D.L. v. Superior Court CA5 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/22/21 D.L. v. Superior Court CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    D.L.,
    F083376
    Petitioner,
    (Super. Ct. No. MJP018423)
    v.
    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA                                                          OPINION
    COUNTY,
    Respondent;
    MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    SOCIAL SERVICES,
    Real Party in Interest.
    THE COURT*
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Thomas L. Bender,
    Judge.
    D.L., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
    No appearance for Respondent.
    No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
    -ooOoo-
    *           Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
    D.L. (father) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court,
    rules 8.450–8.452)1 from the juvenile court’s orders issued at an 18-month review
    hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22)2 terminating reunification services as to his now
    14-year-old daughter, M.L., and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Father seeks a writ
    directing the juvenile court to provide him reunification services, including visitation.
    We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452
    regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition.
    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
    M.L. has a long history of being in the foster care system. She was removed from
    her mother’s custody in Oregon at a young age and moved from foster home to foster
    home. Over time, she developed behaviors associated with trauma and
    institutionalization. Father was unaware that he had a daughter until approximately
    February of 2018 when M.L. was 11. She was placed in his care in June 2018.
    These dependency proceedings were initiated in October 2019, when the Madera
    County Department of Social Services (department) received a referral alleging child
    abuse. M.L. was at an afterschool program at school when father arrived “ ‘yelling and
    irate’ ” because she had not come home. Father forced her to go home with him. A
    while later, M.L. returned to school, stating she was afraid he was going to “ ‘beat her
    up.’ ” The staff went on a lockdown for fear father would return for M.L. M.L. hid in
    the principal’s car and law enforcement was summoned. Law enforcement investigated
    and returned M.L. home. Father was still irate the following morning when he took M.L.
    to school. He threatened to sue the school. M.L. told the staff that father “ ‘pinned her
    down and beat her up’ ” the night before. The staff and M.L. were afraid father would
    return to the school and hurt M.L. M.L. did not have any injuries.
    1      Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
    2      Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    2.
    Social worker Kristie Moran and Madera County Sheriff’s Deputy Holladay met
    at M.L.’s school. Holladay said M.L. told him she was afraid to go home, and that father
    called her in as a runaway. Holladay said M.L. reported prior abuse but father denied
    hitting her. Father stated she was manipulative and had thrown him out of his chair over
    the summer. Father was disabled. M.L. was seeing a therapist, Charles Peugh, until she
    started to accuse him.3 Father had a history of child abuse as a child.
    M.L. told Moran she lived with father and her stepmother, Teresa Z. (Terry),
    father’s significant other. The house was clean and stocked with food and there was
    always an adult to supervise her. However, there was a lot of yelling, and the year before
    Terry kicked father in his bad leg. He did not report it to the police because Terry begged
    him not to. On a scale of zero to 10 where 10 is extremely afraid, she rated her fear of
    being at home as an “[eight]” because father hit her. Terry stood by while he hit her and
    did nothing.
    Father was angry the previous day because he found a cell phone in M.L.’s pocket
    and she was not supposed to have a cell phone. Father got mad because M.L. refused to
    give him the password to unlock her phone.
    Father denied holding M.L. down and hitting her. She pulled him out of his chair
    and tackled him, causing him to scrape his knees. He was concerned about her mental
    health and asked for help from the school but was told she was fine. He was worried
    something was going to happen to her. She had a cell phone and was on social media
    even though he forbad it. He was angry at the school officials because they knew she
    was going to run away and did not tell him. During the conversation with Moran and
    Holladay, father escalated to yelling multiple times and had to be asked by Holladay to
    calm down.
    3      The record does not specify the nature of M.L.’s accusations against Peugh.
    3.
    Moran conferred with her supervisor and a team decision meeting was scheduled
    for several days later to address the family issues and refer the family to the appropriate
    services. The meeting had to be rescheduled because of a staff shortage. When father
    was informed, he became irate and yelled at Moran because he had taken the day off to
    attend. Terry also yelled at Moran, stating they were already in Madera for the meeting
    and could not meet another day because they were busy. She told Moran the department
    could have M.L., and they would bring her there and drop her off. Shortly after, father
    and Terry arrived at the department offices and confronted Moran in the lobby. Moran
    explained to father that if he left M.L. with the department, it would be considered child
    abandonment. Father said he was going to get a lawyer because the department was
    harassing him. He yelled at M.L. to get in the car and the family left.
    Because of father’s combative and violent behavior, the department decided to file
    a dependency petition before the family situation escalated any further. The petition
    alleged M.L. came within the juvenile court’s dependency jurisdiction under section 300,
    subdivision (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (c) (serious emotional
    damage) because father hit her in the past, pinned her down and beat her up, and failed to
    provide her proper mental health care. As a result, her mental health deteriorated, and
    she had to be involuntarily detained. (§ 5150.)
