Court Opinion

ID: 9375438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 19:02:36.19824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.795041
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/27/23 In re A.M. CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Plumas)
                                                            ----

 In re A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile                                          C096017
 Court Law.

 PLUMAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL                                             (Super. Ct. No. JV-2100004 &
 SERVICES,                                                                               JV-2100005)

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 C.M.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         C.M., is the father of children A.M. (four years old) and K.M. (six years old). On
February 14, 2022, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing

                                                             1
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e).1 (§§ 366.21, 395.)
Following that hearing, the juvenile court terminated father’s reunification services, but
continued them for the children’s mother.2 On appeal, father contends the order should
be reversed because the Plumas County Department of Social Services (the Department)
failed to provide him with reasonable services. We affirm.
                                     BACKGROUND
                                                 I
                                          Petitions
       In April 2021, the Department filed section 300 petitions on behalf of A.M. (then
age three) and K.M. (then age four), alleging father was unable to provide regular care for
the children due to his mental illness. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Father was experiencing
delusions leading him to accuse mother of drinking the children’s blood. Father’s
delusions also lead him to accuse mother, as well as several prominent politicians and
celebrities, of sexually abusing the children.
       The Department also alleged that, as a result of his mental illness, father refused to
allow social workers and law enforcement into his home, which is fortified with gates
and guard dogs, to assess the home for safety. When father did meet with the social
worker and law enforcement, he wore a handgun displayed on his hip. Father would not
allow the children “out of his sight” and the younger child, A.M., had developmental
delays.
       This behavior, the Department alleged, put the children at risk of serious
emotional damage. (§ 300, subd. (c).) Father also made graphic statements about the
accusations of sexual abuse in front of the children. According to father, when the

1     Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise indicated.
2      Mother is not a party to this appeal.

                                                 2
children saw pictures of Prince Harry, Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, or President Joe
Biden on the internet, the children would report that these individuals hurt them. At the
time of the petition, the children were both experiencing “withdrawal” and “anxiety.”
                                             II
                                    Detention Hearing
       In the April 14, 2021 detention report, the Department recommended the children
be detained. The family had a significant history with child protective services in both
Sacramento County and Plumas County, dating back to 2016, when K.M. was born. In
2016, the parents abandoned K.M. in the intensive care unit for two weeks. In 2019,
father was arrested for domestic violence. That same year, mother sought psychiatric
help; she reported sexually abusing K.M.3 Mother also said she tried to kill father.
       In 2021, father contacted the Department through “various crisis lines.” He
reported the children were “victims of a cult that had perpetrated sex crimes” and he was
offered counseling services for himself and the children. Father either ignored or refused
the offers for services. Father also reported that mother involved the children in a cult
that drank the children’s blood and made the children eat human feces and sexually abuse
animals. Father also said he believed K.M. could speak to his dead grandmother, which
allowed K.M. to solve multiple murders.
       On April 19, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the children detained pending the
jurisdiction hearing. The court also ordered services be provided “as soon as possible”
and father be provided supervised visitation twice a month for one hour. In addition, the

3      Mother’s therapist subsequently said mother “did not abuse her children and ‘any
statements she may have made contrary to this were done under extreme emotional
distress fueled by social isolation, confusion, and fear and have no basis in reality.’ ”
Counsel for the children also advised the juvenile court that Dr. April Bay, who
performed the children’s psychological evaluation, reported that both children “have
scores of zero for likelihood of sexual abuse.”

