In re Leann G. CA1/3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/27/21 In re Leann G. CA1/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    In re LEANN G., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN
    SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
    A162023
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                                    (Sonoma County
    Super. Ct. No. DEP-6104)
    J. T.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Leann G. was declared a dependent after the juvenile court found her
    father, J.T. (Father) failed to provide adequate dental care, resulting in
    multiple cavities and teeth in need of extraction, an infection, and a risk that
    she would suffer sepsis. The court placed her in Father’s custody and gave
    the Sonoma County Human Services Department (the Department) exclusive
    authority over her dental care. Father challenged the jurisdictional and
    dispositional orders, and on August 30, 2021 a different panel of this division
    affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to support the juvenile court’s
    findings. (In re L.G. (Aug. 30, 2021, A161341) [nonpub. opn.]; we take
    judicial notice of the record and opinion in case No. A161341.)
    1
    The Department filed a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,
    § 387)1 in November 2020 alleging Father did not bring Leann to
    appointments to address her urgent dental needs, and the next month
    amended it to allege his “volatile, aggressive, and evasive behavior” placed
    Leann at risk of harm in his care. The juvenile court sustained the
    supplemental petition and removed Leann from Father’s custody. Father
    challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s findings. We
    shall affirm the order.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    I. Prior Appeal—Jurisdiction and Disposition
    The facts leading up to the jurisdictional and dispositional orders are
    set forth in In re L.G., and we will not repeat them in detail here. Briefly,
    Leann did not see a dentist until she was five; when she did so in the summer
    2019, the dentist determined she had six cavities and three teeth in need of
    extraction. Father did not arrange for her teeth to be treated, believing the
    cavities “would just get infected and fall out on their own.” By January 26,
    2020, Leann had a swollen cheek as a result of an abscessed tooth; Father’s
    lack of cooperation caused the cancellation of two appointments to extract the
    tooth, although the dental surgery center concluded she could develop sepsis
    if her teeth were not treated.
    Father refused to discuss Leann’s dental care with the Department and
    failed to attend a team decision-making meeting scheduled for February 13,
    2020, and a few days later the Department filed a dependency petition (§ 300)
    alleging Leann had suffered or faced a substantial risk of physical harm or
    illness due to Father’s failure to provide proper dental care.
    1   All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    2
    The Department reported that the dental surgery center was willing to
    treat Leann on condition that Father be ordered to stay away, due to the
    “ ‘eruptive anger’ ” he had displayed in the office. Father reportedly
    scheduled an appointment with another dentist for April 2020. On July 13,
    Leann had an emergency procedure on an infected tooth. Later that month,
    her dentist discovered she now had cavities in 11 teeth, and an appointment
    to extract an infected tooth was scheduled.
    The juvenile court sustained the petition on August 14, 2020, citing,
    among other things, Father’s “long-standing refusal to cooperate with the
    [D]epartment in any way.”
    In August 2020, the dentist was unable to treat Leann because, despite
    the use of nitrous oxide, she screamed and blocked her mouth with her
    hands, and she was referred “to UCSF and Oakland Children’s Hospital.”
    Father took Leann to a dental appointment in Oakland in early September
    and advocated for the use of nitrous oxide. An appointment was scheduled
    for September 25.
    At the September 15, 2020 dispositional hearing, the court noted the
    worsening condition of Leann’s teeth and Father’s failure to obtain dental
    care adequate to address her dental health. Under the dispositional order,
    Leann remained in Father’s custody with family maintenance services and
    the court gave the Department authority to make decisions regarding
    Leann’s dental care. Father appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional
    orders, and on August 30, 2021 this court affirmed them.
    II. Current Appeal—Supplemental Petition
    Procedural Background
    The Department filed a supplemental petition on November 9, 2020
    alleging Father continued to fail to provide Leann, then seven years old, with
    3
    proper dental care, that he failed to bring her to scheduled appointments
    arranged through UCSF, and that neither the clinic nor the Department had
    succeeded in contacting Father. The petition alleged that Leann’s dentist
    had told the Department she had several cavities that required crowns and
    fillings, that at least one tooth needed to be extracted, that the situation was
    urgent and could lead to facial swelling or an abscess that could cause pain or
    trouble eating or sleeping, and that the swelling had the potential to block
    her airways. The Department sought to have Leann removed from Father
    and placed in foster care.
