In re T.J.
Filed 1/30/14 In re T.J.
CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re T.J., et
al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B248903
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RHONDA S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK97688)
APPEAL
from orders of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Marilyn K. Martinez,
Judge. Affirmed.
Kate
M. Chandler, 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, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Rhonda
S. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court asserting
her two daughters, T.F. and T.J., and removing them from her custody. Mother contends insufficient evidence
supported the jurisdiction and disposition orders. We affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother
and her two daughters, 13-year-old T.F. and 11-year-old T.J., came to the
attention of the Los Angeles County Department of
(DCFS) in the instant case in November 2012, after mother was arrested at the
children’s school. Beginning in early
November 2012, mother had a series of incidents with school personnel. According to mother and T.J., T.J. was being
bullied at school. T.J. reported she was
tripped, pushed, and humiliated.
and she had come home with marks from physical bullying.
School records
reported the following. On November 5,
mother demanded the school investigate the bullying and provide resources so
that she could homeschool the girls. A
letter from the school principal to mother indicated mother raised her voice,
refused to calm down, called the dean of students an “instigator,†used
profanity inside and outside the principal’s office and on school grounds, and
gave the principal the “middle finger†in the presence of the children,
assistant principals, and other school staff.
Mother also demanded a refund of money from a school fundraiser, called
school staff “a bunch of ‘dumb asses,’ †and referred to the school as a “ ‘dumb
ass school.’ †The principal
asked mother to leave. The letter reported
mother became “irate,†shouted, and was escorted off school grounds by school
police. The letter prohibited mother
from entering the school campus without the principal’s authorization.
School
records further reported that on November 7, mother telephoned the school and
called the staff “a bunch of animals.†On November 8, mother arrived on school grounds
and wanted to take the girls to the school nurse. Mother told a campus aide to be sure to tell
another school staff member that “she is a bitch.†When that staff member accompanied the
children to the nurse, mother said: “I do not want that sick ass bitch walking
with my kids.â€
On
November 9, the mother of another student reported mother had followed the child
home. Mother told the girl: “[Y]ou have
been bothering my daughter and she is just trying to show a little love.†The girl was afraid. Mother was reported to have followed the
student almost to her house.
On
November 26, mother called the school to request that school work be sent home. Mother planned to keep the girls home
indefinitely. She also asked that they
be allowed to participate in a school activity and that police supervise them. A school staff member told her the children
could participate so long as they attended school. The staff member reported: “[Mother] became
very angry and began to reference the ‘batman’ incident and stated that she
understood why people do things like that.
She then stated that people don’t understand what people may be going
through in their personal lives. She
began to curse and state that she would ‘spray’ the place [the school] and that
I could take it as a terrorist threat and call the police. She concluded that she was willing to go to
jail for her babies and hung up the phone.â€
staff member and said: “My family and I are harmless. Thanks for calling the police and sending
them to my house. I told you I wasn’t a
threat, but [the school] can’t keep doing kids like this. I wish the district would show that much
concern with my kids. Have a blessed
day, no have a blessed week.â€
The
next day, school personnel summoned mother to the school. On November 29, when mother and the children
arrived at the school, police were there to arrest her. Mother screamed during the arrest; she yelled
that students needed to be careful not to bring their mothers to school because
they would be arrested. Mother’s uncle
picked the girls up from school and took them home. Police reported mother entered the police
station cursing and yelling; she later made sexual allegations about a
detective. A school principal told a DCFS
social worker the children had been transferred to another school and would no
longer be allowed on the middle school campus.
Although the children had been enrolled in the school since September
2012, they had 19 to 20 absences, and were frequently late, despite living
across the street from the school.
When
DCFS interviewed mother in early December, mother denied threatening to hurt anyone
or the school, and explained her arrest was the result of a conspiracy. Mother insisted she was only telling school
personnel that bullying is a serious problem.
She explained the “school needed to do something about it because people
like the batman bully who shot up the theater are made when schools do not
address the bullying problem.†She told
the social worker she could not trust anyone at the school and was looking into
homeschooling the children. She and the
children were living with mother’s uncle.
The family had briefly resided in Las Vegas, but they
left when mother thought child protective services was “after her.†Mother denied having an open dependency case
in Las Vegas, or neglecting the children, but said she felt someone was going
to call child protective services about her and she was “paranoid and cannot
trust anyone†because of a previous DCFS case.
