L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. L.C. (In re M.S.)

In re M.S., Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.C., Defendant and Appellant.

B308078

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

May 26, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP03438

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Brett Bianco, Judge. Affirmed.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over M.S., the daughter of L.C. (mother) and G.S. (father),¹ under Welfare and Institutions Code² section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). The court found: (1) M.S. was at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to father's interference with her mental health services; and (2) M.S. was at substantial risk of serious emotional damage due to father making repeated allegations that M.S. had been abused in mother's care, and subjecting her to numerous interviews and examinations by social workers, medical providers, and police officers. M.S. was placed with her parents, who were ordered to participate in family maintenance services.

At the twelve-month status review hearing, the juvenile court found the circumstances justifying the initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed and were not likely to exist if supervision was withdrawn. Thus, it terminated jurisdiction and issued a juvenile custody order granting the parents joint legal and physical custody with M.S. primarily living with father.

On appeal, mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating jurisdiction. Specifically, she argues: (1) per section 364, subdivision (c), father's failure to complete court-ordered services is prima facie evidence that continued supervision is necessary; and (2) the record does not contain any evidence to rebut that evidentiary presumption. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mother and father have one child together, M.S., who was born in January 2007. The parents separated in 2009 and do not live together. Per a family court order entered in February 2018, they shared 50/50 joint legal and physical custody of M.S., with M.S. primarily residing with mother subject to visitation by father.

Prior to the initiation of the dependency case giving rise to this appeal, between June 2013 and March 2019, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received eight referrals alleging M.S. had been abused while in mother's care. The Department's investigations into all but one of the referrals resulted in a determination that the allegations were either "inconclusive" or "unfounded." The sole referral containing "substantiated" allegations of abuse resulted in the Department filing a petition on behalf of M.S. in 2015, which was dismissed in December 2016.

In May 2019, M.S. was interviewed at LAC + USC Medical Center's Child Abuse and Neglect Clinic based on "numerous allegations from her father of ongoing abuse during the time that she spends with her mother." During the interview, M.S. reported: (1) mother and her boyfriend (step-father) argued frequently and screamed at one another, and that she was afraid their disputes "will turn physical"; and (2) mother makes her feel unloved and sad by calling her demeaning names. M.S.'s report prompted a referral to the Department.

During the Department's investigation, M.S. reported she was tired of being involved with the juvenile court and being interviewed by social workers, therapists, and police officers. Sherelated she "fe[lt] uncomfortable when so many [of those] people come talk to [her]," and was confused about why social workers were frequently checking on her. M.S. further reported that she felt angry, depressed, frustrated, sad, and scared when "[these] people come talk to [her.]" According to M.S., these feelings have driven her to engage in self-harm; she stated she bites her lip when police officers or social workers come to speak with her, and that she has cut herself on the arm with a paperclip.

Mother reported that per a family court order, she enrolled M.S. in therapy on several occasions with different providers. Father, however, terminated services each time because he disapproved of the therapists.

At the adjudication hearing held in July 2019, the juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition the Department filed on M.S.'s behalf, as amended by interlineation.³ In so doing, the court found the following allegations to be true: (1) M.S. was at risk of serious physical harm due to father's "medical neglect," in that father "has terminated [her] mental health treatment with mental health providers on numerous occasions" despite her "ha[ving] mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideations and self-harming behaviors"; and (2) M.S. was at risk of serious emotional damage due to father's "emotional abuse," in that throughout the parents' "ongoing custody dispute," father "ma[de] continuing accusations that . . . mother [was] abusing and neglecting [M.S.]" and has"subjected [M.S.] to numerous interviews with medical providers, social workers, mental health providers and law enforcement officers on numerous occasions," which have caused M.S. to "exhibit[ ] self-harming behaviors[.]"

The juvenile court declared M.S. a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), placed M.S. with her parents under Department supervision, and ordered the parents to attend mediation to determine a custody arrangement that would meet M.S.'s needs. The parents' case plans required them to participate in individual counseling, conjoint counseling with M.S. when recommended by her therapist, and a co-parenting program. The juvenile court further ordered father to submit to a psychological evaluation under Evidence Code section 730, and ordered father not to interfere in M.S.'s relationship with her current therapist or terminate services with the therapist.

In July 2019, M.S. reported she had used a pen to make scratch marks on her forearm twice in one week in response to mother calling her names. Consequently, in August 2019, M.S. was enrolled in Wraparound Services at her therapist's recommendation, as those services were "more intensive" and "appropriate for [M.S.] due to ongoing concerns of self-harming behavior and ongoing visitation/custody issues." Later that month, M.S. was hospitalized for four days after refusing to visit with mother and stating "she would rather 'die than go with her mother[.]'" Following her discharge, father and mother agreed to a safety plan by which M.S. would reside with father until their scheduled mediation.

In September 2019, the parents attended mediation as ordered by the juvenile court and agreed to a parenting plan. Under this plan, they agreed that in light of her wishes not toreside with mother, M.S. would live primarily with father, and mother would temporarily waive her parental time while she and M.S. participated in services to address their issues. They also agreed to: (1) refrain from making negative comments about one another or their friends and family within earshot of M.S.; (2) return to mediation to create a parenting plan as needed at the discretion of the juvenile court or the mental health professionals involved in the case; and (3) consider M.S.'s safety, welfare, best interests, and wishes.

In January 2020, father participated in a psychological evaluation by Dr. Alfredo E. Crespo. In his report, Dr. Crespo opined father "has been persistent and quite dramatic in advocating for the protection of his daughter in the mother's home," and has engaged in "relentless, odd, [and] obstinate efforts to prove that [M.S.] was being abused in her mother's care — without much apparent recognition of the negative emotional impact [his actions] ha[ve] had on his vulnerable daughter." Based largely on those observations, he concluded "father poses a risk of emotional harm to [M.S.]" He noted father "may benefit from individual counseling" and "a Spanish-speaking group for parents in high-conflict divorces" to gain insight on how his actions have negatively affected M.S. and contributed to her estranged relationship with mother.

After making significant improvements in her mental health issues, M.S. was transitioned from Wraparound Services to community-based therapy in December 2019.

At the six-month status review hearing held in January 2020, the Department noted its status review report had recommended termination of jurisdiction in light of M.S.'s progress, but acknowledged it had received Dr. Crespo's reportafter making its recommendation. M.S.'s counsel and counsel for both parents argued the case should remain open. The juvenile court rejected the Department's recommendation. Instead, it found continued supervision was necessary to ensure the family addressed the issues initially giving rise to jurisdiction, and ordered the parties to participate in further family maintenance services.

Between January 2020 and the twelve-month status review hearing held in September 2020,⁴ M.S. continued to reside with father. She reported feeling happy and safe in his care and did not exhibit any signs of neglect, abuse, or self-harm. M.S. continued to indicate she did not want to see mother, and did not want to discuss visiting her or attending conjoint therapy with her "because she feels as though she is being...