In re Allen P.
Filed 11/12/13 In re Allen P. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
>
In re ALLEN P., JR., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMANDA D., Defendant and Appellant. | D063989 (Super. Ct. No. EJ3597) |
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge.
Affirmed.
Andrea R.
St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Thomas E.
Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and
Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Amanda D.
appeals a juvenile court order
requiring her visitation with her son, Allen P., Jr., (Allen) be
supervised. She contends substantial
evidence does not support the order. We
affirm.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February
17, 2012, the Tulare County social services
agency petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivisions (a) and (b) on behalf of two-year-old Allen on the basis of
father, Allen P., Sr., (the father), and Amanda. The father had thrown a remote control device
across a room and struck Allen's sister, three-year-old Madison D., on her
face, causing bruising. Amanda had a
history of obtaining restraining orders against the father and then allowing
him back into the family home. The
petition also alleged there had been juvenile dependency proceedings concerning
Allen's sibling, Levi D., in 2005.
Amanda successfully reunited with Levi, but then had not protected him from
physical abuse by the father, and the father had struck Levi in the head
multiple times. The petition also
alleged Amanda had neglected Levi's hygiene and medical needs, had been unable
to manage his out-of-control behavior and had not attended conjoint therapy or
followed treatment recommendations for him.
Each parent had been arrested for inflicting corporal injury on Levi and
had served time in custody. Levi was
living with a relative in Texas.
When police
officers took Madison into
protective custody, Amanda became combative and was arrested for resisting
arrest. Allen was visiting the father in
San Diego County
at the time.
title="">[1] The father brought him to Tulare
County so he could be taken into
protective custody. The court ordered
Allen detained in out-of-home care and ordered supervised visits for each
parent. The social worker recommended
denying reunification services for Amanda because she had received many months of
services in Levi's case. The social
worker recommended offering six months of services to the father.
On March 28, 2012, the Tulare County Juvenile
Court found the allegations of the petitions to be true. It declared Allen a dependent of the court
and ordered reunification services for the father, but denied them for Amanda.
The social
worker reported Amanda appeared to have difficulty controlling her anger. She yelled and used derogatory names during
telephone calls with the social worker. She
had weekly supervised visits with Allen and repeatedly tried to bring her
boyfriend or other individuals to the visits.
Madison and Allen's relative caregivers reported Madison and Allen acted
up after visits with Amanda.
Allen and
the father had visits only about once each month because of the distance
between San Diego County
and Tulare County. Their visits were appropriate and progressed
to being unsupervised. The father also
participated in a 52-week domestic violence prevention program.
In June
2012, Amanda's parental rights to Levi were terminated. In August, she lost her parental rights to Madison. Meanwhile, the father made progress in
services and had positive visits and telephone conversations with Allen. In September, Allen was placed with him in
the home of the paternal grandparents. In
October, the San Diego County Juvenile Court accepted transfer of the case from
the Tulare County Juvenile Court. Amanda
moved from Tulare County
to Southern California and had weekly visits with
Allen. The grandparents reported she had
difficulty taking on a parental role and did not have control over Allen during
visits.
In January
2013, the father began an in-home parenting program. He also continued his participation in the
domestic violence program. He was
employed and spent his free time with Allen.
In February, Amanda moved to the State of Washington
for a short time, but then returned to California. Her visits with Allen became more regular,
and Allen was excited when they got to see each other. Staff at the visitation center reported their
visits were positive and affectionate.
The social
worker reported Amanda had been offered 43 months of services in Levi's
cases. Amanda's therapist in Tulare
County reported she had been
diagnosed with "Depressive Disorder" and "Borderline Personality
Disorder with Dependent Personality Traits" and with seizures. The therapist said Amanda was resistant to
therapy.
At a review
hearing on April 30, 2013,
Amanda's counselor testified he worked as a therapeutic behavioral specialist and
supervised cases and trained therapists for an agency in Temecula. He also was Amanda's pastor. He was not a licensed social worker or a
credentialed therapist. He had met with
Amanda for one hour each week for about four months and said they were
addressing her issues of depression and anxiety. He said she had become less emotional and was
calmer than when their counseling sessions began. He said he was aware she had lost two
children to adoption but, in his opinion, she had never posed a risk to them,
and he did not see a problem with her having Allen in her care without supervision.
He was not aware she had been diagnosed
with a borderline personality disorder, and he had not received copies of the
juvenile court documents concerning Levi and Madison or the earlier reports
concerning Allen.
Amanda
testified she received disability income for a seizure disorder, with which she
had been diagnosed in 2007. She took
medication for the seizure disorder and for depression. She said she did not know she had been
diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder. She said she had addressed some of her past
domestic violence issues with her counselor and would rely on him for help with
anger issues.
After
considering the evidence and argument by counsel, the court found the father
had made substantive progress with the provisions of his case plan, Amanda had
made some progress, and there no longer was a protective issue. The court advised Amanda to participate in
therapy with a licensed therapist, complete a domestic violence program and
develop a safety plan for what to do if she had a seizure when Allen was in her
care. It awarded Amanda and the father
joint legal custody, the father sole physical custody, ordered supervised visitation
for Amanda and terminated jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Amanda
contends substantial evidence does not support the order requiring her
visitation be supervised. She argues her
visits with Allen have been positive, and there was no substantial evidence she
had a borderline personality disorder, no showing how such a diagnosis would
pose a danger to Allen and no evidence her seizure disorder ever interfered
with her ability to care for him. She
also argues since Allen's dependency began because of the father's domestic
violence and Allen now has been placed with the father, it makes no sense to
restrict her visitation.
Legal Principles
In making visitation orders, the juvenile court
must consider the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) It must consider
the totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the
child. (In re Chantal S. (1996)
13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) The court's orders
regarding visitation may be
reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.
(In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94
Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) " 'The
appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason. 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.'
[Citation.]" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th
295, 318-319.)
Application
Amanda has
not shown the court abused its discretion by requiring her visits with Allen
continue to be supervised. She had
previously been arrested and served time in custody for inflicting corporal
injury on a child. She yelled at the
social workers, showing she had difficulty controlling her anger. She shouted at Allen during some visits, and when
Allen and Madison were first removed from her care, their caregivers reported
they showed negative behavior after visits with her. She had been offered many months of services
in Levi's cases, but reunification was not successful, and her parental rights to
Levi and Madison had been terminated. Her
previous therapist had said she was resistant to therapy, and her previous
parenting instructor was worried about her ability to implement the skills
presented in class. The court expressed
concern that her borderline personality disorder condition was difficult to
treat and encouraged her to participate in therapy with a licensed therapist,
complete a domestic violence program and develop a safety plan for what actions
would be taken if she had a seizure when Allen was in her care.
Amanda has
not shown the court abused its discretion by requiring her visits with Allen
continue to be supervised.
DISPOSITION
The order
is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Amanda and the father had been
awarded joint legal custody of Allen; Amanda was given physical custody and the
father had one week of unsupervised visitation each month.
