Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. DP018899, DP018900, Dennis Keough, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Alisa Economou, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
IKOLA, J.
Defendant Susan B. (mother) appeals from a judgment of disposition declaring her daughters wards of the court, removing them from her custody, and ordering supervised visitation. Mother contends the pattern of domestic violence between her and Richard B. (father), her recurrent threats of suicide, and her substance abuse does not pose a substantial danger of harming the children. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Mother and her husband, father, lived in Orange with their daughters, Rachel B. (born 1994) and Violet B. (born 2001). The family also included three older children.
The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) responded to three child abuse reports concerning the family between 1997 and 2004. In 1997, SSA responded to a report mother had “grabbed [an older son] by the hair, punched him in the left shoulder several times then hit him in the leg with a bicycle helmet.” Mother “admitted to hitting the child for the last several years.” In 2001, SSA responded to a report mother hit father with a baseball bat. Mother “reported approximately fifteen years of domestic violence between her and... father.” Mother was convicted of misdemeanor battery and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. In 2004, SSA responded to a report father pushed mother away when she confronted him at his work. While these reports were inconclusive of physical abuse, emotional abuse, or general neglect of the children, SSA did note “the physical condition of the home was... marginal” and the children did not attend school.
SSA responded to a fourth child abuse report in August 2009. While the children were at home, mother slapped father in his face and kicked over a hot barbecue he was using. In response, father slapped or punched mother in her face. Mother and father each had small facial lacerations from the fight.
SSA filed a dependency petition, alleging mother and father failed to protect Rachel and Violet. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) It alleged mother and father “have an unresolved history of perpetuating numerous acts of physical domestic violence which, according to mother, has been ongoing since at least 1986 and... occurred in the presence of the children Rachel and Violet....” It further alleged mother “has an unresolved anger management problem since at least 1997, ” “suffers from severe emotional problems as evidenced in part by numerous incidents characterized by suicidal threats and ideation, as well as aggressive, delusional, and paranoid behaviors, ” made “suicidal threats... on an ongoing basis, in the presence of the children, and while she is the sole caretaker of the children, ” and “has a substance abuse history which includes, but is not limited to the excessive consumption of alcohol while the sole caretaker of the children....” SSA also alleged mother and father had failed to follow through with prior referrals for counseling, anger management, and mental heath services.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
According to the detention report, a social worker “conducted an unannounced visit to the family home....” Mother “had slurred speech and was unable to follow parts of the conversation”; “[t]he home was cluttered and dirty.” Mother conceded her and father “are always fighting” and declared she had to kill herself. She explained, “‘I got up this morning and I really thought I would put the hose in the exhaust and into the window.’” Mother stated “she often thinks of suicide as a way to end all her problems” and “confirmed she will say that she wants to harm herself in the presence of the children.” She “admitted to consuming ‘a few beers’ every day to help her deal with the home situation. She estimated she drinks two to three beers per day.”
The court detained the children, vested temporary care and placement with SSA, ordered reunification services, and ordered monitored visitation for mother. SSA placed the children at Orangewood Children’s Home.
The children were evaluated. Neither had been enrolled in public school or any home school program. Both had “‘severe cavities.’” Both acknowledged hearing their parents fight frequently over the years. Violet stated, “[I]t scared me, I wanted them to stop.” Rachel and Violet stated mother “is always threatening suicide and saying she wants to die.” Rachel admitted “she is very sad that [mother] says those things.” She also stated her parents “drink daily” and “are sometimes intoxicated.”
An older brother told a social worker mother “has ‘serious mental problems’” and “is the aggressor in all the physical and verbal altercations between her and the father.” He stated mother “always complains and yells, ” “provoke[s] the father and others into arguments, ” “consume[s] alcohol daily, ” and “is always threatening to harm herself or commit suicide.”
An older sister told a social worker mother “has mental health problems.” She stated mother “‘used to physically abuse [her brother] and [her]’” and “[her] brothers and [her] had to educate [them]selves.” She further stated mother “has mood swings and she seems to go off and on with her emotions. Sometimes she is angry, paranoid and lately she has been letting homeless men in the house with my sisters.”
Mother’s sister reported mother grew up in a “loving [and] safe” home, but “[w]hen she was a teenager she changed....” She thought mother was “depressed” and “has become paranoid.” She thought father was “hard working, ” “loving, ” and “a gentlem[a]n” who “did everything for [mother] but it was never enough.”
Mother’s own mother stated, “Susan has been saying that she is a victim for years now. She had a fight with [father] twenty years ago and she has been fighting with him ever since.” Although mother “says... her husband is a monster, ” father “is a sweet man.” She complained mother never lets her see her grandchildren and instead “sends [her] vile e-mails all the time.”
Mother responded to the petition during an interview with a social worker. She admitted the long history of domestic violence between her and father, who was “a satanic man, ” and lamented that “even though [she] hate[s] his guts, [she] cannot pay the rent without him.” She claimed to threaten suicide “in a joking way.” She explained that they are “the only white people in the neighborhood; the Mexicans get their chairs placed so they can stare at me all day through the garage in my yard.” Mother admitted “she does not like Mexicans” like the “racist” social worker who investigated the August 2009 fight. She had told that social worker, “‘I want another social worker, not a Mexican next time.’”
At other times, mother denied the children were suffering from the domestic violence or her suicidal threats. She knew the children should not be exposed to these things, but stated “‘I didn’t know it was against the law to argue in front of your kids’” and explained they were “‘used to it.’” She also denied the children suffered from the lack of schooling, telling a social worker, “‘the kids can read’... that is all they need in terms of education.”
