Filed 6/24/22 In re Victoria B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge.

Suzanne M. Nicholson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Maria Sullivan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant C.B. (mother) appeals a juvenile court order removing her daughter, Victoria B., from her custody following true findings made on a supplemental dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387.[1] Mother contends the juvenile court’s removal order must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that the child was at risk of harm in her care and there were less restrictive alternatives to removal available to prevent a substantial danger to the child. We reject these contentions and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Original Petition

On November 9, 2018, the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (the department) initiated dependency proceedings over then 12-year-old Victoria (the child) and her sibling Sean B. (Sean) who were living with their mother. The child’s three-year-old half sibling and nephew, Joseph B., whose parents are the child’s presumed father, John B. (father), and adult half sibling, Autumn A. (Autumn), was found by law enforcement wandering around in only a diaper. Joseph B., mother’s grandchild, was brought to mother’s home by law enforcement, and the conditions of mother’s home were determined to be unsafe and unsanitary.

The child’s family had an extensive history of referrals alleging general neglect and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse with the department dating back to 1992. The reports of neglect and abuse involved unsafe and unsanitary home conditions, poor hygiene involving Sean, and sexual abuse of the child and her siblings by father. The results of the investigation were determined to be inconclusive or unfounded due to children providing limited information and reporting they felt safe to the department. The home was described as continually “marginal if not unsafe and unsanitary over the course of several years.”

The child and Sean (collectively, the children) were found to be described by section 300 on January 16, 2019. On January 29, 2019, the children were declared dependents of the juvenile court and returned home on a plan of family maintenance services with mother after the conditions of mother’s home were improved. Father was ordered to comply with a family reunification case plan. A supplemental petition pursuant to section 387 was filed by the department in December 2019 due to ongoing concerns in the mother’s home, and the department recommended that the children be removed from mother’s home. The supplemental petition alleged father had unauthorized visits with the children and referred to Autumn as his “ ‘second wife.’ ” A restraining order was issued to protect the children and mother’s home from father.

After multiple continuances, a contested hearing on the supplemental petition took place in May 2020. The juvenile court found the allegations of the supplemental petition true and ordered the children to remain in mother’s care and custody pending further disposition hearing. Mother agreed to comply with a family maintenance case plan, and father’s reunification services were terminated at the continued disposition hearing on the section 387 petition in August 2020. A five-year restraining order also was ordered by the juvenile court to protect the children from in-person contact with father.

The department recommended that the dependency matter be terminated with the children remaining in the care of mother at a section 364 review hearing on February 2, 2021. The department’s report for the section 364 review detailed the last six months of the social worker’s visits to mother’s home.

At two home visits in July 2020, the conditions of the home were poor and unsanitary with trash, debris, and old clothing in the corner of the living room. Sean’s feces was found on the floor of his room, and bags of trash were stacked in the corner of mother’s room. Mother stated that Sean was unable to use the toilet without her assistance. More trash and debris were found throughout mother’s home during the second visit. Mother indicated she would clean the mess and provide photo updates to the social worker.

The home conditions were found to be marginal during multiple visits in August and September of 2020. Mother’s room remained cluttered and filthy, but the living room floors had less debris in later home visits. Mother blamed part of the mess in the home on her adult daughter, Christina B. (Christina), and Christina’s boyfriend, and mother had previously lied to the department about Christina’s boyfriend living on the property. On September 30, 2020, mother refused the social worker entry to the home, and she showed the social worker blurry photographs of the home that showed piles of clothing and other debris throughout the home.

A November 30, 2020 home visit found the home conditions filthy and unsanitary with feces and a soiled diaper on the bathroom floor of mother’s bedroom, animal vomit in the child’s bedroom, moldy popcorn on Sean’s bedroom floor, and a cluttered trailer was parked on the property as well. In December 2020, the conditions were marginal with the outside of the home covered in trash, and the living room and kitchen were generally clear of trash. The bedrooms remained cluttered with feces on mother’s bathroom floor, brown water from Sean’s feces filling mother’s bathtub, and the trailer had dog urine and feces on the ground. Home conditions were fair and significantly cleaner at a scheduled visit on December 23, 2020. The department attached numerous photographs to document the varying stages of disarray inside and outside of the home over the last six months.