    The juvenile court detained Leann on November 10, 2020. On
    December 8, the Department filed an amended supplemental petition
    alleging in addition that Father had “demonstrated a pattern of volatile,
    aggressive, and evasive behavior” that put Leann at risk of serious harm and
    placed her in fear of him, on multiple occasions he had not allowed the
    Department or law enforcement to have access to Leann, he deliberately
    absconded with her to a motel on November 10, 2020 knowing he was to
    surrender her to the Department, and there had been multiple reports of
    “extreme aggression including yelling at Leann and his partner in the home,
    [and] multiple reports of throwing objects and hitting the walls while in the
    presence of the child, causing the child to hide in her room and be afraid of
    her father.”
    Evidence at Hearing on Supplemental Petition
    The Department’s reports and the testimony at the December 21, 2020
    contested hearing showed that Father took Leann to a dental appointment on
    September 25, 2020, but the clinic could not complete the work because he
    refused to allow anesthesia. According to her dentist, her need for treatment
    was “urgent, but not emergency”: if not treated, the swelling could increase,
    4
    leading to blocked airways and trouble eating or sleeping. Father did not
    bring Leann to scheduled appointments on October 1 and 15, 2020 at which
    she would have received treatment to stop the progression of her cavities.
    The social worker sent text messages to Father on October 13 and 21, 2020
    and a certified letter on October 14 asking him to contact her to set up a
    meeting, but he did not do so.
    The social worker scheduled a dental appointment for Leann on
    November 3, 2020 and sent a certified letter to Father with information about
    the visit on October 26. The letter was delivered on October 29, but Father
    told the social worker he received it on November 2 or 3. On October 28,
    Father sent the social worker a text message giving her the number for his
    new phone and asking if she had his email address. Later that day, the social
    worker made an unannounced home visit, but he refused to tell her where
    Leann was, saying, “ ‘you have no fucking right to see my kid.’ ” According to
    the social worker, Father “[p]ossibly” asked when the next dental visit would
    be; she said she thought it was the third or the fourth of November, then she
    checked the calendar on her phone, showed him the correct date and time,
    and told him the appointment was November 3. The social worker offered to
    set up transportation to the appointment, but Father declined the offer. He
    asked her to confirm the time of the appointment, and she later sent him a
    text message with incorrect information, saying it was “Tuesday, 11/4,”
    rather than the correct date of Tuesday, November 3. Father did not take
    Leann to the November 3 appointment and his cell phone was turned off and
    would not receive voicemail messages. The social worker asked the dental
    clinic to let her know if Father showed up, and the clinic never told her he
    had done so.
    5
    Police officers went to the home on November 4, 2020 after a neighbor
    called saying Father was yelling at his daughter while throwing objects and
    hitting walls. When they arrived, Father did not open the door in response to
    their knocking and announcing themselves as police, and they saw through a
    window that Leann was lying down and pretending to be asleep. A neighbor
    reported on November 11 that Father behaved unpredictably and had been
    heard yelling at Leann, hitting walls, and throwing objects and that Leann
    often cried while Father yelled obscenities at her. Leann later told the social
    worker that Father was “ ‘in a time out right now. He always gets mad and
    he yells a lot,’ ” and she would hide in her “ ‘tent’ ” on her bed when Father
    was yelling or her parents were fighting.
    At a hearing held by video on November 10, the juvenile court ordered
    Leann detained, and Father left the hearing early, before the next court date
    was confirmed. That day, the social worker contacted Father and told him
    when she would pick Leann up. Father asked for an additional hour to allow
    Leann to say goodbye to neighbors, and the social worker agreed. When she
    arrived at Father’s house with a police officer at the appointed time, no one
    was there. She made contact with Father, and he asked for more time; the
    social worker agreed, but he never arrived. The next day, November 11,
    Father’s girlfriend was seen walking out of a store with Leann and told law
    enforcement that Father had told her the previous day (i.e., November 10, the
    day of the video hearing at which Leann was ordered detained) that they
    needed to stay somewhere else and they then got a motel room. Leann later
    told the social worker Father had “surprised” her with a trip to a motel when
    he got off the computer, packed their belongings, and told her they would
    stay at the motel for a month.
