Sarah M., In re

• Decision Date: 10 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. F013598,F013598
• Citation: 233 Cal.App.3d 1486,285 Cal.Rptr. 374
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re SARAH M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TULARE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY G., Defendant and Appellant; Douglas M., Intervenor and Respondent.

Page 374

285 Cal.Rptr. 374

233 Cal.App.3d 1486

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

TULARE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY G., Defendant and Appellant;

Douglas M., Intervenor and Respondent.

No. F013598.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Sept. 10, 1991.

Review Denied Dec. 12, 1991.

[233 Cal.App.3d 1488] Ann Jory, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Carmel, for defendant and appellant.

Lita O'Neill Blatner, County Counsel, Robert L. Felts, Asst. County Counsel, and Teresa M. Saucedo, Deputy County Counsel, Visalia, for plaintiff and respondent.

James B. Preston, Visalia, for intervenor and respondent.

Marisa Nayfach, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Rafael, for Minor.

OPINION

BEST, Presiding Justice.

Mary G. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating its jurisdiction over her daughter, Sarah M., and awarding the father, Douglas M., custody. She raises numerous claims of error in her effort to restore the juvenile court's jurisdiction. We will conclude that while there was error, it was not prejudicial.

We hold in juvenile dependency proceedings in which the court has placed a minor with a formerly noncustodial parent pursuant to WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 361.2¹, the juvenile court may: (1) order services for the purposes of improving the contact between the original custodial parent and the child rather than reunifying them; and (2) terminate jurisdiction if it determines its continued supervision is no longer necessary. Termination need not be conditioned upon the completion of any court-ordered services. Nor do the parents' poor communication skills and mutual distrust alone constitute a sufficient basis to continue jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Sarah M. (born Feb. 11, 1987) was adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court in July 1988. The court found as to:

"COUNT I: On or about February 1, 1988, minor was hospitalized as a result of suffering a detrimental and traumatic condition and injury consisting of, but not limited to multiple skull fractures. Such injury would not ordinarily occur except as a result of unreasonable and/or neglectful acts by minor's mother who has responsibility of minor. The mother has sole physical custody of the minor. There is also a history of unexplained injuries of this minor while in the mother's custody.

"COUNT II: On or about February 28, 1988, minor was exposed to a violent altercation in the family home between her mother and mother's boyfriend involving the use of deadly weapons. (Minor's mother's boyfriend was shot and critically injured as a result of said violence.) Mother was holding minor while mother struggled with boyfriend over the deadly weapon. [and]

"COUNT V: The minor is in need of proper and effective parental care or control and has no parent, guardian or custodian actually exercising care or control."

In April 1988, prior to making its jurisdictional findings, the court had placed the child with her father. ²

The juvenile court conducted its disposition hearing in August 1988. It continued the minor's placement with her father. The court did not order a reunification plan for the mother. It did, however, grant the mother reasonable visitation, leaving to the social worker's discretion whether visitation should be supervised. The juvenile court also ordered the mother to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine visitation suitability.

A review hearing was held in April 1989. At this proceeding, the juvenile court readjudged Sarah M. a dependent child of the court and continued her placement with her father. For his part, the father was ordered to:

"1. Continue to provide for the medical, dental and psychological needs of the minor.

"2. Continue to cooperate with the Court orders regarding visitation for the mother.

"3. Cooperate with any order of the Court regarding visitation for the maternal grandmother, Lori [M]."

The juvenile court also ordered a "Reunification/Normalization of Visits Plan" for the mother. The plan provided:

"1. Continue in psychotherapy with a licensed psychologist.

"2. Continue to attend and complete the following parenting classes offered by CPS as they become available.

"a. Anger Management

"b. Behavior Management (nearly completed)

"c. Developmental Issues

"d. Communication

"3. Effective the week beginning Monday, April 24, 1989, the mother is to have two (2), three (3) hour visits per week as supervised and arranged by CPS.