Sean was previously diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability at a young age. Sean has limited verbal and written communication skills and often requires supervision, monitoring, and prompting with self-care and life skills. Sean’s teacher reported that he was able to use the toilet independently with prompts during the 2019-2020 school year. The disruption of school in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to concerns of regression in Sean’s social, emotional, functional, and behavioral skills.

The child was developmentally on track and recently graduated from eighth grade with several awards. Adjustment disorder and obesity were previously identified as active health problems. She was referred to therapy to address trauma, family dynamics, grief and loss, stress, and other issues, but she stopped attending in November 2020 due to her busy school schedule and social life.

Mother lost her job in October 2020 and failed to sign up for garbage service or complete dump runs during the review period, which contributed to difficulties in clearing the junk and trash both inside and outside of the home. In June 2020 mother had at least 11 cats and two dogs in and out of her home. Mother agreed to reevaluate the number of pets on the property, and there were “about” five cats and four dogs at the home by March 2021. Animal feces could be observed in the home on several occasions, but mother had no concerns about her family’s ability to clean after her pets. Mother had support and help with cleaning the home on occasion from her sister-in-law, Autumn, Christina, father, the child’s former teacher, and a neighbor.

Mother generally attended her weekly therapy sessions and recently regressed in many of the areas that she previously demonstrated progress such as hoarding, self-esteem, and codependency with father. Family therapy sessions discontinued after the child stopped attending therapy. Despite her enrollment in parenting education in January 2019, mother had only attended 44 of 52 weekly sessions by December 2020. Multiple service providers indicated mother was difficult to contact and nonresponsive during the review period. Overall, the department believed mother showed inconsistent engagement in services and maintenance of her home conditions over the last 24 months.

At a contested hearing on the section 364 review held March 10, 2021, the child and father contested a recommendation to continue the restraining order preventing in-person contact between them. The juvenile court ordered that the dependency matter continue due to the juvenile court’s own concerns for the children, and it also allowed the restraining order to remain in place. Family maintenance services were continued to mother, and mother signed an updated family maintenance case plan on April 6, 2021.

Supplemental Petition

On April 7, 2021, a “[h]igh-[r]isk” supervision team with the Tuolumne County Probation Department conducted a welfare check on mother’s home. A probation legal assistant observed mother with two black eyes and a larger bruise on her forehead during her last visit to the probation department. Mother’s probation officer believed mother was a victim of an unreported domestic violence incident and requested the supervision team perform a welfare check.

Upon the supervision team’s arrival, they found mother preparing to leave in her car with the children. Mother could be seen covering up her two black eyes and a blue welt on her forehead with makeup, but she claimed the injuries were the result of Sean throwing a television remote at her when he was upset. The supervision team, comprised of probation officers and a sheriff’s deputy, conducted a residency verification and protective sweep of mother’s home after mother provided permission.

As the supervision team entered the home, they could immediately smell a pungent and foul odor that induced a gagging response. A probation officer observed a large puddle of urine on the living room floor, animal feces on the kitchen floor, bedroom carpet, and bathroom floor, and soiled adult diapers on the floor of the bathroom and the child’s bedroom. The amount of feces and urine in the home was so significant that it was difficult to walk through the home without stepping in feces or urine. Animal feces and rotten food were found on the kitchen table, floor, stove, and sink. The refrigerator door contained rotten food, and the vegetable and cooling drawers of the refrigerator were filled with old chicken meat liquid. Based on the health hazards and unsafe condition of the home, Sergeant Cuellar (Cuellar) of the Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Office requested that the department immediately respond to mother’s home.

Mother was placed under arrest for child endangerment because she was on probation due to the circumstances of the children’s initial removal and the condition of her home was unlivable with its current health hazards. She initially claimed that the home was clean before she left on Easter break for a few days, but the condition worsened while she was gone. Mother acknowledged she had not been taking the department social worker seriously, and she insisted that she was going to clean the home when they returned from the store. Cuellar explained that the current state of the home must have happened over several weeks rather than days.

In response to Cuellar’s request that she be honest, mother changed her statement. She stated she had been suffering from depression and attention deficit disorder (ADD) regarding a situation with father. Mother admitted the home had been in its current state for several weeks. Mother had difficulty controlling and caring for Sean because of his mental disabilities. Sean appeared to have feces on his hands and clothing, and he repeatedly put his hands in his mouth to bite his nails while mother was interviewed by probation officers. Mother provided differing stories regarding the last time Sean showered, and she believed the feces on his hands could have been from a dog.

