Court Opinion

ID: 9378821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 18:02:22.858797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.309168
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/23 In re Y.M. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

 In re Y.M., a Person Coming Under the                             B316580
 Juvenile Court Law.
 _____________________________________
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND                                        (Los Angeles County
 FAMILY SERVICES,                                                  Super. Ct. No 21CCJP03042)

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

          v.

 V.M.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Hernán D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.
      Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                  ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

      V.M. (mother) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional
orders regarding her daughter (Y.M.) under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300.1 Mother contends there was
insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that
her mental health issues placed Y.M. at a substantial risk of
harm. We reject her contention and affirm the orders.
                          BACKGROUND
      The family consists of mother, father, and Y.M. (born
November 2010). Mother and father separated after an eight-
year relationship. At the time the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) began
investigating the family’s circumstances, mother and Y.M.
resided with mother’s boyfriend in Downey, California, while
father lived in Oregon. Y.M. visited father once or twice per year.
I.    The events giving rise to the current petition
      In June 2021, DCFS received a referral that mother
suffered from personality and major depressive disorder, was
delusional and a danger to herself, was threatening to kill herself
by claiming that she had a gun in the presence of police officers

1All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

                                 2
in an effort to get them to shoot her, and had been placed on an
involuntary hospital hold under section 5150. DCFS was asked
to respond to the local police department to take custody of Y.M.,
because there was no one to care for her once mother was placed
on the involuntary hold.
      Emergency response children’s social worker Jennie Cortez
reported to the police department and spoke with Gary Vazquez,
a psychiatric social worker from the Los Angeles County
Department of Mental Health (DMH). According to Vasquez, he
and law enforcement responded to mother’s home after receiving
a request for a welfare check based on mother’s suicidal
ideations. The request came from mother’s therapist, Ebony
Reado.
      When Vasquez and law enforcement arrived at mother’s
home, mother was cooperative and admitted that her plan was to
lie and say she had a gun so that law enforcement would kill her.
Mother shared with Vasquez her post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and borderline personality diagnoses, although mother’s
mental health records from DMH reflected a diagnosis of anxiety.
Mother reported receiving subliminal messages from a former
therapist on social media, leading Vazquez to believe she was
suffering from delusions. Mother stated that these messages
overwhelmed her and that she should just kill herself. Mother
had been participating in therapy but was not taking her
prescribed psychotropic medication.
      While at the police station, Cortez interviewed Y.M., who
recalled that mother was on the telephone with her therapist
before the police arrived and that mother was “crying a little.”
Y.M. recalled mother telling her therapist that people were
texting her weird things. Y.M. did not know the substance of the

                                3
text messages, but was aware that mother changed her telephone
number multiple times because of the number of messages she
was receiving.
       Y.M. knew mother had a mental illness, but not her
diagnosis. Occasionally, mother was sad and cried. Y.M. denied
mother said she wanted to harm herself, but the prior evening
mother mentioned not feeling important and that no one cared
about her. Mother did not take her psychotropic medication
because “ ‘she doesn’t trust medicine.’ ” Mother told Y.M. that
mother’s former therapist, as well as a neighbor who lived in
their apartment complex, had stalked her on social media and
done “creepy” things.
       When asked by Cortez about her support system, Y.M.
reported the majority of her family (including her father) lived in
Oregon and mother had no friends. Y.M. indicated that mother
had told her that family members had also “stalked” mother in
the past, and Y.M. wished mother had more support. Y.M.
denied being physically or sexually abused. She also denied any
drug or alcohol abuse in the home and indicated that she is never
left unsupervised.
       Cortez also interviewed mother’s boyfriend by telephone.
He was a truck driver and would not be returning home until the
next night. He reported that mother had told him she had been
diagnosed with PTSD. Mother had been participating in therapy,
but was recently “emotional and distressed” over a lack of
support. Mother was also being harassed by a former therapist,
as evidenced by strange calls from random telephone numbers
and messages sent through fake social media accounts.
       Y.M. was temporarily placed in protective custody pending
an initial detention hearing before the juvenile court.

