Opinion
H045088
06-21-2018
In re R.A., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.A., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. Nos. 17JU00196 & 17JU00197)
R.A. and B.A. are brother and sister, and were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court on July 19, 2017. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b)(1), (c).) R.A. was removed from N.A.'s [Mother] custody, while B.A. remains in the home. Mother claims that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding under section 300, subdivision (c) that R.A. and B.A. had suffered, or were at substantial risk of suffering, serious emotional damage as a result of Mother's conduct.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We find that there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that R.A. suffered emotional harm and that B.A. was at substantial risk of emotional harm as a result of Mother's conduct and affirm the order.
I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
R.A. and B.A. live with Mother and her live-in partner, Robert. When R.A. was in the sixth grade, she started expressing suicidal ideations, and experiencing auditory hallucinations, depression and mania. R.A. was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder at that time, and she began taking medication.
R.A. began to engage in self-harming behavior and threaten suicide. As of September 2016 when she was 14 years old, R.A. had been to the Santa Cruz County Crisis Stabilization Program eleven times, and had been assessed nine times to determine if she was a danger to herself under section 5150. R.A. had also been involuntarily held at Fremont Hospital two times.
Between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2017, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department, Family and Children's Services Division ("Department") received five referrals regarding R.A.'s safety. The overarching concern expressed in the referrals was that Mother's conduct was exacerbating R.A.'s emotional dysregulation and instability, and was contributing to R.A.'s self-harming behavior and suicide threats. The Department determined that three of the referrals were inconclusive, and that two were unfounded.
A. June 2 , 2017 Referral to Department Substantiated
On June 2, 2017, the Department received its sixth referral of emotional abuse and general neglect of R.A, which it found substantiated. The basis of the referral was that R.A. had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons seven times in the past three months. In addition, Mother had not been following instructions to keep R.A. safe, and had been exacerbating R.A.'s emotional instability by escalating situations in her interactions with R.A. despite specific instructions not to do so.
During the investigation of the June 2, 2017 referral, social worker Jeremy Lansing interviewed Mother and Father, R.A., B.A., as well as mental health service professionals, family members of R.A. and other people who provided family support. Based on his investigation, the social worker concluded that Mother attempted to exert an unreasonable amount of control over both of the children that was particularly inappropriate for teens. For example, 15-year-old R.A., a girl, and 14-year-old B.A., a boy, were required to share a bedroom despite the fact that a third bedroom was available in Mother's home. They were required to go to bed at the very early hour of 7:30 p.m. In addition, Mother took the children's money and gift cards from them to control what they could buy, and pureed their food to control what they ate. When the children were upset, Mother did not allow them to use coping techniques of their choice, such as B.A. self-soothing by riding his bicycle and R.A. calming herself by watching television.
Lansing visited Mother's home unannounced on June 9, 2017, and found that the living room and the third bedroom were filled with stacked items and were not usable spaces. Mother told Lansing that R.A. had had twenty-two interventions by the Crisis Stabilization Program and had one assessment at Dominican Hospital. Mother believed that if she left R.A. alone, R.A. would harm herself. Mother told Lansing that she did not believe that she had any ongoing conflict with R.A., and that she did not agree that her need for a high level of control contributed to R.A.'s emotional escalation. When Lansing asked Mother what would happen if she let R.A. have more control over her choices, Mother focused on having R.A. on the right medication. Mother denied that R.A. only escalated when she was at home with Mother. Mother also stated that B.A. had only one friend, that he had problems at school and had a section 504 plan. When Lansing asked Mother if it was a good idea to have R.A. and B.A. share a bedroom, Mother said that she could not get rid of the "stuff" in the third bedroom, because she needed to sell it.
Section 504 is set forth in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified in 29 U.S.C. sections 701, et seq. and requires public school districts that receive federal financial assistance to provide appropriate public education for students with disabilities.
Lansing asked Mother if she believed that anything needed to change, and Mother again focused on putting R.A. on the right medication. Mother also focused on R.A.'s medication when Lansing asked how she would ensure R.A.'s safety moving forward. Mother told Lansing that she could not see her own counselor because the children needed a high level of supervision and she could not leave them alone to attend her own appointments. Lansing tried to have Mother agree to allow R.A. to watch television for 30 minutes when she would become upset so that R.A. could deescalate and not engage in self-harming behavior, but Mother said that she did not want to use screen time as a "reward."
