Court Opinion

ID: 9925687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 19:02:15.928648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.693379
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/22/24 In re I.D. CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re I.D. et al., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                D082539
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY,                                                         (Super. Ct. No. J521021)

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

H.D.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Alexander M. Calero, Judge. Affirmed.
         Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado and Elisa Molk,
Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         No appearance for Minors.
                              INTRODUCTION

      This is the second appeal in a case we previously said was “impossible
to describe, much less conclusively evaluate.” Due in large part to limitations
father R.D. (Father) placed on the flow of information to the San Diego
County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) about the therapeutic
progress of the family, our assessment has not changed substantially.
      In our prior decision we affirmed a jurisdictional order declaring three
minor children dependents of the juvenile court under section 300,

subdivision (b)(1) of the Welfare and Institutions Code1 because there was
“something going on in that household that creates a danger and a risk” to
the children. We reversed a dispositional order placing the children in the
care of Father because undisputed evidence suggested he was at the center of
the “something going on” in the family household. We remanded the matter
for further proceedings. On remand, the juvenile court determined the
children’s placement with Father on the condition that they live in the home
of maternal grandparents was appropriate under the current circumstances.
      Thereafter, the court denied a request by the Agency and the parents to
terminate jurisdiction. It ordered the Agency to provide family maintenance
services and authorized a referral for Father and the children to participate
in therapy through the County’s Treatment and Evaluation Resources
Management (TERM) mental health program so the Agency could have
better access to information on their progress. The court vacated the
condition that Father and the children reside in the maternal grandparents’

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.

                                       2
home so the Agency could evaluate the family without that layer of
supervision.
      Mother appeals the order, contending there was no substantial
evidence to support the court’s findings that conditions continued to exist to
justify continued jurisdiction. Although the Agency requested termination of
jurisdiction in the proceedings below, it now supports the juvenile court’s
order and asks us to affirm.
      We preliminarily conclude the juvenile court’s placement determination
on remand did not materially vary from our dispositional directions in the
prior appeal. On the merits, we conclude substantial evidence supported the
court’s order continuing jurisdiction under section 364.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      Because the complex family history provides important context for the
issues in this appeal, we quote extensively from the factual and procedural
background section of our prior decision. We then describe the events that
occurred during and after the prior appeal.

“A.   Family History

      “In April 2022, the San Diego County Child Abuse Hotline received a
report of neglect and abuse involving minors I.D. . . . , T.D. . . . , and A.D.
. . . . A social worker from the [Agency] investigated the report, which
included allegations that unknown individuals were entering the family’s
home and engaging in sexual activity with H.D. (Mother) while the children
and Father slept. Father allegedly had video evidence of these activities, but
he claimed he was unable to access the videos because people were breaking
into his home, his phone and his camera system and deleting them. The
videos that Father provided the social worker and police failed to show the

                                         3
activities he claimed were recorded. Mother had no memory of the alleged
activities.
      “Father additionally maintained that ‘car loads’ of unknown individuals
were going to the home where they tracked and stalked the family. He
reported strange noises outside the home, claiming that a wire to the internet
box was cut and window screens were damaged. The police were contacted,
but they determined no crime had been committed. Father owns a rifle, and
recently purchased a handgun and a shotgun to protect the family from
people he claimed were coming near the home.
      “The family has repeatedly relocated to various motels and relatives’
homes to evade the unknown stalkers. Even so, Father believed these
stalkers were able to locate the family. He told the children that strangers
were around their home, that he had videos of them, and that Mother needed
to be restrained so she would not contact or engage in sexual activities with
them. He restrained Mother with tape, handcuffs, and a straitjacket, and
locked her in a closet to prevent her from having sex with strangers. The
children believed Father’s claims, including that these ‘safety measures’
failed to work as Mother somehow escaped and then returned to her
restraints. They reported trying to stay awake to ensure Mother did not get
away, which adversely impacted their school attendance and participation.
      “The two older children became angry after being told of Mother’s
alleged sexual activity with strangers, and both participate in therapy to
address their emotions. I.D., the oldest child, was described as hypervigilant,
terrified, anxious, and sad because of the events he believed were taking
place around their house. He reported feeling responsible for protecting his
younger siblings, and experiencing nightmares and trouble breathing due to
anxiety. I.D.’s therapist diagnosed him as having an adjustment disorder

                                       4
with mixed anxiety and depression. She confirmed that the issues reportedly
occurring at home left him sleep deprived. Mother’s psychiatrist and Father’s
therapist both expressed concern about the children’s safety while residing in
a chaotic home with parents who have untreated mental health issues.
      “Mother had restraining orders against Father in 2009 and 2019 to
protect her and the children from domestic violence. Father then completed
services for domestic violence. He was psychiatrically hospitalized in 2019
where he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic
stress disorder. Although he had been prescribed psychotropic medication, he
denied taking it currently because he did not think he needed it.
      “During her interview, Mother requested that Father be present for
emotional support. She had no key to the home and no cellphone, so she
could not contact or invite strangers into the home. While she denied
recalling the activities with strangers that Father reported, she believed
some had happened as he described.
      “Mother’s psychiatrist diagnosed her with major depressive disorder
and was evaluating her for dissociative identity disorder and/or
schizoaffective disorder. She participated in therapy, and the therapist
expressed concern that she was being manipulated psychologically by Father.
The Agency was concerned that it appeared to be the same pattern of control
that characterized the relationship when domestic violence was alleged in
2009. Then, . . . Father reportedly controlled and isolated Mother, subjecting
her to continual surveillance.
      “On May 11, 2022, the Agency requested and the court issued a
protective custody warrant, removing the children from their parents’ custody
out of concern for their safety. It then filed a petition alleging that the
children came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

                                        5
Specifically, the petition asserted that the children have suffered or were at
risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness by the inability of the
parents to provide regular care for children due to the parents’ mental illness,
developmental disability, or substance abuse.