Mother told Cuellar that, “ ‘[the child] [wa]s supposed to clean, and it has not been done,’ ” and mother tries to help when she can. She then stated that she was “ ‘going to take this seriously now,’ ” and she claimed responsibility for the overall cleanliness of the home. Mother was not aware of the rotten food in the home, but she stated the children knew not to eat rotten food.

The child, now 14 years of age, was interviewed by Cuellar once department social workers arrived at the home. The child initially claimed the home had been in its current condition for only a few days, but she started to cry and nod her head when Cuellar asked if it had actually been in its condition for several weeks. The interview was ended due to the emotional distress that the child displayed. The conditions were found to be unlivable and unsafe for the children, and Cuellar placed the children into protective custody.

The department social workers and probation officers took several breaks to get fresh air while photographing the conditions of the home due to the strong smell. The social worker observed a pile of garbage on the kitchen floor, feces scattered in the hallway floor, trash spread around the floor with a strong odor of animal waste in the child’s room, feces-filled underwear and several adult diapers filled with urine in Sean’s room. The conditions of the home were documented by several photographs.

The department filed supplemental petitions pursuant to section 387 on April 9, 2021, seeking to remove the children from mother’s custody and recommending placement in a foster home. The child’s supplemental petition alleged the previous disposition was ineffective in protecting or rehabilitating the child in the home of the mother with family maintenance services. The supplemental petition set forth the history of services provided to maintain the children at home, and it described how mother’s home was found to be unsafe and unsanitary on April 7, 2021.

At a contested detention hearing held April 14, 2021, mother testified and presented photographs of her home after she was released from custody and cleaned the home. Mother also submitted a letter, dated April 13, 2021, from her therapist, which indicated mother was fully engaged in therapy to work through family dynamics, generational trauma, separation from her husband, and grief from the removal of her grandchildren. Mother’s diagnosed hoarding disorder usually manifests from trauma, grief, or loss. Despite significant progression on these issues, mother acknowledged regression after she “ ‘let things go again.’ ” Mother’s ability to keep a regular maintenance routine was negatively affected by her anxiety and depression from her continued traumas. Although “ebbs and flows” in progress were normal during troubling times, mother continued to experience “especially significant” difficulties.

Both mother’s and child’s counsel argued that the child should return home based upon improved conditions of the home, and the department asserted that continued detention was necessary. During its ruling, the juvenile court discussed the distinction between home environments of “chronic messiness” and the unsanitary conditions present in mother’s home with citation to In re Paul E. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 996, 1001–1003 (Paul E.). The juvenile court then ordered the children detained, and it set a jurisdiction hearing for May 4, 2021.

In a report prepared for the jurisdiction hearing, the department recommended that the juvenile court find the allegations of the supplemental petition true. The child was placed in the home of one of her teachers, and Sean was placed in a Short-Term Residential Treatment Program (STRTP).

A contested jurisdiction hearing on the supplemental petition was held on May 19, 2021, case managing social worker Xiong testified regarding the fluctuating conditions found at mother’s home throughout the case. She acknowledged that the department intended to terminate the dependency proceedings because they believed the home met minimal standards in February 2021. However, Xiong testified that the amount of feces and urine in the home and the condition of the fridge on April 7, 2021, was “far worse” than she had seen in the past. Sean was using the toilet by himself both at his current placement and in school, and he was only wearing diapers at night in case of emergencies.

The child’s adult sibling, Christina, testified that the child was able to cook her own food and understand when food is spoiled. She described the child as very mature and knowledgeable about how to do laundry, cook, and clean. Christina also reported that Sean often ate dry cocoa out of the package with his hands.

The emergency response social worker, Maguire, testified that mother’s home was clean when she visited the week prior to the contested hearing. Mother had also completed her 52-week parenting program, which began in January 2019, the week before the children were removed in April 2021. After hearing arguments from counsel for the parties, the juvenile court found the allegations of the supplemental petition true and set a disposition hearing for June 1, 2021.

The report prepared for the disposition hearing recommended that the children remain in out-of-home care, mother be provided with family reunification services, and father not be provided with reunification services. Mother and father both declined to participate in interviews for the social study. Mother was prescribed medication for her ADD, but she was not on her medication when the proceedings first began.

