In re Abraama M.
Filed 7/1/13 In re Abraama M. CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
TWO
In re ABRAAMA M. et al.,
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B241627
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK75650)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRIAN C. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
AND DENYING REHEARING,
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
It is
ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 6, 2013, be
1. On page 3, fourth line, after the word
“home,†delete the following:
pinching
one of them (leaving marks and bruises) and by striking another with her hands on the face and body
2. On page 3, last paragraph, starting with “In
October 2010,†line 3, delete the
following:
and
smearing feces on walls and floors
3. On page 6, second full paragraph, line 4,
after “verification of completion,†add the
following:
of
parenting education,
4. On page 6, second full paragraph, starting,
“During the July 2011 review hearing,â€
line 5, where it reads, “commented that the social workerâ€, replace as follows:
commented
that an attorney’s investigator
5. On page 10, first full paragraph, line 4,
that reads “New You arranged for Mother
to see a licensed therapist.†Add “an
intern supervised by†so it reads:
New
You arranged for Mother to see an intern supervised by a licensed therapist.
6. On page 10, third full paragraph, line 5,
that starts off, “Mother testifiedâ€, replace sentence “Mother claimed to
be unaware that she needed counseling from
a licensed therapist.†with
the following sentence so that the sentence is modified to read as follows:
Mother
initially claimed to be unaware that she needed counseling from a licensed therapist, then acknowledged that the court
ordered therapy from a licensed
provider.
7. On page 12, last paragraph, line 6, after
“walks down the street.†delete the following
sentence:
Brian
C.’s attack caused Mother to miscarry.
8. On page 16, last paragraph, line 5, that
reads, “program because she was angryâ€,
replace “angry†with the word “offended†so it is modified to read as follows:
program
because she was offended
9. On page 16, last paragraph, line 5, and first
line of page 17, after “(5)†delete the following:
threatened
to have Brian C. killed
10. On page 17, first line, replace “and (6)†to
read:
and
(5) recently
There is no
change in the judgment.
Appellant’s
petition for rehearing is denied.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
BOREN,
P.J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, J. FERNS,
J.*
_______________________________________________________________
* Judge
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6
of the California Constitution.
Filed
6/6/13 In re Abraama M. CA2/2 (unmodfied
version)
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
TWO
In re ABRAAMA M. et al.,
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B241627
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK75650)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRIAN C. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEALS
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Anthony Trendacosta, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Joseph D.
MacKenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant Brian C.
Lisa A.
Raneri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
Abra M.
Amir
Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________________
>
Abra M. (Mother) and Brian C.
appeal from dependency court orders (1) finding that they received reasonable
reunification services and (2) terminating their parental rights to their two
children. Mother contends that she has
visited regularly and the children would benefit from continuing their family
and sibling relationships. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i), (v).)
relationship claim. We find no error and
affirm.
FACTS
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
As detailed
in prior opinions in this case, which encompassed 12 appeals and many child
abuse referrals, this family has a long history of involvement with the
juvenile court and the Department of Children of Family Services (DCFS),
spanning several generations. One of the
prior appeals involved the maternal grandparents, Frank and O. M., who have six
children (including Mother), many of whom were juvenile court dependents. The extended family lives together in a
violent, chaotic and dirty home environment.
The grandparents and their children have been confrontational and
uncooperative with DCFS and law enforcement agencies.
Mother has four children: Abraama (born in 2003); Abigail (2007);
Amansha (2010); and J. (2011).
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] Appellant Brian C. is the father of Abigail
and Amansha. James S. is the father of
Abraama.
Abraama and Abigail were detained
in December 2008. In April 2009, Mother
engaged in physical altercations with two DCFS monitors, causing injuries to
both. The juvenile court issued a
restraining order against Mother, who was no longer allowed to have visits at
the DCFS office. An amended petition was
sustained in July 2009 as follows: on
numerous occasions Mother physically abused Abraama and other children in the
family home, pinching one of them (leaving marks and bruises) and by striking
another with her hands on the face and body; Abraama and Abigail were exposed
to violent altercations in the home; the children’s maternal uncle Nathaniel
sexually abused their minor female cousin in the home and Mother failed to
protect Abraama and Abigail by allowing Nathaniel to continue residing with
them.
In September 2009, DCFS filed a
petition alleging that Brian C. has a substantial criminal history that
endangers Abigail and places her at risk of harm. As amended, the petition was sustained on
November 5, 2009.
