Filed 6/14/22 In re K.H. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In this dependency action, K.D. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order assuming jurisdiction over her two children (Minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.[1] Mother contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2021, the Marin County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed section 300 petitions alleging Minors, then six years old and one year old, were at substantial risk of suffering harm because of Mother’s inability “to supervise or protect [them] adequately due to mental health concerns.”

In a report filed in advance of the detention hearing, the Department reported that Mother went to the emergency room on October 6 with physical complaints, and was placed on a section 5150 psychiatric hold due to “histrionic behaviors” and “paranoid statements,” including statements that people were videotaping her and breaking into her home while she slept. After being placed in the psychiatric unit, Mother stated a camera had been installed in her vehicle’s license plate and she had been followed to the hospital, whoever had been following her had a key to her hospital room, and she had heard multiple attempts to open her room with a key. She was agitated and unwilling to engage with hospital staff about her mental health history or any previous treatment.

Minors were with Mother when she was placed on a psychiatric hold and Mother declined to provide contact information for a caregiver, including Minors’ father (Father), so Minors were placed in protective custody. Minors were doing well in their foster care placement. The older Minor told the Department social worker that, on the day of Mother’s hospitalization, she said someone was videotaping them and was “ ‘talking nonsense.’ ” Minors had received regular medical care and had no significant health concerns.

On October 7, Mother spoke with the Department social worker. She appeared manic and denied having mental health concerns. She stated Father had given her a sexually transmitted disease; had broken into her home with Minors’ paternal grandmother; and had friends and family who work at hospitals and in child welfare, which was why Mother was hospitalized and Minors were in protective custody. Mother stated she and Father separated in July 2021 and agreed to exchange custody every week. She refused to provide Father’s contact information, stating his family does not like her and had broken into her house and thrown urine in her face.

On October 8, the Department made contact with Father. Father stated he and Mother had been together for nine years and separated in July 2021. When they separated, they agreed to an informal custody arrangement where Minors were with Father one week and Mother the next. Father expressed concern about Mother’s mental health as she had a history of blaming neighbors for stealing and also blaming Father. The last time Father saw Mother, she accused him of sneaking into her house to steal items and of giving Mother a sexually transmitted disease. Father had not heard back from Mother this week about the custody exchange and had gone to family court to inquire about obtaining a formal custody arrangement, but arrived after the cutoff time. Father stated his desire to have custody of Minors. Father lived with his parents and their home was free of hazards with sufficient space for Minors.

At the October 12, 2021 detention hearing, the juvenile court detained Minors from Mother, returned them to Father’s custody, and set a hearing for jurisdiction.

In reports filed in advance of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the Department stated Mother was released from the hospital on or around October 12 but refused to sign a release or provide information to the Department about her treatment or discharge. Mother denied having had a mental health crisis or making paranoid statements, and told the Department she did not know why she was placed on a psychiatric hold. Mother seemed unsure if there were recommendations for follow-up treatment. She told the Department she has a therapist but declined to provide the therapist’s name or sign a release.

The Department received Mother’s medical records pursuant to a subpoena and reported, based on those records, that Mother had an open case with Marin County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services prior to her hospitalization—with diagnoses of complex post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression disorder with psychotic features, and severe alcohol use disorder—but consistently refused medication. On October 12, 2021, the day Mother was discharged from the hospital, she expressed feeling fearful because she thought cracks in the ceiling above her bed were cameras. Mother was diagnosed with unspecified psychosis and was prescribed psychotropic medications on discharge, but declined all medication.

Mother told the Department her parents are deceased, she does not have contact with her siblings, she has no family support and has lost contact with most friends. She had one cousin she described as supportive.

Father told the Department Mother has needed help with anger and emotional regulation for years. Early in their relationship, Mother would accuse people of stealing things, including the paternal grandparents. When Father tried to use logic with Mother, she would get angrier and sometimes throw items at Father. Mother would blame Father for things that were missing and argue with him. Father said he wants Mother to be in Minors’ lives once she is more stable, but could not articulate how he would know when that was or how he would assess Minors’ safety with Mother.

Minors were happy, comfortable, and safe in Father’s home. The older Minor was on track developmentally but exhibiting some behavioral concerns in the form of frequent temper tantrums. There was some concern about the younger Minor’s development and the Department was helping Father obtain an assessment.

Mother had three supervised visits with Minors. Mother was positive and appropriate during the first, although she struggled to engage with the younger Minor, who did not seek comfort from Mother when she fell or needed help. During the second visit, Mother was agitated and described feeling “ ‘in a fog.’ ” She made efforts to pay attention to both Minors but made various statements that were upsetting to the older Minor. During the third visit, which was virtual, Mother made efforts to engage positively with Minors but, towards the end of the visit, was observed rolling a joint and taking a shot.

