Filed 7/24/13 In re M.C. CA2/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 TWO 

In re M. C., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

 B243859 

 (Los Angeles County 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent. 

 v. 

JANELLE C., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 Super. Ct. No. CK87393) 

THE COURT:* 

 Appellant Janelle C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating 

her parental rights over her daughter, M. C. (born April 2011). We dismiss the appeal. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

*ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J., FERNS, J.† 

†Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 

BACKGROUND 
2 

Detention and section 300 petition 

 On April 9, 2011, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (Department) received an emergency response referral on behalf of newborn M. 

During delivery, mother disclosed that she was hearing voices and hallucinating. After 

M.’s birth, mother continued to display symptoms of mental illness, including manic 

behavior and paranoia. 

 The Department’s social worker met with mother in the hospital on April 9, 2011. 

During that meeting, mother reported a history of mental health issues but would not 

disclose her diagnosis. She stated that she chose to discontinue taking medication but 

would not disclose the medication previously prescribed for her. Mother further stated 

she did not know the identity of M.’s father. 

 The following day, the social worker spoke with Dr. Rose, a psychiatrist on staff 

at the hospital where mother and M. were staying. Dr. Rose opined that mother’s current 

mental health issues rendered her incapable of caring for M. 

 On April 13, 2011, the Department filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1 on behalf of M. alleging that mother’s 

mental and emotional problems rendered her incapable of providing the child with 

regular care and supervision. At the detention hearing held on that same date, mother 

appeared and identified M.’s father as Robert G. The juvenile court found a prima facie 

case for detaining M. from mother and ordered the child detained with a maternal cousin. 

The court accorded mother monitored visits for a minimum of three times a week, two 

hours per visit, and gave the Department discretion to liberalize the visits. 

 On May 20, 2011, the Department filed an ex parte application seeking to vacate 

the order detaining M. in the maternal cousin’s home because the cousin could no longer 

care for the child. The Department reported that it was exploring other placement 

options, including placement with out-of-state relatives. The juvenile court granted the 

ex parte application and ordered M. placed in foster care. 

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

 On May 27, 2011, the Department filed a first amended petition adding an 

allegation that M.’s alleged father, Robert G. had failed to provide for the child. 

Jurisdiction/disposition 

 In its May 2011 jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department reported on a 

May 2, 2011 interview with mother and a telephone conversation between mother and a 

dependency investigator on May 18, 2011. During the interview, mother said that she 

was unemployed but supported herself through social security disability income. When 

asked about the nature of her disability, mother said she had been diagnosed with “manic 

depression” in 1996. Mother objected to the removal of M. from her care and said she 

felt victimized by the Department. During the May 18, 2011 telephone call, mother 

alternated between whispering and speaking at a normal volume. Most of her comments 

were directed toward the Department’s unfair treatment of her. 

 Included in the Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report were summaries of 

email and telephonic communications between the dependency investigator and mother’s 

siblings, Nicole, Gregory, and Jennifer. All three siblings stated that mother had 

longstanding mental health issues that improved when she took her prescribed medication 

and that deteriorated when she did not. Nicole reported that mother’s symptoms of 

paranoia and delusions seemed to escalate as her pregnancy progressed. All three 

siblings expressed concerns about mother’s ability to care for M. 

 The dependency investigator also spoke with maternal cousin Kalyn, with whom 

M. had initially been detained. Kalyn reported that mother appeared to be obsessed with 

dust, mold, and perceived impurities on M.’s skin and that mother was constantly picking 

at the baby’s face during her monitored visits. After M. was placed in foster care, 

mother’s monitored visits appeared to go well overall; however, mother continued to be 

overly concerned with cleaning the baby, repeatedly doing so with wet wipes throughout 

the visits. 

 At the May 27, 2011 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother pled no contest to the 

allegations in the first amended petition, and the juvenile court sustained the amended 

petition as to mother. The court ordered an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation of 
4 

mother, and ordered mother to cooperate with the evaluation, to complete parenting 

education and individual counseling to address mental health issues, and to take all 

prescribed medications. The court accorded mother monitored visits three times per 

week for a minimum of two hours per visit. 

 The juvenile court found Robert G. to be M.’s alleged father. Because the 

Department’s efforts to contact Robert G. had been unsuccessful, the court dismissed the 

allegations of the petition pertaining to him. 

 The court assumed jurisdiction over M. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) 

and ordered that she remain suitably placed. The court authorized the Department to 

investigate placing M. with a maternal aunt who lived outside the state. 

Evidence Code section 730 evaluation 

 An Evidence Code section 730 evaluation was submitted to the juvenile court on 

August 22, 2011. The evaluation, prepared by Dr. William Vicary and by Dr. Jonathan 

Manaoat, both of the USC Keck School of Medicine, reported on their examination and 

evaluation of mother. During the examination, mother disclosed a history of mental 

health issues dating back to her years in high school. Mother further disclosed that she 

had been hospitalized at least three times for inpatient psychiatric treatment. 