“B.   Detention Hearing

      “Two days later, on May 13, the court held a detention hearing. The
Agency recommended that the children be removed from their parents’ care
and that the parents be allowed supervised visitation. These
recommendations were based on concerns regarding the children’s safety due
to Father’s continued and escalating pattern of control over Mother and both
parents’ declining mental health. In the Agency’s view, there was ‘reason to
believe that the children and [M]other are at risk of possible death if left in
the [F]ather’s care.’
      “The court detained the children and ordered supervised visitation for
each parent separately. It expressed concern about the children’s emotional
well-being, including the anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances they
were experiencing. The children were allowed to remain with the maternal
grandparents and were to receive therapy without the presence of a parent.
The parents were to receive psychological evaluations and were allowed to
visit the children according to a schedule.

“C.   The Agency’s Reports

      “In June and July 2022, the Agency prepared and filed a
jurisdiction/disposition report and a series of addendum reports. The
children continued to reside with the maternal grandparents and were
interviewed multiple times. I.D. reported ongoing domestic violence with
Mother as the aggressor because she gets angry that ‘no one believes her.’
He reiterated his understanding that people were stalking the family and

                                        6
breaking into their home, and said he felt exhausted, angry and sad.
His mental health evaluation suggested that depression, anxiety, anger, and
adjustment to trauma adversely affected his ability to function.
      “T.D. believed he was in protective custody because the ‘government’
thought his parents were not keeping the children safe when they argued.
He explained that they had cameras installed inside and outside the home to
protect them from the strangers Father said were coming to the home. He
reported feeling angry and sad, and his mental health evaluation concluded
that anger was adversely affecting his ability to function.
      “A.D. believed she was living with maternal grandparents because
Mother had done ‘ “too much stuff” ’ that was ‘ “kinda bad.” ’ She was
otherwise unable to articulate what was happening with her parents.
Her mental health assessment revealed multiple areas of concern that
needed to be monitored.
      “Although she had no independent recollection, Mother accepted
Father’s reports that she continued to escape from restraints to have sexual
encounters with unknown individuals. She explained that she never
experienced memory loss before January 2022. In May 2022, while seeking
treatment at San Diego Mental Health Hospital, fentanyl was found in her
system although she had no recollection of taking it. She declined to be
treated on an inpatient basis. Later that month, Mother was taken to the
hospital due to an overdose of her psychotropic medication. She claimed it
was impulsive and ‘mostly’ an ‘accident.’ Since then, Father said he has
taken responsibility for dispensing Mother’s medication to avoid overdoses.
      “In June 2022, Mother sought treatment at the hospital after feeling
‘out of it.’ Again, she tested positive for fentanyl without any recollection of
taking it. Later that month, Mother woke up with bruising on her face, red

                                        7
marks on her neck, and swelling on her eye, lips and leg/foot. She was taken
to the hospital for evaluation and treatment and stated her belief that she
was drugged and sexually assaulted by a neighbor, despite having no
recollection of such an event. Mother, however, was reportedly handcuffed to
Father that night as a ‘safety’ precaution. The injuries were determined have
resulted from an assault, but police did not believe there had been a crime.
      “Although the children exhibited some behavioral issues while living
with the maternal grandparents, they felt safe and were sleeping better.
They also said they wanted to be placed with their parents or Father. . . . .
      “According to the Agency, ‘the power and control dynamic that is
typically present with domestic violence’ was still apparent in the parents’
relationship. Because the video evidence failed to support Father’s claim of
Mother’s alleged sexual encounters, the Agency believed he was delusional or
fabricating the encounters ‘in an attempt to control [Mother] and maintain
his power over her.’ Of further concern was that Father’s unsubstantiated
allegations led the children and those in Mother’s support system to question
Mother’s mental health. The Agency stated that the children ‘have been
significantly impacted by the parents’ delusions and continue to suffer the
emotional impact even while separated from the parents.’ It concluded that
‘it is not safe for the children to return home to their parents until they are
able to consistently demonstrate that they are addressing their mental health
over a period of time.’