                                             3
court appointed a guardian ad litem for father after counsel noted he was a “stroke
victim” who also had communication issues; counsel was not convinced father
understood the process.
                                              III
                              Contested Jurisdiction Hearing
       The Department’s jurisdiction report noted that father’s visitation with the children
began on April 28, 2021. That visit was telephonic and was supervised by two social
workers. During that call, K.M. told father she had a scratch on her leg “near her
bottom.” Father did not accept the foster parent’s explanation and repeatedly asked K.M.
“[w]here is the scratch? On your butt?” He called the Department the next day to talk
about “ ‘concerning things,’ during the call with the children.”
       Father denied involving the children in conversations about mother’s alleged
behavior; said the children were the ones who initiated conversations about sexual issues;
and said the allegations against him were either fabricated or misunderstandings. Father
also refused the social worker’s offer of a webcam to facilitate virtual visits. Ultimately,
the Department recommended the children remain in the custody of the juvenile court,
and father continue with supervised visitation twice a month either telephonically or
virtually.
       At the May 10, 2021 contested jurisdiction hearing where the father testified, the
juvenile court adopted the Department’s recommendations, sustained the allegations in
the petition, took jurisdiction over the children, and set the matter for disposition.
                                              IV
                                 Initial Disposition Hearing
       On May 17, 2021, social worker Heidi Hysmith attempted to interview father, but
he refused to participate “until his attorney explained the purpose of the interview.”
Father said he was “ ‘tired of talking to you guys [the Department], the truth gets
twisted.’ ” Father then accused the Department of refusing to take relevant evidence and

                                              4
ignoring his allegations of sexual abuse. Several hours later, he agreed to participate; a
second social worker joined the interview.
       During the interview, father made more bizarre accusations about mother, cults,
drug cartels, and alleged molestation of the minors, similar to those he had made before.
He also accused mother of injecting the children with methamphetamine and said K.M.’s
foot hurt because mother had a tracking device implanted there. The social workers
offered to take all of father’s evidence and give it to his lawyer but reminded him only
the judge could return the children to his custody. This angered father, who had not seen
the children in 16 days. The social workers reassured him they were working on setting
up a phone call and would continue to do so as soon as they finished talking to him.
Before they ended the call, father accused two social workers of “ ‘licking and fingering
his girls and engaging in sex parties.’ ” They reassured him that was not the case.
       During a phone call on May 3, 2021, father again accused the social workers of
sexually abusing the children. While on the call, father continued to talk over the social
worker as she attempted to address his concerns. After asking him repeatedly to let her
speak and warning him she would hang up if he continued to talk over her, the social
worker ended the call. Father immediately called back and made more accusations about
mother drugging him so she could sexually abuse the children and described numerous
incidents of abuse he witnessed. When the social worker offered to send father to a
therapist to deal with these traumatic experiences, he became angry.
       The Department opined father could not safely maintain the children in his home
because of his “mental illness and involving the children in his alternate perception of
reality.” Father did, however, attend every visit offered and was “mostly appropriate,”
although he occasionally had to be redirected because he would talk about the case and
coach the children. When he was redirected, father became hostile to the supervising
social workers. A case plan was prepared for both parents.

                                             5
       At the May 24, 2021 disposition hearing, the juvenile court learned father’s visits
were all virtual and asked why the visits could not be in-person. The Department
indicated that, given father’s conduct, they could not start in-person visits without “a
therapeutic element” and the children had not yet had their behavioral assessments, which
would provide “additional clarification as to what would be appropriate and what is
available.” Those assessments were scheduled to take place approximately two weeks
after the hearing.
       At the hearing, the father requested a contested disposition hearing. The juvenile
court then continued the matter. Despite the Department’s concerns, the court ordered in-
person visitation for father. The visits were to take place in the Department’s facilities
with at least two social workers present. The court reiterated the Department had the
authority to end a visit if anything inappropriate occurred.
                                             V
                              Contested Disposition Hearing
       The contested disposition hearing took place on June 21, 2021. Days earlier, the
Department filed an addendum to the disposition report recommending father’s visitation
be reduced from weekly to twice a month and that reunification services be provided as
set forth in the May 24, 2021 case plan.
       At the hearing, father testified the children were molested and he tried to get them
help. According to father, K.M. said, “over 100 adults, and probably 35, 45 children”
have sexually abused her; he also believed mother consumed the children’s blood. Father
protects the children by keeping them away from mother. Father denied preventing law
enforcement or social workers from entering his property, and he described behavior
from both children that concerned him, K.M. in particular. Father was also concerned
that mother had a tracking device implanted in K.M.
       If the children were returned to him, father agreed the Department could have
“regular contact” with them and he would be “open to welfare checks on a regular basis.”

