Court Opinion

ID: 9914183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 19:02:23.411707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:28.221140
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/29/23 A.W. v. Superior Court CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

A.W.,                                                       B329613

        Petitioner,                                         (Los Angeles County
                                                            Super. Ct. No.
        v.                                                  21CCJP02493A)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,

        Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

        Real Party in Interest.

    ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. Gabriela Shapiro, Judge Pro
Tempore. Petition granted.
    Melissa A. Chaitin and Emily Berger for Petitioner.
    No appearance for Respondent.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and David Michael
Miller, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
      Sarah Liebowitz for Minor E.C.

                                2
      The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over
then-one-year-old E.C. and removed her from the custody of her
parents based on the parents’ history of engaging in violent
altercations in her presence, her father J.C.’s (Father’s) drug use
and mental health issues, and the mental health problems
experienced by her mother A.W. (Mother). Two years later, and
at the urging of minor’s counsel—though not the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services (the
Department), the juvenile court terminated family reunification
services and set a permanency planning hearing. In this
extraordinary writ proceeding filed by Mother to challenge the
setting of the permanency planning hearing, we consider whether
substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that
E.C.’s health or safety would be at substantial risk of detriment if
she were returned to Mother’s care.1

                        I. BACKGROUND
      A.    Initial Dependency Proceedings
      In March 2021, the Department began investigating
domestic violence between the parents and Father’s mental
health issues as both were relevant to E.C.’s welfare. That day,
law enforcement responded to a loud argument between the
parents at the family home; Father had thrown furniture,
causing a laceration to his hand, and E.C. was crying.2 Father

1
     The Department declines to defend in this court the orders
made by the juvenile court. That defense is instead provided by
counsel for E.C.
2
     Law enforcement had responded to the home previously,
when Mother was pregnant with E.C. On that occasion, the

                                 3
also had a methamphetamine pipe in his pocket and reported
using methamphetamine earlier that day.3
       The Department’s initial conversations with the parents
revealed Mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and
Father was a longtime user of methamphetamine. Father also
admitted he occasionally took Mother’s prescription Xanax and
he had been placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold in 2019.
       In May 2021, the Department filed a juvenile dependency
petition alleging that the parents “have a history of engaging in
violent altercations in the presence of the child,” that Father “has
a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of
methamphetamine and prescription medication,” and that
Mother and Father have mental and emotional problems that
render them “incapable of providing regular care for the child.”
At an initial detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered E.C.
placed with her paternal aunt and ordered both parents to have
separate monitored visits.
       Within two weeks of this placement, the paternal aunt
reported that Mother was harassing and threatening her. E.C.
was then placed with a maternal cousin.
       The following month (June 2021), the Department learned
Father had been arrested after an argument with Mother during
which he placed her in a headlock. Father verified the arrest and
revealed Mother told him not to tell the Department about it.

parents had an argument during which Father threw a television
and speakers.
3
      Father later tested positive for methamphetamine use.

                                 4
       In advance of the jurisdiction hearing, Mother began taking
parenting and anger management classes. She also participated
in eight sessions of domestic violence classes before the services
were paused due to the instructor’s concern about Mother’s
mental health. The instructor recommended Mother “participate
in one-on-one sessions due to mother having many questions and
having difficulty applying what she learns in class.” Mother then
tried individual sessions, but they “did not work out” because
“mother did not appear to understand the information.” Father
participated in only two domestic violence classes and was then
dropped from the program.
       Around the same time, the Department learned Mother
and Father were visiting E.C. together despite the court’s order
for separate visits. When confronted, Mother denied this and
further denied there had ever been any domestic violence
between Father and her.
       At the jurisdiction hearing in September 2021, the court
sustained the dependency petition and continued the matter for
disposition.
       Thereafter, many of Mother’s visits with E.C. went well,
but there were occasions where she behaved inappropriately.
During one visit, Mother slapped the maternal cousin and left
with E.C. before being persuaded to return. On another occasion,
Mother went to the maternal cousin’s home with law enforcement
and demanded to see E.C., which the maternal cousin allowed.
During another visit, Mother threatened to take E.C. home with
her because, she said, the Department and the court did not care
about her case. At a different visit, this time at a mall, Mother
put E.C. in a stroller and “began to speed walk” away until the
social worker lost sight of them both. The police were called and

                                5
eventually located Mother and E.C. in the mall. Apart from the
visits, Mother also exhibited some odd behavior, including when
she contacted the Department multiple times and asked that E.C.
be returned to her—offering “$100 million bazillion trillion
dollars” and “the universe and all the stars in it” if E.C. were
returned to her.
       In January 2022, Mother began a new domestic violence
program. Later, however, the program’s director later withdrew
Mother’s enrollment. The program director believed Mother had
a cognitive impairment that interfered with her ability to
participate.
       At the continued disposition hearing the following month,
the juvenile court declared E.C. a dependent of the juvenile court
and ordered her suitably placed. Mother was ordered to complete
individual counseling, a domestic violence support group for
victims, conjoint counseling with Father, and a psychological
evaluation. Father was ordered to submit to drug testing and to
complete a drug and alcohol program with aftercare, a domestic
violence program, individual counseling, and a psychological
evaluation. The court ordered separate monitored visitation for
both parents.

