1

Filed 3/3/16 In re P.B. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re P.B., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E063415

(Super.Ct.No. SWJ1300959)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge. 

Affirmed.

Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and 

Carole Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

This dependency proceeding involves P.B., who was three years old when the 

juvenile court removed her from her mother and father and granted both parents 

reunification services. At the 12-month review hearing, the court terminated services as 

to appellant mother (L.S.), continued services as to father (J.B.) until the

18-month review hearing, and did not set a permanency and planning hearing under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1

Mother appeals the court’s decision to terminate her reunification services.2 Her

sole argument is that the court abused its discretion by failing to rely on the opinion of 

one of the psychologists who had evaluated her during the proceedings. This argument 

lacks merit because the record demonstrates that the court did consider the psychologist’s 

opinion and, further, that the psychologist was unable to recommend continuing 

reunification services. The psychologist’s opinion, together with the other evidence and 

information discussed below, reasonably supports termination of services. We therefore 

find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

 

1

 See, e.g., In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 877; In re Alanna A.

(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 559 (court has discretion at 12-month review hearing

involving child over the age of three to terminate reunification for one parent while 

continuing services to the other parent to the 18-month hearing).

2

 Father is not a party to this appeal.
3

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts Leading to P.B.’s Removal

P.B. came to the attention of respondent Riverside County Department of Public 

Social Services (DPSS) in December 2013, when mother exhibited bizarre and erratic 

behavior during a hospital visit for P.B. On December 6, 2013, mother brought P.B. to 

the Rancho Springs Medical Center. According to the reporting party and later 

confirmed by medical staff, P.B. was running a fever, but staff were unable to diagnose 

her because mother was not cooperative with treatment. Mother would not allow staff to 

place a catheter in P.B., stating that P.B. would no longer be a virgin. Staff attempted to 

explain why a catheter was necessary, but mother appeared not to comprehend. Mother 

also appeared to be hearing voices. She spoke to these voices in Spanish and another, 

unidentified, language.3

Mother carried a Bible with her and prayed for a long period of time. When she 

opened her eyes she said, “God will protect her; God told me she will be ok, and this is 

not for her.” Mother was given a prescription for an antibiotic, but she did not want any 

medication for P.B. The reporting party was concerned that mother would not follow 

 

3

 Mother was born and raised in a rural village near Oaxaca, Mexico, where the 

residents speak Spanish and an Indian dialect. This dialect may have been the 

unidentified language medical staff heard her speaking at the hospital.
4

through with obtaining the medication. Staff suspected mother might have schizophrenia 

or undiagnosed mental health issues. Ultimately, a security guard escorted mother from 

the hospital due to her strange behavior.

The reporting party alleged that, after leaving the hospital, mother “got into a 

bathtub full of water, and fully clothed with the child.” Shortly thereafter, someone 

called 911. Mother was taken to the hospital and placed under a 72-hour involuntary 

psychiatric hold.

A Spanish-speaking DPSS social worker visited mother at the hospital. She 

interviewed mother in Spanish because mother indicated it was her preferred language. 

Mother said she was in the hospital because she was tired and stressed, but she was calm

now. She did not remember where her daughter was. She thought P.B. might be in 

Oaxaca, Mexico, with either father or her friend, M.M. She could not remember how 

long she had known M.M. or where M.M. lived. She also did not know the address 

where she herself was living.

The social worker asked if mother had been hearing voices, and mother responded,

“[t]hey are talking all the time.” The voices would say, “Give me your daughter.” The 

voices would also tell mother to kill herself, but mother stated, “I only listen when they 

say, ‘Give me your daughter.’ ” Mother had contemplated suicide in the past, when she 

was single. Mother reported that she had been married to father for two years. They 

were currently separated and she did not know his whereabouts.
5

Mother also reported she had been hospitalized in the summer of 2013. She had 

been diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed medication. The medication made the 

voices go away, but she had run out of medication.

Mother was ultimately able to remember the phone number of her friend, M.M. 

The social worker visited M.M. at her home in Temecula. M.M. had been caring for P.B. 

while mother was in the hospital. She had picked up P.B.’s antibiotics and was 

administering them with Tylenol as directed by the doctor.

During her interview with the social worker, M.M. explained that she had known 

mother for six years. In the past, M.M. and her husband had let mother live with them 

and had taken care of her. Mother met father at the McDonald’s where they both worked. 

Father left when mother was pregnant with P.B., and mother became distraught and 

suicidal. M.M. taught mother how to care for P.B. and found her a place to live. At 

some point, mother and father got married and M.M. had no contact with mother for two 

years.

