In re Stephanie R.

Filed 9/13/07 In re Stephanie R. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony Trendacosta, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION

A mother appeals an order denying her request to stop her minor daughters weekly, one-hour, monitored visits with a friend, Joseph R. Mother lost custody of her daughter because Mother inflicted serious physical harm on her daughter and because her daughter was sexually abused. Mother, an unfit parent whose daughter has been adjudged a dependent child of the court, no longer has the right to control visitation and the juvenile court is not required to defer to Mothers wishes regarding visitation. Moreover, Mother has not shown that the trial courts visitation order allowing continued monitored visits with Joseph R. was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Detention of Stephanie S. and Freddy L.: On July 22, 2006, responding to allegations of physical and emotional abuse, the Los Angeles Police Department detained 15-year-old Stephanie S. and 12-year-old Freddy L., the children of Aura S. (Mother) Stephanie, a chronic runaway, was reported missing but was found in a friends apartment in the same apartment complex of her boyfriend, Joseph R. Stephanie disclosed that Mother was physically and verbally abusive, and had thrown a glass of water at her before she ran away, hit her on the leg with her hand, and hit Stephanies arms with a belt. Mother believed it was dangerous for Stephanie to return, and stated that she knew Joseph R. molested her and thought Stephanie might be pregnant. Mother stated that her children had been removed previously and placed with a paternal aunt until they could return home. At that time, Mother stated that someone wanting to harm her had placed an hechizo or witchcraft spell on her, causing her to be unable to do housework, cook, or supervise the children. Stephanie said she did not want to return to Mother, who began hitting Stephanie when she was in the eighth grade. Stephanie believed that Mother had not liked her since birth and Mother said she wished Stephanie was not in her life. Stephanie said that Mother always screamed at her, used to leave marks with a hangar, verbally abused her, and told Stephanie she would kill her and burn or hide her where nobody could find her.

Stephanie said at least three different men had molested her. When she was five or six, she told Mother that the husband of Mothers friend put his hands in her pants, but Mother took no action. A neighbor did something to Stephanie. Stephanie also reported to Mother that her father tried to do something to her as she sat on his lap, and touched her outside her clothes. Nonetheless Stephanies father was allowed to visit and stay overnight at their apartment. He never apologized for the molestation.

Stephanie said she met Joseph R. at an after-school program for troubled kids, where she went for help with homework. Joseph R. was there because of his family problems. Stephanie said Joseph R. formerly used drugs, but had stopped and was now a Christian. She denied any sexual relationship other than  macking,  stating that they used to date but now were good friends and Joseph tried to help her.

The CSW interviewed Joseph R., who said he was a friend and tried to help Stephanie. He said things with her mother were  pretty crazy  for Stephanie, and that he had seen bruises on her and belt marks on her arms, which Stephanie told him were caused by her mother. Stephanie told him that Mother hit her and beat her up, and dragged her around the floor by the hair.

Mother admitted that Stephanie told her about incidents of molestation and that Mother never made any reports to authorities. Mother said Stephanie had been abducted and raped and needed to be in a safe place where Joseph R. could not reach her and where she could not run away. Mother said she could not supervise Stephanie properly or protect her from harm.

In an interview with police, Mother said she did not want Stephanie back and wrote a statement regarding an incident where she hit Stephanie, saying that she and Freddy tried to detain Stephanie to keep her from leaving. Instead, Stephanie sought shelter in the home of Cindy Ramirez, who observed marks on Stephanie resembling those left by a belt. Mother told the police that in 1997 someone did witchcraft to her and she could not care for her children. Although she had resolved that problem, Mother was concerned that Joseph R. used witchcraft on Stephanie to keep her with him and away from Mother. Mother said she was prescribed medication for psychiatric problems but stopped taking that medication years ago, because she felt better.

The police officers did not consider Joseph R. to be a gang member. They found Joseph R. respectful, credible, and cooperative in trying to find Stephanie.