                                              6
Father, however, did not believe parenting classes were necessary, nor was a
psychological evaluation. He also was adamant that he did not suffer from delusions; he
was only trying to get justice for his children. Father was visiting the children once a
week, in person, for approximately two hours. He had not missed a single visit offered
and, in his opinion, the visits were going well.
       Social worker Melissa Smith testified that the case plan required father to attend
parenting classes, obtain a psychological evaluation and mental health assessment, visit
the children, and participate in family therapy. She gave father a referral for the mental
health assessment, but he had been “very unwilling to participate in services.” According
to Smith, father would get “totally upset when we try to discuss it.” She further testified
that the case plan could be modified based on the results of father’s assessments and
psychological evaluation, but those had not yet been done.
       The juvenile court issued dispositional orders, including weekly visitation and
adoption of the May 24, 2021 case plan. Over father’s strenuous objection, the court also
ordered the children vaccinated.
                                             VI
                                   Interim Review Hearing
       The Department’s September 2021 interim review report noted that in June, the
children were moved to a home in Plumas County in order to, among other things,
require less travel for father’s visits because father had some physical limitations. During
one visitation, the social worker observed father whispering in K.M.’s ear, after which
K.M. told the social worker that her mother molested her. After that visit, K.M.
repeatedly told her foster mother that “her privates hurt.”4 The foster mother also

4     At the time, mother was sober, fully participating in services, and had only
supervised visitation with the children.

                                              7
reported an increase in the children’s negative and destructive behaviors after visiting
father, as well as when they were told a visit was upcoming.
       During late summer 2021, the Department had to cancel in-person visits due to the
Dixie Fire. In lieu of in-person visits, the Department offered father virtual visitation and
agreed to “make up all canceled in-person visitation once it is safe to do so.” On seven
occasions between July 29, 2021 and August 20, 2021, however, when the Department
reached out to set up a virtual visit for father, he did not respond.
       Appended to the September 2021 interim report was a lengthy letter sent to father
by social worker Smith. Smith cataloged the many efforts the Department made to reach
father between July 16, 2021 and August 25, 2021. Smith listed 13 separate attempts to
contact father, including the several attempts to schedule virtual visitation. On
August 19, 2021, after not hearing from father for several weeks, Smith contacted law
enforcement and requested a welfare check on father. Law enforcement reported back to
her that father was not contacting the Department because he “did not want to deal with
the Department.”
       Smith also advised father of the reunification services ordered by the juvenile
court at the disposition hearing, including a mental health assessment, a psychological
evaluation, and a substance use disorder assessment. She noted that a referral to
behavioral health was submitted on his behalf three times and warned if he failed to
contact behavioral health in 10 days, the current referral would close. She would,
however, continue to resubmit the referral monthly “in order to insure the Mental Health
and Substance Abuse Services are available to you.”
       A referral to Plumas Rural Services for numerous other court-ordered services also
was submitted and several service providers attempted to contact father, often to no avail.
The service providers who were able to reach father told Smith that father did not
understand why he had to participate in services. Father told the providers he did not
“need the services,” or the services were “a mistake that will be addressed in Court.”

