R.V. v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2021) · DecisionDepot
R.V. v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 2021 No. E077193Unpublished
Filed 9/23/21 R.V. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
R.V.,
Petitioner, E077193
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1400309)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Michael J. Rushton,
Judge. Petition denied.
Daniel L. Vinson for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and
Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Petitioner R.V. (Father) and E.V. (Mother; collectively) are the parents of C.
(female, born 2014), R. (male, born 2018),1 and Re. (female, born 2019, Minor.) Father
has filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
8.452. Father claims that the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services
and in setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 366.26 because
Father was not afforded or offered reasonable services. For the reasons set forth below,
we deny Father’s writ petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY3
A. THE FIRST DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING C.
1. DETENTION
“In April 2014, DPSS filed a dependency petition under section 300,
subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support) on behalf of C., a
newborn child, alleging mother’s incarceration and ongoing mental health issues, and
father’s ongoing mental health, anger, and substance abuse issues, impaired their ability
to care for the child. On April 14, 2014, the juvenile court found prima facie evidence to
remove C. from her parents’ care.”
1 This writ does not involve Mother, C.V. or R.V.
2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
3 The factual and procedural histories are taken from our unpublished opinion in a related case involving Minor’s siblings. (In re C.V. (Aug. 14, 2020, E074625) [nonpub. opn.].)
2
2. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION REPORT AND HEARING
“According to the jurisdiction/disposition report filed May 9, 2014, mother was
adopted by the maternal grandfather and his first wife, who passed away when mother
was nine years old. The maternal stepgrandmother [MSG] informed the social worker
that mother ‘got bad into drugs’ in 2008 (using methamphetamine, cocaine, PCP, and
uppers), refused to remain in each rehabilitation center she was enrolled in, became
physically abusive, and was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Mother’s incarceration was for a domestic violence incident involving a knife and the
paternal grandfather.
“At the May 14, 2014 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court sustained the
allegations in the first amended petition, declared C. a dependent, removed her from
parents’ custody, and ordered reunification services and visitation. Both parents filed
Judicial Council form ICWA-020 (parental notification of Indian status) indicating they
had no Indian ancestry as far as they knew.”
3. SIX-MONTH STATUS REVIEW REPORT AND ADDENDUM
“In the six-month status review report filed October 31, 2014, the social worker
reported father was unemployed but living with his parents. He was compliant with his
case plan and consistent with visitation. According to the addendum report filed
December 16, 2014, mother was compliant with her case plan while incarcerated and
after her release on October 31, 2014. Although she was eager ‘to get to know and care’
for her daughter, she refused to acknowledge ‘any history of substance use, misuse or
abuse.’ On December 19, 2014, the court continued parents’ reunification services and
3
ordered mother to submit to a psychological evaluation if recommended by her
therapist.”
4. TWELVE-MONTH STATUS REVIEW REPORT AND HEARING
“In the 12-month status review report filed May 28, 2015, the social worker stated
that both parents remained compliant with their case plans, they continued to make
efforts to improve their lives free from drugs and alcohol, and there were no safety
concerns. On June 10, 2015, based on DPSS’s recommendation, the juvenile court
placed C. with her parents on a family maintenance plan and on the condition the paternal
grandparents provide support.”
5. SECTION 387 PETITION
“Less than four months later, DPSS initiated supplemental proceedings (§ 387) to
remove C. from mother’s care based on her continued ‘abuse [of] controlled substances
and [her] noncomplian[ce with] her Court ordered case plan.’ According to the section
387 detention report filed September 24, 2015, as of August 3, 2015, she was using
methamphetamine and living on the streets. On September 22, 2015, C. was removed
from mother’s care but remained in father’s custody.
“In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed October 27, 2015, the social worker
stated mother was located at the maternal grandparents’ home, however, she was
‘deteriorating behaviorally and cognitively.’ A psychological evaluation revealed she
was ‘ “suffering from a severe neuro-cognitive disorder due to her extensive
methamphetamine abuse.” ’ Mother was described as being grossly impaired and unable
to take care of herself. On November 2, 2015, the court sustained the allegations in the
4
second amended section 387 petition and terminated mother’s reunification services. On
December 10, 2015, family maintenance services were continued as to father.
