In re J.S.









Filed 3/30/17 In re J.S. CA3








NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----



In re J.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
C082227


SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.


(Super. Ct. Nos. JD233681, JD233682, JD233683)



J.S. (mother) appeals from the findings and orders made by the juvenile court at the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing concerning three of her children. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’sjurisdictional findingunder Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).[1] Mother further contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s dispositionalorderremoving the children from her custody.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2015, Child Protective Services (CPS) received areferral from a mandated reporter indicating that mother was experiencing auditory hallucinations, including hearing voices directing her not to take her oldest child to school because someone would shoot her and her four children, O.C-S., A.S., J.S-B., and C.S.The reporter stated that mother has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and was not taking her medication. The reporter also alleged that mother had notslept in two days and had not adequately supervised her children in that J.S-B. had scratches and marks on her face as a result of being hit or scratched by A.S. At the time of the referral, O.C-S. was seven years old, A.S. was four years old, J.S-B. was three years old, and C.S. was onemonth old.
Later, on the same day CPS received the referral, an emergency response social worker, Jesse GomezCoates,visitedmother’s home. When mother answered the door, Gomez Coates identified himself more than onceand provided a business card. During the visit,Gomez Coates detected the smell of urine and noticed various items strewn throughout the home, including litter, paper, toys, and unlaundered clothes. He also observedthe older children tossing toys across the room near their infant sister C.S., who was sitting in a car seat crying.[2] At Gomez Coates’s request, mother picked-up and soothed C.S. As mother held C.S., A.S., without warning, hit Gomez Coatesin the stomach and groin area with a closed fist. After Gomez Coatesaskedmother to excuse C.S.’s siblings to their room so he could address child safety concerns, mother askedGomez Coatesto identify himself again.When he did so and stated the purpose of his visit, mother told him to leave.
After he left the residence, Gomez Coatescalled the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and requested that mother be taken into custody under section 5150.[3]However, when a sheriff’s deputy arrived at the family home, no one was there.
On November 4, 2015, Gomez Coates received a phone call from Lorena Cohen, mother’s Serna Village case manager.[4] Cohen reported that a passerby,who at 9:30 a.m. observed mother pushing a grocery cart containing her four children, had brought mother and her children back to their home. Although mother did not know how to get home, O.C-S. was able to direct the passerby to the family home.
Later that same day, a deputy with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department made contact with mother.The deputy conducted a section 5150 assessment and concluded that mother did not meet the criteria for a section 5150 hold.However, the deputy determined that mother appeared to lack the capacity to adequately parent her children, and,therefore,requested that Gomez Coates assess her in his presence.
Upon his arrival at the family home, Gomez Coatesinformed mother that there were concerns about her children’s safety and her capacity to safely parent the children, in part, due to her untreated mental health issues, auditory hallucinations, and inadequate supervision. Mother admitted to having a diagnosis of schizophrenia but declined to provide specific information regarding any treatment she was receiving for her condition. Mother claimedthat A.S. caused the scratches and marks on J.S-B.’s face when A.S. became frustrated with J.S-B. Gomez Coatesexplainedto mother a safety planand the availability of protective emergency placement services for the children, but mother indicatedshe would only allow C.S.to be placed outside of the home. Following Gomez Coates’s assessment, it was determined that immediate removal of the children was the only protective measure to ensure their safety.
On November6, 2015, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition alleging that the children came within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b),based on mother’s untreated mental illness and/or psychiatric problems, which impaired her ability to provide adequate care, protection, and supervision for her children.At the conclusion of the detention hearing, the children were ordered detained and temporary placement and care of the children was vested with the Department.Acombined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was scheduledfor November30, 2015.
Prior to the hearing, the Department filed a jurisdiction/disposition report. In connection with the preparation of this report, the social worker interviewed several people, including mother, Gomez Coates, Cohen, the maternal great aunt, and the maternal grandfather.When interviewed, mother told the social worker that she was participating in a transitional living housing program, and that she had informed her case managers during group counseling that she was concerned about school shootings. She denied saying that she was afraid someone was going to shoot her and her children; explaining that she did not send her children to school because she was sick after the birth of C.S. Mother claimed she was diagnosed with symptoms of postpartum depression, but denied she had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness. Motheradmitted that she did not regularly take the medicine prescribed for her postpartum depression. Regarding leaving the home after Gomez Coates’s initial visit, mother admitted she left to prevent the Department from taking the children. She said she went to her cousin’s house, but the cousin’s girlfriend kicked them out. She said she had the baby’s formula and clothes for the children and was planning not to return home when a lady asked if they needed a ride. While mother said she had intended not to return home, she apparently did not say where she was going with the children as no mention is made of such plans in the report.
Gomez Coatesinformed the social worker that he initiated a section 5150 assessment of mother because shehad a stoic facial expression, exhibited delay in response to questions, and showed a concerning manner when handling C.S. Gomez Coates reported that mother appeared to look right through him when he was discussing the child safety concerns that had been brought to CPS’s attention. According to Gomez Coates, mother admitted she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Cohen told the social worker that during her intake interview with Serna Village, mother disclosed she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Cohen reported that mother had been prescribed Prozac and Seroquel, but mother’s physician discontinued the medication during her pregnancy. Cohen further reported that mother kept her children home from school after she began experiencing auditory hallucinations during her last month of pregnancy with C.S. The hallucinations included voices telling mother that someone was going to shoot her and her children on the way to school. Cohen statedthat mother would go missing for long periods of time or would isolate herself in her apartment, and when an inquiry was made about her whereabouts, mother would claim she was at her mother’s home. Cohen was concerned because she knew the maternal grandmother had passed away three years prior.
The maternal great aunt told the social worker that mother began engaging in bizarre and concerning behavior after C.S. was born. The maternal great aunt reported that mother asked her to care for C.S. becauseshefelt mentally unfit todo so.The maternal great auntstatedthat she took careof C.S. for more than two weeks.
The maternal grandfather told the social worker that mother had been acting bizarre and weird since her mother died. He explained that he observed mother mimicking the behaviors of her deceased mother, such as distrusting people who care about her, jumping in and out of cars, and sleeping in cars instead of the house. He further reported that mother wanted to give C.S. up for adoption but decided to allow the maternal great aunt to takecare of her instead. He also noted that mother had recently been released from the hospital on a 14-day involuntary hold, and, prior to that, she was at Sutter Center for Psychiatry for three days on an involuntary hold.
On April13, 2016, the Department filed an addendum to the jurisdiction/disposition report advising the juvenile court that mother reported she was taking Seroquel and Prozac. The report also advised the juvenile court that mother was participating in parenting classes and psychological evaluations, testing negative for illicit substances, consistently visiting her children, and had proven she was dedicated to reunifying with her children. The report noted that while mother wanted the children placed with her, she appeared to struggle at times with managing the children. A psychological evaluation indicated that mother needed long-term supportive therapy, and that the Department should focus on adoption or other placement options for the children. The addendum report concluded that the juvenile court’s intervention was necessary to protect the children, and therefore recommended the children be adjudged dependent children and remain in out-of-home placement while mother participated in reunification services and completed a psychiatric evaluation.
A contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on May11, 2016. At the beginning of the hearing, the juvenile court continued the matter as to C.S. to allow for the alleged father to receive proper notice of the proceedings.[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court struck the language in the petition indicating that mother was not currently taking her medication,sustained the allegations in thepetition as amended as to O.C-S., A.S., and J.S-B., adjudged those children dependent children of the juvenile court, ordered reunification services for mother, removed physical custody from mother, and ordered that the dependent children remain in out-of-home placement under the supervision of the Department. As for the jurisdictional finding, the juvenile court relied on the psychological report,which concluded that while mother no longer had severe psychiatric symptoms, she remained cognitively limited, and most likely incapable of caring for the children without a great deal of support and assistance. As for disposition, the court noted that while mother had made good progress and had a support system, it agreed with the psychologist that she needed more time in order for the children to be returned to her.
DISCUSSION
A.Standard of Review
We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition orders for substantial evidence. (Inre I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Under this standard, we review the record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions, and we view the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the determinations. (Ibid.)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. (Ibid.) Thus, the pertinent inquiry is whether substantial evidence supports the finding, not whether a contrary finding might have been made. (Inre Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)

