In re J.V.
Filed 8/7/13 In re J.V. 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 J.V., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B247062
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK86485)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
L.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los
Angeles, Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Rehm,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John F.
Krattli County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D.
Watson, Senior Associate County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
INTRODUCTION
L.L.
(mother) appeals from the dependency court’s order made at a six-month review
hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e)
her 13-year-old son, J.V., a dependent of the juvenile court, be returned to
her custody. Mother contends
the finding that returning J.V. to her custody created a substantial risk of
detriment to the child. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Previous Appeal
On February 9, 2011, the
(DCFS) filed a petition under section 300 alleging, inter alia, that father and
mother had subjected J.V. to emotional abuse due to an ongoing custody dispute
between the two. That same day, the
juvenile court found a prima facie case, detained J.V., and released him to
mother. The juvenile court ordered no
visitation for father, but gave DCFS the discretion to liberalize that order to
monitored visitation in a therapeutic
setting. The juvenile court also ordered
an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation of father, mother, and the minor.
On April 5, 2011, the juvenile court
sustained the allegation in paragraph c-1 of the petition alleging that father
and mother had emotionally abused the minor.
The juvenile court declared J.V. minor a dependent of the court, removed
him from father’s custody, released him to mother, ordered family maintenance
services, individual counseling, and conjoint counseling with J.V. for
mother. The juvenile court also ordered
On or about
October 3, 2011, Dr. Sandra
Hah, a psychiatrist, submitted to the juvenile court her Evidence Code section
730 evaluations of J.V. and his parents.
Dr. Hah provided the following diagnoses and recommended treatments: “1.
As to [J.V.], the data is consistent with a diagnosis of Anxiety Not Otherwise
Specified and Mood Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. He clearly suffers from anxiety and mood
dysregulation related to parental conflict and the uncertainty of custody
arrangements. Additionally, a diagnosis
of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a possibility. [¶] 2. As to the
mother, the data is consistent with a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder
and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, although allegations of domestic violence
have not been verified. [Mother]
minimized some of the symptoms so she did not meet full criteria for a
diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder but it is a possibility. [¶] . . . [¶] 4.
[J.V.] would benefit from either individual psychotherapy, play therapy,
cognitive behavioral therapy, or a combination of all three. If his anxiety or mood symptoms worsen, he
may benefit from antidepressant medications such as selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors (SSRI’s).
Additionally, [J.V.] should continue to have regular social activities
with peers and access to positive role models and mentors, both male and
female. Finally, it would be helpful for
the minor to be in family counseling with his mother and/or father to
facilitate working through situations of intense conflict and to help establish
healthy boundaries between mother and minor, and father and minor. [¶] 5.
The mother . . . would benefit from
more regular attendance at her current domestic violence support group. Additionally, it may help her feel more
empowered as a single parent to take parenting classes, particularly ones that
are more focused toward setting personal boundaries with children and
decreasing enmeshment. [Mother] should
continue to seek peer friendship and support (as she has found in church
groups), and minimize isolation of herself and her son. Finally, it is recommended that [mother]
attend co-parenting therapy with the father, [J.V.], to address issues of
extreme hostility and conflict, so they can positively and cooperatively rear
their child, [J.V.]. . . .â€
On March 29, 2012, DCFS filed a section
387
“previous disposition had not been effective in the protection or
rehabilitation of [J.V.].†Specifically, DCFS stated the following in
paragraphs s-1 and s-2 of the petition: “s-1. [J.V.’s] mother . . .
created a detrimental home environment for [J.V.] by emotionally abusing
[him]. Such emotional abuse consisted
of, but is not limited to, the continued custody issues, visitations for
[J.V.’s] father and the continuing disparagement of the father and other
maternal relatives to the minor, to the extent that [J.V.] has been emotionally
isolated from the father and other relatives.