The Department opined that it was not safe for Minors to return to Mother’s care because her mental health symptoms appeared to still be impacting her. Father needed support to ensure Minors’ needs were met and to develop a plan for recognizing when Mother is safely able to have Minors in her care. The Department recommended the juvenile court take jurisdiction, order Minors removed from Mother and placed with Father, and order family maintenance services for Father and discretionary services for Mother. Father’s service objectives included demonstration that “he can protect [Minors] from contact with [Mother] when she is experiencing mental health symptoms that may cause the children stress, confusion, or possible risk of harm.” Mother’s service objectives were to build “a network of people who can support her in maintaining her mental health and meeting the children’s needs,” and to demonstrate “she is actively managing her mental health.”

Father submitted on the Department’s recommendations and Mother contested them, requesting the juvenile court find the petition’s allegation not true and return Minors to her custody. The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on December 14, 2021. The Department social worker testified Mother had one additional in-person visit since the jurisdiction/disposition report, which was positive. All other visits had been cancelled by Mother or by her failure to call and confirm the visit.

Mother testified she was currently living with her cousin but would be moving to a three-bedroom apartment in two days, and was employed. She loved her children and felt like they should be in her care.

Mother testified when she went to the hospital with physical symptoms, a nurse took Minors even though Mother told her they could stay during Mother’s examination, and then a doctor told Mother they were sending her to a psychiatric hospital. When she was discharged, she told the doctors she was not going to take medication “because I don’t have a problem.” Mother said she was recently told she had to go to therapy and was going to do so.

Mother testified father was abusive to her when they were together and used to spit in her face. She stopped allowing Father to see Minors after Father came into her house at night without her permission. Mother testified the older Minor told her Father had the older Minor let him in the house, and the next morning her phone and mailbox key were missing.

The juvenile court sustained the allegation that Mother had untreated mental health issues that impaired her ability to safely care for Minors.[2] The court ordered Minors detained from Mother and placed with Father, with discretionary services and supervised visitation to Mother and family maintenance services to Father as recommended by the Department.

DISCUSSION

Mother’s sole claim on appeal is the juvenile court erred in sustaining the petition. “ ‘We review the trial court’s findings for substantial evidence. [Citation.] We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] The judgment will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence. [Citation.] [¶] Substantial evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. It is not synonymous with “any” evidence. [Citation.] The evidence must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order.’ ” (In re Travis C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1225.)

A child falls within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction when “[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 inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness . . . .” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) “There are three elements to jurisdiction under section 300: ‘(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) “serious physical harm or illness” to the minor, or a “substantial risk” of such harm or illness.’ ” (In re Travis C., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 1225.) “ ‘Harm to a child cannot be presumed from the mere fact the parent has a mental illness.’ ” (Id. at p. 1226.)

Mother argues there was a single isolated incident where Minors needed protective custody when she was hospitalized, and otherwise Minors were unharmed and well cared-for. Minors are very young, only six years and one year old at the time the petitions were filed. Mother continues to deny she has any mental health concerns or delusions and refuses psychiatric medication. Although Mother claims she successfully cared for Minors “for the past several years,” the vast majority of that time Father was also in the home. In the housing plan Mother described at the contested hearing, it appeared no other adults would be with her in the home. By her own admission, Mother has almost no familial or other support network. Although Father and his parents appear supportive of Mother and her relationship with Minors, Mother’s paranoid delusions often target Father and his family, making it unlikely she will seek or accept support from them. Indeed, these delusions led Mother to cut off Minors from contact with Father shortly before her hospitalization and to refuse to provide Father’s contact information so he could care for Minors when she was hospitalized.

In light of Minors’ youth, Mother’s denial about her untreated mental health issues, and Mother’s social isolation, we find substantial, nonspeculative evidence that Mother’s inability to provide care for Minors because of her mental illness poses a substantial risk of harm. “It is not necessary for [the Department] or the juvenile court to precisely predict what harm will come to [Minors] because Mother has failed to consistently treat her illness. Rather, it is sufficient that Mother’s illness and choices create a substantial risk of some serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Travis C., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1226–1227; cf. In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1051 [no substantial risk of harm to the minors—who “were not youngsters”—where the parents lived together, a single incident “occurred after Mother stopped taking her medication,” “[n]o one was injured and the father acted quickly to obtain appropriate help,” and after the incident the mother was hospitalized until stable and “resumed taking her medication”]; In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 137 [no substantial risk of harm to young minors from mother’s history of suicide attempts where the parents lived together, the father “was able to protect and supervise the minors,” the minors “were attending school or day care while [the father] worked during the day,” and there was no evidence the father “might leave the minors alone with [the mother] while she . . . attempted to harm herself”].)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

SIMONS, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P. J.

NEEDHAM, J. *

(A164307)

[1] All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[2] As amended, the petitions alleged Minors “have suffered, or are at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness by the failure or inability of [Mother] to supervise or protect the children adequately due to mental health concerns. On or around 10/06/2021, [Mother] presented at the emergency room . . . with her children and was subsequently placed on a 5150 psychiatric hold due to paranoid statements, such as that people were following her and videotaping her in her home, and histrionic behaviors. [Mother] was unable to identify a caregiver for the children at the time of her involuntary hospitalization and she remained hospitalized on a 5250 hold until 10/12/21.”

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.