In re C.A.

Filed 3/27/07 In re C.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

Misty A. (appellant), the mother of C.A. (the minor), appeals from orders of the juvenile court adjudging the minor a dependent child and removing the minor from appellants custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 360, subd. (d), 395.)^[1] Claiming the findings made by the court are not supported by substantial evidence, appellant contends the order of removal must be reversed and the minor returned to her custody. We disagree with that contention and shall affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On February 2, 2006, San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed an original juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the 10-year-old minor. The petition alleged there was a substantial risk the minor would suffer serious physical harm or illness due to appellants failure to provide the minor with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. In support of that allegation, the petition contained numerous claims that appellants residence was unsuitable for the minor due to filthy and inadequate conditions. According to the petition, a year earlier HSA had found true a report that appellants home was filthy, smelled of feces and urine, and was unbearable.

The social workers report, which was considered by the juvenile court at the disposition hearing that is the subject of this appeal, stated in part that [t]he family has been residing in a chronically dirty home since at least January 2005. At that time, [appellant] claimed that the home was dirty because the maternal grandmother had died (on January 14, 2005), however, it appears that the home had been in that condition for some time. At that time, [appellant] may have been taking prescription medications to assist her in coping with the death of her mother. Currently, it appears that [appellant] has either a mental health issue or a substance abuse issue, or possibly both, which is impeding her ability to adequately house and appropriately care for the minor. [Appellant] does not believe that the conditions in her home are bad enough to warrant removal of the child. [Appellants] friend has drug and anger management problems and was incarcerated for threatening to kill a neighbor and brandishing a gun. He also has a history of domestic violence. The whereabouts of the minors alleged father were unknown at the time of detention. [Appellant] is in need of services to assist her in making the changes needed so that the minor can be safely returned to her care. Recommended services for [appellant] include parenting education, homemaker services, 90 days of patch drug testing (and treatment if she has any missed or dirty tests), personal counseling, a psychological evaluation and to obtain and maintain suitable housing.

On March 17, 2006, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, as amended.

At the April 10, 2006, disposition hearing, the minors paternal grandmother testified she had observed appellants home to be in need of cleaning several years previously. The social worker testified she had referred the minor for counseling because of her concern the minor was very anxious and very parentified. She also believed that, if the minor were returned to appellants custody, he would be at risk of suffering emotional harm. Although the home appellant recently had moved to was clean, the social worker was concerned about appellants ability to maintain it adequately. Her concern was based on appellants history.

At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, counsel for appellant argued no evidence was adduced of a causal connection between appellants actions and any risk to the minor. Noting appellant now was maintaining an adequate residence, appellants counsel also asked the juvenile court to order the minors return to her custody under HSA supervision.

The juvenile court adopted the findings and orders recommended by HSA, adjudging the minor a dependent child and removing the minor from parental custody. The court found there was a substantial danger to the minors well-being and no reasonable means of protecting the minor without removal from parental custody. The court also found the minor was suffering extreme emotional damage. Finally, according to the court, HSA had made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removal of the minor from appellants custody, and to make it possible for the minor to return home.

Discussion

Appellant contends the juvenile court committed reversible error when it failed to return the minor to her custody. According to appellant, there has been insufficient evidence to show . . . a threat to the [minors] physical safety, with no reasonable alternatives to removal, or that the [minor] is suffering severe emotional damage, with no reasonable alternatives to removal. Noting she had obtained new housing and had engaged in all services recommended by HSA, appellant asserts any risk to the minor existing previously no longer was present. Finally, appellant argues, by monitoring her home and ordering her participation in counseling, HSA could continue to supervise the case with the minor permitted to live in appellants home.

Section 361, subdivision (c), provides for removal of the minor from parental custody under various circumstances, including where (1) [t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minors physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minors parents or guardians physical custody and where (3) [t]he minor is suffering severe emotional damage, as indicated by extreme anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward himself or herself or others, and there are no reasonable means by which the minors emotional health may be protected without removing the minor from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.

Subdivision (d) of section 361 states in part:

The court shall make a determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the need for removal of the minor from his or her home . . . . The court shall state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based.

In considering appellants claims, we apply the substantial evidence rule. We must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the orders made by the juvenile court and determine whether any substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.)

The disposition hearing report noted that in January 2005, HSA had responded to a report that appellants home was filthy. The investigating social worker discovered the home was filthy with animal urine and feces throughout the home. The referral was substantiated for general neglect. HSA recommended to appellant that the carpets be cleaned and the home ventilated, and also provided appellant with information pertaining to community resources available to her.

Testimony by the minors parental grandmother at the disposition hearing suggests appellant has been beset by housekeeping difficulties in the past. Moreover, the social workers testimony indicated the minor was suffering from severe emotional damage, in the form of extreme anxiety. According to the social worker, the minor was very anxious, and seemed very parentified. The social worker also testified that the minor spends a lot of his time worrying about [appellant] like he needs to take care of her emotionally. He also had anxiety attacks and had a tendency to hyperventilate. In fact, because of the social workers concerns, recently the minor had begun counseling.

Despite the efforts of HSA, the record reflects appellant continued to struggle to maintain an adequate home for the minor. In the past, appellant had claimed the home was dirty because of the death of the maternal grandmother, although it appeared the home had been inadequate for some time. In January 2006, when HSA responded again to a report of a problem at appellants home, appellant indicated she did not believe conditions in her home were bad enough to warrant removal of the child.

The juvenile court found appellants home also had been inadequate in January 2005. The record supports that finding. Moreover, despite the provision of services designed to help appellant maintain custody of the minor, including visits by the social worker and advice given to appellant, appellant continued to have difficulties providing a safe environment for the minor.

On the record presented to the juvenile court, it is difficult to discern how supervision by HSA or other alternatives to removal would have been successful in assisting appellant to maintain a home safe for the minor. Appellant did not believe the situation was that bad, and HSA had worked with her in the past. Yet, the problem continued.

In sum, no reasonable means short of removal of the minor would be adequate to protect the minors well-being. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the finding by the juvenile court that HSA made reasonable efforts to prevent the minors removal.

We conclude the juvenile courts order of removal of the minor from parental custody is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

DAVIS, Acting P.J.

We concur:

HULL, J.

ROBIE , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Hereafter, undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.