Such conduct on the part of [J.V.’s]
mother . . . places [J.V.] at substantial risk of suffering
serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression and
withdrawal that [J.V.] displays. [¶] s-2. On numerous occasions,
[J.V.’s] mother . . . has displayed mental and emotional problems
including, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Further, on prior occasions [J.V.’s]
mother . . . has not provided continuous Mental Health
services for herself or her son. Due to
the mother’s limitations, the mother is unable to provide regular mental health
care for her son. Such mental and
emotional condition on the part of the mother endangers [J.V.’s] physical and
emotional health and safety and places [J.V.] at risk of future physical and
emotional harm and damage.â€
DCFS filed
a March 29, 2012, detention
report, reporting that a Children’s Social Worker (CSW) explained the reasons
for the section 387 petition as follows: “This family came to the attention of
DCFS on 11/17/2010 when a
referral alleged the [J.V.] was placed on a [section 5585] hold. [J.V.] was hospitalized on a [section 5585]
hold on 11/17/2010, for reporting not wanting to visit father and would kill
himself or father and was diagnosed with major depression. Prior to discharge, [J.V.] was taken from the
hospital/Alhambra BHC by mother against medical advice on 11/21/2010. The family has had 17 prior investigations
with the department and a Voluntary Family Maintenance Case with the
department. All of the family’s prior
referrals with DCFS . . . relate [to] the parents conflict with one
another. Mother and father have been
divorced for the past 10 years. During
this time the parents have been in battle with one another utilizing the Family
Law Court System which has been detrimental to [J.V.’s] well being. [¶] Mother has continued to be resistant to
mental health services both for herself and her son. [J.V.] has met with Department of Mental
Health [(DMH)] staff Ms. Keyondria Bunch PhD., yet only in the presence
of . . . mother. [J.V.]
continues to report that he is scared of . . . father and that father
will hurt him. Numerous attempts have
been made to link [J.V.] and mother with services. Previously, mother has stated that she does
not wish to receive services through DMH, instead she previously wanted to take
[J.V.] for treatment at Glen Roberts Child Study Center where she reported to
have been denied in November due to insufficient medical coverage. CSW and DMH have also tried to refer mother
to full Service Partnership yet mother refuses in home services. Department of Mental Health continues to
express concern for [J.V.] with strong recommendation that mother and [J.V.]
follow through with mental health assessment and treatment. Measures are to be taken to ensure this
follow through with continued Department of Children and Family Services to
ensure that [J.V.] is in a stable, consistent, and supportive environment that
will support and facilitate continued mental health treatment, attendance in
school, and appropriate choice in [J.V.’s] daily functioning. Family Law Court appointed [J.V.’s] attorney
Sandra Etue reported ongoing child alienation issues on behalf of mother and
[J.V.] reporting to her on many occasions to be fine with visiting with father
and reporting understanding that mother does not want [J.V.] to visit with
father or any other member of her own family.
Mother has alienated herself and [J.V.] from all maternal family members
for perceived slights and alienation with the father. Mother’s alienation of these family members
has eliminated valuable family support to [J.V.], who previously ha[d] good
existing relationships with [his] [maternal grandfather] and uncle. Mother’s continued anxiety and paranoia has
caused [J.V.] undue stress, confusion and symptoms of depression. This has caused vicarious traumatization to
[J.V.] and places him at risk for several mental health distortions and
cognitions requiring intensive mental health intervention. As to the Family Law Court minute order dated
02/01/2011, Family Law Court found that it is not in [J.V.’s] best interest to
exclude father from [J.V.’s] life.â€
At the
March 29, 2012, detention hearing, the juvenile court found that DCFS had made
a prima facie case for detaining J.V. and showing that a substantial danger
existed to the physical and emotional health of the minor. The juvenile court further found that there
were no reasonable means to protect J.V. without removal from mother’s home,
that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for such
removal, and that continuance in mother’s home was contrary to J.V.’s welfare. The juvenile court detained J.V., removed him
from mother’s custody, and ordered him placed with any suitable relative. The juvenile court also ordered monitored
visitation for mother and father with a DCFS approved monitor.
In the May
18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition report, a CSW reported that she interviewed
mother who told her the following: “Mother stated that she does not isolate
[J.V.]. Mother stated that she refuses
to allow father to have contact with [J.V.] due to his past actions and
behaviors. Mother stated that she believes
that her relatives are on father’s side and therefore has refused to allow them
to have contact. Mother stated that she
had only allowed her brother [J.L.] minimal contact. [¶] Mother stated that she did acquire mental
health services for [J.V.], but had difficulties due to confusion about
insurance and her inability to continue to pay for services on her own. Mother
states that she does not have any mental health issues that she needs to
address.â€
The CSW
also interviewed father and provided the following: “Father stated that mother
has progressively increased [J.V.’s] isolation from father and the entire
family since [J.V.’s] birth. Father
states that he believes that mother has increased the isolation because [J.V.]
is getting older and is starting to ask more questions about why he cannot see
his family. Father reported that the
activities that mother allows [J.V.] to participate in involve mother’s
constant presence. Father shared that he
is concerned about the mental state of [J.V.] and hopes that [[J.V.] can get
the help that he needs. [¶] Father stated that mother has had
mental health issues for nearly a decade.