    6
    Leann’s dentist told the social worker on November 5, 2020 that there
    was no state of emergency regarding her dental care but that there would be
    “definitely a worry” if it were put off. By early December 2020, Leann’s teeth
    were being treated at two clinics, and the Department and Leann’s caregivers
    were arranging to schedule further treatments, which would include at least
    one extraction and multiple crowns and fillings. One of the dental clinics was
    willing to treat her only if Father was not allowed to attend the appointment
    because he had threatened staff, causing them to fear for their safety.
    Father’s Testimony
    Father testified that Leann received dental treatment two or three
    times in August. He took her to dental visits on September 2 and 25 and
    discussed the possibility of two rounds of oral sedation, one for the work on
    the left side of Leann’s mouth and one for the right side, but he was not
    aware of any future appointments. He did not know why the dental clinic
    would say appointments were scheduled for October 1 or October 15. He did
    not receive any emails from the social worker from the second week of
    October until October 27 or 28. When the social worker made the
    unannounced visit on October 28, Leann was at her grandmother’s house. As
    the social worker was about to leave, Father asked if there was any
    information about dental visits, and she told him that an appointment was
    scheduled for the third or the fourth and that she would confirm the date
    when she returned to the office. Father denied that she showed him the
    correct date on her phone’s calendar. On November 4, he called the dental
    clinic approximately four and a half hours beforehand to let them know he
    and Leann were on the way, and he was told the appointment had been for
    the previous day. He did not contact the social worker to find out what had
    7
    happened. He said he did not check his mail and so did not receive the
    certified letter with the correct information until November 5 or 6.
    Father expressed concern about the effects of repeated fluoride
    treatments and the risk of general anesthesia rather than oral sedation, but
    he expressed willingness to take Leann to whatever dental appointments
    were necessary. He denied refusing to allow her to have general anesthesia.
    He denied ever saying cavities in baby teeth did not matter. He denied
    telling the social worker on October 28 that she had “no fucking right” to see
    Leann. He denied ever yelling and screaming at Leann and he was unaware
    of her hiding in her room or being afraid. He took Leann to the motel
    because he felt he had been “deceived” by the inaccurate appointment date on
    the social worker’s text message. He denied telling his former live-in
    companion to go to the motel with Leann after the November 10 hearing. He
    denied having “anger issues.”
    Juvenile Court’s Ruling
    In a December 21, 2020 order, the juvenile court sustained the
    allegations of the supplemental petition by clear and convincing evidence. In
    doing so, it expressly found that it believed the social worker when she
    testified she told Father the correct date of the November 3 appointment
    when she was at his house and that it did not believe Father’s testimony that
    he called the clinic on the morning of November 4 to confirm the dental
    appointment. The court found that placement with Father had been
    ineffective in protecting Leann, removed her from Father’s custody, and
    ordered reunification services for Father.
    DISCUSSION
    Father contends the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s
    removal findings. Section 387 authorizes the juvenile court to change a
    8
    previous order and remove a child from a current placement after a noticed
    hearing on a supplemental petition. (§ 387, subd. (a).) To support such an
    order when removing a child from a parent, there must be a showing that the
    current placement has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of
    the child. (§ 387, subd. (b).) “Unlike an original petition, a section 387
    supplemental petition does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. However,
    the supplemental petition can have the same drastic result of removing a
    dependent child from his or her custodial parent. The standard for removal
    on a supplemental petition is the same as removal on an original petition:
    the agency must show by ‘clear and convincing evidence . . . [t]here is a
    substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
    emotional well-being of the minor’ if left in parental custody ‘and there are no
    reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected
    without removing the minor from [parental] physical custody.’ ” (Kimberly R.
    v. Superior Court (2002) 
    96 Cal.App.4th 1067
    , 1077 (Kimberly R.), citing
    § 361, subd. (c)(1); accord, In re Brianna S. (2021) 
    60 Cal.App.5th 303
    , 312–
    313; In re C.M. (2017) 
    15 Cal.App.5th 376
    , 388.)
