Filed 4/7/17 In re C.B. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



In re C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EARLE B.,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071259


(Super. Ct. No. J517174)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.

Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Paula J. Roach, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Earle B. appeals from a judgment declaring his minor son, C.B., a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c) and removing C.B. from his custody. Earle contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and there were reasonable alternatives short of removal to protect C.B. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sometime around 2006, C.B.'s parents entered into a relationship. C.B. was born in 2008 and was immediately placed on a hospital hold after he and his mother tested positive for marijuana. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition on C.B.'s behalf. The court designated Earle the presumed father and ordered reunification services for the family, but later terminated the mother's services and awarded Earle full physical and legal custody of C.B. Thereafter, C.B. lived with his parents, three younger brothers, and an older half brother in a series of hotels and shelters. C.B.'s family was the subject of over 50 referrals to the Agency, primarily for general neglect, but also for physical and sexual abuse. At least 21 of the referrals specifically referenced Earle. On multiple occasions, the Agency was unable to contact, or lost contact with, the family during its investigation of a referral. In addition, Earle had reported ongoing concerns regarding the mother's mental health. The Agency attempted to work with the family in 2011 through a voluntary case, but Earle refused to sign the case plan and neither parent participated in any of the offered services. As a result of the family's transiency, the Agency had a difficult time maintaining contact with the family and eventually closed the voluntary case. In 2015, law enforcement temporarily removed the two youngest children from the mother, after she was observed panhandling with them in the rain in 54-degree weather, and the children were released to Earle. The Agency was unable to locate the family when it attempted to follow up because the family had moved.
On July 1, 2016, when C.B. was seven years old, he was approached by a police officer responding to a report of an unattended child soliciting money in a grocery store. C.B. had a number of scratches on his arms that he explained were due to fighting with his older brother. When questioned by the officer, C.B. said he wanted to use one of the police officer's guns to shoot himself and wanted to "hold my breath so long I die."
C.B. was transported to Aurora Behavioral Health Care (Aurora) for hospitalization under a section 5150 hold. C.B. was released from Aurora into Earle's custody on July 4, 2016. At the time of discharge, C.B. was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood, a single moderate to severe episode of depression with the need to rule out major depression, moderate functional impairment, and exposure to "extreme" psychosocial stressors. Anil Patel, M.D., conducted C.B.'s psychiatric evaluation and reported that C.B. told him "he does not like his life and does not want to live like this" and "he has been feeling like killing himself for many years." Dr. Patel further reported that C.B.'s "[f]amily is coping with very significant psychosocial stress including homelessness and they are in transition between places." C.B.'s discharge instructions were to follow up with C.B.'s primary care physician and with New Alternatives Crisis Action Connection (CAC) for counseling. There is no evidence Earle ever contacted C.B.'s primary care physician. The CAC therapist contacted Earle following C.B.'s release and scheduled an intake appointment for July 6, 2016.
A few days after C.B.'s discharge, an Agency social worker, Teri Dunbar, conducted an unannounced visit to the hotel room where C.B.'s family was living. The room had a strong order of urine and unwashed bodies. The children's hair and bodies were dirty and the children also exhibited body order. Dunbar did not observe any hygiene products in the room. The children were fairly thin and the only food Dunbar saw was packets of ramen noodles. The children were "extremely unruly," running around the room, jumping on the beds, jumping off of the entertainment center, running outside into the parking lot, climbing on the outside of the stair rail to the second story, getting items out of the dumpster area, and engaging in rough play with each other.
During her visit, Dunbar interviewed C.B., who told her he felt better for "a little bit" when he came back from Aurora but then stated "I still feel like killing myself." When Dunbar asked how he planned to do so, he said "if I see another cop I'll grab a gun and shoot myself in the head." C.B. told Dunbar he wanted to hurt himself because he is teased and spanked by his parents and brothers. Dunbar asked if they had hurt him and C.B. replied "yes a lot," explaining that his little brother knocks him off of high things and his parents spank him.
C.B.'s parents reported that C.B. had exhibited behavioral problems for some time, including being very aggressive toward his siblings and mother. In addition, C.B.'s family told Dunbar that he frequently "runs off" when the family is out in public and remains missing for approximately 10 minutes. C.B.'s mother admitted that C.B. had been missing for about 45 minutes on the day he was taken to Aurora. The mother reported that he may have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, but she had never sought treatment for any of C.B.'s behavioral issues. Both parents had also suspected for some time that C.B.'s six-year-old brother was autistic, but they had never had him diagnosed. None of the children had attended school in over two years and the parents did not appear concerned about their education.
