Jennifer R., In re

Decision Date10 March 1993
CitationJennifer R., In re, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 759, 14 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. App. 1993)
PartiesIn re JENNIFER R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHANNON M., Defendant and Appellant. D017746.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals

Robert Wayne Gehring, Fallbrook, as amicus curiae, upon the request of the Court of Appeal on behalf of Minor.

Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, Susan Strom, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Terri L. Richardson, Deputy County Counsel, for plaintiff and respondent.

ORDER

KREMER, Presiding Justice.

Shannon M., also known as Shannon R., (Shannon or the mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court granting sole legal custody of her daughter Jennifer to Jennifer's father, Michael R. (Michael or the father).Because we find the court's order was in the best interest of the minor and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In September 1990 the San Diego County Department of Social Services(the Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of one-year-old Jennifer alleging she was a person described by WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 3001, subdivision (b).The petition alleged that Shannon was unable to provide regular care for Jennifer due to substance abuse and that Jennifer's physical safety was endangered due to the parents' domestic violence.It also alleged the parents had failed to properly supervise and attend to Jennifer by failing to maintain a safe and sanitary residence, administering non-prescription drugs for sedative purposes and failing to provide adequate care for extensive heat and diaper rash.

The petition resulted from observations of the trailer where the family resided.A police officer had responded to a request to check on Jennifer's welfare.He found the trailer "extremely hot" with the windows closed.The thermostat read 100 degrees Fahrenheit.The entire trailer was filthy with dirty clothes and roaches.The kitchen was full of dirty dishes and pans, and had knives lying around.The bedroom was filthy with the mattress and pillows "nearly black."The bathroom was dirty with the tub half filled with water.Jennifer was in her crib sweating profusely.Her diapers emitted a bad odor and the sheets were "outrageously dirty."Ants were crawling on her legs.Michael, who was in the trailer, blamed the conditions on Shannon saying there were times he wanted to set the place on fire.The officer removed Jennifer to Hillcrest Receiving Home.There a nurse found Jennifer had a bad heat rash throughout her body and a diaper rash that had turned to blisters.

During the Department's investigation, the trailer park manager informed the social worker he had driven Shannon to the store where she purchased over-the-counter medication.Shannon told the manager it was to make the baby quiet so Shannon could leave her unattended while she went "visiting."The medication was not for any illness.Another witness reported that when she asked Shannon why she never heard the baby cry, Shannon responded she"put Benadryl in the baby's bottle" and that it "works real good."

Other witnesses reported that Shannon used methamphetamine and heroin and that Michael beat Shannon.The social worker observed track marks on Shannon's arm.It was determined that Shannon had a history of mental illness including severe depression and schizophrenia.Michael had become physically disabled when he broke his neck one year before.

Shannon had two other children previously removed from her custody in Arkansas who remained in court-ordered placement.The children had been removed for neglect and in the case of a nine-month-old son for giving him intravenous drugs for sedative purposes.Shannon had suffered a criminal conviction in relation to the administration of drugs to her son leaving him in a serious medical condition.

In July 1989 Michael and Shannon had been provided with a voluntary contract for dependency diversion services after the Department had received a referral for their domestic violence and general neglect of Jennifer.Neither had complied with the contract.

The parents eventually submitted on the Department's report.The court removed physical custody from the parents and ordered them to comply with a reunification plan.

At the time of the 6-month review hearing in April 1991, Shannon was pregnant and had gone to Arkansas to stay with her mother.Shannon and Michael had fought, with Michael claiming Shannon had been using drugs and seeing other men.Shannon was taking antipsychotic medication to deal with schizophrenia.Without medication Shannon heard voices telling her to do things.Other than visiting Jennifer regularly and completing a psychological evaluation, Michael had not complied with the reunification plan.The psychologist performing the evaluation found Michael was of above average intelligence and cared for Jennifer.However, he concluded Michael was not an appropriate caretaker for the minor and that long-term psychotherapeutic intervention was required.He therefore opined that serious consideration should be given to termination of parental rights and adoption.

In July 1991 Shannon underwent psychological evaluation.At the time she was again living with Michael and had prematurely given birth to another baby.The baby remained in the intensive care unit at the hospital.The evaluator found Shannon had a borderline level of intelligence and serious psychological limitations and that she suffered from poly-substance abuse.Because of her psychological and intellectual limitations, the evaluator concluded Shannon was not capable of properly parenting her children and that placement of the children with her would place them in danger of severe neglect.

