In re S.W.

Filed 12/1/05 In re S.W. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re S.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B181414 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK57424)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.P., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn K. Martinez, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Joseph D. Mackenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant T.P. is the mother of S.W.^[1] Mother appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and dispositional order removing S.W. from mother’s custody. Because the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and dispositional order are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Initial Referral and Investigation

Days after S.W. was born in November 2004, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral from hospital workers who alleged that at the hospital mother engaged in paranoid behavior, including accusing a staff member of touching her inappropriately during birth, switching her baby at birth, throwing her baby down and ransacking her room. The referral also alleged that mother had a history of depression, heard voices and was schizophrenic.

On December 1, 2004, a social worker visited mother and father at their home, where they lived with father’s parents. About the home, the social worker reported that it was “a lovely, clean and nicely furnished three bedroom home.” Mother was prepared with Enfamil, clothes and pampers. The baby was dressed appropriately and the room temperature was appropriate for the baby.

The social worker observed that mother was “very appropriate and closely bonded to the child.” The social worker also observed that S.W. “looked healthy and in good physical condition.”

The social worker interviewed mother about the baby’s well-being and mother’s alleged behavior at the hospital. As for the baby, mother reported that she had runny stools. Mother explained that she had not made a medical appointment, because she did not yet have a doctor.

Mother also reported that she was in therapy before the pregnancy and that she was taking medication for depression. Mother stated that she had been taking Zoloft for five months, but that she stopped taking the medication when she learned she was pregnant. Mother reported that she no longer attended therapy because she did not need the help. Mother could not recall the name of her therapist. Mother acknowledged that she had been hospitalized in a mental facility, but would not provide any additional information regarding her past psychiatric history. Mother informed the social worker that she had heard voices in the past, but that she no longer heard them. Mother denied ever wanting to hurt herself or others. Mother refused to sign a release for her medical records.

As for the behavior at the hospital, mother stated that the hospital staff was inappropriate with her and the baby. She reiterated that a doctor touched her inappropriately. While at the hospital, mother filed complaints with the police and hospital administration.

During the interview, mother asked the workers who they worked for and why they were sent to her home. Mother stated she would not answer any more questions. The social workers concluded that mother was exhibiting paranoid behavior. Mother would not sit still and had difficulty concentrating. Mother also displayed a level of confusion, and was not able to follow the conversation.

The social workers then interviewed father. He reported that he was S.W.’s father and that he had known mother for two years. Father stated that S.W. was mother’s number one priority and that mother ensured that the child’s needs were met. Father knew that mother had been on medication, but did not know why. When father first met mother, she was happy and full of energy. He noticed a change after mother was involved in two automobile accidents and lost two jobs. At that point, mother began acting depressed by not talking and not wanting to eat.

Father was at the hospital most of the time during the birth of S.W. He did not observe anything inappropriate by hospital staff. Father did not believe that mother was a risk to S.W. He assured the social worker that he would not leave mother alone with the baby.

The social worker also interviewed the paternal grandmother, who believed that mother had bonded well with S.W., and was able to care for the child. The paternal grandmother stated that she was not working and that she would be available to assist mother with S.W. She also stated that she would not leave mother alone with the baby. The paternal grandmother was at the hospital for a portion of mother’s stay. She did not observe hospital staff act inappropriately towards mother or S.W.

Likewise, the step-father of father, reported that mother had displayed appropriate behavior with the baby, and provided good care and supervision. He reported that mother had bonded well with the baby and that she fed the baby when the baby was hungry.

The social worker also interviewed the public health nurse from the hospital. The nurse reported that mother had been noncompliant and uncooperative during her entire hospital stay. The nurse confirmed that mother made complaints about inappropriate touching and the alleged mishandling of S.W. The hospital initiated a psychiatric evaluation of mother. The psychiatrist stated that mother exhibited paranoid episodes. Mother, however, did not qualify for a psychiatric hold pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150.^[2] The nurse also reported that mother had a prior history of receiving psychiatric outpatient services from the Augustus Hawkins Mental Health facility.

On December 8, 2004, mother and father, a grandmother, and the great grand parents attended a child safety conference to devise a safety plan for mother and S.W. At the conference, mother refused to participate in the plan that was developed. The social worker also reported that mother was exhibiting paranoid behavior by repeatedly asking who the social workers were and by showing that she did not understand what was expected of her. Based upon mother’s behavior at the safety conference, the DCFS determined that S.W. should be detained and placed with father.