The
juvenile court placed Abraama and Abigail with Abraama’s biological father,
James S., over Mother’s objection that he engaged in domestic violence in the
past. The court granted James S. legal
and physical custody of Abraama and terminated its jurisdiction over her. Abigail remained a dependent of the
court. Mother and Brian C. were ordered
to participate in reunification services, including parenting classes,
individual counseling, anger management, and a psychiatric assessment. Mother’s challenges to the disposition orders
did not succeed. (In re Abrama M., supra,
In May
2010, DCFS filed a supplemental petition on behalf of Abigail and Abraama
pertaining to physically abusive behavior and domestic violence by James
S. Two months later, a petition was
filed on behalf of Mother’s newborn girl Amansha, arising from the harm to her
siblings; the court ordered that the baby be detained. At a jurisdiction hearing in August 2010, the
court sustained allegations of inappropriate discipline of Abraama by James
S. One month later, the court found that
Brian C. is not in compliance with the case plan and terminated his
reunification services.
In October 2010, DCFS reported that
Abraama and her sisters were repeatedly removed from foster homes due to
Mother’s false calls to a child abuse hotline.
Abraama was defecating on herself and smearing feces on walls and floors
as a reaction to being constantly removed from her placements. When informed of the problem, Mother replied
that she would continue to call the hotline and make complaints until the
children were returned to her care.
Mother refused to recognize that her behavior was traumatizing the
children. The social worker was unable
to find a placement for Abraama and Abigail in one home after Mother’s most
recent hotline complaints, so they had to be separated.
After Mother made 10 unfounded
complaints to the hotline, Abraama’s therapist opined that the six-year-old was
“so emotionally dysregulated†that she could “barely articulate thoughts or
feelings of any kind†and the child expressed fear of Mother. The therapist was alarmed at the frequent
disruptions caused by Mother’s behavior, noting that the child “has symptoms
consistent with trauma such as flat affect, dissociation, hypervigilance,
extreme startle response, agitation, inability to recall/articulate
events/memories, sleep disturbances and poor concentration, as well as
encopresis, and these symptoms cause severe impairment at home or school.†The therapist warned that the symptoms could
worsen.
On October 18, 2010, the court
declared Abraama a dependent and found that leaving her in the parental home
presented a substantial danger to her physical or emotional well-being. She was placed in the custody and care of
DCFS. The court authorized monitored
visits and ordered Mother to participate in individual counseling with a
licensed therapist to address anger management and other case issues. Mother appealed the disposition order. We affirmed, finding substantial evidence to
support the juvenile court’s conclusion that placing Abraama with Mother would
be detrimental. We cited Mother’s
harmful interruptions to Abraama’s life by making false calls to a child abuse
hotline plus the concerns of Abraama’s therapist. Mother voiced an intent to continue her
destructive behavior, without understanding that the behavior prevented the
court from returning Abraama to her.
Although Mother participated in anger management and counseling programs,
and was visiting the children, Mother did not make substantive progress because
she was unable to control her anger and her visits demonstrated inadequate
parenting skills. (In re Abrama M., supra,
B229236.)
In January 2011, the juvenile court
sustained the petition relating to Amansha.
That month, Mother indicated that she was on waiting lists for
individual counseling services and was attending a program called “New You†but
had not been assigned a therapist there.
Mother’s rage at DCFS was an obstacle in completing services. DCFS told Mother in February 2011 that
openings were available at an approved service provider, but Mother responded
that it was too far away. Mother was
attending an outpatient drug program at New You. DCFS advised the director of New You that
Mother had to see a licensed therapist, but was unable to confirm in March 2011
that she was receiving proper counseling.
In April 2011, Mother and Brian C. had an altercation that resulted in
Brian C.’s arrest.
In May 2011, Mother filed a
petition for modification seeking unmonitored visitation with her three
daughters. She provided certificates
showing completion of “anger management†and “individual sessionsâ€; however,
DCFS was unable to confirm that Mother had obtained treatment from a licensed
therapist at New You, and Mother declined DCFS’s attempts to provide her with
additional referrals.
At a hearing on June 21, 2011, the
court questioned Mother’s credibility and found that she had not fully complied
with court orders, describing her as “still incapable, after more than three
years, of accepting any
responsibility for her children.†It
denied her petition for a modification because circumstances were “changing,â€
not “changed.†The court rejected
Mother’s claim that DCFS failed to provide her with reasonable services,
finding that “[t]he record is more than clear that reasonable services were
provided.†Nevertheless, the court
granted Mother another 12 months of reunification services with Abraama. As to Abigail, the court declined to proceed
with the termination of parental rights because DCFS had not located an
adoptive home. Mother and Brian C.
were denied reunification services with Amansha because her young age and their
failure to convince the court that it would be in her best interests. The court scheduled Amansha’s permanency
planning hearing for November 2011.
