In re Scott B.

Filed 4/1/08 In re Scott B. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Liana Serobian, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.),^[1]Dolly B., mother of the minor child Scott B. (Mother and Scott, respectively), appeals from an order that terminated a home of parent order under which Scott had been living with her. The challenged order also placed the minor in the care of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) for suitable placement, and provided that Mother would not receive reunification services. The order was made at a hearing at which a section 342 subsequent petition was adjudicated and sustained, and a disposition order made.^[2]

Mother contends there is insufficient evidence in the record to support (1) the trial courts finding of jurisdiction on the subsequent petition and (2) the courts disposition order that removed the minor from her home. She further contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her reunification services. Our review of the record convinces us that Mothers challenges are not well taken. We will therefore affirm the challenged order.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. The Initial Petition, Reports and Hearings

Scott was born in October 1998. On July 25, 2006, when he was seven years old, the Department filed a section 300 petition on his behalf.^[3] The petition alleged Scott was physically abused by his maternal grandmother and Mother failed to protect him from the abuse. The petition further alleged Scott was exposed to domestic violence in the family home between Mother and Scotts maternal uncle; the family home was observed to be filthy, and unsanitary with rotted food and urine odor; and Scott was sent to school in a condition of poor hygiene. The detention report states that Scott was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder caused by his observing the violence between Mother and the maternal uncle.^[4]

Prior to the petition being filed, Mother had participated in a TDM (team decision meeting) on June 8, 2006 in which social workers attempted to resolve the problem of conflicts in the home with the maternal grandmother (MGM) and uncle. It was learned that Mother had been participating in weekly counseling at Scotts school.

Scott was interviewed at his school. He reported that a bruise on his face was caused by the MGM hitting him, and he stated that at times, the MGM hits him with her open hand or her fist on his head and other places on his body, and he is afraid of her. He also stated the maternal uncle pushed him in a bath tub and the uncle often argues with Mother. He stated he is not afraid to live with Mother because she will help him. He described his home as messy and stinky. The school principal and Scotts teacher both reported he usually comes to school smelling of urine and having dirty, unkempt hair. (Scott has a bed wetting issue.)

A home visit by a Department social worker in June 2006 resulted in a finding that the family home was dirty, disorganized, smelled of urine, had spoiled food in various of its rooms, and a broken refrigerator. Mother denied that the MGM hits Scott and Mother stated that often the minor tells stories that are not true. The 86-year-old MGM also denied hitting Scott, and stated the child tells false stories. The social worker thought Scott appeared to be suffering from ADHD, SED and some form of Autism.^[5] The worker opined that Mother seemed unable to ensure that the minor bathes, and Mother was not aware of child safety procedures in the home.

As of July 11, 2006, Mother had not returned the social workers telephone calls. In a July 12, 2006 meeting between Mother, the social worker and a SOC (Systems of Care) worker, Mother reported that a new refrigerator that had been secured for her as a result of the June 2006 TDM meeting was not delivered to her home because she missed the delivery appointment due to a  communication problem.  Also at the July 12 meeting, Mother was given referrals so that she could receive cash aid and possibly housing vouchers. When she expressed concern about the safety of herself and Scott living in the family home, she was given referrals to domestic violence and homeless shelters and the social worker asked the SOC worker to help Mother with that process. A SOC counselor agreed to help Mother find appropriate housing through that agency. Although the social worker found that Mother had been partially compliant with SOC/Department recommendations and Scott was not in immediate risk, the Department nevertheless recommended that the dependency court supervise the family because Mother had already received Department services for a year in a voluntary program that began in April 2004.

At the August 7, 2006 arraignment hearing, the court ordered the Department to provide family maintenance, family preservation, and wrap around services, ordered that Mother and Scott be referred to the Regional Center for services, and ordered that Scott not be left alone with the MGM.

The Departments jurisdiction/disposition report for the September 2006 pretrial resolution conference states Scott was interviewed after the arraignment hearing but because of his developmental delays, his was difficult to understand and it was difficult to determine whether his claims were reliable. He reiterated his prior accusation that the MGM hits him. He stated he tries to stay away from her and she has never been nice. Mother denied that the MGM has physically abused Scott and she stated Scott lies, but she acknowledged that the MGM and Scott do not get alone well and Mothers way of dealing with that problem is to try to keep Scott out of the home until at least 7:30 p.m. every day because that is when the MGM goes to sleep.^[6]

An SOC worker told the Department that Scott had told her the MGM hits him, but the SOC worker stated Scott often makes up stories and so it is not always easy to determine when he is telling the truth. Mother stated there has only been one incident of violence between her and the maternal uncle and it occurred over five years earlier, but she admitted the uncle is verbally abuse to her and Scott. She stated the uncle had moved out of the family home, but she also stated he just spends a lot of time at his girlfriends house. Mother stated the incident of the uncle pushing Scott in the bathtub happened five years earlier and Scott does not like to bathe because of it. Scott stated he does not take a bath if his uncle is in the home and the uncle makes him leave the bathroom whenever the uncle wishes to use it. He stated he loves Mother and wants to live with her.

