to “5150†Luke
if he does not listen to her, and engages in other excessively controlling,
humiliating, and exploitive behavior.
The petition alleged that, as a result, Luke suffered physical symptoms
including IBS, rashes, shingles, and blood in his stool.
Detention
At a detention
hearing in May 2011, the juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been
made that Luke comes within section 300.
Luke was ordered detained with the family of his best friend.
Contested Jurisdiction
At a contested
jurisdictional hearing in June 2011, the juvenile court sustained the section
300, subdivision (c) allegations. The
court found that Luke may suffer serious emotional damage as a result of
anxiety and depression.
Contested Disposition
In a June 2011
addendum to the jurisdiction/disposition report, the social worker noted that,
by mother’s own admission, she was not ready for Luke to return home. Mother believed they needed more counseling
to address their ongoing parent-teen issues.
The Department recommended that Luke remain in the home of his
friend.
Education
In a September
2011 addendum to the report, the social worker described a meeting with mother,
Luke, and his caregiver for the purpose of education planning. Mother stated she was willing to pay for Luke
to attend private school, which his girlfriend also would attend, but mother
insisted that Luke could not be on the student council, work as an office aide,
or take computer classes; and he must take only academic subjects, including
Spanish. Luke countered that Spanish was
too difficult for him and would ruin his grade point average. Mother told Luke he had a “‘good brain’†and could
learn Spanish, but she cautioned that he must get only A’s and B’s. Mother and Luke argued throughout the
majority of the meeting and Luke opined that mother was not acting in his best
interest. Ultimately, mother enrolled
Luke at a public school.
At the contested
dispositional hearing in November 2011, mother denied that she had refused to
allow Luke to return to private school as punishment for his obtaining therapy
without her consent. Instead, mother
claimed that, although “Luke is smart,†and she wanted him to go to college, his
“grades were suffering†at his private school, which “is very academically
challenging,†and mother “[didn’t] see how his grades [were] going to
improve.†She hoped Luke would “get
above a 3.0 grade point average†at the public school, which was “less challenging,
academically.†Mother offered no reason
to believe that college admission officials would be unfamiliar with the
schools or fail to account for their relative difficulty.
Mother testified
that the private school would pose a financial hardship in that her “income has
decreased by over 70 percent.†Mother
“had concerns about,†and evidently wanted to minimize, Luke’s contact with his
girlfriend who attended the private school.
Mother did not approve of Luke’s interaction with the girlfriend’s
mother, who had assisted Luke in making the decision to obtain the therapy he
believed he needed.
title="">[3] Mother testified that, “[a]s a parent, [she
could not] imagine sneaking a child to a counselor without the parent’s
knowledge or permission.†Mother
considered the relationship Luke had with his girlfriend’s mother to be
“bizarre†and “unusual.â€
Medical
At the contested
dispositional hearing, Luke testified that for three years mother had denied
that he had a bowel disorder, saying his complaints were attempts to get
attention and call her a bad parent. A
year prior to the hearing, mother relented because Luke was “throwing up blood
and pooping a lot of blood at football practice,†and the school refused to let
him do any physical activity until he saw a doctor. Mother took Luke to an emergency room, but
afterward she treated his abdominal disorder as a one-time occurrence and did
not take him for follow-up treatment.
In August 2011,
Luke was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease.
The next month, Luke suffered an infected rectal abscess and was taken
to a Sacramento medical center where it was determined he needed emergency
surgery. Using her parental control over
medical decisions, mother threatened to withhold her consent to necessary
medical treatment unless she could remain with Luke at his bedside; and unless
she, rather than his caretakers, could accompany him to San Francisco where the
surgery would be performed.
Due to mother’s
threats, Luke became afraid that he would not receive the necessary
treatment. He was crying when he spoke to
the social worker by telephone. He
reported that mother, who was allowed only supervised visits with him, had
visited for about an hour without supervision.
Mother stood over Luke and told him he was “under investigation†and
could “get locked up for life.â€
Mother followed
Luke to San Francisco and requested to stay in his hospital room even though he
did not want her there. Mother
threatened to leave San Francisco without signing medical documentation if she
could not be with Luke constantly.
As a result of
mother’s threats to withhold her consent to treatment, the Department obtained
from the juvenile court two orders authorizing emergency or nonroutine medical,
surgical, or dental care.