After Mother appealed from the June
21, 2011 order, this Court concluded that DCFS provided her with reasonable
services by giving her referrals to licensed therapists, including low-cost and
no-cost therapists, which Mother acknowledged receiving in October 2010. In February 2011, DCFS advised Mother about
openings at a licensed facility, but she declined the opportunity. On May 12, 2011, the social worker attempted
to provide Mother with additional referrals, but Mother rejected the
information, saying that she would get it from her attorney. At the June 2011 hearing, the social worker
testified that Mother never requested additional counseling referrals or
indicated that she was having difficulty finding a licensed therapist. Mother’s testimony to the contrary was
rejected by the trial court for lack of credibility. (In re
Abrama M., supra,
We now move to events occurring
since the June 21, 2011 order. In a July
2011 status review report, DCFS noted that Mother was ordered in November 2009
to complete parenting education and anger management: she has thus far failed to provide
verification of completion, continues to suffer from anger management issues,
and was not in counseling with a licensed therapist. She was verbally aggressive with the
caseworker, yelling and using profanity to express frustration. DCFS recommended that Mother’s reunification
services be terminated. The foster
caregiver for Abigail and Abraama described them as “a joy to have.†Abigail has difficulty speaking as a result
of anxiety issues, but is in “her comfort zone†at the caregiver’s home, where
she eats and sleeps well and feels safe.
The caregiver expressed interest in a guardianship.
During the July 2011 review
hearing, Mother complained that she was not receiving adequate visitation, but
DCFS pointed out that Mother failed to call and confirm her visits, so DCFS did
not arrange to transport the children.
The court ordered two visits per week, and directed Mother to confirm
the visits in advance. The court
commented that the social worker was working “diligently†to arrange counseling
for Mother with a licensed therapist. At
a follow-up hearing, Mother’s attorney represented the she will “be enrolled
very soon in therapy.â€
In August 2011, DCFS reported that
Mother was having two weekly visits with her daughters. She had just given birth to J., who was in
her care, although a child abuse referral was generated four days after birth
alleging that Mother and Brian C. were involved in ongoing domestic violence;
Mother failed to inform DCFS that she gave birth; and Mother “stated that she
wanted to have ‘Brian killed.’†Mother
was residing in transitional housing at New You.
A September 2011 report indicated
that Ms. E., the foster caregiver for Abraama and Abigail, wished to adopt both
children: she has cared for them since
October 2010, has developed a bond with them, and they refer to her as
“mommy.†A long-time government
employee, Ms. E. feels capable of providing the girls with a permanent
home. She pays for a private preschool
for Abigail.
In October 2011, the director of
New You wrote to say that its relationship with Mother had terminated: Mother became offended when asked to clean up
her spot in transitional housing, failed to keep counseling appointments, and
felt her children were unwelcome at New You.
New You certified that Mother completed seven months of anger management
and parenting skills education with counseling.
DCFS requested greater detail on Mother’s programs and her progress in
therapy.
Abraama and Abigail continued to
reside with their foster mother Ms. E., who provides them with their
educational, medical and emotional needs.
Mother was having consistent monitored visits with the children two
times per week for three hours per session.
Mother helps with the children’s hair and homework, and there were no
problems during the visits. Abraama has
a close bond with Mother and is always excited about her visits. She likes Brian C. (who is not her father)
and occasionally calls him “daddy.â€
Mother and Brian C. were recently investigated for domestic violence, and
a new referral was received in October 2011 alleging that newborn J. was living
in squalor with Mother, Brian C., and the maternal grandparents. That complaint was being investigated. DCFS was unwilling to liberalize Mother’s
visits because it was unclear whether Mother has made progress addressing her
anger management issues, plus she is not living in a safe place. It asked the court to terminate reunification
services.
Amansha (age 14 months) was placed
in foster care, and was visited by Mother and Brian C. twice a week, along with
her siblings. There were no concerns
about the parental visits. A prospective
adoptive parent had been found for Amansha.
Ms. E. now wished to adopt Abigail, but not Abraama. DCFS identified a home where they could be
adopted together, that was in close proximity to Amansha’s prospective adoptive
family.
Abraama’s therapist opined that the
child’s attachment to Mother “is based on manipulation†and Mother “encourages
Abraama to not follow rules.†The
therapist “has observed that Abraama’s symptoms increase when she has a lot of
contact with her birth mother†and her “prognosis is ‘so bad’ if she continues
her relationship with her mother.â€
Despite Abraama’s attachment to Mother, ending their relationship was
the child’s “best chance†for recovery.
