In re Brooklyn S.
Filed 6/18/13 In
re Brooklyn S. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re BROOKLYN S., A
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
K.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F066319
(Super. Ct. No. JD129083)
THE
COURT
title="">*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior
Court of Kern
County. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Theresa A.
Goldner, County Counsel, and Kelli R. Falk, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
K.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order at
the disposition hearing placing her daughter, Brooklyn S., with Brooklyn’s
maternal grandparents. Mother contends
the juvenile court abused its
discretion in its placement of Brooklyn.
We disagree and affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On July 16,
2012, the Kern County Department of Human
Services (department) filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),
was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness due to mother’s
inability to adequately supervise or protect Brooklyn. The petition alleged mother left Brooklyn at
a neighbor’s home without the neighbor’s knowledge, only fed Brooklyn once a
day, and that Brooklyn was found wearing dirty clothing and her hair was
matted. The petition further alleged
that mother attempted suicide in April 2009, was paranoid, and was mentally
unstable.
Brooklyn
was released to the custody of her maternal grandfather, John S., and
step-grandmother, Nikki S. Mother telephonically
agreed to the initial release of Brooklyn to John S. Brooklyn told social workers that her
grandparents were typically her primary caregivers.
John S. indicated to social workers
that mother was a chronic drug user and over the past few years her mental
health had deteriorated. Mother’s home
went into foreclosure and was sold. John
S. believed mother was homeless and moving from place to place. Mother confirmed she had been evicted from
her home. Although John S. was willing
to take Brooklyn, he would not let mother live with them. On July 17, 2012, the juvenile court found a
prima facie case at the detention hearing.
Mother’s
two older children lived with John and Nikki S.
Mother did not have a good relationship with her father and stepmother
and asserted that her stepmother put things in her father’s head. When social workers first encountered
Brooklyn, she was dirty and dressed in dirty clothes. Brooklyn told social workers that she had one
meal per day. Brooklyn’s meal the day
she was detained was a hotdog and juice.
Mother’s most recent residence had dirty carpets and there was the very
strong odor of animal feces and garbage.
The center island in the kitchen had food and kitchen utensils, and was
infested with ants.
Mother
denied using drugs. Mother attempted
suicide in 2009. Brooklyn reported that
since they had been evicted from their home four months earlier, she and her
mother had lived in 30 different places.
Brooklyn reported that although she did not know what drugs were, her
mother smoked something that she rolled and called “rollies.†Brooklyn also saw mother smoke “in a pipeâ€
and used other people’s pipes.
Mother’s
older children were living with the maternal grandparents for the previous four
years. Mother’s older daughter, who was
16 years old, reported that the grandparents did not use drugs, there was no
violence in the home, the home was always clean, and the two children were
always fed. Mother’s older son also
reported that his grandparents do not use drugs and he had never witnessed
violence in their home. The maternal
grandparents had no history with child protective services.
Mother
declined requests from the department to take drug tests. Brooklyn told social workers that mother
hated Nikki S. and frequently said that she was “going to kill Nikki.â€
At the jurisdiction hearing on
August 14, 2012, the juvenile court found the allegations of the department’s
petition to be true.
Mother declined several drug tests
in July and early August 2012. In late
August 2012, mother tested positive for methamphetamine on one occasion and had
a second presumed positive test for presence of amphetamine. Mother had another positive test for methamphetamine
in late October 2012. An older child
reported that mother accused that child of stealing her marijuana. Mother refused to authorize the department’s
request that she release her medical records concerning her suicide
attempt.
A clinician, Dr. Gary Longwith,
evaluated mother’s mental health and concluded that she suffered from a
depression disorder and a mood disorder.
Mother also suffered stress syndrome from a prior medical procedure. Dr. Longwith did not recommend that Brooklyn
be placed with mother until she had a suitable residence, a means of financial
support, started treatment with a psychiatrist, was compliant with taking
prescribed medications, and complied with court and department
recommendations.
The social worker noted that John
and Nikki S. were very active in Brooklyn’s life and remained interested in
maintaining that bond with her. The
couple was in the process of obtaining a guardianship for Brooklyn’s
half-siblings. Brooklyn’s father
indicated that he was not in a stable living environment and suggested that
Brooklyn be placed with her maternal grandparents. He also indicated mother was mentally
unstable and paranoid that her family members were out to get her.
Brooklyn was placed in a foster
home. Mother was dissatisfied with this
placement and wanted Brooklyn removed from foster care. Mother did not want Brooklyn placed with John
and Nikki S. because according to mother they would turn Brooklyn against
mother. Mother claimed that John S. was
a drug addict and abusive. A Team
Decision Meeting was held in August 2012 to discuss Brooklyn’s placement. At that time, mother was in favor of having
Brooklyn placed with John S. Brooklyn
later told social workers that she was very happy once she was finally placed
with her grandparents.