The abovementioned school district report from the psycho-educational evaluation of Scott states that Scott was functioning at the self-help age of a child who is three years and ten months old. Self-help age was described as the ability to cope independently with the environment as well as the childs skills with tasks such as eating, dressing, and working; the degree to which the child is able to responsibly care for him/herself and others. His teacher reported that he almost always refuses to join group activities, has trouble making new friends, . . . and often refuses to talk. Mother reported that he sometimes runs away from home.

Mother completed a class at Regional Center that was necessary for Scott to receive more intensive services there. He was receiving therapy for his significant emotional and behavioral problems and was diagnosed with PTSD. The report states Mother has problems following through with recommendations the SOC worker makes concerning how to work with Scotts disabilities and she also does not always follow up with medical visits for him and herself.

The SOC worker stated she had not seen much progress in the family and was concerned that Mother does not have the ability to care for Scott. An August 29, 2006 letter from the SOC case manage states the case manager had attempted to implement various types of interventions with [M]other . . . to assist Scott in meeting his hygiene goal however, due to Mothers lack of parenting skills and follow through with interventions, Scott ha[d] made minimal progress towards his hygiene goal. Mother blamed the minimal progress on the traumatic event with the maternal uncle that occurred in the bath tub. The case manager also stated she had worked closely with Mother to help link Mother and Scott to resources that can help improve Scotts well being but Mother demonstrated poor follow through with the referrals and at times needed to be constantly reminded to follow through. The same was true with Mothers health issues; the case manager and the therapist had made efforts for almost a year to help Mother address her own health problems. Also, the case manager continued to help Mother obtain important documents such as Scotts birth certificate, social security card and Medi-Cal card as [M]other will frequently lose track of them.

Mother refused to talk to the Department social worker about her past dependency cases and refused to take responsibility for her mistakes. When Mother went to the welfare office, her refusal to disclose any emotional problems led to her being denied additional financial assistance. The social worker worried that Mothers refusal to allow SOC into her home would be a barrier to Regional Center and wraparound services. The Department recommended that Scott be declared a dependent child of the court, custody be taken from Father, and the court issue a home of parent order (Mother) under Department supervision.

2. The First Amended Petition and the Home of Parent Order

A first amended petition was filed in September 2006. As noted below, the sustained allegations allege that Mother demonstrates a limited capacity to care for Scott, which periodically results in a detrimental home environment, and said environment includes, but is not limited to, several occasions when (1) the home was in a dirty and unsanitary condition, and (2) when the minor was exposed to physically and/or verbally aggressive behavior by the MGM and the maternal uncle towards Scott or other family members, which Mother was not able to prevent. Also sustained was the allegation that that Scotts siblings were prior dependents of the juvenile court because of the parents emotional and mental problems and transient/chaotic lifestyle and filthy home, and because of the developmental deprivation of some of the children, and the parents failed to reunify with any of them. On September 7, 2006, the court held a detention hearing and ordered that Scott remain with Mother and family maintenance services for Mother be provided.

The adjudication/disposition hearing was held on November 15, 2006. The court found Scott is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and declared him a dependent child. A home of parent (Mother) order was made. Department supervision and family maintenance services were ordered. Mother was ordered to attend and complete individual counseling to address case issues, to continue with all of the services then in place for her, to follow through with Regional Center, and to cooperate with the Department. Scott was ordered to individual counseling to address case issues and conjoint counseling if his therapist recommended. Subsequent to that, the court ordered the Department to investigate respite care for Mother for surgery she needed, and devise a plan for care of Scott for the period following her surgery.

3. Reports From the Court Appointed Special Advocate

A report for the January 4, 2007 progress hearing was submitted by Scotts court appointed special advocate (the CASA)^[7]. In addition to speaking with Mother and Scott, the CASA also spoken with staff at Scotts school, a wraparound services facilitator, and Scotts Regional Center coordinator. Her report did not present a more hopeful picture than that which the court had been receiving from the Department.

The CASA heard reports from Mother that it was difficult to live at home because of the problems between Scott and his MGM and uncle, that Mother was not able to find housing for herself and Scott, and Mother stays away from the home until the MGM goes to bed in the evening. Mother also reported she was not able to discipline the minor and correct his violent temper tantrums in public places, where he tries to hit her with his head and hands and uses obscene language. Mother wondered how she would be able to care for Scott during an upcoming three-week school vacation and during the period of her surgery and recovery which she would need in the near future.