Mother
was referring to a previous family reunification case. In January 2010, mother entered a supermarket
at 2:00 a.m., with the children, and a dog.
It was raining. T.J. was wearing
only a t-shirt and pajama bottoms; T.F. was wearing only a t-shirt and
underwear. Both girls had bare
feet. Mother informed a police officer the
dog told her she and the girls were in danger from mother’s boyfriend, and mother
tasted poison in the air. Mother said
she generally took medication for depression, anxiety, and bi-polar disorder,
but she was not taking the medication at that time. She had withdrawn the children from school to
homeschool them. The children described
violent incidents between mother and her partner. DCFS detained the girls. The case was closed in October 2010.
When,
in 2012, the social worker asked mother about the past dependency case history,
mother denied ever having any mental health issues. Mother also denied any history of substance
abuse or domestic violence. The children
were dressed and groomed appropriately and had no visible marks or
bruises. They both told the social
worker mother did not threaten anyone on the phone and was not rude to school
personnel. The children said mother
did not usually use corporal punishment, but had “whooped†them with a belt
before, over their clothes. T.F. said it
had not happened in a long time.
In
late December, the social worker interviewed mother and the children
again. The girls were dressed and
groomed appropriately and had no visible marks or bruises. They reported things were fine, but they were
not in school as mother was still looking into homeschooling them. They said mother had not threatened to hurt
herself or anyone else, and had not yelled, cursed, or been rude to
anyone. Mother agreed that the girls
would be in school by January 2013.
Mother had previously asked the social worker to bring Christmas gifts
for the children. At the December
interview, the social worker told mother it would not be possible. Mother grew agitated, stating: “The system
don’t care about my girls!†Mother then ended
the interview. The social worker noted
mother was upset and talking to herself as the social worker left.
In
January 2013, an upfront assessment was completed. Mother admitted having suffered domestic
violence in the past. She also told the
assessor she was involuntarily hospitalized in 2010 because she believed people
were breaking into her home and poisoning her food. She still believed the break-in and poisoning
had happened. Mother admitted using
cocaine in the past, and periodically using marijuana. The assessor described mother as having
“schizophrenia, residual type, cannabis abuse, and generalized anxiety
disorder.â€
In
late January 2013, the social worker tried to meet with mother. Mother said she did not have time. When the social worker asked if mother had
enrolled the girls in school, mother said she did not want to tell the social
worker because she did not trust her, or anyone else. Two days later, the social worker again
called mother and asked to meet with her.
She told mother she wanted to set up a team decision meeting. Mother refused, protesting that DCFS did not
care about the children, and she had neither time nor money to go to the DCFS
offices. When the social worker offered
mother bus tokens, or a ride from a “human services assistant,†mother said: “I
don’t trust anyone. I’m not about to get
in anyone’s car. I’m not crazy.†Mother asked for gas cards. The social worker explained she could
not give mother gas cards but would try to arrange other transportation. Mother insisted that the social worker could
get gas cards, and asserted the worker simply did not want to do the necessary
“research.†Mother refused to ask anyone
else to drive her to the meeting.
The
children’s doctor reported mother was rude, had hung up the phone on her, and
she “goes on and on and does not care [to] listen to anyone.†The doctor expressed concern about the
children’s well being because of mother’s behavior.
In
early February 2013, DCFS executed a removal warrant for the children. Mother had to be handcuffed. She yelled and cursed at the social worker
and police officers.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] Mother’s uncle did not trust
mother not to return to the home and felt it would be better for the girls to go
to a foster home. The girls wanted to
say goodbye to mother, but mother continued yelling. The social worker had to take the girls away.
DCFS
detained the girls in foster care. Although
mother had a positive visit with them in early February, mother later called
the foster mother one morning at 4:30 a.m. Mother said DCFS had “kidnapped†the
children, and she planned to go to Sacramento to
report it. Mother asserted the children
were not being taken care of, and demanded to know why they were not in
school. Mother called another morning at
6:30 a.m. and asserted the children were not being fed or clothed properly. There were reports from the children’s doctor
that mother repeatedly called the office.
On one occasion, mother threateningly told the doctor she knew what kind
of cars the doctor and her staff drove.
