In re O.C.

Filed 10/18/06 In re O.C. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In this dependency case, Frankie C., mother of the minor, appeals from the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, 360, 395; unspecified section references that follow are to this code.) Appellant contends there was no substantial evidence to support jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment.

Facts and Proceedings

The minor, age 7, was detained in December 2005, based upon a petition that alleged that appellant failed to protect him and was unable, due to mental illness, to provide adequate care for him. The facts alleged in the petition in support of these general allegations were that appellant had mental health issues, which interfered with her judgment and ability to provide adequate care for the minor, and that she attempted to drown the minor in the bathroom on December 10, 2005. The petition also alleged she was found sitting laughing and said she was waiting for signs from Jesus, that she made a recent attempt to set a fire in the bathroom, and said that God told her to burn the house down.

The detention report contained statements from various witnesses about both the incident that triggered the minor’s removal and appellant’s overall mental state. On December 13, 2005, the social worker spoke to the minor, who stated that appellant woke him up about 5:00 in the morning and wanted him to get in the tub to sleep. He told appellant he did not want to. Appellant started the water but when she tried to hold his head under it, he began yelling and tried to get away. His adult sibling, M.B., came and saved him. The minor believed appellant tried to drown him.

The same day, the social worker spoke to appellant who had been taken to Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center for assessment and who denied trying to harm the minor and insisted the accusations were all lies made up by M.B. The next day the social worker learned appellant was to be released since she had shown no signs of a mental disorder during the 72 hours she was at the Center.

The social worker also spoke to M.B. who stated he believed appellant was schizophrenic, noting that “She just loses it” and says she hears voices. M.B. believed appellant would have drowned the minor if he had not intervened and said that appellant had blocked the door with bed rails and he had to force his way in. M.B. also told the social worker that appellant had recently set the bathroom on fire and said that voices told her to burn down the house.

The next day, the social worker spoke to the maternal uncle who stated that since June appellant had not “been herself.” She would be talking to someone and walk away to be found sitting somewhere laughing and saying she was waiting for a sign from Jesus. He said appellant had not worked since June and was being evicted. The maternal uncle further stated that appellant recently started a fire in the bathroom and told people that God told her to burn the house down. He said appellant also told him that he was soon going to have to take care of the minor because she and “Belinda” are going to visit Jesus.

On December 15, 2005, the social worker discussed the allegations of the petition with the maternal uncle, appellant and the minor. The maternal uncle told the social worker that appellant had mental health issues but he did not believe appellant tried to kill the minor because neither the tub nor the minor were wet but did believe that if M.B. had not been there appellant would have hurt the minor. Appellant again denied trying to hurt the minor and explained she had been trying to give the minor a bath and keep him clean because he had ringworm. Appellant said she did not lock the bathroom and the bed rails were only stored there to keep them out of the way. The minor told the social worker he needed to stay away from appellant and would rather live with the maternal uncle after the tub incident. He remembered waking up, and appellant trying to drown him by putting his head under the water, but was never touched by the water. He screamed for help, M.B. heard him and pushed the door open.

A different social worker prepared the jurisdiction/disposition report and reinterviewed the parties and witnesses. Appellant said she had carried the minor wrapped in a sheet to the bathroom to wash his head. She wanted him bathed daily because of his ringworm and wanted him dry before school. The bed rails were in the bathroom only for storage because she had recently returned from Indiana and there was no place for them. She insisted she had done nothing wrong and that M.B. made up lies because he was angry with her. She denied telling people that God tells her things and believed she needed no services although she was willing to participate in them. The minor told the social worker appellant woke him early, wrapped him in a sheet and put him in the bathtub. Appellant then put toothpaste on his head and around the sink. The minor said his mother was trying to hurt him by trying to turn the water on and drown him; he screamed for help, and M.B. came and saved him. The minor further stated appellant had been “scary” before, had yelled at people and long ago had hit M.B. with a hammer and pulled a knife on him. The minor was afraid of visiting appellant. The maternal aunt told the social worker that she did not believe appellant tried to drown the minor, that appellant had been going through a hard time and when appellant found work, she would be fine. The maternal uncle said he did not believe appellant was trying to drown the minor and that appellant was not a danger to the minor. M.B. stated that he did not lie about the incident. He said that appellant had not turned on the water but the minor was screaming and he was concerned due to appellant’s poor state of mind.

At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the maternal uncle testified that the social workers inaccurately reported his prior statements and that he did not make many of the statements attributed to him in the reports.

The investigating social worker stated she believed, based upon M.B.’s statement that appellant had made an attempt to set a fire in the residence although the maternal uncle said he later saw no evidence of fire. The social worker also believed that appellant gave the minor grounds to fear for his life and that appellant tried to harm him. The social worker testified the minor expressed fear of appellant in December 2005 and January 2006 and after telephone contact with appellant the minor would become hyperactive and fearful according to the foster mother.

The minor testified he had thought that appellant tried to drown him when the incident occurred, but now does not and thinks she only was trying to wash the ringworm off his neck. He now wants to return to appellant and did not think she would try to drown him again because she told him in a telephone call she would wash his ringworm off.

Appellant explained the incident with the minor in the tub, detailing how M.B. misunderstood what was going on and denying an attempt to set a fire. She testified she spoke to the minor on the telephone and, in response to his questions, told him she had not tried to drown him but was only trying to get the ringworm off his neck.

In ruling, the court noted the conflicts in the evidence and found the balance was in favor of sustaining the petition. The court specifically addressed the maternal uncle’s testimony and stated it was not willing to believe that the social worker had such a vested interest in the case as to falsify the report. The juvenile court adjudged the minor a dependent and ordered him returned home under supervision with services for appellant.

Discussion

Appellant contends the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction is not supported by substantial evidence because there is no evidence the minor is at serious risk of harm due to appellant’s mental state or that appellant is mentally ill. Respondent argues that appellant attacks only one basis of jurisdiction and two were alleged. However, while the petition alleges two alternative theories to explain how there is a substantial risk that the minor will suffer serious physical harm, both depend upon the factual underpinning of appellant’s alleged mental illness; thus, appellant’s argument encompasses both aspects of the alleged basis for jurisdiction.

When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, even where the standard of proof in the trial court is clear and convincing, 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. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) In making this determination we recognize that all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party and that issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. (In re Jason L., supra, at p. 1214; In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 16.) The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)

The evidence before the court, and as summarized above, was in conflict. Initial statements taken at or about the time of the detention were that appellant had a history of mental illness and bizarre behavior and had, or was likely to have, placed the minor at risk if M.B. had not intervened. By the trial, the maternal uncle, in particular, had retreated from his former position and appellant had explained her actions to the minor, who, despite his earlier fear of her, was willing to believe her and feel his fears were mistaken. The trial court resolved the conflicts in the evidence adversely to appellant and, having done so, there is in the record an abundance of evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. As we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and accept every reasonable inference the juvenile court could have drawn, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 415.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

HULL , J.

We concur:

SIMS , Acting P.J.

MORRISON , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.