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

• Citation: 80 Cal.App.5th 631,295 Cal.Rptr.3d 565
• Decision Date: 13 June 2022
• Docket Number: B312003
• Parties: IN RE C.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cashanda P., Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

80 Cal.App.5th 631

295 Cal.Rptr.3d 565

IN RE C.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Cashanda P., Defendant and Appellant.

B312003

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

Filed June 13, 2022

Brian Bitker, Ontario, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

PERLUSS, P. J.

Cashanda P. appeals the order terminating dependency jurisdiction over her 12-year-old daughter, C.S., and the juvenile custody order providing for monitored visitation between Cashanda and C.S. in a therapeutic setting for up to twice a week for two hours per visit "when Minor's therapist says they can begin." Cashanda contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating its jurisdiction with an order awarding sole physical and legal custody to C.S.’s father, Ryan S., without first providing services that attempted to repair the relationship between Cashanda and C.S. and the court's visitation order impermissibly delegated the authority to determine whether any visits between Cashanda and C.S. would occur to C.S.’s therapist. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Sustained Dependency Petition

Cashanda has three children, each with a different father: C.S., nine-year old Cameron C., and two-year-old Conner M. On April 9, 2021, following Cashanda's no contest plea, the juvenile court sustained in part an amended dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage),¹ on behalf of all three children, finding, as to the subdivision (b)(1) count, that Cashanda has a history of mental and emotional problems that, without treatment, placed the children at risk of serious physical harm and, as to the subdivision (c) count, that Cashanda emotionally abused C.S. "by using derogatory language toward the child on multiple occasions. The child has mental and emotional problems including suicidal ideation, and self-harming thoughts due to the mother's conduct." Cassandra's actions, the court found, placed C.S. and her two siblings at a substantial risk of suffering emotional harm.² The children's fathers, including Ryan, were nonoffending.

The evidentiary bases for the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings were contained in the jurisdiction/disposition report prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and admitted into evidence at the April 9, 2021 hearing. The report quoted C.S. as saying, "Once, I wanted to hurt myself because my mommy was really mean to me and called me fat. It made me want to cut myself with a knife, but I didn't do it. I wouldn't do anything like that." C.S. continued, "My mom used to say things to me like, ‘I wish I never had you,’ ‘you're retarded,’ and she would always call me a ‘[s]tupid bitch.’ She would say those things to me almost every day.... She makes nasty and rude comments toward me. Whenever she calls me names, it makes me feel a little sad.... She'll talk to her friends on the phone about me and post things on Facebook about me."

Ryan confirmed Cashanda's abusive treatment of C.S. "The way my daughter was being treated was pretty bad. Distraught is not a good word to describe the way she was feeling. Traumatic is not a good word to describe what she had to go through. Once she was able to come and live here with me, it was like she had been kidnapped or a POW that was finally able to be home with family." Ryan described C.S.’s recurring nightmares "where someone is kidnapping her and taking her away from us" and told the social worker C.S. cried and hid in a closet when she thought Cashanda was coming to take her. Aja, Ryan's wife (C.S.’s stepmother), heard C.S. say she would hurt herself if she had to go back to live with Cashanda and reported that Cashanda had a history of calling C.S. demeaning and derogatory names, which appeared to traumatize the child. C.S.’s maternal grandmother and her maternal aunt were also told by C.S. that she would hurt herself if she had to return to Cashanda's care.

As for Cashanda's mental state, according to the maternal grandmother Cashanda had unaddressed mental health issues: Cashanda had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder

and depression; she was prescribed psychotropic medication but had never been compliant. Cameron's father reported Cashanda had deep psychological issues and was "disturbed." Conner's father described Cashanda as "reckless" and stated she had tantrums, became violent and acted out for no apparent reason.

2. Disposition

At the disposition hearing held in the afternoon following the jurisdiction hearing, the court declared C.S. and her two siblings dependent children of the court and removed them from Cashanda's care and custody. The court ordered Cameron and Conner to remain released in the homes of their fathers under the supervision of the Department and directed Cashanda to participate in enhancement services, including individual counseling with a licensed therapist.

C.S. was also placed with her father. After stating its view that there was no hope of Cashanda reunifying with C.S., the court immediately terminated dependency jurisdiction over C.S. and stated it would enter a juvenile custody order granting sole physical and legal custody of C.S. to Ryan with monitored visitation for Cashanda in a therapeutic setting. The custody order entered the following week provided for monitored visitation in a therapeutic setting for Cashanda twice a week for two hours per visit "when Minor's therapist says they can begin."

DISCUSSION

1. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Terminating Jurisdiction over C.S. Without Providing Services to Cashanda

As this court explained in In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 205-206, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 673, "At the jurisdiction stage of a dependency proceeding, the court determines whether the child is a person described by section 300. [Citations.] If the juvenile court finds a basis to assume jurisdiction, the court is then required to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition for the child. [Citations.] (Fn. omitted.) Typically, once the child has been adjudged to be a dependent child pursuant to section 360, subdivision (d), the juvenile court determines what services the child and family need to be reunited and free from court supervision. [Citations.] The court then sets a review hearing, which must be held within six months, to evaluate the family's circumstances and decide whether continued dependency jurisdiction is necessary." However, because the Legislature has "grant[ed] the juvenile court broad authority to enter orders to protect a dependent child and reunite the family and terminate jurisdiction as quickly as possible" ( id. at p. 207, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 ), the court has discretion at the close of the disposition hearing "to terminate dependency jurisdiction when the child is in parental custody and no protective issue remains." ( Ibid. ; accord, In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613, 624, 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 868 [if the child is in parental custody and juvenile court services and ongoing supervision are not necessary to protect the child from harm, the juvenile court's obligation to reunite the family and terminate jurisdiction as quickly as possible includes the discretion to terminate jurisdiction at disposition].)³

C.S.’s safety was endangered by her exposure to Cashanda's abusive parenting, and the court's order awarding Ryan sole physical and legal custody while limiting Cashanda to monitored visits in a therapeutic setting resolved that issue. There was no longer any reason for court supervision.

Cashanda's argument that terminating dependency jurisdiction deprived her of the opportunity to repair her relationship with C.S. is misplaced. Because C.S. remained with Ryan, a custodial parent, Cashanda was not entitled to reunification services. (See § 16507, subd. (b) ["[f]amily reunification services shall only be provided when a child has been placed in out-of-home care, or is in the care of a previously noncustodial parent under the supervision of the juvenile court"]; In re Destiny D. , supra , 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 212, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 [when child remains placed with one of two custodial parents, parent not retaining custody is not entitled to reunification services]; see also In re A.L. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 138, 145, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 560 [no reunification services are called for when a child is not removed from her custodial parent].)

Nor was C.S. entitled to what are referred to as enhancement services, "child welfare services offered to the parent not retaining custody, designed to enhance the child's relationship with that parent." ( Earl L. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1497, fn. 1, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 368 ; see In re A.C. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 636, 642, fn. 5, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [" ‘enhancement’ services are ‘not designed to reunify the child with that parent, but instead to enhance the child's relationship with that parent by requiring that parent to address the issues that brought the child before the court’ "].) An order for enhancement services is subject to the court's discretion. (See § 362, subd. (a); In re Destiny D. , supra , 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 212, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 ; In re A.L., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 145, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 560.) Here, the Department was ordered at the detention hearing in October 2020 to provide Cashanda "predisposition family reunification services," including referrals for a psychiatric assessment and mental health treatment. The court also ordered immediate therapy for C.S. and conjoint counseling for C.S. and Cashanda in a therapeutic setting once that was approved by C.S.’s therapist....