    A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of the parent’s
    “inability to provide proper care for the child and proof of a potential
    detriment to the child if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] ‘The
    parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually
    harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting
    harm to the child.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past
    conduct as well as present circumstances.” (In re N.M. (2011) 
    197 Cal.App.4th 159
    , 169–170.)
    On appeal, we determine whether the order removing a child from
    parental custody is supported by substantial evidence, “view[ing] the record
    9
    in the light most favorable to the order and decid[ing] if the evidence is
    reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (Kimberly R., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th
    at p. 1078.) We uphold a judgment supported by substantial evidence “even
    though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court
    might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence.” (In re
    Dakota H. (2005) 
    132 Cal.App.4th 212
    , 228.) We do not reweigh the evidence
    or exercise our independent judgment, and we bear in mind that questions of
    fact and credibility are for the trial court. (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 
    15 Cal.App.5th 537
    , 560.)
    The evidence here is sufficient to support findings by clear and
    convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to Leann’s physical
    health in Father’s custody and there were no other reasonable means to
    protect her. There was evidence that Leann’s dental health had deteriorated
    during the dependency and endangered her health and well-being and that
    she urgently required remedial work on her teeth. In case No. A161341, this
    division upheld the assumption of jurisdiction on this basis. In the
    September 15, 2020 dispositional order, the juvenile court allowed Leann to
    remain in Father’s custody while the work was performed. Nevertheless,
    Father refused to allow anesthesia on September 25, 2020, delaying Leann’s
    treatment; he did not take her to appointments scheduled for October 1 and
    15 to apply treatment to stop the progression of her cavities; and he neither
    took her to the November 3 appointment nor contacted the social worker to
    arrange to find out what had happened with the appointment. Father points
    to his testimony that he was unaware of the October appointments and that
    he attempted to keep the appointment that he believed—based on the social
    worker’s mistaken text—was scheduled for November 4, but the trial court
    expressly told Father it did not believe him when he testified he called the
    10
    dental clinic before the appointment and that it believed the social worker
    when she testified she told Father the correct date in person. In the face of
    this conflicting evidence, we accept the juvenile court’s determination of
    credibility. (In re Joaquin C., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 560.) Furthermore,
    there was evidence Father threatened staff at the dental clinic treating
    Leann and, when faced with the November 10 removal order, he absconded
    with Leann rather than comply with the court’s order. The evidence is
    sufficient for the juvenile court to conclude Leann’s urgent dental needs were
    not being met in Father’s care and his continuing pattern of non-compliance
    showed there were no reasonable means short of removal to protect her
    health.
    Father’s reliance on In re Jasmine G. (2000) 
    82 Cal.App.4th 282
     does
    not persuade us otherwise. The appellate court there concluded a social
    worker’s opinion that the parents lacked a “ ‘full understanding’ ” of their
    daughter’s “adolescent ‘issues’ ” and that they had not “sufficiently
    internalized proper parenting skills”—such as not using corporal
    punishment—did not constitute substantial evidence to support a removal
    finding where the parents had forsworn corporal punishment and expressed
    remorse for using it, attended parenting classes, and undergone therapy to
    improve their parenting skills, and their daughter had no fear of them. (Id.
    at pp. 284–285, 288–291.) That case, the reviewing court explained, was
    “remarkable for the clear and convincing evidence that it was safe to return
    [the child] to either of her parent’s homes.” (Id. at p. 288.) Not so here.
    Although Father testified to his willingness to obtain dental care for Leann,
    there is substantial evidence that when she was in his care he failed to do so
    despite the Department’s efforts and that her physical health was at risk as a
    result.
    11
    DISPOSITION
    The December 21, 2020 order is affirmed.
    TUCHER, P.J.
    WE CONCUR:
    FUJISAKI, J.
    PETROU, J.
    In re Leann G. (A162023)
    12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A162023

Filed Date: 12/28/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2021