L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. V.M. (In re T.M.)
| Decision Date | 06 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | B294916 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.M., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK14191C)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed.
Maryann M. Goode, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
V.M. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her child, T.M. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).)1 Mother contends the court (1) erred in denying her petition (§ 388) for reunification services, (2) violated her due process rights in terminating her parental rights in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and detriment, and (3) erred in finding she failed to establish the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. We find no merit in mother's contentions and affirm.
Mother has three sons, D.G., Jr., D.G. and T.M. Only the youngest child, T.M. (born July 2014), is a subject of this appeal.2 On October 13, 2015, respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging that mother had severely neglected T.M. and placed her children at risk, after then 15-month-old T.M. was brought to the emergency room where he tested positive for amphetamines. Mother had called 911 after the baby awoke from anafternoon nap screaming, inconsolable, looked "zoned out" and vomited. T.M. was hospitalized for two days, then returned to mother's care.
Mother and her children lived with the boys' maternal grandmother (MGM). From the outset, mother denied any substance abuse in the home, and was unable to explain how T.M. came into contact with or ingested amphetamines. The family had been inside all day, except when mother took the two youngest boys outside the apartment to play. Mother said she left T.M. alone for a few seconds outside when she had to go after her other (two-year-old) son to keep him from going into the street. Mother explained that T.M. liked to touch things and put his fingers in his mouth, but she did not know if that happened on October 13. A DCFS social worker who visited the family's one-bedroom home found it cluttered, in disarray and in need of repair. Both mother and MGM took medication for diabetes and high blood pressure. Mother's medication was stored in a cabinet accessible to her eldest child. MGM kept hers in a zippered handbag behind the sofa, accessible to the children. All medication was stored in child-proof bottles.
On October 22, 2015, T.M.'s treating physician informed DCFS that the child had tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother's two oldest boys did not show up for forensic examinations on October 16. Both mother and the MGM denied using illegal drugs, and neither could explain how T.M. got hold of methamphetamine. Mother surmised that T.M. may have picked up something from the ground outside; it was dirty and her neighbors were "constantly partying."
Mother informed DCFS there was mental illness in her family. Her deceased father had been bipolar. In 2006, mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Mother had recently contacted a mental health services organization (Kedren), where she previously had received therapy, and was scheduled to begin counseling in November 2015. Mother and MGM were referred for drug testing. Mother tested negative for all substances; MGM did not test.
During an October 28, 2015 visit to the family's home, a social worker found the children dirty and unkempt, and saw rats in the kitchen. With regard to her mental health, mother told the social worker she had been seeking help on her own, but had missed two appointments with a psychiatrist. Mother had not been prescribed any psychotropic medication, which she believed would interfere with medicines she took for diabetes, high blood pressure and kidney disease. The children were detained from mother's custody on November 5, based on her apparent neglect and inability to explain how T.M. ingested methamphetamine, and concomitant risks posed to the other children.
On November 10, 2015, DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging that mother had failed adequately to supervise T.M., who ingested methamphetamine, and her home was filthy, unsanitary and in a hazardous condition. T.M. was detained from parental custody and placed in foster care. The juvenile court ordered DCFS to refer mother for weekly random and on-demand drug/alcohol testing, to provide her transportation assistance, and gave mother twice weekly monitoredvisits of at least one hour each. A jurisdiction and disposition hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2016.
In early March 2016, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to evaluate mother's home for return of the children. In response, DCFS reported that mother had made home improvements—she had cleaned, organized and repaired the apartment, installed child safety equipment, and had contacted the landlord to repair an improperly installed smoke detector. However, she was slow to begin reunification services, due to transportation problems and her inability to access low-or no-cost services near her home.
DCFS remained concerned about mother's mental health and ability to supervise small children, particularly in light of her diagnosis of schizophrenia for which mother had never been prescribed medication. Mother, who lacked specific symptoms, did not believe she had schizophrenia and had never been offered anything beyond counseling for that condition. She consistently denied any drug use and did not understand why she had to undergo drug testing. MGM and mother's relatives also denied that mother or MGM used illegal drugs. MGM said lots of teens who did "all kinds of stuff" regularly hung around the apartment, and thought T.M. may have gotten hold of a pill or something when he was playing outside. Mother had a negative drug test on March 11, 2016.
On March 21, 2016, DCFS filed the operative first amended petition adding allegations reflecting concerns about the impact of mother's mental and emotional problems on her ability to care for T.M.
At the May 2, 2016 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the amended petition, after striking allegations about the family's unsafe home. T.M. was declared a dependent of the court and removed from parental custody. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that a substantial danger existed to the child's physical and/or emotional health, and there were no reasonable means to protect him short of removal from mother's custody.
Proceeding to disposition, the court found that DCFS made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for T.M.'s removal from mother's home, and reasonable efforts to enable the child's safe return home. T.M. was placed in the care of DCFS for suitable placement. The court ordered reunification services for mother, including random or on-demand consecutive drug tests, and explained that mother would be required to complete a full drug rehabilitation program in the event she missed or had a dirty test. The court ordered parenting education, individual mental health counseling, a psychological assessment, and a psychiatric evaluation. Mother's monitored visits with T.M. were continued. The matter was set for a six-month review hearing in November 2016.
The reunification period began in early May 2016, and ended in early July 2017. During that 14-month period, mother had 20 negative drug tests, and missed 26 others. Meanwhile, DCFS reported that T.M.was adjusting well in his foster home. Mother had consistent weekly monitored visits with T.M., which went well. Mother had difficulty finding a mental health service center that would accept her insurance, but ultimately began seeing a therapist at Kedren in November 2016.
At the six-month review hearing in mid-December 2016, the court found mother had only minimally complied with her case plan, and that returning T.M. to her physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's physical and emotional well-being. The court ordered additional reunification services, and set the matter for a 12-month review hearing on March 21, 2017.
In late November 2016, when asked by a social worker why she still was not regularly drug testing, mother reiterated that she did not understand why she had to test since she did not use drugs. She agreed to start testing after the social worker explained that a missed drug test counted as a positive test, and that her missed tests now had triggered the court's requirement that she enroll in a drug rehabilitation program. Mother tried to enroll in several drug programs, but none would accept her because she lacked a history of drug abuse. The social worker gave her additional referrals. In February 2017, mother was still having trouble finding a drug program, and a free or affordable parenting program that was not full.
Mother received both individual counseling and mental health services at Kedren once a month. Mother told DCFS she had undergone a mental health assessment. Her therapist had no concerns about hermental health, but did believe she needed to continue counseling to address depression.
A social worker spoke...
To continue reading
Request your trial