Lansing met with R.A. at her high school. R.A. said that Mother needs counseling because she is very controlling. She said that Mother picks out her clothes every day and makes her eat mashed up food. R.A. also said that she purges the food that she eats because Mother tells her that she is fat. R.A. believes that Mother has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and is a hoarder. R.A. said that her favorite time of day is when she is not with Mother, and that she believes Mother will never change. R.A. expressed fear for her brother if she has to leave Mother's house because she believes that Mother will focus her negative attention on him and that he will suffer.
Lansing met with B.A. at his middle school. B.A. told Lansing that Mother is over controlling and that she is a hoarder. He said that when R.A. would become emotionally unstable and escalate, Mother would try to control the situation by yelling and taking away screen privileges, but it would make things worse. B.A. also said that Mother would threaten R.A. during these incidents by telling her that she would not be allowed to live at home and that the police would be called to intervene. B.A. told Lansing that he wanted Mother to get rid of the stuff in the third bedroom so that he could have his own bedroom. He also wanted Mother to stop being so overprotective and over controlling, and to allow him to see his father more often. B.A. said that Mother took the money and gift cards that relatives gave him.
Lansing asked B.A. about how the conflict at home was impacting him and his feelings. B.A. said that when he is upset he likes to ride his bike, but that Mother does not allow him to because she is over controlling. B.A. said that Mother's over controlling frustrates him and makes him want to leave, and that the effect of her behavior on him is not good. B.A. reported that he was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder; however, his therapist believes that he may instead suffer from dysthymia, a long term form of mild depression, and anxiety. At school, B.A. has a section 504 plan for ADHD and sensory processing issues.
Father talked to Lansing, and stated that he knew about R.A.'s mental health hospitalizations over the past year and medication treatment plan, but that he did not know that there were recent problems. Father believed that Mother's pureeing of R.A.'s and B.A.'s food is not good for their emotional health, and that it embarrasses the children. Father stated that R.A. did not engage in self-harm or emotionally escalated behavior when she was visiting him and his wife in Texas. Father said that he believes that Mother should have her own individual therapy to work on her control issues, and that she should clean out the third bedroom so that each of the children can have their own bedroom. Father told Lansing that he could not take custody of R.A. or B.A. because he has another child at home with autism spectrum disorder, and the children's presence would be disruptive.
Children's Mental Health Senior Mental Health Specialist, Kurt Churchill spoke with Lansing. He works on the mobile emergency response team, and assisted with R.A.'s placements for section 5150 evaluations earlier in 2017. Churchill stated that Mother was provoking R.A., and that R.A.'s harmful behaviors were only happening at home when she was with Mother.
Children's Mental Health Supervisor, Vince Stroh spoke to Lansing and stated that the staff was concerned for R.A.'s wellbeing due to Mother's hoarding, and her excessive control of the home environment, including her insistence on blending all of R.A.'s food. Children's Mental Health staff was assisting Mother and R.A. to develop a plan to help R.A. deescalate when she became emotionally distraught, including allowing R.A. to choose one of several prearranged coping strategies and to use the word "break" to let Mother know that she needed space.
Children's Mental Health Counselor, Jonathan Coleman was working with Mother and providing family counseling services to the minors and Mother. He told Lansing that his primary concern was that Mother's over involvement with R.A. was "making it worse." Coleman discussed safety plan ideas for R.A. with Mother and daughter, including letting R.A. be in control of her own coping strategy, allowing her to listen to music and most importantly, allowing R.A. to watch television when she became emotionally upset. Coleman also stated that food was a serious issue for R.A. because Mother was obsessed with controlling what R.A. eats.
R.A.'s therapist, Amy Craven confirmed that Mother's controlling behavior had prevented R.A. from using the coping skills that R.A. had been taught to use when she would become emotionally unstable. One of the coping skills that Craven suggested was for either Mother or R.A. to use the word "break" when situations were escalating, and for R.A. to be able to watch television for 30 minutes to calm down. Craven stated that Mother would not agree to this suggested coping skill. Craven also stated that R.A.'s disruptive behaviors only escalated to self-harm and suicidal threats as a result of Mother's controlling actions.