Mother reconnected with M.M. in July 2013. She told M.M. that during the past 

two years she had been living in Hemet in a home where there were drugs and 

pornography. M.M. could see that mother was mentally ill. Mother was hearing voices 

and talking “nonsense.” She told M.M. she had not slept for 10 days and could barely 

care for P.B. Around that time (July 2013), M.M. took mother to the hospital and the 

staff placed her on a three-day hold. Mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia and 
6

prescribed medication. She stayed with M.M. for a couple of weeks after leaving the 

hospital.

DPSS placed P.B. in M.M.’s custody and care. On December 10, 2013, DPSS 

filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3004 petition on behalf of P.B. As relevant 

here, the petition alleged that mother’s unresolved mental health condition and refusal to 

comply with medical staff’s recommendations to reduce P.B.’s high fever placed P.B. at 

a risk of physical harm under section 300, subdivision (b). On December 11, 2013, the 

court detained P.B. as to both mother and father.5

About a week later, the social worker interviewed mother’s case manager at 

Canyon Ridge Hospital. Mother had been hospitalized from December 7, 2013 to 

December 13, 2013. She had been diagnosed with psychotic disorder and prescribed 

Zyprexa.

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on February 5, 2014, the court found 

true the section 300, subdivision (b) allegations against mother. The court ordered P.B. 

removed from mother’s and father’s custody and ordered DPSS to provide both parents 

family reunification services. Under her case plan, mother agreed to obtain psychological 

 

4

 All unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

5 The jurisdictional allegations against father are not relevant to mother’s appeal.
7

and psychotropic medication evaluations, attend counseling, and complete a parenting 

education program.

B. Post-removal

As of early April 2014, mother was living with a friend in Temecula and had not 

obtained stable housing. She reported to the social worker that she was hearing voices 

and that they frightened her. She said praying and reading the Bible made her feel better. 

She agreed to see a doctor on April 21, 2014.

When the social worker spoke to mother on April 23, 2014, she had not yet seen a 

doctor. She was still hearing voices and was having trouble sleeping.

On May 14, 2014, a DPSS social service assistant took mother to a medication 

assessment. Mother was cooperative at the assessment, but was confused as to why P.B. 

had been taken away from her and why she had been told she was mentally ill. Mother 

did not consider herself mentally ill. She reported that she had been prescribed 

medication for schizophrenia in the past, but she no longer took it because she did not 

have schizophrenia. She explained that Jesus Christ was her doctor and she had gotten 

rid of schizophrenia through her saliva. The assistant observed that mother appeared to 

be responding to auditory hallucinations during the assessment.

On May 19, 2014, after a visit with P.B. at DPSS’s Temecula office, mother ran in 

front of a car in an attempt to kill herself. Father stopped her and brought her into 

DPSS’s office. Mother began to cry and told the social worker she planned to throw 
8

herself into traffic or jump off a bridge. The social worker called 911, and mother was 

placed on a section 51506 hold.

DPSS’s six-month status review report stated that mother was receiving treatment 

at Temecula Mental Health Clinic and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid 

type. Mother reported she was receiving monthly intravenous injections of her 

psychotropic medication prescription, but she did not know what her prescription was.

According to DPSS’s report, supervised visits were not going well. Mother was 

not engaging or bonding with P.B. The visits were often “hectic” if father was not also in 

attendance, and mother would ask P.B. why P.B. hated her.

P.B. was doing well in M.M.’s home and mother and father were happy with the 

placement because M.M. had been an active member of P.B.’s life. They believed M.M. 

would take good care of their daughter.

P.B. had severe dental decay and the doctor advised that dental surgery and 

general anesthesia were necessary. DPSS had to obtain authorization from the court to 

administer anesthesia because both parents would not agree to oral sedation.

At the six-month review hearing on August 5, 2014, the court ordered P.B. to 

remain in out-of-home placement and continued reunification services for both parents.

 

6

 Section 5150 allows for the involuntary hospitalization of a person who “as a 

result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself.” (§ 5150, 

subd. (a).)
9

DPSS’s 12-month status review report stated that mother was still receiving 

monthly injections of antipsychotic medication. Mother told the social worker that she 

did not have mental health issues and was only compliant with her medication because 

DPSS had requested she follow her doctor’s recommendations. Mother still had not 

found stable housing. She had resided in various locations with friends. She completed a 

parenting program at MFI Recovery Center in October 2014.

Mother regularly attended visits, but her interaction with P.B. remained limited. 

Mother often sat on the sofa while P.B. played by herself. P.B. was often verbally and 

physically aggressive with mother, and mother failed to redirect her. Once, mother left 

P.B. unattended in the visitation room while she went to the restroom. When she 

returned, she used her phone for the rest of the visit and P.B. played by herself.