Father reported the several judges in Family Law court ordered mother to
participate in mental health services.
Father stated that he believes that mother is refusing to allow [J.V.]
to receive mental health services because then mother would begin to lose her
control over the minor.â€
According
to the CSW: “Mother and father continue to have a caustic relationship despite
the apparent anxiety and depression the minor is experiencing. Despite the detention and placement of the
minor, mother continues to deny any mental health issues that she may have or
that the minor may have. This fact is
concerning with regard to the history that mother presents in only
superficially acquiring mental health services for [J.V.]. Additionally, during monitored visitation
mother disparages father, the current caregiver, maternal uncle [J.L.] and the
maternal grandfather. Mother
also—despite repeated attempts at
redirection from the CSW and DCFS monitors—continued to tell the minor that at
this court hearing the minor will return to her care. This combination of remarks makes the minor
visibly upset and causes the mother and minor to argue and become frustrated
with one another during the visits. [¶] Mother reports that father
is leaving threatening voicemail on . . . mother’s home phone. Mother has yet to supply the voicemail and therefore
DCFS cannot confirm. Father had stated that he ‘will go to the Jim’s
(caregiver) business and demand to see [J.V.] if visits are not set-up.’ These acts continue to frighten the minor and
cause [J.V.] to grow only more distant from the father.â€
In a May
18, 2012, last minute information for the court, a CSW reported that mother
initiated individual counseling in April 2012 and had attended four
sessions. The CSW further reported that
mother had also enrolled at a counseling center and attended eight sessions of
parenting classes.
At the May
18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued the
hearing to June 5, 2012. In a June 5,
2012, last minute information for the court, a CSW reported that the minor had
been referred to the Department of Mental Health for an assessment and referral
to a service provider. An assessment was
scheduled for June 7, 2012. As for
mother, the CSW reported that mother continued to be enrolled in individual
counseling and had completed her parenting course. The CSW also reported that mother visited the
minor regularly but at times continued “to respond inappropriately to [J.V.’s]
verbal and non-verbal signals as evidenced by mother’s refusal to accommodate
[J.V.’s] schedule in planning visitation.
During visitation mother . . . continued to discuss
case issues and continue[d] to disparage the current caregivers.†Moreover, based on statements made by mother,
the CSW believed that mother might leave the state with J.V.
At the June
5, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court admitted evidence
and heard arguments of counsel, and found the allegations in paragraphs s-1 and
s-2 of the section 387 petition true and sustained the petition. As to disposition, the juvenile court found
and ruled as follows: “Having found the petition true, I will again declare the
minor a dependent under section 300 and find by clear and convincing evidence
under [section] 361[, subsection] (c) there’s a substantial danger if the child
were returned home to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child, and there’s no reasonable means by which the
child’s physical health can be protected without removing the child from the
parents’ physical custody. [¶]
Order that [J.V.] be removed from the parents with whom the child resided
at the time the petition was filed.
Reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for
removal from the home of the custodial parent. [¶] Suitable
placement orders are to continue in full force and effect. Placement with
the maternal uncle is approved of at this time. [S]o we’ll go ahead and
agree to have [J.V.] placed there. The Department will have discretion to
place with any appropriate relative. [¶] Case plans will be
implemented for both mother and father as provided by County Counsel. Mother is advised that services need to be
completed within the 12-month period, or if not, we could terminate
permanency plan where a plan of adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term
foster care could be implemented.â€
In
[nonpub.opn.]), we affirmed, inter alia, the juvenile court’s disposition
orders removing custody of J.V. from mother, holding that there was substantial
evidence that continuing J.V. in mother’s custody would be detrimental to
J.V.’s emotional well being.
B. The
Current Appeal
At a
walk-on hearing on September 28, 2012, J.V.’s counsel requested that J.V. be
enrolled immediately in counseling, and DCFS be admonished to follow court
orders that mother and J.V. visit only in a therapeutic environment. DCFS’s counsel advised the juvenile court
that it had not yet found a therapist for therapeutic visits between mother and
J.V., and the matter was ongoing.