R.A.'s psychiatrist, Dr. Helen Ratico stated that it had been difficult prescribing an appropriate medication for R.A. because Mother had insisted that R.A. continue to take Depakote, which has serious side effects such as weight gain, and risks of harm to reproductive health. Dr. Ratico did not think that R.A. should remain on Depakote for a long-term period because of the side effects. Dr. Ratico expressed concern that Mother would give R.A. Benadryl so that she would go to bed very early. Dr. Ratico also believed that Mother should participate in individual therapy, but that Mother was not interested in doing so.
Lansing spoke to James Russell, the Mental Health Liaison for the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office. Russell stated that law enforcement had been involved in four section 5150 placements of R.A. between April 2017 and June 2017. Russell stated that once R.A. was removed from the home following law enforcement intervention, R.A. calmed down and behaved normally.
The Soquel High School counselor and the Harbor High School counselor both reported that R.A.'s behavior while at school was normal. R.A.'s self-harming behavior appeared to be precipitated by Mother. The Harbor High School counselor believed that Mother was representing to mental health professionals that R.A. was more mentally ill that she was in actuality.
Lansing spoke with Eric, a friend of the family. He said that Mother's home had a very unhealthy dynamic. Eric tried to talk to Mother about the situation, but she would not acknowledge that there was a problem. Eric said that R.A. had stayed with him overnight and that she had not engaged in any disruptive or self-harming behaviors. Eric had witnessed R.A.'s self-harming behaviors when he was in Mother's home, and he had been able to calm R.A. down. Eric stated that once R.A. and Mother would disengage from each other, R.A.'s self-harm would stop. Eric expressed concerns for R.A.'s safety if she stayed in the home, and believes that the situation would worsen if Mother does not get professional help.
R.A.'s uncle's girlfriend, Francesca spoke to Lansing and said that she has known R.A. for six years. She said that R.A. is a calm, sweet person, and that while she believes that Mother loves her children, she is too controlling. Francesca believes that R.A. acts out because she is frustrated by Mother's over controlling behavior and wants to get out of the house.
Mother's live-in partner, Robert told Lansing that Mother is a good mom, and that R.A. would escalate her behavior when Mother would set reasonable boundaries. Robert believes that R.A. makes bad choices, and that Mother is focusing on keeping R.A. safe.
B. July 10 , 2017 Section 300 Petition
On June 30, 2017, following Lansing's investigation, the Department found the allegations of Mother's emotional abuse of R.A. to be substantiated, and emotional abuse of B.A. to be inconclusive. The allegations of Mother's general neglect of both R.A. and B.A. were found to be inconclusive. The allegations of Father's general neglect of R.A. were also found to be inconclusive.
On July 10, 2017, the Department filed a section 300 petition alleging that R.A. and B.A. come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300 subdivision (b)(1), and (c). Specifically, the petition alleged that Father failed to protect the children from Mother's behavior, that he was unwilling to take custody of the children, and that despite the Department's concerns for the children's safety, he expressed his desire that the children remain in the custody of Mother. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).)
With regard to the section 300, subdivision (c) allegations of Mother's emotional abuse of R.A., the petition alleged: "The minor, [R.A.], are [sic] suffering or are [sic] at substantial risk of suffering, serious emotional damage as a result of the conduct of their [sic] mother, []. [Mother's] interventions trigger, increase, and escalate [R.A.'s] self-harming behaviors and suicidal ideation, which have a higher incident rate in her mother's presence. [Mother's] conduct includes, but is not limited to, [Mother] not allowing [R.A.] to use her coping skills; controlling her daughter's relationship with food; [sic] and making her to go to bed extremely early. As such, [R.A.] behaves in a dysregulated manner, such as holding a knife to her neck or cutting herself with a piece of glass. [R.A.] has been placed on approximately five [section] 5150 holds since April 2017. [Mother's] level of intervention and controlling behavior places her child, [R.A.], at substantial risk of emotional harm."
With regard to Mother's emotional abuse of B.A., the petition alleged: "The minor, [B.A.], are [sic] suffering, or are at substantial risk of suffering, serious emotional damage as a result of the conduct of their mother, []. [Mother] behaves in a controlling manner, which causes [B.A.] to experience stress and frustration. [Mother] does not provide [B.A.] with privacy, as he is made to share a bedroom with his fifteen [sic] year-old sister and [Mother] walks around in her underclothes, which causes [B.A.] to feel uncomfortable in his living situation. [Mother's] level of intervention and controlling behavior places her child, [B.A.] at substantial risk of emotional harm."