The parents and children informed Dunbar that the parents smoke marijuana frequently at the hotel with the children present. The mother, a veteran, reported having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a traumatic brain injury and other physical ailments and using marijuana to manage her symptoms. Earle reported using marijuana to alleviate pain associated with a prior back injury.
Dunbar developed a safety plan, which Earle signed, requiring him to call the police if C.B. made any credible threats and provide more food and supervision for the children. She also informed Earle that she could provide him with bus passes for transportation, but he told her he does not ride the bus and relies on taxis. Earle denied that C.B. had been diagnosed with any mental health condition while at Aurora and denied that any follow-up was required upon his discharge. He told Dunbar that he had "volunteered" to get C.B. counseling, but he had cancelled the first therapy appointment so he could bail the mother out of jail and had not rescheduled. Earle described the mother as unreliable to watch the children because she is "very negligent and incompetent," but he explained that the family had to stay together due to their financial situation and because he did not have anyone else to help him with the children. He also told Dunbar that the court had given him custody of the oldest child and C.B., and the mother had "signed over" custody of the other boys to him. He characterized himself as a professional recording artist, and stated that he relies on the mother to supervise the children when he goes to the recording studio. Dunbar provided Earle with a list of resources and asked him to schedule physical examinations and evaluations for all of the children. She repeated her offer of bus passes and Earle reiterated that he does not use the bus.
During two subsequent unannounced visits, Dunbar observed conditions similar to those she had witnessed on her initial visit—a hectic home environment and dirty children. Dunbar also saw a marijuana bong on a dresser in the hotel room in reach of the children on one of her visits. Earle informed her that he had injured his neck by sleeping wrong and he needed the marijuana for his pain. A few days later Earle told Dunbar he had cancelled C.B.'s rescheduled counseling appointment because he had worked all night and was "too tired." Earle also cancelled doctor's appointments for the two youngest boys, even though Dunbar had agreed to transport them to the appointment in response to Earle's refusal to take the bus. Dunbar asked Earle to take random drug tests on two separate occasions, but he did not.
On July 19, 2016, the Agency filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c), alleging that C.B. was suffering serious emotional damage or was at risk of suffering such damage and there was no parent capable of providing appropriate care. More specifically, the petition alleged that he had an "emotional/disability disorder including but not limited to Adjustment disorder with depressed mood"; he had been involuntarily hospitalized under section 5150 after he threatened suicide; he continued to talk about killing himself since his release; and his parents had failed to obtain mental health treatment for him. At the detention hearing the next day, the court found the Agency had made a prima facie showing that C.B. was a person described in section 300, subdivision (c), and the court ordered that C.B. be detained for placement in an approved foster home.
C.B.'s parents did not attend the detention hearing because, according to them, the mother had been hit by a car the night before the hearing and was seeking medical attention with her youngest child and Earle did not want to leave the other children with the teenage son. In early August 2016, Earle met with the family's new social worker, Van Nguyen, and informed her that C.B. is not suicidal and only referred to killing himself because the police officer handcuffed him and C.B. was trying to get someone to purchase an Xbox for him. Earle also said that Dr. Patel from Aurora had told him C.B. admitted that he only threatened suicide because he wanted an Xbox. Earle expressed his belief that the whole incident was "just a childhood manipulation," and C.B. was "a happy child" and should not have been taken from him. However, he said he was willing to accept therapy for C.B. and had met with the therapist the day after C.B. was removed. Earle blamed his inability to keep prior therapy appointments on Dunbar's requirement that he had to "complete tasks." He further stated that everything would be fine if he could get C.B. back. Nguyen provided Earle with information regarding various resources for the family.
Nguyen contacted the CAC therapist, who explained that Earle had rescheduled multiple appointments before meeting with him on July 22, 2016. Regarding his cancellation of a July 6, 2016 appointment, Earle told the therapist his back hurt and he would not be able to meet until the next week. Earle made an appointment for July 14, 2016, but he cancelled the July 14th appointment because the mother was not available. He rescheduled for July 20, 2016, but later cancelled that appointment so he could attend C.B.'s detention hearing (although he did not attend). Earle rescheduled the appointment for July 22, 2016, and met with the therapist at his hotel room on that date. However, by then C.B. had been removed from the home.
In August 2016, Earle submitted to a drug test and tested negative. Nguyen referred Earle and C.B.'s mother to a family therapy program, which was scheduled to begin in September 2016. Earle did not participate in the program.
In addition, Earle did not attend the next three hearings in C.B.'s case, including the pretrial/settlement conference. C.B.'s mother informed Nguyen that he was at home sleeping during the settlement conference. Earle also missed two supervised visits with C.B. after C.B. was placed in foster care—one because he got the time confused and another because he had an unspecified "emergency."