    Father appeared at the detention hearing on November 21, 2019, and was
    disruptive and combative. He said he did not want M.L. in his care and left her at the
    courthouse. The department requested a protective hold, which the juvenile court
    granted. M.L. was placed into protective custody and into foster care. The court
    continued the hearing. Meanwhile, the department filed an amended petition, adding an
    allegation under section 300, subdivision (g) (no provision for support) that father was
    unable to provide or arrange a suitable plan for M.L.’s ongoing care and support.
    Father denied the allegations at the detention hearing on December 5, 2019, and
    the juvenile court ordered M.L. detained. County counsel informed the court that M.L.
    4.
    was placed with a family friend in the same school district where she was receiving
    assistance. The court set the matter for a jurisdictional hearing.
    Due to multiple continuances and contested hearings, the jurisdictional hearing did
    not take place until August 2020. The juvenile court appointed a court appointed special
    advocate (CASA) for M.L. The juvenile court found the allegations under section 300,
    subdivisions (b) and (c) true and adjudged M.L. a dependent child. The court found the
    allegations under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (g) were not true and dismissed them.
    The court set the matter for a dispositional hearing.
    The dispositional hearing was continued multiple times and conducted in
    March 2021. In its report for the hearing, the department recommended the juvenile
    court order father and M.L.’s mother to participate in reunification services. M.L. had
    adjusted to her foster home and was doing well in school. Her social worker noted M.L.
    was much more self-confident and spoke her mind. She had supervised telephone visits
    with father twice a week for 15 minutes. The visits generally went well, however, some
    conversations erupted into unhealthy exchanges between them. Father reported M.L. had
    reactive attachment disorder (RAD) and he encouraged her to speak up and make friends.
    He was taking classes to learn about RAD and planned to take a parenting class designed
    to address the disorder in children. He said he attended his services sporadically. When
    the social worker asked him if he would sign a release of information, he told her to mind
    her own business. He said M.L. was the one with a problem, not him.
    M.L.’s therapist reported M.L. was making progress but also regressed at various
    times during her treatment. The therapist was concerned that continuous exposure to
    trauma triggers could cause further regression and prevent her from returning to a level of
    functioning where she could self-regulate and manage her emotions. M.L. requested not
    to have father in her treatment, which limited the ability to explore that relationship. The
    department believed father needed to demonstrate he could be emotionally supportive of
    M.L. as she processed her trauma.
    5.
    The juvenile court ordered M.L. removed from parental custody at the
    dispositional hearing and ordered reunification services for father and M.L.’s mother.
    Father’s services plan required him to participate in mental health counseling and
    complete a parenting program. The court set the 18-month review hearing for May 2021.
    M.L.’s CASA submitted a report dated May 6, 2021 to the juvenile court. She
    informed the court that M.L. was previously thought to have RAD but was subsequently
    diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). On May 5, 2021, M.L. was
    involuntarily detained after disclosing suicidal thoughts to her school principal and
    school counselor. It was discovered she had been cutting herself. She was scheduled to
    be released on May 6. Her foster parent stated she was unable to continue caring for
    M.L. At a follow up visit, M.L. was also diagnosed with a severe and single episode of
    major depressive disorder and prescribed medication.
    The CASA was concerned that father would not participate in services. He was
    verbally aggressive and threatening to the departmental staff and told the CASA he did
    not want the department’s help. M.L. told the CASA she was afraid of father and Terry
    and did not want to return home. The CASA listened in on approximately 10 of the
    telephone visits between father and M.L. Father did most of the talking and talked
    mostly about himself and his home life. If M.L. talked about herself, he changed the
    subject back to him. The CASA was concerned about the impact the telephone visits
    with father had on M.L. After some visits, M.L.’s mental health regressed and her
    thoughts turned “dark.” M.L. wanted the telephone visits with father suspended. She
    expressed fear of him and was afraid he would show up unexpectedly at school or other
    locations. The CASA believed that if progress were to be made, father needed to
    cooperate with the department and engage in the services offered to him.
    The 18-month review hearing was continued until June 2021. Prior to the hearing,
    the CASA informed the juvenile court that M.L. was involuntarily detained again on May
    22, 2021, and released several hours later. She was in respite placement for three weeks
    6.
    and then placed with a foster mother on June 10. The CASA visited her on June 14 and
    found her confused, disappointed and agitated. M.L. felt secure in her former foster
    home because she knew where she would be going to school and who her friends would
    be. She was uncertain about her future in her new home. While the CASA was there,
    M.L. was withdrawn, wearing black clothing and a thick beanie on her head.
    On June 18, 2021, M.L. was involuntarily detained after expressing thoughts about
    harming herself and others. She was hospitalized for two days at a community hospital
    and released to her foster parent on June 20. The department scheduled a meeting for
    June 21 to discuss M.L.’s placement. However, before the meeting, the foster parent
    gave a 14-day notice to remove M.L. because M.L. reported hearing voices telling her to
    hurt herself or others. Father participated in the meeting by telephone but had to be
    excluded for being verbally abusive to the departmental staff.
