Court Opinion

ID: 9918871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 19:03:26.863197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:27.566357
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/16/24 In re I.S. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.S., a Person Coming                                     B327642
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              Super. Ct. No. 22LJJP00563A
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
         Plaintiff and Respondent,
         v.
S.B. et al.,
        Defendants and Appellants.
      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Debra L. Gonzales, Commissioner. Affirmed.
      Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.S.
      Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant S.B.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                  _____________________________
                             SUMMARY
       The juvenile court sustained jurisdictional allegations that
the parents of baby girl I.S. were incapable of providing regular
care for the baby without 24-hour assistance. The baby was born
prematurely, with medical conditions related to prematurity that
required special vigilance. Both parents have developmental
delays. In its dispositional orders, the court removed the baby
from custody of the parents and ordered reunification services,
including a regional center assessment to determine what
services and supports would be available to facilitate the parents’
reunification with I.S. The court ordered the parents’
participation in those services and supports once they were made
available.
       Mother appeals from the dispositional orders removing the
baby from the parents’ custody, and father challenges both the
court’s jurisdictional findings and the dispositional orders.
       We affirm the orders.
                          BACKGROUND
       I.S. was born prematurely in October 2022 and placed in
the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). She was diagnosed with
apnea of prematurity and related medical conditions, and
remained hospitalized until December 24, 2022. A week before
that, she had an apneic event during feeding and required
vigorous stimulation. (In an apneic event, the baby turns blue
and stops breathing.) Her last such event was on December 19
and required gentle stimulation to stabilize her vital signs.
       The baby’s NICU charge nurse (who was interviewed by a
social worker on December 19) said the hospital would not
discharge a baby unless the baby was no longer at risk for apnea
of prematurity, but “clarified that they cannot guarantee that

                                 2
this will not happen spontaneously at this time given the recent
episodes.” The nurse reported that babies tend to outgrow the
condition on their own “and that this usually happens at term,
about 36 weeks,” and I.S. was reported to be corrected at
37 weeks. However, the medical team was “in unanimous
agreement that they did not feel comfortable releasing the baby
to the care of the parents without 24-hour supervision in the
home.”
      The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) was alerted to the family’s
circumstances on December 12, 2022, by a caller who was
concerned about the baby’s upcoming discharge and the parents’
inability to absorb all the instruction necessary for the child’s
care. The baby had been weaned off oxygen, and had been
weaned off her feeding tube within the last 24 hours. The baby’s
primary nurse reported her main concerns involved I.S.’s feeding
and that the parents were not holding the baby properly or
responding to her cues. Father continually held the baby in a
manner restricting her air flow, and was not responsive to the
nurse’s redirection. The baby required feeding every four hours,
but the parents were reluctant to wake her if she was asleep.
The nurse reported it would be detrimental to the child’s safety to
go home with the parents “at the knowledge point that they are
at right now as basic feeding and holding the child [in
appropriate] manners are still not concepts that they have
grasped.”
      At a discharge conference on December 14, 2022, the
charge nurse reported that the volume of food the baby needed
was two or three times greater than mother was able to provide
during the parents’ feedings. One of the doctors reported that

                                 3
parents’ lack of understanding of the urgent need of response
during an apnea episode can lead to death.
      The Department filed the dependency petition on
December 20, 2022. On December 21, 2022, the juvenile court
made its detention findings, and both jurisdictional and
dispositional issues were set for hearing on February 15, 2023.
      When I.S. was discharged from the hospital on
December 24, 2022, she was placed with foster parents, who
received training (including a baby CPR video and guided feeding
sessions) at the hospital.
      The Department’s investigation preceding the detention
hearing revealed other pertinent facts. The parents have their
own mobile home where they have lived for many years, and the
home was appropriate and well-prepared for a baby. The parents
have a friend and neighbor across the street, a retired teacher,
who provides them with transportation and who will do anything
she can to support them so the family can remain together; she
planned to “take a shift” and be there to take care of the baby in
the afternoons. She takes a medication that makes her sleepy,
but was adamant that she would be there when the family
needed her. She has the means and time to help the parents as
much as possible.
      Mother is a client of a regional center. (Regional centers
provide assessments and services for Californians with
developmental disabilities.) The regional center worker on
mother’s case, Tynicia Coleman, reported that mother did not tell
the center about her pregnancy, apparently because she was
afraid the baby would be removed from her care.1 Ms. Coleman