The doctor informed the social worker mother “passed out her children’s
pictures because she wanted the doctor and staff to know that her children were
real. . . . [M]other reports that she will be going to Sacramento and has
written a 100 page letter to report that her children were kidnapped illegally . . . .â€
In
mid-February, mother was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold. Mother’s uncle reported mother had been
acting strangely. Mother said she was
hearing voices from the walls, electric wires, the school, and other places. Mother began going outside and sitting in her
car at night, sometimes turning on the radio very loud, even at 2:00 a.m. Neighbors called the
police. On February 21, mother went to
the maternal grandmother’s house. The
maternal grandmother thought mother was “out of it†and “spacey.†Mother left, but returned later that
evening. Mother was “ranting†at her
adult daughter, claiming there were fire trucks on the street and they were
coming for the adult daughter. There
were no fire trucks. The maternal
great-grandmother said mother “came at [her] like she wanted to fight.â€
Mother’s adult daughter called the police.
Mother was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit.
A
social worker visited mother in the hospital.
Mother insisted she was not supposed to be there and “all of this is a
hoax.†Mother denied ever being
previously diagnosed with any mental health condition. She revealed that she was not taking the
medication administered at the hospital.
She told the social worker she put the medication in her cheek so hospital
staff believed she had swallowed it; she showed the social worker the pills she
had kept in her mouth. Mother said she
brought her adult daughter to the hospital to get help, and denied that she
attacked anyone. She admitted she
had a “quick temper,†but denied having hallucinations. Mother explained that the 2010 dependency
case occurred because she fell physically ill, and had no one to watch the
children. She denied that the case was
related to mental illness. She also
continued to deny making any “terrorist threats.†Mother claimed she had only told school
personnel: “ ‘God has a way of stopping everything. Someone’s gonna spray ‘em like roaches.’ â€
Mother
was released from the hospital in early March.
She left a message for the social worker stating she did not recall
seeing the social worker in the hospital.
Mother again claimed the hospitalization was a mix-up, and it was her
adult daughter who was supposed to be hospitalized. The same day, mother informed a different
social worker she had taken a letter with the social worker’s name on it to the
police to report that the social worker had kidnapped her children. When mother complained about not having calls
or visits with the children, the social worker attempted to explain that she
had been trying to make arrangements for mother to visit the children, with the
mother’s uncle monitoring the visits.
Mother refused to have the maternal uncle monitor visits and would not
let the social worker talk. The social
worker eventually ended the call.
The
maternal uncle reported mother was behaving erratically. He could not reason with her. Mother felt everyone was conspiring against
her. The maternal grandmother reported
that after mother was released from the hospital she went to the grandmother’s
house and banged on the door. When the
grandmother refused to let her in, mother “began walking up and down the street
shouting things like, ‘My own family won’t let me in the house,’ †and
that her children had been kidnapped.
The police eventually came and made mother leave. The grandmother said she did not want the
children placed with her—she lived with the maternal great-grandmother and
mother’s adult daughter—because “there would be no peace†due to mother’s
behavior.
At
the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained allegations that mother had
a history of mental and emotional problems, including “current auditory
hallucinations,†which rendered her unable to provide regular care of the
children, and placed them at risk of physical harm. The court also sustained allegations that
mother made terrorist threats to school personnel in the presence of the
children, and mother physically disciplined the children by striking them with
belts, all of which placed the children at risk of physical harm. The court declared the children dependents of
the court, and found by clear and convincing evidence substantial danger
existed to the children, and there were no reasonable means of protecting them
without removing them from mother’s custody.
At the hearing, mother interrupted the court and asked to address
the court directly. When the court
responded that mother had an attorney to speak for her, mother refused to wait
or defer to her attorney. She was
escorted out of the courtroom.
This
appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Substantial
Evidence Supported the Jurisdictional Findings
Mother
contends the evidence was not sufficient to support dependency jurisdiction
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).
“We
review the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings for substantial
evidence. [Citations.] Evidence is ‘ “[s]ubstantial†’ if it is ‘ “
‘reasonable, credible, and of solid value.’ †’ [Citation.]
We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve
conflicts in the evidence or weigh the evidence. Instead, we draw all
inferences in support of the findings, view the record in favor of the juvenile
court’s order and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary
finding. [Citations.] The appellant has the burden of showing there
is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or
order.†(In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161-1162.) “ ‘ “ ‘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.’ [Citation.]†[Citation.]’