                                               8
Smith advised father to contact the Department and engage in the “Court Ordered Case
Plan Services.”
       By the time of the September 2021 interim report, the Department reported that
father “refused or declined all Court Ordered Case Plan Services and has not contacted
the Department since July 16, 2021.”
       At the September 13, 2021 interim review hearing, father was present along with
his counsel and guardian ad litem. Father’s counsel advised the juvenile court that father
was not participating in reunification services, although he was “advised to do so.”
Counsel also advised that father repeatedly asked for new counsel; his guardian ad litem
opposed the request. The juvenile court advised father to begin participating in services,
affirmed the orders already in effect, and set the six-month review hearing. The court did
not appoint new counsel.
                                            VII
                           Contested Six-Month Review Hearing
       The Department’s December 6, 2021 six-month review report recommended
father’s reunification services be terminated. Father was refusing to participate in “any
Case Plan Services, including Visitation with his children, and has made no observable
behavioral change to safely parent the children.” Father refused any visitation with the
children after July 23, 2021 and “refused any form of contact with the Department.” He
refused all of the Department’s efforts to engage him in services, including but not
limited to, money for gas, transportation, a webcam for virtual visits, email contact, and
“multiple repeated referrals for services to appropriate agencies.” He told service
providers “he did not want them to continue to contact him as he was not interested in
participating in their offered services.” As result of father’s “total disengagement,” the
Department concluded there was a “substantial likelihood that reunification will not
occur[.]”

                                             9
       On December 13, 2021, father’s counsel and guardian ad litem appeared for the
six-month review hearing; father failed to appear. The Department advised the juvenile
court that father “absolutely refuses to discuss anything with [them] or contact them.”
Counsel, however, was surprised father was not there, given their discussions. In father’s
absence, counsel declared a conflict and requested new counsel be appointed. The
guardian ad litem agreed the appointment of new counsel was consistent with father’s
wishes. The court agreed to relieve father’s counsel and appoint new counsel and found
good cause to continue the hearing to December 27, 2022.
       The matter was continued a few more times and the contested hearing eventually
took place on February 14, 2022. Father’s new counsel and guardian ad litem were
present, but father was not. Counsel indicated father had been “on the fence” about
appearing when they last spoke, but as of that morning, it was clear he was not going to
be there. Counsel asked for a continuance, which the juvenile court denied because they
were operating under statutory time limits and “there doesn’t appear to be any legitimate
reason for [father] not being here.”
       The juvenile court advised counsel the question presented at this hearing was
whether to terminate father’s reunification services. Citing section 366.21, subdivision
(e)(5), the court understood it could terminate services if father had not contacted or
visited the children for six months.
       The current social worker, assigned in November 2021, was Ava Hagwood.
Hagwood testified the Department was recommending father’s services be terminated
because, among other things, father failed to participate in the case plan. Father’s last
contact with the Department was in September 2021. During that conversation, father
said, “he wanted nothing to do with the Department . . . he was not interested
participating due to making a lot of allegations against the Department, against the Court,
saying that he disagreed with his children being removed and what was being said in the
court reports.” The last time anyone in the Department saw father in person, was July

                                             10
2021—over six months prior. That was also the last time he participated in visitation
with the children.
       Hagwood understood that father had some physical limitations, but she did not
think those limitations rendered him incapable of participating in services. Many of the
services father was required to participate in were offered virtually, so father did not have
to travel. Many services were also offered in father’s hometown and he would not have
to travel more than 10 minutes.
       Since her assignment to the case in November 2021, Hagwood twice reached out
to father by email; once in January and once in February. She asked him to send proof of
his participation in services and each time sent him a copy of the court-ordered case plan.
Father did not respond to either email.
       Hagwood did not attempt to reach father by phone because, based on her prior
contact with father, she asked for and received permission from her supervisor to contact
him only by email. She described taking a call from father in the summer 2021, before
she was assigned to the case. During that call, father accused Hagwood’s coworkers of
being involved in a sex-ring. He accused other people in the Department, the juvenile
court, the judge, and his own attorney of engaging in “illegal activities.” Hagwood said
his behavior could only be described as “hostile.”
       Hagwood described Smith, the previous social worker, as “incredibly diligent in
contacting [father], going above and beyond, to make those attempts to contact and have
communication[.]” Hagwood also confirmed that father was sent a copy of the six-month
review report.
       Following argument from counsel, the juvenile court found by clear and
convincing evidence that father “has not contacted or visited the children for six months.”
The court acknowledged father’s last visit was in July 2021, after which “the Department
pretty much lost contact” with father. The court found that father “was not willing to do
anything that might have facilitated the visits.” The court also found by clear and