Mother had previously explained how she met father when Autumn was one year old, and father was the “ ‘only father Autumn has ever known.’ ” (Italics omitted.) Mother described her meeting father at a train station as a “ ‘Cinderella fairytale’ ” (italics omitted), but mother had recently begun the process of legally separating from father. Mother had previously expressed her belief that Autumn and father did not have any sexual contact, and she believed their children were conceived by father providing Autumn with a syringe of his sperm. More recently, mother indicated she would not resume her relationship until father realized that what he did was wrong and got help.

During a prior interview with the department, father indicated that he donated his sperm to Autumn because the family wanted to have more children. Father claimed a “bad crowd” (italics omitted) told Autumn to make statements that he sexually abused her, and he denied having any sexual relationship with Autumn. Father explained that Autumn lived with him because he had diabetes, and he shared a bed with her. Father was moving into the mother’s home at the time of the children’s removal in November of 2018, and he took responsibility for bringing too many items to the home at once.

The child told Maguire that she was doing good in the care provider’s home during an interview in May 2021. She indicated her desire to return home even though she understood the conditions of mother’s home were “ ‘really bad.’ ” She acknowledged that the home conditions were “ ‘hard for us to keep up’ ” with and her family’s mental health “was ‘getting worse every day.’ ” The child hoped the department could provide “ ‘good services’ ” by checking on them every other week. The child believed she would not have been placed in protective custody if she had done her chores, which consisted of cleaning her room, hall bathroom, living room, laundry, and her dishes. Maguire assured the child that her removal was not her fault.

The child was adjusting well to her care provider’s home. Sean was consistently using the restroom without accidents and showering regularly with assistance. At an unannounced home visit on May 14, 2021, mother’s home was observed to be clean and organized. Photographs of this home visit were attached to the disposition report. Maguire noted that it did not appear mother needed professional assistance to clean the home, and mother responded “ ‘Yeah, I know how to clean. This was all me.’ ” Mother acknowledged that maintaining a clean home was a struggle for her. Mother’s mood fluctuated when she took her ADD medication, and her mood was going “ ‘up and down’ ” over the past several years.

The weekly waste management services helped mother eliminate garbage, and she no longer had the dog that defecated and urinated throughout the home. Mother was currently focused on clearing hazardous material from her front yard. She enjoyed her twice weekly counseling sessions with her therapist, and she was attending a virtual parenting class. A limited conservatorship would be sought for Sean to ensure his needs were met once he reached 18 years of age in August 2021.

Mother’s family reunification case plan responsibilities consisted of general counseling with her therapist, a psychological evaluation, parenting education, a visitation coach, job training, and family therapy. The service objectives of her case plan involved maintaining a suitable residence free from health and safety hazards, showing her ability to provide adequate care for Sean’s special needs, and developing support systems with friends and family. Father told Maguire that he did not believe mother was capable of complying with her case plan components because she would be overloaded and lacked sufficient time to learn from her services.

After multiple continuances, a contested disposition hearing was eventually held on August 18, 2021. The juvenile court terminated dependency as to Sean due to his reaching the age of majority, and a temporary conservatorship was granted while a hearing on a permanent conservatorship was pending. At the contested hearing, mother submitted photographs of the home that were taken the previous day.

Maguire testified that the department was concerned about mother’s ability to maintain the conditions of the home and boundaries with father. Xiong made several visits throughout the case to discuss household tasks and chores with mother, and the department did not arrange for mother to have sessions with a professional organizer, life coach, or cleaning lady. The department did not typically pay for house cleaners or trash services for families.

Mother’s home was clean during two unannounced home visits in May and July of 2021, and Maguire had observed the recent photographs of mother’s home. Maguire acknowledged that the child could avoid feces in the home and she was bonded with mother. Maguire was still concerned with the child returning to the home because mother had only been able to demonstrate her ability to maintain the home without additional stressors in her life over the last few months. The department did not believe that mother gained a full understanding of the issues surrounding the relationship between father and Autumn. The department hoped to determine which additional services could best support mother with a psychological evaluation.

Maguire was impressed that she could walk through mother’s bedroom without stepping over things during a May 2021 home visit, and there was a cat and a few kittens inside the home. Mother explained to Maguire that it was easier for her to keep the home clean because she was spending less time there without the children being home.

Counsel for the department argued that the child should remain in foster care while mother participates in reunification services to demonstrate her ability to maintain adequate and safe housing for her child. Counsel for the child and mother argued that the child should be returned to mother’s custody under a plan of family maintenance. The juvenile court took the matter under submission and continued the hearing to August 23, 2021, for ruling.

