In re S.O.
Filed 2/24/12 In re S.O. CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 S.O., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B235134
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK87061)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SABRINA O.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County.
Veronica MacBeth, Judge.
Affirmed.
Rich
Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Andrea
Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah
Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Sabrina O.
(mother) appeals the dispositional order
of the juvenile court with respect to her daughter, S.O. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
At the time
of initial contact with the Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS), mother, then 17 years old, lived with
her paternal grandparents, who had been appointed her legal guardians in 1998
and with whom she had resided since the age of two; also living in the home
were mother's 20-month-old daughter S.O. and her 15-year-old sister. Mother was in her last semester of high
school at an alternative school for teenage mothers and mothers-to-be. In March of last year, she learned that she
was again pregnant; upset about this news, she did not return home, or notify
her grandparents of her whereabouts, for six days.
Lawrence O.
(grandfather) called DCFS to report that mother had not returned home. He was concerned for his granddaughter,
believing that her boyfriend used drugs and was a bad influence. Grandfather did not report, and DCFS did not
uncover, any harm suffered by the minor S.O. as a result of mother's
absence. To the contrary, the social
worker opined that grandfather (S.O.'s great-grandfather), in whose care mother
had left her daughter, was an appropriate caretaker for the baby.
On March 14, 2011, DCFS detained S.O.,
placing her with a relative, Lynette R.
On March 17, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code
at risk as a result of mother leaving her in grandfather's care for six days
without making an appropriate plan for her care and supervision.
detained. S.O. remained in Lynette R.'s
home until late May, when she was replaced in the home of her maternal
great-uncle and great-aunt, M. and E.O., where she currently resides. The court also granted mother extensive
visitation and ordered that she participate in parenting classes and individual
counseling.
The
juvenile court conducted the jurisdictional hearing on April 28, 2011.
At that time, mother reported that she had not commenced individual
counseling because it was not available, although she remained on a waiting
list. Mother signed a waiver of rights,
waiving her right to trial and submitting the petition on the basis of the
reports and other documents submitted to the court.
following: a letter from her teacher
praising mother's values and accomplishments in school; verification of
mother's attendance and participation in parenting classes; her most recent
report card in which she received A's in all of her classes; a certificate
attesting that she was awarded first prize in an LA Youth Essay Contest,
together with a copy of the winning essay; and a letter from mother in which
she acknowledged that she had exercised poor judgment in staying away from
home, a mistake she would not repeat.
Based upon the documentary evidence, the juvenile court sustained the
amended petition which read, as to mother, as follows: "On 03/09/2011, the child, [S.O.]'s
mother, Sabrina O[.], left the child with the child's maternal great
grandfather, Lawrence O[.], for six days without making an appropriate plan for
the child's ongoing care [and] supervision, . . . . The mother's whereabouts were unknown to the
maternal great grandfather. On prior
occasions, the mother left the child with the maternal great grandfather
without making an appropriate plan for the child's ongoing care and
supervision. Such failure to make an
appropriate plan for the child's care and supervision. [sic]" The court again
ordered counseling for mother, indicating that she should not be placed on a
waiting list. At this point in time
mother was visiting with S.O. for approximately 18 hours each week.
In the report
prepared for the June 3, 2011
disposition hearing, DCFS reported that mother had completed a parenting
program and was scheduled to graduate from high school in two weeks' time. Mother continued to visit S.O. four times per
week.
On May 27, 2011, S.O. had been placed
with E. and M.O. The O.s lived in Riverside
County, some 60 miles away from
mother. Mother testified that if the
juvenile court returned S.O. to her care, she would reside with this aunt and
uncle, who had expressed to DCFS their willingness to welcome mother into the
home and assist her in assuming the responsibilities of parenthood.
Mother was
the sole witness at the disposition hearing on June 3, 2011. She
testified that she wanted her daughter returned to her care, so that they could
both live with E. and M.O. She believed
that the O.s' community was a better environment for raising her child. Mother had investigated educational
opportunities near the O.s' home, and had submitted enrollment forms at the
local community college. She was
scheduled to commence her first counseling session the following week.
Mother had
continued to see her boyfriend, the father of the child she was carrying,
despite the court's previous warnings to refrain from doing so. Mother talked to her boyfriend about taking
parenting classes, which he agreed to do.
Mother stated her willingness to follow any court order, including not
permitting her boyfriend to be around S.O.
Mother had not seen her boyfriend use drugs, but testified that he had
abused drugs in the past. He was,
however, being drug tested at his current employment. The boyfriend had his own apartment and
wanted to take responsibility for his child after it was born.
During
counsel's closing arguments, the court remarked that mother had "to put
her feelings aside about the boyfriend and take care of S[.] and I am not
seeing that in the evidence presented."
Prior to placing the child with mother, the court wanted mother "to
be in individual counseling for a while."
The court continued: "I want
to know that S[.] is safe and that she is placed with somebody who will be safe
and then to gradually as mother shows more maturity and showing that she is
taking care of her own affairs, and that's what I mean by going to school, by
getting a job, if she can. [¶] Then I will be more willing to ease her into
having more and more responsibility for S[.] but based upon what I have before
me, I don't think that it's appropriate to place the child with a person [who]
has this history that I have read about."
The court
ordered the minor placed in the home of M. and E.O. Mother was to have unmonitored visits inside
the home and monitored visits outside the home.
The court found that DCFS had made reasonable efforts to prevent
detention and eliminate the need for removal.
It also permitted mother to reside in the O. home with her daughter.
Mother
timely appealed the disposition order.
DISCUSSION
A child may
not be removed "from the physical custody of his or her parents . .
." unless, based upon clear and convincing evidence, there is "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 [could] be
protected without removing the minor from the minor's parent's . . . physical
custody." (§ 361, subd. (c)(1);
684, 694-695.) In deciding whether to
remove a child from parental custody, the juvenile court is required to
determine if reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for
removal. (§ 361, subd. (d);
155, 171.) "A removal order is
proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for
the minor and proof of a potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains
with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor
need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm
to the child." (
1127, 1136, overruled on other grounds in Renee
J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
On appeal,
we review the dispositional order to determine if there is any substantial
evidence, contradicted or not, to support the conclusion of the
factfinder. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654;
820.) Substantial evidence is that which
is "reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. . . ." (In re
Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065, quoting Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644.) "'The ultimate test is whether it is
reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the
whole record.'" (
1387, 1393-1394, quoting Roddenberry v.
Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 652.)
Mother
concedes that the jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence that the
child cannot safely remain in the home (§ 361, subd. (c)(1)), and that in
determining whether removal is warranted, the court may consider the parent's
past conduct as well as her present circumstances. (In re
S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461.)
She argues, however, that the court's finding that DCFS made reasonable
efforts to prevent detention and eliminate the need for removal was not
supported by substantial evidence. This
is so, mother contends, because the court stated that it would not return S.O.
to her until she had received individual counseling, but that the counseling
referrals which DCFS made had waiting lists, such that mother could not obtain
the required counseling before the detention hearing. However, as respondent argues, there is no
evidence that the fact that mother was placed on a waiting list for counseling
services was the result of a lack of effort by DCFS. Thus, the court's finding that DCFS made
reasonable efforts to prevent S.O.'s detention was supported by substantial
evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J. MOSK,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Further statutory references are to this code.
subdivisions (b) and (g) that Manuel G., S.O.'s alleged father, failed to
provide support. Manuel G. is not a
party to this appeal.
