Filed 1/ 30 / 15 In re Roxanne B. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re ROXANNE B

. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Cou rt Law. B 256416
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK02607 ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIA B

. et al. ,
Defendant s and Appellant s

.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Su perior Court of Los Angeles County,
T ony Richardson , Judge . Affirmed.
David A. Hamilton , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M aria B

. Mari s sa Coffey , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Daniel B

. Richard D. Weiss, Office of County Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent Department of Children and Family Services

.

_____________________2 INTRODUCTION
Mother Maria B. and Father Daniel B . appeal from the juvenile court’s judgment finding juri sdiction over their daughter Roxanne under Welfare and Institutions Code 1
section 300 , subdivision (c)

. We affirm because the jurisdictional finding was supported by
substantial evidence that Roxanne was suffering from seriou s emotional damage and at risk
of suffering further serious emotional damage at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, and
that through their failure to obtain mental health services for Roxanne, Mother and Father caused Roxanne to continue to suffer and be at risk of suffering such emo tional damage

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and Father (the Parents) live together with their two children, sixteen

- year

old Roxanne and her sibling. Only Roxanne is at issue in this child dependency proceeding,

as the Department of Children and Family S ervices ( DCFS ) did not pursue a petition as to her sibling. In November and December of 2011, Roxanne began exhibiting signs of possible emotional problems . On one occasion, Roxanne cried at school and told her counselor she was upset because Fa ther yell ed at her, her sibling, and M other . DCFS investigated the referral based on this incident, found the allegations of emotional abuse to be unfounded, and indicated to Mother that Roxanne may need counseling. On a nother occasion, Roxanne told a cl assmate that she wanted to kill herself and showed the classmate
marks on her wrists

. DCFS investigated and determined that the alle gations of abuse were
unfounded because there were n o marks or bruises on Roxanne, Roxanne denied any thoughts of suicide, and Roxanne stated that she did not fear her P arents. DCFS again told
Mother that Roxanne may have some underlying issues of which she is not making others

aware , and may need counseling. DCFS provided Mother with information about counseling services fo r Roxanne in her area. Beginning in December 2011, t he school
counselor also urged the Parents to take Roxanne to counseling, but the Parents failed to do

so

.

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3

Several months later, in March 2012, Roxanne emailed her teachers stating that she
had suicidal thoughts because she was being bullied at school. Despite the sch ool counselor’s request for Mother to come to school due Roxanne’s mental state, Mother did not show up

. Only after the school counselor went to the Parents’ home , did Mother reluctantly c o me to school. At school, Mother was unsupportive and angry at Roxanne.
Roxanne was then taken by ambulance to a hospital and placed on a section 5585 hold for psychiatric evaluation

. In response to Roxanne being taken to the hospital, Mother told the

sc hool counselor that she was going to remove Roxanne from the hospital against medical
advice. Although Mother took Roxanne to therapy shortly after this incident, Roxanne did not continue with therapy. Roxanne was hospitalized three more times on October 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and November 7, 2013 , due to her mental health problems . The present dependency proceedings ar o se out of a referral from the November hospitalization. O n November 6, 2013, Roxanne emailed her teachers , stating that she was goin g to kill herself because no
one cared about her . When she arrived at school the morning after she wrote the email, Roxanne continued to express her suicidal thoughts to her counselor . Roxanne was again taken to the hospital and placed on a section 5585 psychiatric hold . At the hospital , Roxanne stat ed to the DCFS social worker that she was depressed because she was failing classes at school, because her mother was the only one working to support her family , which concerned her , and because everyone loo ked down at her at school. Roxanne was
d iagnosed with Major Depressive D isorder.
The school had difficulty contacting both parents regarding Roxanne’s suicidal thoughts on November 6 and 7, 2013 , and when it finally contacted Mother, she “appeared

not [ to ] care and stated that she could not leave work because no one was going to pay her bills.” The hospital social worker as well as Roxanne’s school counselor both stated that Mother was not taking Roxanne’s mental health problems seriously. After a week i n the hospital on the section 5585 hold, Mother still had not visited Roxanne and refused in

- home services for Roxanne, stating that “the neighbors are nosy.” Upon Roxanne’s return home
from her 11

- day stay at the hospital , Father cursed at Roxan ne about her hospitalization ,4

asserted that she will not be go ing back to a ny hospital, and told her that she was not “using her mouth properly” because she was telling strangers about her problems. Father also
stated that he felt “alone and abandoned” when Roxann e was at the hospital.
After DCFS became involved in this case in November 2013 , Mother made an appointment for Roxanne with a psychiatrist and began taking her to weekly therapy
sessions following her hospitalization