“On May 6, 2016, father filed an ex parte request to terminate dependency
proceedings. The request was granted; father was given primary legal and physical
custody of C., and supervised visitation was authorized for mother.”
B. THE SECOND DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING C.
AND R.
1. DETENTION
“On September 21, 2018, DPSS received a referral alleging general neglect.
Mother, who was nine months pregnant, claimed father had punched her in the face. Two
prior referrals were received in 2017 concerning mother and father engaging in domestic
violence. A police officer informed the social worker that the ‘family is well known to
law enforcement and they have each been arrested multiple times for being the aggressor
in a domestic violence assault.’ In October 2018, mother gave birth to a baby boy, R.
Mother told the social worker she and father had gotten back together a few months after
the prior dependency had closed. Mother disclosed she began using methamphetamine at
the age of 19 but became sober in 2016, when she was 28 years old. She stated she was
diagnosed with anxiety and depression but had not taken any psychotropic medications in
11 months. Mother admitted to slapping father in the face but denied that he had
assaulted her. The social worker interviewed C., who stated she had witnessed physical
fights between her parents. When confronted with C.’s statements, mother called C. a
5
‘compulsive liar.’ The social worker also spoke with father; however, he ‘presented with
disjointed thoughts, delusional thinking, and some dichotomous reasoning.’
“On November 2, 2018, DPSS filed a dependency petition under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect) on behalf of C. and R., alleging both parents have
criminal histories and expose the children to ongoing acts of domestic violence, and
father has unresolved mental health and anger issues. Each parent filed parental
notification of Indian status forms indicating no Indian ancestry; however, upon hearing
that mother was adopted, the juvenile court asked the maternal grandfather if he had any
information ‘related to the mother having Indian ancestry.’ He replied, ‘No.’ On
November 5, 2018, the children were removed from their parents’ custody.”
2. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION REPORT AND HEARING
“According to the jurisdiction/disposition report filed November 26, 2018, the
children were placed with the maternal grandparents. The social worker opined that
‘[d]espite the parents participating in Court ordered services, they failed to benefit from
the services.’ She identified the ‘substantial history of domestic disputes’ as the primary
problem necessitating intervention. Other concerns included their ‘undiagnosed and/or
untreated mental health issues,’ the ‘ongoing history of drug use, not limited to marijuana
and cocaine,’ and mother’s ‘previous diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder due to her
history of drug use.’ Mother informed the social worker that she was adopted by a
‘social worker at McClaren Hall in El Monte’ when she was two or three years old.
6
“On November 29, 2018, the court sustained most of the allegations in the first
amended supplemental petition, declared the children dependents of the court, ordered
reunification services for both parents, and ordered father to participate in a medication
“In the social worker’s report filed March 11, 2019, it was noted that father’s
anger management issues appeared to be escalating. On January 23, 2019, mother went
to the police station asking to obtain a temporary restraining order against father, but she
left without following through. On February 14, 2019, two calls were made to law
enforcement regarding domestic violence. The next day, father reportedly ‘punched his
pregnant wife in the stomach, slapped her, and threw her to the ground several times.’
Mother was hospitalized. The court issued an emergency protective order, but mother
returned home soon after the incident and recanted the allegations. Father was diagnosed
with ‘Bipolar and Related Disorder, Hypomanic Episode W/O Prior Major Depressive
Episode, Delusional Disorder Grandiose Type, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.’
His therapist opined that father might require a higher level of care or medication
management.
“On April 18, 2019, DPSS filed an addendum report to address liberalizing
mother’s visitation. The social worker recommended ‘no change in visitation orders.’
While mother had completed a parenting class and an outpatient substance abuse
program, and had been consistently testing negative for controlled substances, the social
7
worker expressed concerns about the continued domestic violence. In addition to the
previously reported domestic violence calls to law enforcement, calls were made on
March 7, March 20, and April 5, 2019. Father admitted he smoked marijuana on a daily
basis and prior to his visits with the children. The social worker ‘advised that he should
not be under the influence while visiting or caring for the children.’ When mother visited
the children, she spent ‘much of the visit with [R.]’ because ‘the baby requires more
attention’ and C. ‘did not play’ with mother.”