      B.     The First Review Hearing
      Mother thereafter re-enrolled in a domestic violence
program. According to the program director, Mother shared her
experiences in sessions and understood domestic violence was not
just physical and could involve emotional and verbal abuse,
intimidation, and threats. Mother also enrolled in a program
related to family support and education for sobriety and
participated in conjoint therapy with Father. Mother was in

                                6
individual therapy and taking her medication. She began having
unmonitored visits with E.C. in May 2022.
      Father completed anger management and parenting
courses. He also completed a residential substance abuse
treatment program and enrolled in an outpatient substance
abuse program. Father was later discharged from the outpatient
program, however, due to lack of attendance. Mother admitted
that she told Father to stop attending the outpatient program to
save money on gas.4
      At the August 2022, review hearing, the court ordered
continued reunification services for both parents and allowed the
parents to have monitored visits together. The Department was
also given discretion to further liberalize visitation

       C.   The Second Review Hearing
       Mother completed her domestic violence program in
October 2022. A progress letter stated Mother’s participation in
the sessions steadily improved and she said she was aware of the
dangers of domestic violence and would not live in an abusive
relationship again. Mother additionally completed a family
support and education for sobriety program. The parents also
completed 20 sessions of conjoint therapy and their therapist
reported that they had engaged in therapy “very well.” Mother
continued seeing her own therapist.

4
      The Department reminded Mother that they had been
offered bus passes so that Father could attend his programs.
Mother retorted that her domestic violence program instructor
told her “it is mental abuse to require so much from one person.”

                                7
       A Department social worker advised Mother of concerns
she was not taking prescribed medication to address her mental
health issues. Mother asserted she was taking her medication as
directed but had combined medication and moved pills into a bag
to keep them away from Father.
       Father enrolled in substance abuse classes. While he
tested negative ten times during this period of review, he also
failed to test on 11 occasions. Father was not enrolled in
individual counseling, nor had he completed a psychological
evaluation. Both parents were visiting with E.C. three times a
week and, beginning in December 2022, they had unmonitored
overnight visits.
       At the second review hearing in February 2023, the court
found there were exceptional circumstances—namely, Mother’s
compliance with her case plan—that warranted continuing
reunification services for the parents. The court, however,
suspended Father’s overnight visits and ordered that his visits be
monitored—while giving the Department discretion to liberalize
Father’s visits once his drug tests were negative and he
participated in programs. The court permitted Mother to have
unmonitored visits and gave the Department discretion to allow
overnight visits (without Father being present) if Mother was
taking her prescribed medication and following court orders.

      D.     The Final Review Hearing and Termination of
             Reunification Services
       Before the final review hearing, Mother was having two
overnight visits with E.C. each week and the visits were reported
to be going well. In addition, and with encouragement from her
attorney and her “parent partner,” Mother had Father move out

                                8
of the family home in March 2023; she reported she felt bad
asking him to leave but decided there was nothing more she could
do for him. Mother also asked the assigned social worker if it
was a good idea to request a “stay away” order for Father; she
explained he was “more loving and supportive than ever” and was
not showing up at the family home, but Mother wondered
whether requesting a stay away order would leave her in a better
position when she appeared in court the following month. The
social worker did not recommend Mother obtain a stay away
order and instead reminded Mother that there was an existing
order preventing Father from being present during Mother’s
visits with E.C.5

5
      In interactions with the Department, Mother continued to
advocate for Father. Mother at one point raised the possibility of
moving out and leaving Father the family home, but the
Department advised her not to jeopardize her housing (which was
also E.C.’s home). In addition, Mother filed a complaint about
Father’s case plan to try and arrive at a “fair amount of work”
that would be “achievable.” Mother also filed two requests to
resume overnight visits for Father, both of which the court
denied.
      E.C. also told the Department about an occasion on which
Father picked her and Mother up in a car. In addition, during
one of Mother’s overnight visits with E.C., a social worker texted
Mother and asked her to sign some forms. Mother sent “live”
photographs of the signed forms that also captured brief snippets
of audio, and the social worker could hear Father speaking in the
background. Mother admitted Father was at her home on that
occasion, but she claimed it was only so Father could sign some
documents and she told the social worker it would not happen
again.