 Mother stated that her concern over her skin started in 2007 and that she had seen 

multiple dermatologists and infectious disease doctors for “skin rot.” She claimed she 

could “hear vibrations” and “voices” which are “abusive” and say things to her such as 

“movie star quality.” Mother also claimed she could “channel energy,” see “red and 

green energy,” “chromosomes float from DNA on skin,” as well as “needle points,” 

“mold” and “invisible hairs.” 

 The evaluating psychiatrists concluded that mother’s symptoms were consistent 

with a diagnosis of “Bipolar I Disorder, Severe, with Psychotic Features.” They 

recommended continuous psychiatric intervention, including ongoing psychotherapy, and 

antipsychotic and antimanic medication. The evaluators further recommended that M. 

remain a dependent of the court, that mother be accorded monitored visits and 
5 

reunification services, and that she be reevaluated in one year to reassess her ability to 

benefit from reunification services. 

Review proceedings and termination of services 

 In November 2011, the Department reported that M. was placed in a licensed 

foster home. An approved ICPC2 home study had been received for maternal aunt Gayle 

D. in Pennsylvania, and the Department recommended that the juvenile court give the 

Department discretion to place M. with Gayle. 

 Mother had enrolled in a parenting program but had not signed a consent to release 

information regarding her participation in the program to the Department. Mother 

reported that she had attended only four or five parenting sessions. She had failed to 

comply with the juvenile court’s orders to take prescribed psychotropic medication and to 

participate in individual counseling. 

 Mother had missed approximately 25 percent of her monitored visits with M. 

Three visits had been cancelled by the monitor because of concerns regarding mother’s 

behavior during the visits. During the visits, the monitor observed mother picking at 

M.’s clothing and body, claiming the child was covered in dog hairs. Mother habitually 

wiped M.’s face until the child’s face became red and irritated. She voiced concerns 

about debris becoming “embedded” in M.’s skin and attempted during several visits to 

use her finger to remove perceived debris from the child’s eye. When redirected, mother 

became agitated. Mother also appeared to be unaware of M.’s needs and development. 

She repeatedly asked the monitor about the baby’s feeding time, insisted on substituting 

formula for solid food, and attempted to have M. recite the alphabet or use crayons and 

paper, even though such activities were not age-appropriate. 

 At a hearing held on November 23, 2011, the juvenile court found that mother was 

not in compliance with her case plan, that the Department had provided reasonable 

efforts, and that there was no substantial probability that M. would be returned to mother 

within the next six months. The court terminated family reunification services, set a 

 2 Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Family Code section 7901 

et seq. 
6 

section 366.26 hearing for March 21, 2012, and ordered the Department to initiate an 

adoption home study. 

Section 366.26 proceedings 

 In March 2012, the Department reported that M. had been placed with out-of-state 

relatives, maternal aunt Gayle and her husband, since December 8, 2011. Gayle and her 

husband were also M.’s prospective adoptive parents. They had four children, ages 

fourteen, ten, seven, and four. The family had grown very attached to M. and wanted to 

adopt her. Mother remained in California but had regular telephonic contact with M. and 

her caregivers. 

 At the March 21, 2012 hearing, mother was appointed new counsel. The juvenile 

court identified adoption as the permanent plan and continued the section 366.26 hearing 

to July 5, 2012. 

 In May 2012 , the Department reported that M. had adjusted well in the home of 

her prospective adoptive family, was meeting all of her developmental milestones, and 

appeared to be happy. She had become attached to her caregivers, who remained willing 

to adopt her. The prospective adoptive parents sent photographs to mother and facilitated 

telephone contact between mother and child. A request for an adoption home study had 

been submitted to the State of Pennsylvania. 

 In July 2012, the Department reported that M. and her caregivers continued to 

bond with each other, and the caregivers consistently reported that they wanted to adopt 

the child. Mother had been informed that she could have monitored visits if she traveled 

to Pennsylvania. 