Mother visited the children
consistently, brought food for them, and interacted well with them. Abraama and Mother genuinely care for each
other, and Abraama always hugs and kisses Mother during the visits. Abigail was somewhat “standoffish†with
Mother and her siblings, needing time to warm up during the visits. By the end of a visit, she is more
engaged. She is less affectionate toward
Mother. Amansha is a very happy child
who is open and friendly towards anyone.
She seems to recognize Mother and shows no fear of her. They exchange hugs and kisses during
visits. Brian C. participated in
some visits, but is not consistent.
Abraama is close to him, but does not want to see her birth father,
James S. On October 20, 2011, Mother was
referred to an organization that provides transitional housing. As of mid-January 2012, Mother had telephoned
the organization and promised to begin the application process, but had not
appeared there to do so. Mother was
living with J. in the homes of friends and relatives, but would not allow DCFS
to inspect her residences.
DCFS noted that Abraama and Abigail
have lived together since December 2008, and adoption was still the recommended
plan for them, despite Abraama’s attachment to Mother. Mother’s false allegations of child abuse has
caused the children to suffer from instability.
DCFS could not hope to place the girls together in an adoptive home
until Mother’s visits were terminated, so that she could not “sabotage and
jeopardize†the adoption. Adoption plans
were proceeding for Amansha.
Mother petitioned for a
modification in November 2011. She
listed as changed circumstances her completion of parenting and counseling, and
improved anger management, coping and parenting skills, and decision making. She accepts responsibility for losing custody
of the children, noting that they have a strong emotional bond with her. She requested: six months of reunification services with
Abigail and Amansha; custody of Abigail and Abraama in an assisted living
program; and unmonitored visits.
Visitation notes from July to September 2011 indicate that Mother ate
with the children during visits; interacted well with them; is attentive;
offers praise and encouragement; helped with homework and hair styling; and the
children looked forward to seeing her.
The court set a hearing on Mother’s petition.
At a hearing in January 2012, DCFS
social worker Jeffrey Grant testified that Mother appears to be sober and he
has not observed a drug abuse problem since he was assigned to her case in
August 2011. He considers Mother to be
in compliance with the case plan. On
cross-examination, Grant conceded that Mother did not receive counseling from a
licensed therapist and, therefore, was not in compliance with the case plan. New You scheduled Mother for a session with a
licensed therapist, but Mother failed to arrive for it. Mother has not had any recent angry outbursts
with DCFS; however, she was ejected from transitional housing because she did
not feel that she had to keep her space clean.
Mother visits the children regularly.
The visits are appropriate, and she interacts well with the children,
especially Abraama. Abraama is upset
when the visits end and expressed a desire to go home with Mother. There is a positive and affectionate bond
between them. Abigail takes time to warm
up to Mother during visits and there is a bond “usually towards the end of
visits.†Amansha is also affectionate
toward Mother.
Grant was not able to assess
Mother’s current living situation. When
he shows up to examine her residence, no one is there to let him inside. He referred her to a housing agency in
October 2011, but she has not brought the appropriate paperwork to the agency
though she promised to do so multiple times.
Abraama lives with Abigail and recognizes that Amansha is her
sister. The siblings are affectionate,
enjoy each other’s company, and are bonded.
The DCFS recommendation was to
terminate reunification services for Abraama and set a permanent plan
hearing. Though Grant does not believe
that Mother would physically harm the children, “[i]t wouldn’t be practical for
us to recommend unmonitored visitation and just give her the children [because]
we don’t know where she’s staying or where she’s residing.†Without knowing Mother’s living situation,
DCFS does not know if the children would be safe with her.
The program director from New You
testified that she counseled Mother, but is not a licensed therapist. Her program specializes in substance abuse
rehabilitation. Though the director was
aware of the court order that Mother be treated by a licensed therapist, Mother
did not receive such treatment. New You
arranged for Mother to see a licensed therapist: Mother missed the appointment with the
therapist, but came to New You to have a visit with her children. The appointment was not rescheduled because
Mother was discharged from New You.
The program director expressed
concern that Mother has difficulty staying focused, and continues to be
attached to her parents and siblings.
Mother left New You because she was “offended†at being asked to keep
her space clean and felt her children were unwelcome. Mother was angry at the way that her
dependency case was handled, but she now has a better approach, does not
interact in a combative manner, and listens without arguing. Mother tries to respond to her children’s
needs and used the kitchen at New You to prepare food for them.