C. July 3 , 2017 Referral to Department Substantiated
On July 3, 2017, prior to the July 10, 2017 Petition being filed, the Department received another referral regarding R.A.'s welfare. This referral stemmed from an incident that occurred on July 1, 2017 during which Mother called law enforcement to intervene at the family home. R.A. was taken by law enforcement on a section 5150 hold and transferred to Fremont Hospital on July 2, 2017 for hospitalization.
Following the referral, Lansing contacted Mother to inquire about what happened on July 1, 2017 that resulted in R.A.'s hospitalization. Mother said that she needed to go to the grocery store and wanted R.A. to go with her because Mother did not want to leave R.A. alone. Eventually, R.A. accompanied Mother to the store, but when they returned home, R.A. refused to eat the food they bought, and demanded that Mother give her money. Mother said at that point, R.A. started to break pencils and was "tearing apart the house." Mother then called law enforcement for assistance in calming R.A. down.
According to the Mental Health Liaison for the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office, Russell, when law enforcement arrived, Mother was calm, and R.A. was in the living room holding a piece of broken glass. R.A. was threatening to kill herself if the deputies would not leave, and cut her arm with the glass several times in front of the deputies while alternately holding the glass to her neck. The deputies were eventually able to take the broken glass away from R.A. by spraying her with a fire extinguisher. The July 1, 2017 incident was the first time in 20 separate incidents with law enforcement that R.A. actually cut herself in the presence of the deputies.
During the incident on July 1, 2017, Mother did not implement the safety plan for R.A. that she had agreed to when she met with Lansing in June 9, 2017. The safety plan stated the following: "I . . .agree to follow the safety plan recommendations of Children's Mental Health. For example, but not limited to: [R.A.] is able to choose her coping strategy from the agreed list (i.e. music, television, calling a support network member, etc.), when [N.A.] says "break" I will stop and walk away. I will stay "PCB" (Positive/Calm/Boundaries). I will use my support network (Melody, Robert, Eric, David, and Francesca) to give me breaks, supervise my children, so that I can attend counseling and other self care [sic] activities."
At the time that she was having difficulty with R.A. on July 1, 2017, despite her agreed upon safety plan, Mother did not allow R.A. to go with Francesca so that R.A. could have space to calm down, nor did she contact Eric to see if R.A. could spend time with him. Mother stated that she did not implement this plan because she did not want to reward R.A.'s bad behavior by allowing her to go with Francesca to a birthday party that Francesca was attending that night. Mother did not contact Eric because she said that Eric was "gravely disabled" due to shoulder surgery. When contacted by Lansing, Eric said that he was not "gravely disabled," and that he was not scheduled for shoulder surgery until late July 2017. Eric said that he would have been able to help R.A. if Mother had called him on July 1, 2017.
On July 12, 2017, Mental Health liaison Russell sent an email to Lansing listing all of the 21 incidents when Mother had called law enforcement to intervene and assist her with R.A. Russell also provided a written assessment that Mother's conduct constituted child abuse, stating: "In my role as the Mental Health Liaison to the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office I have been made aware of many of the interventions involving law enforcement, [R.A.], and her mother. To be specific, Santa Cruz Sheriff Deputies have responded over 20 times to calls regarding [R.A.], with 19 of these calls resulting in a W&I 5585 applications [sic] for evaluation. Thirteen of these calls have occurred since January of this year. As an employee of Santa Cruz County Behavioral Health Services, I am also aware of interventions being made by Behavioral Health Staff with this family. During a meeting on 7/7/17, following another incident with the Sheriff's Office on 7/1/17, it has become clear that [R.A.'s] life is in danger and her mother does not appear to be capable of managing her care and appears to be exacerbating the safety issues. As a result, I am filing a report citing mental, emotional, and physical abuse . . . . After numerous incidents where Sheriff Deputies were called to intervene, it should be apparent to [R.A.'s] mother that each instance involving law enforcement is becoming increasingly confrontational with the potential for lethality. Further, during each intervention, Deputies are having to utilize increasingly creative tactics which include higher levels of force. Thus, by calling deputies to solve a parenting dilemma, [R.A.'s] life is being placed in jeopardy."