2. Juvenile Dependency Petition

On December 13, 2004, the DCFS detained S.W. and filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged that there was a substantial risk that S.W. will suffer serious physical harm or illness because mother failed or was unable to supervise or protect S.W. adequately, and because of mother’s inability to provide regular care due to her mental illness.

The DCFS provided the juvenile court with a copy of a Department of Health Adult Initial Assessment of mother, which was completed on July 29, 2003, approximately 16 months before S.W. was born. The assessment reported mother’s symptoms as being depressed seven days a week, excessive crying, lack of energy and auditory hallucinations. Mother denied suicidal ideation, but acknowledged past attempts.

The assessment indicated that mother had had two previous hospitalizations for mental health issues. The most recent hospitalization lasted two weeks and ended on July 25, 2003. Mother indicated that her symptoms interfered with her ability to work. The assessment indicated that mother had experienced auditory hallucinations in the form of commands and paranoid delusions. The assessment also indicated that mother’s memory and intellectual functioning were unimpaired. The assessment reported that mother’s physical health was good. In conclusion, the assessment reported that mother’s diagnosis was a “psychotic disorder.” The assessment referred mother for medication.

3. Detention and Arraignment Hearing

At the December 13, 2004, hearing, the juvenile court appointed separate counsel for mother and child. Both attorneys asked the juvenile court to release S.W. to mother. The child’s attorney stated that the maternal great grandparents believed that mother should be under the care of a psychiatrist “just to ensure her own well-being,” but that they believed that there was no reason to be concerned for the child’s well-being in mother’s care. After observing mother and S.W. interact, counsel for S.W. asserted that she failed to see a nexus between mother’s reported problems and any risk of injury to S.W.

Mother’s attorney acknowledged that mother had some mental problems, but that by all accounts, mother took good care of S.W. Counsel also stated that mother was willing to undergo a mental health evaluation.

The juvenile court found that father was a presumed father and appointed counsel. Counsel for father stated that S.W. should be detained with father until mother was in counseling and taking her medications. The DCFS recommended that the juvenile court detain S.W. and place her with father.

The juvenile court found that the DCFS had established a prima facie case to detain S.W., as a person described by section 300, subdivision (b). The trial court found that there was a substantial danger to S.W. and no reasonable means to protect without detaining from mother.^[3] The court ordered S.W. detained and released to father. The court permitted the maternal great grandparents to provide child care while father was at work. The juvenile court permitted mother to live in the maternal great grandparents’ house. The trial court granted mother unmonitored visits as long as one of the great grandparents was home. The trial court ordered the DCFS to provide reunification services to mother, and ordered mother to submit to a mental health evaluation.

4. The DCFS Investigation Following Arraignment

In anticipation of the dispositional hearing, on January 7, 2005, the DCFS submitted a report to the juvenile court. The DCFS explained that mother had submitted to a psychiatric evaluation on December 15, 2004.

The evaluation reported that mother believed this case started when the maternal great grandparents called the police on mother while she was pregnant. Mother had started hitting herself in the stomach while pregnant. Mother reported to the evaluator that she could not feel the baby move and was scared that something was wrong. Mother was trying to move the baby. Mother also reported that the charges against her were false and that she did not need any services from the DCFS. Mother further reported that she was looking into filing charges against the police for being “rough” with her.

The evaluator noted that mother was distracted and presented a scattered thought process. The evaluator recommended a complete physical examination to rule out any potential medical causes related to the scattered thought process.

Mother reported to the evaluator that she had experienced serious problems getting along with family members and neighbors. Mother also reported that she was emotionally abused by a significant family member. Mother reported that other family members were verbally abusive and that her family did not feel like a family, in part, because there was no support.

Mother informed the evaluator that she had been treated for psychological difficulties on two prior occasions. She was hospitalized pursuant to section 5150. In 2004, she was prescribed Zxprexia, Zoloft, and Haldol. During her second hospitalization, mother refused to take her medication because it made it difficult for her to sleep.

Mother reported to the evaluator that she had suffered from serious depression. Mother acknowledged that she had experienced suicidal thoughts during her lifetime, and had attempted suicide in the past. Mother reported no psychological or emotional problems in the past 30 days. In addition, mother had not experienced any suicidal thoughts in the past 30 days. Mother did not believe that she needed psychiatric services. She also stated that the allegations of auditory hallucinations and paranoia were false.