                                 4
      The next day, mother was discharged and Cortez met her
at the family home. Mother reported she had been detained from
her own parents at age two. She experienced several traumatic
events, including sexual assaults, while in foster care and as an
adult. Mother and father married when mother was 18 and they
separated after an eight-year relationship. Mother and Y.M.
moved in with mother’s boyfriend in 2017. Mother claimed her
boyfriend’s family spied on her on social media, and that her
friends, who lived in the same apartment complex, threatened
her on social media. Accordingly to mother, a coworker was also
stalking her on social media.
      Mother stated that she entered therapy in 2018, and was
diagnosed with PTSD and borderline personality disorder in
January 2021. She acknowledged not taking her prescribed
medication. Mother saw several therapists over the next year.
She had a poor experience with her first therapist, who criticized
her for how she dressed. According to mother, the therapist
mother saw from 2019 to 2020 made inappropriate comments
toward her and sent her messages via social media using other
accounts. Mother believed that therapist misdiagnosed her as
only having anxiety. Mother stated that she posted a viral video
online and began to receive negative messages about her
appearance, with some messages referencing matters she had
discussed in therapy.
      Mother acknowledged the incident leading to the referral,
explaining she had felt overwhelmed and traumatized over the
text messages she had received from her former therapist.
Because no one had offered to help her or listen to her, she
contacted Reado. She acknowledged saying to Reado: “ ‘[W]hat do
I have to do? Do I need to call the cops and say I have a gun to

                                5
 get killed?’ ” Mother told Reado that “she didn’t want to be here,”
 but would not commit suicide because of her daughter.
        Mother confirmed that Y.M. was homeschooled at a
 “Virtual Prep Academy.” When DCFS assessed the family’s
 home, it was in good working order and suited to Y.M.’s needs.
 The family had no history of referrals.
        Reado reported that mother had participated in weekly
 therapy since April 2021. Mother’s diagnosis was borderline
 personality disorder, trauma, and stressor related disorder.
 Mother did not take psychotropic medication. Mother had
 reported to Reado that a former therapist had harassed her on
 social media. Regarding the incident leading to the referral,
 Reado recalled that, during the call, mother expressed distress
 and anxiety and presented with paranoia and suicidal ideation.
 Mother told Reado that she wanted to contact law enforcement
 and tell them that that she had a gun in an effort to get the police
 to kill her. Reado also indicated that mother had stated that she
 intended to provoke someone else to harm her as well. Reado did
 not have prior concerns of suicidal ideation as to mother.
 Nonetheless, Reado believed mother could benefit from a higher
 level of care due to her mental health needs.
        DCFS recommended Y.M.’s continued detention to ensure
 Y.M.’s constant care and supervision, which had been inhibited
 by mother’s mental health issues.
II.     Petition and detention hearing
        In July 2021, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on Y.M.’s
 behalf. The factual allegations, eventually sustained by the
 juvenile court, were as follows: “[The mother] has a history of
 mental and emotional problems including diagnoses of Major
 Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Borderline

                                  6
  Personality Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and a
  history of delusional thinking and paranoia, which renders the
  mother incapable for [sic] providing regular care for the child. On
  06/29/21 the mother was involuntarily hospitalized for the
  evaluation and treatment of mother’s psychiatric condition. Such
  mental and emotional condition[s] on the part of the mother
  endangers the child’s physical health and safety and places the
  child at risk of serious physical harm and damage.”
         At the detention hearing, which took place in July 2021,
  mother appeared over the telephone and was represented by
  court-appointed counsel. After hearing argument from DCFS and
  Y.M.’s counsel, both of whom argued in support of detention, and
  argument from mother’s counsel, who opposed detention, the
  juvenile court detained Y.M. from mother and ordered monitored
  visits. Y.M. was placed in foster care.
III.     Multidisciplinary assessment
         An August 2021 multidisciplinary assessment report
  reflected that Y.M. was kind, friendly, engaging, smart, and
  academically motivated. However, Y.M. was sad about being
  separated from her mother, among other things, but was “not
  ready” to discuss that with the assessor or her therapist.
  Nonetheless, Y.M. reported she was comfortable talking to
  mother openly about anything.
         Y.M.’s foster mother reported that Y.M. had “fits of anger”
  while learning to socialize with her foster siblings and “some
  difficulty knowing how to converse with [them].” Y.M. brought
  up age inappropriate subjects, which the foster mother attributed
  to her interacting mostly with mother prior to detention.