The Agency filed an addendum report in mid-October 2016, stating that Earle had begun to attend parenting classes, but he continued to deny the allegations that led to C.B.'s removal. The report documented an announced visit to Earle's hotel room and described it as having a cleared floor with accessible walkways, an "overall clean" bathroom, a small refrigerator, and some canned and dry food. The children were not present and Earle informed the social worker that they were at school. Earle stated he had asked the mother to leave the home, believing separation from her would help him regain custody of C.B.
The addendum report also referenced and attached the psychological evaluation prepared by clinical psychologist E. Warren O'Meara, Ph.D. Dr. O'Meara noted that although C.B. should be a second grader, he was unable to read or spell. Dr. O'Meara also noted a discrepancy between C.B.'s verbal and nonverbal scores on his I.Q. test and recommended that C.B. be provided with an IEP (Individualized Education Program) assessment. Regarding C.B.'s foster placement, Dr. O'Meara reported that C.B. "appeared to be adjusting well" and indicated that C.B. enjoys his placement but is sad to be away from his family. When Dr. O'Meara questioned C.B. about his depression, C.B. stated "I was having a bad life." Dr. O'Meara opined that "[t]here is no question that [C.B.] has been negatively impacted emotionally by severe neglect and quite possibly physical abuse and sexual abuse." Dr. O'Meara assessed C.B. as having PTSD and a depressive disorder, and opined that C.B. "hails from a highly dysfunctional family" and "will require intensive individual psychotherapy with a trauma-informed therapist." Dr. O'Meara concluded C.B. would require six to nine months of appropriate treatment once his "current psychosocial setting" stabilized.
The Agency filed another addendum report that described an interview with Earle. Earle believed that he had provided appropriate follow up regarding C.B.'s therapy and blamed all of the prior Agency referrals on the mother and her care of the children. Earle reasserted his belief that C.B.'s mental health issues resulted from C.B.'s harassment by the police in July 2016. Earle reported having attended a second parenting class session and professed his willingness to participate in any necessary services to regain custody of C.B.
The court held the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on October 21, 2016. The court received in evidence the Agency's reports and addenda, with all attachments, the curricula vitae of the social workers involved in the case, and a copy of Earle's physician statement and recommendation regarding medical marijuana. Earle's counsel cross-examined Dunbar, who stated that she viewed Earle's cancellations and rescheduling of the first two therapy appointments for C.B. as "showing he was not addressing the [Agency's] concerns." She further testified that she was concerned by Earle's statements that he did not believe C.B.'s threats to kill himself and attributed the statements to C.B.'s being manipulative. In addition, she stated that, based on the family's track record of not following through with social services, she believed the family needed intervention. When Dunbar testified that the family's homelessness was not alleged in C.B.'s petition, Earle interrupted, saying "[t]hen why did she file the petition?"
Nguyen testified that she was concerned regarding Earle's failure to follow up with the therapy appointments. She expressed doubt about Earle's excuses for rescheduling the appointments because he had provided different reasons to the therapist and the Agency. Nguyen further noted that C.B. had described having suicidal feelings to Dunbar after his release back into the family home, and she characterized the family's minimization of C.B.'s mental health needs by attributing his statements as attempted manipulation to gain an Xbox as creating a "present concern" for C.B.'s mental health.
Earle testified that Dr. Patel had told him C.B. said he was suicidal because he wanted someone to buy him an Xbox. Earle further stated that Dr. Patel asked him if he would "be interested in" getting counseling for C.B., and he responded "yes" and followed up when the therapist called him to set up an appointment for in-home therapy. Earle explained that he missed the first appointment due to neck pain and the second appointment not because he needed to bail the mother out of jail but because "they had to go to the hospital." He testified that he would follow through with therapy and get C.B. to all of his appointments.
The juvenile court made true findings on the section 300, subdivision (c), allegations; declared C.B. a dependent child; determined removal was appropriate under section 361, subdivision (c)(1); and ordered that C.B. be placed in a licensed foster home. In its oral ruling, the court referenced Dr. O'Meara's conclusion that C.B. needed intensive trauma therapy and noted that the parents' failure to obtain therapy for C.B. following his release from the hospital put C.B. at risk for further deterioration of his mental health, which had "been exhibited in suicidal thoughts." The court stated it was "very concerned about the minor's safety as a result of his mental health issues."
DISCUSSION
I. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Jurisdictional Order
Earle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (c).