In its ruling, the juvenile court noted that the most recent photographs of the home showed conditions that were less clean than the conditions during the social worker’s May 2021 home visit. The juvenile court believed there was still a substantial risk that conditions of mother’s home could deteriorate “very quickly,” and it expressed concern that there were “animals and pet houses everywhere” given the amount of animal feces previously found in the home. The risk to the child was also found to be based on father and the level of dysfunction in the family that was normal to mother. The deteriorated conditions of the home in April 2021 were described by the juvenile court as “just shocking.” The juvenile court ultimately found that there was clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial danger to the child’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if she was returned home; and there were no reasonable means to protect the child without removing her from mother’s physical custody.

Based on these findings, the juvenile court removed the child from mother’s custody, provided mother family reunification services, and denied family reunification services to father. The juvenile court ordered mother to participate in the services stated in the case plan and supervised visitation two times per week to be separate from father’s visitation. A six-month review hearing was set for February 7, 2022.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in removing the child pursuant to the section 387 petition. Mother argues that any risk of harm to the child from mother’s history of allowing unsanitary conditions in the home had been ameliorated by her cleaning of the home after the child’s removal. She also contends the juvenile court erred by failing to consider reasonable means such as stringent conditions of in-home supervision and ordering the animals out of mother’s home. We disagree with both contentions and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

1. Legal Principles

Before the juvenile court can change or modify a previous order by removing a minor from a parent’s physical custody and directing foster care placement, there must be a hearing on a supplemental petition. (§ 387, subd. (a).) A petition under section 387 need not allege new jurisdictional facts, or urge different or additional grounds for dependency, because a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction already exists. (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1200; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211.) The only fact necessary to modify a previous placement is that the previous disposition has not been effective in protecting the child. (§ 387, subd. (b); Joel H., at p. 1200.) In the jurisdictional phase of a section 387 proceeding, the court determines whether the factual allegations of the supplemental petition are true and whether the previous disposition has been ineffective in protecting the child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(e)(1).) If the court finds the allegations are true, it conducts a dispositional hearing to determine whether removal of custody is appropriate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(e)(2).)

When a section 387 petition seeks to remove a minor from parental custody, the court must apply the procedures and protections of section 361. (Paul E., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1001–1003.) Thus, before a minor can be removed from the parent’s custody, the court must find, 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); see In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 462.)

“A removal order is proper if based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the child if he or she remains with the parent. [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.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169–170.)

2. Standard of Review

We review the juvenile court’s dispositional findings for substantial evidence. (In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061; In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 529.) As set forth by our Supreme Court, “[w]hen reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. In conducting its review, the court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give appropriate deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011–1012.) We do not inquire whether the evidence supports a contrary finding but instead whether substantial evidence, contradicted or not, supports the finding actually made. (Adoption of A.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 912, 925.)

3. Analysis

In support of her position that the juvenile court’s removal order lacks substantial evidence, mother relies on Paul E. Dependency jurisdiction in Paul E. was based on the dirty and unsanitary conditions in the family home. (Paul E., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 999.) The initial disposition did not remove the child from his parents’ home. Over the next seven months, the parents made improvements in their living conditions and remedied the unsanitary conditions. Still, the social workers identified several specific hazards after a visit, which the parents then addressed within eight days. The social workers nevertheless filed a supplemental petition because of the parents’ purported lack of progress and failure to comply with the case plan. (Id. at pp. 999–1000.)

In reversing the order of removal, the court rejected “the idea that the failure of the parents to comply completely with the service plan by itself justified removal.” (Paul E., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1003–1004, italics omitted.) The court found the specific hazards the social workers identified (a propeller protruding from a boat, a lamp socket with a short, and a plastic wading pool filled with dirty water) were “trivial to the point of being pretextual.” (Id. at pp. 1000, 1005.) It held chronic messiness alone, apart from unsanitary conditions, could not support removal. (Id. at p. 1005.)

Although the parents in Paul E. may not have “completely” complied with the case plan, they appear to have substantially complied by improving their living conditions and remedying the unsanitary conditions. At the least, they were well on the road to addressing the conditions that resulted in dependency jurisdiction. Those circumstances do not exist here, when mother admitted to not taking the case seriously during the two years of family maintenance services where her home was found to have unsanitary conditions during several home visits. This lack of effort to seriously address the unsafe home conditions justifying juvenile court intervention cannot be called a “trivial” or “pretextual” reason for removal.

