Filed 9/30/16 In re An. N. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 An.N. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B270155

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. DK14933)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Nichelle L. 

Blackwell, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Jennifer L. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Acting Assistant County 

Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

* * * * * *
2

R.G. (mother) appeals from the jurisdiction and disposition orders entered 

January 22, 2016. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in asserting dependency 

jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1

because neither the allegations of the petition nor the evidence presented demonstrated 

that the two minor girls were at risk of serious physical harm. Mother further contends 

the court erred in removing the girls from her custody because there was no substantial 

evidence they were in danger of physical harm in her care. 

We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and A.N. (father) separated when their twin daughters (An.N. and Ar.N.) 

were toddlers. Both mother and father remarried. Pursuant to a family law order, mother 

and father shared joint legal custody, but as of December 2015, when the girls were 

13 years old, mother had primary physical custody of Ar.N., and father had primary 

physical custody of An.N. Father and stepmother had four children together. By the fall 

of 2015, stepfather had separated from mother and moved out of the home, leaving no 

contact information. 

On December 23, 2015, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) 

alleging that Ar.N. and An.N. were at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of the 

parents’ failure to adequately protect them. It was alleged the parents’ ongoing and 

acrimonious custody battle had created a detrimental and endangering home 

environment, resulting in serious emotional stress and trauma to both girls. Ar.N. was 

alleged to be “clinically depressed” and An.N. was refusing to return to mother’s home

even for visits. 

The Department reported that the allegations against father and stepmother, most 

of which were reported by mother, were unfounded. The Department further reported 

 

1 All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
3

that both girls indicated that mother blamed them for stepfather leaving her, and for 

possibly losing her home if they stayed with father because she could not keep her lowincome housing if they did not live with her at least 50 percent of the time. An.N. also 

reported that mother, and sometimes Ar.N., blamed her and bullied her for wanting to be 

with father and stepmother, claiming that it was a betrayal to do so. An.N. also said 

mother constantly tried to “remind” her about the abuse she received by father which 

An.N. believed to be false, and that mother had tried to tell her what to say to the 

Department. An.N. told the social worker to not let mother know what she had said or 

that she liked being with her father and stepmother because she was fearful of mother’s

response. An.N. said, “[i]f my mom’s reaction was so strong about me saying I didn’t 

believe [my stepmother] was a bad person[,] I can’t imagine what it would be if she knew 

this.” During one interview, An.N. began to cry and told the social worker “I’m most 

scared of going back,” to mother’s home. 

Ar.N. told the social worker that she did not sleep much and had felt increased 

depression “lately.” Ar.N. also reported she had recently stopped taking her medication 

after her mother “noticed” she acted differently while taking it. Ar.N. denied having 

suicidal thoughts. 

Dr. Ian Russ, a psychologist, provided therapeutic services to mother, father and 

both girls for almost two years, from November 2013 through August 2015, when mother 

stopped the sessions. The social worker spoke with mother and inquired about when 

therapeutic services were going to be started again. Mother said she had made 

arrangements through the girls’ school and was on a waiting list. The social worker 

discussed with mother her belief that Ar.N. was suffering stress over the need to take care 

of mother because of her medical issues, that Ar.N. felt obligated to do so, and did not 

address her own needs as a result. Mother agreed Ar.N. needed to be able to go to 

therapy to talk about things. The social worker expressed her “serious concerns about . . . 

emotional abuse” of the girls and her concern that, even if not malicious, mother may 

have problems in the way she speaks to them. Mother said “I don’t say anything to 

them.” 
4

Father expressed his concern about Ar.N.’s safety and the fact that “mother can’t 

take responsibility” for anything and the burden all gets placed on Ar.N. He said An.N. 

had been doing well living with him and stepmother. 

Margaret Linares, a student and family resource manager from the girls’ school,

spoke with the social worker about an incident on December 3 in which Ar.N. told a 

counselor she wanted to kill herself. Ar.N. had apparently been thinking about it for over 

a month and was planning on hanging herself. Ar.N. also reported she had been cutting 

herself at home. Ar.N. was taken by the school police to the hospital where she was 

involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation. Ms. Linares found two blades from 

the school’s pencil sharpener in Ar.N.’s backpack. Ms. Linares had noticed increased 

tension between the girls and expressed concern that the family’s problems were 

“tearing” the girls apart. 

On December 18, Ms. Linares reported to the social worker that Ar.N. had 

apparently been released from the hospital on December 7, but did not return to school

December 18. Mother claimed Ar.N. had the flu. 