A. General Legal Principles and Standard of Review
Section 300, subdivision (c), authorizes jurisdiction when a child " 'is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others' " and "either the parent is causing the emotional damage or the parent is not capable of providing appropriate mental health treatment." (In re K.S. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327, 337.) In making its jurisdictional findings, the court may consider past events, including a parent's past conduct, if there is reason to believe that the past circumstances will continue in the future. (In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461; In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133 (T.V.) "A parent's past conduct is a good predictor of future behavior." (T.V., at p. 133.) Moreover, a parent's lack of insight into a dangerous condition increases the potential for future risk. (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 996; see In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge."]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 ["[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision."].)
At the jurisdiction hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that the child is a person described by section 300 by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a); In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.) On appeal, "[t]he appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or order." (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 133.) Evidence is substantial if it is " ' "reasonable, credible, and of solid value." ' " (In re S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1140.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding
of Jurisdiction over C.B.
The petition filed on behalf of C.B. alleged he had an emotional disorder or disability requiring mental health treatment, and had no parent capable of providing appropriate care. Earle does not dispute, for purposes of jurisdiction, that C.B. suffers or is at risk of suffering serious emotional damage. Instead, he argues that insufficient evidence supports the court's finding that he is incapable of providing C.B. with appropriate mental health care. We disagree.
The evidence shows C.B. was taken to a mental health facility after informing a police officer that he wanted to hurt himself. When questioned by the Aurora psychiatrist, C.B. admitted he had felt like killing himself for years and "does not like his life and does not want to live like this." Although his mental health stabilized while at Aurora, C.B. told a social worker after his return to Earle that he still felt like killing himself due to the teasing and spanking he received from his brothers and parents.
Despite this, Earle canceled multiple appointments for C.B.'s in-home therapy and gave a variety of excuses, such as his being too tired, having a hurt neck or having to bail C.B.'s mother out of jail. Earle had a history of not obtaining services for his children, including his failure to participate in voluntary services offered by the Agency in 2011; his years of neglect of his children's education; his failure to pursue any type of diagnosis for C.B. or his younger brother despite the family's long held suspicion that there were issues of concern; and his recent cancellation of doctor appointments for his two youngest boys. Earle also appeared unwilling to take any responsibility for his own past negligence, evidenced by his blaming the family's 50-plus Agency referrals on the mother's inadequate care, despite the fact that all but six of the referrals occurred while he had full custody of one or more of his children.
In addition, Earle repeatedly minimized and downplayed the seriousness of C.B.'s mental health condition, attributing C.B.'s condition to a single occurrence of "police harassment" and characterizing C.B.'s suicidal expressions as an attempt to manipulate people into giving him an Xbox. Earle's views are in marked contrast to Dr. O'Meara's assessment that C.B. had experienced emotional harm arising from severe neglect and was suffering from PTSD and depressive disorder. Based on the family's history of neglect, Earle's unwillingness to take any responsibility for the neglect and his ongoing minimization of the seriousness of C.B.'s mental health condition, we conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that Earle was incapable of providing C.B. with appropriate mental health care. The court therefore did not err in exercising jurisdiction over C.B. under section 300, subdivision (c).
II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Dispositional Order
Earle also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's dispositional order removing C.B. from his custody. He asserts: (1) there was no clear and convincing evidence C.B. was at risk in his custody; and (2) there were reasonable alternatives to removal.
A. General Legal Principles and Standard of Review

To remove a child from the custody of his or her parents, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that "the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal." (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 135; § 361, subd. (c)(1) .) Because the focus is on preventing harm to the child, the parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) In rendering its disposition, the court may consider a parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126), including consideration of "the parent's response to the conditions that gave rise to juvenile court intervention" (In re Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 70, disapproved on other grounds in In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 781). In addition, the court must "consider whether there are any reasonable protective measures and services that can be put into place to prevent the child's removal from the parent's physical custody." (Maria R., at p. 70, citing § 361, subd. (c)(1).)
The juvenile court makes its dispositional findings by clear and convincing evidence; however, "the substantial evidence test remains the standard of review on appeal." (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 916.) In applying the standard, "we review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order to decide whether substantial evidence supports the order." (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146-147 (Hailey T.).) "[W]e do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh the evidence." (Id. at p. 146.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Order
Removing C.B. from Earle's Custody
Earle contends the only unresolved issue for C.B. was his mental health and "no substantial evidence" showed C.B. intended to harm himself if returned to Earle. Further, Earle contends "insufficient evidence supports the court's finding that no reasonable means to protect [C.B.] were available without removing him from father's custody." We find Earle's contentions unpersuasive.
