In re Tyler G.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/5/13  In re Tyler G. CA2/1

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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

 

 
>

In re TYLER G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B247249       (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. CK30123)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   ROBIN G.,               Defendant and Appellant.

 

            APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Donna Levin, Referee. 
Dismissed.

            Robin G.,
in pro. per.; and Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

>

            Robin G.
(Mother) appeals from the dependency court’s jurisdictional and dispositional
order removing her newborn son Tyler from her care.  We appointed counsel for Mother, and counsel
filed an opening brief informing us
she was unable to find any arguable issues, and requesting that we exercise our
discretion to permit mother personally to submit a supplemental brief.  On June
25, 2013, Mother filed a supplemental brief.  Neither Mother’s brief, nor our independent
review of the record, reveals any arguable issues.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

            In August
1997, Mother gave birth to her daughter Amanda G. at a McDonald’s and Mother
and the baby were hospitalized at the Kaiser
Permanente Hospital
on Sunset Boulevard for two days.  Mother
left without the baby and Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was
unable to locate Mother.  Mother never
contacted DCFS and the case terminated in April 2000 when Amanda was
adopted.  In 1998, DCFS located Mother,
who told them she left home at 18 due to physical and sexual abuse by her
father and brother.  Mother used cocaine
and worked as a prostitute.

            On August 30, 2012, DCFS received a
referral regarding Tyler, who was born one month prematurely on August 20, 2012.  Mother initially had difficulty bonding with Tyler
and properly feeding him.  However, when
discharged from the hospital, she demonstrated the ability to properly care for
him.  However, the hospital had to issue
mother a car seat, baby clothes, diapers and formula.  Mother had limited supplies and did not
appear able to acquire more.

            Mother’s
pediatrician at the hospital told the social worker that Mother “seemed a
little off.”  He explained that because Tyler
was not feeding well, the hospital told Mother he would need to stay for a few
days.  At first, Mother seemed to
understand, but five minutes later, Mother was upset and wondered why she and
the baby could not go home.  Mother
stated she had no family or friends.

            On August 31, 2012, the social worker
went to Mother’s room at a residence hotel and spoke to Robert Collins, the
maintenance man.  He told the social
worker Mother had lived at the hotel for about a year, and he did not see any
visitors at Mother’s room.  Collins was
concerned about Tyler because of
the way Mother handled him and put him in the car seat.  “She handles him like he is a toy.  He is in his little carrier and she is rough
with him.  She swings [the car seat]
around like there is no baby inside it. 
I have seen this . . . three or four times since she
brought the baby home.”  Collins
suspected that Mother had “split personalities.”  “Mother would be fine one minute and be
friendly, within minutes she [would] get[] upset and start[] yelling or talking
to herself.”  Mother would answer
herself, stop in the hallway and talk to the wall or empty space.

            Christine
Directo, the property manager of Mother’s residence hotel told the social
worker that Mother would be evicted on September
9, 2012.  She had seen Mother
swinging the baby carrier around and was “happy to see the baby [was] still
alive.”  She believed Mother was
unstable, but did not suspect substance abuse. 
Mother would talk to her and suddenly turn to her side and start talking
to someone who was not there.  Mother got
upset easily and changed her tone, and Mother would forget information from one
minute to the next.  Dave Ellis, the desk
clerk, resided a few doors away from Mother’s unit and heard her screaming
“[s]hut up, [s]hut up” at 1:00 a.m.  He heard Tyler
crying at night and Mother screaming at him. 
Ellis also observed Mother speaking to herself and swinging the baby
carrier roughly.

            The nurse
at the hospital where Tyler was
born told the social worker that she had seen Mother and Tyler when he came in
for his newborn check up.  Tyler
seemed fine, and there were no concerns with Mother’s behavior.  Mother had a lot of questions and concerns
about how to care for Tyler.  However, the nurse only saw them for about
five minutes.