In the report, the evaluator noted that a week after speaking with mother to arrange the interview, mother did not recall that conversation when the evaluator later called back to confirm the appointment. During the interview, the evaluator was required to repeat questions several times and mother did not appear to understand the questions. In addition, mother made contradictory statements and spoke in a disorganized manner. Mother did not recall signing documents in which it was reported that she was experiencing paranoia and auditory hallucinations. Mother reported gaps in her memory. The evaluator concluded that mother displayed paranoid symptoms and an inability to concentrate.

After completion of the interview, the evaluator met with the maternal great grandmother. She spoke about the incident during which she called the police on mother. While mother was pregnant, mother stated, “ ‘[A]ll the jailbirds were let free,’ ” at which point mother began to hit herself in the stomach. The great grandmother also reported that mother was paranoid about the care of her daughter and her relationships with family members.

The evaluator diagnosed mother as suffering from a psychotic disorder. The evaluator recommended that mother return to the Augustus Hawkins facility for a complete psychiatric assessment. The evaluator also recommended that mother be placed on medication and in outpatient weekly mental health and psychiatric services for a period of six months before considering reunification.

On January 4, 2005, a social worker interviewed father, who had obtained a new apartment for himself and S.W. Father explained that he had known mother for two years, and that they lived together for seven months in 2004. Since that time, father lived on and off with mother, the last time being a week after S.W. was born. Father reported that S.W. is mother’s number one priority as long as mother takes her medication.

Father reiterated that when he met mother, she was happy and full of energy. Father observed a change in mother’s behavior after she was rear-ended in two car accidents, and lost two jobs as a result. At that point, mother became depressed and isolated herself. Mother did not talk to anyone, eat or comb her hair. She stopped smiling and stopped taking pre-natal vitamins. Father also reported that mother stopped seeing her psychiatrist, and became upset if anyone touched her.

Father reported what he believed transpired at the hospital at the time of S.W.’s birth. Father informed the social worker that mother “was hallucinating and kept saying that the [n]urses and the [d]octors were mistreating the baby.” Father did not observe any hospital staff act inappropriately with mother or S.W. He did not observe any nurse mistreat the baby and reported that no one ransacked mother’s room.

Father reported that mother was not a threat to the baby as long as she took her medication and was under psychiatric care. Father also reported that he would allow mother to live with him if she continued under her psychiatric treatment for at least six months.

The social worker conducted a second interview of mother, who was coherent and able to answer all questions. During the interview, mother was appropriate with the baby and was careful with S.W. as she changed her diaper. S.W. appeared healthy and had no visible marks or bruises. During the interview, mother yawned frequently. Mother explained that she was sleepy because of new medication. Mother twice left the interview to check on the baby, who was in the care of the maternal great grandmother.

Mother explained that she became very depressed in 2002 after she lost her job. She sought help and was prescribed medication, Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic. Her doctor took her off the medication because of the pregnancy. Mother lost another job in 2004 and again became depressed.

In January 2005, mother was still under the care of a doctor at the Augustus Hawkins facility, who prescribed Risperdal, an anti-psychotic. Mother reported that she was not currently depressed. In addition, mother denied ever having auditory hallucinations or paranoid ideation. Mother explained that when the DCFS workers initially asked her to participate in voluntary services, she responded “no” because she did not understand what they were asking.

As for the events at the hospital during the birth of S.W., mother reported during her prenatal care, one of the hospital doctors touched her inappropriately. She filed a complaint. Mother reported that after filing the complaint, the doctors and nurses became angry with her. She reported that a nurse threw S.W. into a plastic container, causing the baby to develop a knot on her head. Mother also reported that she was followed home from the hospital. She stated that she owned her car and stated she did not know why someone would follow her home.

The social worker also interviewed the maternal great grandfather. He noticed a change in mother’s behavior two years ago. At that time, a psychiatrist prescribed mother medication, which mother took for about a year. The maternal great grandfather reported that mother’s family was under considerable stress with regard to finding housing. At that time, they moved in with the great grandparents. The maternal great grandfather reported that mother was currently taking her medication and that she did a good job caring for S.W. He also reported that mother did not understand what DCFS voluntary services were all about. He explained that mother believed that the DCFS was going to take S.W. away from her.

The maternal great grandmother reported that mother resided with them for six months in 2003, because she (and her mother) had no place to live. At that time, the maternal great grandmother observed mother speaking to someone who was not present. When she asked mother to whom she was speaking, mother did not respond. The maternal great grandmother also noted that after S.W. was born, mother did not want anyone to touch her. Finally, she reported that mother was currently doing well because she was taking her medication and under the care of a psychiatrist.

