In re Natalie B. CA4/1 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/25/13 In re Natalie B. 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 NATALIE B., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    D063630
    SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
    (Super. Ct. No. NJ14758)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    JESSICA B.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J.
    Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
    Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
    Counsel and Erica R. Cortez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Jessica B., the adult sister and legal guardian of minor Natalie B., appeals the
    juvenile court's jurisdictional finding over Natalie under Welfare and Institutions Code
    section 300, subdivision (c).1 We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On December 20, 2012, the San Diego County Health and Human Services
    Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of 15-year-old Natalie.
    The petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (c),2 that Natalie was at substantial
    risk of harm because she did not have a parent or guardian capable of providing her with
    appropriate care. The petition further alleged Natalie had major depressive disorder and
    had been cutting the tops of her feet, as a result of which she had been admitted to Sharp
    Mesa Vista Hospital under a section 5150 mental health hold. During her hospitalization,
    the petition alleged, Natalie continued to cut herself. The petition further noted Natalie's
    history of cutting, suicidal ideations and psychiatric hospitalizations. The petition
    concluded that Natalie required "mental health treatment which her guardian [was]
    unequipped to provide."
    1      All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    2      This subdivision provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any child who comes
    within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
    which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] (c) The child is
    suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial 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 or
    guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care."
    (§ 300, subd. (c).)
    2
    Detention
    In a detention report dated December 21, 2012, social worker Charles
    Montgomery summarized the events preceding the filing of the petition as follows:
    Natalie's father is deceased and her mother has not been involved in her life since Natalie
    was three due to drug and alcohol addiction. Natalie's aunt cared for her from age three
    until she became unable to do so in 2009 due to her own mental health and neglect issues,
    at which point Jessica began caring for Natalie. In 2010, Jessica was appointed Natalie's
    legal guardian.
    Natalie was diagnosed with "Major Depression Disorder, recurrent severe with
    Borderline Personality traits," and had previously been diagnosed with the eating disorder
    anorexia. In May 2012, Natalie began receiving individual therapy because she was
    extremely depressed, lost 30 pounds due to her eating disorder and continued to have
    fantasies of killing herself.
    In the summer of 2012, Natalie was admitted to University of California, San
    Diego, counseling and psychological services (CAPS) for two months due to suicidal
    ideations. While there, Natalie wrote about threatening to kill herself at home so that
    Jessica and her two-year-old daughter would find her. Within 24 hours of her release
    from CAPS, Natalie was admitted to Aurora Behavioral Health (Aurora) for cutting on
    her wrists. Natalie remained at Aurora for one week. In October 2012, Jessica and
    Natalie began receiving in-home support services from Families Forward Wraparound
    Program.
    3
    On December 6, 2012, one of Natalie's teachers called the police after observing
    that Natalie had been cutting on the tops of her feet for about four days. Natalie was
    admitted that same day to Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital for a section 5150 hold for being a
    danger to herself. During her hospitalization, Natalie cut on both wrists numerous times
    with a staple. Natalie was then placed on one-on-one supervision, not allowed clothing
    with pockets but instead was required to wear a gown, and was restricted from coming
    within 10 feet of certain patients.
    Social worker Montgomery interviewed Natalie during this hospitalization.
    Natalie reported that she began cutting herself when she was in sixth grade, that it is
    addicting and that she does it to be happy. Natalie told Montgomery it was her "visual
    thinking" that allowed her to write the letter about killing herself at home so that her
    sister and niece would find her body. Natalie said she loved Jessica, Jessica did not abuse
    or neglect her, Jessica was meeting all of her needs and she hoped to return to Jessica's
    home. But Natalie admitted she would not feel safe if she was home alone.
    When the hospital deemed Natalie ready for discharge, Jessica declined to pick her
    up, after which Natalie cut her own arms with a staple again. When the hospital deemed
    Natalie ready for discharge about two weeks later, Jessica again declined to pick her up
    due to concerns about keeping Natalie safe at home and about protecting Jessica's
    daughter from Natalie's suicidal ideations and gestures. After Jessica declined to pick up
    Natalie the second time, Natalie was admitted to Polinsky Children's Center (Polinsky).
