In re M.J. CA2/6

Filed 12/23/20 In re M.J. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re M.J., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B305763 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J072332) _______________________________ (Ventura County)

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, COUNTY OF VENTURA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This dependency proceeding involves a mother who became convinced her daughter, M.J., who was born in March 2007, was seriously ill even though she has only minor health issues. After M.J.’s doctors expressed concern about the number of unwarranted medical appointments and resultant school absences, Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a

petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)1 seeking to declare M.J. a dependent of the juvenile court and to place her in her father’s sole custody. Mother and father previously had joint custody. Following a dispositional evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition, finding that M.J., who was 12 at the time, was at a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because of mother’s failure or inability to provide appropriate care and support, and that mother has mental health issues that periodically interfere with her ability to provide adequate care and supervision. The court struck the allegation regarding mother’s use of prescription drugs. The juvenile court extended father’s exclusive custody of M.J. and ordered mother’s visitation to be supervised. It did give HSA discretion to liberalize mother’s visitation to monitored or unsupervised. Mother does not challenge the jurisdictional orders. She contends the dispositional orders placing M.J. in father’s sole custody and requiring supervised visitation are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND After receiving the dependency referral in September 2019, a social worker interviewed M.J., who said she had so many doctors’ appointments in San Diego that she had to miss school and even started school later than the other students. Attendance records confirmed that M.J. missed over a full month of school between August 21 and September 24, 2019.