San Joaquin Cnty. Human Servs. Agency v. D.Z. (In re D.W.)

In re D.W., Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.Z., Defendant and Appellant.

C095949

California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin

February 23, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super Ct. No. STK-JD-DP-2021-0000220.

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

Appellant D.Z. (mother), mother of minor D.W. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders, finding the minor comes within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) adjudging the minor a dependent and removing him from parental custody. (§§ 300, 361, 395.) Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support jurisdiction and removal. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Originating Circumstances

On March 21, 2021, Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report that mother and H.W., who was then identified as mother's aunt, had presented at the hospital for delivery of mother's unborn child, the subject minor. Mother provided the hospital with H.W.'s insurance information and attempted to use H.W.'s identity for the delivery. Mother and H.W. advised that they had done this because H.W would be taking custody of the newborn and they wanted H.W to be listed on the birth certificate as the minor's mother. They were informed that this could not be done. Mother reported the father was a married man and did not want contact with mother or the minor. H.W. advised that she had resources, owning a home, business, and several LLCs, and was prepared to care for the newborn minor. Mother reported she had no income and resided with H.W. Mother also reported she planned to return to her home country of China but did not specify a date.

On May 27, 2021, H.W. - who then identified herself as mother's friend - contacted CPS and reported that she had been caring for the two-month-old minor since birth because mother was not around. H.W. reported the minor's father refused to provide for, or be involved with, the minor and threatened that if anyone should bring the minor around, he would shoot them. H.W. explained that mother signed some paperwork when the minor was born to permit H.W. to get shots and medical care for the minor, but H.W. was not sure if she still had this authority. H.W. reported she was struggling to provide for the minor and was unsure whether she could continue to provide and was afraid to approach the father for assistance. She was, however, indecisive as to whether she wished for CPS to take custody of the minor that day. When asked if she would wait 10 days for CPS to come out, H.W. stated she needed someone to come out that day because she may need to give the minor up. But she also advised that she wanted mother to sign legal documentation to permit her to care for the minor and although she had tried to contact mother through an instant messaging application they used, mother had not contacted her. The social worker was unable to locate mother but closed the referral because it appeared the situation had stabilized.

On June 2, 2021, Stockton police brought the minor to a children's shelter after H.W. had contacted police and reported she was no longer willing or able to care for the minor. H.W., who again identified herself as a friend of mother, was evasive as to why mother could not care for the minor. According to H.W., she and mother had emigrated from China together and kept in contact through a Chinese messaging application because mother did not have a working cell phone. The minor's alleged father denied paternity. The responding police officer reported mother may have recently returned from New York looking for work, and had met with H.W. and the minor earlier that day with the intent of meeting the alleged father in a parking lot. The alleged father would not meet them, so mother left the minor with H.W. Mother's whereabouts were unknown, and attempts to contact mother were unsuccessful. H.W. said she was willing to adopt the minor despite forfeiting him to the police.

When the social worker contacted H.W. the following day, H.W. reported she had been taking care of the minor since birth. H.W. expressed her love for and desire to adopt the minor, but stated that mother would not sign the paperwork. H.W. stated she did, however, have a paper that allowed her to provide medical care for the minor. H.W. reported the alleged father threatened to harm them (mother and H.W.) and the minor if they contacted him. H.W. reported she was scared because the alleged father had called H.W. the day before asking, "why the fuck did CPS call me, I was with my wife and children."

H.W. had sent a message to mother on the messaging application they used to communicate, stating the police had the minor but had not heard back from mother. She agreed to send the social worker's contact information to mother via the messaging application. H.W. stated that she loves the minor and wants to adopt him but, for their own protection, she could not continue to care for him without it being legal. Dependency Petition and Jurisdiction

The San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minor alleging, under subdivisions (b) and (g), that mother had failed to protect and provide for him. The petition alleged mother had made insufficient arrangements for the minor's care in that she had failed to provide the caretaker with appropriate paperwork and the minor had been detained after the caretaker, with whom mother left the minor, reported she was no longer able to care for the minor. The alleged father denied paternity and did not make provisions for the minor. Neither parents' whereabouts nor circumstances were known. The minor was ordered detained.

An amended section 300 petition was filed on August 19, 2021. The amended petition further alleged the caretaker had not heard from mother for a significant period of time, mother had failed to receive prenatal care and she failed to bond with the minor because she left the minor with H.W. upon delivering him. The amended petition also alleged, referencing a police report, that mother had wanted to abandon the minor in the parking lot on June 1, 2021, after the alleged father had refused to pick up the minor and after he threatened to shoot anyone who caused his family to break up. Mother left the minor in the parking lot with H.W. when the police arrived.

The referenced police report was attached to the jurisdiction report. The police report indicated H.W. identified herself as mother's friend. She reported that mother had signed paperwork at the hospital allowing H.W. to take the minor home after his birth, as mother was unable to care for or provide for the minor. Mother had come by her house that day and they had gone together, with the minor, to a parking lot because they were going to call the alleged father to figure out what to do with the minor. When they called the alleged father, he stated he did not want to pick up the baby and threatened to shoot anyone who exposed him or caused his family to break up. H.W. then tried to call the CPS worker she had worked with before, but the social worker did not answer the telephone. H.W. told mother she was going to call the police for help. Mother told H.W. she wanted to abandon the baby and left the area on foot. H.W. reported she did not know where mother lived and did not have a phone number for mother. H.W. wanted to surrender the minor to CPS or law enforcement because it was the right thing to do.

Mother appeared at the jurisdiction hearing, which had been continued to provide her with an interpreter. She identified H.W., who was also present, as her cousin, with whom she said she lived. The juvenile court took jurisdiction, finding the allegations in the petition true, and ordered supervised visitation for mother.

The juvenile court appears to have held a second jurisdiction hearing on October 19 and 26, and November 2, 2021.^[2] The social worker testified that she spoke with mother at the initial jurisdiction hearing and mother told her she had been living with H.W. the entire time, which conflicted with what H.W. had reported. Mother requested the minor be returned to her, whereupon she planned to have H.W. be given guardianship because H.W. had the resources to care for him. Mother said H.W. had been raising the minor since birth and appeared unaware that H.W. had turned the minor over to law enforcement or CPS. The social worker also reported that she had tried to set up visitation for mother, but mother was adamant that H.W. be present for her visits. Mother said she wanted H.W. present because she spoke English and because she had raised the minor. The social worker assured her that an interpreter would be available, and mother eventually agreed to visits without H.W. present and had been successfully visiting twice a week for two hours.

Mother also asked to do her other services with H.W., again citing H.W.'s ability to speak English, even though she was told an interpreter would be provided. She refused to participate in counseling, even with a Mandarin-speaking counselor, causing the Agency to question whether mother wanted to reunify with the minor, or whether she only wanted H.W. to have guardianship. The social worker noted that mother and H.W. had stated, at the hospital, that they gave the minor "W." as a last name because H.W. was going to take care of him, but the power of attorney to permit H.W. to obtain care for the minor that was submitted to the court was not notarized and the guardianship papers were incomplete.

The Agency was also concerned about H.W.'s identity, as mother had identified her, on various occasions,...