In re L.T.
Filed 5/29/13 In re L.T. CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 L.T., et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B243091
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK85010)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Respondent,
v.
PATRICK T.,
Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior
Court of
County. Terry
ThanhTruong, Referee. Affirmed.
Lauren K. Johnson, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
_______________________________
Patrick
T. (father) appeals from an order returning his children, L.T. and A.T., to
their mother after they were declared dependents of the court. We conclude substantial evidence supports the
order and affirm.
In
one week in August 2010, the Los Angeles
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the department)
received three child abuse referrals regarding five-year-old L.T. and her
sister, two-year-old A.T. The first
referral alleged father physically abused their mother, Abby T. (mother) in
front of the children, and when L.T. attempted to intervene, pushed her down,
injuring her. An investigation revealed
father had a criminal history and alcohol abuse problems, frequently engaged in
physical violence with mother, and was under a two-year restraining order
enjoining him from living in the home where mother and the girls lived with the
paternal grandfather. When contacted by
a DCFS social worker, mother engaged in a profanity-laden tirade but eventually
agreed to enroll in domestic violence
counseling and not to allow father back into the home.
A
second referral that same day alleged mother used methamphetamines and
physically abused the girls. When DCFS
investigated, mother launched into another screaming, profanity-laden tirade
and refused to undergo drug testing.
A
third referral four days later alleged mother neglected the children, screamed
at them outside the home, and used drugs.
Mother at first avoided DCFS’s social worker, and when contact was
eventually made, screamed and swore at the social worker and refused to
participate in a Team Decision Making (TDM) meeting.
Two
months later, in October 2010, L.T. reported father was living in the home and
slept on the couch, and upon investigation a DCFS social worker discovered
mother had told a CalWorks social worker that father would provide childcare in
the home. When a DCFS social worker
arrived at the home with police officers, mother denied having seen father or
knowing where he lived. She agreed to
attend a TDM meeting but three days later called to cancel it.
L.T.
stated she felt safe with mother and father in the home, was happy with mother,
and mother was nice to her. Her teacher
reported L.T. was adjusting fairly well to kindergarten.
DCFS
filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code
physical altercations in the children’s presence. At the detention hearing on November 5, 2010, the juvenile court
detained the children from father and released them to mother’s custody, with
father given monitored visitation in DCFS offices only. Mother was ordered to take part in domestic violence
counseling and submit to on-demand drug testing.
In
December 2010, father’s parole officer visited the house and found father
living there. On December 22, 2010, father punched mother in the
face, pushed her into a window, and pushed her to the ground and held her
there, threatening to snap her neck if she called the police. He was arrested on charges of battery and
violating probation.
On January 14, 2011, father reported
that mother loves the children and was “a decent mother.†He felt the children were “better off in her
care than being removed from her care,†and observed that mother would “have
some drinks but she never gets drunk.â€
Father said he had never seen mother incapable of caring for the girls.
At
the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on January 26, 2011, the juvenile court
sustained the dependency petition pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) of
section 300, ordered mother and father to participate in a domestic violence
program, ordered mother to continue to submit to drug tests and participate in
a substance abuse program if she missed or failed a test, and ordered father to
complete a parenting program and follow all conditions of his probation.
In June 2011 mother twice tested
positive for methamphetamine but vehemently denied to a DCFS social worker
either having tested positive or using the drug, and told the social worker, “I
just want you guys to get the fuck out of my life.†However, she admitted to a Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS) worker that she used methamphetamines to
self-medicate for depression and felt overwhelmed and stressed out. She reported she was attending domestic
violence counseling but had no letter of progress, and agreed to enroll in a
drug tests. In July 2011 mother missed
two drug tests. She and the girls
continued to live with paternal grandfather.
Father was homeless.
In July 2011, mother yelled and cursed at DCFS social
workers during a TDM meeting while the children were present. She told social workers she suffered from
severe depression and had applied for Social Security benefits. Father reported mother became verbally
abusive toward L.T. and A.T. when she was under the influence of methamphetamines
or alcohol, and had told him, “I should get a gun and blow my brains out.†He expressed concern for the children’s
safety and reported mother had been using methamphetamines and alcohol
consistently for several weeks. He said
the girls would often become frightened and anxious around her, which the girls
confirmed in later interviews.
The paternal grandfather reported he could no longer
supervise mother and the children because she was becoming increasingly hostile
and verbally aggressive toward him while the children were present. She constantly yelled and cursed at the girls
and told him she “should just take-off with the children.â€
On July 15,
2011, when confronted at home about her positive and missed drug
tests, mother reported she had been unable to enroll in a
abusive to the DCFS social worker and was restrained by police. L.T. and A.T. were removed from the home and
placed in foster care.
By August 2011, mother was in the
Prototypes Women’s Center (Prototypes), a residential treatment facility, and
had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and was receiving
services and was incarcerated for a probation violation.
On September 8, 2011, the juvenile court ordered that mother
undergo a psychological/psychiatric evaluation.
The results of this evaluation were apparently never forwarded to the
court or made part of any DCFS report.