Section 300 Petition and Detention of Stephanie and Freddy: On July 26, 2006, the DCFS filed a petition alleging that Stephanie and Freddy were persons described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (j) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] The juvenile court found that a prima facie case for detaining the minors as persons described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (j), was established, ordered Stephanie and Freddy detained, and set a pretrial resolution conference for September 5, 2006.

Jurisdiction and Disposition: As of September 5, 2006, the DCFS reported that Freddy and Stephanie were placed in separate foster care homes. In a dependency case lasting from October 18, 1997, to September 21, 1999, Freddy and Stephanie had been declared dependant children of the court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and were victims of Mothers general neglect, whose mental condition periodically left her unable to care for them. After Mother was hospitalized for four months, she reunified with the children and the case was closed.

There were a series of referrals to the DCFS in 2005 and 2006. A September 2005 referral alleged that Mother physically abused Stephanie, who refused to return home as she feared Mother would beat her up and said that about once a week Mother punched her on the back and pulled her hair, and at times Mother threw household objects at her and had kicked her. Stephanie said Mother never hit Freddy. The physical abuse allegations were determined to be inconclusive, and after initially stating that she felt unsafe living with Mother, after three weeks Stephanie returned to Mother, no longer felt unsafe, and said her relationship with Mother was better.

In July 2006, a referral alleged that Stephanie was the victim of caretaker incapacity and Mothers physical and emotional abuse. Stephanie ran away from home on July 16, 2006, reportedly because Mother wanted to kill her. The caller reported that Stephanie had bruises and marks all over her body, Mother threatened to have her killed, and Stephanie ran away to escape being killed by Mother, who might suffer from schizophrenic or mental disturbances. These allegations were substantiated. Stephanie stated that Mother threatened to kill her and burn her or hide her where no one could find her. Stephanie would not eat at home for fear Mother would poison her food. Stephanie also stated that three men had molested her in the past, one of which was her father. Stephanie refused to return home until Mother received psychological help. Mother admitted that she had a history of mental illness, which she called a curse, and said Stephanie was under a spell that made her run away from home. Mother also stated she did not want Stephanie back home and admitted she could not control Stephanie. The allegations of physical and emotional abuse and caretaker absence/incapacity were substantiated. The children were detained and placed in foster care.

Stephanie reported that she and Freddy had trouble getting along and would both benefit from therapy. Stephanie said she needed her space but Mother was always there. Although she loved Mother, Stephanie said Mother was too attached, looked at everything Stephanie drew or wrote, gave her no independence, and told her friends that Stephanie was retarded and needed care as if she were a five-year-old. Stephanie also stated that Mother went out of control and told Stephanie she wanted to kill her. Stephanie said she knew Mother did not mean this, but said these statements hurt her feelings. Stephanie admitted she had an 18-year-old boyfriend, Joseph R., and Mother had offered her $1,000 to break up with him.

Mother believed the familys problems were due to the bad influence of Stephanies boyfriend, and that the family was fine but Stephanie needed therapy. Mother believed Joseph R. had kidnapped and harmed Stephanie, and requested a scan to verify that Stephanie was not pregnant.

With regard to her mental illness, Mother stated that she was hospitalized for four months and took medication because she was under a wicked spell, but one day woke to find out her children were detained. Mother said she had cleansed herself of this spell and no longer required medication.

With regard to the section 300, subdivision (a), allegation, Stephanie reported that Mother struck her several times with a belt and broke a phone that Joseph R. had given to Stephanie. Stephanie admitted being upset and talking back to Mother, who then threw a glass of water at her. Stephanie said Mother always threw whatever she had at hand. Mother then started hitting her. After relaxing a little, Mother called Stephanie puta. Stephanie found she had bruises and decided to run away. Stephanie said Mother loved her but at times could not control her temper. Mothers affidavit admitted she hit Stephanie after becoming upset by Joseph R.s constant calls to Stephanie on her cell phone, which Mother admitted taking and breaking. Mother said that when Stephanie became  hysterical,  she hit Stephanie three times with an open hand, once on each leg and once on her right arm, but never hit Stephanie before this incident and never used a belt to discipline her or Freddy. Mother denied pulling Stephanies hair.