P.B.’s therapist reported that visitation was stressful for P.B. and that P.B. was 

“work[ing] through emotional effects of feeling her mother does not listen to her during 

visitation.” P.B. was continuing to do well in M.M.’s home, but she would experience 

emotional disturbances after extended visitation with her parents.

C. The Psychological Evaluations

Mother was assessed by two court-appointed psychologists during the review 

period. She first met with Dr. Suiter in late January 2014. A Spanish translator was 

present for this evaluation and all of the tests were administered in Spanish.
10

Mother denied having any significant medical history. She told Dr. Suiter she had 

been hospitalized twice, once in July 2013 because she was having trouble sleeping and 

once in December 2013 because she was feeling nervous. She reported that she was 

prescribed an antipsychotic medication as a result of the December 2013 hospital visit, 

but she did not fill the prescription. She “strongly denied experiencing any symptoms of 

psychosis during that hospitalization.”

Dr. Suiter concluded, based on mother’s “presentation” during the evaluation, that 

nothing “preclude[d] her from being able to adequately care for a child.” Dr. Suiter 

added that he believed there was “additional data that would be more revealing in terms 

of her history which was not provided.” He believed there were “some significantly 

unanswered questions regarding [mother’s] psychiatric hospitalizations which may then 

bring into question her reliability in describing those issues.” He stressed that his opinion 

that mother could safely care for P.B. was “offered tentatively.” He requested additional 

documentation from DPSS so he could prepare an addendum report if necessary.

DPSS provided Dr. Suiter with the jurisdiction/disposition report as well as 

medical records from mother’s involuntary hospitalization in December 2013. In his 

addendum report dated November 1, 2014, Dr. Suiter revised his earlier tentative opinion. 

Based on the additional information, he found mother had “clearly withheld” information 

during her evaluation. He found her description of her mental health history and her 

relationship with father to be “a very significant distortion of her actual history.” He also 
11

found she had no insight into the nature of her mental disorder or need for psychotropic 

medication.

Dr. Suiter concluded mother had either intentionally deceived him or was 

suffering from delusional thought processes that he was not able to discern during the 

initial evaluation. He further concluded it would be “overtly detrimental” to return P.B. 

to mother’s care. He suggested an additional psychological evaluation to allow mother 

an opportunity to relate her past history and her current circumstances.

At a status review hearing on February 5, 2015, the court ordered DPSS to provide 

mother with referrals for additional psychological evaluations. Dr. Garett evaluated 

mother on March 14, 2015. Mother told Dr. Garett she was currently taking monthly 

injections of medication but she did not know the name of the medication.

In his report, Dr. Garett noted mother was born and raised in an “extremely rural” 

area of Oaxaca, Mexico. He explained that because he had lived near Oaxaca and spent 

extensive time in villages similar to mother’s village, he could “understand some of the 

limitations and mentality of an individual from that environment.” He added, “[a]t best, 

her culture and the way she was raised, is markedly different from the modern world.”

Dr. Garett found it clear from Dr. Suiter’s report that mother “did not understand 

and cannot reasonably take psychological inventories which were designed originally in 

America.” He stated, “I tested many individuals in Mexico so I prefer to use projective 

testing which gives me a deeper view of the individual themselves.” Dr. Garett 
12

performed a number of assessments on mother, including the Rorschach Ink Blot Test, 

Thematic Apperception Test, Forer Sentence Completion Test, and the Bender-Gestalt 

Visual Motor Test.

Based on his findings as well as Dr. Suiter’s, Dr. Garett concluded mother “is an 

individual who is very poorly prepared to cope with her decision to move to the United 

States some eight years ago and who has been unable to function effectively here.” He 

further concluded mother appeared to suffer from “Reactive Psychosis” and “major 

depress[ion].” He explained that mother’s “religiosity and her using religion as a solution 

to all of her problems further promotes psychotic and unrealistic thinking.”

Dr. Garett stated it was “difficult for [him] to determine” whether mother was 

capable of caring for P.B. He offered the following conditional conclusion: “[I]f 

[mother] can present to her social worker the ability to stabilize herself, comply with her 

counseling, and continue to show normalized behavior, the possibility of reunification 

should be considered.” He added, “I think it is a decision of the people who see her on a 

regular basis whether she had normalized herself to the point at which she could regain 

her child.”

D. Termination of Reunification Services at the 12-month Review Hearing

In the reports submitted in advance of the 12-month status review hearing, the 

social worker recommended terminating mother’s services. She opined that even though 

mother was compliant with her medication regime and no longer experienced 
13

hallucinations, mother demonstrated a poor understanding of her mental health condition. 

She observed that mother continued to steadfastly deny having any mental health issues 

and did not know what medication she was taking. She explained, “[mother] is unable to 

affirm what medication she is prescribed, and with this alone, there is ongoing concern as 

to her understanding of her condition, her needs, and her ability to follow through with 

continued stabilization if she does not comprehend the basics of her mental health 

requirements long term.”