Mother told Luke
that she could halt his treatment, which was being funded by “ACCESS†or
Medi-Cal, simply by letting the hospital know that she had not followed through
on her plan to discontinue her private health insurance and still had coverage
through Kaiser.
Arguments of Counsel
In summation,
the Department asked that Luke remain in foster care and that mother receive
reunification services. The Department
argued Catherine A. lacked sufficient relationship with Luke to qualify as
a NREFM.
Luke’s counsel
requested that he be allowed to return to private school; that he be allowed to
visit the people who are important to him, who mentored him and helped him
obtain counseling; that mother not have educational rights; and that he be
placed with Catherine A., who would qualify as a NREFM.
Mother’s counsel
argued that mother had made educational decisions for Luke throughout his life
and would make decisions that are in his best interest. Mother’s counsel agreed with the Department
that Catherine A. does not rise to the level of a NREFM.
Court Ruling
In its ruling,
the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a
substantial risk Luke’s physical health and emotional well-being would suffer
if returned to mother. The court found
that mother “is not able to meet the educational needs of [Luke] and a
different person should be appointed to hold the educational rights.†The court found that, according to mother’s
testimony, she believes that Luke lies and thus she does not believe what he
says. Mother does not support Luke continuing
at the private school he has attended since kindergarten. Instead, she wants him to attend a public
school that is “remarkably different in all ways, and where he has no friends,
so he can get better grades.†Mother
believed that, because Luke lies to her, he no longer deserves to attend a
school with the standards of the private school.
The juvenile
court found that mother’s testimony “demonstrated what was already obvious from
the reports of the social workers, that she does not respect Luke’s feelings,
that all decisions about his life must be made by her, that if he does not
agree with his mother, her reaction is one of anger and punishment. [¶]
One need only read carefully the description of what transpired while
Luke was in the hospital, as contained in the fourth addendum report, to
understand the toxic nature of the emotional abuse.â€
The juvenile
court expressly found that Luke’s testimony was credible, that it was stressful
for him in mother’s home, and that he had had IBS for three years, which mother
ignored until he began throwing up blood and had blood in his stool. The court credited the testimony of Luke’s
treating physician that, although Crohn’s disease is not caused by stress, its
symptoms can be exacerbated by factors in a child’s environment such as lack of
adequate sleep, bad diet, and emotional stressors. The court found that mother’s “need to
dominate, manipulate, and control every aspect of the child’s life results in
stress to the child, which, ultimately, affects his physical well-being.†The court found that Catherine A.
qualified as a NREFM, and that placement in her home was in Luke’s best
interest. The court found that mother is
not able to meet Luke’s educational needs and authorized Catherine A. to
hold Luke’s educational rights.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends
an order limiting a parent’s educational rights is appropriate only where it
appears the parent is unwilling or unable to make educational decisions. She claims there was no showing that she was
unwilling or unable; thus, the juvenile court’s order designating
Catherine A. as the holder of Luke’s educational rights was an abuse of
discretion. We are not persuaded.
Section 361,
subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part:
“In
all cases in which a minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the
ground that the minor is a person described by Section 300, the court may limit
the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent
. . . and shall by its order clearly and specifically set forth all
those limitations. Any limitation on the
right of the parent . . . to make educational . . .
decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. The limitations may not exceed those
necessary to protect the child. If the
court specifically limits the right of the parent . . . to make
educational . . . decisions for the child, the court shall at the
same time appoint a responsible adult to make educational . . .
decisions for the child.†(See
502, 510; Jonathan L. v. Superior Court
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1103-1104.)
When exercising
discretion to limit a parent’s educational rights, the juvenile court should
consider the history of abuse, the parent’s continued refusal to accept that he
or she has abused the child, the parent’s lack of cooperation with
investigating social workers, and other relevant matters. (In re
Jonathan L., supra,
165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104.)
The juvenile court’s
order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
“‘“The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial
court exceeded the bounds of reason.
When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts,
the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the
[juvenile] court.â€â€™â€ (
7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 (Stephanie M.).)