"4. If the visits mentioned in item number three (3) proceed without incident, as per Dr. Bindler's definition in the letter of January 3, 1989, then effective the week beginning June 12, 1989, the mother is to have two (2), four (4) hour visits per week. One of the weekly visits is to be supervised by CPS and the other weekly visit is to be alternatively supervised by the maternal grandmother, Lori [M], and the paternal grandmother, Kay [M]. This arrangement and schedule will remain in effect as long as the visits are without incident until the next Court review of August 11, 1989."

At a second review hearing conducted in October 1989, the juvenile court continued the minor's dependency and placement with the father. According to the court's "Reun ification/Normalization of Visitation Plan," the mother was to continue her psychotherapy and parenting classes in anger management and communication. The plan also anticipated unsupervised visitation; however, before that could occur, the mother would have to submit to a second psychiatric evaluation regarding her suitability for unsupervised visitation. The father was to continue providing for the minor's needs and cooperating with the court's visitation orders.

In February 1990, the father successfully moved to terminate the juvenile court's jurisdiction. The court found:

"1. The jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court is terminated since the conditions do not presently exist which caused the Court to assume original jurisdiction, and conditions do not presently exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Welfare and Institution Code, Section 300, nor that such conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn.

"2. Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 362.4, the Court finds that it is in the best interests and protection of the minor child that the legal and physical custody of the minor child shall remain with Douglas [M.], the minor's father, as currently ordered in the related paternity action between the same parties, Tulare County Superior Court, case number 132336."

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In early February 1988, Tulare County Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report from a local hospital concerning multiple, suspicious injuries to Sarah M. These injuries, which included multiple skull fractures and a fractured femur, had occurred since November 1987 when Sarah was nine months old. The mother explained Sarah was a very active child and these were accidents. Throughout the proceedings, the mother has maintained her innocence of any abuse or neglect.

Because the experts were apparently not convinced the mother had abused the child, the juvenile court permitted Sarah to remain with her mother after the dependency petition was filed. The court, however, ordered that the mother's then boyfriend, Brian Frazier, could not be left alone with the child and could not reside in the mother's home.

On February 28, the mother and Frazier struggled in her home over a handgun. The mother was holding Sarah at the time. During the struggle the mother dropped Sarah who received a bruise on her cheek. The gun also went off, causing Frazier serious injury. The mother maintained Frazier was attempting to commit suicide. No criminal charges were filed as a result of this incident.

Although a warrant was issued on March 3 to detain Sarah, CPS did not locate the child until March 15. Soon thereafter CPS also found the child's father, whose home was evaluated and determined to be suitable for the minor.

During the first year of dependency, the mother visited with Sarah once a week in the presence of CPS. While she was "outraged by CPS staff" at this time, she interacted well with the child. In late 1988, a psychologist, Stephen Binder, evaluated the mother. According to Binder:

"She behaves in a manipulative and demanding way which emphasizes the negative aspects of her personality. Her history is one which suggests a predisposition for negative self-esteem and poor impulse control."

Although there was no evidence of psychotic disorders, the psychologist found:

"But her emotional reactivity can be aroused to the point that her judgement [sic ] becomes impaired leading to behavior which is not well planned, or controlled. It is not possible to determine if this condition is one which prevailed prior to last February when she lost custody of Sarah, but the trait is present at this time, and is a factor which must be considered in evaluating the subject's suitability for visitation with her young daughter."

He diagnosed the mother as demonstrating:

"Dysthymic (Depressive) disorder. [p] Obsessive Compulsive Personality disorder with dependent features."

Binder later added to his diagnosis: "Histrionic Personality Disorder with explosive and antisocial features." He did, however, recommend increasing the amount of supervised visitation for the sake of both the child and the mother.

In February 1989, the mother initiated psychotherapy with another psychologist, Dexter Hardcastle. She also attended parenting classes offered by CPS. In March 1989, visits were increased to two 1 and 1/2-hour supervised visits each week. The length of each visit increased as well during 1989. Apparently, in mid- to late 1989, the father and mother began conjoint therapy to improve their communication with regard to Sarah.

Following a second evaluation in November 1989, Dr. Charles Davis, a...