Recently a CSW, who has some therapeutic background, was monitoring the
visits at DCFS’ offices. The juvenile
court ordered the CSW continue to monitor visits until a therapist was found,
J.V. to be enrolled in individual counseling, and set a six-month review
hearing for December 4, 2012.
On December
4, 2012, DCFS filed a status review report stating that on November 7, 2012,
J.V. began individual counseling. J.V.
had been residing with his maternal uncle for the previous six months. J.V. is adjusting well in that placement, is
comfortable there, and said he enjoyed residing with his maternal uncle and is
happy and content. J.V. was
progressively becoming more open, receiving medical examinations, meeting all
developmental stages, and participating in numerous extra-curricular and family
activities. He was in the 8th grade,
displayed no behavioral problems at school, but was “achieving below grade
level.†J.V.’s 7th-grade report card
provided that J.V. earned two B’s, two D’s, and two F’s.
The
December 4, 2012, status review report stated that mother was in compliance
with the juvenile court’s orders. Since
April 16, 2012, mother was actively participating in individual counseling, on
May 17, 2012, completed parenting classes, and on October 4, 2012, began
conjoint counseling with J.V. every other week.
The status
review report provided that mother said she did not have mental health issues
and is participating in counseling because it was required to have J.V.
returned to her care. According to the
status review report, a September 13, 2012, progress letter from mother’s
therapist stated that mother was punctual and consistent in attending the
weekly therapy sessions, and committed to working towards the treatment goals
of decreasing her anxiety and depression.
Mother seemed sincere and appeared to feel deeply concerned about the
well-being of J.V., and willing to take extra measures to ensure J.V.’s
safety. Mother said that father was
violent and a threat to her, and father continually harassed her with telephone
calls. Mother also said that father and
the maternal uncle controlled J.V.’s life.
A November 19, 2012, progress letter from mother’s therapist stated that
mother had attended 31 sessions, was consistent and punctual, and seemed
sincere, but still believed the maternal uncle and father were controlling
J.V.’s life, and said they consistently placed him in dangerous situations.
According
to the December 4, 2012, status review report, J.V. said that he would like to
return to mother’s custody, although not at “this exact time.†J.V. said he needed more time to openly
express his desires to mother in conjoint counseling regarding contact with the
maternal grandparents, maternal uncles, and father, enjoyed visiting his
maternal grandfather, and was glad he was getting to know his father again.
The
December 4, 2012, status review report stated that on August 28, 2012, mother
began monitored visitation with J.V., and during those visits mother “is
usually appropriate.†Mother would
arrive on time, bring food, snacks, drinks, photographs of when J.V. was
younger, and activities for J.V. Mother
and J.V. both said that they enjoyed the time they spent with each other. The CSW, however, had concerns that “mother
continues to be unreasonable, rude and offensive; she uses fear and
intimidation and is in need of continued therapeutic services .
. . . Mother’s exasperated comments
during the visitation demonstrate that continued services are needed.†The status review report stated that mother
tended to get angry, hostile, react inappropriately, and engage in bullying
behavior.
According
to the December 4, 2012, status review report, during one of mother’s visits
with J.V, he asked for some Boy Scout items, an IPad, and other items, and
mother responded, “Those things will be here for you when you come home.†During mother’s visits with J.V., mother
would get upset when discussing J.V.’s activities at his current placement or
visits with his maternal grandfather, believing 13-year-old J.V. might have
been in danger. Mother cited as examples
J.V. talking about racing bicycles, and having traveled alone on the
Metrolink. Mother also said that she saw
J.V. using a chainsaw; J.V. denied that he used a chainsaw. When J.V. talked about having fun with other
members of the family, such as going to a car or bike show, or other “outings,â€
mother would ignore him, change the subject, make disapproving facial
expressions, or “twist†the positive idea and “make it negative,†which
inhibited J.V. from expressing his true feelings.
The status
report stated that during one visit, mother shouted that she would never let
J.V. see his grandfather once J.V. returned to her. During other visits, mother accused J.V. of
being coached and bribed to say certain things, and became upset and slammed a
sheet of paper on the table.
The
December 4, 2012, status review report stated that during one visit, mother
said to the CSW, “When is this going to stop?
You [are] staring in our faces.