                                  7
IV.     Jurisdiction and disposition
        A.     The jurisdiction and disposition report
        The combined adjudication and disposition hearing was
 scheduled for October 5, 2021. Prior to it, DCFS submitted a
 report with updated interviews.
        Y.M. reported that she was attending the sixth grade, and
 that this was her first year attending school in person, having
 been previously homeschooled. When asked why she was in
 foster care, Y.M. explained that mother had been in foster care
 most of her life and had gone through a lot of trauma. Mother
 had “ ‘a lot of mental issues,’ ” which Y.M. knew because mother
 told her, and Y.M. heard mother talking about her issues with
 others. Y.M. elaborated: “ ‘I just know she has bipolar, anger
 issues, and I think ADHD. I am not sure about the ADHD
 though.’ ” Y.M. further stated that she was in foster care because
 “ ‘they are scared she’s going to hurt me because she has mental
 issues.’ ”
        Y.M. recounted that she could “ ‘tell when something is
 wrong’ ” with mother. Mother pulls her hair and keeps to herself,
 except when she talks to Y.M. “ ‘Most of the time she looks
 spaced out.’ ” Y.M. elaborated, explaining that she looked
 “ ‘sleepy, traumatized, or sad.’ ” Y.M. denied seeing mother talk
 to herself or do anything “crazy.”
        Y.M. confirmed that mother “ ‘every once in a while’ ” told
 Y.M. she wanted to hurt herself or end her life. However, mother
 did not seem serious about it because mother wanted to be with
 Y.M. Mother did not trust medication because a maternal uncle
 had schizophrenia and “ ‘acted crazier’ ” after taking medication.
        As to the referral incident, Y.M. recalled that, as she was
 on the phone with father, mother entered the apartment crying.

                                 8
Y.M. ended the phone call with her dad and could hear that
mother was on the phone with a woman on speakerphone. Y.M.
heard the woman tell mother that she was going to call the
police. The police arrived about 10 minutes later and asked to
enter the home, to which mother agreed. After the officers spoke
to mother, they instructed Y.M. to get some belongings and took
her to a patrol car. Y.M. then saw mother in handcuffs. Y.M.
was told mother was not in trouble and was going to the hospital.
Y.M. denied that she heard mother say she wanted to hurt
herself or end her life on the day of the incident.
       Mother described that she grew up in foster care in Oregon
and did not have a relationship with her biological family. She
had one sister and three brothers, and had a good relationship
with her sister. Mother only saw her brothers when she visited
Oregon, where they continued to reside. Mother graduated high
school and attended two years of college, obtaining a certificate in
life coaching. She was pursuing a degree in social sciences when
she had Y.M. (her only child) and had to drop out, but she wished
to return to finish her program. Although mother initially moved
to Northern California in 2015 to be closer to her biological
family, her family there “did not want to get to know her” and she
moved to Los Angeles to get a fresh start as a life coach. Mother
worked as a life coach until 2020, when she began working as a
food deliverer.
       Mother acknowledged being diagnosed with anxiety in 2018
or 2019 and then borderline personality disorder earlier in 2021.
She claimed that, after the latter diagnosis, she “was not
recommend[ed] to take medication as [doctors] did not feel it was
necessary for her.” She denied being diagnosed with PTSD or
adjustment disorder and denied a history of suicidal ideation,

                                 9
delusions, or prior psychiatric hospitalization. According to
mother, her mental health issues had never gotten in the way of
her caring for Y.M. Regarding the referral incident, mother
explained she called her therapist because she was having a bad
day and was venting: “ ‘She (therapist) is African American and I
was trying to tell her how in the African American culture mental
health is not really taken serious and we don’t shed light on the
mental health. I told her that my life should matter before
something negative happens to me. I said, “Do I have to act like
something bad is happening to me before the cops get involved for
there to be importance or some light to be shed [on] mental
health.” She took this out of context. I wasn’t saying I was
suicidal.’ ”
      Addressing Y.M.’s health, mother reported that Y.M. had
no physical or mental health problems. Y.M.’s last physical
examination was either in 2017 or 2018 in Torrance, though
mother did not recall the name of the doctor or clinic. Y.M.’s last
dental examination was in 2018 or 2019. Y.M. had not received
immunizations since the age of four or five because of mother’s
personal beliefs. Mother declined to elaborate as to those beliefs
because it made her feel as if she was being judged.
Subsequently obtained immunization records reflected that
Y.M.’s last immunizations were in 2014.
      Maternal aunt, who worked as a case manager for child
welfare authorities in Oregon, was also interviewed, reporting
that she had limited knowledge of the referral incident because
mother was “ ‘very secretive.’ ” Maternal aunt explained that
Y.M. was detained because mother had suicidal ideation.
Maternal aunt believed that mother always had mental health
challenges. Maternal aunt elaborated that mother had exhibited

