Court Opinion

ID: 9930802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 18:03:22.382507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:40:28.866888
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/7/24 In re D.A. CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re D.A., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                D082699
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY,                                                         (Super. Ct. No. J519699)
         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

D.A.,

         Defendant and Appellant,

D.A.,

         Respondent.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Nadia J. Keilani, Judge. Affirmed.
         Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Respondent.
      Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
                               INTRODUCTION
      At a contested adjudication and disposition hearing, the juvenile court
found minor Do.A. (Minor) came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c) as a child
suffering, or at risk of suffering, serious emotional damage due to his father’s

conduct.1 Minor does not challenge this finding, but appeals the order
because the court denied his request to amend the petition to add an
allegation that he was also at substantial risk of suffering serious physical
harm under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) due to the failure or inability of
father Da.A. (Father) to adequately supervise or protect Minor based on
Father’s mental illness and substance use. Assuming, without deciding,
Minor states a justiciable claim, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the request to amend the petition.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.    Family Background
      Minor first became a dependent of the juvenile court in 2018 based on
allegations that Father engaged in a violent confrontation with his girlfriend
in the presence of Minor. Father was on probation at the time of this incident

following a domestic violence arrest involving Minor’s mother.2 During this
first dependency proceeding, Minor had several out-of-home placements,

1     Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2     Minor’s mother reportedly left Father in 2016 because he was
physically and emotionally abusive toward her. She did not maintain contact
with Minor. She is not a party to this appeal.

                                       2
including a placement with E.R., a licensed foster care provider. Minor
eventually returned to the care of his Father in September 2019 after Father
completed a variety of services. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction
and awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of Minor in May 2020.
B.    Initiation of Current Case
      In June 2023, E.R. reported that Minor had been living with her again
for several months. She could no longer care for Minor due to the stress and
financial toll it caused her family. Father, who was unhoused, cared for
Minor during the day when E.R. worked. During the school year, Father
visited Minor on the weekends and returned Minor to E.R.’s home in the
evening to sleep. Father was not taking prescribed medications for his
mental health conditions and was using street drugs. Father was not allowed
to go to E.R.’s home because he got into a fight with E.R.’s husband. E.R.
explained there were many issues with Father’s unpredictable and aggressive
behaviors due to his mental health. She wanted to help Minor transition to a
foster home.
      Father admitted he used methamphetamine to keep himself “going.”
However, he said he could stop at any time. Minor reported Father smoked
in his presence and that when Father stops smoking he gets sick. Minor
related, saying he feels sick and shaky when he does not take his own
medicine.
      Minor takes four medications for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD),
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and depression.
E.R. emphasized the importance of Minor taking those medications for his
mental health. Minor’s psychiatrist said the side effects of suddenly stopping
some of Minor’s medications could include worsening mental health, volatile

                                      3
behaviors, nausea, vomiting, shaking, flu-like symptoms, and “brain zaps
which are a shock feeling in the brain.”
      Although Minor expressed a desire to live with Father, Minor was
concerned that Father would not give him his medication. On one occasion,
Father did not return Minor to E.R.’s care as scheduled and did not receive
his medication.
      Father’s probation officer reported that Father missed several
appointments and admitted using drugs, but Father denied using in the
presence of Minor. The probation officer did not think Father could care for
Minor and that he was placing Minor at risk by using drugs and maintaining
a transient lifestyle.
      The Agency obtained a protective custody warrant for Minor based on
concerns about Father’s ability to meet Minor’s mental health needs. The
Agency reported it had “serious concerns” about Father’s ability to meet
Minor’s mental health needs and maintain a sober environment. Some of
Minor’s medication required identification to pick up from a pharmacy.
Father did not try to obtain identification even though he was aware E.R.
could not continue to care for Minor. The Agency executed the protective
custody warrant on June 29, 2023 and detained Minor at an emergency
shelter for children.
      The Agency filed a petition on July 3, 2023 alleging Minor came within
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (c)
because he was “suffering or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious
emotional damage evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or
untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others . . . and the child has no
parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care.” The petition
specifically alleged Minor had a mental health diagnoses “requiring mental