The DCFS noted that there was evidence that mother’s hallucinations involved S.W. On that basis, the DCFS recommended that S.W. remain with father, that mother’s visits be monitored by the great grandparents, and mother receive reunification services, including individual counseling, psychiatric treatment, and parenting classes.

On January 11, 2005, the DCFS filed an Information for Court Officer. There, a social worker advised the juvenile court that she had visited S.W. and mother at the home of the maternal great grandparents on January 11, 2005. Mother and S.W. were clean, well-dressed, and well-groomed. Mother held S.W. in her arms. The social worker reported that mother loved the baby.

The social worker reported that mother was appropriate during the first few minutes of the conversation, but that mother then started saying things that did not make sense. Mother told the social worker: “ ‘This is the devil[’]s house and they starved me for a year.’ ” When the social worker inquired who “they” were, mother responded, “they.” Mother also stated that she was not taking Prozac, was not depressed, and did not know why S.W. was in the system.

The social worker instructed the great grandparents not to leave mother alone with S.W. They responded that they never leave mother alone with the child. The great grandfather provided the social worker with a letter from the Department of Health stating that mother was taking her medication again.

5. Mother’s Waiver of Rights

On January 13, 2005, mother executed a waiver of rights. She agreed to “submit the petition on the basis of the social worker’s report and other documents, if any.” By submitting on the petition, mother gave up the right to a trial or hearing; the right to see and hear testifying witnesses; the right of cross-examination; the right to present her own evidence; the right to use court processes to compel witnesses to give evidence; and the right against self-incrimination.

6. Jurisdictional Finding

On January 13, 2005, the trial court found the allegation in the amended petition to be true and sustained the petition. The court set the matter for a contested disposition hearing.

7. The Contested Disposition Hearing

Before the hearing, on February 17, 2005, the DCFS filed a second Information for Court Officer. There, based upon case notes from the August Hawkins facility, the DCFS reported that mother was “very ill.” The Augustus Hawkins facility progress notes and medication log were attached to the Information for Court Officer.

The progress notes showed that mother attended a counseling session on December 22, 2004. The notes for that session state that mother informed the counselor that the court had ordered her to undergo an evaluation and assessment in order to determine whether she could care for her new baby. During the session, mother denied that she had auditory hallucinations or suicidal thoughts. Mother also reported that she could care for S.W. Mother further explained that she did not take her medication because it made her drowsy and she felt it was the wrong medication for her. Finally, mother stated that she had issues about which she needed to speak with someone on a regular basis. The therapist noted that mother was supported by her grandparents. The therapist concluded that mother was profoundly depressed and distrustful.

In the progress notes for the January 20, 2005, the therapist explained that mother was “still very ill.” The notes indicate that mother was “too frightened to take her medications.”

Finally, the notes for the February 7, 2005 session, indicated that mother had begun to take her medication. In addition, the notes indicated that mother had run out of one of her medications, and that her next appointment needed to be scheduled before she ran out of her medication. The therapist noted that by this time mother was alert, oriented, and cooperative. She spoke well and to the point.

The DCFS also attached a February 10, 2005 letter from the Department of Mental Health. There, the Department noted that the Augustus Hawkins facility was providing mother with mental health services. The letter explained that mother had attended three appointments, continued to improve, and was currently stable. In addition, the Department noted that mother attended therapy with great grandmother and S.W. The therapist noted that mother’s interaction with S.W. was appropriate. Finally, the letter explained that mother had been prescribed Risperdal, and that her doctor discontinued the use of Prozac.

The juvenile court admitted the DCFS reports into evidence. Mother testified at the hearing. She testified that she did not know why S.W. was not in her custody. Mother testified that she was taking her two medications for depression, an antidepressant and Zyprexa. Mother had taken her medications that day.

Mother testified that she had been taking medications for depression for three years. Mother testified that other than when she was pregnant, she had consistently taken her medication. She resumed taking her medications approximately one month after S.W. was born. Mother acknowledged that she was suffering from depression, but did not believe that depression was a mental illness. Mother further testified that she saw a psychiatrist every two months.

Mother also testified that if S.W. were returned to her care, she would move out of the great grandparents’ home, and move into a place of her own. Mother explained, however, that she would stay at the great grandparents’ house if ordered by the court. Mother stated that her depression would not interfere with taking care of S.W.