                                10
symptoms of anxiety, depression, mood swings, unrealistic
expectations (believing the world was against her), and was
withdrawn. Maternal aunt visited mother and Y.M. a few times
per year, but did not observe anything warranting Y.M.’s removal
from the home. However, maternal aunt was concerned that
Y.M. was “very sheltered” because she did not attend school or
socialize with other children, and mother and Y.M. lived an
“isolated” life. Maternal aunt noted that Y.M. was close with her
father, having “constant phone contact.”
       Because mother had unresolved mental health issues and
had not been consistently receiving services with one agency due
to mother’s reported issues with confidentiality, DCFS
recommended that the juvenile court sustain the section 300
petition, declare Y.M. a dependent, remove her from mother, and
order DCFS to provide mother with reunification services.
       B.     Addendum
       In an addendum report, DCFS reported that father was
interviewed and disclaimed knowledge of mother’s mental health
problems, as well as the circumstances leading to Y.M.’s
detention. Although mother had previously shared with father
that she had mental health problems as a child, mother neither
presented with mental health issues nor did she ever tell father
that she suffered from mental health issues. Father was
surprised that Y.M. was detained, stating that Y.M. “was okay
with her mother.”
       As to his relationship with Y.M., father reported he and
Y.M. had constant phone communication and regularly played
online games together. Father would see Y.M. in person when he
travelled to California and when Y.M. travelled to Oregon.
Father was unable to recount how often they saw each other in

                               11
person, but did confirm that they always saw each for their
birthdays.
       DCFS further reported that as of early August 2021,
mother was engaged in weekly individual therapy. Mother’s new
therapist reported that mother “is conscientious in keeping
appointments and appears actively engaged in the therapeutic
process.”
       Finally, DCFS assessed father’s home in Oregon and,
finding no safety concerns, recommended that the juvenile court
release Y.M. to father and terminate jurisdiction over the matter
with a juvenile custody order providing sole physical custody to
father and joint legal custody to mother and father.
       C.    The jurisdiction/disposition hearing
       At the October 2021 jurisdictional and dispositional
hearing, the court admitted several of DCFS’s reports into
evidence and then heard argument from counsel. Counsel for
Y.M. argued that the statements of Vasquez (the psychiatric
social worker who accompanied law enforcement on the welfare
check) and Reado (mother’s therapist at the time of the referral)
were “most probative” and sufficed to sustain the petition.
Mother’s counsel requested dismissal of the petition, countering
that mother’s mental illness was alone insufficient for
jurisdiction, and that mother’s statements constituted, at most,
“venting” to her therapist. Counsel cited several cases in support
of the proposition that mental health needs alone are not enough
to justify dependency jurisdiction. The juvenile court pointed out
that mother’s cases were distinguishable because she had
conveyed suicidal thoughts to several individuals, including Y.M.
Counsel for DCFS joined Y.M.’s counsel’s arguments, adding that
the evidence reflected that mother had longstanding unresolved

                                12
mental health issues, and that Y.M.’s therapist stated that Y.M.
was traumatized by the situation.
       The court sustained the section 300 petition as pled. After
hearing the parties’ arguments regarding disposition, the court
declared Y.M. a dependent, removed her from mother’s custody,
and granted father sole physical custody, with mother and father
to have joint legal custody. The court found that that the
conditions justifying the initial assumption of jurisdiction under
section 300 no longer existed and later, after a brief period where
the court stayed its order pending receipt of a juvenile custody
order, terminated jurisdiction.
       Mother timely appealed.
                             DISCUSSION
I.     Standard of review
       We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders for
substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).)
“ ‘Substantial evidence is evidence that is “reasonable, credible,
and of solid value”; such that a reasonable trier of fact could
make such findings.’ ” (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840,
848.) “ ‘ “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable
inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of
the dependency court; we review the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues
of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”
[Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise
independent judgment, but merely determine if there are
sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.” ’ ” (I.J.,
at p. 773.) “ ‘ “ ‘ “The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for