B.Substantial Evidence Supporting the Juvenile Court’s
Jurisdictional Finding
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).We disagree.
The juvenile court may take dependency jurisdiction over a child only if the court finds the child to be a person described by one or more of the section 300 subdivisions. A child falls within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to . . . provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness . . . .”“The statutory definition consists of three elements: (1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (Inre RoccoM. (1991) 1Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) “ ‘In determining whether the child is in present need of the juvenile court’s protection, the court may consider past events.’ ” (Inre DiamondH. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another ground as stated in ReneeJ. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), does not require that a child actually be abused or neglected before the juvenile court can assume jurisdiction. (Inre I.J., supra, 56Cal.4th at p.773.)The provision requires only a “ ‘substantial risk’ ” that the child will be abused or neglected. (Ibid.)The legislatively declared purpose of the provision “ ‘is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.’ [Citation.] ‘The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.’ ” (Ibid.) Therefore, “[a]lthough section 300 generally requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing” (Inre ChristopherR. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215-1216), “proof of current risk of harm is not required to support the initial exercise of dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), which is satisfied by a showing the child has suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or abuse” (Inre AdamD. (2010) 183Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261).
We conclude there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding.Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order as we must do, the evidence showed that mother’s mental healthproblems placed the children at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or abuse due to mother’s inability to provide proper care and supervision. The children were initially detained because mother reported auditory hallucinations and was not taking her medication for schizophrenia.There was evidence that: mother’s house was disheveled and smelled of urine; mother’s three-year-old sustained marks and scratches to her face from an older sibling; mother’s children threw toys near their infant sister; mother did not take her childrento school because of the hallucinations; motheradmitted she was too mentally unstable to take care of C.S. and did not want to do so;mother absconded with the children to prevent the Department from talking them; mother was found walking down the street with her children in a shopping cart and did not know how to get home; by her own admission, mother did not intend to return home, but apparently provided no information about where she was going with the children; mother would go missing for long periods of time and claim she was staying at her deceased mother’s house; mother would sleep in the car instead of the house; and mother had been subject to two involuntary holds immediately prior to the preparation of the jurisdiction/disposition report.When interviewed about the allegation she suffered from schizophrenia, mother denied that she had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness.While the record reflects mother was taking her medication at the time of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing and was no longer suffering from severe psychiatric symptoms, there was evidence from the psychological assessment that mother remained cognitively limited and most likely incapable of caring for her children without a great deal of support and assistance.Given the extent of mother’s mental health issues, there had not been enough time for the mother to successfully address her mental health problems. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that the mother’s disability created a risk of future harm to the children.