                                        4
health treatment and medication which the father has been unable to
provide. The father admits to his own ongoing usage of methamphetamine
and untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and bipolar
disorder. The father does not know the minor’s specific mental health needs
or medication and has been unable to ensure that the minor can continue his
medication regimen while in the father’s care. . . .”
      Toward the end of July 2023, Minor was involved in a couple of
incidents at the emergency shelter. On one occasion, he became upset and
displayed unsafe behavior by attempting to assault staff members and by
banging his head. On another occasion, Minor and another child became
assaultive toward one another after the other child removed a blanket on top
of a fort in which Minor was playing.
C.    Motion to Amend Petition
      Prior to the detention hearing, Minor’s counsel filed a motion to amend
the petition to add an allegation under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) and to
dismiss the allegation under section 300, subdivision (c). At the detention
hearing, Minor’s counsel stated she would request at the jurisdiction and
detention hearing that the court amend the petition according to proof.
      At the contested jurisdiction and detention hearing in August 2023,
Minor’s counsel requested the court add an allegation under section 300,
subdivision (b). Counsel did not ask to dismiss the allegation under
section 300, subdivision (c). She submitted on that allegation. But counsel
argued a true finding on an allegation under section 300, subdivision (b) was
more appropriate. Specifically, counsel contended that Father’s own
substance use and mental health issues led to neglect of Minor.
      Father’s counsel and county counsel asked the court to deny the motion
to amend the petition because the facts of the case more closely fit the

                                        5
situation described in section 300, subdivision (c). County counsel stated
there was a nexus between Father’s methamphetamine use and his failure to
ensure Minor received the medications Minor needed for his mental health
issues. However, county counsel questioned whether there was evidence of
other significant physical harm to Minor because of Father’s substance use
that would support an allegation under section 300, subdivision (b).
      The court considered In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, cited
by Minor’s counsel, and found it dissimilar. The court denied the motion to
amend the petition. The court made a true finding that Minor was a child
described by section 300, subdivision (c) because he suffers from mental
health issues requiring mental health treatment and medication, which
Father had been unable to provide for Minor. Minor appealed.
                                   DISCUSSION
      There is no dispute that juvenile court jurisdiction over Minor was
proper because he was suffering, or was at risk of suffering, serious emotional
damage, “evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward
aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the
parent . . . .” (§ 300, subd. (c).) Minor had mental health diagnoses, including
anxiety and depression, that required “mental health treatment and
medication which the father has been unable to provide.”
      The only issue on appeal is whether the court should have granted
Minor’s petition to add an allegation that jurisdiction was also appropriate
under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), which is known as the failure to protect
provision. Minor’s counsel argued at the hearing that Father’s issues with
mental illness and substance abuse “led to neglect of the minor with regard to
housing, leaving the minor with other people, that sort of thing.” Father
objected to this statement saying he was “getting really tired of hearing that

                                       6
word, neglect. That’s a ridiculous accusation.” Minor’s appeal essentially
hangs on this statement.
      Minor contends the court’s failure to amend the petition “places the
entire weight of this dependency case on [Minor’s] mental health” and left
Father “to believe his own misguided position that he was not negligent and
did nothing wrong in his role as a father.” Minor further contends the
decision not to amend the petition “impacted the likelihood of family
reunification” because it did not assign to Father any responsibility for the
dependency case and left Minor to believe his mental health was “the sole
cause of his dependency.” Minor contends a true finding on an additional
jurisdictional count under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) would best promote
his interests and reunification with Father. We disagree.
      “A juvenile court may amend a dependency petition to conform to the
evidence received at the jurisdiction hearing to remedy immaterial variances
between the petition and proof. (§ 348; Code Civ. Proc., § 470.)” (In re
Andrew S. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 536, 544, fn. 4.) “The basic rule from civil
law . . . is that amendments to conform to proof are favored, and should not
be denied unless the pleading as drafted prior to the proposed amendment
would have misled the adversarial party to its prejudice.” (In re Jessica C.
(2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042.) However, “the allowance of amendments
to conform to the proof rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and its
determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that
such discretion has been abused.” (Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d
17, 31.)
      Subdivision (b)(1) of section 300 provides a basis for jurisdiction if the
child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm
as a result of the parent’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or