4. SIX-MONTH STATUS REVIEW REPORT, ADDENDUM, AND
CONTESTED HEARING
“According to the six-month status review report filed May 10, 2019, DPSS
recommended terminating reunification services as to both parents and setting a
section 366.26 hearing with a permanency goal of adoption. The social worker noted
both parents’ prior denial of any Native American ancestry but related that mother, on
May 7, 2019, stated a DNA ancestry test showed she was 58 percent Native American.
Mother had no information as to her ancestral tribe because her ‘ “bio mother is deceased
and bio father unknown.” ’ While both parents had made progress on their case plans,
they did not appear to be ‘benefitting from their participation in Domestic Violence
services.’ Dr. Robert Suiter conducted a psychological assessment of father and opined
there were no ‘ “reassurance[s] at all that [father] would benefit from services.” ’ Both
parents regularly visited the children. On May 30, 2019, the court set a contested six-
month status review hearing.
8
“In its addendum report filed June 18, 2019, DPSS continued to recommend
terminating services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. The social worker reported
another domestic violence incident in May 2019, when father yanked the ignition out of
their car, leaving mother stranded in the middle of the street outside DPSS’s office.
Father was angry and stated the social worker had a ‘personal vendetta against him and
[was] racist against Mexicans.’ Based on father’s demeanor and erratic behavior, DPSS
determined it would not be safe for the children to visit with him that day. Father
continued to test positive for marijuana. Mother was diagnosed with ‘P-Intermittent
Explosive Disorder, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and Schizophrenia.’ She had not
reached her goal of ‘increasing insight and identifying effective coping and parenting
skills’ as she exhibited ‘aggressive behavior, verbal and physical, three times per week.’
Her therapist expressed many concerns, including mother’s minimization of her domestic
violence and blaming others for her behavior, and recommended continuing therapy.
According to mother’s psychological evaluation, her prognosis was favorable only to the
degree she could remain separated from father and take her prescribed medications.
“On June 27, 2019, the court noted there was reason to believe the children may
be of Indian ancestry and that ICWA may apply. Nonetheless, the court terminated
reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing with a permanent plan of adoption.
Both parents filed notices of intent to file a writ petition; however, the petitions were
dismissed.”
9
5. ICWA NOTICES
“On August 13, 2019, DPSS served and filed ICWA notices for each child.
Notice was provided to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the U.S. Department of
the Interior. The notices identified mother’s married and maiden names (not her birth
name), her date and place of birth, and the biological maternal grandmother’s name.
Regarding additional information, the notices provided: ‘Mother was interviewed on
5/15/19 by Social Services Practioner [sic], Stacy Vasquez, and a CSD 4597 was emailed
to ICWA noticing on 5/15/2019. Mother indicated per her DNA test she discovered she
was 58% Native American. Tribe is unknown at this time. Mother was adopted around 2
to 3 years old and was unable to provide any identifying information on her biological
parents other than a first and last name of her biological mother. A search of C-IV and
Accurint was conducted on 7/22/2019 and a print out of all known family members and
associates was forwarded to the Social Services Practioner [sic] on 7/23/2019. On
6/27/2019, step maternal grandmother, [MSG], was interviewed by Noticing Office
Assistant, Christy Alcocer. She provided family information for the adoptive family.’
The U.S. Department of the Interior was unable to determine tribal affiliation because the
notice contained insufficient information.”