    On the day Natalie was admitted to Polinsky, social worker Montgomery
    interviewed Jessica at her home. During the interview, Jessica stated she was meeting
    4
    Natalie's needs to the best of her ability, but admitted Natalie's behaviors had gotten
    "considerably worse" and Natalie was in dire need of "Residential Treatment with intense
    therapy." Jessica also discussed Natalie's suicidal ideations, including Natalie's plan to
    either be hit by a train, hit by a car, overdose on pills, or "bleed[] out in a bathtub."
    Jessica also described Natalie's conduct during her December hospitalization at Sharp
    Mesa Vista as "glorifying" her cutting behaviors and telling other patients how easy it
    was to cut oneself and "get away with it."
    At the December 21, 2012, detention hearing, the court found the Agency made a
    prima facie showing under section 300, subdivision (c), and followed the Agency's
    recommendation by ordering that Natalie be detained at Polinsky, an approved foster
    home or a licensed group home. The court set a jurisdiction hearing for January 10,
    2013.
    Jurisdiction
    In a jurisdiction/disposition report submitted in connection with the January 10
    hearing, social worker Susan Melendez recommended the court make a true finding on
    the petition, Natalie be declared a dependent of the juvenile court and placed in a licensed
    group home, and that Jessica be offered reunification services. Melendez conveyed that
    Jessica stated in a January 2 interview that although she would like Natalie back in her
    home, Jessica understood that she was unable to provide the level of supervision
    necessary to keep Natalie safe. Jessica further acknowledged to Melendez that Natalie
    needed a higher level of care than she would receive at home, which Jessica described as
    a residential treatment facility where Natalie had daily access to therapy, doctors and
    5
    medication. At the hearing, the court set the matter for a contested jurisdiction and
    disposition hearing on February 15, 2013.
    Between the January 10 and February 15 hearings, the Agency submitted two
    addendum reports prepared by social worker Melendez. In the first, the Agency noted
    that Natalie's condition had improved and she had been removed from one-on-one
    supervision. The report further noted Natalie initially attempted to control her eating, but
    intervention corrected that issue. In the second report, Melendez reported that Natalie's
    behaviors continued to improve such that Melendez now recommended that Natalie
    return to Jessica's care, albeit subject to a true finding on the petition and a court-ordered
    voluntary case plan.
    At the February 15 contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Jessica
    requested a one-month continuance to put family therapy and respite care services in
    place and to prepare her home for Natalie's return. The court granted Jessica's request
    and continued the trial date to March 15, with a March 4 pretrial conference.
    At the March 4 pretrial conference, the parties informed the court during a
    chambers conference that they were close to resolving the matter by way of a court-
    ordered voluntary case plan. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to vacate the March 15
    trial date and the court set the matter for a jurisdictional hearing on March 11 "to finalize
    the settlement."
    At the beginning of the March 11 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the parties
    informed the court they had agreed to amend the last sentence of the petition from
    "[Natalie] requires mental health treatment which her guardian is unequipped to
    6
    provide," to "[Natalie] requires mental health treatment and her guardian recognizes that
    additional assistance would help stabilize Natalie." (Italics added.) The court noted that
    as a result of the language change, Jessica "would enter a slow plea and argue." Jessica
    then asked the court to dismiss the petition based on Natalie's improved condition since
    the time of the filing, but indicated that if the court were to make a true finding, she was
    not opposed to the Agency's dispositional recommendation. After commenting on the
    "many cycles" of mental health issues and Natalie's "cycl[ing] in and out of care" over the
    summer of 2012 in particular, the court made a true finding on the petition, returned
    Natalie to Jessica's care, and without adjudicating Natalie a dependent, ordered family
    preservation services under section 360, subdivision (b).3
    DISCUSSION
    Jessica contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court's assertion of
    jurisdiction over Natalie because Natalie's condition had improved sufficiently between
    the time the petition was filed and the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The
    Agency disagrees and asserts Jessica forfeited her right to appeal as a result of the parties'
    settlement history and Jessica's stipulation to amend the petition to read less culpably as
    3       This subdivision provides: "If the court finds that the child is a person described
    by Section 300, it may, without adjudicating the child a dependent child of the court,
    order that services be provided to keep the family together and place the child and the
    child's parent or guardian under the supervision of the social worker for a time period
    consistent with Section 301." (§ 360, subd. (b).)
    7
    to her capacity to care for Natalie.4 We find the record insufficient to enable us to
    evaluate the Agency's forfeiture argument and therefore exercise our discretion to decline
    to apply forfeiture. On the merits, we affirm.