Mother testified at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. She admitted she and father had a history of committing numerous acts of domestic violence against one another, including her kicking over the hot barbecue in August 2009. She admitted drinking alcohol while being the children’s sole caretaker: “It’s not a crime.” She also admitted “voicing” suicide because “the thought came into her head, ” but denied she ever stated she was “going to do it.” She explained the suicidal threats were “figure[s] of speech” she used “to convey a deep frustration.” She stated, “It’s kind of a joking way of saying I’m frustrated. My life sucks. I’m for - I’m in a bad marriage. I’m in a bad way. I might as well kill myself.” Moreover, Rachel and Violet “didn’t even listen to [her]” and “didn’t even notice.” She denied having emotional problems, claiming “it’s perfectly normal to get angry when people try and destroy your life.”
The court sustained the petition and declared the children wards of the court. (§ 360, subd. (d).) As to mother’s emotional problems, it noted “mother has indicated that they are depressive issues, that she’s depressed, and that also that these depression - this depression has led to her expressions of suicidal ideation, and that is, I think, significant evidence in terms of as they relate to the allegations as to the mental health issues.” It found “mother was agitated and angry while testifying, and... the court found the demeanor to be probative of the allegations regarding mental health issues.” The court also expressed its “concern[] in terms of the alcohol, substance abuse allegations, that given the circumstance[s], given the depression, the expression of suicidal ideation... [m]other’s description of her alcohol consumption raises... significant concerns....”
The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to mother’s custody would pose a substantial danger to their well-being. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) It noted, “The court is very concerned that the level of discord that the children have been exposed to is - represents a significant harm and a threat of significant continued harm to these children.” It explained, “Emotional injuries can be cumulative, and they can fester, and they can be most destructive.” The court ordered the children removed from mother’s custody, vested custody with SSA, ordered reunification services for both parents, and ordered monitored visitation for mother.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the disposition removing Rachel and Violet from her custody pending reunification. She concedes the underlying facts: her long history of domestic violence with father, her suicidal threats and emotional instability, and her alcohol use and drunkenness in front of the children. But she asserts these facts do not warrant removal.
“The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order.” (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 462.) “Before the court may order a minor physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the minor would be substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the minor can be protected without removal. [Citation.] A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and proof of a potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136 (Diamond H.), overruled on other grounds by Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), is the governing statute. It provides: “A dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents... with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence.... [¶] (1) There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s... physical custody.”
“In reviewing the... disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports [it]. [Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193 (Heather A.).)
Substantial evidence shows returning Rachel and Violet to mother’s custody would place them at substantial risk of harm. (See § 361, subd. (c)(1); Diamond H., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1136.) The court found living with mother subjected the children to a “level of discord” that threatened “significant continued harm” and “emotional injuries” that “can be cumulative, and... fester, and... be most destructive.” The record sufficiently corroborates these findings. Mother exposed the children to a continuing cycle of instability, fueled by the perpetual domestic violence between her and father, her repeated expressions of suicidal thoughts to the children, and her substance abuse. At the heart of this cycle are mother’s conceded depression and frustration, and her apparent paranoia. Contrary to mother’s claim, her emotional fragility is relevant even without a formal diagnosis. The court itself saw mother could not control her emotions in the courtroom, as she testified in an “agitated and angry” manner that betrayed her instability.
Mother relies primarily on three cases reversing a removal order: each addressing domestic violence, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse. But these cases concerned situations far less dire than that presented here. (See In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 171, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Lucero L. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1227, 1239-1241 [insufficient evidence of domestic violence other than “two incidents”]; In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 [mother had prior history of suicidal thoughts, but “[t]here was no evidence [she] had suicidal ideation after the birth of her children”]; In re W.O. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 906, 908-909 [parents possessed cocaine and marijuana, but all witnesses “testified the children appeared healthy, happy, well cared for and that the parents did not appear to be under the influence of drugs”].)
Moreover, mother’s cases considered the risk factors individually, not collectively. Domestic violence between parents may not always be a sufficient ground for removal. Having a history of suicidal thoughts may not always be sufficient ground, either. The same may be true of alcohol abuse. But in this case, mother continually exposed the children to all three. And these risk factors can feed on one another. The court reasonably concluded mother’s alcohol abuse could increase her risk of committing suicide. For that matter, the court could have reasonably concluded mother’s alcohol abuse could exacerbate the risk of future domestic violence, which could further increase the risk of suicide.
Even taken alone, the parent’s sordid history of domestic violence is especially troubling. Repeated physical violence between parents creates a real risk that the children may be “physically harmed during the domestic abuse, by contact with an object (thrown, knocked over, broken) or a person, even if [the parents] did not intend for them to be harmed.” (Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 195 [affirming removal].) Mother placed her children at physical risk, for example, by kicking over a lit barbecue. In addition, “there is the matter of the secondary abuse... to wit, that ‘children are affected by what goes on around them as well as what is directly done to them.’” (Ibid.) Persons can suffer lifelong from “‘pattern[s]... originating in childhood.’” (Ibid.) In Heather A., it was the father whose “psychological profile shows a man who tends to overreact with hostility and anger when faced with problems.” (Id. at p. 196.) Here, it is the mother whose anger, frustration, and depression led her to resort to physical violence and threats of suicide - all of which was absorbed by the children.
Finally, mother weakly notes the children have not been diagnosed with any emotional problems and suggests they are old enough to deal with her instability. Mother wrongly requires proof the children are suffering an existing emotional harm. But the true focus is whether the children would face “a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being... if [they] were returned home.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) Mother “need not be dangerous and the [children] need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the [children].” (Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1136.) The record contains sufficient evidence of a substantial risk to the children’s well-being, averted best by their removal. The same evidence warrants supervised visitation for mother. (See § 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A) [visitation must serve “the well-being of the child”].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J.FYBEL, J.