“D.   The Parents’ Psychological Evaluations

      “In June 2022, Mother and Father both completed psychological
evaluations. Mother was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, depressive
type with persecutory delusions, generalized anxiety disorder, personality
disorder, primarily dependent, paranoid, and borderline features. The

                                        8
evaluator concluded that Mother was ‘exhibiting delusions due to her fixed
beliefs which are contrary to evidence’ and that her ‘[b]eliefs are based on
information received from [Father] and via vague video and audio footage in
which multiple collateral reporters, to include police officers and hospital
staff, have been unable to depict [sic] such acts.’ Mother is ‘highly dependent
in her relationship’ with Father and put his needs ‘above those of hers and
her minor children.’ She also ‘expos[es] her children to frequent domestic
disputes and arguments,’ which ‘last[ ] for hours at a time,’ and ‘allow[s] her
children to witness her being restrained and boarded up to appease [Father’s]
fears of infidelity.’ The evaluator believed that Mother should enroll in an
inpatient, residential, or intensive day treatment program. It was also
‘highly recommended’ that she participate without Father ‘due to concerns of
ongoing domestic violence dynamics and potential for a shared psychotic
disorder.’
      “Father was diagnosed with a delusional disorder involving jealousy
and persecution, a severe major depressive disorder, an unspecified trauma-
related disorder, and antisocial personality traits. It was noted that, after he
returned home following modification of the restraining order in 2021, ‘there
have been multiple allegations of [Father’s] efforts to utilize power and
control tactics upon the family, including efforts to convince [Mother] of the
alleged sexual abuse, intruder, and escape delusions and including the
children in the reported response to these beliefs.’ In the evaluator’s opinion,
Father embraced ‘beliefs that are without substantiation, are absent of
supportive evidence, are highly implausible, and exceedingly resistant to
challenge.’
      “The evaluator continued, ‘Given the history of substantiated domestic
violence, as well as concerns over potential delusional behaviors and power

                                       9
and control dynamics, . . . the veracity of his claims and the explanation of
the motives for his actions has been repeatedly called into question.
[Father’s] flawed reasoning and possession of multiple firearms further cause
concern that his impaired perceptions can lead to disproportionate reactions,
potentially leading to use of the weapons.’ Furthermore, ‘[t]he most emergent
factor that resulted from [Father’s] evaluation is the presence of fixed false
beliefs related to the sexual indiscretions of his wife, the uninvited intrusion
by unknown individuals [in]to the family home, hypervigilance and paranoid
ideation about the safety and security of the home, and the unfortunate
drawing in of his two eldest children [in]to the delusional beliefs and their
respective efforts to address their [F]ather’s misguided concerns.’ Father
‘struggles to appreciate the severity of his actions as abusive or neglectful
toward his children.’
       “The evaluator recommended that Father engage in cognitive-
behavioral therapy, metacognitive training, and pharmacological
interventions to address his delusional disorder. A referral to a domestic
violence offender’s group was recommended ‘[d]ue to the dynamics of power
and control in the relationship, documented by previous domestic violence,
issues of limiting [Mother’s] access to her family, telephone, and periods in
which she had been physically restrained, handcuffed, placed in a
straightjacket, and/or confined and barricaded in a locked room, unfounded
and delusional accusations of infidelity without justification, and introduction
of the dynamic to their children, resulting in their internalization of Father’s
beliefs[.]’

“E.    The Contested Hearing

       “In July 2022, the court held a contested jurisdictional and
dispositional hearing where the Agency’s reports and the parents’

                                       10
psychological evaluations were entered into evidence. The Agency’s
recommendations were supported by testimony from the social worker.
Father testified about the services he was receiving and his relationship with
the children. He also confirmed that he administered Mother’s medication
and drove her to appointments. He maintained that strangers were coming
into his house at night to have sexual encounters with Mother, and that the
strangers followed them when they moved to different hotels and to paternal
grandparents’ home.
      “At the hearing, the Agency argued that no progress had been made
since the children were detained, pointing out that Father still believed
Mother was escaping at night and that she could not care for herself without
his management and assistance. The Agency agreed with a psychologist who
evaluated Father and concluded that his false beliefs and behavior posed a
risk to the children. Minors’ counsel recognized that a bond exists between
Father and the children, but also noted that it led the children to share in
Father’s delusions. She joined the Agency, agreed with the evaluator that
Father posed a risk of harm to the children, and requested that they be
removed from parents.
      “Counsel for each parent argued that the court should not take
jurisdiction, but that if it did both parents should have unsupervised visits.
Although Father’s counsel acknowledged there was ‘obviously something
occurring in this household,’ he asserted that the children had never been
harmed physically and that Father’s behavior was that of a concerned father
and husband. He did not address the evaluator’s finding that Father’s beliefs
were delusional, but instead maintained that Mother’s mental health issues
justified Father’s actions and beliefs.

                                          11
      “Prior to its ruling, the court asked Father’s attorney to comment on
Father’s psychological evaluation because it was the ‘only professional
opinion as to [Father’s] mental health status.’ Only then did counsel concede
‘there does seem to be an embracing of beliefs that don’t seem to be
substantiated.’ But the lawyer insisted that ‘Father did not ask the children
to become involved in this’ instead, ‘they wanted to help.’ He also stated that
the evaluator did not ‘believe the children’s lives are in danger or the children
would be physically harmed’ by Father.
      “The court recognized ‘there is something going in that household’ that
‘creates a danger and a risk’ and acknowledged the children have become a
part of it. At the same time, however, it noted ‘a jumble of confusion’ as to
‘what is the reality in this case.’ The court ultimately found that
notwithstanding this state of confusion, there was a preponderance of the
evidence to sustain the petition under section 300, but not clear and
convincing evidence to remove the children from both parents’ care as is
required by section 361.
      “As a result, the court sustained the petition, made a true finding by
preponderance of the evidence, and declared the children dependents of the
court. The children were removed from Mother’s care and placed with Father
on condition that he live with the maternal grandparents. . . . .” (In re I.D.
(Feb. 28, 2023, D080675) [nonpub. opn.] (In re I.D. I).) Mother appealed.