[Citation.]†(
245, 252.)
Under section
300, subdivision (b), the court may assert jurisdiction over a child if “[t]he
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, or
the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to
adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian
with whom the child has been left . . . or by the inability
of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the
parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance
abuse.â€
“The three
elements for jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) are: ‘ “(1) neglectful
conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious
physical harm or illness’ to the [child], or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm
or illness.†’ [Citations.]†(In re
B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685, 692.)
When mental
illness is a factor in the parent’s inability to provide regular care for the
child, DCFS “ ‘has the burden of showing specifically how the minors have been
or will be harmed and harm may not be presumed from the mere fact of mental
illness of a parent.’ [Citation.]†(In re
A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675, 684.)
DCFS met its burden in this case.
Mother’s conduct beginning in November 2012 and preceding the
jurisdiction hearing demonstrated her inability to adequately supervise or
protect the children. Although mother
may have been legitimately distressed by bullying of T.J. and the school’s
inaction, her response was to behave aggressively with school personnel, to
address school staff with profanity and yelling in the presence of her own
children, to follow another child home from school, and to threaten that she
would commit a mass shooting.
not directed at her children, her threats to commit violence at the school they
attended suggested a form of uncontrolled conduct and violent reasoning that
also put her children at risk of harm.
In the weeks
that passed after the children were detained and before the jurisdiction
hearing, mother’s mental state appeared to deteriorate. Mother could not effectively interact with
DCFS social workers, the children’s doctor, the foster mother, or her own
family. She tried to report to police
that DCFS had kidnapped her children. She was
hearing voices. She apparently suffered
a delusion or hallucination that fire trucks were at the maternal grandmother’s
house, ready to take away her adult daughter.
She appeared to be close to attacking her grandmother. She was then involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric unit, but she denied having any mental or emotional issues. She covertly avoided taking medication in the
hospital, but admitted her deception to a social worker. She subsequently claimed to have no
recollection of talking to the social worker while in the hospital. Irrespective of any formal diagnosis,
mother’s behavior demonstrated her inability to provide regular care and
supervision for the girls. This was
illustrated by mother’s hallucinations, and the resulting involuntary
hospitalization, which would have prevented her from supervising the children
had they been in her care at that time. Mother’s
apparent physical aggression toward members of her own family suggested the
children would also be at risk of harm from mother.
Moreover, mother’s
behavior had already affected the children and her ability to effectively act
in the role of parent. Mother’s conduct
at the children’s school caused the school to ban her from school property, and
eventually to also expel the children from the school. Mother did not want the children in a regular
school because she did not “trust anyone.â€
She subsequently refused to tell the social worker what her plans were
for enrolling the girls in a new school or homeschooling them.
unable to arrange regular visitation because she refused to have a family
member monitor visits, and did not return calls from social workers. In at least one conversation with a social
worker to discuss visits, mother could only focus on her claim that DCFS had
kidnapped the children. Mother refused
to involve her family members in any way to support her, such as requesting or
receiving a ride from her uncle to a team decision meeting. Mother’s family members were reluctant or
unwilling to help care for the girls because of mother’s behavior. Thus, mother’s erratic and aggressive conduct
alienated all sources of potential support she otherwise might have had.
Equally
problematic was mother’s complete refusal, or inability, to recognize that her
behavior was in any way inappropriate.
At most, mother admitted to having a “big mouth,†or a “quick temper.†She
denied any mental or emotional issues. Indeed,
mother attributed the 2010 events to a physical breakdown, not a mental disorder,
despite her admissions in 2010 that she suffered from one or more psychiatric
conditions and had stopped taking her medication, and that she was hospitalized
pursuant to section 5150.
name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]
These factors
distinguish this case from those in which courts have concluded the social
services agency did not show a substantial risk of harm linked to the parent’s
mental illness, or mental or emotional instability. For example, In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129 (James R.), involved a mother who was hospitalized after she
consumed a large amount of ibuprofen and drank beer while caring for her
children. The mother had a history
of suicide attempts, but she denied intentionally trying to harm herself. (Id.
at pp. 131-132.) The father shared
parenting responsibilities with the mother.