D. July 18 , 2017 Amended Section 300 Petition
On July 18, 2017, the Department filed an amended section 300 Petition that incorporated the July 3, 2017 referral. Specifically, the amended Petition added the following allegation with regard to R.A.: "On 7/1/2017 the mother failed to allow [R.A.] to utilize her identified coping strategies, to contact individuals in the safety network, to accept assistance from one support person, and contacted law enforcement which escalated [R.A.'s] mental health symptoms and self harming [sic] behaviors resulting in a 5150 hold. [Mother's] level of intervention and controlling behavior places her child, [R.A.], at risk of emotional harm."
The court ordered the children detained on July 19, 2017 and set the matter for a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on August 8, 2017. The Department recommended that the court find that both children come within the definition of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) as to Father's behavior, and section and 300, subdivision (c) as to Mother's behavior. The Department further recommended that R.A. be removed from the home and that family reunification services be provided. As to B.A., the Department recommended that B.A. remain in the home with family maintenance services. Father submitted and Mother objected. A date for the contested hearing was set for September 18, 2017.
E. Contested Jurisdictional and Dispositional Hearing
The court conducted the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on September 18, 2017. Mother testified on her own behalf and Lansing testified on behalf of the Department. Mother denied that her interventions escalated R.A.'s self-harming behavior, stating that R.A.'s mental health diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder was a contributing factor. Mother also denied that she is controlling with R.A.'s food consumption. Mother said that she uses R.A.'s access to her electronic devices to motivate her to behave in a positive way. Mother agreed that one of R.A.'s coping strategies is to watch television for 30 minutes, but said that during the "last incident" (referring to the July 1, 2017 incident), R.A. refused to turn off the television and watched it for five hours. When asked about her control of R.A.'s money and gift cards, Mother said that she was concerned that R.A. would buy junk food and drugs if she had access to money. Mother denied taking R.A.'s or B.A.'s money and spending it on herself, and that she only holds the money for them for safekeeping.
Regarding the incident on July 1, 2017, Mother testified that she had errands to do and wanted to leave the house, but that R.A. refused to come with her. Mother said that R.A. started to become agitated, but when Mother disengaged, she was able to calm her down. Because she was able to calm R.A. down, Mother did not feel that she needed a support person or a professional. Mother was asked about what she meant when she reported to police that R.A. was "tearing down the house," and she said that R.A. had broken some pencils and thrown some laundry.
When asked about her failure to contact Eric as a support person during the incident on July 1, 2017, Mother said that she did not call Eric because she "didn't want to burden him with my daughter." With regard to Francesca's offer to take R.A. to the birthday party, Mother said that going to the party was not the issue. Mother was concerned by how late R.A. would return home, which could make R.A. unstable because of exhaustion.
Lansing testified that since R.A.'s detention on July 19, 2017, she had not cut herself. There was one occasion when R.A. threatened to harm herself for which she was taken to the Crisis Stabilization Program. R.A.'s therapist believed that R.A.'s threat was caused by a challenging situation, and not by something the caretaker did.
In closing argument, Mother's counsel argued that Mother did not believe that R.A. suffered from emotional abuse, and that she was parenting R.A. appropriately.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court expressed concern that Mother did not have any insight into her contribution to her children's suffering. It noted that Mother seemed to prefer to have R.A. on medications with serious side effects rather than to try others that Dr. Ratico recommended. The court also noted that despite Dr. Ratico's June 2017 recommendation that the children sleep in separate bedrooms, Mother still had not cleaned out the third bedroom to facilitate this. The court was concerned that Mother was defensive and resistant to the idea that her parenting style was harmful to the children. The court further noted that Mother's behaviors escalated R.A.'s emotional instability, including Mother's increasing use of law enforcement intervention.
The court found the allegations in the amended petition true. The court ordered that R.A. be removed from the home, and that the Department provide family reunification services. With regard to B.A., the court ordered that he remain in the home, and that Mother participate in family maintenance services. Mother's case plan included counseling, a psychiatric evaluation and parenting education. The court ordered that visitation between Mother and R.A. would be supervised, and would be a minimum of once per week.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal on September 18, 2017.