With regard to the section 300, subdivision (d) allegation, Stephanie reported that her father sexually abused her shortly after her ninth birthday. Father had lived with the family a couple of months. Stephanie did not recall exactly how it happened, but Father put his hands on her vagina. When she reported this to Mother, her father said it was Stephanies fault. Stephanie reported that her father continued to live with them and slept in their home; Mother denied this. Mother admitted that Stephanie disclosed past sexual abuse by her father, which occurred once the children were returned to Mothers care after their first detention. Mother denied that the father was living with the family at the time. Mother said she immediately asked him to leave and had not seen him since. Mother said she did not report this sexual abuse incident to the police because she was really sick. In a previous interview, Mother admitted that she continued to allow the father to visit and sleep over in the home, because he gave her $200.00 when he came and she needed the money. Mother admitted she had made a mistake in not reporting the fathers sexual abuse of Stephanie to the police.

Adjudication/Disposition Hearing: On October 11, 2006, the juvenile court sustained one count of the section 300 petition pursuant to subdivision (a) [serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the childs parent; Mothers inappropriate, excessive physical discipline of Stephanie] and one count of subdivision (d) [child has been sexually abused; father Freddy L.s sexual abuse of Stephanie]. The juvenile court declared Stephanie and Freddy dependent children of the juvenile court. The juvenile court ordered custody of Stephanie taken from Mother and placed with the DCFS for suitable placement, and ordered Freddy placed with Mother under DCFS supervision. The juvenile court ordered conjoint counseling and individual counseling for both children, reunification and family maintenance services for Mother, to include parent education, individual counseling to address case issues (including sex abuse awareness for a nonoffending parent), and conjoint counseling with the children. The juvenile court ordered monitored visits for Mother with Stephanie. The matter was continued to a judicial review hearing on April 12, 2007.

November 17, 2006, Hearing on Visitation Between Stephanie and Joseph R.: On November 17, 2006, Mother requested an order ending visits between 15-year-old Stephanie and Joseph R., allegedly 21 years old. Mother alleged that the CFS was facilitating and monitoring visits between Stephanie and Joseph R., who Mother alleged had previously statutorily raped Stephanie.

Through her attorney, Mother alleged that the DCFS allowed one-hour visits for Stephanies boyfriend, Joseph R., and requested an order terminating visits for anyone but family members. Mother argued that Stephanie previously ran away to Joseph R., and Mother did not feel that the DCFS should be monitoring visits between Stephanie and an adult male. Mother alleged that Stephanie had sexual relationships with Joseph R. in the past, which if true made him a rapist.

Stephanies attorney stated that Stephanie assured the attorney that Joseph R. was 19 years old, was fingerprinted and approved by the DCFS, and that the DCFS monitored one-hour visits every Friday. These visits were approved by her current foster home. Stephanie assured her attorney that theres no sexual relationship currently and that its a safe relationship. The attorney alleged that ending the visits might heighten the chance that Stephanie would run away with Joseph R.

The DCFS, noting that Stephanie was ordered to participate in individual therapy, requested an update from Stephanies therapist.

The juvenile court observed that the DCFS had cleared Joseph R. and he had monitored visitation. The juvenile court also observed that Mothers parental rights were not terminated and that to some extent her wishes had to be respected. The juvenile court stated: I dont see at this particular point how a one-hour monitored visit, if the visits are truly being monitored, with a person who has been cleared and checked out by the Department . . . and with whom Stephan[ie] has a relationship with plus or minus, is inappropriate. They do have friends. This is a friend. [] So Im not going to change the visitation. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to discuss the relationship of Stephanie and Joseph R. and of Stephanie with Mother, and to prepare a supplemental report addressing Stephanies counseling.