1    In 2012, the parents in this case had another baby who was
removed because of their inability to provide care and

                                4
indicated mother would qualify for several programs providing
hands-on teaching and demonstrating. The Department’s risk
assessment concluded that, despite consultations with the
regional center and others in efforts to arrange 24/7 support, that
could not be done in the turnaround time required before the
baby’s discharge from the hospital.
        On January 20, 2023, the Department’s investigator
interviewed father, mother, Ms. Coleman, and others. Father
said the petition’s allegations were false; the parents did nothing
to hurt the baby and wanted a chance to show the Department
they can take care of I.S.; they know when the baby is hungry
and what to look out for; and he was holding the baby properly.
Father said the parents have changed a lot since 2012 (when
I.S.’s sibling was removed from their care; see fn. 1, ante). They
have a stable home and income, as well as support from the
neighbor, and they would accept the help of the regional center.
Mother reported she set an alarm on her phone so she could be
sure to feed the baby every four hours. Mother said she had
talked to Ms. Coleman, who told her “they are going to get me
some support here in the house.”
        Ms. Coleman told the investigator that if mother had told
her about the pregnancy, she would have had services and
supports set up before I.S. was born. At the time of the interview

supervision. Their parental rights were terminated, and the
child was adopted. Here, the Department’s dependency petition
alleged the facts supported jurisdiction under both Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect)
and subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling). Because of substantial
changes and improvements in the parents’ circumstances during
the intervening years, we focus only on the circumstances
relevant to their care of I.S.

                                 5
(January 20, 2023), Ms. Coleman was “still working on getting
[mother] an updated Regional Center Assessment”; she was
resolving an issue with the location of mother’s file “so we can get
her assessed to see what she needs so she can bring her baby
home.” Ms. Coleman identified several services for which mother
would be eligible and could receive for as long as mother needed
them. Ms. Coleman thought the parents were “very likely to be
successful” with the right services in place; the services would “be
very hands on”; and “[m]y only concern is that Mom is very high
functioning and so she is able to handle many things on her own.
I worry that she may need help and won’t ask for help. We see
that often with high functioning clients.”
       At the detention hearing, the court had ordered “as much
monitored visitation as possible” after I.S.’s release from the
hospital. On January 18, 2023, the child social worker talked to
the Department’s investigator after monitoring a visit, and
reported she had no concerns about the parents’ ability to care for
the baby with the support of their neighbor and the regional
center. She reiterated this view after a visit on January 25, 2023,
stating the parents were very loving and attentive and that
support from the regional center would be a good way to ensure
child safety. At that visit, the baby’s hand turned blue several
times, and the parents noticed it and reported it immediately.
The caregivers with whom I.S. was placed told the child social
worker this also happened while the baby was in their care; they
were told to “keep an eye on it” and make an appointment with a
medical professional, which they did. When the Department’s
investigator met with the caregivers on January 20, 2023, they
reported I.S. continues to “forget to breathe” while feeding, so
they feed her one ounce at a time with breaks in between, but

                                 6
there had been no episodes in which the baby stopped breathing
while sleeping. On January 26, 2023, I.S.’s daycare provider
reported I.S. was “doing great at her daycare.”
       At the February 15, 2023 jurisdictional and dispositional
hearing, the Department and I.S.’s counsel emphasized their
support for the parents’ efforts to reunify with the baby, but
argued removal was necessary at present, as parents did not
have the resources and programs set up at their home. Both
parents argued I.S. should be released to them “today.” Father
produced evidence he was already enrolled in parenting classes,
and objected to regional center services for himself, arguing
mother and child were already enrolled.
       As stated at the outset, the court sustained the
jurisdictional allegations, and found, by clear and convincing
evidence, a substantial danger to the child if she were to be
returned home, and no reasonable means to protect her physical
health without removing her from the parents’ custody.
       Both parents filed timely appeals.
                            DISCUSSION
       Our responsibility on review of a jurisdictional order is to
determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted,
supports the findings. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.) We
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile
court’s order, drawing every reasonable inference and resolving
all conflicts in favor of the prevailing party. (Ibid.)
       We also review dispositional orders for substantial
evidence. (In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.) However,
because dispositional orders require clear and convincing
evidence, we ask whether the record as a whole contains
substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could