                                             11
convincing evidence that reasonable services were offered but father was “unwilling to
participate.” Accordingly, the court terminated father’s reunification services pursuant to
section 366.21, subdivision (e)(5), continued services for the children’s mother, and set
the matter for a 12-month family reunification review hearing.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that he failed to contact or
visit the children for six months prior to terminating his services. Nor does he challenge
the court’s authority to terminate his reunification services at the six-month review
hearing.5 Rather, he argues the Department was required to provide him reasonable
services despite his failure to visit the children, and substantial evidence does not support
the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided. We are not
persuaded.
                                              I
                                      Legal Principles
       At each review hearing, if the child is not returned to his or her parent, the juvenile
court is required to determine, by clear and convincing evidence, whether “reasonable
services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the
problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been
provided or offered to the parent.” (§§ 366.21, subds. (e)(8), 366.22, subd. (a).) “The
‘adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Agency’s] efforts are
judged according to the circumstances of each case.’ [Citation.] To support a finding
that reasonable services were offered or provided to the parent, ‘the record should show

5      Indeed, such a challenge would fail, when the juvenile court finds by clear and
convincing evidence “the parent has failed to contact and visit the child,” it may
terminate family reunification services at a six-month review hearing. (§§ 366.21,
subd.(e)(5), 361.5 (a)(2)(B); see Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1017;
In re Monique S. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 677, 682-683.)

                                             12
that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered
services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the
parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the
parents in areas where compliance proved difficult.’ ” (In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th
1, 13-14, italics omitted.) The services provided do not have to be the best services that
could have been provided, rather they must have been reasonable under the
circumstances. (See Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969, citing
In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)
       We review the juvenile court’s determination of reasonable services for substantial
evidence. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.) “When reviewing a
finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before
the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from
which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.
In conducting its review, the court must view the record in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below and give appropriate deference to how the trier of fact may have
evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn
reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th
989, 1011-1012.)
       The burden is on the appellant to show the evidence is insufficient to support the
juvenile court’s findings. (In re M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 14.) We “must view
the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in all
legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is substantial
evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be
disturbed.” (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.)

                                             13
                                              II
                                          Analysis
       After reviewing the record, we find father’s arguments unavailing. Father first
contends the Department knew he “had difficulty trusting and communicating with
others, particularly such people as service providers, law enforcement, and government
officials like the department’s own social workers.” He contends the Department failed
to develop a case plan that would help father “get past these issues” and participate in the
reunification process. Father cannot, however, challenge the case plan itself, which was
part of the court’s disposition order, because he did not appeal from that order. (Sara M.
v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1018.) “[A]n unappealed disposition or
postdisposition order is final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a
later appealable order.” (In re Jesse W. (2001) 93 Cal.App. 4th 349, 355.)
       In any event, the Department created the case plan based on the information it had
at that time: father appeared to be suffering from delusions; was involving the children in
his delusions; and had a history of domestic violence. The primary component, as
underscored at the interim hearing by the juvenile court, was the mental health
assessment and psychological evaluation. The case plan could have been modified if
father had engaged at all, but father refused to participate in those services. As a result,
the Department could not even identify any of father’s more specific needs in order to
modify the case plan.
       Furthermore, father fails, even now, to suggest what services should have been
provided to force or cajole him to participate. Reunification services are voluntary and
cannot be forced on an unwilling parent. (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233.)
A social worker is not required to “ ‘take the parent by the hand and escort him or her to
and through classes or counseling sessions.’ ” (Ibid.)
       Next, father contends the Department made minimal effort to offer him therapeutic
visitation, as required by the case plan. This contention also lacks merit. At the