Section 388 petition 

 Mother filed a section 388 petition on July 5, 2012, requesting an additional six 

months of reunification services. In her petition, mother alleged she was now living in a 

stable home, was seeing a new psychologist, Dr. Stephen Fleisher, and was compliant 

with Dr. Fleisher’s recommendations. Mother further stated that no psychotropic 

medication had been prescribed for her. 
7 

 Attached to mother’s section 388 petition was a letter from Dr. Fleisher dated June 

30, 2012, stating that he had seen mother for 33 sessions since November 2011. Mother 

had rented a room and was receiving job training from the State Department of 

Rehabilitation. She was not manifesting any of the mental illness symptoms previously 

described to the court, and her current diagnosis was Mood Disorder, Not Otherwise 

Specified, in full remission. Dr. Fleisher opined that mother was now ready for the 

reevaluation for reunification services that had been recommended in her Evidence Code 

section 730 evaluation. Dr. Fleisher further opined that mother should not be required to 

take psychotropic medication because she was extremely sensitive to medication and 

experienced severe side effects. He recommended that mother receive another court 

ordered evaluation and that the case be transferred to Pennsylvania if mother relocated 

there so that mother could have regular contact and visitation with M. Dr. Fleisher stated 

that the visits should be monitored at first, but only for the first month, as he believed 

mother posed no threat to M. He also recommended that the adopting relative consider 

an open adoption. 

 In its response to the section 388 petition, the Department reported that mother had 

met with the social worker on August 14, 2012. Mother provided a new home address 

and said she was seeing Dr. Fleisher on a weekly basis. She had not completed a 

parenting class because she did not feel the class was appropriate for her. Mother said 

she had not taken medication in seven years and that she did not need to do so. She 

received photos of M. and spoke with her by telephone two to three times per week. 

Mother had wanted to see M. during a family reunion in Utah in June, but the social 

worker had discouraged the visit. Mother said she would be willing to relocate to be 

closer to M. if she were granted more reunification services. 

 The social worker also spoke to the prospective adoptive mother, Gayle, who 

reported that M. was thriving in her home and had become a part of her family. Gayle 

explained that the Pennsylvania social worker had discouraged mother from attending the 

family reunion in Utah for the sole purpose of visiting with M., because no family 

member was willing to serve as the monitor for her visits, but mother had gone to Utah 
8 

anyway and had been denied a visit. Mother had also asked Gayle and her husband to 

assume legal guardianship over M. instead of adopting her. 

 On August 10, 2012, the social worker received a telephonic update from mother’s 

psychologist, Dr. Fleisher. Dr. Fleisher stated that he had to correct a previous diagnosis 

he had made of mother’s condition. His previous diagnosis -- that mother had 

experienced a full inter-episode recovery -- was incorrect. Mother’s diagnosis was 

without full inter-episode recovery. Dr. Fleisher explained that when mother was under 

stress, she experienced “very odd thinking.” Although he did not believe mother was a 

danger to anyone, including M., he did not know what would happen if mother were 

under stress. For this reason, he could no longer recommend unmonitored visits between 

mother and M., nor could he testify on mother’s behalf. 

Section 388/366.26 hearing 

 A contested section 388/366.26 hearing was held on August 21, 2012. On that 

same date, the Department reported that an adoption home study had been approved for 

M.’s prospective adoptive parents. 

 At the hearing, mother testified that she had been seeing Dr. Fleisher on a weekly 

basis for more than a year. Although mother had been informed of Dr. Fleisher’s 

statements regarding her odd behavior, she had not discussed the matter with him. 

Mother said that the last time she had seen M. was on December 13, 2011. Since that 

date, she had been having telephone contact with M. one to two times per week. M. did 

not know who mother was when they spoke, nor did she know that mother was her 

mother. Mother believed that she and M. shared “somewhat” of a bond, but 

acknowledged that it was difficult to have a bond with a child who was removed from her 

care as an infant. Mother also believed she had been treated unfairly, both by the 

Department and her own family, from whom she had been estranged for seven years. 

She said it would be in M.’s best interest to be reunified with her in the future. 

 The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition, finding there had been no 

change in mother’s circumstances and that it was not in the best interests of the child for 

mother to receive additional reunification services. The court further found that 
9 

continued jurisdiction over the child was both necessary and appropriate, that M. was 

adoptable, that it would be detrimental to the child to return her to mother, and that no 

exception to terminating parental rights applied. The court then terminated mother’s 

parental rights, as well as the parental rights of anyone else claiming to be M.’s parent. 

The instant appeal 

 We appointed counsel to represent mother in this appeal. After examining the 

record, mother’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 

indicating an inability to find any arguable issues. On April 25, 2013, we advised mother 

that she had 30 days in which to submit any contentions or arguments she wished us to 

consider. 

 Mother submitted a letter brief in which she requested new appellate counsel, and 

we denied that request. In her letter brief mother stated that the case to remove M. from 

her was based on false and biased statements and assumptions, and that she was not 

properly represented by counsel in the juvenile court proceedings below. 

DISCUSSION 

 “An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the 

appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or 

other defect [citation], and ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ 

[citations]. If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have 

abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal. [Citation.]” (In 

re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) 

 Mother has established no error in the proceedings below, nor any legal basis for 

reversal. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that M. was 

adoptable, and that adoption was in the child’s best interest. 

 We accordingly dismiss the appeal.