Court Opinion

ID: 9384722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 19:02:37.177765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.043577
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/4/23 In re A.L. CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                       (Nevada)
                                                            ----

 In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court                                          C096442
 Law.

 NEVADA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL                                                  (Super. Ct. No. J09612)
 SERVICES,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 C.M.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         C.M. (mother) appeals from juvenile court orders terminating dependency
jurisdiction and awarding custody of the minor to the father with no visitation for mother.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 364, 395.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding
her offer of proof insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we
will affirm the juvenile court orders.

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

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       Prior to these dependency proceedings, child protective services in three counties
received 64 referrals involving the minor. The Nevada County Department of Social
Services/Child Welfare Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of
the then six-year-old minor, alleging that the parents have a history of engaging in
domestic violence in the minor’s presence, father failed to protect the minor from
physical abuse while in the care of mother and her husband, and mother failed to protect
the minor from threats and physical abuse inflicted by her husband. The juvenile court
sustained the petition under section 300, subdivision (c) (serious emotional damage)
based on the threats and domestic violence occurring in the minor’s presence, adjudged
the minor a dependent, and removed the minor from parental custody.
       The minor was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
treatment goals were to stabilize her emotional and behavioral functioning. She had
sexualized, destructive, and aggressive behaviors. Both parents were diagnosed with
PTSD features with delayed expression and a history of reactive attachment disorder.
Mother was also diagnosed with a moderate cannabis use disorder, and unspecified
personality disorder with borderline personality traits.
       Mother participated in reunification services but struggled to benefit from some of
the programs. Some aspects of her supervised visits were positive; for example, mother
and the minor played games and mother provided positive affirmation for the minor’s
good behavior, but when the minor acted out, mother required assistance in gaining
control and setting boundaries to help the child remain calm and safe.
       The minor was provided wraparound therapy services, neurofeedback treatment
with Dr. Finnick, and psychiatric treatment with Dr. Foster. The minor shared stories of
abuse at the hands of mother’s husband, resulting in the minor’s continued nightmares
and flashbacks. Dr. Foster reported the minor’s behavioral difficulties were worse after
visits or phone calls with mother. Dr. Foster concluded that visits with mother were

                                              2
detrimental to the minor and recommended a six-month suspension of such visits to help
the minor develop a sense of safety and regulate her mental health. Dr. Finnick agreed
with this assessment.
       Visitation between mother and the minor was suspended temporarily in August
2021. Dr. Foster reported that initially, the minor had been behaviorally, emotionally,
and cognitively disorganized; frightened, angry, aggressive, and hypersexualized; and
that she initially displayed distractibility, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. But with
placement outside mother’s custody, along with play therapy, bio-neurofeedback therapy,
and increased contact with her father, she had begun to stabilize. The minor’s behaviors
improved significantly over the next few weeks following temporary suspension of visits
with mother. Father had substantially and adequately participated in services, and in
September 2021, the minor transitioned to living in father’s home. Visits with mother
were reintroduced in October 2021 as therapeutic visits until such time as the minor’s
therapist indicated that was no longer warranted.
       In February 2022, the minor was doing well in father’s home but still having only
therapeutic visits with mother. Dr. Finnick found that some of the minor’s difficulties
coincided with a return from maternal visitation and the correlation d id not appear
coincidental as it occurred regularly. The minor’s behavior pattern suggested her visits
with mother were triggering emotional trauma. Dr. Foster noted the minor dramatically
regressed after resuming visits with her mother in October 2021. Father also reported an
increase in behavioral problems after visits with mother.
       In the Department’s April 2022 status review report, it reported that mother was in
family reunification with her other children in Sutter County and she was residing with
her husband. She declined mental health services and did not show growth or change in
her co-parenting practices, but she attended her weekly counseling, and her counselor
reported her PTSD to be in remission and her mood stable. She also attended weekly
therapeutic visits with the minor. On some occasions the minor would express that she

                                              3
did not want to leave her mother and wanted to go home with her, but the minor had also
refused to attend half of the visits between February and April 2022. The minor would
avoid sleep, have nightmares, and need to co-sleep with a family member after visits.
The social worker believed that if contact with mother were to continue, medication
would be necessary to manage the minor’s behavior. The minor had regressed and not
met her treatment goals. The Department recommended termination of dependency, with
sole legal and physical custody to father and no visitation for mother. At the April 21,
2022 section 364 review hearing, mother objected to this recommendation and asked
the juvenile court to schedule a contested hearing. The juvenile court continued the
section 364 review hearing to permit mother’s counsel to provide an offer of proof in
support of her request for an evidentiary hearing. The juvenile court suggested it might
be helpful, but not required, to make the offer of proof in writing.
       Mother’s counsel filed a written motion in limine seeking to exclude the report
and testimony of Dr. Foster. At the continued hearing, the juvenile court denied mother’s
request for a further continuance based on late receipt of addendum reports. Mother’s
counsel then made a verbal offer of proof, which we describe in the discussion below.
The juvenile court found the offer of proof insufficient.
       The juvenile court dismissed the minor as a dependent of the juvenile court and
granted sole physical and legal custody to father. It ordered mother’s visitation
suspended to “give [the minor] a chance to recover from past trauma inflicted in
[mother’s] custody.” The juvenile court further ordered that before returning to family
court to seek visitation, there must be a change in circumstances with respect to the
minor’s recovery process and mother must continue to participate in treatment.
                                      DISCUSSION
       The parties agree the juvenile court acted within its authority when it required
mother to make an offer of proof before it scheduled an evidentiary hearing. But mother
contends she made an adequate showing to warrant a contested evidentiary hearing.