On January 4, 2012, mother was discharged from Prototypes for
noncompliance with house rules. An
assistant director at Prototypes reported the following: “From the initial enrollment date, [mother]
exhibited intense bouts of extreme anger and hostility, and engaged in severe
verbal profanity towards her children, her peers, and staff. [Mother] verbalized that she did not want to
remain in treatment because treatment was ‘too controlling,’ and the only
reason she stayed in treatment was due to her DCFS requirements with the
children. Numerous peers and staff
witnessed [mother] being verbally abusive towards her children.
. . . [¶] On December 17, 2011, [mother] was put on a
therapeutic contract which was to give increased assistance to her in regards
to her extreme level of anger and rage.
[She] was counseled on the terms of the contract, and was informed of
the potential consequences if she deviated from the contract. [Her] request to change mental health therapists
was also granted, and she was given immediate access to the therapist of her
choice. [¶] On December 21, 2011, it was reported by her
roommates that [mother] had spanked her child, and used profanity towards her
child. When confronted on her behavior,
[mother] made threatening remarks . . . to her roommate. [She] was once again counseled on her
therapeutic contract, and informed if she violated the contract once more that
she would be discharged from treatment.
[¶] On January 4, 2012, it was
reported from her roommates that her daughter had wet the bed and [mother]
began cussing at her daughter . . . , and when the roommates
told [her] to stop cussing at her daughter, [she] proceeded to curse at them. At this point, [mother] was discharged from
treatment. [¶] . . . [¶] It is my clinical opinion, as well as the
treatment team[’]s, that [mother] would benefit from continued residential
treatment with the modification of entering treatment without her
children. Based on the level of anger,
hostility, and control issue that [she] exhibits, I believe she needs to first
work on deep seated issues stemming from her own childhood before she will be
capable of being an appropriate parent to her children.â€
Mother’s counselor at Prototypes
reported that mother was “out of control and it’s not healthy for the children
to be around her when she is acting like this.â€
DCFS reported that “[b]ased on the fact that mother . . . has
been spanking, cursing, and call[ing] her children names, after continuous treatment
at Prototypes; the Department has serious concerns regarding the safety of the
children. Overall, this particular
family can be categorized as being ‘high’ risk for future abuse. Thus the Department believes that continued
detention and placement of the children is necessary to protect the children’s
safety.â€
The children were placed with a
maternal aunt. The aunt reported that
visits between mother and the children were “chaotic,†and mother found it
difficult to deal with the children at times.
Mother stated, “‘I don’t believe
that it is “good†idea for the children to be with m[e] right now and I think
that girls were returned to me too soon.
I really need to work on my own issues before the girls come back to
me. I want the girls to stay with my
sister, until I finish my programs.’â€
Father agreed that mother was “not ready to have the girls back.â€
On January 20, 2012, mother had a
positive toxicology test.
In February 2012 mother reentered
Prototypes. In April 2012 her counselor
reported mother had identified relapse triggers and was using coping skills,
maintained good attendance and participation with her various therapy groups,
and appeared active in her recovery.
Mother regularly tested negative for drugs and alcohol and attended
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings one or two times per week. She completed domestic violence and parenting
education classes, “parenting center vocational training,†and a “seeking
safety†curriculum, and received a certificate for active participation in
anger management classes. Monitored
visits with the children between February and April 2012 went well, and in May
2012 visitation was increased to unmonitored day visits on Prototypes grounds. These visits also went well, mother’s
counselor reporting that mother was learning how to implement her new parenting
skills. In July 2012 visitation was
increased to overnight visits from Saturday to Sunday. The counselor reported these were successful
and expressed no concerns about them.
The maternal aunt reported that the children seemed happy after the
visits and the children reported they enjoyed them and wanted to continue
visitation.
Mother nevertheless reported
sometime between February and July 2012 that she needed more time to work on
her sobriety and domestic violence, anger management, depression and parenting
needs prior to regaining custody of her children. She stated she would be ready to have the
children return to her care “within the next 6 months.â€
The children’s maternal aunt said
she would be interested in legal guardianship if they could not be reunified
with their parents.
At a six-month review hearing on
August 2, 2012, both mother and father sought family maintenance services and
return of L.T. and A.T. to their respective custody. Counsel for the children requested that they
be returned to mother in light of her substantial compliance with the case
plan, but DCFS recommended that they not be returned to mother until she
obtained transitional housing and stable employment, which the Department said
would occur in 30 days.
The juvenile court found that based
on mother’s compliance with the case plan, return of the children to her would
not create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection or
physical or emotional well being. It ordered
the prior placement order terminated, remanded the children to mother, and
ordered DCFS to continue family maintenance services. In the end, the court told mother, “Let me
make myself very clear. Let me make
myself very, very clear to you. If you mess
up one more time and I have to remove your children yet another time, you’re
not going to get them back by me.
[¶] Is that understood
. . . ?†Mother said, “Yes,
ma’am.â€
Father appeals from the order
returning the children to mother’s care.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the order returning
L.T. and A.T. to mother was unsupported by substantial evidence because as of
the date of the hearing neither the court nor DCFS had received a copy of the
psychiatric evaluation that was ordered back in September 2011 and which mother
purportedly underwent in December 2011.