. Per the hospital social worker’s sug gestion, Mother also sought to get Roxanne an individualized education plan to help her at school. In the months following her November hospitalization, Roxanne began consistently taking antidepressants and attending counseling services.
DCFS filed its s ection 300 petition in December 2013, alleging that the Parents caused Roxanne serious emotional damage. DCFS subsequently offered the Parents to

pursue a Voluntary Family Maintenance plan without court involvement in February 2014. The Voluntary Family Maintenance plan required the Parents to agree to continue to follow Roxanne’s treatment plan and ensure that she attends school. Father voiced his reluctance
to be involved in the voluntary plan or any family counseling, but stated he did not want to

opp ose DCFS. Although Mother initially agreed to a Voluntary Family Maintenance plan, Mother expressed concern that she had to sign another case plan in order to proceed with Voluntary Family Maintenance plan

. When the social worker attempted to explain the new case plan and that it would be voluntary, Mother told the social worker that “ DCFS is stressing her out and that she’ s going to get sick. ” On this same day , Roxanne was very guarded and emotionless when talking to the social worker. Based on the Par ents’ inconsistent answers and resistance to DCFS, as well as concerns that Mother was making
Roxanne feel like she cannot talk freely to DCFS social workers , DCFS decided to proceed with the section 300 petition. In May 2014, the court found that Roxanne was suffering from severe emotional damage and that the Parents caused some of the emotional harm that Roxanne was experiencing. The court stated that the Parents had “minimized the minor’s serious mental health issues,” and concluded that Roxanne was a c hild described by section 300 , subdivision (c)

.5 DISCUSSION
The Parents contend the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile cou rt’ s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision ( c ) because Roxanne was not at risk of suffering nor actually suffering from serious emotional damage, or in the alternative, because they did not cause Roxanne’s emotional damage

. We review the juvenile court’ s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. ( Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 962, 966.) “ Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which adequately supports a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. ” ( In re R.C. (2012) 210 C al.App.4th 930, 94 1 .) Although substantial evidence may consist of inferences, the inferences “ ‘ must be “ a product of logic and reason ” and “ must rest on the evidence ” [citation]; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot suppo rt a finding [c itations].’ ” ( In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 , 1393

- 13 94 , italics omitted .) Conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the prevailing party. ( In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.) “[I]s sues of fact and credibility are questions
for the trier of fact. ” ( I

bi d .) The juvenile determination will not be disturbed unless it
exceeds the bounds of reason. ( I bi d .) Pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c), a child comes under the jurisdiction of th e juvenile court, if “[t] he 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, as a resu lt of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care. No child shall be found to be a person described by this subdivision if the willful failure of the parent or guardian to provide adequate m ental health treatment is based on a sincerely held religious belief and if a less intrusive judicial intervention is available. ”

“ The statute thus sanctions intervention by the dependency system in two situations: (1) when parental action or inaction cau ses the emotional harm, i.e., when parental fault can be shown; and (2) when the child is suffering serious emotional damage due to no parental fault or neglect, but the parent or parents are unable themselves to provide adequate mental6

health treatment. [¶] In a situation involving parental ‘ fault, ’ the petitioner must prove three things: (1) the offending parental conduct; (2) causation; and (3) serious emotional harm or the risk thereof, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or

untowa rd aggressive behavior. ” ( In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557 .) The Parents argue that elements two (causation) and three (serious emotional damage) are not supported by substantial evidence. We address each in turn, beginning with Roxanne ’s emotional damage.
1. Roxanne Was Suffer ing Serious Emotional Damage and Was at Risk of Suffering Further Serious Emotional Damage at the Time of the Jurisdiction Hearing Both Parents argue that Roxanne was not at risk of suffering nor suffering from

s erious emotional damage at the time of the jurisdiction hearing and that the court focused on past events rather than Roxanne’s six

- month stabilization , in finding jurisdiction

. Section 300, subdivision (c) states that emotional damage or risk of emotiona l damage is

“ evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior
toward self or others .” Here, it is clear that Roxanne was suffer ing from serious emotional damage in the form of Major Depressive Disorder. Her emotional d amage was also
evidenced in her suicidal ide ations, which the P arents failed to address until DCFS ’s
intervention.
Both P arents a ssert that Roxanne was not emotionally damaged at the time of the jurisdiction hearing because Roxanne had already been in ther apy for six months, was taking her medications, had all appropriate services in place for her mental health needs, did not have another incident of suicidal ideations in months, had a school counselor to talk to when she was not feeling well, was consisten tly attending mental health sessions, and had Mother’s support during her treatment over the last six months. Mother also asserts that the lack of present harm or risk of harm is established by Mother’s active involvement in providing for Roxanne’s needs fourteen days after DCFS received the referral that is the basis for this dependency proceeding.
Yet the record indicates that Roxanne continued to suffer from Major Depressive
Disorder even during the six months that she received treatment leading up to t he7

jurisdiction disposition hearing

. The record further show s that without DCFS ’s and the

court ’s involve ment in this case, the Parents were not likely to obtain treatment for Roxanne
as the Parents did not take her mental health issues seriously. The P a rents only obtained
consistent mental health services for Roxanne after DCFS began its November 2013 investigation , despite Roxanne’s multiple episode s of suicidal ideations and four hospitalizations , beginning in 2012

. The Parents were also reluctant and uncooperative in setting up a voluntary plan for proceeding with treatment for Roxanne. A lthough Mother has complied with DCFS’s mental health care plan for Roxanne and has obtained treatment for her during the last six months, this short period of chang e does not absolve concerns for Roxanne’s safety in the context of almost two years of medical neglect by the Parents , particularly in light of the Parents’ inconsistent responses to DCFS’s o ffer to set up a voluntary plan an d their resistance toward DCFS in this case. The court had good reason to
believe , based on DCFS’s experienc e with the Parents, that the P arents would cause Roxanne even more serious emotional damage by ceasing her treatment and ignoring her
obvious mental healthcare needs in the futur e. Contrary to the Parents’ assertions, substantial evidence supports a conclusion that there was a present risk of harm to Roxanne. We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supported that Roxanne was suffering and was at risk of further suffering serious emotional damage under section 300, subdivision (c).
2

. The Parents Were a Substantial Cause of Roxanne ’s Serious Emotional Damage and Their Lack of Concern Placed Her at Risk of Future Emotional Damage
Both Parents argue that even if Roxanne was a t risk of suffering or was actually suffering serious emotional damage, the Parents were not a substantial factor in bringing
about Roxanne’s depression. They state that Roxanne’s depression was caused by bullies at school, Roxanne’s loneliness, her lack of f riends, and her poor coping skills. Mother asserts

t hat Roxanne’s “mental health issues would have occurred even if Mother had not delayed in obtaining therapy.” Mother asserts that she engaged in no abusive conduct, and that her “only misconduct was the inability to connect [Roxanne] with services due to having to work and refusing in

- home services due to the neighbors.”8

Even if bullies, loneliness, or poor coping skills in it iated the depression, the Parents caused Roxanne’s depression to worsen and persist

. ( See 1 Seiser et.al., Cal. Juvenile
Courts Practice and Procedure (2014) Grounds for Dependency Jurisdiction , § 2.84 [4] [Section 300, subdivision (c) “ authorizes the taking of jurisdiction

. . . where the parent’s
actions are the cause of the chi ld continuing to suffer the emotional damage

. . . . ”].) T he offending parental conduct here is the Parents’ failure to obtain mental health services for Roxanne. The delay in this medical care and the Parents’ disregard for their child’s needs
exacerbat ed Roxanne’s mental health problems and caused her to continue to suffer from depression , as evidenced by her increased incidents of suicidal ideation and hospitalization s

. The evidence shows that the Parents did not take her em otional problems seriously , that they did not provide her with consistent access to mental health care , and that Father berated her for seeking such care . It was evident from statements made by the school counselor and social workers to the Parents that Roxanne needed counseling a s early as December 2011. Again in March 2012, the Parents were informed of Roxanne’s need for counseling. Roxanne’s unaddressed depression culminated with her thr ee hospitalizations in October and November 2013 d ue to her depr ession and suicidal
ideatio ns. The Parents argue that the October 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and November 7, 2013 hospitalizations occurred in too rapid succession for them to have enough time to be able to get Roxanne help. Yet, it appears that additional time would not have chang ed the Parents’ conduct. Even during her final hospitalization, the Parents did not display concern about Roxanne’s problems , as evidenced by Father’s lack of involvement , and by Mother

not seeing Roxanne at the hospital and indicating that she did not ha ve time to deal with
social workers

. And, as stated above, the Parents were on notice of the need to obtain treatment for Roxanne prior to these last three incidents. The Parents’ medical neglect of Roxanne clearly caused the depression to go untreated, persist , and worsen.9

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding is supported by substantial evidence that the Parents’ failure to obtain mental health services
for Roxanne over a two year period was a substantial f actor in caus ing Roxanne’s continuing serious emotional damage. We therefore affirm the jurisdictional finding.
DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s judgment finding jurisdiction over Roxanne is affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

ALDRICH, J.

LAVIN , J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.