He denied the mother had a substance abuse problem. (Id.
at p. 134.) The social worker was
concerned the father might leave the children with the mother, and the mother
might again drink or use drugs while caring for them. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over
the children, sustaining allegations that mother’s past psychiatric hospitalizations,
past suicidal thoughts, attention deficit disorder, and her continued use of
alcohol, rendered her incapable of providing regular care for the
children. (Id. at p. 134.)
The Court of Appeal
reversed the jurisdiction order for lack of sufficient evidence. The court explained that although the mother
had a history of mental instability, she had not abused or neglected the
children in the past. Any causal link
between the mother’s mental state and future harm to the children was speculative. There was no evidence the mother experienced
suicidal thoughts after the children were born.
There was no evidence the mother used illegal drugs, or that she was
regularly intoxicated. In addition,
there was undisputed evidence the father was able to protect and supervise the
children. The parents also had the
support of extended family members who assisted in caring for the
children. The children were healthy and
well cared for, and attended school or daycare while the father worked. The parents were meeting the children’s
medical and academic needs. (
Nearly every
factor the James R. court identified
as indicating the lack of substantial evidence in that case works against
mother here. Mother not only had a
history of mental illness, there was evidence she had neglected the children in
2010, when she took them out of the house, half dressed, in the rain, in the
early hours of the morning, because her dog told her they were in danger and
she tasted poison in the air. While the
court in James R. concluded there was
less risk to the children because they attended school and daycare, here,
mother’s conduct caused the children to be expelled from school. Mother then kept the children at home instead
of finding a new school and refused to disclose her plans for their education. Mother’s mental instability seemed to worsen
in the weeks between the detention and the jurisdiction hearing. Her adult daughter called the police after
mother described fire trucks that were not there, and seemed close to attacking
the maternal great-grandmother. Mother
was involuntarily held in a hospital psychiatric unit. Unlike the parents in James R., mother had no support from anyone, in part because she
refused all family support. She had no
one else to care for the children during periods of illness, physical or mental. She alienated the children’s doctor by
repeatedly calling the office and making threatening statements, so much so
that the doctor alerted law enforcement.
In
only unfounded perceptions of risk due to mother’s past mental instability
before her children were born. Here,
mother’s mental and emotional instability was very much present. It impaired her ability to interact with
other adults on behalf of her children, and constituted actual evidence of
substantial risk of physical harm to the children. Further, mother’s mental instability had in
the past led her to place the children at substantial risk of harm. In James
R., the mother began participating in services before the social services
agency intervened, including attending outpatient rehabilitation classes,
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, individual counseling, and an online parenting
course. (James R., at p. 132.) In
this case, mother steadfastly refused to acknowledge there were any
problems. She denied past problems, even
though she had previously admitted to suffering from mental illness. She refused to attend a team decision meeting
because she would not ride a bus or ride in anyone else’s car. She rejected medicine. Thus, the James
R. court’s reasoning is inapplicable here.
Likewise, in
713, the reviewing court found a lack of substantial evidence to support
jurisdiction based on the father’s mental illness where the only evidence was mother’s
unsupported allegation that the father was “paranoid†and “hallucinatory.†(Id.
at p. 718.) No evidence linked the
father’s alleged mental disturbances to physical harm or risk of harm to the
children. Here, however, mother has
received past and current diagnoses of mental disorders. She has refused to take medication, and now
denies she has any mental illness whatsoever.
Her mental instability rendered her incapable of providing regular care
for the children, as evidenced by her involuntary hospitalization, and her
inability to re-enroll the children in school, secure information from their
doctor, or even arrange visits for herself.
Indeed, no formal diagnosis was necessary for the trial court to
conclude mother’s behavior put the children at risk of substantial harm in the
past, and continued to put them at risk of substantial harm at the time of the
jurisdiction hearing.
As
mother points out, despite her behavior, the children were well groomed, had no
visible marks or bruises, and showed no signs of neglect at the time they were
detained. Yet “section 300 does not
require that a child actually be abused or neglected before the juvenile court
can assume jurisdiction.†(
is to prevent risk, not ignore it.’ [Citation.]â€
(Jonathan
L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1104.) Mother’s behavior had in the past placed the
children at substantial risk of harm, requiring intervention. Her current conduct was causing detriment to
the children, and she refused to seek treatment, or even acknowledge there was
a problem. She had no support, and
refused support offered to her. There
was substantial evidence to support a trial court finding that mother’s mental
and emotional condition created a substantial risk of harm to the children,
within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b).