Five days later, on November 22, 2006, an emergency referral alleged that Stephanie was a victim of general neglect, and that Joseph R., who was over 18 years old, was a gang member, and raped Stephanie in the past, took Stephanie out of school and returned her to her foster home late at night. After a CSW investigated, this referral was determined to be unfounded and was closed; there was no neglect by the foster mother and Stephanie stated that she saw Joseph R. only on Fridays for one hour at the foster home and denied seeing him outside the foster home except for one occasion on October 31, 2006. She talked to Joseph R. three times a week for 20 minutes on the telephone. Stephanie understood she was not to see Joseph R. outside the home. Her foster parent said Stephanie had one-hour monitored visits with Joseph R. on Fridays, when they sat on the porch and talked. The foster parent considered Joseph R. to be a good boy and had observed nothing inappropriate. Stephanie visited with Mother at Homes of Hope Foster Family Agency due to Mothers inappropriate, verbally aggressive behavior toward the foster parent and Stephanie. In the period preceding the December 4, 2006, report, Mother had visited Stephanie only once, on October 18, 2006, and behaved inappropriately, yelling at Stephanie for visiting with Joseph R. at the foster home. Stephanies therapist informed the CSW that since Stephanie was able to have contact with Joseph R, she had not been depressed and had consistently participated in therapy.

On December 4, 2006, the juvenile court held a hearing. Mothers attorney argued that Joseph R. apparently had a history with Stephanie, who was 15 years old, and Freddy, Stephanies 13-year-old brother, believed that Joseph R. was a gangbanger and the whole family believed Stephanies visits with Joseph R. was a big mistake and Stephanie should be kept away from him. Mother also argued that the only time she was only able to visit on Saturdays, and that time has been given to Joseph R.

The juvenile court ordered that visits by Mother and the family would take precedence over other visits, and Joseph R.s visits were to occur after Mothers visits.

Mother timely filed a notice of appeal from the December 4, 2006, order.

ISSUES

Mother claims on appeal that the juvenile court:

1. Impermissibly interfered with her right as a parent to determine Stephanies right to association; and

2. Abused its discretion when it allowed continued monitored visitation between Stephanie and her adult boyfriend, because there was evidence that they were not adhering to the visitation requirements set forth by the DCFS.

DISCUSSION

1. Mother Has Not Shown That the Visitation Order Impermissibly Interfered

With Her Right to Control Stephanies Right of Association

Mother claims that the juvenile courts order allowing monitored visitation between Stephanie and Joseph R., an adult, impermissibly interfered with her right to determine Stephanies right to association.

Mother relies on the protection of parents interest in the care, custody, and control of their children by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution, and cites Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57 (Troxel) for the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from infringing on parents fundamental right to make child-rearing decisions.

In Troxel, an unmarried couple with two children separated. After the father later died, the mother limited the paternal grandparents visitation with her two children to one short monthly visit. The grandparents sued to obtain visitation rights with their grandchildren under a Washington state statute providing that any person could petition the court for visitation rights, and that the court could order visitation rights for any person when such visitation would serve the childs best interests. (Troxel, supra, 530 U.S. at pp. 60-63.)

Troxel held that as applied to the mother and her children, the state statute infringed on the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children which was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Troxel, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 66.) This was because the statute permitted any person, at any time, to subject any decision by a parent about visitation of the parents children to review by a state court. Moreover, the statute did not require the court, in ruling on a petition for visitation, to defer to the parents decision that visitation would not be in the childs best interest. Instead the statute placed the best-interest determination solely in the trial judges hands. (Id. at p. 67.) The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the state statute exceeded the bounds of the Due Process Clause.

Troxel is distinguishable, because the parent in that case was a fit parent who had custody of her children. A fit parent can claim the benefit of a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. (Troxel, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 68.) Under this presumption, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit) there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parents children. (Id. at pp. 68-69.)