                                  13
a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole
record.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1124.)
II.      Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional and
dispositional orders based on mother’s mental health
issues
         Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) provides, in relevant part,
that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if
the “child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the
child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of
. . . [t]he failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to
adequately supervise or protect the child, . . . [or by] the
inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the
child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness.” A finding
of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) requires the
child welfare agency to prove three elements by a preponderance
of the evidence: “ ‘(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of
the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) “serious physical harm
or illness” to the minor, or a “substantial risk” of such harm or
illness.’ ” (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561
(Joaquin C.).) The juvenile court “may consider past events in
deciding whether a child currently needs the court’s protection.
[Citation.] A parent’s ‘ “[p]ast conduct may be probative of
current conditions” if there is reason to believe that the conduct
will continue.’ ” (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376,
1383–1384.)
         Harm may not be presumed from the mere fact of a
parent’s mental illness. (In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044,
1050 (A.L.).) However, it is not necessary for DCFS or the
juvenile court to predict what harm will come to a child because a
parent fails to consistently treat his or her illness. It is sufficient

                                  14
to support dependency jurisdiction that a parent’s mental illness
creates a substantial risk of some harm. (In re Travis C. (2017)
13 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226–1227 (Travis C.).) The court “need
not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume
jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.” (In
re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
       Here, as we set forth below, statements by family members,
care providers, and mother’s own admissions provide substantial
evidence that mother’s serious, uncontrolled mental health issues
placed Y.M. at substantial risk of serious harm.
       On the date of the referral incident, mother had been
engaged in mental health treatment for several years for her
anxiety and had recently been formally diagnosed with borderline
personality disorder. Several other diagnoses, including PTSD
and major depressive disorder, are referenced in the record as
well, including accounts by mental health clinicians, Y.M.,
mother’s boyfriend, and mother herself (as relayed through DCFS
social workers) of episodes of delusions and/or paranoia.
       Y.M. was frequently exposed to mother’s mental health
symptoms, reporting that she observed changes in mother’s
conduct and level of engagement when her illness flared. Mother
discussed her delusions—including that neighbors were stalking
her on social media—with Y.M. in intimate detail, and
occasionally told Y.M. that she was suicidal or wanted to harm
herself. Y.M. said that mother was “ ‘spaced out’ ” most of the
time, which she described as looking “ ‘sleepy, traumatized, or
sad.’ ” Y.M. recounted with detail that she could “ ‘tell when
something is wrong’ ” with mother. Mother would pull her own
hair and keep to herself, except when she talked to Y.M. And,
during the referral incident, Y.M. observed mother crying while

                                15
mother’s therapist (on speakerphone) told mother that she had to
call the police on her, and then mother was taken away in
handcuffs several minutes later.2
       Notably, mother appeared to be in denial about the severity
of her illness and had not adequately attempted to control it.
Mother not only declined to take prescribed medication,3 but
minimized the extent of her mental health issues, insisting that
her statements during the referral incident were taken out of
context and that she was not suicidal (despite Y.M.’s statement
that mother had expressed a desire to self-harm and/or commit
suicide on prior occasions. Mother also denied suffering
delusions, yet continued to insist that the underlying
circumstances leading to that diagnosis, including a belief that
she was being stalked through anonymous phone calls and fake
social media accounts by her friends, neighbors, boyfriend’s
family members, and a former therapist, were true. While
mother’s engagement in therapy both before and after the
referral incident is commendable, mother’s therapy, which
involved switching providers so frequently that it appeared to
impede her treatment, was hardly preventive of the referral

2To be sure, Y.M. disclaimed learning what mother said to the
therapist to prompt the call to the police. However, given Y.M.’s
age, her statements to DCFS, and the previous suicidal ideations
that mother conveyed to her, Y.M. reasonably appeared to
understand what had just transpired.
3Under the applicable standard of review, we must resolve the
conflicting explanations for mother’s failure to take her
prescribed medication—that mother was unwilling to do so and
that doctors did not feel it was necessary—against mother. (I.J.,
supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.)