Mother testified that she did not
move into “Beyond Shelter†housing, despite referrals from the DCFS social
worker. Instead, she lives in the homes
of friends and relatives, and has been on a waiting list for Section 8 housing
since 2003. DCFS has not seen the places
where she has been living with J. She is
rushing to locate stable housing so that she can be reunited with her
children. Mother claimed to be unaware
that she needed counseling from a licensed therapist. She feels the counseling at New You was
sufficient and does not understand why “everything I do, it seems like it’s not
good enough.â€
In April 2012, DCFS reported that
Mother has not enrolled in a counseling program with a licensed therapist. Brian C. has not completed any court-ordered
case plan requirements. Mother and Brian
C. have weekly monitored visits with the children, bringing food and
gifts. There were no problems or
incidents during visits. Abraama was
excited about the visits, Abigail was less excited but sometimes cries when the
visits end. Amansha shows no interest in
the visits as she is very young, but enjoys interacting with her family. Mother has not provided DCFS with an address
to assess her current residence, and is still looking for appropriate
housing. Mother continues to deny that
any child abuse occurred while she was living in her parents’ home, which is
the problem that led to this dependency case.
Abraama was involved in an incident
in which she demanded that a schoolmate remove her clothing and kiss her; when
the girl refused, Abraama attempted to strangle her. Abraama was suspended from school and
referred to a mental health program for children. Abraama acts in an “unusual†way in the
foster home with her sister Abigail, and they had to be placed in separate
bedrooms. Abraama was questioned about
her behavior and said, “I can’t help it.â€
DCFS continued to recommend that parental rights to Amansha and Abigail
be terminated for Mother and Brian C., and that Mother’s reunification services
with Abraama be terminated. The foster
mother was interested in adopting Abigail, but not Abraama.
DCFS informed the court that Brian
C. attended a monitored visit with Mother on April 19. They both seemed upset, and began discussing
the dependency case with the children.
Brian C. became angry, paced the floor, punched his fist and used
profanity. When warned that his behavior
could cause the visit to be terminated, Brian C. said, “I’m going to kill that
nigger, CSW Social Worker and I will take everybody else out too,†referring to
DCFS social worker Grant. As the visit
ended, Brian C. confronted Grant outside the foster agency, demanded the confidential
address of Amansha’s caregiver, and repeatedly threatened to kill Grant and as
many others as possible if his children were not returned to him, adding that
he had no problem doing the prison time if necessary. Grant felt very unsafe during this
incident. He concluded that “the risk
level is very high and it would be detrimental to place these children back in
the care and custody†of Mother and Brian C because “the visits have become
very volatile and could lead to bodily injury.â€
He recommended that visits be terminated.
Brian C. testified that he was calm
when he arrived, and he and Mother did not discuss the case in front of the
children. He became upset when he saw
Amansha kiss DCFS employee Grant on the mouth, feeling that she has displayed
sexually inappropriate behavior and was “staying with†Grant or someone close
to him. He asked someone to call the
police, but denied pacing the floor, punching his fist, or using
profanity. He denied threatening to kill
Grant and others.
Mother testified that she and Brian
C. did not discuss the case in front of the children, although she encouraged
Abraama to write complaint letters about the foster mother. Mother was shocked to see Amansha kiss the
social worker on the mouth, raised her voice, and grabbed the child away from
him. Mother denied that Brian C. used
profanity or made threats against Grant or others. Mother called the child abuse hotline twice
to report the social worker’s alleged misconduct during the April 19 visit and
Abraama’s alleged mistreatment in foster care.
Mother stated that she has been living with various family members, but
denies living with her parents.
DCFS worker
Grant testified that everything he described in his report was true. Brian C. repeatedly threatened to kill him
and others. Grant has monitored the
parents’ visits two times a week since August 2011. He denied that Amansha kissed him on the
lips. He did not call the police when
Brian C. threatened to kill him, though he was concerned for his safety. Brian C. made no references to improper behavior,
so Grant did not know what caused his outburst; however, Brian C. expressed
anger at the contents of Grant’s reports, calling them disrespectful.
The court
issued a written decision on May 17, 2012.
