Filed 10/23/23 In re Christan R. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re Christan R. et al., Persons 

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B317943

Los Angeles County Superior 

Court No. 21CCJP01020

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

A mother claims insufficient evidence supports the decision 

removing her two sons from her custody. She asks us to reverse 

this order and to vacate the resulting custody orders. We affirm. 

Statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The family has a lengthy history with the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services. The 

current case began in March 2021, when the boys were eight and 

nine. The case changed character after the juvenile court 

declared the children dependents in June 2021. The Department 

filed its subsequent petition in November 2021, and the children 

were detained from the mother and released to the father then. 

We focus on this latter part of the case. 

We review dispositional orders for substantial evidence. 

We indulge reasonable inferences and resolve conflicts in favor of 

the findings, examine the record in the light favorable to the 

juvenile court’s determinations, and refrain from credibility 

determinations. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633; In re V.L. 

(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154 (V.L.).) Because these orders 

require clear and convincing evidence at the juvenile court, we 

ask whether the record contains substantial evidence from which 

a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that 

the fact was true. (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 149, 154–

155.)

Substantial evidence justified removal of these children 

under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). A reasonable trier of fact 

could have found it highly probable the children faced a 
3

substantial danger to their emotional wellbeing if they returned 

to their mother’s home and no reasonable means short of removal 

could protect them. (See § 361, subd. (c)(1); V.L., supra, 54 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 156–157.) The mother offers no argument 

about reasonable alternatives to removal, so we focus on the 

danger the children faced in their mother’s care.

The mother has diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, 

anxiety, and paranoia. She acknowledged she was not taking her 

psychotropic medication consistently, she had thrown away her 

medication at one point because she felt she did not need it, and 

she believed her conditions were “naturally controlled.” The boys 

often observed their mother making funny faces and talking to 

herself. A recent psychiatric assessment of the mother noted 

symptoms of anxiety, depression, and mania. 

The mother experienced delusions, including a persistent 

belief neighbors and others—including the boys’ toddler halfsister—were trying to harm her children. She resorted to 

bringing the boys into the bathroom while she showered to 

ensure they were safe. She woke them up in the middle of the 

night and took them outside when she thought someone was 

knocking on the window and was trying to take them. The 

facilitators of the mother’s mental health program were “very 

worried” about her and her “ ‘deep fixed delusion’ ” about 

intruders. 

The mother frequently contacted the Department, law 

enforcement, and the child abuse hotline and made false reports 

of abuse. The police department informed the mother she may 

get “red flagged” due to all the false calls. The children then had 

to answer for their mother’s behavior. The mother told them to 

lie and forced them to go along with her stories. They felt 
4

compelled to lie to various authorities because they were afraid 

their mother would get upset or hit them. 

The mother grew erratic, “very paranoid,” and aggressive 

toward neighbors, social workers, and the boys’ father. She could 

not control herself or follow instructions at hearings in the case. 

The record shows the mother’s condition greatly affected 

the children. 

Her behavior scared them and made them uncomfortable. 

The mother would grow angry or hit them when they disagreed 

with her version of events. She reportedly used to hit them often, 

sometimes for no reason. Others in the family’s transitional 

home reported the mother yelled and hit the children on a daily 

basis. Once she threw a cell phone at her older son and hit him 

in the forehead. 

The children would shut down when asked about the 

mother’s behavior. The older child was diagnosed with “reaction 

to severe stress unspecified.” The younger child said he could not 

take his mother’s abuse anymore. He wished that he could hit 

her back sometimes or that he could have called his father to get 

him. The boys cried almost daily at their mother’s home. 

The mother’s behavior affected the boys’ relationship with 

other family members. She would not let them call their father 

when they were with her. Yet she would call or message 

persistently when they were with the father or at school. The 

boys felt they had to hide their relationship with their half-sister 

to avoid upsetting their mother. 

The boys’ therapist noticed they were happier, more open, 

and not as scared after moving in with their father. The children 

did not wish to be with their mother at all by the time of the 

January 2022 disposition hearing. 
5

On appeal, the mother concedes her conduct was “offensive” 

and “highly inappropriate” at times, but she maintains this 

conduct was directed toward others, not the children. The 

evidence we have recounted above shows the mother’s behavior 

was emotionally damaging to the children, regardless of where it 

was aimed.

The mother denied some of the events and denied any 

emotional abuse. She also notes various mental health 

professionals were not concerned about the children, and she 

highlights other evidence favorable to her. This evidence and 

these denials have no bearing in our substantial evidence review. 

(See V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 154, 156, 157 [appellate 

courts view the evidence favorably to the respondent and 

disregard conflicting evidence].) 

The mother’s denials also signal she lacked insight into her 

mental condition and a willingness or ability to change her 

behavior. Shortly before the disposition hearing, the Department 

noted the mother “has yet to take any responsibility for her 

behavior and has failed to address her mental health issues.” “In 

light of mother’s failure to recognize the risks to which she was 

exposing the minor[s], there was no reason to believe the 

conditions would not persist should [they] remain in her home.” 

(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293.)

The mother criticizes the juvenile court’s reliance on In re 

Matthew C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 386. But the court relied on that 

case in connection with its jurisdictional findings, which the 

mother does not challenge on appeal. 

The mother leans heavily on In re H.E. (2008) 169 

Cal.App.4th 710, a case that found removal warranted. That case 
6

had different facts and does not render the disposition here 

inappropriate. 

DISPOSITION

We affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional orders. 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

GRIMES, Acting P. J. 

VIRAMONTES, J.