Scotts school principal reported that the minor often arrives at school dirty and odorous. The family home is situated across from the school and so on those occasions, the principal telephones Mother to bring clean clothes for the minor or take him home and bathe him and change his clothes. Further, Scotts waist length hair and behavior cause him to have problems interacting with his peers. There have been times when Scott does not come to school but can be seen on the street by the school; and he had been found alone and unsupervised at the Van Nuys airport terminal. The principal opined that Mother is not capable of caring for Scott. She also stated that some of the parents from the school reported to her that Mother and Father have been seen having sex in a public place near the school.

Scotts special education teacher reported Scotts behavior was regressing. He was not bringing assignments to school, and he bites, scratches and exhibits non-verbal communication with his classmates. The teacher is not able to reach Mother by telephone.

A facilitator at Turning Point Wraparound Services reported that Mother has a very difficult time with follow through. The Regional Center coordinator gave the same report, saying it is very challenging to work with Mother in that Mother has difficulty keeping scheduled appointments and later appears at the Regional Center without appointments at times the coordinator cannot meet with her. Mother also does not understand and follow through with the eligibility requirements for services at Regional Center. The coordinator was concerned that Scott was not receiving the services that were in place.

The CASA observed that Mother was extremely fearful to let the CASA and CASA supervisor into the family home for fear of the MGMs negative reaction after the guests left, and so their interview of Mother and Scott took place on a neighbors balcony. Scotts clothing was not adequate for the temperature. Mother did let them into the apartment for five minutes and it was found to be very cluttered and there did not appear to be any uncluttered space where Scott could do his homework or study. There were no personal items of Scotts in sight, such as toys and books. The only seating in the living room was a love seat which serves as Scotts bed and which is too short for him to sleep comfortably. The CASA observed that the carpeting in the apartment is very worn, dirty and odorous.

On the CASAs first visit, Scott was clean and odor free. He made very little eye contact and only spoke when spoken to. He answered most of the CASAs questions but then became agitated and began to growl. He refused to stop playing with a neighbors baby walker when Mother asked him to. When Scott did not cooperate with Mother, Mother asked for assistance from the CASA, CASA supervisor and Department social worker. At the end of the visit, Scott refused to go with Mother to a fast food restaurant and sat on the curb for at least 30 minutes while Mother talked to him. Finally, he went with her.

The CASA found that Scott and Mother have a very close relationship and Mother is patient with the minor, but she is unable to control him or enlist his cooperation. In the CASAs opinion, Mother is overwhelmed by Scotts special needs and unable to provide him with the type of care and supervision that he needs. The CASA believed that given Mothers medical condition, her current living situation and Scotts special needs, the situation was untenable. Moreover, Mothers attempts to meet the requirements of her dependency court case plan appeared to be hindering her ability to take care of her own well being, including scheduling medical appointments for herself and her surgery. Also, the CASA did not find that Mother had any viable options for the care of Scott during her surgery and recovery period.

The CASA opined that despite the amount of services and Department involvement Mother has had throughout the past two decades, Mother has not been able to take sufficient advantage of them to provide an adequate home for Scott. Further the MGMs influence in Mothers and Scotts lives was extremely negative, including Mothers keeping Scott away from the home until the MGM went to bed. The CASA recommended that the court terminate its home of parent order and detain Scott so that he can be placed in foster care.

For the January 18, 2007 progress hearing, the CASA submitted an additional report. Like the prior report, this one notes that Scott has significant behavior problems and has been diagnosed as autistic, ADHD and severely emotionally disturbed. The report states that Turning Point Wraparound Services found a housing alternative for Mother and Scott. Also, a parent partner was assigned to Mother to assist her with transportation. The housing alternative is a homeless shelter with a transitional program where clients can reside for two years. However, the waiting list at that time was also two years, and although wraparound had been encouraging Mother for months to apply for housing there so that she could be placed on the waiting list, Mother had not done so. The CASA opined that because of Mothers own health situation and her developmental needs she is not capable of taking necessary steps to find alternative housing for herself and Scott.^[8] The report notes that Mother had enrolled Scott in a Saturday program so that he can be away from the family home that day.

The report also notes that although Mother had commenced the intake process necessary to become eligible for Regional Center services for herself, she had not completed the process and her file was closed for inactivity. In October 2006, Scotts consumer services coordinator requested that Mothers file be re-opened so that Mother would hopefully complete the process. For Mothers surgery, the Regional Center would provide in-home attendant care for Scott or placement/respite care for him but would need at least 30 days notice. The report states that Scott was not receiving the services recommended by Regional Center because of the MGMs reluctance to permit people to come into her home.^[9]

The CASA recommended that a team decision meeting be held to discuss removing the minor from Mothers care and placing him in foster care.

4. Later Hearings and Report

At a January 18, 2007 progress hearing, the court ordered the Department to schedule a family group decision meeting (FGDM) that would also include the CASA and Systems of Care workers that had provided services to Scott (a therapist) and Mother (a parent partner).