    In its report for the 18-month review hearing, the department recommended the
    juvenile court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Father
    had not completed any of the services ordered for him and refused to speak to the social
    worker. He accused her of “ ‘caus[ing] this mess’ ” with M.L. and “ ‘coaching’ ” her to
    be adopted. He stated, “ ‘Your stupidity will be brought up in Court because you’re
    stupid.’ ” He also said, “ ‘I hope you have kids because I will follow you around. I will
    be your worst nightmare. I will call C.P.S. on you.’ ” When the social worker told father
    she would not be spoken to in that manner, he screamed, “ ‘F*** you b****.’ ”
    M.L.’s doctor said she suffered from extensive mental health issues and was being
    treated by a psychiatrist and a therapist. She reported her “ ‘anxiety and helplessness’ ”
    continued when she thinks about visiting father. Her doctor recommended her visits with
    father remain supervised. He reported, “Recently, [M.L.] had a severe exacerbation of
    trauma symptoms after having a phone call conversation with her father. This isn’t the
    first episode in which [she] got triggered after interacting with him. [The] [d]ay before
    7.
    [the] last hearing, [she] experienced nightmares about her abuse inflicted by her father.
    [Her] [m]edication [was] adjusted to manage [her] trauma symptoms.”
    Father appeared by telephone at the 18-month review hearing on September 21,
    2021. The juvenile court noted that the parents had not completed reunification services
    and it was inclined to follow the departments’ recommendations. Father stated, “There
    was never any services offered to me. They keep saying, ‘services.’ They never do
    anything.” He continued, “They talk a good game, but they don’t do sh**. Excuse my
    language.” The court stated it would like for M.L. to continue to receive help and
    visitation with father if it was appropriate. After counsel submitted the matter, the court
    terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 10, 2022.
    After the court suggested father might want to talk to his attorney, he stated, “Yeah. I’m
    sorry I ever heard of Madera County. You guys are the most pathetic people I have ever
    [come] in contact with.”
    DISCUSSION
    As he did during the proceedings below, father expresses his dissatisfaction with
    the department’s handling of his case. He claims, for example, he was not notified of his
    daughter’s status or provided pictures of her. He attached various documents to his
    petition, the majority of which are not included in the appellate record, but did not
    explain their significance to his purpose in filing a writ petition. The documents appear
    intended to bolster an argument that M.L. is manipulative and regrets causing father
    difficulty, and that father is making efforts to improve himself through education. Father
    fails, however, to raise a claim of judicial error, which compels us to dismiss the petition.
    “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments
    and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent,
    and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 
    2 Cal.3d 557
    , 564.)
    8.
    The purpose of these writ petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a
    substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s orders and findings issued at
    the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4)(A).)
    Rule 8.452, which sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ
    petition, requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile
    court made and to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority,
    and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1),
    we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible,
    recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law.
    Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error and support it by
    citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and
    the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re
    Sade C. (1996) 
    13 Cal.4th 952
    , 994.)
    By the time a dependency case reaches the 18-month status review hearing, the
    juvenile court has few options. It must either return the child to parental custody or set a
    section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan unless the court finds exceptional
    circumstances warrant continuing services beyond 18 months.
    The juvenile court must return the child to parental custody at the 18-month
    review hearing unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that doing so would
    “create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
    well-being of the child.” (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) “In evaluating detriment, the juvenile
    court must consider the extent to which the parent participated in reunification services.
    [Citations.] The court must also consider the efforts or progress the parent has made
    toward eliminating the conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement.” (In re
    Yvonne W. (2008) 
    165 Cal.App.4th 1394
    , 1400.) A parent’s failure to participate
    regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs constitutes
    prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) If the
    9.
    court finds it would be detrimental to return the child, it must set a section 366.26
    hearing. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3).)
    Exceptional circumstances that would allow the juvenile court to continue
    reunification services are where the parent was never provided reasonable reunification
    services (In re M.F. (2019) 
    32 Cal.App.5th 1
    , 21) or where the parent qualifies under any
    of the circumstances listed in section 366.22, subdivision (b).4
    Here, father’s failure to regularly participate and make substantive progress in his
    court-ordered services is prima facie evidence of detriment, which he does not challenge.
    Beyond prima facie evidence, there is compelling evidence that father’s behavior was
    upsetting to M.L. and threatened her ability to advance in her trauma recovery. In
    addition, father does not raise any of the exceptions that might have warranted an order
    continuing reunification services. Consequently, the juvenile court had no choice but to
    terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
    In light of father’s failure to raise a claim of error, we dismiss his petition because
    it fails to comport with rule 8.452.
    DISPOSITION
    The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final
    forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).
    4       To qualify, the parent must be a resident of a court-ordered substance abuse
    treatment program; or recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the
    custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security; or a minor or nonminor
    dependent at the time of the initial hearing. The court must also find the parent is making
    significant and consistent progress, there is a substantial probability the child will be
    returned to parental custody, and it is in the child’s best interest to continue reunification
    efforts. Under those circumstances, the court may continue services up to 24 months
    from the date the child was initially removed from parental custody. (§ 366.22,
    subd. (b).)
    10.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F083376

Filed Date: 12/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2021