The department recommended that
mother receive reunification services, parenting and child neglect programming,
substance abuse treatment, mental health counseling, psychotropic medication
evaluation, and submission to random drug testing. The department recommended weekly visitation
for mother.
In a supplemental report, the
department stated that John and Nikki S. obtained a temporary guardianship over
Brooklyn’s older half siblings. When
informed by a social worker that Brooklyn had been placed with her
grandparents, mother explained that she could not deal with them. Mother accused Nikki S. of having an
antisocial disorder and stalking her.
On December 7, 2012, mother
testified that until recently, she had lived in her home for 15 years. Mother was employed for intervals of five
years with two businesses in Bakersfield.
When there was a layoff from her more recent job, mother went back to
school and obtained an Associate of Arts degree in business. Mother was concerned that Brooklyn was not
attending her original elementary school because of her ties with friends
there.
Mother also explained her concerns
about Brooklyn being placed with her maternal grandparents. Mother stated that one older child broke an
arm and another did not have dental care for the first three years of living
with the grandparents.
Mother stated she was concerned
about the ability of her father and stepmother to take care of Brooklyn and the
two older children. Also, mother’s
stepmother did not like mother and mother feared this would spill over to
Brooklyn. Mother described Nikki S. as a
bully. Brooklyn’s placement with the
grandparents also made mother’s depression and anxiety worse. Mother acknowledged that John S. loved her
children.
The juvenile court found clear and
convincing evidence that the allegations of the petition were true and removal
of Brooklyn from the physical custody of mother was necessary for her
protection. The court found the
department complied with the case plan by making reasonable services
available. The court ordered Brooklyn’s
continued placement with her grandparents but noted the department should
monitor the situation to insure there was no alienation problem occurring. The court ordered reunification services for
mother, adopting the department’s reunification plan.
DISCUSSION
Mother
contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing Brooklyn with the
maternal grandparents because they are hostile to mother’s reunification
efforts. We reject mother’s contention.
When a
juvenile court orders the placement of a minor outside the parent’s home, its
determination is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. (In re
Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie
M.); In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420-1421.) The
juvenile court’s ruling is not disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of
discretion is clearly established by a showing that the juvenile court’s ruling
has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making a determination that is
arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
(Stephanie M.,
is whether the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can be reasonably
deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its
decision for that of the juvenile court.
(Id. at pp. 318-319.)
Subdivision
(a) of section 361.3 provides: “[i]n any
case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her
parents pursuant to section 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a
request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the
relative .…†Further placement
criteria in section 361.3, subdivision (a) include the best interests of the
child; the wishes of the parent, relative and/or child; the nature and duration
of the relationship between the child and relative; and the placement of
siblings in same home.
In situations where section 361.3
is applicable, the statute does not create an evidentiary presumption that
placement with a relative is in the child’s best interests. Rather, the juvenile court is to consider
whether placement with the relative is appropriate in light of the relative’s
ability to provide a secure and stable environment for the child. (Stephanie
M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp.
320-321; In re Andrea G. (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d 547, 556-557.)
Mother
argues at length that the juvenile court abused its discretion to place
Brooklyn with the maternal grandparents because they wanted to interfere with
her reunification plan, the adequacy of the grandparents’ care of her two older
children, Brooklyn’s change of schools and her ties to her old school, Nikki
S.’s hostile attitude toward mother, and mother’s description of Nikki S. as a
bully.
Mother,
however, ignores the abundant evidence in the record that supports the juvenile
court’s decision to place Brooklyn with her maternal grandparents. When Brooklyn was initially detained, she
already viewed her grandparents as her primary caretakers. Mother often left Brooklyn with John and
Nikki S. Also during the initial
detention, mother allowed John S. to take Brooklyn home with him. Although Brooklyn was later placed in a
foster home, she was happy when John and Nikki S. resumed custody of her. During a Team Decision Meeting in August
2012, mother was in favor of John S. having custody of Brooklyn rather than a
foster parent.
John and Nikki S. had recently
acquired temporary guardianship of Brooklyn’s two older half-siblings and
Brooklyn was reunited with them. There
was also evidence indicating that contrary to mother’s assertion during the
detention hearing, Brooklyn was not attached to her old school. The juvenile court included a component to
its order that the department keep an eye on things to insure that there was
not an alienation issue occurring between Brooklyn and mother. Mother often relegated her parenting role to
John and Nikki S.
In sum, there is no evidence that
the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing Brooklyn with her maternal
grandparents, or that its order was arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the
bounds of reason. In effect, mother is
requesting this court reweigh the evidence adduced by the juvenile court. We decline her invitation to do so. (In re
Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 833; In
re G.M. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.)
DISPOSITION
The orders
of the juvenile court are affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson,
J., and Peña, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All
statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