The Departments report for the FGDM states Mother had not made arrangement for surgery yet, and was focused on completing her extensive dental work before she concentrated on the surgery. The report states Mother has a tendency to become overwhelmed and shut down when she attempts to meet with all of the various service providers. The Department social worker recommended that Mother be ordered to participate in the neuro-psychiatric evaluation, continue to participate in individual counseling, schedule the surgery as soon as her dental work is finished, and comply with the FGDM agreement. Plan A of that agreement provides that Mother would, among other things, speak with the MGM regarding allowing Regional Center to enter the home and provide services there, keep Scott in school and ask for help in monitoring his behavior there, accept and welcome Regional Centers services, use Regional Center for child care support when necessary, and acquire skills to become employed. Plan B would involve Mother agreeing to Scott being placed in appropriate foster care if Plan A does not meet Scotts needs and Mothers needs, including the need for safety. Things that would necessitate moving to Plan B would be Scotts having out-of-control physical acting out behavior that is a danger to himself or Mother, Mother being unable to go back to school to become self-sufficient, or Mother is not able to meet Scotts special needs.

At a February 1, 2007 progress hearing on the FGDM, the CASA and Scotts attorney spoke of Scotts housing situation and opined that appropriate housing for him and Mother would improve the quality of services being provided to them. The court ordered Mother to participate in the neuro-psychiatric assessment, follow through with scheduling her surgery and inform Regional Center at least 30 days before the surgery of its date, and continue her therapy. The court also ordered that the report for the May 16, 2007 section 364 review hearing should address in detail the efforts made by the Department and other services providers to assist Mother to obtain housing and should include the result of Mothers evaluation and written reports from service providers.

5. The Section 342 Subsequent Petition

Scott was found wandering the streets alone on March 17, 2007. The Department social worker who reported to the Van Nuys Police Station was told by a police officer that when he was found, Scott was wearing dirty clothes, smelled of urine, was not wearing shoes, and had dirt all over his body. The officer stated it looked like he had not been bathed in days, and Scott told the officer he only bathes on Saturday or Sunday. Scott stated he had been alone since the previous day and he could not remember the last time he had eaten food. Scott was taken into protective custody by the police. Based on a radio call about a missing child that matched Scotts description, the police went to Mothers home. The officer told the social worker the home was dirty and smelled of urine.

The officer also mentioned that on March 10, 2007, Scott had walked away from home and had ridden the Metro rail system for several hours trying to go to Hollywood. Upon returning Scott to Mother on that day (March 10), Mother agreed to supervise Scott. Scott was filthy and unkempt on that day too.

A Department social worker interviewed Mother at the police station on March 17, 2007. Mother stated there are no relatives willing to care for Scott, he is autistic and refuses to follow rules at home, and he is fascinated with rail transportation and will take Metro rail and be gone for hours without anyone knowing where he is. Mother stated Scott and she are very close, he will only listen to her, and he should be returned to her care. She admitted that although she had sought assistance from the Department and community resources, she had not followed their recommendations because she has had other concerns. The police ran a warrant search on Mother that day and discovered a misdemeanor warrant. She was arrested and released three days later. She reported that her case was dismissed.

The social worker also interviewed Scott. He stated he likes to ride the MTA busses all over the city, his father is homeless and lives under the train station, and he wanted to return home and live with Mother. When informed that Mother had been arrested, Scott stated he was willing to stay in a foster home until Mother was released and then he would return to her because he loves her.

On March 21, 2007, the Department filed a subsequent petition pursuant to section 342. (See fn. 2, ante.) The sustained allegations in the petition are that on March 17, 2007, Mother failed to provide Scott with adequate supervision which resulted in his being found wandering alone without shoes and in an extremely poor state of personal hygiene, and on prior occasions, Mother has also failed to provide the minor with adequate supervision.

A detention hearing was held on March 21, 2007. At the hearing, Mothers attorney represented to the court that Mother was availing herself of intensive in-home services and persons providing wraparound services were seeking alternative housing for her. The attorney added that Mothers plan for dealing with Scotts habit of walking away from home was to have an alarm installed on doors so that when the minor leaves she will know it, or alternatively, to use a G.P.S. tracking device to immediately locate him.

Although Scotts attorney had, at previous hearings, spoken in favor of Scott remaining in the family home, she indicated to the court that she did not believe Mother was capable of providing supervision at that point in time and perhaps when Mother obtains housing of her own, returning Scott to her care would be appropriate. Scotts attorney asked that the minor be placed in a foster home where he could continue in his present school and have regular visits with Mother.

The CASA supervisor stated Mother does not qualify for services at Regional Center so they cannot help with placement. She also stated (and the Departments delivered service log verifies) that the Department began looking for a suitable foster home for Scott after the March 10 incident of his being found on a bus alone, and the Department had planned on detaining him on March 19 and moving him to a foster home.^[10]

The court opined that there were additional problems in the case, including the minors hygiene and whether he is being fed properly, and although Mother was attempting to make the current family home work, it was not in fact working. The court found that in-home detention is contrary to Scotts welfare. It vested temporary custody in the Department, and detained Scott in shelter care. Reunification services were ordered and the Department was also ordered to initiate concurrent planning for permanent placement. Monitored visitation was ordered.

6. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report for the Subsequent Petition

Scott was interviewed by a Department social worker for the jurisdiction/disposition report for the hearing on the subsequent petition. The child stated he took a bath in his foster home and it was ok. He stated the foster mother bought him new shoes because he did not have any shoes but he does not like to wear shoes. The report notes Scott was enrolled in a new school in a special education program and was in the process of making a positive adjustment. His weekly therapist reported that since Scott was moved to a foster family, he has demonstrated a willingness to participate and has been able to attend his therapy sessions on a regular basis. Scott is making progress to increase his communication and is beginning to discuss feelings, thoughts, and emotions more freely. The foster parents were providing adequate care and supervision and ensuring that Scotts needs were being met. Mother was visiting Scott weekly, he interacted positively with her, and appeared to enjoy their visits. She arrived on time and the visits were without incident.^[11]

7. The CASAs May 16, 2007 Report^[12]

The CASAs May 16, 2007 report states Mother had not followed through on the courts orders to participate in a neuro-psychiatric assessment, schedule surgery for her medical conditions, and continue individual therapy. Scott told the CASA he liked living with his foster family and he would like to live with Mother again. The foster mother reported that the minor adjusted well to her home. Mother gave permission to have Scotts hair cut and Scott adjusted to the hair cut.

Scotts foster mother, who is a dietician, reported that although Scott only wanted to eat sweets and processed food when he came to live at the foster home, he adjusted to eating new foods, was eating well balanced meals, and had gained two pounds. The foster mother also emphasized table manners with Scott. He was reported to be well behaved and cooperative. The foster mother also said he appeared to be adjusting well to his new school. He is ready to leave for school every morning with the several other children who live in the home, and he meets the foster grandmother by bus at his foster sisters school and they all walk home together. He looks forward to going to church each week, and he willingly participates in the family events, including parties with family and friends. He has no problem interacting with other children and the adults. He accompanies the foster father on errands. The foster mother reported that Scott visits with Mother at a park near the foster home, handles the visits well, and has no problem separating from Mother when the visits end. He was heard to tell Mother that he wants to live with her again but not in the same home with the MGM, and wants Mother to move out and have her own home. When the therapist who works with Scott comes to the foster home to work with the minor, he is cooperative, and the sessions appear to go well.

Mother reported that she has no other housing options other than remaining in the MGMs home but that a maternal uncle made an effort to clean up the home. She stated she wants Scott to live with her again. She stated she no longer receives Medi‑Cal because Scott does not live with her and that is why she had not pursued medical care for herself.

The facilitator with the wraparound services reported Scott was more verbal and communicative with the wraparound team since being moved to a foster home. One member of the team spends time with Scott in public places to teach him proper social skills and interaction, and the team meets at the foster home. A social worker from a foster family agency who visits weekly with the minor in his foster home and occasionally takes him out alone reported a vast improvement in Scotts behavior since he moved there. His social skills were improving and he was more communicative. The service coordinator from the Regional Center was amazed at Scotts transformation when she made a 30-day review to his foster home. He was verbal and communicative with the adults there, the coordinator was impressed with Scotts pretend play and imagination and his interaction with his foster sister, and Scott appeared to be adjusting well to the home. The assistant principal at Scotts new school reported he was adjusting well, had no problems socializing with the other children, and she felt that the schools help with Scotts incontinence would have him out of pull‑ups very soon. The foster parents were giving him attention for toilet training and his bladder control was improving. They indicated an intent to take him on two planned family vacations.

The CASA compared these descriptions of Scott with her initial visits with the minor at Mothers home where she observed him to be someone who was very withdrawn and nearly non-verbal, did not use words to express his feelings but instead would growl and thrash about, lacked social skills and struggled with social interaction, did not attend school regularly, did not appear to have any daily routine, and lacked adequate toilet training. She described him as thriving in his new home environment and observed that he has a full size bed, has books and toys, and his home environment is loving and caring. The one negative incident she did observe was at one of Mothers visits with Scott in the park. Scott saw an ice cream truck and asked for a treat. The foster mother told him he could only have a treat after dinner because that is the foster familys practice, but Mother told him he could have the ice cream. Scott became upset and began growling and Mother was not able to calm him down.

The CASA recommended that Scott remain in his foster home and continue the therapeutic services being provided to him and his monitored visits with Mother. She also recommended continuation of Mothers family reunification services. (However, at a July 9, 2007 adjudication/disposition hearing on the subsequent petition, the CASA indicated she no longer believed reunification services for Mother were in Scotts best interest.)