Following closing arguments,^[4] the court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to S.W. if returned to mother’s care. The court also found that there was no reasonable means to protect S.W. without removing her from mother’ care. The court declared the child a dependent of the court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court ordered placement of S.W. with father. The court ordered the DCFS to provide mother with reunification services. The court also ordered mother to participate in mental health counseling with a licensed clinical therapist. The court ordered mother’s visits to remain monitored, and allowed the maternal great grandparents to continue providing day care for the child. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

CONTENTIONS

Mother contends: (1) she did not waive her right to challenge the jurisdictional findings on appeal;^[5] (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s jurisdictional finding; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the detention of Sariah and placement with her father.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review jurisdiction findings and dispositional orders for substantial evidence. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733.) “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. [Citation.]” (In re Heather A., supra, at p. 193.)

DISCUSSION

1. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Jurisdictional Finding

In this appeal, mother makes a number of arguments as to why the juvenile court erred by concluding it had jurisdiction over S.W.: (1) the juvenile dependency petition was legally insufficient and did not state a cause of action; (2) substantial evidence did not support the jurisdictional finding; and (3) mother’s alleged mental illness, standing alone, was insufficient to establish parental inability to provide care or to establish that the child was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness.^[6] We reject each argument.

A. Sufficiency of the Petition

Mother did not raise any objections to the sufficiency of the juvenile dependency petition before the juvenile court. On appeal, mother claims that the juvenile dependency petition was legally insufficient because it lacked factual specificity.^[7] On this record, because mother did not challenge the factual sufficiency of the petition before the juvenile court, mother forfeited her right to raise this issue on appeal. (In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 480-481.)^[8]

In any event, below we conclude that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that S.W. was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b). Thus, any alleged factual deficiencies with respect to the specificity of the allegations in the juvenile dependency petition constitute harmless error. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 628 [“If the evidence at the jurisdictional hearing was insufficient, Kimberly can seek reversal on that ground. But if the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings, any failure of the petition to state a cause of action became harmless error.”].)

B. Substantial Evidence

The DCFS filed the juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300, which provides in pertinent part: “Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (b) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of . . . her parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child, . . . or by the inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . mental illness[.]”

In In re Ricardo L., Jr., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pages 564-565, the court explained: “At a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court ‘ “shall first consider . . . whether the minor is a person described by Section 300, and for this purpose, any matter or information relevant and material to the circumstances or acts which are alleged to bring him or her within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is admissible and may be received in evidence.” ’ ”

Mother asserts that the DCFS presented insufficient evidence to establish that: (1) mother had a mental illness; (2) mother could not adequately supervise, protect, or provide regular care to S.W. because of the mental illness; and (3) there was a substantial risk that S.W. will suffer serious physical harm or illness. We disagree.

The DCFS presented substantial evidence that mother had a mental illness for purposes of section 300, subdivision (b). The July 29, 2003 Department of Health Adult Initial Assessment indicated that mother had a psychotic disorder and referred mother for medication. After mother’s behavior in November 2004 at the hospital, the examining psychiatrist reported that mother exhibited paranoid episodes. Moreover, mother submitted to a psychiatric evaluation on December 15, 2004. After interviewing mother, the evaluator concluded that mother was suffering from a psychotic disorder and recommended that she return to the Augustus Hawkins center for a complete psychiatric evaluation.

The DCFS also presented substantial evidence that mother could not adequately protect and supervise S.W. By the time of the hearing, the DCFS had presented evidence that during her pregnancy mother had hit herself in the stomach and stated: “ ‘[A]ll the jailbirds were let free.’ ” In addition, mother refused to participate in a voluntary safety conference to devise a plan to ensure that S.W. was adequately protected and that her safety was ensured. Moreover, while the record shows that mother was providing appropriate care for S.W. at the home of the maternal great grandparents, that care was monitored by the great grandparents. Mother’s self-inflicted physical hitting and her refusal to participate in a voluntary safety conference constitute substantial evidence that mother could not adequately protect or provide regular care for S.W.

Finally, as to the issue of whether S.W. was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness, neither the DCFS nor the juvenile court was required to wait until S.W. was actually injured before intervening. (In re Eric B. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 996, 1003.) On this issue, the DCFS presented substantial evidence that at the time of the hearing, mother’s mental illness and lack of medication indicated that S.W. was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness. By the time of the jurisdictional finding, the trial court was presented with evidence of mother’s self-inflicted hitting during which she stated: “ ‘[A]ll the jailbirds were let free.’ ” In addition, mother engaged in paranoid behavior and denied that she needed therapy. Mother also refused to participate in the voluntary safety plan devised for S.W. Mother also exhibited paranoid behavior by repeatedly asking who the social workers were.