It wrote, “Not only has mother not progressed, she has regressed. [Brian C.] has not complied at all.†Further, their “credibility is nil.†It was clear that Mother “lacks all impulse control.†In April 2011, Mother and Brian C. were
involved in a violent incident, and she obtained a restraining order because
she felt threatened by him and has to look behind her when she walks down the
street. Brian C.’s attack caused Mother
to miscarry. Soon after, Mother invited
him to live with her, and became pregnant by him. All of this calls into question Mother’s
credibility, and “leads the court to conclude that [Mother] is still incapable,
after more than three years, of accepting any
responsibility for her children being subject to the court’s jurisdiction.â€
The court wrote that Mother
continues to report child abuse to a hotline, despite a history of making false
allegations and disrupting the children’s placements. Her impulsivity is demonstrated by her
inability to establish a safe residence, by lashing out at people who are
trying to assist her; by leaving transitional housing because she was told to
clean up her room; and by filing ex parte documents. Brian C. attacked the DCFS social worker
after receiving his report to the court, and Mother was “a willing participant.†The court found their accusations that the
social worker engaged in improper behavior in front of the parents and other
workers at the agency to be incredible and unbelievable.
Mother failed to show a change of
circumstances: it is “patently obviousâ€
that she has regressed, not progressed.
Further, it appears that she is residing with Brian C., is not being
honest about her living situation, and her plans are “illusory.†The court denied Mother’s petition for a
modification. It terminated Mother’s
reunification services with Abraama because Mother “cannot control herself†and
“her inability to control her impulses would put these children at risk if they
were returned to her.†The court found
that Mother has had more than 18 months of services and has failed to
completely comply with the case plan or make substantive progress. It limited Mother to one visit with Abraama
per month, in the DCFS office.
Finally, the court terminated
parental rights as to Abigail and Amansha, finding no applicable exception to
the legislative preference for adoption once reunification services have proved
unsuccessful. The parents have not
progressed beyond monitored visitation and they have not shown any real
parenting skills other than providing food during visits, as any relative or
friend would do. The parental
relationship does not outweigh the benefit to the children of a permanent
home. The children are adoptable. While Abigail and Abraama live together,
neither parent (nor the children’s counsel) showed that their relationship
outweighs the permanence of adoption.
Abigail’s foster mother wishes to adopt her, and there is every hope
that Abraama can be placed with her paternal grandmother or returned to her
natural father.
When
reviewing an order that (1) finds reasonable reunification services were
provided and (2) terminates parental rights, we determine if substantial
evidence supports the conclusions of the dependency court. All conflicts are resolved in favor of the
prevailing party and all legitimate inferences are drawn to uphold the lower
court’s ruling. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971; In re Josue G. (2003)
106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732; In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373,
1378-1379.) We cannot reweigh the
evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (In re Jamie R. (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 766, 774.)
1. Termination of Mother’s Reunification
Services with Abraama
Mother renews her argument that she
was not provided with adequate referrals to a licensed therapist. She previously made this argument in her most
recent appeal in B235048. In our
opinion, we wrote that DCFS provided Mother with reasonable services by giving
her referrals to licensed therapists, including low-cost and no-cost therapists
in 2010. DCFS referred Mother to openings
at a licensed facility in February 2011, but she declined the opportunity. Mother’s claims to the contrary were not
credible.
Reunification services should be
tailored to the needs of the family, but need not be perfect. (In re
Alvin R., supra,
“identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services
designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the
service plan, and made reasonable
efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult,†such
as providing transportation. (
403, 414.) “The standard is not whether
the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world,
but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances.†(In re
Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547; Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1159.)
Mother has not availed herself of
referrals offered to her by DCFS since the outset of this case in 2008. After the last appeal was filed, Mother’s
attorney informed the court that a suitable therapist had been located and
Mother would enroll in therapy “very soon.â€
An appointment with a therapist was arranged for October 2011, but
Mother failed to appear, citing family obligations, although she arrived in
time to have a visit with the children.
Mother filed a section 388 petition in November 2011, requesting six
more months of services to complete the case plan. Mother’s petition was denied in May
2012. During the six-month interval
between the filing of the petition and its resolution, Mother continued to
receive reunification services, yet failed to complete the case plan.
Mother had three and one-half years
to complete her counseling requirement, and was given repeated opportunities to
comply. She received help from the DCFS
social worker and her attorney’s office.
She declined referrals, then failed to show up when an appointment was
scheduled.
The problem is not that Mother
lacked sufficient services; rather, the problem is that she does not want to
comply. As she testified, “everything I
do it seems like it’s not good enough.