We also reject mother’s claim that there was no risk of physical harm to the child because the child was older and did not suffer serious physical harm or illness from the home’s condition. An older child may be better able to avoid certain health hazards, but they cannot be tasked with the burden of maintaining an entire household. While the child appeared healthy, there was evidence that the child suffered emotionally from the conditions in the home and believed that her removal was her own fault. Moreover, as stated above, a child need not have suffered actual harm before removal is appropriate. (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126.) Although the court in Paul E. took “special note” that the child there had not actually suffered ill effects from his home, and explained that was a way of distinguishing “a loving-but-dirty-home case from a case of real neglect” (Paul E., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005 & fn. 8), this case involves more than a dirty home—it involves a home that was unsafe and unsanitary.

Given mother’s history, the juvenile court could reasonably infer that mother had not adequately addressed the mental health issues that were underlying her hoarding disorder in the four months after the child’s removal. Mother’s continuing struggles with depression and anxiety, in which she recently experienced regression, regularly resulted in the deterioration of the conditions of the home. The numerous home visits during the months prior to the children’s removal in April 2021 strongly suggest that mother only took steps to address some of the home conditions when directed by the visiting social workers.

This is not a case like Paul E. where there were merely “messy” conditions whose resurfacing did not pose a danger to the child. The child had been repeatedly exposed to the unsanitary and unsafe conditions of the home, which negatively affected her own mental health “ ‘every day.’ ” Although mother had shown an ability to maintain minimal standards while she spent less time at home during the short-time period since the children’s removal, the juvenile court was not required to ignore mother’s lengthy history at failing to maintain adequate conditions over longer periods of time. Mother’s history of struggling to maintain the conditions of the home, combined with her failure to adequately address the issues both underlying and exacerbating her hoarding disorder, comprise substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that it would not be safe to return the child to mother’s home.

Next, mother cites our decision in the case of In re Jeannette S. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 52 in support of her argument. In Jeannette S., the mother and father were divorced. (Id. at p. 55.) Social workers had visited the mother’s home and “found it dirty and cluttered with debris. There were extensive dog feces on the kitchen floor and cat feces in the bathroom. The house smelled of urine and there was spoiled food on the stove. [The minor] had been forced to sleep on the couch in the living room because her bedroom was such a mess.” (Id. at p. 56.) This court, however, found the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing custody from the parents was inappropriate because the juvenile court had two reasonable alternatives to removal. It could have imposed “stringent conditions of supervision by the welfare department with the warning that if [the mother] again let her house get filthy or failed to keep [the minor] in clean clothes and to properly care for her that appellant would lose custody of the child.” Alternatively, the court could have placed the minor with her father. (Id. at p. 60.)

We find mother’s reliance on Jeanette S. misplaced where the juvenile court had already utilized a lesser alternative when it previously placed the child with mother under stringent conditions of supervision in the present case. Mother’s argument fails to consider the fact that she did not take those two years of stringent supervision seriously. It is hard to imagine that following the same course of conduct from the original disposition in January 2019 would lead to a different result two years later. Overall, mother made only minimal progress on the mental health issues underlying her hoarding disorder over the past two years. She was often nonresponsive to service providers and failed to complete a year-long parenting course over the span of two years. Returning the child before mother had meaningfully addressed the issues that resulted in her inability to adequately maintain the home could reasonably be seen by the juvenile court as an exercise in futility.

Past conduct is relevant on the issue of future fitness, although it is not controlling. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 925.) In the present case, the juvenile court was justified in concluding that further efforts to work with mother while the child remained in her care and custody would be ineffective. The juvenile court clearly attempted to consider alternatives, and mother failed to seriously engage in the services provided in more than two years of in-home supervision. (See, e.g., In re G.C. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 257, 265-266 [“ample” evidence supported removal order despite mother’s clean-up of the home and alternatives juvenile court “could have” pursued given mother’s prior failure to complete family maintenance services].) A review of the entire record, summarized at length above, reveals substantial evidence to show there were no reasonable means to protect the child short of removing her from mother’s care and custody. Therefore, we find no error on this record.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

DETJEN, J.

WE CONCUR:

LEVY, Acting P. J.

SNAUFFER, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.