                               16
incident. Thus, her existing treatment plan was apparently
inadequate to limit her symptoms.
      Further, a nexus existed between those unresolved issues
and a risk of physical harm to Y.M. On the date of the referral
incident, mother conveyed to her therapist a plan of killing
herself that involved provoking a lethal response from law
enforcement through gunfire. Mother’s threat was credible
enough for her therapist to call in an immediate welfare check. It
was reasonable for the juvenile court to conclude that mother’s
threat, if carried out (and especially if done in the presence of
Y.M., who was under her sole care at the time), would have had a
substantial, adverse effect on Y.M.’s well-being, and would place
Y.M. at substantial risk of physical harm. Not only did mother
risk Y.M. being caught in the middle of gunfire, she placed Y.M.
in a position of being left alone, unsupervised and uncared for
had mother acted in accordance with her suicidal ideations.
      Travis C., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th 1219 is instructive. In
that case, the mother suffered from serious mental health needs,
including experiencing delusions and paranoia. The mother did
not consistently follow any treatment regimen and was not
medication compliant. (Id. at p. 1222.) Maternal relatives would
intervene at times, but the mother continued to spend significant
periods of time with the children alone. (Ibid.) On appeal, the
mother argued that her mental health needs were insufficient to
support dependency jurisdiction and that any harm to the
children stemming from her mental health needs was
speculative. The court of appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s
findings, and pointed to the following factors in support of
jurisdiction: the mother had threatened suicide in the presence of
the children in the past, had inconsistently sought treatment for

                               17
her mental health needs and was not compliant with her
medication, and even though the maternal grandparents
attempted to intervene when mother’s episodes were particularly
severe, mother still spent extended periods of time with the
children alone and without support. (Id. at pp. 1225–1226.)
       Like the mother in Travis C., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th 1219,
mother had threatened suicide in Y.M.’s presence in the past and
was not medication compliant. Although mother sought mental
health treatment, her pattern of constantly switching providers
left her with no regular plan of treatment. And, mother had no
support system in place and certainly no plan of care for Y.M. on
the date of the referral when her escalating mental health needs
came to a head. The evidence before the juvenile court was that
Y.M. and mother were socially isolated from their Oregon-based
family and friends to the degree that mother’s family members
were concerned about their welfare. Y.M. was homeschooled and
mother’s boyfriend’s presence was infrequent due to his work.
When mother was involuntarily hospitalized, Y.M. had no one to
take care of her, which prompted the emergency referral to
DCFS. Thus, the degree of potential harm to Y.M. was simply too
grave to countenance under the circumstances, even if the
likelihood of that harm occurring was to some extent lower. (See
I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 778 [“ ‘[s]ome risks may be
substantial even if they carry a low degree of probability because
the magnitude of the harm is potentially great’ ”]; cf. A.L., supra,
18 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1045, 1047, 1050 [nexus insufficient where
child was never alone with mother and father could—and did—
act quickly to obtain necessary help]; Joaquin C., supra, 15
Cal.App.5th at p. 563 [similar].)

                                18
       And, even beyond the risk posed to Y.M. if mother followed
through with her stated intentions during the referral incident,
Y.M. had not had a physical exam for several years (roughly
coinciding with the commencement of mother’s mental health
treatment in 2018) and lacked immunizations for an even longer
period, despite mother’s reports that Y.M. had no physical health
issues. (Cf. Joaquin C., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at pp. 562–563
[parent’s attentiveness to child’s health, including
immunizations, despite mental health issues weighed against
jurisdiction].) Further, Y.M. reported being sad, and was unable
to explain her sadness to anyone, except, possibly, mother, with
whom Y.M. said she could discuss anything. These statements
underscore the exceptional nature of Y.M.’s isolation and the
evolving harms to which she was subject as a result of mother’s
mental health struggles. In other words, although Y.M. appeared
to be of a sufficient age and intelligence to apprehend some of the
risks associated with mother’s mental health struggles, Y.M.’s
apparent unwillingness to confide in others, and lack of access to
such individuals, only heightened the risk to her well-being if and
when mother had another episode. (Cf. A.L., supra, 18
Cal.App.5th at p. 1051 [jurisdiction unwarranted where 16-year-
old’s maturity and experience enabled him to deescalate mother’s
episodes].)
       On this record, the juvenile court could reasonably infer
that mother’s suicidal ideations placed Y.M. at significant risk of
physical harm as a bystander, thereby warranting jurisdiction
under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (See Travis C., supra, 13
Cal.App.5th at pp. 1226–1227; cf. A.L., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1051 [parent’s family support and resumption of medication
regimen demonstrated court’s intervention no longer needed];