And everybody’s just emphasized on a licensed therapist. And I just feel kind of like it’s biased
because of all of the counseling that I have received. . . . I was getting, you know, general counseling
through the New You. . . . And I thought
that was sufficient enough.†Mother knew
she was at a critical juncture in her case, yet she still resisted additional
counseling. Adding six more months of
services after Mother received three and a half years of services would not
have made a difference, in light of her attitude that she has had enough
counseling. Under the circumstances,
there is sufficient evidence to support the dependency court’s finding that
Mother received reasonable services over the lengthy course of this proceeding.
2. Termination of Parental Rights to Abigail
and Amansha
At the selection and implementation
hearing, the court must select adoption as the permanent plan and terminate
parental rights if it finds that the child is likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Celine R. (2003)
31 Cal.4th 45, 49; In re Jamie R.,
supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 773.)
Adoption is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th
823, 826; In re Ronell A. (1995) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.)
rights by showing that it would be detrimental to the child. (In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at
p. 53.)
a. “Benefit to the Child†Exception
Mother argues that termination of
parental rights would be detrimental because she has “maintained regular
visitation and contact†with the children, who “would benefit from continuing
the relationship.†(§ 366.26, subd.
(c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother must show why the
statutory exception applies, and that termination would be detrimental to the
child. (In re Derek W., supra,
73 Cal.App.4th at p. 826; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243,
1252.) She carries the burden of proving
that the children would be “greatly†harmed by termination of parental rights,
and that she holds a “parental†role. (
847, 853-854; In re Angel B. (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466-468.)
Mother must show both prongs of the
exception: regular visitation and a
benefit to the children if the relationship were continued that outweighs the
well-being the children would gain in a new home with adoptive parents. As to the first prong, Mother’s visits have
been consistent. As to the second prong,
the dependency court determined that the children’s relationship with Mother is
not so substantial that they would be greatly harmed if it were severed.
This dependency case began in
December 2008, when Abigail was one year old and two years before Amansha was
born. Parental rights were terminated in
May 2012. For the entire three and
one-half years, Mother never participated in counseling with a licensed
therapist to address her anger and impulse control issues. The results are telling.
During the dependency proceeding,
Mother (1) assaulted two DCFS employees, causing them injury; (2) was under a
restraining order to stay away from the DCFS office; (3) made countless false
calls to a child abuse hotline, traumatizing her children by causing them to be
moved from place to place; (4) left her transitional housing program because
she was angry at being asked to clean her room; (5) threatened to have Brian C.
killed; and (6) recently accused a DCFS social worker of having a sexual
relationship with two-year-old Amansha.
Despite this track record, Mother testified that the assistance she
received from the unlicensed counselor at New You was sufficient for her
needs. As the juvenile court found,
Mother did not progress over the course of the dependency proceeding; rather,
she regressed.
As a result of Mother’s defiant and
uncooperative attitude, she was unable to have unmonitored, weekend or extended
visits, let alone custody of the children.
A showing that a child would be greatly harmed by termination of
parental rights is difficult to make when, as here, “the parents have . . .
[not] advanced beyond supervised visitation.â€
(In re Casey D. (1999)
70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51.) A true
parental relationship would not require a third party to monitor parent-child
visits.
Mother’s visits were never
liberalized because she failed to address the domestic violence and anger
management problems that lead to dependency jurisdiction. The trial court firmly believed that Mother
and Brian C. live together, despite Brian C.’s propensity for violence. Their credibility is “nilâ€: their claim that they live apart is
untrue. Unsurprisingly, the court did
not see any benefit to the children of maintaining a relationship with a father
who battered their mother and voiced his intent to kill a social worker and as
many people as possible, and his willingness to do the resulting prison time.
Mother
argues that she has consistently visited the children, the visits were positive
and appropriate, the children expressed love for her, and they were sorry when
visits ended. Even frequent and loving
contact between parent and child is not sufficient to establish the requisite
benefit to the child if Mother does not occupy a parental role and is unable to
take custody. (In re Teneka W. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 721, 728;
1411, 1418-1419; In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108-1109.) While the children are bonding with their
prospective adoptive parents, Mother has not progressed to the point where she
can have unmonitored or overnight visits, even if the visits are enjoyable for
Mother and the children. A relationship
that is “pleasant†is not enough to establish a benefit to the child because
“it bears no resemblance to the sort of consistent, daily nurturing that marks
a parental relationship.†(In re
Derek W., supra, 73
Cal.App.4th at p. 827.) “Interaction
between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to
the child.†(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) Here, the children looked forward to their
monitored visits with Mother as they might look forward to a play date. Mother brought food, styled the girls’ hair,
and they had fun together.