In this case Mother did not adequately care for her child, is not a fit parent, and has lost custody of Stephanie, a person described by section 300 who has been adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court. Section 361, subdivision (a), states, in relevant part: In all cases in which a minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that the minor is a person described by Section 300, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent[.] Custody of Stephanie having been removed from Mother, she no longer has the right to control visitation; the juvenile court controls visitation. The juvenile courts visitation order was consistent with the policy of the State of California that a child in foster care had the right [t]o have social contacts with people outside of the foster care system, such as teachers, church members, mentors, and friends. ( 16001.9, subd. (a)(15).)

Mother cites cases in which, she argues, the Legislature has deferred to parents with regard to religion and education. None of these cases require a juvenile court to defer to the wishes of an unfit parent who has lost custody of a child.[2]

Mother cites section 300, subdivision (b), requiring the juvenile court to defer to the parents decision not to provide medical treatment, as a basis for requiring the juvenile court to defer to her decisions about Stephanies right to associate with others. However, Mother cites no similar statute in which the Legislature defined or curtailed the juvenile courts power to limit control to be exercised over a dependent child.

Mother has not established that the juvenile courts order impermissibly interfered with her right to control Stephanies right of association.

2. The Juvenile Courts Visitation Order Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

Mother claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering continued monitored visitation between Stephanie and Joseph R. because there was evidence that they did not adhere to visitation requirements set by the DCFS.

[I]n matters concerning child custody and visitation trial courts are vested with broad discretion. On appeal the exercise of that discretion will not be reversed unless the record clearly shows it was abused. (In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 953; see also Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 692, 699, fn 6.) The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds ofreason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)

On November 17, 2006, Mother requested an order terminating visitation with Stephanie for anyone but family members, and specifically referenced a one-hour visit with Joseph R., alleged to be 21 years old and Stephanies boyfriend. Mother alleged that Stephanie had run away to Joseph R. in the past and believed Stephanie had had sexual relationships with him in the past. Mother alleged that this made Joseph R. a rapist. The visits were monitored, but Mother argued that they were inappropriate and that the DCFS should not be facilitating a relationship between an adult man and a 15-year-old girl. Stephanies attorney responded that Stephanie stated that Joseph R. was 19 years old, had been fingerprinted and approved by the DCFS, and that his one-hour visits each Friday were monitored by the DCFS and approved by her current foster parent. Stephanies attorney stated that Stephanie assured me theres no sexual relationship currently and that its a safe relationship. The attorney clarified that her conversation with Stephanie did not extend to any prior sexual relationship and concerned only Stephanies relationship with Joseph R. at the present time, since she had been placed in her current foster home. The attorney argued that Stephanie had a history of running away and if this visitation were stopped, it might heighten her chance of running away with Joseph R.

The juvenile court observed that the DCFS had cleared Joseph R. The juvenile court did not change the visitation, but ordered the DCFS to prepare a supplemental report addressing Stephanies relationship with Mother and to update Stephanies counseling and her relationship with Joseph R.

In a December 4, 2006, interim report, the DCFS reported that a new CSW was assigned to the case on November 14, 2006, but had not been able to contact Mother despite phone calls to Mother on nine different dates and a visit to Mothers home where the CSW left a letter and a business card. Mother called the CSW once, on November 22, 2006, after business hours. The CSW saw Stephanie on November 22, 2006. Stephanie stated that she had only seen Joseph R. according to her agreement with the previous CSW, on Friday for one hour at the foster home, except for one occasion on October 31, 2006. Stephanie also said she talked to Joseph R. three times a week for 20 minutes on the telephone. The CSW stated that Stephanie understood that she was not to see Joseph R. outside the foster home. Stephanies caregiver, Irene S., said Stephanie had monitored visits with Joseph R. for one hour every Friday. Irene S. said Joseph R. seemed to be a good boy, and when he visited he and Stephanie sat on the porch and talked. Irene S. had never observed anything inappropriate. Irene S. understood that Stephanie was only allowed to have monitored visits with Joseph R.