    Under section 300, subdivision (c), a minor falls within the juvenile court's
    jurisdiction if she "is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial 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 or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing
    appropriate care." The petitioner in a proceeding under this subdivision must prove by a
    preponderance of the evidence that the child who is the subject of the petition comes
    under the juvenile court's jurisdiction. (In re Brison C. (2000) 
    81 Cal.App.4th 1373
    ,
    1379; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.684(f).) "While evidence of past conduct may be
    probative of current conditions, the question under section 300 is whether circumstances
    at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm." (In re Rocco M.
    (1991) 
    1 Cal.App.4th 814
    , 824.)
    We review jurisdictional findings under the substantial evidence standard of
    review. (In re A.S. (2011) 
    202 Cal.App.4th 237
    , 244.) "In considering a claim of
    insufficient evidence to support a jurisdictional finding, we review the evidence most
    favorably to the court's order—drawing every reasonable inference and resolving all
    conflicts in favor of the prevailing party—to determine if it is supported by substantial
    4      Natalie joins the Agency's arguments and positions under California Rules of
    Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).
    8
    evidence." (In re N.M. (2011) 
    197 Cal.App.4th 159
    , 168.) "If it is, we affirm the order
    even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion." (Ibid.) Moreover, so long as the
    jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence, the adequacy of the factual
    allegations in the dependency petition is irrelevant. (In re John M. (2012) 
    212 Cal.App.4th 1117
    , 1123.)5
    The record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the dependency petition under
    section 300, subdivision (c). The social workers' reports and addenda established that
    Natalie suffers from "Major Depression Disorder, recurrent severe with Borderline
    Personality traits," and had previously been diagnosed with the eating disorder anorexia.
    Natalie also suffered from vivid suicidal ideations and self-cutting behavior. These
    behaviors constitute the type of "emotional damage . . . evidenced by severe anxiety,
    depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others" required
    to find jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c).
    Sufficient evidence also supports the court's conclusion that although Natalie had
    been stabilized for a brief period by the time of the jurisdiction hearing, she remained at
    substantial risk for a reoccurrence of her self-destructive behaviors. In fact, in the
    approximately six-month period preceding the Agency's filing of the petition, Natalie had
    been hospitalized three times due to her suicidal fantasies, self-cutting and anorexia.
    During her hospitalizations, Natalie found ways to engage in self-cutting, glorified her
    5     An exception applies when the parent or guardian claims the petition fails to
    provide sufficient notice of the factual allegations. (In re John M., supra, 212
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1123.) Jessica does not contend she received insufficient notice.
    9
    cutting behavior to other patients and attempted to control her eating. She also expressed
    concerns about not feeling safe if she was left home alone.
    Natalie has demonstrated that the concern regarding potential reoccurrence is well-
    founded. In the summer of 2012, she was hospitalized for two months because of
    suicidal ideations. After she was stabilized enough to be released, she was admitted
    within 24 hours to another institution due to cutting on her wrists. At the March 11
    jurisdiction hearing, the court expressly acknowledged this cyclical pattern of Natalie's
    mental health issues.
    Finally, sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that Jessica was—despite her
    admirable and valiant efforts—unable to provide on her own the care Natalie required.
    During Natalie's December 2012 hospitalization, Jessica twice declined to pick her up
    over concern that she could not prevent Natalie from continuing to harm herself. When
    interviewed in preparation for the January 10 jurisdiction hearing, Jessica conceded that
    Natalie needed a higher level of care than Jessica could provide at home. Likewise, at the
    February 15 hearing when the Agency changed its recommendation to propose that
    Natalie return to Jessica's home, Jessica asked for a one-month continuance because she
    was not yet prepared to receive Natalie back into her home. Finally, the amended
    language of the petition to which Jessica stipulated—that Jessica "recognizes that
    additional assistance would help stabilize Natalie"—further supports the court's
    conclusion that Jessica was unable at the time of the hearing to provide Natalie the level
    of care she required absent a court-ordered case plan.
    10
    We applaud Jessica for rising to the occasion to care for her younger sister after
    her mother and aunt became unable to do so. But under the circumstances, we find
    sufficient evidence supports the court's determination that Natalie remained at risk of
    recurrent self-harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing and that Jessica was unable to
    provide the required level of care without court-ordered assistance.
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.
    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    NARES, J.
    MCINTYRE, J.
    11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D063630

Filed Date: 9/25/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014