            The social
worker and two police officers visited Mother’s room.  Mother invited them in.  The residence was dark and Mother stated the
light fixtures did not work.  The blinds
were closed and had a sheet over them. 
The room had a twin size mattress and several puddles of water on the
floor.  The mattress was filthy and had
no linen.  On a small table were
approximately 20 bottles of champagne, beer, and alcohol.  Some were open and empty or half full.  A small refrigerator contained two water
bottles, rotten broken eggs, and one empty can of baby formula.  The refrigerator was filthy and had living
and dead cockroaches inside.  The entire
apartment had cockroaches crawling all over. 
Mother stated she had an infestation of cockroaches and bedbugs.  The baby items included the car seat/carrier,
one plastic laundry basked and about 10 newborn outfits, four small prefilled
baby bottles, one small bag of diapers, travel size baby shampoo, and a small
bag of baby wipes.  The baby items had
cockroaches all over.  There were two
large windows with no safety gates or screens.

            Mother
stated she was moving due to the conditions of the apartment.  Mother told the social worker that Tyler
was premature, and that she did not obtain prenatal care.  Mother had been diagnosed with esophageal
cancer prior to her pregnancy, and although she followed her medical treatment
for cancer, she did not obtain any prenatal care.  Mother stated her cancer causes a lot of pain
and she vomits.  Mother had tumors but
did not get to the doctor often because the doctor’s office was too far
away.  Mother took medication for her
tumors but had not refilled the medication in over a year.  Mother fed Tyler
one small bottle ever three hours and changed his diaper four or five times a
day.  Mother insisted there was formula
in the refrigerator although there was none. 
When asked about Tyler’s
father, Mother began to cry and stated she did not want to discuss him.  Mother did not have any family or friends to
assist her.

            Mother
intended to move and return to school for the fall semester to study to become
a radiology technician.  She also had a
small business on the side selling health and wellbeing products.  Mother planned to move to Kentucky where her
maternal grandmother resides.  Mother
denied any history of mental illness or hallucinations.  She stated that when she seemed to be talking
to herself, she was actually talking on the phone.  Mother denied yelling at Tyler, or handling
him roughly.  Mother stated she did not
have any other children, and once had a stillborn baby.  When confronted with her 1997 case, Mother
stated, “Oh, you mean Amanda?”  Mother
stated Amanda was born on the streets and was taken by DCFS.  Mother was never told how she could get
Amanda back.

            When
informed that DCFS intended to detain Tyler, Mother was calm and asked several
appropriate questions.  She stated
Tyler’s father used drugs, but they were legal drugs, and he had been violent
with her on the phone.  She did not know
where he lived but gave the social worker a phone number for Carlos G.  Tyler was detained.

            DCFS
contacted Carlos G., who told them he has known Mother for 20 years.  He met Mother on the street; Mother works the
streets of Hollywood and asks him for money several times a year.  Mother has a 16-year-old son residing in
Mississippi with family.  Carlos G. did
not deny he had sex with Mother, but stated it was about eight months ago.  He has seen track marks on Mother’s arms and
Mother smelled to him like she used methamphetamine.  Carlos G. believed Mother had some mental
health problems but he was not sure. 
About four months ago, Mother asked for $1,000 to move to Kentucky.  When he refused, she said she would report
him to the police for soliciting, and informed him she was expecting his
baby.  He does not believe he is Tyler’s
father.

            Mother
admitted to the social worker she had a 16-year-old son named Jonathan who
lived in Kentucky.  DCFS learned that Mother
was arrested in August 1997 for soliciting in Los Angeles.

            DCFS filed
a petition dated September 6, 2012, alleging failure to protect under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), based on Mother’s mental
and emotional problems, and the unsanitary condition of Mother’s home.

            At the
September 6, 2012 detention hearing,
the court found Carlos G. to be Tyler’s alleged father.  Mother stated she was moving in two days and
wanted Tyler returned to her at that time. 
The court ordered Tyler detained and placed in foster care, and granted
Mother visitation three times a week, for three hours per visit.

            DCFS’s
jurisdiction report stated that Carlos G. denied paternity and was requesting a
DNA test.  Carlos G. was in a
relationship and did not want to be involved with Tyler.  Tyler’s caregiver had reported that often
Mother’s phone did not work or there was difficulty contacting Mother.

