In re C.O.

Filed 8/29/07 In re C.O. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven Berman, Referee. Affirmed.

Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel and Owen L. Gallagher, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this appeal, mother, Gladys C., challenges the September 12, 2006 order, adjudicating her daughter, C., now 17, a dependent pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d).[1] She also challenges the disposition order of September 26, 2006.

Mother argues that substantial evidence does not support the findings that: (1) she could reasonably have known of C.s sexual abuse by mothers tenant; (2) no reasonable means existed to prevent removal from mother under section 361, subdivision (a); and (3) she was unable to properly address C.s problems. Consequently, mother argues that the disposition order, which removed C. from her custody, is not supported.

We find substantial evidence supports the orders, and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

C.O. was born in January 1990 and is the daughter of appellant Gladys C. and Santos O. Mother and father separated in 2004. C. has been living with mother since that time. C. suffers from bipolar disorder, depression and bulimia. For over a year, before C.s detention, mother and C. received in-home services including individual and conjoint therapy, and behavior therapy for C. C. had been hospitalized four times for suicide attempts and lack of self control.

In June of 2006, C. was detained by respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), following an incident in which mother accused C. of stealing a soda from her tenant. C. kicked and spit on mother, mother called police, and C. was hospitalized because she was out of control. While hospitalized, C. accused mothers 56-year-old tenant of sexually abusing her. C. reported that the tenant bought gifts for her and hugged her from the back so that she could feel his erection.

On June 28, 2006, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on C.s behalf. The petition alleged serious physical harm to C. by her father and fathers violence against mother resulting in C.s emotional and psychological problems; the parents inability to deal with these problems; and sexual abuse of C. by mothers tenant under circumstances in which mother should have known of the abuse yet failed to protect her. A detention hearing was held the same day and the court found a prima facie case for detaining C. DCFS was ordered to provide family reunification services and to obtain appropriate placement for C. in a therapeutic setting.

The DCFS report for the adjudication hearing in August 2006 reported that C.s therapist recommended therapy for mother to understand eating disorders, and specialized eating disorder therapy for C. The court ordered DCFS to place C. in an eating disorder facility and obtain counseling for C. within three days. The matter was continued to September 2006 for further adjudication.

DCFS was unable to find an affordable facility that could adequately address C.s eating disorder. Despite DCFSs inability to place C. in a specialized eating disorder facility, the report prepared for the September hearing stated that C. was not ready to return home. After a contested hearing, the court sustained the allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d) and declared C. a dependent child. The court placed her in the care of DCFS for suitable placement. Mother has filed this timely appeal.[2]

DISCUSSION

I

Mother claims the evidence is not sufficient to support the jurisdictional findings. To determine if evidence is sufficient, we review the trial courts jurisdictional findings under the substantial evidence standard. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. We do not reweigh or express an independent judgment on the evidence, but decide only whether sufficient evidence supports the findings. (In re E. H. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 659, 669; In re Amy M. (1991)232 Cal.App.3d 849, 860.)

Mother argues that substantial evidence was lacking to support the courts finding that she should have known of C.s sexual abuse by mothers tenant. A child may come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court where the child has been sexually abused or there is a substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused, or the parent has failed to adequately protect the child from sexual abuse when the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in danger of such behavior. (300, subd. (c).)

Based upon information in DCFSs detention report of June 2006, the court found that mother had adequate warning signs that her tenant was showing an abnormal interest in C. The tenant reportedly bought gifts for C. including makeup and treats. Realizing this was inappropriate, mother asked the tenant to stop. But the tenant continued to buy gifts for C. and, despite his disregard of mothers wishes, mother failed to take further action and continued to allow C. to be alone with her tenant. According to the report, C.s therapist determined that the tenants behavior, which included telling C. about his encounters with prostitutes, was inappropriate and the DCFS social worker told mother to evict this tenant. Despite mothers own suspicions and a professional warning, she failed to evict him or prevent C. from being left alone with him.

C. failed most of her classes at school. Since she was in a gifted program and previously had been a good student despite suffering from bipolar disorder and bulimia, it is reasonable to infer that C.s poor grades were a signal that something was wrong. Mothers concern about her tenants abnormal attention to C., the therapists warnings about the tenants behavior, and C.s drop in grades, provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that mother knew, or reasonably should have known, of C.s sexual abuse by the tenant and that she should have taken action to prevent it.

II

Mother argues that substantial evidence did not support the findings that she was unable to properly address C.s problems and that under section 361, there was no reasonable means by which C. could be protected without removing her from mothers custody at the time of the disposition hearing. (361, subd. (a).) A reasonable efforts finding must be made based on the particular circumstances of a case. (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1458.)

Mother argues that since the tenant is no longer living in her home and since C. has not been placed in an eating disorder facility, she would be better off at home. C. had been detained because of mothers inability to address C.s issues, even after a year of therapy, not because of the sexual abuse by mothers tenant, which was revealed after the detention. The removal of the tenant and the fact that C. has not been placed in an eating disorder facility did not impact the original need for detention, and placement in mothers home remained contrary to C.s best interest because of the confrontational relationship between mother and child. The courts orders to DCFS to find a placement for C. with therapeutic services remained in place.

The June 2006 DCFS report states that mother admitted that the therapists advised her to ignore C.s verbal outbursts, but she was unable to do so, and when frustration built up, she exploded. Mother admitted that she told C., You can kill yourself. I dont care, when C. was out of control, even though she knew of C.s suicidal ideation. According to the report, C.s therapists observed mother sabotage C.s bulimia treatment. They also reported that C. was not compliant in taking medication while living with mother. The therapists recommended that C. continue in residential placement until stabilized and compliant with her medication. At the September 2006 disposition hearing, counsel for DCFS stated that, at a prior hearing, mother had testified that C. was too sick to go home and was still having bulimic episodes and fighting with mother while visiting at home on weekends.

The juvenile court found that by providing in-home therapy services for the year prior to detention, DCFS had provided adequate services in an attempt to eliminate the need for removal from mothers home. The conditions which led to C.s detention still existed at the time of the disposition hearing. Mothers demonstrated inability to cope with C.s problems effectively supports the courts conclusion that there was no reasonable means by which C. could be protected without removing her from mothers custody at the time of the disposition hearing.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

SUZUKAWA, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

[2] Father is not a party to the appeal.