F.    Progress During Appeal

      We now pick up where the story in the prior appeal ended. Mother was
arrested in September 2022 after Father said Mother used her left knee to hit
him in the groin area when she was at the grandparents’ home. Father
obtained a restraining order that allowed “for brief and peaceful contact and

                                       12
to only communicate about the children for court-ordered visitation.”
However, it also allowed Father to take Mother to her appointments.
      Law enforcement was called to the grandparents’ home again in
October 2022. Father reported that while Mother was having a manic
episode, she pulled Father’s pants down, punched him on the back several
times, called him names, and used foul language. Two of the children
witnessed the altercation, but were not interviewed.
      Before a visit in November 2022, Mother reportedly secretly took a pill
bottle and impulsively consumed all the pills. When she became unstable
and passed out, Father called paramedics who placed her on a psychiatric
hold and transported her to the hospital. She did not sign a release of
information to allow the hospital to share the records of this admission with
the Agency. Mother continued to keep her medications at the grandparents’
home in a locked safe.
      Because of continued violent incidents between the parents during
visits, the social worker asked Father to leave the home during the visits.
However, he remained nearby because he said his children “do not feel safe
when he is not home.”
      For a hearing in January 2023, the Agency provided a status review
report recommending continued jurisdiction over the children and that they
remain with Father in the grandparents’ home. The Agency also
recommended that both parents sign releases of information for all service
providers.
      Father was “willing to participate in therapeutic services but [was] very
guarded about his treatment.” The Agency said he “continued to show signs
of being overly controlling” of Mother and was resistant to suggestions that
she needed independence.

                                      13
      Father said several times that he would sign releases of information to
allow the Agency to obtain information from mental health providers, but he
never signed them. Father told the social worker he had shared everything
with his attorney who wanted to be “very ‘selective’ on what is shared with
the Court/Agency.” Father denied having a delusional disorder or antisocial
personality traits. He said his treatment program diagnosed him with
depression and anxiety and that he was taking medication for those issues.
      The Agency was unable to confirm his therapeutic progress. The
medical director of Father’s treatment program told the social worker that
there was “no clinical movement” with Father. He continued to deny any
domestic violence or issues within his family. The director said Father and
the children were “very guarded.” She said Father was “documented to have
a personality disorder.” When the social worker informed Father of the
director’s comments, he said this was new information to him. He
commented that he did not know why the director spoke with the social
worker because he had not signed a release of information.
      Mother had limited contact with the social worker because she still did
not have a cell phone and was “only reachable when she is around father.”
Mother remained homeless but stayed close to the maternal grandparents’
home. She declined offers to go to a shelter or residential treatment program
because she did not “ ‘trust herself’ ” in a setting with men and women.
      The children said they do not “feel safe” when Father is not home.
The youngest child said Mother does not live with the family and goes to the
hospital because her “ ‘head is not right’ ” sometimes. The oldest child
reported that things were “ ‘boring’ ” at home because there had not been any
incidents recently. A therapist for one of the children reported there were
“many complex family dynamics that are concerning” including the fact that

                                      14
the children seem to think the situation is “normal” and Father is protecting
them from their mother.
      Father wanted to move out of the maternal grandparents’ home and
relocate the family out of state. The children wanted to remain with Father
and did not think the Agency needed to be involved any longer.
      The Agency recommended continued monitoring the family due to
“ongoing concerns for the parent’s mental health and safety.” The Agency
remained “concerned with the parents[’] mental health and resistance to
allowing the Agency to receive information about their treatment and
progress.”
      The juvenile court continued jurisdiction and ordered the parents to
sign releases of information for any services provided in accordance with the
case plans so the Agency could assess progress sufficiently.

G.    Decision on Mother’s Prior Appeal

      In February 2023, we reversed the juvenile court’s dispositional order
for lack of substantial evidence. We concluded there was no evidence
supporting Father’s claims that Mother engaged in risky behaviors, required
restraints to keep her safe, and escaped her physical restraints and returned
to captivity before the family awoke or that intruders entered the home
undetected or stalked the family. However, Father persisted with delusions
that these events occurred and convinced Mother and the children of the
truth of these “fixed false beliefs.” There was undisputed evidence that the
children suffered emotional harm because of either Father’s “fixed false”
beliefs or from a family dynamic that is “historically rife with domestic
violence.” Therefore, we concluded “any reasonable judge applying a clear
and convincing evidence standard would necessarily conclude that returning
the children to Father’s custody posed a substantial risk to their well-being.”

                                       15
      We were concerned that an order requiring Father to live in the home
of maternal grandparents did not “address Father’s multiple mental health
diagnoses, or . . . keep the children safe from ‘adopting and acting on’ his
‘delusional belief system.’ ” Because there was overwhelming evidence that
Father represented a substantial risk to the children, we reversed the order
and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
We recognized that on remand, the juvenile court was required to base its
decision on facts existing at the time of the further proceedings.