6. SECTIONS 366.26 AND 366.3 STATUS REVIEW REPORT AND
ADDENDUM
“According to the sections 366.26 and 366.3 status review report filed October 11,
2019, parents’ visitation with the children became ‘sporadic’ because mother was again
10
pregnant, and she asked to suspend visitation until after the baby was born, and father had
canceled several visits. In September 2019, mother gave birth to a baby girl, Re.[4]
“In its addendum report filed December 24, 2019, DPSS continued to recommend
termination of parental rights as to C. and R. and adoption by the maternal grandparents
with whom the children had been residing since November 5, 2018. According to the
maternal grandparents, the children saw ‘them as their parents’ and ‘look to them when
they want to be “cuddled,” play, or have their needs met.’ The maternal grandparents
fully understood that adoption was a lifelong commitment, wanted to always be there for
the children, and believed they could provide the children with stability, love, and
attention. C. wanted the maternal grandparents’ home to be her ‘ “forever home.” ’ ”
7. SECTION 388 PETITIONS
“Father filed a section 388 petition as to each child on December 31, 2019, and
mother filed the same on January 2, 2020. Both parents sought to reinstate family
4 “On October 16, 2019, DPSS filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of a sibling) on behalf of Re. based on both parents’ substantiated allegations of general neglect of their older children, who had been exposed to acts of domestic violence. According to the detention report, both parents denied ‘having tribal linkage pertaining to Native American and/or Alaskan heritage.’ Each parent filed separate parental notification of Indian status forms indicating the same. Mother refuted her prior report of a domestic violence incident from February 2019, claiming that she ‘ “passed out and must have imagined something happened that did not happen,” ’ or attributed it to her being ‘ “pregnant and having hormonal issues.” ’ Father also denied the incident, asserting mother was making it up. Father stated that he and mother ‘know not to “tattle-tell” on each other now.’ Law enforcement had not received any calls from the home since May 2019. On October 17, 2019, the juvenile court detained [Minor]. On November 7, 2019, the court found [Minor] came within section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), adjudged her a dependent of the court, and allowed her to remain in both parents’ care, with family maintenance services.”
11
reunification services. As for changed circumstances, father asserted he ‘is currently on
Family Maintenance as to [Minor] and is progressing well in his services,’ ‘has been
attending individual therapy, a substance abuse program through MFI Recovery Center
and has been testing clean,’ ‘is completing a parenting program through Safe Care, and
he is also enrolled in a Domestic Violence program and group therapy through Cox
Romain.’ As for mother’s changed circumstances, she asserted she ‘is on Family
Maintenance as to her youngest daughter [Minor] and is doing well in her services,’ and
‘is currently enrolled in domestic violence classes, has been attending individual therapy,
and parenting at home care.’ Both parents claimed to have benefited from the services
received; father added that he has cooperated with DPSS and has participated in
‘appropriate and positive’ visits, while mother stated that she “ ‘loves her children very
much and believes that it is in their best interest for the Court to order Family
Reunification Services’ so they can ‘reunify with their youngest sister who is on FM with
the parents.’ A hearing on the section 388 petitions was set.
“On January 17, 2020, the maternal grandparents requested de facto parent status.
“DPSS opposed the section 388 petitions on the grounds (1) ‘the parents’
circumstances may be changing, [but] they have not changed,’ and (2) ‘re-establishing
reunification services to them would be detrimental and not in the best interest of these
children.’ Although both parents visited the children, R. did not ‘remember’ them and
seemed ‘traumatized and crie[d] often during the visits,’ and C. appeared ‘to play on her
own a lot.’ The social worker opined the children did not ‘appear to see [mother and
father] as their parents. They do not look forward to the visits and [C.] often seems
12
indifferent, except when it comes to comforting her brother.’ Even though they were
participating in therapy and domestic violence programs, their circumstances had not
changed.”
8. SECTIONS 388 AND 366.26 HEARING
“A contested section 366.26 hearing in combination with a hearing on the
section 388 petitions was held on January 27, 2020. The court also heard the maternal
grandparents’ request for de facto parent status. Father provided stipulated testimony that
(1) he had benefited from services, (2) he had completed a substance abuse program,
(3) he was not using marijuana, (4) he had attended five Narcotics Anonymous (NA)
meetings (but had forgotten to bring his signed cards to the hearing), (5) he had
participated in eight sessions of a domestic violence program, four to five sessions of
individual counseling, and some marriage counseling, and (6) Re. was safe in his care.
Mother also provided stipulated testimony that (1) she had attended four to five
individual counseling sessions, eight domestic violence classes, and some marital
counseling courses, (2) she had benefitted from the courses, (3) there was no additional
domestic violence in her relationship with father, and (4) her home was suitable for the
children. In response, the children’s counsel acknowledged both parents’ participation in
various programs; however, counsel argued there was no change in their circumstances,
and it was not in the best interest of the children to provide further reunification services
to mother and father. DPSS concurred.