                                9
       By April 2023, Mother completed all elements of her case
plan, including the domestic violence support group. Mother and
Father also restarted conjoint counseling even though they
previously completed a conjoint counseling program. Mother’s
individual therapist advised the Department that Mother
attended all therapy sessions and put forward her best effort.
The therapist further opined that he supported the court
granting Mother custody of E.C. because he believed Mother
would never physically or emotionally harm her daughter and he
“trust[ed] her to keep her daughter safe.” Mother’s treating
psychiatrist (for over 14 years) advised the Department that
Mother’s condition was stable, she was compliant with her
medication regimen and treatment plan, she was not a danger to
herself or others, and there were “no psychiatric conditions which
would preclude her from taking care of her child.”
       That same month (April 2023), E.C. became ill with the
stomach flu. The maternal cousin informed Mother of the diet
recommended by E.C.’s doctor, but Mother declined to follow the
doctor’s instructions and followed her own “‘better list of healthy
foods.’” Mother then responded that she was turning off her
phone to take care of E.C. The next day, a Department social
worker asked Mother for an update. Mother sent a picture of
E.C.’s breakfast, which did not comply with the doctor’s
instructions. The social worker informed Mother she was going
to come to the home to check on E.C. Mother then had the
maternal cousin come pick up E.C. and the maternal cousin told
the Department that E.C. had no energy and was not keeping
food down.
       In the meantime, Father’s contact with the Department
was sporadic. He had not set up his schedule for monitored

                                10
visitation or responded to the Department’s efforts to arrange his
psychological evaluation. He changed his phone number at one
point, which the Department did not know until informed by
Mother. The Department also reported that before he moved out
of the family home, Father tested positive for a drug Mother was
prescribed—although Mother insisted she had hidden her
medication and denied noticing any medication had gone missing.
       The juvenile court held the final review hearing in May
2023. Counsel for Mother and Father both argued E.C. should be
returned to Mother’s custody. Mother’s attorney emphasized
Mother had been having successful overnight visits with E.C. and
had complied with all elements of her case plan. Counsel also
added a personal observation that Mother was “a client who is
easy to work with[ ] because she’s so communicative and
available, and she always puts the well-being of her daughter
first.” Reiterating without elaboration its recommendation in a
report filed before the hearing,6 the Department agreed E.C.
should be returned to Mother. Contrary to the recommendations
of the other parties, E.C.’s attorney argued reunification services
should be terminated and E.C. should not be returned to
Mother’s custody. Minor’s counsel acknowledged it was a “tough
situation” and expressed “appreciat[ion for] what Mother has
done,” but counsel believed it was best to move forward with
permanency planning while still “encourag[ing] . . . Mother to
stay in her programs and to possibly file a [changed
circumstances petition] in the future.”

6
      The court stated on the record that it held an unreported
conference with the parties before the hearing and conveyed its
tentative intent not to follow the Department’s recommendation
to return E.C. to Mother’s custody.

                                11
      The juvenile court sided with minor’s counsel and found “by
a preponderance of the evidence that return [of E.C. to Mother’s
custody] is detrimental.” The court acknowledged Mother “has
technically complied with court-ordered programs” and confessed
the question of whether to return E.C. to Mother was not an
“easy decision for the court to make.” But to justify its ruling, the
court cited comments from Mother’s early service providers that
Mother could not grasp the concepts being taught; Mother’s
continued defense of, and advocacy for, Father (who had not
completed any of the court-ordered programs or participated
meaningfully in visits); and the court’s belief that Father was
routinely present at Mother’s home with E.C. in violation of the
court’s order for separate visitation. The court also cited
Mother’s “inability to have rational conversations with people”
and the aforementioned instance when
“[M]other . . . demonstrated that she[ was] incapable of following
doctor’s instructions” while E.C. was suffering from stomach flu.
        The juvenile court set a permanency planning hearing,
discontinued overnight visits between Mother and E.C., and
granted Mother unmonitored visitation in a neutral location on
the condition that Father would not be present. The court also
noted it was considering a plan of guardianship because the court
was not certain “termination of parental rights would be
appropriate at this time.”

                        II. DISCUSSION
      Mother argues insufficient evidence supports the juvenile
court’s finding there was a substantial risk of detriment to E.C. if
she were returned to Mother’s custody. Although the applicable
substantial evidence standard of review is deferential, we agree

                                 12
the evidence does not satisfy the statutory standard for refusing
to return E.C. to Mother. On this record, any evidence
suggesting a risk of detriment to E.C.’s safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being is not a substantial risk. The
arguments minor’s counsel offers to reach a contrary conclusion,
which rely on nebulous concerns of a “lack of insight” shown by
Mother’s continued interactions with Father, are unpersuasive.7
      Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25, a
juvenile court “shall order the return of the child to the physical
custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to
their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of
detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-
being of the child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code,8 § 366.25, subd. (a)(1).)
“That standard is construed as a fairly high one. (David B. v.
Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 789[ ].) It does not
mean the parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit
from reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or
seemed less capable than the available foster parent or other
family member. (Ibid.)” (M.G. v. Superior Court of Orange
County (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 646, 660.) Our review of the