H.    Special Proceedings Following Remittitur

      After receiving the remittitur with our decision, the juvenile court
ordered the Agency to prepare a report with updated information regarding
potential dispositional options. Father obtained new counsel.
      The Agency submitted an addendum report in June 2023, but made no
new recommendations. Father was participating in weekly individual
therapy and was taking a medication used to treat depression and anxiety.
The children also received therapy.
      Mother was still homeless and the Agency reported she had
“concerning mental health concerns.” She was arrested in April 2023 and
served time in jail for violating the restraining order. Mother did not want to
leave her parents’ home after a visit because she did not know where to go.
She again tested positive for fentanyl, but again did not recall using any
drugs. She said she continued to have “episodes” where she blacks out and
cannot remember anything.
      The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for the minors
expressed concerns to the Agency in May 2023 after he had a conversation
with the director of the clinic where Father and the children received

                                       16
therapy.2 The children were guarded, which the medical director thought
was a protective mechanism that allowed them to cope with the trauma and
emotional abuse they had endured. The director told the CASA that the
providers had “concerns for the children’s safety while with the father in the
maternal grandparents[’] home.” Although the director could not give
concrete examples of how the children were unsafe, she said Father is very
“controlling and manipulative.” The director referred to Father’s
psychological evaluation several times saying, “ ‘Just read the psych
evaluation and you would understand.’ ”
      The medical director also spoke to the social worker. She did not allow
the social worker to speak directly to the family’s individual therapists, but
confirmed the dates of service. The medical director confirmed Mother was
discharged from treatment because she achieved all her treatment goals and
objectives. When the social worker questioned how that was possible if
Mother continues to have untreated severe mental illness, the director
responded, “ ‘What is her mental illness[?]’ ”
      When the social worker asked if there were concerns about the safety of
the children in Father’s home, the director said, “ ‘No concerns.’ ” The social
worker followed up to ask why she expressed concern about the children’s
safety to the CASA. The director responded, “ ‘Have you read the
psychological evaluations?’ ”
      The social worker pressed the director for an update since the
psychological evaluation. The director said, “ ‘The therapist[s] report the
children have a history of trauma and there is a lot of resistance from them.
The only concerns we mostly have is the partner conflict between the parents.

2    Father and the children attended therapy at a clinic that is not an
approved provider through TERM.

                                       17
The children do not report feeling unsafe with their father.’ ” When asked if
they had documentation or concerns that Father continued to have delusional
thoughts, the director said, “ ‘No just grandiosity.’ ” Since Father denied
delusional thoughts, the primary clinical concern was partner conflict. The
director thought Mother and the children would benefit from family therapy
along with the grandparents.
      Father told the social worker he would like to continue therapy for
himself and the children when the case closes. The children reported feeling
safe around Father.
      The Agency’s addendum report concluded that Father “has addressed
his mental health concerns by engaging in medication management and
ongoing individual therapy. There [have] been no reports of him having
delusional thoughts or paranoia. The [F]ather’s therapist recognizes progress
within the [F]ather’s mental health and denied any clinical symptoms of
delusional thoughts.”
      Mother reportedly “continues to have untreated mental health which
makes her ‘blackout’ and she is unaware of who she is with or what she is
doing during those times. The [M]other claims that she is unsure how she is
testing positive for drugs and reports that she feels scared that these
‘episodes’ continue to happen.” The Agency said Mother continued to refuse
to receive help from a co-ed facility. It also did not have a direct way to
contact Mother. The addendum report concluded by saying, “It is evident
that this case continues to have many complicating factors and the family has
been greatly impacted from untreated mental health. But ultimately, the
children report that they feel safest when their father is around and they are
aware of their mother’s mental health.”

                                       18
      The court held a special hearing on June 22, 2023 to consider
dispositional options. The Agency did not recommend removal of the children
from Father based on how the case stood at the time. The Agency’s said
there was not clear and convincing evidence of risk to the children if the court
continued to place them with Father, on the condition he continued to live
with the maternal grandparents. Counsel for both Mother and Father
submitted on the Agency’s recommendation.
      Minors’ counsel also submitted on the placement recommendation
because the children had been placed with Father for almost a year without
significant concerns. Minors’ counsel expressed concerns about the
appropriateness of the therapeutic services provided to the family, but
indicated that was an issue for the family maintenance review.
      The court commented that Father “is addressing his mental health
issues. He is in therapy and on medication. And the children feel safe” in
Father’s home. Based on this information, the court found “there is not clear
and convincing evidence to remove the child[ren] from the Father.” The court
determined the placement of the children with Father was appropriate on the
conditions that he and the children remain with the grandparents and that
Father continues to comply with the case plan, including remaining on
medication and engaging in therapy.