The social worker made an unannounced visit to mother’s home and advised her 

of the Department’s concerns regarding the girls, including mother’s failure to follow 

through with obtaining new therapeutic services for Ar.N. despite increased depressive 

episodes and the fact she appeared to be “enmeshed” with mother. The social worker

advised mother of the Department’s intent to detain the girls. Mother responded by 

saying she had only stopped Ar.N.’s medication because it made her feel “unmotivated” 

but that the doctors at the hospital had recommended a change to Zoloft and she was now 

taking that. Mother also claimed that the new therapist at the school had cancelled 

sessions and that was why they had not had more therapy sessions recently. Mother 

reiterated her previously stated concerns about father and stepmother and said “it’s them” 

who abused the girls. 

When the social worker spoke with the school therapist, Kenia Ferguson, she 

advised she had not cancelled any sessions. Mother cancelled one session due to alleged 

transportation problems. Ms. Ferguson conducted a phone session and suggested a 
5

transportation service, but mother said no and said she would call back but never did. 

Ms. Ferguson did confirm there was no therapy scheduled the week of Thanksgiving but 

otherwise reiterated that she had not been the one to cancel any sessions. 

The Department detained the girls and released them to father’s custody. Father 

made arrangements for Ar.N. to stay with the maternal grandparents in order to ease her 

transition away from mother. The social worker observed that Ar.N. had her own room 

at the grandparents’ home and appeared calm in their presence, although she expressed 

her desire to stay with her mother. Maternal grandmother told the social worker that they 

used to see the girls a lot more often, but recently the visits were more infrequent. She 

said mother had been on a “downhill slide emotionally” for the last year or two. 

Maternal grandmother said mother created her own reality, and Ar.N. adopts it as her 

own. As an example, she said that with Ar.N.’s recent hospitalization, mother told Ar.N. 

that the family was not supporting her, even while family members were outside waiting 

to visit. 

The social worker documented an interview with Ar.N. on December 28, 2015, in 

which she reported being “26 days ‘clean’ from cutting and denied any current suicidal 

ideation.” But Ar.N. acknowledged having a “mental breakdown” at school on 

December 18 when she was told of the Department’s intent to detain her because she did 

not want to leave her mother. 

On the same day, the social worker reported speaking with An.N. who confirmed 

she liked living with her father, stepmother and half siblings. An.N. reported “[l]iving 

there has lifted a lot of weight off my shoulders. It’s normal. I’m getting As and Bs 

instead of Cs and Ds.” 

Father reiterated his concerns to the social worker about the girls’ relationships 

with mother. He believed they were in danger, both physically and emotionally, when in 

her care. He felt Ar.N.’s cutting herself showed the severity of the problem. 

Mother admitted to the social worker that she needed the girls to live in the home 

at least 50 percent of the time or she would lose her housing. She continued to deny she 

said anything negative to the girls about their father or stepmother. Mother told the social 
6

worker she takes a lot of medication due to multiple medical problems, and has also been 

diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Mother reported she was unemployed on 

permanent disability, but that the girls were good helpers. 

The social worker indicated that mother continued to deny responsibility for the 

situation, while father had admitted his concerns about his and mother’s problems 

affecting the girls and appeared committed to therapy and a reunification plan. 

At the January 22, 2016 hearing, at which mother was present, the court admitted 

without objection the Department’s detention report, the jurisdiction and disposition 

report, and two last minute information reports dated December 23, 2015 and January 22, 

2016. 

The Department also presented the testimony of Dr. Russ, a psychologist with 

over 20 years of experience who provided therapeutic services to mother, father and both 

girls. Some of the family and individual sessions also included stepmother, as well as

stepfather, before his separation from mother. Dr. Russ said he provided such services to 

the family for almost two years, from November 2013 through August 2015, when 

mother stopped the sessions. 

In addition to providing marriage and family counseling services, Dr. Russ also 

works as a custody evaluator for the superior courts. He considered this family to be 

“one of the most high-conflict cases” that he had ever worked with. The custody battle 

caused “enormous stress” for both girls. An.N. had developed “more coping 

mechanisms” than her sister. Ar.N. had internalized the conflict more and had become 

“very, very depressed.” She had expressed suicidal thoughts in April or May 2015. 

Dr. Russ expressed concern that mother had indicated she was “using large 

amounts of pain medication.” He said that if the girls were to be living with mother, he 

would recommend that an independent physician evaluate her pain medication regimen to 

determine if it interfered with her ability to parent. 

Dr. Russ explained he was concerned about the “emotional toll” the family 

conflict was causing both girls, but as of the time his sessions with the family ended in 

August 2015, he did not believe it had risen to the point of reportable “child abuse.” He 
7

understood from mother that she stopped the sessions because she felt she had too much

stress from them, including the fact that his office was far from their home and was 

difficult to get to. Mother told him she was on a waiting list to work with a therapist 

involved in a program sponsored by the girls’ school. Dr. Russ was concerned that when 

mother stopped the therapy sessions with him, the family conflict was “absolutely 

escalating.” 