II. DISCUSSION
A juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction must be supported by substantial evidence. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820 (Rocco M).) We must determine whether "there is any substantial evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value" to support jurisdiction under subdivision (c). (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) The trial court's judgment is presumed correct. (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 267.) All conflicts are resolved in favor of the judgment and all legitimate inferences are indulged in to uphold the juvenile court's determinations. (Rocco M., at p. 820.)
A. Jurisdiction Under Section 300 , subdivision (c)
Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (c). The Department had the burden in the juvenile court to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that minor qualified as a dependent. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329 (Shelley J.).) A child may be adjudged a dependent under subdivision (c) if the "child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care." (§ 300, subd. (c).) Dependency under that subdivision can be established by showing either that a parent's conduct caused emotional damage (or substantial risk of damage) or that the child is suffering emotional damage in the care of a parent who is unable to provide adequate treatment for the child, even if the parent is not otherwise the cause. (In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557 (Alexander K.).) When, as here, the juvenile dependency petition alleges the emotional damage is as a result of a parent's conduct, the Department must prove three things: "(1) the offending parental conduct; (2) causation; and (3) serious emotional harm or the risk thereof, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior." (Ibid.)
B. Amended Petition Regarding R.A.
The amended petition alleged that R.A. suffered emotional harm because Mother's "interventions trigger, increase and escalate [her] self-harming behaviors and suicidal ideation." The petition further alleged that R.A.'s self-harming behavior occurred more frequently in her mother's presence. We find that these allegations are supported by substantial evidence.
Lansing's investigation identified Mother's "offending parental conduct" as required under Alexander K. by itemizing Mother's refusal to provide separate bedrooms for her teen daughter and son, her controlling of R.A.'s diet by pureeing her food as though R.A. was a toddler, requiring the children to go to bed at an inappropriate age for teen development—in short, by infantilizing R.A and her brother. Additionally, the social worker noted that every professional, including mental health specialists, counselors, R.A.'s therapist and R.A.'s psychiatrist, who had contact with Mother and R.A. noted that Mother stubbornly refused to avail herself of the guidance they had provided regarding medication treatment and de-escalation techniques to enhance R.A.'s stability and decrease her emotional volatility. Mother also steadily declined therapy for herself, reducing the chance that she might gain insight into her own contribution to her daughter's behaviors. The combination of Mother's controlling conduct in the home with R.A. and Mother's resistance to help for her emotionally troubled teen constitute evidence of "offending parental conduct" as the Alexander K. court contemplated.
There is ample evidence that Mother's conduct caused emotional harm to R.A. as alleged in the petition. Long before the July 1, 2017 incident that precipitated the filing of an amended section 300 petition, Children's Mental Health Senior Mental Health Specialist Kurt Churchill indicated that Mother was provoking R.A. and that R.A.'s emotional deregulation occurred only when at home with Mother. His observation was corroborated by the high school counselor at Harbor High School, who reported that R.A. did not demonstrate self-harming behavior at school, and acted normally. R.A.'s therapist, Craven, stated that R.A.'s disruptive behaviors only escalated to suicidal threats and self-harm as a result of Mother's controlling actions. Family friends such as Eric and Francesca substantiated the observation that R.A. was able to moderate her reactions when away from Mother. Finally, the Mental Health Liaison for the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department, Russell, said that Mother's increasing use of law enforcement to intervene with R.A., rather than implementing safety prevention techniques, was significantly increasing R.A.'s self-harming behaviors to the point that there was a "potential for lethality."
While the evidence listed above is sufficient to support a finding that Mother's offending behavior caused R.A. emotional harm and increased her self-harming behaviors, the events that occurred on July 1, 2017 that resulted in the Department filing an amended petition demonstrate that the predictions and fears of the mental health providers listed above were all too real. On that day, a seemingly minor dispute between Mother and R.A. over food and money escalated to the point that law enforcement was called to the family home. R.A. cut herself with glass on the arm and threatened to commit suicide by cutting her own neck. It is obvious that this alone constitutes serious emotional harm as contemplated in Alexander K.
