In re Natalie B. CA4/1

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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