I.    Family Maintenance Review

      The following month, in a July 2023 status review report, the Agency
recommended the children remain with Father and that the court terminate
jurisdiction.
      Father reportedly communicated with the Agency during the review
period, participated in weekly individual therapy, and took medication as
directed. He called the police to the family home several times during the

                                      19
review period with allegations that Mother violated the protective order by
refusing to leave or coming to the home outside of visitation times. On some
occasions, Mother refused to leave the home after a visit with the children or
she was found on the property or sitting outside the home. On one occasion,
the caller said people were sleeping in a car outside the home and they
suspected it was Mother. However, she was not identified in the car. The
report also indicated the police were called in May 2023, because “the mother
was believed to be in the home the night before with another individual.”
      Father told a social worker he wanted to divorce Mother because her
mental health concerns were not being met and he felt she was a safety risk
to the children. He wanted to relocate to a different state when the case was
closed. He said he wanted to start over and live independently with his
children in a more affordable location.
      The report again summarized the conversation the social worker had
with the medical director of the clinic where Father received therapy.
Because the director reported that Father denied having delusional thoughts,
the report concluded the primary concern was with “partner conflict.”
      The Agency stated Mother had inconsistent communication during the
review period because she remained homeless and did not have access to her
own cell phone. Mother was unsure of her mental health diagnosis since she
received several throughout her various hospital stays. She was not
connected to any outpatient mental health program. She was discharged
from the program where Father and the children attend therapy after she
met her case objectives.
      The children reported feeling safest when their father was around and
said he is very honest and trustworthy. The older children were “more aware
of the mother’s mental health needs.” They said they loved her, but at times

                                      20
she was not well and caused problems for the family. They expressed a
desire to move out of their grandparents’ home and to move to a different
state.
         The Agency reported Mother made no progress in her therapeutic
treatment case plan. Although the social worker confirmed that Mother was
discharged from a program after she met her therapeutic goals, the social
worker noted she had gone to the emergency room and hospital several times
during the review period for medication adjustments or suicidal ideations.
The Agency acknowledged Mother made some progress with individual
therapy because she was discharged after meeting therapeutic goals.
However, Mother reported she did not feel as though she should have been
discharged from the program and felt discouraged that she was unable to
receive treatment for her mental health. The Agency assessed that Mother
made no progress in substance abuse testing because she does not have a
phone for the Agency to call to ask her to randomly drug test. She did not
know how she tested positive for fentanyl in April 2023 because she did not
remember taking the drug. Mother wanted to continue to work on stabilizing
her mental health and rebuilding her relationship with her children and
Father.
         The Agency reported that Father made progress in his case plan. The
case plan recommended pharmacological treatment to alleviate symptoms
associated with delusional disorder. Father denied having a delusional
disorder, but reported he was taking medication for depression and anxiety
along with sleeping medication. He said he attended regular therapy
sessions and had made progress. Father said he wanted to continue with
therapy for himself and the children after the case was closed. But he
wanted to move out of the grandparents’ home and out of state.

                                       21
      The status report concluded that Father was attentive to the needs of
the children. He had not displayed delusional thoughts or behaviors during
the review period and reported taking medication regularly. The Agency
indicated Father “has become less guarded and more willing to share about
his own mental health and needs for his children.” It believed Father had
“gained insight” into the importance of protecting the children from
untreated mental health issues. The Agency hoped Father would continue to
receive mental health treatment for himself and the children and protect
them from further domestic violence.
      The Agency was concerned that Mother “has been unable to stabilize
her mental health” and that she reported episodes of “blacking out” where
she did not remember using drugs or engaging in unwanted sexual
encounters. It reported she was “unwilling to have a phone where service
providers can contact her” and she was not willing to receive referrals and
assistance. It hoped she would seek out “intensive mental health treatment
for herself.” The Agency recommended termination of jurisdiction with exit
orders providing Father with full legal custody of the children.
      The CASA reported that the therapy director and the therapy staff
believed there were serious emotional and mental health concerns within the
family and that everyone in the family needed to be in therapy, including the
maternal grandparents. The CASA expressed hope that the Agency would
provide additional support and resources for the family.
      At the scheduled family maintenance review hearing, minors’ counsel,
acting as the minors’ guardian ad litem, requested a document trial to
address whether to terminate jurisdiction or keep the dependency case open.
      The contested hearing proceeded on July 27, 2023. The court received
into evidence the substantive Agency reports as well as our opinion from the

                                       22
prior appeal. The Agency argued in favor of terminating jurisdiction. Father
and Mother joined.
      Minor’s counsel, as guardian ad litem, asked the court to keep the case
open for an additional six months. Counsel noted that Father had
participated in services, but there were not a lot of substantive updates about
his progress. He selected his own therapeutic provider and wanted to control
the flow of information to the court. Counsel recognized that Father made
some progress, but believed there was still an issue about whether he
understood the severity of the issues at the beginning of the case. Counsel
pointed out that while the children never reported feeling unsafe with
Father, some of the issues identified in the psychological evaluation included
a “shared belief system” and “enmeshment between the father and the
children and the shared belief systems.” Minors’ counsel argued the court
should retain jurisdiction to supervise any move outside of the safety
mechanism of living with the grandparents. She also recommended the court
order therapy through the County’s TERM mental health program or,
alternatively, try to get more concrete information from the existing provider.
      Before making its ruling, the court explained it was required to decide
by a preponderance of the evidence whether the conditions that justified
assumption of jurisdiction still existed. The court observed that Father was
engaged in therapy and appeared to meet the needs of the children in the
current setting. But it expressed concern that it did not have substantial
updates about the therapeutic progress of the family, noting how the children
had suffered extensive trauma.
      The court noted a comment in the recent report indicating the police
were called in May 2023 because “Mother was believed to be in the house the
night before with another individual.” Although there was only limited

                                      23
information about this incident, the judge thought it “raises concerns” about
whether this was a delusion.
      Ultimately, the court determined that minors’ counsel met her burden
of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions that
justified the assumption of jurisdiction continued to exist or are likely to
recur if supervision of the dependency court was withdrawn. It decided to
maintain jurisdiction for six months and ordered the children placed with
Father. At the same time, however, it vacated the condition that the children
reside with Father in the grandparents’ home.
      The court did not believe there was an issue of lack of services, but a
lack of information about the services the family received. It ordered
continued family maintenance services and authorized the Agency to refer
Father and the children to TERM therapy. Mother appealed the order.