Father argues that lack of a report on mother’s psychiatric evaluation,
and her lack of permanent transitional housing or employment, prevented the
juvenile court from returning the children to mother. We disagree.
Section 366.21, subdivision (e),
which governs six-month review hearings in dependency proceedings, provides in
pertinent part: “At the review hearing
held six months after the initial dispositional hearing . . . , after
considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the
return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal
guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a
substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child. The
social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. . . . The failure of the parent or legal guardian
to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered
treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be
detrimental. In making its
determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report
and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate
appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or
progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent
to which he or she availed himself or herself to services provided, taking into
account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized,
detained, or deported parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those
court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her
child. [¶] Regardless of whether the child is returned
to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for
its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be
detrimental. The court also shall
. . . order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate
the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian.â€
“The dependency scheme is based on
the law’s strong preference for maintaining family relationships whenever
possible. [Citations.] When a child is removed from parental
custody, certain legal safeguards are applied to prevent unwarranted or
arbitrary continuation of out-of-home placement. [Citations.]
Until reunification services are terminated, there is a statutory presumption
that a dependent child will be returned to parental custody.†(In re
Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.) As relevant here, section 366.21, subdivision
(e) requires the juvenile court at the six-month review hearing to return the
child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that return of the child would create a substantial risk of
detriment to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being.
“The Agency has the burden of
establishing detriment.
[Citations.] The standard for
showing detriment is ‘a fairly high one.
It cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal,
did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we might have hoped,
or seems less capable than an available foster parent or other family
member.’ [Citation.] Rather, the risk of detriment must be
to parental custody represents some danger to the child’s physical or emotional
well-being. [Citations.] [¶] In
evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider the extent to which the
parent participated in reunification services.
[Citations.] The court must also
consider the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the
conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement.†(In re
Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1400.) We review the record for
substantial evidence in support of the court’s determination. (Id.
at pp. 1400-1401.)
“‘“When the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, the reviewing
court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, evidence
which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of
the trier of fact. [Citation.] In making this determination, all conflicts
[in the evidence and in reasonable inferences from the evidence] are to be
resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of fact and credibility
are questions for the trier of fact. [Citation.]â€â€™
[Citation.] While substantial
evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must rest on the evidence;
inferences that are the result of speculation or conjecture cannot support a
finding.†(In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258-1259.)
Here, the uncontroverted evidence
showed that mother substantially completed her case plan and has been sober for
approximately six months. The Prototypes
counselor reported that mother was committed to her treatment, that she
appeared to have benefitted from the services provided, and that she made
changes in her life that are in her children’s best interests. Mother has acquired knowledge of positive
parenting and is able to employ anger management techniques. She has stable and “appropriate†housing at a
long-term shelter where she can safely parent her daughters. In essence, mother did everything DCFS asked
of her, including eliminating the conditions that led to the children’s
out-of-home placement. Further, the
children were happy with mother’s improved behavior during regular visits. Nothing in the record indicates that mother
is incapable of adequately parenting the girls, and DCFS presented no specific
and objective evidence to show the children would suffer detriment, including
serious psychological or emotional injury, if they were placed with mother at
the Prototypes facility. The juvenile
court’s order returning the children to mother was thus supported by
substantial evidence.
Although father argues the trial
court’s order placing L.T. and A.T. with mother was unsupported by substantial
evidence, he omits from his argument any reference to evidence showing mother
complied with the case plan, including that she maintained good attendance and
participation with her various therapy groups, including anger management
classes, was active in her recovery, regularly tested negative for drugs and
alcohol, attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly, and completed
domestic violence and parenting education classes, vocational training, and a
“seeking safety†curriculum. Father
ignores that months of monitored and unmonitored visits with the children went
well and mother’s case manager at Prototypes reported mother had identified
relapse triggers, was using skills to cope with them, and was learning to
implement her new parenting skills. The
children seemed happy after visits with mother and reported they wanted
visitation to continue.
“An appellant must fairly set forth
all the significant facts, not just those beneficial to [himself].†(In re
S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 402.)
Here, father focuses only on the lack of a report detailing the results
of mother’s December 2011 psychological evaluation and cites only evidence
favorable to his position, ignoring all to the contrary. “Such briefing is manifestly deficient. [¶]
‘The rule is well established that a reviewing court must presume that
the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact, and an appellant
who contends that some particular finding is not supported is required to set
forth in his brief a summary of the material evidence upon that issue. Unless this is done, the error assigned is
deemed to be waived. [Citation.] It is incumbent upon appellants to state
fully, with transcript references, the evidence which is claimed to be
insufficient to support the findings.’
[Citations.]†(
877, 887-888.)
We need not further discuss the
evidence supporting the juvenile court’s orders because by failing to challenge
its sufficiency and failing to discuss the issue in any meaningful way, father
waives any challenge to its sufficiency.
(Foreman & Clark Corp. v.
Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881; Bullock
v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 677;
v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 765, 782.)
The
juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