This isn’t very therapeutic.â€
Mother also said to the CSW, “Oh, the court report is going to have
stories, just like they always do.â€
During another visit, mother said to the CSW, “You aren’t doing
anything. You’re not even taking care of
[J.V.’s] glasses.†Once when the CSW
interrupted to ask J.V. a question, mother said, “This visit is supposed to be
for me!†On another occasion, mother
told the CSW, “This is my visit for me and my son,†closed the blinds in the
room, and said to J.V., “let’s just sit.â€
On December
4, 2012, at mother’s request, the juvenile court set a contested six-month
review hearing for January 17, 2013.
DCFS filed a last minute information for the court in connection with
the January 17, 2013 hearing, stating that on December 10, 2012, Pastor Laurel
Peterson began monitoring mother’s visits with J.V. Pastor Peterson observed that mother brought
meals and activities for J.V., but also saw mother’s anger toward the CSW and
maternal uncle. Pastor Peterson said
that when mother’s anger was mentioned, mother “put me on the enemy side. But now she is okay with me.†According to the last minute information for
the court, on December 21, 2012, after mother and the CSW discussed the
vacation and visitation schedule, mother made “childish whining noises†and
accused CSW of “writing lies†about her in reports.
In a
January 3, 2013, progress letter, mother’s therapist stated that mother had
attended a total of 34 sessions, was consistent and punctual in attending her
sessions, and was cooperative, committed, and willing to take extra measures to
ensure J.V.’s safety. The therapist
indicated mother believes father and the maternal uncle were controlling J.V.’s
life, and were consistently placing J.V. in dangerous situations, such as
allowing J.V. to use a chainsaw without protective gear. Mother reported that J.V. was failing in many
of his school classes. Mother also said
father continued to harass her with telephone calls, and thought J.V. was being
forced to see father.
The CSW
reported that on January 7, 2013, she arrived with J.V. 15 minutes late for
mother’s monitored visit with him. In
response, mother slammed the visitation room door, refused to let the social
worker enter, and yelled, “I am not going to play these games with you!†There was no cellular telephone service at
the site, and mother insisted that she rather than the CSW use the telephone at
the site to call Pastor Peterson. Mother
continued arguing, and slammed the door a second time. Once Pastor Peterson arrived at the site, mother
yelled “Come with me now, J.V.!†then yelled at the CSW, “I am going to deal
with you in court!â€
On January
17, 2013, the juvenile court held the section 366.21, subdivision (e) hearing,
and admitted documentary evidence.
Pastor Peterson testified that mother and J.V. got along “very good†at
visits, and had a lot of positive interaction.
He said that mother had never done or said anything that caused him
concern throughout the three years he had known her, and did not seem to be “a
risk.â€
Pastor
Peterson testified that during one visit, he witnessed mother display anger
toward the CSW, and during another visit she displayed anger toward the
maternal uncle. Pastor Peterson
testified mother did not feel the maternal uncle supported her, on one occasion
mother “got a little bit mad†at Pastor Peterson when he suggested she “hold
back on her anger.†And, although Pastor
Peterson never heard mother and J.V. talking about father, he heard mother say
“some things about the father,†which had “not been positive.â€
The parties
stipulated that if J.V. were called to testify, he would say he enjoyed
visiting father, wanted to go home to mother immediately, and denied saying
that he did not want to return to mother.
The
juvenile court stated that it was concerned mother was “setting up an us versus
them type of mentality.†The juvenile
court said, “I’m really not getting a good sense, because even during monitored
visits with someone that she knows and likes, she turns on them in a
heartbeat. And she already has set up a
very poisonous atmosphere between her and the [CSW]. [¶] . . .
[¶] . . . When you read these documents today, it would seem there’s not
a, quote, unquote, current risk of harm or detriment. .
. . [But,] unless and until I’m satisfied that mother is
willing to go along with the program, I have very deep concerns about returning
[J.V.] home even if he wants to go home.â€
J.V.’s
counsel stated that J.V. wanted to be returned to mother’s custody but it was
premature to do so.
J.V.’s counsel said that he was concerned that mother was alienating
J.V. from father. J.V.’s counsel also
stated that previously, J.V. was “absolutely terrified†of father, but now
enjoyed visiting him; J.V. is also no longer afraid of maternal uncle and
maternal grandfather; and “there are still red flags in the reports.â€
The
juvenile court found that mother was in partial compliance with her case plan,
stated that failure to make substantive progress in court ordered treatment was
prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental, and said, “That’s really
what the court is finding today.†The
juvenile court stated that “I realize the mother has more recently been in
compliance. The demonstrated conduct of
the mother towards all of the parties involved with the child . . . has not
demonstrated to this court that the mother is actually internalizing the
lessons that are supposed to be learned through these classes and programs.â€
The juvenile court found that
returning J.V. to mother’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment
to the child, ordered J.V. to remain suitably placed, and continued
reunification services for mother. The
juvenile court granted mother monitored visits, three times per week. The juvenile court indicated that if there were
no incidents at or during the visits for three weeks, then mother could have
unmonitored visits three times per week at the maternal uncle’s home, as long
as the maternal uncle was present in the home.