13
“The court denied the section 388 petitions. The court noted the history of the
case was replete with domestic violence, dating back to 2014, and that both parents had
poor mental health. The court opined that ‘as to the historical issues related to this
couple, the severity of those issues, how they relate to both of your mental health issues,
and a chronic history of substance abuse, a few months of either sobriety or not hurting
each other and not calling the police on each other does not mean that the underlying
issues in this case are resolved.’ The court expressed concern that both parents were
‘basically white-knuckling it.’ Thus, the court stated, ‘the entire history of this particular
case is so extreme that the efforts made by the parents most recently are de minimis and
result, at most, in what the Court would view as changing circumstances.’ Regarding the
best interests of the children, the court observed the children to be ‘very bonded to their
current caretakers. [R.] really knows no other parents. [C.] has very negative memories
of her parents and a very positive outlook on her current environment.’
“The juvenile court granted the maternal grandparents’ request for de facto parent
status, found the beneficial exception to adoption did not apply, terminated parental
rights, and ordered adoption as the permanent placement plan. The court also found
ICWA did not apply. Both parents filed timely notices of appeal.” (In re C.V., supra,
E074625.)
After the parents appealed, on August 14, 2020, we affirmed the juvenile court’s
orders denying the section 388 petitions, terminating parental rights, and placing the
children for adoption. (In re C.V., supra, E074625.)
14
C. THE CURRENT DEPENDENCY CASE
On October 16, 2019, DPSS filed an out-of-custody petition as to Minor; she was
only one-month old. DPSS stated that Minor came under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1)
and (j), as a result (1) of the failure or inability of the parents to supervise or protect her
adequately; and (2) by the inability of the parents to provide Minor with regular care due
to the parents’ mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.
DPSS alleged that both parents had a history with [DPSS] due to substantiated
allegations of general neglect and exposing C. and R. to acts of domestic violence. DPSS
also alleged that Father failed to reunify with his children, continues to deny perpetrating
acts of domestic violence against Mother, and has not completed his court-ordered case
plan. DPSS alleged that Minor will be subject to similar harm as with her siblings.
The next day, October 17, 2019, the juvenile court ordered Minor to remain with
her parents.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on November 7, 2019, the juvenile court
found all of the allegations true, adjudged Minor a dependent of the court, and ordered
family maintenance services to the parents. The case plans for the parents included
counseling, domestic violence programs, parenting classes, and substance abuse services.
Father’s case plan consisted of individual counseling, domestic violence programs,
parenting classes, substance abuse programs, and drug testing. Both Mother and Father
continued to deny domestic violence.
Mother participated in therapy. Her therapist believed that “there is ongoing
minimization.” In March of 2020, Mother completed a domestic violence program.
15
Father attended therapy but did not address his domestic violence issues. He
completed a domestic violence program in March of 2020. The parents completed in-
home parenting and kept in contact with their parent partners.
On June 19, 2020, the juvenile court continued family maintenance services to
both parents.
The parents continued to live together. Father stated that he and Mother learned
not to “tattle-tell” on each other. Mother stated that they never call the police to report
domestic violence. Both Mother and Father continued to participate in general
counseling to alleviate issues that led to domestic violence. They completed family
therapy in October 2020. They also had negative drug tests.
On October 13, 2020, a neighbor called the police to report a domestic dispute
between Mother and Father. The neighbor reported that a female was banging on the
door of the apartment and a male came out. The neighbor then heard the female saying,
“ ‘Oh you were going too hit me.’ ” The neighbor heard the female falling and she said
“ ‘Ow.’ ” Another neighbor informed the parents that he was calling the cops and the
male cursed at the neighbor.
On November 17, 2020, Father denied knowledge about the domestic dispute.
Both parents denied any domestic violence.
On December 21, 2020, the social worker noted concerns during a home visit.
Mother appeared sad and emotional. Several times, she stated that Father would not hurt
her and that everything was fine. Mother declined an offer for conjoint and individual
16
therapy. The social worker reported that the parents were compliant with [DPSS] and
court, but expressed concern for Mother’s safety and the family’s well being.
On January 25, 2021, the juvenile court continued family maintenance services to
the parents.