The social worker also opined that mother had demonstrated poor parenting and 

limited interaction with P.B. during visits. Mother had completed her services, but the 

social worker did not believe mother had benefitted from them. The social worker 

believed there was “no likelihood that the child can be returned to the care of her mother 

by the eighteen month mark.”

The court held the 12-month status review hearing on March 19, 2015. Mother’s 

counsel submitted the following stipulated testimony: “[S]he currently is receiving 

treatment for mental health disorders in the form of shots. She asked the person giving 

the shot what the shots were for, and that person told her they were both for depression 

and schizophrenia.”

After hearing testimony and argument, the court found mother would not benefit 

from additional reunification services. The court terminated mother’s services and 

reduced her visitation with P.B. to two times a month. It explained the basis for its ruling 
14

as follows: “[The] Court considered very heavily the fact that Dr. Suiter’s latest 

evaluation and [mother’s] stipulated testimony was not consistent with reunification. . . . 

[¶] And the court reviewed the social worker’s report and considered the totality of

mother’s efforts as well as her mental state.” The court continued reunification services 

as to father and set an 18-month status review hearing.

II

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the court committed an abuse of discretion by relying on Dr. 

Suiter’s evaluation and failing to consider the opinion of Dr. Garett. Mother argues that 

Dr. Suiter was unable to understand or communicate with her, whereas Dr. Garett was, 

due to his familiarity with her background and upbringing. We find no abuse of 

discretion. Not only does the record reasonably support termination of services, but also 

the record demonstrates that the court did consider Dr. Garett’s opinion and that Dr. 

Garett was unable to recommend additional reunification services at the time of his 

evaluation.

“Where, as here, the court continues one parent’s services and does not set a 

section 366.26 hearing, it retains discretion to terminate the other (nonreunifying) 

parent’s services. [Citations.] The parent seeking additional services has the burden of 

showing such an order would serve the child’s best interests. [Citations.] In exercising

its discretion, the court has ‘the ability to evaluate whether the parent will utilize 
15

additional services and whether those services would ultimately inure to the benefit of the 

minor.’ [Citation.] We will not disturb the court’s determination unless the court has 

exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently

absurd determination.” (In re Katelynn Y., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 881.)

This dependency proceeding began because mother’s mental health issues 

prevented her from caring for her sick infant. During the course of DPSS’s involvement 

with this family, mother was involuntarily hospitalized twice, expressed suicidal ideation, 

tried to commit suicide by running in front of a car, and reported hearing voices that told 

her to kill herself and hand over her daughter. Mother’s mental health issues placed P.B. 

at significant risk of physical harm once (when P.B. had a high fever and mother refused 

treatment) and placed P.B. at a continued risk of physical and emotional harm.

Despite this risk, and despite being diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed 

antipsychotic medication, mother denied suffering from mental health issues. She did not 

know which medication she was taking and she told the social worker she was complying 

with her medication only to appease DPSS. Mother’s behavior throughout the 

proceedings demonstrated either a refusal or an inability to acknowledge her mental 

health issues and the risk she posed to P.B. Additionally, the record contained evidence 

that mother was not paying attention to or bonding with P.B. during visits, and that the 

visits were negatively impacting P.B.
16

This evidence alone reasonably supports the court’s decision to terminate services. 

However, this was not the only information before the court. The court also had the 

benefit of two professional psychological evaluations.

Contrary to mother’s contention on appeal, both of these evaluations, not just Dr. 

Suiter’s, supported termination of services. Dr. Suiter concluded that returning P.B. to 

mother’s care would be overtly detrimental to P.B. because mother was either delusional 

or intentionally refusing to acknowledge her recent psychotic episodes and diagnosis. 

Unfortunately, Dr. Garett was also unable to recommend a continuation of reunification 

services. He believed mother should receive additional services only if she could 

“present to her social worker the ability to stabilize herself.” He found it “difficult to 

determine” whether mother could safely care for P.B. and concluded that the individuals 

who see her on a regular basis should make that determination.

We also reject mother’s contention that the court failed to consider Dr. Garett’s 

opinion, because the record demonstrates otherwise. Before ruling on the issue of 

reunification services, the court noted that it had read Dr. Garett’s report, and when 

providing the basis for its ruling, the court stated that it “reviewed the social worker’s 

report” (which contained Dr. Garett’s report) and “considered the totality of Mother’s 

efforts as well as her mental state.” (Italics added.)
17

Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably find that mother would not 

make use of continued services and, consequently, that services were not in P.B.’s best 

interest. We therefore conclude there was no abuse of discretion.

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

MILLER

J.