In re Heidi G.

Filed 7/20/06 In re Heidi G. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter E. Riddle, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Angelica M. appeals from orders made at a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in which the juvenile court declared her daughter, Heidi G., a dependent child of the court and placed her with Angelica. Angelica contends there was insufficient evidence to support a finding Heidi was at risk of serious harm. Heidi joins her in this argument. Angelica also asserts the court erred in ordering her to participate in a psychological evaluation as a part of her reunification plan. We affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2005, a San Ysidro health center contacted the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) to report that 16-year-old Heidi had arrived at the health center with her two-year-old son, Brian, and asked for assistance. Heidi explained that Angelica discovered her fighting with her 10-year-old brother, Brandon, and told her if she did not like the rules at home, she could leave. Heidi said she did not want to live with Angelica. She was angry because Angelica allowed Brandon to care for Brian while she was at school, and Brandon mistreated Brian. Heidi had left Angelica's home three or four times during the past year after arguments with her mother, to live with her father or grandmother in Tijuana. Angelica countered that Heidi did not take good care of Brian, but spent her time on the Internet or watching television, she did not listen to or respect the adults in the home and she fought with her brothers. Angelica said her own childhood had been brutal and violent, and Heidi's father had physically abused her and the children. She said Heidi's pregnancy was a result of Heidi's gang involvement in Tijuana. Angelica refused voluntary services, and said she was unable to care for Heidi any longer and could do nothing to help her.

The Agency petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),^[1] alleging Heidi was at substantial risk in that she had a physical altercation with Brandon, and Angelica told her to leave the home, refused to allow her to return and could not make alternative arrangements for Heidi's care.

For the detention hearing on October 27, 2005, the social worker reported Heidi and Brian were staying at the Polinsky Children's Center. The court ordered unsupervised visits for Angelica, but that Heidi's wishes were to be considered when scheduling visits. The court ordered Angelica to provide contact information for Heidi's aunt and to give Heidi's clothing and other property, including identification cards and Brian's health records, to the social worker, and that contact with Heidi's brother, Alfredo, be facilitated. The court also ordered counseling for Heidi and that she and Brian be screened for possible placement at the Door of Hope.

The social worker reported Heidi indicated she would like to be placed at the Door of Hope and believed she would benefit from parenting classes and therapy. She said Heidi did not want to go to Angelica's home and she did not request visits with her. Angelica said she would allow Heidi to return home if she " '[changes] her attitude, care[s] for her son because she doesn't pay for anything, [doesn't] yell or say bad words, and understand[s] that her family is trying to help her.' "

The social worker expressed concern that Angelica did not help Heidi contact Heidi's brother or aunt. She also was troubled because Angelica included dirty laundry and soiled diapers in a bag she had packed with Heidi's and Brian's belongings. Angelica told the social worker she would throw away any of Heidi's things the social worker did not take and would sell Brian's toys because she had purchased them.

The social worker recommended Angelica undergo a psychological evaluation and participate in counseling, in-home parenting services and parenting classes. She recommended Heidi also participate in counseling, parenting classes and an independent living skills program. At a settlement conference on December 12, 2005, the court detained Heidi and Brian at the Door of Hope.

On January 9, 2006, the social worker reported staff at the Door of Hope said Heidi was argumentative with staff and her peers. Angelica said she would not participate in services until the court ordered her to do so. She said she would let the court decide where Heidi would live. She made statements such as, " 'Whatever Heidi wants,' "and " 'I just want what's best for Heidi.' " In a report dated January 18, the social worker said Angelica told her that Heidi did not want to stay at the Door of Hope any longer, and Heidi and Angelica wanted her to return home. Angelica said there had not been any changes at her home except that she had given away the television, no longer worked nights, and may have arranged childcare for Brian. She reported her relationship with her husband had stabilized. She said she had attended some parenting classes and would participate in services if Heidi came home. Heidi said sometimes she wanted to return home, but she knew she would benefit from services at the Door of Hope. The social worker recommended Heidi remain at the Door of Hope because she was just beginning to use the services there, and Angelica had been resistant to cooperating with the Agency and participating in services.

At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on January 19 and 24, 2006, the social worker testified that after Heidi left Angelica's home, Angelica declined voluntary services and did not say she wanted Heidi to return until one week before the hearing. She said Angelica refused to participate in services until the court ordered her to do so. The social worker opined Heidi was at high risk because she was a teenage mother and had no place to live. She said Angelica refused to provide Heidi's identification cards and contact information for a relative. She also pointed out Angelica did not visit Heidi for six to seven weeks and she had packed dirty diapers with Heidi's belongings. She said there had been no change in family dynamics at Angelica's home, and Heidi had just begun services.

Heidi testified she was 16 years old and had lived at the Door of Hope for less than one month. She said she had left Angelica's home because of the fight with her brother and that Angelica had told her if she did not like it there, she could leave. She testified she believed at the Door of Hope she would have more success in learning how to live independently, but she also wanted to live with Angelica and did not want to be "locked up."

Angelica testified she wanted Heidi to come home. Angelica said the social workers had lied and pressured her. She said she would help Heidi if she came home and would participate in services. She denied that she refused to allow Heidi to return, refused voluntary services or had packed soiled diapers with Heidi's belongings.

The court found the allegations of the petition were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. It placed Heidi in Angelica's home and ordered both of them to participate in services, including a psychological evaluation for Angelica.

DISCUSSION

I.

