In re S.R.
Filed 6/12/13 In re S.R. CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
In re S.R. et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B244694
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK94885)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
IRENE R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court
of
County.
Elizabeth Kim, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed with directions.
Matthew I.
Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John F.
Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Kim
Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The mother,
Irene R., appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning
her two children, S.R. and B.R., who are 16 and 10 years old respectively. The Department
of Children and Family Services (the department) argues we should remand
the case to permit compliance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act as to B.R.. (Fam. Code,
§ 3400 et seq.) We reject the mother’s
contentions and agree with the department.
First, the
mother contends there is insufficient
evidence to support the jurisdictional orders. This contention has no merit. We review this contention for substantial
evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) There is evidence the mother struck S.R.
repeatedly every few months. S.R. was
struck all over her body. The mother’s
mental state was unpredictable, “oddly different†and bipolar in nature
according to S.R. The mother, who was
upset, threatened to move S.R. into a garage.
S.R. was told she would be thrown out of the home if she did not have a
job by her sixteenth birthday. During a
home visit, the mother was found to be disheveled and claimed to have Radio
Frequency Identification Chips implanted with the use of chlorophyll inside her
skull. During a home visit, the mother:
exhibited paranoia; stated the government was persecuting her because of a
blog; professed the government was listening into her conversations; said that
“satellites are trying to make . . . an issue†of her mental illness; and
averred that “satellites are creating sub-dermal burns using lasers.†On another occasion, the mother indicated
that her home was “‘bugged’†and the public, including her neighbors, have
joined a conspiracy against her.
The
foregoing is substantial evidence S.R. is at risk of suffering serious bodily
harm. This is because S.R. is regularly
struck by the mother. Additionally, the
mother regularly exhibits extreme mental disturbance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b);
843; In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438.) As to B.R., the findings under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) support the jurisdictional order
as to him. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
300, subd. (j); In re Maria R. (2010)
185 Cal.App.4th 48, 64, disapproved on a different point in
780-781.) The decisional authority cited
by the mother is materially different from the facts of this case.
Second, the
mother contends there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the two
children from her custody. This
contention has no merit. We review this
contention for an abuse of discretion. (
In re Mark V. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d
754, 759.) The following constitutes
sufficient evidence to justify the removal order: S.R. was afraid of the mother and wanted to
live elsewhere; S.R. had been repeatedly struck without provocation; the mother
had engaged in paranoid behavior; the mother had experienced paranoid
delusions; and the fathers of the two children were willing to care for the
youngsters. (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900,
917; In re Mariah T.,
Third, the department raises a point
not presented by B.R. or the mother in the juvenile court or on appeal. The department notes B.R. is the subject of a
prior custody determination by a Georgia court. Thus, it was mandatory the juvenile court
here communicate with the Georgia court before making child
custody determinations. (Fam. Code §
3424, subd. (d); In re C.T. (2002)
100 Cal.App.4th 101, 110.) We agree with
the department we should affirm the judgment but direct the juvenile court,
upon remittitur issuance, to contact the Georgia court and then issue
appropriate orders. We leave these
matters in the good hands of the juvenile court.
The orders under review are
affirmed. As to B.R., the juvenile
court, upon remittitur issuance, is to proceed to comply with Family Code
section 3424, subdivision (d).
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER,
J.
O’NEILL, J.
of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