Dr. Russ said Ar.N. was increasingly identifying with her mother and her mother’s 

view of things, she identified with her mother’s “anger and rage” towards father and had 

begun “to see the world in that way.” Ar.N. would come home from visits with father 

and talk about her perceived mistreatment by stepmother, or the fact that father and 

stepmother were “strict.” Dr. Russ counseled mother to not have conversations about 

that because it did not resolve the conflict or the feelings, but mother continued to do so, 

feeding and perpetuating Ar.N.’s anxiety instead of diffusing it. Dr. Russ believed

mother perpetuated a negative perception of father that was psychologically unhealthy for 

both girls. 

Dr. Russ was also concerned that An.N. had expressed distress at being criticized 

by her mother and sister for wanting to spend time with father and stepmother, that they 

told her she was betraying them and she felt “emotionally beaten up” being in mother’s 

home. When told that the girls were now living apart, Dr. Russ was concerned that could 

be very negative for them as they had always been close and supportive of each other. 

Dr. Russ had no concerns about the girls being in the custody of father and 

stepmother, but was concerned about mother’s “leaking feelings” negatively impacting 

the girls, particularly Ar.N. 

The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ar.N. and An.N. were 

dependent minors within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b). The court 

sustained the petition as to mother and found father to be nonoffending and struck the 

allegations as to father. The court noted father’s willingness to engage in services and a 

family reunification plan. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence as 

reflected in the Department’s reports and the testimony of Dr. Russ, that there was 
8

“a substantial danger to the physical safety and emotional well-being of both [An.N. and 

Ar.N.] to be in the home of their mother, and there [were] no reasonable means in which 

to protect these children, other than to remove them from the physical custody of their 

mother.” 

The court ordered the girls placed in the home of father, but with Ar.N. allowed to 

stay temporarily with the maternal grandparents as father had arranged. The parents were 

ordered to participate in the agreed-upon case plan, including therapy. Mother was 

allowed visitation with An.N. only in a therapeutic setting. Mother was granted 

monitored visitation with Ar.N. three times a week for a minimum of two hours. The 

Department was granted discretion to liberalize. 

This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the court erred in asserting dependency jurisdiction. Mother 

concedes she did not challenge the legal sufficiency of the petition in the juvenile court. 

She has therefore forfeited that contention on appeal, and we need not discuss it further. 

(In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 83.) 

Nor can mother challenge the adequacy of the evidentiary record supporting the 

court’s exercise of jurisdiction. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, mother 

expressly joined in the argument of the minor’s counsel that the court needed to assert 

dependency jurisdiction, and submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. Mother’s argument 

was directed only to the appropriate disposition, and the Department’s recommendation 

to remove the girls from her custody. “In the absence of fraud, the admissions of an 

attorney in open court are binding upon the client.” (In re Rebekah R. (1994) 27 

Cal.App.4th 1638, 1649.) This is not a situation where mother’s counsel merely 

submitted on the Department’s reports which preserves the right to challenge on appeal

the quantum and quality of evidence supporting the court’s order. (See, e.g., In re 

Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 589-590 [a mother’s submission on the 

recommendation of the social worker, and not just the reports, to remove children from 

her custody forfeited right to contest disposition order on appeal].) 
9

In any event, the Department’s reports and the testimony of Dr. Russ establish that 

jurisdiction was appropriately exercised. (In re K.S. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327, 337 

[jurisdictional orders are reviewed for substantial evidence in a light most favorable to 

the juvenile court’s findings]; see also § 355, subd. (a) [preponderance of the evidence is 

relevant standard for jurisdictional finding].) Dr. Russ described the family as one of the 

most “high-conflict” families he had ever treated.

The evidence described above is substantial and supports the court’s findings that 

mother’s own physical and emotional issues, and her inability to control how she 

interacted with her daughters, had created an increasingly toxic home environment, and 

that it was substantially likely the girls were at risk of both emotional trauma and 

resulting physical harm. Dr. Russ testified that when mother stopped therapy with him in 

August 2015, the family conflict was “escalating.” Thereafter, the family dynamic 

continued to spiral downward, including Ar.N.’s hospitalization and An.N.’s strongly 

expressed fear and anxiety of being in mother’s home. The evidence established that the 

circumstances had continued to degrade and supports the court’s jurisdictional findings.

Mother also challenges the court’s disposition order removing both girls from her 

custody. “We review a dispositional order removing a child from parental custody for 

substantial evidence.” (In re D.G. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1574; accord, In re A.R. 

(2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1116.) 

Under section 361, subdivision (c)(1), a dependent child shall not be taken from 

the physical custody of his or her parents unless the juvenile court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that “[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.” “ ‘ “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 
10

as well as present circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (In re A.S. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 237, 

247, italics added.)

The same evidence discussed above amply supports the court’s dispositional 

order.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders entered January 22, 2016,

are affirmed. 

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. 

RUBIN, J.