Court Opinion

ID: 9892388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 18:04:34.869998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:19.886513
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/23/23 In re Christan R. 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      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Christan R. et al., Persons                               B317943
Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law.                                                            Los Angeles County Superior
______________________________                                  Court No. 21CCJP01020
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

A.T.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
     Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
       Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                        ____________________
       A mother claims insufficient evidence supports the decision
removing her two sons from her custody. She asks us to reverse
this order and to vacate the resulting custody orders. We affirm.
Statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
       The family has a lengthy history with the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services. The
current case began in March 2021, when the boys were eight and
nine. The case changed character after the juvenile court
declared the children dependents in June 2021. The Department
filed its subsequent petition in November 2021, and the children
were detained from the mother and released to the father then.
We focus on this latter part of the case.
       We review dispositional orders for substantial evidence.
We indulge reasonable inferences and resolve conflicts in favor of
the findings, examine the record in the light favorable to the
juvenile court’s determinations, and refrain from credibility
determinations. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633; In re V.L.
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154 (V.L.).) Because these orders
require clear and convincing evidence at the juvenile court, we
ask whether the record contains substantial evidence from which
a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that
the fact was true. (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 149, 154–
155.)
       Substantial evidence justified removal of these children
under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). A reasonable trier of fact
could have found it highly probable the children faced a

                                2
substantial danger to their emotional wellbeing if they returned
to their mother’s home and no reasonable means short of removal
could protect them. (See § 361, subd. (c)(1); V.L., supra, 54
Cal.App.5th at pp. 156–157.) The mother offers no argument
about reasonable alternatives to removal, so we focus on the
danger the children faced in their mother’s care.
       The mother has diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression,
anxiety, and paranoia. She acknowledged she was not taking her
psychotropic medication consistently, she had thrown away her
medication at one point because she felt she did not need it, and
she believed her conditions were “naturally controlled.” The boys
often observed their mother making funny faces and talking to
herself. A recent psychiatric assessment of the mother noted
symptoms of anxiety, depression, and mania.
       The mother experienced delusions, including a persistent
belief neighbors and others—including the boys’ toddler half-
sister—were trying to harm her children. She resorted to
bringing the boys into the bathroom while she showered to
ensure they were safe. She woke them up in the middle of the
night and took them outside when she thought someone was
knocking on the window and was trying to take them. The
facilitators of the mother’s mental health program were “very
worried” about her and her “ ‘deep fixed delusion’ ” about
intruders.
       The mother frequently contacted the Department, law
enforcement, and the child abuse hotline and made false reports
of abuse. The police department informed the mother she may
get “red flagged” due to all the false calls. The children then had
to answer for their mother’s behavior. The mother told them to
lie and forced them to go along with her stories. They felt

                                 3
compelled to lie to various authorities because they were afraid
their mother would get upset or hit them.
      The mother grew erratic, “very paranoid,” and aggressive
toward neighbors, social workers, and the boys’ father. She could
not control herself or follow instructions at hearings in the case.
      The record shows the mother’s condition greatly affected
the children.
      Her behavior scared them and made them uncomfortable.
The mother would grow angry or hit them when they disagreed
with her version of events. She reportedly used to hit them often,
sometimes for no reason. Others in the family’s transitional
home reported the mother yelled and hit the children on a daily
basis. Once she threw a cell phone at her older son and hit him
in the forehead.
      The children would shut down when asked about the
mother’s behavior. The older child was diagnosed with “reaction
to severe stress unspecified.” The younger child said he could not
take his mother’s abuse anymore. He wished that he could hit
her back sometimes or that he could have called his father to get
him. The boys cried almost daily at their mother’s home.
      The mother’s behavior affected the boys’ relationship with
other family members. She would not let them call their father
when they were with her. Yet she would call or message
persistently when they were with the father or at school. The
boys felt they had to hide their relationship with their half-sister
to avoid upsetting their mother.
      The boys’ therapist noticed they were happier, more open,
and not as scared after moving in with their father. The children
did not wish to be with their mother at all by the time of the
January 2022 disposition hearing.

                                 4
       On appeal, the mother concedes her conduct was “offensive”
and “highly inappropriate” at times, but she maintains this
conduct was directed toward others, not the children. The
evidence we have recounted above shows the mother’s behavior
was emotionally damaging to the children, regardless of where it
was aimed.
       The mother denied some of the events and denied any
emotional abuse. She also notes various mental health
professionals were not concerned about the children, and she
highlights other evidence favorable to her. This evidence and
these denials have no bearing in our substantial evidence review.
(See V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 154, 156, 157 [appellate
courts view the evidence favorably to the respondent and
disregard conflicting evidence].)
       The mother’s denials also signal she lacked insight into her
mental condition and a willingness or ability to change her
behavior. Shortly before the disposition hearing, the Department
noted the mother “has yet to take any responsibility for her
behavior and has failed to address her mental health issues.” “In
light of mother’s failure to recognize the risks to which she was
exposing the minor[s], there was no reason to believe the
conditions would not persist should [they] remain in her home.”
(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293.)
       The mother criticizes the juvenile court’s reliance on In re
Matthew C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 386. But the court relied on that
case in connection with its jurisdictional findings, which the
mother does not challenge on appeal.
       The mother leans heavily on In re H.E. (2008) 169
Cal.App.4th 710, a case that found removal warranted. That case

                                5
had different facts and does not render the disposition here
inappropriate.
                         DISPOSITION
      We affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional orders.

                                          WILEY, J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, Acting P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                                6