The court
found a substantial probability that J.V. would be returned to mother’s custody
by the 12-month review hearing, and set a 12-month review hearing for July 18,
2013. The trial court said to mother,
“I’ve set up a pathway to success for you.
All you have to do is follow it. . . . You need to
listen to what I’m telling you and go along with the program.â€
DISCUSSION
Mother contends substantial
evidence does not support the finding under section 366.21, subdivision (e)
that returning J.V. to her custody created a substantial risk of detriment to
the child. We disagree.
1. Standard
of Review
We review
findings and orders made pursuant to section 366.21 for substantial
evidence. (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 183;
Cal.App.4th 1014, 1020.) In determining
whether an order is supported by substantial evidence, “we look to see if
substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports [it]. [Citation.]
In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the
evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review
the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we
note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court. [Citation.]â€
(In re Heather A. (1996) 52
Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) “We do not
reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if
there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.†(In re
Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.)
Thus, the pertinent inquiry is whether
finding, not whether a contrary finding might have been made. (In re
Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)
Section 366.21,
subdivision (e) provides in part, “At the review hearing held six months after
the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date
the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs
earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court
shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her
parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a
return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a
substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child. The
social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.â€
Substantial
evidence supports the finding that the return of custody to mother at the time
of the hearing would create a substantial risk of detriment. The evidence that supports the trial court’s
finding is as follows. On June 5, 2012,
J.V. was removed from mother’s custody because of mother’s mental and emotional
problems, as well as her emotional abuse of J.V. which included continued
disparagement of and emotional isolation from father and other relatives. Although mother had completed her parenting
course and was attending her individual counseling sessions, by the January 17,
2013, six-month review hearing, mother was still engaging in emotionally
abusive behavior, and displaying mental and emotional problems.
There was
evidence that mother said things about father that had “not been
positive.†Mother claimed J.V. was being
forced to see father, and was being “coached†and “bribed†to say positive
things about him. Mother also felt the
maternal uncle did not “support†her.
Mother was visibly angry at the maternal uncle, and mother became angry
with Pastor Peterson and put him “on the enemy side†when he told her to “hold
back†her anger.
There was
evidence that during visits, mother would get upset when J.V. discussed engaging
in activities with father and the maternal grandfather. When J.V. talked about doing something that
he liked with other family members, such as going to a bike or car show, mother
ignored J.V., made disapproving facial expressions, changed the subject, or
“twist[ed] the positive idea and [made] it negative,†which inhibited the child
from expressing his true feelings.
During one visit, mother shouted that she would never let J.V. see his
grandfather once he returned to her custody.
There was
also evidence for which the juvenile court described as mother establishing “a
very poisonous atmosphere between her and the [CSW].†Mother accused the CSW of “writing lies†in
the court reports. On one occasion, when
the CSW interrupted the visit to ask J.V. a question, mother said, “This visit
is supposed to be for me!†On another
occasion, mother told the CSW, “This is my visit for me and my son,†closed the
blinds in the room, and said to J.V., “let’s just sit.†In January 2013, after the CSW arrived 15
minutes late with J.V. to a visit, mother slammed the visitation room door,
refused to let the CSW in, yelled, “I am not going to play these games with
you!†and slammed the door. She would
not allow the CSW to use the telephone.
Mother had not succeeded in working her way up to unmonitored visits.
There is
sufficient evidence that return of J.V. to mother’s custody would create “a
substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child[.]†(§
366.21, subd. (e).) Mother essentially
reargues the evidence, pointing to contrary evidence, and asks us to reweigh
it. Although there might be conflicting
evidence, as long as there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile
court’s findings, we must affirm. (
415.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MOSK,
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER,
J.
KUMAR,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise
indicated.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] The
facts concerning the previous appeal in this case are based in large part on
the facts set forth in our earlier unpublished opinion in that appeal—
[nonpub.opn.]).