Michael underwent another psychological evaluation in July 1991.He was diagnosed as suffering from a personality disorder with avoidant, inadequate, and narcissistic features and alcohol dependence in remission.Michael showed an impressively improved emotional state from the time of his first evaluation but the evaluator concluded it would be very difficult for him to assume the role of his children's principal caretaker.

The review report prepared for the 12-month hearing in October 1991 indicated that Michael and Shannon were again living together.Michael was receiving SSI payments due to his neck injury and Shannon was receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments due to her severe depression and schizophrenia.They were living in a small cluttered trailer.Michael reported Shannon had stopped using drugs.Both parents had visited regularly with Jennifer.Michael's visits went well but Shannon was inappropriate with Jennifer.She failed to keep the minor with her or attend to her needs.In one incident she tried to drive a car with Jennifer on her lap and told Michael to shut up when he told her not to do so.Both parents had made some progress in complying with their reunification plan including both completing parenting classes and Shannon drug testing and attending therapy.

An additional information report filed on the day of the originally scheduled 12-month review, stated Michael reported he had kicked Shannon out because she was using drugs and that Shannon had been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward.Shannon claimed to have only taken prescription drugs and that her hospitalization had been for suicidal ideation and depression.Shannon reported she was now homeless.The hearing was continued.In an additional information report for the continued hearing it was reported the therapist had not seen either parent since August and that Shannon had missed her last visit with Jennifer.It was further reported that Shannon admitted she had relapsed and wanted to go into a drug rehabilitation program.The Department recommended reunification services be terminated and a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 be set.

At the 12-month review hearing held on November 18, 1991, the court found there was a substantial probability Jennifer would be restored to Michael by mid-March 1992 and that services offered to the parents should be continued.Michael was directed, inter alia, to see a new counselor for weekly counseling and to attend Narcotics Anonymous (N.A.), Alcoholics Anonymous, or a co-dependency group two times a week.

In the report for the 18-month review hearing initially held March 5, 1992, the social worker reported Shannon and Michael were still separated.It was further reported Shannon had not been consistent in her visits to Jennifer and was unable to maintain herself.Shannon had not followed through on substance abuse referrals.

On the other hand, Michael visited with Jennifer frequently, met weekly with his therapist and attended both N.A. and Co-Dependency Anonymous meetings.Michael attended parenting classes with Jennifer and on three occasions had Jennifer participate in his therapy.Michael had progressed to unsupervised visits.The social worker concluded Michael was working very hard on the reunification plan and progressing well.Michael's therapist recommended Michael complete his new parenting class and have increased visitation.The therapist concluded three or four months should be sufficient for Michael to demonstrate he was able to have Jennifer returned.The Department requested discretion to place Jennifer with Michael as soon as Michael was ready.

Shannon did not appear at the March 5, 1992, review and the court granted a continuance until April 6, 1992, for her to be given proper notice.At the time of the continued hearing Jennifer had been having overnight visits with Michael that were going well.His therapist recommended Jennifer be returned to Michael with on-going services provided to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
234 cases
  • In re David H.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2008
    ...with In re Alysha S. on two grounds. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 922].) First, the court cited In re Jennifer R., which held, "Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special proceedings governed by their own rules and statutes. [Citations.]......
  • In re Francisco W.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2006
    ... ... (§ 300 et seq.; rule 1440 et seq.) Further, "[u]nless otherwise specified, the requirements of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply" to dependency proceedings. ( In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 711, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 759.) "However, in the absence of a dispositive provision in the Welfare and Institutions Code, we may look to these requirements [provisions of the Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure] for guidance." ( In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, ... ...
  • In re Mark B.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 2007
    ...51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866, 913 P.2d 1075; In re Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 328, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 922; In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 711, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 759; Jones T. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal. App.3d 240, 245, fn. 3, 264 Cal.Rptr. 4; In re Angela R. (1989) 212 Cal......
  • In re Joshua G.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 2005
    ...dismissed the petition and transferred the matter to family court to resolve any lingering custody issues. (In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 714, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 759.) Further, once the court dismissed the petition, it had no jurisdiction over the children unless the Department f......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Dismissed Juvenile Dependency Cases in Family Court
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Family Law News (CLA) No. 41-4, December 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...of the juvenile court's jurisdiction, the governing law rests squarely in family law.7[Page 16]--------Notes:1. See In re Jennifer R., 14 Cal. App. 4th 704, 712 (1993).2. In re Chantel S., 13 Cal. 4th 196, 205-206 (1997).3. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 362.4(a).4. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 362......