Stephanies one-hour weekly visits with Mother were held at a foster family agency because of Mothers inappropriate, verbally aggressive behavior toward Stephanie and her foster mother. Mother had visited with Stephanie only on October 18, 2006, at which time, according to Homes of Hope staff, Mother behaved inappropriately with Stephanie, yelling at her for visiting with Joseph R. at her foster home.

Stephanies therapist stated that Stephanie was very attached to Joseph R., because at one point she felt he was her only support. Stephanie now understood that she had other people around her and has other friends in the foster home she could talk to. The therapist stated that since Stephanie was able to have contact with Joseph R., she had not been depressed and had been consistent with her therapy. The therapist now focused on Stephanie developing a relationship with Mother.

In a December 4, 2006, hearing, Mothers attorney argued that Stephanies brother, 13-year-old Freddy L., called Joseph R. a known gang banger and said that the whole family thinks that this is a big mistake. Mother also stated that she was only able to visit on Saturdays, but that time had been given to Joseph R.

The juvenile court stated that if the DCFS and the foster parent believed Stephanies visits with Joseph R. were appropriate, Stephanie had a right to such visitation, but also ordered that Mothers visitation was to take precedence over visitation by anyone else.

Mother has not provided evidence that Joseph R. is a rapist. In the July 26, 2006, detention report, the DCFS reported that Stephanie said she met Joseph R. at an after-school program for troubled kids, which he attended because of his family problems. Stephanie stated that Joseph R. formerly used drugs but stopped by himself, did not use drugs, and was a Christian. The report stated: She [Stephanie] denied any sexual relationship other than macking[,] stating that they used to date but now were good friends and that Joseph did try to help her. She denied staying in his home while she was gone these last 12 days. Mother has not shown that macking refers to sexual intercourse or rape. This evidence also derived from an interview with Stephanie on July 22, 2006, more than four months before the December 4, 2006, order. More recently on November 17, 2006, Stephanies attorney stated that Stephanie assured me theres no sexual relationship currently and that its a safe relationship. The attorney clarified that her conversation with Stephanie did not extend to any prior sexual relationship and concerned only Stephanies relationship with Joseph R. at the present time, since she had been placed in her current foster home. Stephanie admitted that she had one outside contact with Joseph R. on October 31, 2006, but said she understood that she was not to see Joseph R. outside the foster home. Stephanies therapist reported that since she was able to have contact with Joseph R., Stephanie was not depressed and had been consistent with therapy.

The juvenile courts visitation orderallowing Stephanies monitored visitation with Joseph R. to continue, but ordering Mothers visits to take precedence over anyone elses visitationwas not an abuse of discretion. It did not exceed the bounds of reason. The juvenile court inferred from the evidence that Stephanie was visiting Joseph R. as a friend and thus had a right to continue such visitation. Because this inference can be reasonably deduced from the facts, we lack authority to substitute our decision for the juvenile courts decision. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.) We therefore affirm the order.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

CROSKEY,. Acting P. J.

ALDRICH, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

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

[2]Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 U.S. 390 [state statute prohibiting teaching of foreign languages to students who had not completed the eighth grade violated Fourteenth Amendment due process right]; Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510 [state statute requiring education of children between 8 and 16 years in a public school interfered with parents rights to direct their childrens education and entitled a military academy and a Roman Catholic school to an injunction to protect freedom of patrons and prevent destruction of businesses and property]; Stanley v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645 [state law presumption of unmarried fathers parental unfitness, without hearing and proof of unfitness, violated due process clause and deprived father of equal protection]; Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205 [state statute requiring children to attend public or private school until age 16 violated First Amendment religious freedom right]; Quilloin v. Walcott (1978) 434 U.S. 246 [state statute prohibiting unwed father from preventing adoption of his illegitimate child did not deprive him of due process or equal protection]; Parham v. J. R. (1979) 442 U.S. 584 [error to hold unconstitutional a states medical factfinding procedures for admitting child to state mental health hospital]; Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745 [state may terminate, over a parents objection, that parents rights in their natural child only by clear and convincing evidence].)