                                             14
jurisdiction hearing, the Department indicated therapeutic visitation had not yet begun
because it required an assessment of the children, which had not yet happened due to
scheduling issues. In lieu of therapeutic visitation, however, the Department agreed
visitation would happen with two social workers present, and that is precisely what
occurred until father stopped participating in visitation in July 2021.6 Importantly,
father’s services were not terminated because he failed to participate in therapeutic
visitation, they were terminated because he failed to contact or visit the children at all for
six months.
       Father also contends his ability to visit the children was hampered by his inability
to drive more than 45 minutes and the Department failed to accommodate his limitation.
This assertion is wholly contradicted by the record. The Department acknowledged this
limitation and relocated the children to be closer to father to better facilitate visitation.
The Department also offered father virtual visitation, even before the Dixie Fire; they
even offered him a webcam, which he refused.
       Ignoring his own failure to engage, father also argues the Department simply
“gave up” on him and made no effort to overcome his struggles to comply with the case
plan. This contention is belied by the record. The record shows the Department made
every reasonable effort to communicate with father and encourage him to participate in
services. Social workers called him and emailed him; they sent law enforcement to his
house when they could not reach him.
       Yet rather than participate in services, even begrudgingly, father remained hostile
to the social workers and the process. He accused the Department of ignoring relevant
evidence and engaging in sex acts with the children. He accused the juvenile court and
his attorneys of working against him and engaging in illegal activities. Nonetheless, the

6      Hagwood testified that according to Smith’s notes, Smith did “invite” father to
participate in therapeutic visitation “sometime after July 2021.”

                                               15
Department persisted, along with his attorney and his guardian ad litem. But even when
father was participating in visitation, he refused to participate in any other services.
       By December 2021, father had made it clear to the Department and to several
service providers that he had no interest in engaging in services. Despite his refusals,
Hagwood continued to reach out to father by email. She emailed him in January and
again in February; she sent him his case plan and reminded him he was ordered by the
juvenile court to participate. Father remained silent and continued making no effort to
see the children, participate in any services, or even remain in contact with the
Department.
       By the February 14, 2022, six-month review hearing, it had been more than six
months since father visited or contacted the children. “There is no purpose served in
continuing to offer services where a parent, absent extenuating circumstances, makes no
effort to reach out to his or her child for six months in the dependency process.” (In re
Monique S., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 682-683.) No such extenuating services exist
here where father not only failed to visit the children but refused to participate in
services.
       Finally, father suggests the services he was offered were not reasonable because
the Department failed to explain to him the consequences if he failed to participate.
Again, we disagree. The Department made it clear to father that he was ordered to
participate in services. Then, at the interim review hearing, five months before his
services were terminated at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court advised
father to start participating in services. Most importantly, however, father had both
counsel and a guardian ad litem supporting him inside and outside the courtroom. Their
job was to help him understand the process and the consequences of his failure to
participate; there is no evidence, and no argument has been made, that they failed to do
that job. Indeed, at the interim review hearing, counsel said she had advised father to
start engaging in services. Father ignored her advice.

                                              16
       Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude the Department made
reasonable efforts to provide father with reunification services. It was father’s own
resistance and hostile behavior that limited the Department’s ability to provide him with
the services he needed for reunification. (See In re Christina L., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 417-418 [parent’s resistance to participating in services supported the conclusion the
agency made a good faith effort to provide services under the circumstances].)
Accordingly, we further conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s order
terminating father’s reunification services.

                                               17
                                    DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court orders are affirmed.

                                                    \s\                    ,
                                                McADAM, J.*

      We concur:

         \s\           ,
      MAURO, Acting P. J.

          \s\              ,
      KRAUSE, J.

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

                                           18