Although Mother had signed a specific safety plan with Lansing three weeks' prior that outlined what steps she should take when R.A. would start to escalate, when faced with a situation where she needed to use the safety plan to deescalate R.A.'s emotional volatility, Mother failed to do so. Mother refused to allow Francesca to take R.A. to a birthday party so that R.A. could have some space, believing that allowing her to go would be "rewarding" R.A.'s behavior. Mother also did not contact Eric to help with R.A., falsely believing that he was "gravely disabled," and that she did not want to "burden" him with R.A.
Mother's failure to use her safety plan by refusing to allow Francesca to take R.A. to a birthday party, and her failure to contact Eric for help caused R.A. extreme emotional harm as described by caselaw. If Mother had allowed R.A. to leave with Francesca, or if she had contacted Eric, Mother likely would not have contacted law enforcement for intervention. Had law enforcement not come to the home, R.A. would not have harmed herself or threatened suicide. As it was, law enforcement officers were forced to subdue the teen for her own safety by expelling the contents of a fire extinguisher on her. As Russell, the Mental Health Liaison, indicated, this incident made clear that continuing R.A. in Mother's care would increase the possibility of a lethal interaction with law enforcement.
Mother disputes the juvenile court's finding that she committed offending conduct that caused R.A. emotional harm. She asserts that her attempts to control R.A. such as limiting television and other screen time, monitoring R.A.'s food intake and not allowing R.A. to have access to her own money are appropriate parenting techniques to keep R.A. safe and healthy. Mother argues that because she is the authority figure, it is appropriate for her to set expectations for good behavior from R.A. Underlying her argument is her assertion that R.A. is manipulative, and that her threats of suicide and self-harm are used to get her own way in defiance of Mother. Mother asserts that no good deed goes unpunished, and that the juvenile court ignored her best efforts where parenting presented the extreme challenge of an emotionally volatile teen.
While it is possible that R.A.'s conduct contains a measure of defiance, the evidence presented from the social worker and mental health professionals who work regularly with teens does not support Mother's conclusion that the underlying cause of R.A.'s suicidal ideation and cutting are bad behaviors. Nor does common sense support the notion that the seven mental health hospitalizations or holds in three months specified in the record are the product of a teen's "bad behavior." The record is replete with evidence of R.A.'s emotional distress. While Mother correctly asserts that she is the authority figure over R.A. and can set expectations and boundaries for her, the evidence supports the court's finding that Mother's parenting techniques and rigidity did not work to improve R.A.'s behavior and instead, caused R.A. to harm herself physically and emotionally. Multiple mental health professionals have advised Mother to parent R.A. in a different way for the sake of R.A.'s emotional stability. Coleman advised Mother to allow R.A. to have control over her own coping strategies when she becomes emotionally upset. Craven advised Mother to separate herself from R.A. and use the word "break" when situations between the two are escalating. Lansing worked with Mother to devise a safety plan that included Mother allowing R.A. to choose her own coping strategy, and Mother using her support network of family friends for help with R.A. Despite all of this advice from professionals, Mother continued to adhere to her current parenting style and refused to use new or different techniques—to R.A.'s emotional and mental health detriment.
Mother attempts to parse out specific circumstances in this case that she believes demonstrate that she did not commit any offending conduct that harmed R.A. In particular, Mother points to the fact that she sought mental health treatment for R.A., and that she kept a sanitary home. Mother cites In re K.S. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327 (K.S.), and Shelley J., supra, in support of her argument; however, neither case is applicable here.
In K.S., this court found that a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) for emotional abuse was appropriate because there was sufficient evidence that the mother was incapable of providing adequate mental health care for her daughter. (K.S., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 338-339.) Mother argues that unlike the mother in K.S., she did provide adequate mental health care for R.A., and therefore, she did not cause her daughter emotional harm. However, the trial court reasonably concluded that R.A.'s own psychiatrist disagreed with Mother's assessment of an appropriate treatment plan for her daughter, insisting on the use of Depakote despite the risk of long term side effects. In addition, Mother's conduct undercut the effectiveness of the mental health treatment she obtained for R.A., because Mother would not follow the advice of the mental health professionals or the treatment plan they recommended for her daughter.
In Shelley J., this court found that when a child ran away from home and acted out, these behaviors were indicative of the emotional harm she suffered from living in a home that was unsafe, unhealthy and in terrible condition. (Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 330.) Mother argues that while she did have items stacked in the living room and third bedroom, she did not keep the home in an unsafe or unsanitary condition and therefore, unlike the parents in Shelley J., she did not cause R.A. emotional harm.