            The desk
clerk informed DCFS that Mother had left the hotel about a week before.  He said Mother often talked to herself and
yelled.  What Mother said often did not
make any sense.  Mother did not treat
Tyler well.  The maintenance man,
reiterated that Mother talked to herself and handled Tyler very roughly.  Sometimes Mother was pleasant, but other
times she would be “ranting and raving about how she was being treated in her
job.”

            Directo,
the property manager, told DCFS that Mother was evicted because she did not pay
her rent.  Directo disputed that there
were power problems, and stated the hotel sprayed for bugs.  Mother called the health department but then
Mother refused to let them spray.

            Mother’s
visitation with Tyler was haphazard.  She
missed the first visit, informing the social worker she woke up late.  Mother was tardy to the second visit because
she could not find the location. 
Mother’s interaction with Tyler was appropriate.  Mother was tardy to the third visit but
interacted appropriately with Tyler. 
Mother was not well groomed, and the foster mother reported that Mother
kept repeating that she should not be going through this, it was retaliation,
and she would do anything to get her baby back. 
Mother did not show for the fourth visit, nor did she call to cancel.  Mother called the foster mother and apologized,
but then stated there were delays with getting a bus.  For the fifth scheduled visit, Mother called
and canceled.  Mother called the foster
mother and yelled at her.

            On
September 10, 2012, the social worker visited Mother’s new residence.  The apartment was a single unit that appeared
clean.  There was a strong smell of
cigarettes.  Mother shared a toilet and
shower, and the room had a bed and dresser. 
A small refrigerator was clean but empty.  Mother had baby bottles, travel size baby
toiletries, and baby clothing.  The
bottles were dusty and appeared to have roach feces on them.  Mother agreed the bottles would need to be
cleaned prior to use.

            DCFS
recommended that no reunification services be provided pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b) (10) and (11).

            At the
September 24, 2012 hearing, the court took evidence from the social worker
regarding the conditions of Mother’s room at the residence hotel at the time of
detention, the statements of the staff at the residence hotel, Mother’s new
residence, and her discussions with the pediatrician at the hospital regarding
Mother and Tyler.  The social worker did
not recall seeing a crib in Mother’s new residence.  Mother testified that she complained to the
residence hotel about the lack of working lights or heat, the insect
infestation, and that she had filed complaints with the housing and health
departments, and that she had won her case against the hotel.  She agreed to move out to seek federal
housing assistance.  Mother asserted she
had a crib in her new residence.  Mother
claimed that she did not receive notice of the proceedings with respect to
Amanda.

            The
dependency court sustained the allegations of the petition and denied
reunification services.

            We appointed
appellate counsel to represent
Mother.  On June 6, 2013, Mother’s
counsel filed an opening brief, pursuant to In
re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and In
re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, informing us that she had found no
arguable issues, and requesting us to exercise our discretion to permit Mother
to submit her own brief.  On June 7,
2013, we notified Mother that she had 30 days with which to submit a letter or
brief stating any contentions or arguments she wished us to consider.

            Mother
submitted a supplemental brief in pro. per., on June 25, 2013.  (In re
Phoenix H., supra, 48
Cal.4th at p. 844.)  Mother stated that
the case was the result of false allegations of the staff of her residence
hotel.  She had been in a dispute with
management for “years” over the condition of her apartment, and had contacted
the Health Department, which inspected the hotel and ordered repairs.  After the hotel sued to evict Mother and lost
their case, she believed the hotel reported her to DCFS in retaliation.  Mother stated she had complied with all court
orders and done things beyond what was called for in the court order—Mother
voluntarily submitted to a number of tests showing there were no mental issues,
drug issues, or anger management issues.

            We have
reviewed Mother’s supplemental brief. 
Out of an abundance of caution, we have also independently reviewed the
record.  Our review has confirmed what
Mother’s counsel determined, i.e., nothing in the record indicates that an
arguable issue exists for our consideration, and nothing in Mother’s
supplemental brief changes that result.

DISPOSITION

            The appeal
is dismissed.

            NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED.

 

                                                                        JOHNSON,
J.

 

We concur:

 

            MALLANO, P.
J.

 

            ROTHSCHILD,
J.