7
      Because we shall reverse the juvenile court’s order
terminating reunification services and remand the cause for
further proceedings, we need not decide Mother’s separate
contention that the juvenile court’s monitored visitation order
was an abuse of discretion.
8
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                13
juvenile court’s detriment finding is for substantial evidence. (Id.
at 661.)
       There is no substantial evidence of a substantial risk of
detriment to E.C. in this case. Indeed, the pertinent facts are
almost entirely undisputed. Mother successfully completed her
court-ordered case plan, including a domestic violence support
group and conjoint counseling with Father. She was having
overnight visits with E.C. twice per week that went well.
Mother’s therapist opined he trusted her to keep E.C. safe. And
Mother’s longtime treating psychologist advised she was stable,
compliant with her medication regimen and treatment plan, and
suffered from no condition that would preclude her from taking
care of E.C. On this record, it is difficult to fathom what more
Mother could have done to demonstrate the absence of a
substantial risk to E.C.’s safety and welfare while in her custody.
(M.G., supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at 663 [“if these parents, who got
clean and sober, attended and completed all of their services, and
had overall positive visitation with the children, could not get
their children back at the 18-month review hearing, we are at a
loss to see what parent could”].)
       Minor’s counsel, however, attempts to defend the order the
juvenile court made largely by highlighting Father’s
shortcomings and asserting the lack of any evidence that Mother
had cut off her relationship with him suffices to show a lack of
insight that establishes the requisite detriment to E.C. There are
several problems with this, however.
       First, the record reveals Mother has the ability to set limits
on her interaction with Father if needed to protect E.C.: she had
him move out of the family home, and she went further and
asked the Department whether she should obtain a “stay away”

                                 14
order against him to, as the Department recounted it,
“demonstrate that she is protecting her daughter from [Father]”
(the Department, apparently, demurred).
       Second, the concern about continued interaction with
Father does not account for Mother’s participation in court-
ordered services. While Mother’s relationship with Father was
problematic at the start of dependency proceedings, Mother
thereafter participated in services (including a domestic violence
program and conjoint counseling) that were ordered to ameliorate
the problems. So far as the record reveals, there were no
additional domestic violence problems between the two
thereafter—even with the continued interaction between them
that was one source of the concern from the juvenile court and
minor’s counsel.
       Third, the cited concern about interaction with a more
problematic partner was present and rejected in M.G., a
dependency case that similarly arose as a result of domestic
violence between the mother and her boyfriend (as well as the
children’s father). (M.G., supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at 650.) In M.G.,
the mother continued to have a relationship with the boyfriend
even after the filing of the dependency petition and there was at
least one instance when he was present at a visit in violation of a
court order. (Id. at 652, 654-655.) As here, however, the mother’s
therapist opined the mother did not pose a risk to the children’s
safety and the Court of Appeal reversed the detriment finding
notwithstanding the juvenile court’s stated concern about the
mother’s continued relationship with her boyfriend. (Id. at 658,
662.)
       All that remains of the juvenile court’s justification for its
order is likewise unpersuasive. The court relied on Mother’s

                                 15
early domestic violence program providers’ view that she had
difficulty understanding the concepts being taught, but this does
not account for Mother’s more recent and successful completion of
a domestic violence course. The court stated it had “underlying
mental health concerns” about Mother, but these were not shared
by her therapist or treating psychiatrist, nor were they
significantly borne out in the psychological evaluation the court
ordered Mother to undergo. Finally, the court expressed concern
about Mother’s reluctance to follow the diet recommended for
E.C. when she had the stomach flu. We agree Mother would have
done better to follow the medically recommended diet, but we do
not agree that Mother’s disagreement about what to feed a child
with a stomach ailment is sufficient to justify setting a hearing to
order adoption (or guardianship) of the child.

                                16
                            DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is granted. Let a
peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the juvenile court to
vacate its order setting a hearing under section 366.26 and to
hold another final review hearing as soon as possible, consistent
with the right of all sides to prepare their case. If, at the new
final review hearing, there are no new developments (i.e., facts
that did not exist at the time of the juvenile court’s order under
review) that warrant otherwise, E.C. should be returned Mother’s
physical custody with any necessary conditions; that is because,
absent such developments, there is insufficient support for a
detriment finding. If the court does find new developments
warrant a different conclusion, the court shall explain the
developments on the record in a manner sufficient to permit
appellate review of that conclusion and make any necessary
orders.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           BAKER, J.

We concur:

      RUBIN, P. J.

      MOOR, J.

                               17