There was substantial evidence that C.B. was not physically safe with Earle. C.B.'s depression and prior suicidal ideation were attributable, at least in part, to his severe neglect by his parents. Although C.B.'s mental condition appeared to stabilize when he was removed from his family, he informed Dunbar that he again felt like killing himself after he was discharged from Aurora because of the conditions he faced at home. In addition, C.B.'s behavioral problems while in Earle's custody included "very aggressive" behavior toward his siblings and a tendency to run away when the family was in public, both of which posed a risk to his physical safety.
Substantial evidence also supported that court's finding that there was no reasonable means to protect C.B. other than removal. Earle contends C.B. could remain safely in his care by implementing a safety plan and making unannounced visits to ensure that C.B. was attending school and participating in therapy. However, the Agency had already attempted those measures during the time between C.B.'s release from Aurora and his removal from Earle's custody and Earle had cancelled multiple in-home appointments for C.B., and had failed to take advantage of any services at the time of C.B.'s removal.
Earle relies on Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 139 and In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803 (Ashly F.), in arguing that the juvenile court did not adequately consider alternative measures. However, those cases are distinguishable. In Hailey T., the removal of an older daughter was prompted by a single incident of abuse to her infant brother, and this court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support removal because the juvenile court "did not consider any other alternative" even though the daughter had good language skills and was in constant contact with mandatory reporters at school. (Hailey T., at pp. 143, 147-148.) Further, the parents had no record with the agency, had "started services at the earliest opportunity," had showed progress in the services, and were recognized by Agency participants as "good parents." (Id. at pp. 147-148.)
In Ashly F., the children were removed as a result of the mother's physical abuse, and the mother immediately moved out of the house, expressed remorse and enrolled in a parenting class. (Ashly F., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 810.) In addition, the father in Ashly F. had already completed a parenting class by the time of the hearing. (Ibid.) However, there was no evidence that the court had considered provision of services and removal of the mother from the home in lieu of Ashly's removal. (Ibid.)
Here, Earle's lack of urgency to obtain help for C.B.'s mental health condition is in stark contrast with the actions of the parents in Hailey T. and Ashly F., who quickly attempted to remedy the situation. (Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 147-148; Ashly F., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 810.) Moreover, unlike those cases in which the Agency immediately removed the children after a single referral, Earle was provided with an opportunity to remedy the protective issues prior to C.B.'s removal but failed to do so. (Hailey T., at p. 143; Ashly F., at p. 805.) In Earle's case, there was ample evidence to establish the ineffectiveness of alternative measures. As described above, Earle had a long history of not obtaining necessary services for his children, which cast doubt on his assurances that he would comply with C.B.'s recommended course of treatment. In addition, Earle's unwillingness to travel by bus could prevent him from getting C.B. to future appointments outside the home if the Agency were unable to consistently provide alternative means of transportation. Further, Earle's history of not keeping in touch with the Agency following frequent moves presented a substantial risk that the Agency could again lose contact with him, and thus be unable to properly monitor C.B.'s mental health treatment.
Nor was Earle's recent conduct sufficient to overcome the implications of his past history of neglect. Although evidence indicated Earle made some effort to provide a more stable environment for his children by attending two sessions of a parenting class, enrolling C.B.'s brothers in school, purchasing food, and providing a relatively clean living space, Dr. O'Meara's diagnosis established that C.B.'s problems could not be so easily solved. Dr. O'Meara estimated it would likely take six to nine months of appropriate treatment once C.B.'s "current psychosocial setting" stabilized, and he did not provide a timeline for the therapy C.B. would require if he were to be returned to his family. Thus, for C.B.'s needs to be met, Earle would have to be able to reliably ensure that C.B. received necessary therapy over a sustained period of time.
Earle's postremoval conduct did nothing to demonstrate reliability or urgency. Earle missed four court hearings between July and September 2016. Despite having received information regarding available services on multiple occasions, beginning in July 2016, Earle did not attend his first parenting class until October 2016. In addition, Earle missed two supervised visits with C.B. prior to disposition.
Even more concerning is Earle's ongoing denial regarding the causation and extent of C.B.'s mental health issues. Throughout the course of the proceedings, Earle minimized C.B.'s mental health condition and his failure to properly care for C.B., and to the extent he acknowledged any issues, he blamed them on others (e.g., C.B.'s mother, the police, the social worker for giving him "tasks"). During the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Earle indicated he did not understand the reason for the Agency's petition. Earle's complete lack of insight into C.B.'s fragile mental health and its causes, when combined with his track record of neglect and failure to demonstrate a present capacity for diligence, amply supported the juvenile court's determination that C.B. could not be safely released back into Earle's custody in the hope that he would comply with the Agency's supervision.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's judgment is affirmed.



HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:




HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.




AARON, J.