In February of 2021, Mother underwent a medication evaluation. The doctor
indicated that Mother appeared “altered” and minimized her symptoms. Mother appeared
“unfocused, dazed and unengaged” and made “bizarre statements.” Mother did not know
the month or the year, and was talking about having an abortion even though she was not
pregnant. The doctor diagnosed Mother with major depressive disorder and other
psychoactive substance abuse.
On February 26, 2021, Father told the social worker that he did not feel Mother’s
mental health issues were “severe” and felt that she should be able to care for Minor.
Father left the child alone with Mother for hours when he worked from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.
He did not want strangers to care for Minor and declined options involving day care.
There was no family support available to support Father. Nonetheless, Father felt
uncomfortable with anyone other than Mother caring for Minor.
On March 11, 2021, the social worker observed the family home as being very
cluttered. As the social worker and Father talked, Mother would “interject continuously
with bizarre statements.” Mother made comments that people are “touching and poking
at my baby,” and denied any domestic violence even when the social worker did not ask
about domestic violence. Mother stated that she would “rather not get spanked.” She
also declined child care and medication assistance.
17
On March 12, 2021, law enforcement received a report that a female in the
parents’ apartment was screaming, “ ‘Get your hands off of me,’ and that the female was
screaming a lot.” At 2:36 a.m., “the reporting party could hear loud pounding and the
male and female were still yelling. At 2:51 a.m.[,] an officer went to the residence and
knocked 6 different times, with no answer.”
On March 15, 2021, DPSS filed a section 387 petition. The social worker reported
in the detention report that Minor was placed in a confidential foster care.
The next day, on March 16, 2021, the juvenile court granted DPSS’s request to
dismiss the section 387 petition and to file a section 342 petition in its place. DPSS filed
a section 342 petition that day. DPSS alleged that Minor came within section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), as a result of the failure or inability of her parents to supervise or
protect Minor adequately, and the inability of the parents to provide Minor with regular
care due to the parents’ mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.
DPSS alleged that the previous disposition had not been effective in the protection
of Minor because Mother’s mental health had deteriorated and Father continued to
minimize Mother’s mental health issues, and continued to allow Mother to care for Minor
unattended for long hours of the day.
At the detention hearing on March 16, 2021, the juvenile court detained Minor
from both parents. The court ordered twice-weekly supervised visits for the parents.
In its jurisdictional and disposition report, DPSS requested that the court find the
allegations true and deny the parents reunification services under section 361.5,
subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11).
18
In the report, the social worker stated that in a psychological evaluation dated
March 19, 2021, Dr. Garett reported that Mother suffers from paranoia, extreme
emotional instability, and schizophrenia. Dr. Garett stated that in her current condition,
“ ‘she should likely have no contact with any children whatsoever because she is likely to
upset them.’ ” Dr. Garett recommended that Adult Protective Services visit Mother to
ascertain if Father was mistreating her. Mother had reported that Father has “threatened
to kill her with an ax” and that he “verbally abuses her, demands sex, and is emotionally
abusive as well. Mother also told Dr. Garett that Father had spit on Mother’s face and
calls her fat. She was afraid of him. Mother “cried to at least thirty minutes during the
interview and disintegrated to a point at which she could not answer even basic
questions.” Dr. Garett said that individuals in her condition are frequently in psychiatric
facilities. He believed that Mother lives in an abuse environment. Dr. Garett
recommended that Minor not have any visits with Mother.
Father stated that all of the allegations were false. He denied that Mother
struggled with her mental health. He was also resistant to DPSS’s involvement and was
not cooperative. Father accused Mother of being “lazy.” He had no wish or plan to care
for Minor by himself and was committed to remaining with Mother in a relationship.
Minor was in good general health. Prior to her removal, she was observed as
reserved with a flat effect, and “was not engaging, smiling, or talking. She also was not
eating or drinking well.” She then started to eat much better, smiled more, played, and
slept well.
19
DPSS reported that mental health had been an issue in this case since the first
dependency for Minor’s sibling in 2014, and has been an ongoing problem. Domestic
violence has also been an ongoing issue for at least seven years.
DPSS reported that the parents had received numerous services and referrals to
assist them with their issues. DPSS provided parenting classes, in-home parenting