8. Setting the Sections 364 and 342 Hearing

On May 16, 2007, the court gave the Department discretion to permit the foster familys planned vacations but ordered that any missed visits would have to be made up. The court also ordered the Department to follow up on Scotts medical needsensure that an injury to his leg that he sustained on a prior court date was successfully treated, and that two other problems found on a recent medical exam (anemia and a testicle problem) were being addressed. The Department was ordered to assist Mother with securing her neuro-psychiatric evaluation since Mother no longer had Medi-Cal, and to identify Scotts adult biological siblings that might be available for placement of Scott. The date of July 9, 2007 was selected for a section 364 six-month review of the home of Mother order that was made on the first amended petition, and for adjudication and disposition on the section 342 subsequent petition. The court noted that before it went on the record, Scott told the court he wants to go home.

In the meantime, the Department social worker visited Scott on May 19 and June 4, 2007. Scott reported he was getting a lot of rest, he likes his foster home, his foster parents are good to him, he enjoys playing with his foster siblings, and he likes his new school and is making friends there. He also stated he liked his bedroom and his bed is nice and warm. He appeared to be very comfortable and to be thriving in his new environment. The foster father reported there were no serious behavior problems and Scotts toilet training was improving. During Scotts visit with his parents in the park, the social worker observed that Mother has little control over Scott and tends to let the minor do whatever he wants to do, and Scott tends to whine a lot when he is with Mother. The foster mother reported Scott does not act that way at her house and most of the time he follows her directives.

At the July 9, 2007 hearing, Mothers attorney argued that there are no safety issues associated with the two times in March 2007 when Scott went missing. She stated that the delivered service log indicates that on March 10, 2007, Scott apparently skipped out on his own and road the bus and Mother called the police. The attorney ignored the other explanations given by Mother for how Scott came to be found on a bus in Burbank when he lived in Van Nuys. (See fn. 10, infra.) Mothers attorney also argued that when Scott was being driven home by the police on March 10 he identified the number 165 bus that he was going to take home. However, what the service log states is that when he was asked by the police how he thought Mother would find him after he had left her home and rode the bus to Burbank, Scott stated on 165 and explained to the officer that 165 is a bus. Later, when he was being driven home by the police, Scott pointed out the 165 bus and correctly identified it, and he was also able to point his way home.

Mothers attorney asserted that with respect to Scotts walking away from home a week later on March 17, the only difference between the two incidents was that Mother was arrested and therefore there was no place to put Scott and that was why he was detained by the Department. That assertion ignored the fact that on March 17 Scott was in more peril because he was found wandering the streets and thus had no bus driver to contact the police for him, and also ignored that Mothers home is so dysfunctional that Scott could not be returned to the relatives that live there. The attorney also asserted that the two incidents in March do not rise to the level of demonstrating a substantial risk to Scott because he knows how to get home and Mother called the police when he was missing. Again, that assertion ignored the facts as set out in the delivered service log. (See fn. 10, infra.)

As noted above, the court sustained the allegation in the section 342 subsequent petition regarding Mothers failures to adequately supervise Scott and his being found wandering the streets alone. The court noted the allegation was true especially in light of Mothers being aware that Scott wanders off and likes to ride public transportation. On the issue of disposition, testimony was taken from the Department social worker, Douglas Broome.

Asked about the incident on March 10, Mr. Broome testified: We had been working with mom all along prior to this particular incident . . . to help her keep Scott safe. A plan was always in place. Asked what the plan would be to help Mother avoid future incidents of Scott wandering off, Broome stated the Department felt it was necessary to remove the minor from the family home and place him in a foster home where he could be safe. Broome acknowledged that there is a caring attachment between Scott and Mother, and Scott has expressed that he wants to return home to Mother, but he stated that in the visits he makes with Mother and Scott at least once a month, he could not observe nurturing.

Regarding disposition, the court found that Scott is at risk in Mothers home. It ordered custody taken from her and foster care for Scott. In considering whether to order reunification services, the court found that Mother failed to reunify with Scotts many siblings and her parental rights were terminated for some of them, and it further found she had not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of the siblings. ( 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (11).)^[13] The court stated it was not in Scotts best interest for Mother to have reunification services. The courts findings on the issue of reunification services were based on section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) & (11) and subdivision (c), which we discuss below. Mothers monitored visits were continued.

DISCUSSION

1. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Issues

a. Jurisdiction

Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the trial courts jurisdiction finding, on the subsequent petition, that under subdivision (b) of section 300, Scott is a child who is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of Mothers failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect him. She asserts that at the time of the hearing, subdivision (b) factors did not exist.

Subdivision (b) of section 300 applies when a child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child . . . .  Subdivision (b) means what it says. Before courts and agencies can exert 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 Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, 391, italics omitted, quoting from In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) While evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions, the question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm. (In re Rocco M, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 824.)