                                 DISCUSSION

A.    The Proceedings After Remand

      Before we address the merits of Mother’s appeal, we mention the
somewhat unusual posture of the case. As stated, we previously reversed the
dispositional order placing the children with Father after concluding “any
reasonable judge applying a clear and convincing evidence standard would
necessarily conclude that returning he children to Father’s custody posed a
substantial risk to their well-being.” We remanded for further proceedings
consistent with our opinion. (In re I.D. I, supra.) Yet, after remand, the
juvenile court determined that placement of the children with Father was
appropriate on the condition that they live with maternal grandparents and
that he complies with his case plan.
      Ordinarily, “[w]hen there has been a Decision upon appeal, the trial
court is reinvested with jurisdiction of the cause, but only such jurisdiction as

                                       24
is defined by the terms of the remittitur. The trial court is empowered to act
only in accordance with the direction of the reviewing court; action which
does not conform to those directions is void.” (Hampton v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655.) “Where a reviewing
court has remanded a matter to the trial court with directions ‘. . . the trial
court . . . is bound to specifically carry out the instructions of the reviewing
court . . . . [Any] material variance from the explicit directions of the
reviewing court is unauthorized and void.’ ” (Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Fielder
(1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 990, 998.) To determine if any variance in the
execution of an appellate ruling is “material,” the appellate court’s order
must “ ‘be read in conjunction with the appellate opinion as a whole’ ” and
“the order considered in the framework of the statutory scheme to which it
relates.” (In re Candace P. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.)
      In the dependency context, the statutory scheme “exists to protect
children from abusive parents, but it also gives parents who have made
mistakes a second chance to raise their children.” (In re Ryan K. (2012) 207
Cal.App.4th 591, 597.) It requires the juvenile court to “undertake ‘recurrent
reviews of the status of parent and child.’ ” (Ibid.) And the scheme permits
the juvenile court to adjust its determinations even while an appeal is
pending. (Ibid.) Therefore, “ ‘when an appellate court reverses a prior order
of the [juvenile] court on a record that may be ancient history to a dependent
child, the [juvenile] court must implement the final appellate directive in
view of the family’s current circumstances and any developments in the
dependency proceedings that may have occurred during the pendency of the
appeal.’ ” (Ibid.)
      In this case, we based our prior decision on the facts existing at the
time of the dispositional hearing, which we determined from the record on

                                        25
appeal. The juvenile court was required to make a new placement decision
on remand “based on the facts existing at the time of the further
proceedings.” (In re M.V. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 944, 971, fn. 9.)
      Here, the court set a special hearing and ordered the Agency to prepare
an updated report. According to the report, Father was participating in
weekly individual therapy and was taking medication as prescribed. The
children were also participating in therapy. Although the medical director
expressed generalized concerns based on Father’s psychological evaluations,
she did not articulate current safety concerns for the children while in
Father’s home. When asked if the therapists had documentation or concerns
that Father continued to experience delusional thoughts, the director said,
“ ‘No, just grandiosity.’ ” Father denied delusional thoughts, so the primary
concern was partner conflict.
      Since Father made progress with his mental health concerns “by
engaging in medication management and ongoing individual therapy” and
there were no reports of delusional thoughts or paranoia, the Agency did not
believe there was clear and convincing evidence of risk to the minors if they
were placed with Father on the condition that they live with the maternal
grandparents. Minors’ counsel submitted on the recommendation since the
children had been placed with Father for nearly a year “without significant
concerns.”
      After considering evidence of the current circumstances, the court
found there was not clear and convincing evidence to remove the children
from Father. Their current placement with Father was appropriate on the
conditions that they remained with the grandparents and that Father
continued to take medication and engage in therapy.

                                      26
      The record regarding Father’s progress during the prior appeal is not
as fulsome as we would hope, perhaps due to limitations Father placed on the
flow of information to the Agency. Under the circumstances, however, we
cannot conclude the disposition order on remand materially varied from our
decision. We directed the court to conduct further proceedings consistent
with our opinion. The court complied with that direction and determined the
placement conditions were appropriate based on current circumstances.