                                              4
       Section 364, subdivisions (a) and (c) require the juvenile court to conduct a review
hearing at least every six months for a dependent child who has not been removed from
the physical custody of his or her parent, to consider evidence presented as to whether
continued juvenile court supervision is necessary. (§ 364, subd. (c); In re Elaine E.
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 809, 814.) “The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the
social worker or his or her department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that
the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under
Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn.”
(§ 364, subd. (c); see In re Shannon M. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 282, 290-291
[section 364, subdivision (c) establishes a “statutory presumption in favor of terminating
jurisdiction and returning the children to the parents’ care without court supervision”].)
       The juvenile court makes its determination based on the totality of the evidence
before it. (In re Armando L. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 606, 615.) If the juvenile court
terminates its jurisdiction, section 362.4 authorizes the issuance of a custody and
visitation order (commonly referred to as an exit order) that will become part of the
relevant family law file and remain in effect in the family law action “until modified or
terminated by a subsequent order.” (In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513; see
§ 362.4, subdivision (b).) When making a custody determination under section 362.4,
“the court’s focus and primary consideration must always be the best interests of the
child.” (In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 268; accord, In re Chantal S.
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 206.)
       An offer of proof may be required before granting a full evidentiary hearing at this
stage of the proceedings. Courts have recognized that “ ‘[d]ifferent levels of due process
protection apply at different stages of dependency proceedings.’ ” (In re A.B. (2014)
230 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1436.) Requiring an offer of proof is acceptable when, as here, a
parent is not facing termination of parental rights. (Id. at pp. 1436-1437; see also In re
T.S., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 517.)

                                              5
       “A proper offer of proof gives the trial court an opportunity to determine if, in
fact, there really is a contested issue of fact. The offer of proof must be specific, setting
forth the actual evidence to be produced, not merely the facts or issues to be addressed
and argued.” (In re Tamika T. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1124; see People v. Schmies
(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 38, 53 (Schmies).) It must consist of material that is admissible
and must make known the substance, purpose, and relevance of the evidence. (Evid.
Code, § 354, subd. (a); Semsch v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1985)
171 Cal.App.3d 162, 167 (Semsch).) “The substance of evidence to be set forth in a valid
offer of proof means the testimony of specific witnesses, writings, material objects, or
other things presented to the senses.” (United Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Reeder Dev. Corp.
(1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 282, 294.)
       Mother objected to the Department’s recommendations to grant father sole
custody and to deny mother visitation, and she requested a contested hearing on those
issues. In that context, her offer of proof had to establish that there were contested facts
relating to the propriety of granting sole custody to father and denying visitation to
mother. She had to describe the specific admissible evidence that she would produce,
along with its purpose and relevance.
       Mother’s counsel indicated they would subpoena therapy and therapeutic visit
notes. This identified general material to be presented, but it did not indicate the purpose
of the material or how the contents were relevant to a contested fact. Counsel also
indicated they would subpoena school records to show there was no improvement in the
minor’s behavior during the time visits were suspended. However, there was no showing
that the school records had already been obtained or what they actually established.
       Mother’s counsel added that she wanted to present evidence that mother’s other
children were returned to her custody, acknowledging that it might require her to file a
section 827 petition for access to confidential out-of-county records. But it is not clear
that the return of mother’s other children to her custody was a contested fact; the

                                              6
Department’s status report confirmed that she was in family reunification with those
children. Moreover, counsel did not explain how such evidence was available or
admissible. (See § 827; In re Gina S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1081-1082 [juvenile
court has exclusive authority to determine the extent to which confidential juvenile
records may be released, and controls the time, place, and manner of inspection].)
       In addition, mother’s counsel represented that she would present evidence that
mother had initiated an Individual Education Program (IEP) for the minor and was in
constant communication with the minor’s school to monitor the minor’s behavior and
progress. This information did not identify the specific evidence or witness to be
presented or the purpose of the evidence.
       Counsel further stated mother would show that her trauma had been addressed.
Counsel said mother had a report from a therapist and a psychological evaluation with an
assessment performed by a Dr. Whueler that differed from Dr. Foster’s assessment, and
she would be seeking testimony from her therapist. But the Dr. Whueler assessment was
not presented as part of the offer of proof, and there were no specifics offered as to how
the assessment was different and how the difference was relevant. There was no
description of the therapist’s anticipated testimony. A valid offer of proof for proposed
testimony must include the name of the witness and the content of the answer to be
elicited. (Evid. Code, § 354, subd. (a); Semsch, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at p. 167.)
       Mother’s offer of proof identified some issues and suggested the direction of her
intended argument, but it did not sufficiently identify actual evidence that would support
her request for a contested evidentiary hearing. (Schmies, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 53)
Moreover, mother’s focus on her own circumstances and progress in addressing her
trauma was only marginally relevant to the issues before the juvenile court. The juvenile
court was considering termination of dependency, custody, and visitation. The focus was
properly on the needs and best interests of the minor. In making its exit orders, the
juvenile court explained it was suspending mother’s visitation to give the minor a chance

                                             7
to recover from past trauma. Mother will have an opportunity in family court to seek
reinstatement of visitation based on a change in circumstances. (Fam. Code, § 217.)
Here, however, she has not established error.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

                                                      /S/
                                                   MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
MCADAM, J.*

* Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              8