Mother’s argument
overlooks our standard of review. She
effectively asks this court to deduce from the facts an inference that,
“[p]rior to the juvenile court’s intervention, [mother] demonstrated good
judgment in making decisions for Luke and had been fully capable of making
educational decisions.†She further asks
this court to deduce that she “remained willing and able to continue making
educational decisions for Luke and there were no circumstances that compromised
[her] ability to make these important decisions.†Mother goes so far as to claim her “ability
and willingness to remain involved in her son’s education went undisputed at
the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearings.†She asserts “no concerns were voiced which
sufficiently demonstrated that the termination of [her] educational rights was
necessary to protect Luke.â€
However, the facts of
this case amply support a contrary inference that limitation of mother’s rights
is necessary to protect Luke.
(§ 361, subd. (a).) Thus,
this court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the juvenile
court. (Stephanie M., supra,
pp. 318-319.)
There was
abundant evidence that, prior to the order transferring educational rights,
mother had not been making educational decisions in Luke’s best interest. Mother claimed that, although “Luke is
smart,†and she wanted him to go to college, his “grades were suffering†at his
private school, which “is very academically challenging,†and mother “[didn’t]
see how his grades [were] going to improve.â€
She hoped Luke would “get above a 3.0 grade point average†at the public
school, which was “less challenging, academically.â€
On appeal,
mother claims her decision was “well thought out,†but she offers no reason to
believe college admission officials would be unfamiliar with the two schools or
would fail to account for their relative difficulty. Thus, there was no reason to believe mother’s
manipulation of Luke’s grade point average could or would assist his admission
to college. In argument, Luke’s counsel
aptly remarked that mother’s “decision . . . to lower his standards
so that he can step over them easier and get into college instead of helping
him come up to the standard†does not exemplify “a good educational decision
maker.†We agree.
Mother argues
her decision to enroll Luke in public school was “influenced by her genuine
concern with Luke’s relationships at [his private school],†most particularly
his relationship with the mother of his girlfriend. However, the juvenile court could deduce that
mother’s concern was primarily for her own ability to control Luke, not for his
best interest.
As noted, Luke
obtained counseling under the auspices of his school without seeking mother’s
approval, which he knew she would not give.
The girlfriend’s mother, a California attorney and an English teacher,
advised Luke of his right to obtain therapy without mother’s consent. She discussed with him the “pros and cons†of
notifying mother of his decision to see a counselor. At the contested hearing, mother testified
that she could not “imagine sneaking a child to a counselor without the parent’s
knowledge or permission.†Mother believed
the actions of the girlfriend’s mother brought “into question [her] judgment,
belief in parental authority, her motives.â€
The juvenile court could deduce that mother’s main concern was with her
own authority, not Luke’s ability to obtain the counseling he needed.
When asked why
he had formed the relationship with his girlfriend’s mother, rather than his
own mother, Luke cogently explained that “mother was unresponsive. And when she was responsive, it was,
inevitably, always going to come back and bite me in some way.â€
Mother testified
that she found Luke’s relationship with the girlfriend’s mother “bizarre.†Mother relies on this testimony to support
her appellate argument. But the
testimony also supports a contrary inference.
Mother’s dismissal
of Luke’s relationship as “bizarre,†and her consequent failure to detect and
respond to his need for a “responsive†maternal figure, suggests she similarly
would fail to detect, and respond to, Luke’s educational needs. The fact the evidence could also support a
contrary inference does not warrant reversal of the judgment. (Stephanie
M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.)
Further
indication that limitation of mother’s educational rights is necessary to
protect Luke (§ 361, subd. (a)) may be found in the evidence of her abuse
of her medical rights. As noted, when
Luke suffered an infected rectal abscess and it was determined he needed
emergency surgery, mother threatened to withhold her consent to treatment
unless she could remain at Luke’s bedside and unless she, rather than his
caretakers, accompanied him to San Francisco where the surgery would be
performed. Due to mother’s threats, Luke
became afraid that he would not receive the necessary treatment. Mother followed Luke to San Francisco and
requested to stay in his hospital room even though he did not want her
there. Mother threatened to leave San
Francisco without signing medical
documentation unless she could be with Luke constantly. Mother also told Luke that she could halt his
treatment by letting the hospital know that she still had private insurance
through Kaiser. These blatant, and
repeated, abuses of mother’s medical authority support an inference that she
would abuse her educational rights in similar fashion. The order transferring educational rights to
the NREFM was well within the juvenile court’s discretion.
DISPOSITION
The findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
MAURO , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Mother is a former employee of the
Department’s emergency response unit.
She has prior employment with a foster family agency and reported having
32 foster children in the previous nine years.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