C.Substantial Evidence Supporting the Juvenile Court’s
Dispositional Order
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing the children from her custody.We disagree.
Under section 361, subdivision (c)(1), a dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of the parents with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated unless the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.” (§361, subd. (c)(1).) “A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of(1) parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and (2) potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent.” (Inre T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)“The jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the home. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.[Citations.] In this regard, the court may consider the parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.” (Inre ColeC. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.)
We conclude there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s removal order. There was substantial evidence showing that mother’s mental health problems prevented her from providing proper care and supervision for her children and placed them at substantial risk ofsuffering physical and emotional harm. While mother had taken steps to address her mental health issues, the record does not disclose that these issues had been successfully addressed at the time of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing to support a conclusion that the trial court erred in determining that the children would be at substantial risk if they were returned to mother.
Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by not considering a disposition alternative less drastic than removal. According to mother, the court should have considered an alternative that involved strict supervision over mother’s custody of the children.
“Before the court removes a child from parental custody, it must find there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical health can be protected without removal. [Citation.] Although the court must consider alternatives to removal, it has broad discretion in making a dispositional order.” (Inre ColeC., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 918.)While the record reflects that mother had relatives that were willing to support her, there was no evidence that mother’s relatives could provide enough support to make it safe for the children to be returned to her care. Accordingly, the juvenile court acted within its discretion in removing the children from mother’s custody.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition orders are affirmed.



MURRAY , J.



We concur:



NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.



HULL , J.




Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com


[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2]Gomez Coates also noticed that O.C-S. had several uneven patterns of buzzed cut hair with numerous patches of longer hair. O.C-S. told Gomez Coates that his mother had attempted to cut his hair earlier that day.
[3] Section 5150 authorizes peace officers to take custody of person suffering from mental disorder who is a danger to herself or others for a 72-hour mental health evaluation.
[4] Serna Village is a transitional living housing program that provides housing and support services for families with disabilities. Mother began participating in the program in January 2015. Mother’s service plan at Serna Village consisted of weekly group counseling to address mental health, monthly individual counseling, and random drug testing. Cohen reported that while there was no concern with mother using illicit drugs, mother was not compliant with participating in the mandated group and individual counseling services.
[5] As a consequence, C.S. is not a subject of this appeal.