Apart from the incidental benefit of
parent-child interaction, we must consider “the many variables which affect a
parent/child bond. The age of the child,
the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’
or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s
particular needs are some of the variables which logically affect a
parent/child bond.†(
were detained: Abigail was born in 2007
and detained in 2008, and Amansha was detained when she was one month old. They are too young to remember living with
Mother, and only know her from weekly visits.
Mother does not occupy a parental role for either child.
Mother does not dispute that the children
are thriving in their placements.
Unfortunately, she caused instability in her children’s lives by
repeatedly making false calls to a child abuse hotline, sabotaging their
placements and causing trauma. Right to
the end, she continued to telephone the hotline and complain, showing no
insight into the circumstances that led to this dependency proceeding. Mother did not carry her burden of showing
that the children would be greatly harmed by the termination of her parental
rights, or that the benefits of continuing their relationship outweigh the
benefits of a stable, permanent home.
Under the circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably find that
Mother’s relationship was not beneficial to the children. In a guardianship or continued foster care,
the children would suffer from unstable placements while Mother continued to
maliciously create problems for their caregivers. Where, as here, the children are likely to be
adopted, the court must choose adoption over a guardianship to give them “the
most permanent and secure alternative that can be afforded them.†(In re
Beatrice M., supra,
b. The “Sibling Relationshipâ€
Exception
Parental rights
should not be terminated if it would cause a “substantial interference with a
child’s sibling relationship,†taking into consideration whether the siblings
were raised in the same home; share “significant common experiences or [ ]
existing close and strong bonds,†and maintaining ongoing contact is in their
best long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal
permanence through adoption. (§ 366.26,
subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) Establishing this
exception imposes a heavy burden on the parent opposing adoption. (In re
Celine R., supra,
“The court must balance the beneficial
interest of the child in maintaining the sibling relationship, which might
leave the child in a tenuous guardianship or foster home placement, against the
sense of security and belonging adoption and a new home would confer.†(In re
L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951.)
“[T]he parent must show the existence of a significant sibling
relationship, the severance of which would be detrimental to the child. Many siblings have a relationships with each
other, but would not suffer detriment if that relationship ended.†(Id.
at p. 952, fn. omitted.)
Mother asserts that the children must be
kept together because they have the same parents and have visited
together. She blames DCFS for failing to
lodge the girls together in one foster placement. The record shows, in contrast to Mother’s
claims, that Mother sabotaged the children’s placements by repeatedly making
false claims of child abuse to a hotline.
Multiple caregivers expressed interest in adopting the children, only to
become targets of Mother’s false child abuse claims.
The
dependency court found no merit to Mother’s claim of a significant sibling
relationship. Amansha lived with Abraama
and Abigail briefly, shortly after her birth.
She does not share significant common experiences with her
siblings. (See In re Celine R., supra,
interest in family visits; it is a “playful atmosphere.â€
Abigail and Abraama lived together for a
period of time—until Mother’s incessant interference frightened off the
caregivers. Abraama attacked a
schoolmate and acted strangely with Abigail, so that they had to be placed in
separate bedrooms. Abraama’s therapist
opined that Mother’s manipulation was the root cause of the child’s behavioral
problems and poor prognosis. The
caregiver that the children bonded with and called “mommy†no longer wished to
adopt Abraama. Had Mother not sabotaged
the children’s placements, they might have been adopted together and Abigail
might not be suffering the trauma and depression that Brian C. describes in his
brief, from having lived in seven different homes in the first three years of
her life.
It is not clear from the record that the
children would be greatly harmed by the loss of a sibling relationship if
parental rights are terminated. It is
clear that the children need permanent homes, safe from Mother’s manipulations. As documented by the social worker, the girls
are happy to see each other during visits.
Yet there is no evidence from a psychologist suggesting that they would
be greatly harmed if permanently separated; there is no evidence of any behavioral
issues arising from the siblings’ separation; and there is no evidence that
they ask their caregivers to see their siblings between visits. Given the young ages of Amansha and Abigail,
the stability of a permanent home outweighs the benefits of their sibling
relationship. The legislative
presumption favors adoption. Neither
parent bore the burden of proving otherwise.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
BOREN,
P.J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, J. FERNS,
J.*
_______________________________________________________________
* Judge
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6
of the California Constitution.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Some
of the factual history recited in this opinion is derived from this Court’s
prior opinions in In re Abrama M. (Feb.
1, 2011, B216673) (nonpub. opn.); In re
Abrama M. (Oct. 3, 2011, B229236) (nonpub. opn.); and In re Abrama M. (Oct. 2, 2012, B235048) (nonpub. opn.). The facts and law in the cited opinions are
res judicata.