Mother contends that on March 17, 2007, when Scott was found wandering the streets, [t]here was no showing that the minor was either harmed or at risk of harm from which he could be protected. This did not occur at night and the mother appropriately reported him missing. He was quickly located and returned home by the police. Mother adds that the very same thing happened when Scott was placed in his first foster homehe left the home, the foster mother made a missing child report, and the police located and returned him. Thus, Mother concludes, the minor is no less at risk in foster placement than in the mothers home. We disagree.

Children who are unattended in public are at risk of many types of serious harm, including for example, abduction with rape and/or murder, attack by persons and animals, injury from traffic, and slip and falls for which they need medical care. Scott had the additional risk factors of being a young child, and having autistic characteristics and a self-help age of someone much younger than him. Moreover, Scotts walk away on March 17 was not a one-time incident. Mother admitted in an interview for the January 2006 school psycho-educational evaluation that it is not unusual for Scott to walk away from home. She made the same admission to a Department social worker at the police station on March 17, 2007, the day on which Scott told the police he had been alone since the previous day and he could not remember the last time he had eaten. And, there were occasions when Scott was observed by school personnel to be on the street rather than in school. Further, just a week prior to the January 17 incident, he had left home again and was found riding a bus in Burbank.

Thus it is clear that while he was living with Mother, Scott repeatedly put himself at risk of great harm by leaving home and school without the supervision of an adult. The record also makes it clear that Mother was not willing or not able to adequately supervise him and put an end to Scotts dangerous habit. That is sufficient evidence to support a finding he was at risk of serious injury in Mothers care. Moreover, the fact that he ran away when he was placed in one foster home does not alter our conclusion. At the time of the July 9 hearing on the subsequent petition, Scott had been in his new foster home and new school for three and one-half months and there were no reports of his walking away from them. It is not unreasonable to infer that Scott stayed at that foster home because he enjoyed living there and he repeatedly walked away from Mothers home to obtain some temporary relief from its unhappy conditions. Indeed, he was reported to say he did not like living at the home of the MGM and wanted to live with Mother in another home. Yet, Mother did not follow through on investigating housing vouchers and the shelter care that were suggested to her by the various persons who attempted to right Mothers and Scotts lives.

b. Disposition

This evidence is also sufficient for us to say there was no abuse of discretion when the court made a disposition order removing Scott from Mothers custody and placing him in foster care. Section 361, subdivision (c) provides that a dependent child may be removed from the physical custody of the parent with whom he was residing when the dependency petition was initiated so long as the court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the circumstances listed in subdivision (c)(1) through (c)(6). Subdivision (c)(1) states that removal is permitted when there is clear and convincing evidence that [t]here 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 minors physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minors parents or guardians physical custody. To remove a child under subdivision (c)(1), [t]he 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. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136, disapproved on another point in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)

We have already discussed the substantial danger to Scott every time he leaves home or school without supervision. The evidence shows Scotts walking away from home and school were, by Mothers own admission, ongoing for over a year. It is reasonable to conclude she had not been able or willing to stop it. That was sufficient evidence to warrant the trial court stepping in and stopping it for her by removing Scott from her home. The result was that Scott was eventually placed in a home where he felt no need to walk away. Indeed, even though he told others that he wished to resume living with Mother, he did not leave his foster home.

We are not persuaded by Mothers argument that there were less drastic means of dealing with the situation than removing Scott from her home. She suggests that she could have been advised to provide locks and fences to prevent Scott from leaving home, and advised to be with him at all times when he is outdoors. A parent who is capable of raising a child is not in need of such basic advisements. Moreover, Mother lives in a rented apartment, not in a home where she could fence in the yard. Further, she herself notes that the foster home from which Scott ran away had locks on the doors and the outside gates, but Scott left anyway by scaling over a back wall. The trial court could reasonably conclude that it was not locks and fences that Scott needed but a home where he could feel at ease.

2. Reunification Services

Mother asserts it was an abuse of discretion to deny her reunification services. The denial was based on provisions in section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11). Subdivision (b)(10) states reunification services need not be provided to parents when there is clear and convincing evidence that the parents reunifications services were terminated in the past for a sibling or half-sibling of the subject child because the parent failed to reunify with such child, and the parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half‑sibling of the subject child. Subdivision (b)(11) applies to parents who parental rights over a sibling or half-sibling of the subject child were terminated and the parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half-sibling of the subject child. As noted above, the record shows Mother failed to reunify with Scotts siblings, and her parental rights were terminated as to some of them.

The record also shows that Mother did not make a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of Scotts siblings. As noted in footnote 13, infra, Mother acknowledges that there were several reasons why she lost custody of Scotts older siblingsher history of noncompliance, the childrens poor living conditions, her neglectand she further acknowledges that some of his siblings have developmental disabilities. Moreover, a sustained allegation in the first amended petition states the parents lost Scotts siblings for reasons that include developmental deprivation of some of the children, the parents transient/chaotic lifestyle, and their filthy home.