In citing and distinguishing K.S., supra, and Shelley J., supra, Mother demonstrates again, in support of the juvenile court's findings, that she does not have insight that her conduct has very negatively affected R.A.'s emotional wellbeing. While it is true that Mother sought and maintained mental health treatment for R.A. and kept a physically safe and apparently sanitary home, Mother's exertion of extreme control over R.A. despite professional advice to the contrary, and her failure to implement safety techniques to deescalate R.A., caused R.A. emotional harm under section 300 subdivision (c).
Mother requests that if we find sufficient evidence to support the section 300, subdivision (c) provision, we find that her conduct falls under the "no fault" provisions of that section. Section 300, subdivision (c) specifies that if a child is suffering serious emotional damage or is at substantial risk of suffering such damage, a petition can be sustained "as a result of the conduct of the parent" or because the child has "no parent capable of providing appropriate care." Having found sufficient evidence that Mother's conduct is the cause of R.A.'s emotional damage and ongoing risk of the same, we decline Mother's invitation to find that she falls under the "no fault" provision of section 300, subdivision (c).
C. Conclusion as to R.A.
The allegations in the amended petition that Mother caused R.A. to suffer emotional harm pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c) are supported by substantial evidence. Statements of mental health professionals, the social worker assigned to this case, law enforcement, B.A., R.A. and Mother herself all support the conclusion that Mother's offending behavior of harmful intervention and attempting to exert excessive control over R.A., especially when R.A. is in an emotionally volatile state cause R.A. extreme emotional harm. In addition, Mother's unwillingness or inability to employ safety measures or to heed the advice of mental health professionals regarding techniques to deescalate R.A.'s emotional outbursts cause R.A. harm and place her in danger.
D. Petition Regarding B.A.
The allegations in the petition regarding B.A. are that Mother's conduct places him at substantial risk of serious emotional damage. To date, the primary focus of Mother's behavior has been on R.A.; however, her attempts to exert extreme control over her children negatively impact both teens. While B.A. has not acted out in dangerous ways or engaged in self-harm, he has expressed that he has been suffering distress. B.A. is uncomfortable at home and suffers from a lack of privacy. He is forced to share a bedroom with his teen sister, and is required to go to bed at 7:30 p.m. B.A. believes that Mother is a hoarder and that she will not clean out the third bedroom so that he can use it. B.A. also said that Mother's controlling behavior frustrates him and makes him want to leave the house. Mother does not allow B.A. to use his coping mechanism of riding his bike when he is upset. B.A. also reported the Mother takes away his money and gift cards to control what he can buy. Notably, R.A. has expressed the very reasonable concern that because she is out of the house, and Mother cannot focus on her, she believes Mother will turn her excessive negative attention on B.A. This is consistent with Mother's history of controlling behavior.
Having considered the substantial evidence of Mother's negative interactions with R.A., it is not required that the juvenile court wait for a crisis to occur in the home before appropriately protecting B.A. The fact that B.A. has not expressed his emotional distress by threatening suicide or cutting himself, but has only expressed the thought of leaving the house, does not make the risk of harm less to him, so long as Mother is resistant to accessing the assistance offered to her and necessary for her children. In addition, we note that B.A. has been diagnosed with special needs and receives services at school, a recognition that he is more vulnerable than other children. The juvenile court exercised reasonable discretion and left B.A. in Mother's care, but put family maintenance services in place for Mother and B.A., in order to prevent the type of crisis evidenced by Mother's interactions with R.A.
E. Conclusion as to B.A.
There is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction as to B.A. under section 300, subdivision (c). Mother is engaging in the same controlling behaviors with B.A. as she is with R.A., which B.A. reports is distressing him. Mother's conduct is causing a substantial risk that B.A. will suffer emotional harm.
F. Jurisdiction Under Section 300 , subdivision (b)(1)
Because we find that there is sufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings as to R.A. and B.A. under section 300, subdivision (c), we need not decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support the additional finding by the juvenile court that Father failed to protect the children under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 ["When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court's jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence."].)
III. DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
/s/_________
Greenwood, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J. /s/_________
Grover, J.