                                        7
protect the child (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A)–(B)), the willful or negligent failure to
provide for the minor’s basic needs, including adequate medical treatment
(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(C)), or the inability of the parent to provide regular care
for the child due to the parent’s “mental illness, . . . , or substance abuse”
(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(D)). Under this subdivision, jurisdiction is not
appropriate solely due to a family’s homelessness or indigence.
(§ 300, subd. (b)(2)(A), (C).)
      “[T]he purpose of a dependency proceeding [is] to protect the child,
rather than prosecute the parents.” (In re H.R. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1277,
1285.) A dependency petition is brought on behalf of a child based on the
type of harm suffered. If the child comes within the description of one of the
section 300 subdivisions, “the petition is simply ‘sustained’; it is not sustained
against a parent or as to one or both parents.” (Cal. Judges Benchguides,
Benchguide 101: Juvenile Dependency Jurisdiction Hearing (CJER 2018)
§ 101.5, p. 101–10.) The court “gains jurisdiction over a parent only when
that parent is properly notified.” (Id. at § 101.4, p. 101–10.)
      Here, the Agency presented evidence that the primary safety concern
for Minor was that he suffered, or was at risk of suffering emotional harm
due to Father’s inability to provide for Minor’s mental health conditions.
Contrary to Minor’s contention, the petition assigns Father responsibility for
the emotional harm to Minor. The petition alleges the emotional harm was
caused by Father’s failure to ensure Minor received his medications due to
Father’s substance abuse and untreated mental health conditions. Based on
that emotional harm, or potential emotional harm, the court properly
exercised jurisdiction.
      As county counsel pointed out, whether Father’s drug use and
untreated mental conditions posed the risk of additional physical harm to

                                         8
Minor was unclear based on the evidence at this stage of the proceeding.
Such a nexus is required under section 300, subdivision (b).
      The case of In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, cited by Minor,
involved a denial reunification services based on a parent’s failure to make
reasonable efforts to address the issues leading to dependency. In that case,
the mother remained enmeshed in a drug life that posed a danger to her
children. She refused to participate in reunification services and
continuously denied wrongdoing over several years. (Id. at pp. 196–197.) In
that circumstance, the court properly determined there was substantial
evidence to support the conclusion that the mother failed to make reasonable
efforts to treat the issues underlying the dependency matters and denied
further reunification services. The court commented, “[o]ne cannot correct a
problem one fails to acknowledge.” (Id. at p. 197.)
      That is not yet the situation here. The court here ordered the Agency
to provide reunification services to Father and ordered Father to comply with
those services. The initial case plan identified concerns about Father’s use of
methamphetamines, his untreated mental health issues, and how these
issues affected his ability to care for Minor and to meet Minor’s needs,
including Minor’s mental health needs. The case plan identifies services for
Father including parent education, substance abuse treatment, therapy, and
medication management for Father’s conditions. The Agency is to obtain a
psychological evaluation and Father is required to follow the
recommendations. Father attended the child and family team meeting and
apparently agreed to comply with the case plan. He expressed understanding
at various times that he needs to take medication. Whether Father can or
will comply with the case plan and take steps to remedy the issues that
brought Minor into dependency proceedings again will be the subject of

                                       9
further review hearings. It is speculative to conclude an additional
jurisdictional finding would somehow encourage Father to engage more fully
in services.
      This is not a situation where the allegations of the dependency petition
impact the availability of services. In the case of In re Jessica C. (2001)
93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1040 a minor testified that the father “touched” her
vagina with his penis, rather than “penetrated” her vagina as alleged in the
petition. The appellate court determined the juvenile court abused its
discretion in denying a request to amend the petition according to proof
regarding whether there was genital “touching” rather than “penetration.”
The denial of the request to amend the petition according to this testimony
was prejudicial to the minor because a true finding of genital-on-genital
“touching” would support an allegation of “severe sexual abuse,” which can
result in the absolute denial of reunification services. (Id. at pp. 1042–1043.)
      Here, Minor has presented no authority to support the contention that
adding an allegation under section 300, subdivision (b) would impact the type
or availability of reunification services offered in this case. Based on the
record before us, we cannot conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion
in denying the motion to amend the petition.

                                       10
                              DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

                                            HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

                                  11