In re Oliver P.











Filed 4/28/17 In re Oliver P. CA4/3






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


In re OLIVER P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GLORIA V.,

Defendant and Appellant.




G054350

(Super. Ct. Nos. 16DP1037,
16DP1038)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig E. Arthur, Judge. Affirmed.
Terence M. Chucas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minors.
* * *
Gloria V., the mother of the minors, Oliver P. and X.P., appeals from findings and orders of the juvenile court at both the detention and jurisdiction hearings. Finding no error, we affirm the orders.
I
FACTS
In September 2016, police went to a home to inform the parents that one of their children had been shot and killed in a gang slaying. Police found two other children, 12-year-old Oliver P. and eight-year-old X.P., filthy.The children were covered with blisters and scabs, which they explained to be mosquito bites. Later, both children were treated at a hospital for scabies and lice.
Also in the garage were an 18-year-old sibling of the two minor children, and their father as well as two other adult men. There was no food in the garage and it had no running water or bathroom. Electricity was provided by an extension cord from the main house plugged into a socket hanging from the garage ceiling. The garage had numerous holes in its walls and floor. Beer cans, broken glass, debris and a pile of dirty clothes were found scattered about, and the garage smelled of urine. The two children were taken into custody and placed at Orangewood Children and Family Center.
Oliver P. said he was born in California, but both of his parents were born in Mexico. He grew up in the United States with his mother, father and siblings until he was eight years old when he went to live in Mexico until he was 11 years old. He had been back in the United States for about one year at the time the police came to the garage. Whenthey were taken into custody, their mother was still living in Mexico “as a result of her immigration status.”
The juvenile court found that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent removal, that continuance in the home was contrary to Oliver P.’s and X.P.’s welfare and that placement and care were vested with Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA).

When interviewed by a social worker, Oliver P. and X.P said they were permitted to use the bathroom in the main house and shower daily. Oliver P. said the garage had roaches. Both children said they were afraid of the two men who were in the garage besides his father at the time the police came to the garage. They both denied their father used corporal punishment, and both said they had not been inappropriately touched.
The children said their father drinks no more than two regular sized cans of beer daily, and that the 40-ounce cans found the day the police came belonged to the two men who visit their father in the garage. But at another time, X.P. said their father drank “three or four tall cans of beer every day.”
The father has a criminal history of arrests and convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He had one of the children in his car when he was arrested for one of his driving under the influence offenses. The mother left the children in their father’s care and hadnot made arrangements to care for them herself. Although the mother reported to a social worker that she was willing to care for the children if they were reunited with her in Mexico, the jurisdiction/disposition report of SSA states the mother was unavailable to care for the children.
When the father was questioned about the dirty living conditions, he told the social worker, “[e]veryone has roaches.”He said he knew the children had lice and was treating them with over-the-counter shampoo, but he was not aware they had scabies. Neither parent knew in what grade Oliver P. was in school. He was in the seventh grade, but his mother believed he was in the fifth grade, and his father thought it was the sixth grade.
On October 19, 2016, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The court assumed jurisdiction over them.
On October 25, 2016, the children and the mother had a visit at the San Ysidro border. She brought them food, clothes, shoes, candy, loose change and pictures of the family. They talked about their family as they ate. At the end of the visit, the mother kissed each of the children. A few days later, the father’s random drug test was positive for alcohol.
On November 16, 2016, Oliver P. and X.P. were declared dependent childrenof the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). At the hearing, the mother’s counsel informed the court that both the children and the mother want to live together in Mexico. Counsel acknowledged that the Mexico equivalent to SSA had not yet provided an assessment of the mother’s ability to care for the children, but pointed out there was no evidence before the court that was detrimental to the mother’s ability to provide for her children. The father’s lawyer joined in the request to have the children live with their mother in Mexico.The children’s counsel stated that both children wished to be placed with their mother in Mexico,but requested that the court require SSA to continue its due diligence by confirming the mother’s statement that she is now in a suitable home. County counsel opposed sending the children to live with their mother in Mexico, stating “for all we know, she could be living on the streets or in a tent.”One of the court’s last comments was: “The court wants nothing more than to get these kids to their mother. I hope that is facilitated as quickly as possible. [¶] . . . [¶] But she did leave her children in the care of the father in some substandard conditions, she did abdicate her parental responsibilities and obligations and that is what causesthe detriment to the children.”
A December 14, SSA report states both children are struggling with the loss of their brother, and both would like to return to the care of their mother in Mexico.




II
DISCUSSION
The mother contends the juvenile court erred when it found that SSA had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Oliver P. and X.P. She says it does not appear that SSA considered having Oliver P. and X.P. safely placed with their older brother after providing him services.
The juvenile court determined that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent the need for removal. Reasonable efforts “will obviously vary with the circumstances of each individual case.” (Suter v. Artist M. (1992) 503 U.S. 347, 360.) The court’s findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re. T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1162-1163.) Here, not only is there nothing in the record to indicate anyone requested SSA or the court to consider the older brother for placement, there is nothing in the record to indicate the older brother was up to the task.The older brother was only 18 years old and living in the same squalor that Oliver P. and X.P. were living in. Had he been months younger, he likely would have been removed as well. Under the circumstances we find in this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for the removal of Oliver P. and X.P.
The mother also argues the juvenile court erred when it found the mother had placed the children at risk of physical or emotional harm when she allowed them to reside with the father in California while she stayed in Mexico. Citing to In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, she contends the court’s jurisdictional findings “had serious consequences for her.” She explains that “but for the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings concerning [her] conduct, she would have undoubtedly been found a non-offending parent.”
In In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763, the appellate court concluded there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding with respect to the father, and that there was dependency jurisdiction over the minor “because the findings based on mother’s conduct are unchallenged.”
The circumstances are quite different in the case before us. The juvenile court specifically stated the mother abdicated her responsibilities and obligations toward her children by leaving them in substandard conditions. She sent the children to live with a father who has a criminal history primarily concerning substance abuse, and the mother submitted to the petition that alleged the father had an unresolved substance abuse problem. Regardless of the mother’s stated concerns that the court’s finding was prejudicial to her, the record before us does not reflect the “serious consequences” she forecasts. At the last hearing, the court urged SSA to finish its investigation forthwith so the children could get to their mother as quickly as possible. We find no error in the court’s findings or orders.
III
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.



MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:



O’LEARY, P. J.



BEDSWORTH, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com