We
will affirm a jurisdictional order if any one of multiple findings is supported
by substantial evidence. Even if one of
the remaining allegations was unsupported by substantial evidence, we would not
reverse the order asserting jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). Thus we do not address the evidentiary
support for the other allegations sustained in the dependency petition. (In re
I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492.)
II. Substantial
Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s Dispositional Order
Mother contends
there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s order removing the
children from her custody. We find no
error.
Under section
361, subdivision (c)(1), a dependent child may not be taken from the physical
custody of the parents with whom the child resides at the time the petition was
initiated unless the juvenile court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,
“[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 minor’s physical
health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s
parent’s . . . physical custody.†(§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) “The jurisdictional findings are prima facie
evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the home. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)†(In re
Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.)
“ ‘The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been
actually harmed for removal to be appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm
to the child.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past
conduct as well as present circumstances.
[Citation.]†(
child from parental custody for substantial evidence. (In re
D.G. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1574.)
There was
substantial evidence that the children could not safely remain in mother’s
custody. Mother continued to deny she
had any mental or emotional problems that required treatment. She denied her conduct at the school was a
problem, despite the fact that it resulted in the children being barred from
the school. She said she intended to
homeschool them, but either made no arrangements to do so, or simply refused to
share her plans with the social worker, admitting she was too paranoid to do
so. Prior to the detention, mother’s
response to DCFS intervention was to deny there were problems. Once the children were detained, mother’s conduct
grew more erratic. Her calls to the children’s
doctor were so frequent and aggressive the doctor reported them to the
police. Mother was unable to make
arrangements for visits with the children because she could not calmly
communicate with the foster mother or the services social worker. She indicated she would file a police report
alleging DCFS had illegally kidnapped the children. She was hearing voices. She thought fire trucks were at her
grandmother’s house, waiting to take her adult daughter away. There were no fire trucks. She was subjected to an involuntary
psychiatric hold after accosting her grandmother. Yet, she denied there was any legitimate
basis for the hospitalization and insisted it was all a mix-up. She covertly avoided medication while
hospitalized. She spoke to a social
worker while hospitalized, but later called the social worker and indicated she
had no recollection of seeing her or speaking with her in the hospital. She continued to refuse to involve any family
members in her case and had no support from any other adult. DCFS was concerned mother might abscond with
the children if allowed unmonitored visitation.
This was
sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that removal from
mother’s custody was necessary to protect the children. (In re
Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 71, disapproved on another grounds by
p. 781 [mother’s refusal to cooperate with agency was evidence that
removal was necessary].) Mother argues
the court could have allowed the children to live with mother under “strict
conditions.†Yet, mother had already
indicated, repeatedly, that she had no interest in cooperating with DCFS. Moreover, mother told the social worker she
left Las Vegas when she suspected child services might investigate the
family. She also admitted she did not
trust her uncle, and did not want him to monitor visits, or otherwise be
involved in the case. He was largely
unwilling to be involved without mother’s permission. Thus we find unrealistic mother’s suggestion
that the dependency court could have allowed the children to live with mother
so long as she continued living in the uncle’s home, and he reported problems
to the department. The trial court properly
determined there were no reasonable means to protect the children without
removing them from her custody. (§ 361,
subd. (c)(1).)
DISPOSITION
The
dependency court orders are affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We concur:
RUBIN, J.
FLIER, J.
her by asking why she and her sister were so often late to school even though
they lived across the street from the school.
T.J. also reported her teacher and class would clap when she made it to
class on time.
fucking getting pissed! [The school] is
fucking with my kids. You know that’s
why they have incidences like Spiderman. . . . You know that’s why people go in
places with masks like the batman incident.
You don’t know what’s going on in people’s fucking lives. I will spray the place. . . . You can take it
as a terrorist threat. Call the
police. I will go to jail for my
babies.†T.J. later told a social worker
mother said, “don’t take this as a
threat,†and that mother did not yell or say anything inappropriate during the
call.
In July 2012, a masked gunman entered a Colorado movie
theater showing a newly-released Batman movie.
The gunman opened fire, killing several people and wounding numerous
others. The incident was highly
publicized. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/20/nation/la-na-nn-dark-knight-shooting-20120720.) The parties presume this is the incident to
which mother was referring.