Angelica, joined by Heidi, asserts insufficient evidence was presented to show that Heidi met the criteria of section 300, subdivision (b). Angelica argues when Heidi left home after she was reprimanded for fighting with her brother, Heidi showed she could access the services she needed by immediately seeking assistance at a health center. Angelica maintains although she initially was reluctant to allow Heidi to come home, by the time of the jurisdictional hearing, both she and Heidi wanted her to return. She claims Heidi was never at a substantial risk of harm.

A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '. . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 337, 340.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)

Section 300, subdivision (b) states in part that a child is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court where:

"[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, . . . or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment . . . ."

In order for the court to sustain the petition, the child must be at risk of harm at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. (In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 560.)

At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the petition was amended to state:

"On or about and between October 22, 2005 to present said child was destitute in that the mother negligently and willfully failed and refused to provide said child with the necessities of life, including after the child engaged in a physical altercation with her sibling, the mother told the child to leave the home and the mother continued to refuse to allow the child to come back to the family home and was not able to make alternate arrangements for the child's care and said child is in need of the protection of the Juvenile Court."

Angelica has not shown a lack of substantial evidence to support the court's true finding on the allegations. Sixteen-year-old Heidi said she had left Angelica's home three or four times earlier that year. In the past she had gone to Tijuana, where she had been involved in gang activity, gotten pregnant at age 14 and been in a street fight where she stabbed another girl. This time, after she fought with Brandon, Angelica hit her with a broom and told her if she could not follow the rules at home, she could leave. Heidi decided not to go to Tijuana, and, instead, took two-year-old Brian to a public health facility in San Ysidro. She arrived with no way to support herself or her son. The social worker attempted to find a way to work with the family so that Heidi could return home with services, but Angelica refused to accept voluntary services for the family and refused to talk with the social worker unless accompanied by her attorney. She said she would not participate in services until the court ordered her to do so. Angelica said the family was afraid of Heidi, and Heidi was the one who needed to change. The social worker continued to offer voluntary services, but Angelica refused them and did not visit Heidi for nearly two months. The court ordered Angelica to provide Heidi's and Brian's identification and health records, but Angelica resisted doing so. She also did not provide contact information for Heidi's aunt. She continued to punish Heidi by sending a bag of dirty diapers in the bags she packed of Heidi's belongings and saying she was going to throw away whatever the social worker left behind and that she would sell Brian's toys.

At the time of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, Angelica said she was willing to allow Heidi to return home. However, she refused to take responsibility for the situation and blamed the social worker and her supervisor for her problems with Heidi, saying they had lied, pressured her and discriminated against her. The juvenile court weighed the credibility of the witnesses and reasonably chose to disbelieve Angelica's testimony and relied instead on the social worker's reports and testimony that Angelica had refused the voluntary services the Agency had offered to try to ameliorate the family's problems so that Heidi and Brian could live safely in the home.

From the time Heidi left Angelica's home with Brian, the social worker offered voluntary services to the family. Angelica refused them and said she could no longer care for Heidi and could suggest no other family members or friends who could help. The Agency was thus compelled to file a petition on Heidi's behalf. Angelica resisted cooperating with the Agency and delayed providing needed documents and contact information for Heidi. From the detention hearing in late October 2005 until January 9, 2006, just 10 days before the beginning of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, Angelica continued to say she did not know if she wanted services but would let the court decide. On December 12, 2005, she told the social worker she would not participate in services until the court ordered her to do so.

At the hearing, Angelica admitted there had been little change in the home situation. She said the main differences were that she had gotten rid of the television, she no longer worked nights, she had possible arrangements for childcare for Brian, she was getting closer to God, and her relationship with her husband had stabilized. She said she had attended a few parenting classes, but never submitted verification to substantiate this claim. Heidi had had some parenting instruction at the Door of Hope, but the record does not indicate whether she or Angelica participated in any therapy. At the time of the hearing, there was no showing any significant steps had been taken to address the underlying stress and dysfunction that characterized Angelica's relationship with Heidi, steps that would be necessary to prevent another episode that would again place Heidi out on the streets as a homeless teenager with a young child. The evidence at the time of the hearing showed Heidi remained at risk. The court's finding under section 300, subdivision (b) is well supported.

II

Angelica asserts the court violated her right to privacy by ordering her to undergo a psychological evaluation. She argues the order requiring the evaluation was unwarranted, unreasonably intrusive and a violation of her privacy rights. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a psychological evaluation.

A determination "committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court . . . should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established." (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason . . . .' " (Id. at pp. 318-319, quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272.)

Angelica's actions in telling Heidi to leave her home and her reluctance to take Heidi back, or to help her find another family member who could help her, put Angelica's mental health at issue and made requiring a psychological evaluation a reasonable component of her reunification plan. The record indicates Angelica had been a victim of abuse during her own childhood. She said she had been beaten and raped by Heidi's father throughout the 15 years of their relationship. He admitted there was domestic violence. After Heidi left the home, voluntary services were offered to Angelica, but she refused them and would not talk with the social worker unless she was accompanied by her attorney. She would not participate in services until the court ordered her to do so. She did not work to bring Heidi home, nor did she visit her for nearly two months. Angelica said she would let the court decide where Heidi would live.

Angelica punished Heidi by her delay in providing contact information for a relative, by not supplying Heidi's and Brian's identification and health records, by packing soiled diapers in the bags she prepared for Heidi and Brian, and by threatening to throw away or sell their other belongings. These circumstances constituted a sufficient

basis to justify the juvenile court's order that Angelica participate in a psychological evaluation, which would help to determine adequate services and prevent a reoccurrence of the situation that led to Heidi's leaving the home. Angelica has not shown an abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Lawyers.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.