                                7
have found it highly probable that the fact at issue was true. (In
re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 149, 155.)
1.     The Jurisdictional Order
       Father argues the evidence we have recited does not
explain either the nature of his alleged developmental delays or
how those delays placed I.S. at substantial risk of serious
physical harm or illness at the time of the jurisdictional hearing.
While the nature of father’s developmental delays is unknown on
this record, the nexus between those delays and a substantial
risk of harm to the baby was apparent from the reports and
opinions of the baby’s medical team in December 2022. (See
pp. 3–4, ante.) For example, there was evidence that, at the
hospital, father repeatedly held the baby in a way that restricted
her airway, with the baby turning blue from lack of oxygen;
father became defensive and was not responsive to the nurse’s
redirection.
       Father points out the hospital would not discharge a baby
unless the baby was no longer at risk of apnea; I.S. had had no
episodes since her discharge; and the parents were reported to be
very attentive and “very observant to the baby’s safety and
comfort” during their supervised visitation in January. But the
hospital, despite the policy father cites, would not discharge the
baby to the parents without 24-hour supervision in the home.
And while parents had apparently made significant progress
since the baby’s discharge, the assessment of the Department’s
visitation monitor was that there were no concerns about their
ability to care for the baby “with support from the regional center”
(italics added), which had not been put into place at the time of
the hearing. This evidence was sufficient to support jurisdiction.

                                 8
2.    The Dispositional Order
      A dependent child may not be taken from the physical
custody of the parent “unless the court finds there is clear and
convincing evidence there is or would be a substantial danger to
the child's physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being if returned home, and that there are no
reasonable means to protect the child’s physical health without
removing the child.” (In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328;
see also Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) “The parent need
not be dangerous and the minor need not have been
actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the
statute is on averting harm to the child.” (D.B., at p. 328.)
      Both parents contend the record shows no substantial
danger to I.S.’s health or safety if she were returned home, and
even if there were a substantial danger, there were reasonable
means to protect her in her parents’ home.
      On the first point—no substantial danger to I.S.—the
substance of the parents’ arguments is that the hospital’s
concerns at the time of I.S.’s discharge (December 24, 2022) “were
largely, if not completely, resolved” by the time of the hearing
(February 15, 2023), and there was “no current information” to
support a finding of substantial danger. We cannot agree.
      Parents cite the evidence that I.S. had not had episodes in
which she stopped breathing while sleeping since her discharge,
and they were “appropriately attentive” to the baby during their
supervised January 2023 visits. Parents overlook the facts that
both the Department’s visitation monitor and the regional
center’s case worker qualified their positive assessments of
parents’ ability to care for I.S. with the condition that there be
supporting services in the home from the regional center. But

                                 9
the necessary assessment by the regional center, which could
have been done if mother had reported her pregnancy before the
baby was born, had yet to be made. Moreover, father objected to
regional center services for himself, and continued at his January
2023 interview to claim he did not hold I.S. in such a way as to
restrict her airflow.
       We conclude the record as a whole shows that a reasonable
fact finder could have found it highly probable that a substantial
danger to I.S.’s safety existed at the time of the hearing if she
were returned home.
       On the second point—whether there were reasonable
means to protect I.S. short of removal—parents argue there was
no discussion of any alternative plan for providing for I.S.’s safety
in the home; nothing in the Department’s report addressing
efforts to avoid removal; and no reference by the court to any
consideration of alternatives to removal. Parents say I.S. “could
have been returned to Mother under strict supervision,” and the
court “could have ordered frequent unannounced home visits” to
ensure I.S.’s safety, citing cases with very different facts.
       Parents do not explain what they mean by “strict
supervision” or how that is different from regional center support
services, which were not in place at the time of the hearing,
through no fault of the Department. We do not agree that I.S.’s
safety could be assured by unannounced home visits, when there
was evidence that parents needed ongoing support services in the
home. Parents point to Ms. Coleman’s evidence that they were
likely to be successful “with the right services in place,” and
services “could be provided to Mother for the rest of her life if
needed.” But they fail to acknowledge that those services were
not in place at the dispositional hearing. We conclude from this

                                 10
record that it was “highly probable” removal was the only
reasonable means then available to protect I.S.
                          DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and
dispositional orders are affirmed.

                       GRIMES, Acting P. J.

     WE CONCUR:

                       WILEY, J.

                       VIRAMONTES, J.

                               11