Regarding Mothers noncompliance in the instant matter, persons providing services to Mother and Scott repeatedly reported that Mother failed to follow through with services and suggestions, and the CASAs May 2007 report shows she failed to comply with the courts orders to participate in a neuro-psychiatric evaluation, have the surgery she needs, and continue individual therapy. Regarding developmental delays, reports from experts state Scott is developmentally delayed in various areas. As for neglect and poor living conditions, we observe that Scott repeatedly walked away from home, he was not used to eating wholesome foods, he was constantly dirty and odorous, he had to live with an abusive grandmother, he was never properly toilet trained and wore pull-ups at the age of eight, and every one who had occasion to go to the family home reported it was dirty and odorous. Mothers continued chaotic lifestyle is evidenced by the fact that she was not able to have service providers in her home, Scott had to live in an environment where he feared his relatives, Mother kept him out of the home until late evening when the MGM went to sleep, and Scott had no bed of his own. Thus, throughout the instant matter, the negative situations that caused Mother to not reunite with her other children and lose her parental rights to some of them continued unabated.

Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that Mother made reasonable efforts to correct these problems. Her assertion that she was participating in services is not a sufficient demonstration of reasonable efforts. A dirty, odorous home is remedied by cleaning it, airing it out, and dealing with the source of the odors, not by participating in services. Likewise, there is no indication she made an effort to obtain a reasonable sleeping arrangement for Scott, be it a bed, a sleeper sofa, or at least a child size mattress which could be placed on the floor. Mother had years to treat these negative situations. Moreover, even though she was offered help to secure housing vouchers and shelter housing, she did not follow through with investigating alternative housing. Whether she would have obtained alternative housing immediately is not relevant; she never made the effort to obtain it. Nor do we agree with her assertion that Scotts walk away incidents in March 2007 were not the result of her failing to make reasonable efforts. Mother was aware for a long time of Scotts tendency to leave home by himself.

Section 361.5, subdivision (b) symbolizes the Legislatures recognition of the fact that it may be fruitless to provide reunification services under certain circumstances. (Deborah S. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 741, 750.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)s provisions demonstrate a legislative determination that in certain situations, attempts to facilitate reunification do not serve and protect the childs interests. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.) Moreover, once the dependency court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a provision in subdivision (b) applies to a child, [t]he court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in [certain paragraphs of subdivision (b) of section 361.5, including paragraphs (10) and (11)] unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child. ( 361.5, subd. (c).) Here, the trial court stated it could not find that it is in Scotts best interest to provide further reunification services to Mother.

DISPOSITION

The order from which Mother has appealed is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CROSKEY, J.

We Concur:

KLEIN, P. J.

ALDRICH, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to statutes are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

^[2] Section 342 states: In any case in which a minor has been found to be a person described by Section 300 and the petitioner alleges new facts or circumstances, other than those under which the original petition was sustained, sufficient to state that the minor is a person described in Section 300, the petitioner shall file a subsequent petition. This section does not apply if the jurisdiction of the juvenile court has been terminated prior to the new allegations. [] All procedures and hearings required for an original petition are applicable to a subsequent petition filed under this section.

^[3] Scotts parents were 50 years old at that time.

^[4] The petition does not make allegations against Scotts father, Jim B. (Father). The Departments detention report notes that Father lives apart from Mother and Scott. Mother told the social worker that Father is  homeless and DCFS diagnosed him as being Schizophrenic.  He was reported to come and go from Scotts life and not take an active parenting role. We need not, and do not, discuss him any further in this opinion.

The detention report also states that the family has a long history with Dependency Court, and the parents have not reunified with any of Scotts several siblings. The report mentions 12 siblings who were in the dependency system between 1994 and 2001, and who were either permanently placed in other families or aged out of the system, or who died. A jurisdiction/disposition report in the instant case states one of the children died after being diagnosed as failure to thrive due to having an inadequate diet while in the custody of the parents. That child received services for a decade. The sustained allegations in one prior petition were that the parents had a filthy home, children were developmentally delayed, the parents have a history of transient and chaotic lifestyle, and they failed to provide medical care for a child with hydrocephalus.

^[5] Included with the Departments jurisdiction/disposition report in this matter was a January 2006 report of a psycho-educational evaluation of Scott by the Los Angeles Unified School District. The report states that although there was a recent evaluation that diagnosed Scott as autistic, and although the school districts evaluation found behaviors in Scott that resemble characteristics of autism, they do not present as the most significant behaviors impacting Scotts academic performance and it is not clear to what extent Scotts home environment (both past and present) has in fact contributed to the development of these behaviors. The evaluator also found that while Scott does not qualify for special education services under the autism category of eligibility, he exhibits significant inattentive, impulsive, and hyperactive behavior . . . and they are observed both at home and school. The evaluator opined that Scott appears to show a need for special education services because of his characteristics that are consistent with ADHD.

A March 22, 2007 letter from North Los Angeles County Regional Center (Regional Center) where Scott is a client states he has a qualifying diagnosis o