                                19
Joaquin C., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 565 [similar].) As noted,
neither DCFS nor the juvenile court was required to precisely
predict the harm that would come to Y.M. (Travis C., at
pp. 1226–1227), or wait for that harm to actually befall her (In re
R.V., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 843). Rather, mother’s “illness
and choices” alone sufficed to “create a substantial risk of some
serious physical harm or illness.” (Travis C., at p. 1227.)4
       Mother attempts to undermine the jurisdictional finding by
pointing to the various ways Y.M. minimized mother’s mental
health issues and that father and mother’s family did not notice
mother’s mental health symptoms. Mother also argues that she
“was absent for a simple night on a psychiatric hold” and that
“[o]therwise, the minor was in no way at risk.” However,

4 To the extent that mother claims that, on the date of the
jurisdictional findings, there was no current risk of harm to Y.M.
(See generally, In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993
[when jurisdiction allegations are based solely on risk to the
child, that risk must be shown to exist at the time of the
jurisdiction finding]), she has failed to provide reasoned legal
argument supporting that claim, and therefore has forfeited it on
appeal. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th
836, 852.) Moreover, any such claim lacks merit. Although
mother had been attending therapy on a weekly basis and was
actively engaged in the therapeutic process by the time of the
jurisdictional hearing, there is no indication in the record that
mother had made any meaningful progress in addressing her
complicated panoply of mental health diagnoses or delusions, or
that mother was medication compliant. Simply attending
therapy was not enough to eliminate the risk that her mental
health needs presented to Y.M., as evidenced by the fact that
mother had been attending therapy on and off for several years
leading up the referral incident.

                                20
mother’s contentions amount to a request that we reweigh the
evidence and are inconsistent with the applicable standard of
review. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the juvenile court’s findings, and cannot reweigh the evidence.
(I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) Having identified substantial
evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction, that other
evidence or inferences drawn from the evidence might have
supported a contrary finding “is of no consequence.” (Bowers v.
Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 874, italics omitted.)
        Here, as detailed above, there was ample evidence in the
record to show that mother’s serious and unresolved mental
health needs, which culminated in a plan of suicide that involved
possible gunfire, placed Y.M. at substantial risk of serious
physical harm. Further, mother had taken inadequate protective
measures to sufficiently mitigate that risk. As a result, we reject
mother’s contentions that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
orders are not supported by substantial evidence.
        Finally, as to disposition, mother argues that “[b]ecause the
jurisdictional findings were unfounded, so were the dispositional
orders and [a]n abuse of discretion.” As set forth above, there
was more than substantial evidence to support the jurisdictional
findings. Because mother’s only apparent quarrel with the
dispositional orders is based on the alleged insufficiency of the
evidence to support the jurisdictional findings, her challenge to
the dispositional orders also fails. (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at
p. 773.)5

5 Mother briefly suggests this court should amend the
jurisdictional orders to reflect the actual evidence of her mental
health diagnoses, which her opening brief suggests was limited to

                                 21
                          DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s October 2021 jurisdictional and
dispositional orders are affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                           NGUYEN (KIM), J.*

We concur:

                  EDMON, P. J.

                  LAVIN, J.

schizophrenia, and her reply brief suggests was limited to
adjustment disorder and PTSD. Because mother declines to
support her contradictory arguments with any legal authorities,
and her arguments appear to lack record support, we decline to
further address these claims. (See, e.g., In re A.C. (2017) 13
Cal.App.5th 661, 672 [argument unsupported by legal authorities
is forfeited].)
*     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

                                22