In conclusion, the DCFW presented substantial evidence that S.W. was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b).

2. Substantial Evidence Support the Juvenile Court’s Dispositional Order

Mother claims that the dispositional order detaining S.W. is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

Section 361, subdivision (c), sets forth the standard for determining when a child may be detained from a parent’s physical custody: “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 of any of the following: [¶] (1) There is a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor or would be 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 parents’ . . . physical custody.” (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1456(d).)

On appeal, mother asserts that there was insufficient evidence to establish that there was a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of S.W. if returned to mother’s care and that there was insufficient evidence that there were no reasonable means to protect S.W. without removing her from mother’s physical custody. We reject these arguments.

By the time of the dispositional hearing on February 17, 2005, the DCFS presented the juvenile court with additional evidence regarding mother’s mental health issues. The record shows that mother’s mental health issues arise when she stops taking her medication. As of January, 20, 2005, the Augustus Hawkins facility reported that mother was “still very ill.” At that time, mother was too frightened to take her medication. The record shows that mother did not begin taking her medication until February 7, 2005, ten days prior to the dispositional hearing.

The juvenile court received into evidence a report that indicated that while mother was off her medication during her pregnancy, she started hitting herself in the stomach, and stated: “ ‘[A]ll the jailbirds were let free.’ ” The maternal great grandmother called the police.

In addition, father presented evidence that he was concerned that mother should not have custody of S.W. until she had undergone counseling for a period of at least six months. Specifically, father stated that mother was not a threat to S.W. as long as she took her medication and was under psychiatric care. More importantly, father reported that he would allow mother to live with him and S.W., if mother continued under her psychiatric treatment for at least six months.

Moreover, during the January 11, 2005, interview of mother, the social worker noted that mother was appropriate for the first few minutes of the conversation. Mother explained that she was not taking medication. According to the social worker, mother then began making statements which did not make sense. At one point, she stated: “ ‘This is the devil[’]s house and they starved me for a year.’ ”

The fact that mother had only recently begun taking her medication, coupled with the evidence of mother’s behavior while not taking her medication, constituted substantial evidence that there was a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of S.W. if returned to mother’s care, and that there was no reasonable means to protect S.W. without removing her from mother’s physical custody.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional order are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, Acting P.J.

ALDRICH, J.

Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.

Coronado Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.

^[1] Father is not a party to this appeal.

^[2] Unless otherwise indicated, all unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Section 5150 provides in pertinent part: “When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.”

^[3] The juvenile court explained: “It appears [mother] does have a history of mental health needs, and while she appeared to be very appropriate with the child, she was not rational at the hospital nor at all times during her subsequent interview at home with the social worker. She made comments which would indicate that she was not thinking rationally, reasonably, nor clearly. [¶] She ha[d] been on psychotropic medications which she did not take during pregnancy. . . . [¶] While she has been appropriate, a person who has chronic mental health needs, needs [sic] to ensure that she can continue to be stable either with or without medications.”

^[4] Counsel for the child argued that S.W. should be returned to mother’s custody, stating: “[T]here’s been no evidence that I can see presented by the Department that at any time [mother] has engaged in any kind of risky conduct with or around the baby. [¶] The father, the grandparents, [and] the treating psychiatrist all have said they’ve observed the mother with the baby and that they feel she is good with the baby. There’s been nothing brought to my attention that would indicate that she’s at all – poses a risk to the baby when she’s with the baby.”

^[5] The DCFS does not dispute that mother did not waive her right to contest whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s jurisdictional findings. We agree that by submitting the issue of jurisdiction based upon the social worker’s report, mother did not waive her right to challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the jurisdictional finding. (See In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 565-566 [“Such a submission acted as consent to allow the court to consider the report as the only evidence in determining whether the allegations in the petition were true. [Citation.] It did not preclude appellant from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional finding on appeal.”]; and In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.)

^[6] Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding, we have no occasion to separately address mother’s third contention that a mental disability standing alone is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

^[7] In her opening brief, mother asserts: “The petition lacks specificity regarding [mother’s] ‘mental health problems, including depression’, provides no details as to when or why she purportedly, ‘failed to regularly take her psychotropic medication as prescribed’, and is vague, at best, about how, when and under what circumstances [mother], ‘exhibited paranoid ideation in relation to [S.W.].’ ”

^[8] For the reasons stated in In re James C., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pages 480-481 and In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329, we reject the contrary holding in In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 396-397.