B.    Substantial Evidence Supported Continued Jurisdiction

      Mother contends the court erred in continuing jurisdiction over the
children at the family maintenance review hearing. She specifically contends
there was not substantial evidence showing the conditions which caused the
assumption of jurisdiction continued to exist or were likely to recur if
jurisdiction was withdrawn. Although the Agency recommended termination
of jurisdiction in the proceedings below, it now agrees with the court’s order
and contends substantial evidence supports continuing jurisdiction.
      The purpose of juvenile dependency statutes is to provide maximum
safety and protection for children who are currently being physically,
sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the
safety, protection, and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of
such harm. (§ 300.2, subd. (a).) “When the juvenile court takes jurisdiction
over a child at the disposition hearing but does not remove the child from the
custody of the previously custodial parent, section 364 governs review
hearings. (§ 364, subd. (a).)” (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 110.) The
court reviews the matter every six months to determine whether “continued
supervision is necessary.” (§ 364, subds. (a), (c).)
      “At a section 364 hearing, ‘the court shall determine whether continued
supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless

                                        27
[the Agency] establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions
still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction . . . or that
those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn.’ (§ 364, subd.
(c).) Thus, ‘[w]here . . . the [Agency] recommends termination of jurisdiction,
termination will be the “default result” unless either the parent, the
guardian, or the child objects and establishes by a preponderance of the
evidence that conditions justifying retention of jurisdiction exist or are likely
to exist if supervision is withdrawn.’ ” (In re J.M., supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 110–111 quoting In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1163.)
      The court here found minor’s counsel met the burden of establishing by
a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions justifying the court’s
jurisdiction continued to exist. We review the court’s evidentiary findings
under section 364 for substantial evidence. (In re D.B. (2015) 239

Cal.App.4th 1073, 1086; In re N.S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172.)3
      We conclude there is ample substantial evidence to support the juvenile
court’s order continuing jurisdiction. The issues that brought the family
within the jurisdiction of the court included concerns about the mental health
of both parents and parental conflicts that posed a risk to the children’s

3     Mother cites In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863 for the
proposition that we should apply the abuse of discretion standard of review
for an order regarding terminating jurisdiction. The issue in that case
involved the juvenile court’s exit orders regarding custody and visitation,
which accompanied an order terminating jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 863–864.)
The appellate court actually determined there was no substantial evidence to
support the juvenile court’s factual finding that the conditions which justified
the original no longer existed as to the father. Since was no evidence the
father ever received treatment to address his sexually inappropriate behavior
toward children or that his history no longer posed a risk to his child, the
appellate court found the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding sole
permanent custody of the child to the father. (Id. at pp. 863–864.)

                                        28
physical and emotional wellbeing. Although it appears the family has made
some progress, the record is incomplete and does not demonstrate the
jurisdictional issues are resolved.
      Although Father reportedly participated in therapeutic services and
took medication, he did so through a provider he selected. He did not sign
releases of information to allow the provider to share the details of his
progress or that of the children with the Agency. This hindered the ability of
the Agency and the court to assess their progress and compliance with the
case plan. Father continued to manifest a desire to control the information
shared with the Agency and the court. Interestingly, he reportedly became
more open with the Agency after the issuance of our prior opinion.
      The fact that the children report feeling safe in Father’s care is a good
thing. However, the director for the private therapy program reported the
children still had extensive trauma despite engaging in therapy and they
were resistant and avoidant at times. She expressed ongoing concern about
partner conflict between the parents and recommended family therapy for
Mother, children, and the grandparents.
      The director’s concerns about the children’s trauma were reinforced by
the social worker’s interviews. The children felt it was normal for Father to
protect them from Mother. One child expressed continued anger toward
Mother and blamed her for the dependency case. Another child indicated
home was “boring” when incidents that brought them into protective custody
did not occur. The children’s apparent unresolved trauma justifies continued
jurisdiction of the court.
      Additionally, although Father obtained a restraining order against
Mother, the order still allowed the parents to have contact, which raised
concerns about ongoing parental conflicts. Additionally, police were called on

                                       29
several occasions because Mother stayed near the home despite the
restraining order.
        Whether Father still controls Mother’s medication administration is
unclear, but her medication was still kept at the grandparents’ home where
the children reside. Even with this measure, Mother reportedly overdosed on
medication while the family was present. She also again tested positive for
fentanyl without recalling that she took the controlled substance.
        Father resisted the social worker’s suggestion that Mother should
achieve independence from him. Mother still did not have access to a cell
phone when she was not with Father, which hampered the ability of the
Agency to maintain contact in order to assess her progress on drug testing or
other issues. It is entirely appropriate and reasonable for the juvenile court
to retain jurisdiction to monitor the apparently ongoing and concerning
power dynamic between the parents, which continues to place the children at
risk.
        Furthermore, without corroborating information about the parents’
mental health progress, there remain significant concerns about the
emotional and perhaps physical trauma the minor children may continue to
suffer because of the chaotic family dynamic. As the juvenile court noted, a
recent status report indicated police were called to investigate suspicions that
Mother and another individual entered the grandparents’ home during the
night. It is unclear whether this was reality or a delusional belief.
Continued jurisdiction to allow the Agency and the court to attempt to access
current mental health information about the parents and the children is
eminently reasonable. We can only hope the family is taking advantage of
the TERM referrals to not only address their mental health needs, but to
allow the Agency and the court to evaluate their progress.

                                       30
      The court’s decision to remove the condition that the family live with
the maternal grandparents while under the continued jurisdiction of the
court was well within its discretion. It is prudent for the court to maintain
supervision over the family during this period of transition so the Agency and
the court may evaluate the safety of the children without that layer of
protection.
      There was substantial evidence that the children remain at risk due to
the original issues that brought them within the court’s jurisdiction. For this
reason, the juvenile court appropriately continued jurisdiction.

                                DISPOSITION

      The order is affirmed.

                                                                      DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                      31