Filed 11/19/21 In re S.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re S.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E077210
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J287548)
v. OPINION
T.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B.
Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.
Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 The juvenile court granted a request to place S.S. (minor) on psychotropic
medication over defendant and appellant’s, T.W. (mother), objection. On appeal,
mother contends the court erred in granting the request. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2020, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino
County Children and Family Services (department), received an immediate response
referral alleging physical abuse, emotional abuse, and general neglect. The reporter
alleged that on December 14, 2020, mother’s husband handcuffed mother’s daughter,
T.S. (age 14),1 and dragged her to a neighbor’s home to return cigarettes she had stolen.
He then left her handcuffed overnight.
Mother told the social worker that the father had slapped T.S. in the face and left
her handcuffed from 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. She reported domestic violence
between she and her husband five years earlier. Mother said she used marijuana every
day. Mother reported she had been diagnosed as “Schizoaffective” three years earlier
and managed her mental health with medication.
Mother’s husband said he had handcuffed T.S. overnight because otherwise she
would have run away. He said he had obtained the handcuffs several weeks earlier and
had handcuffed T.S. four times but usually only for a few hours. Mother’s husband also
reported using marijuana daily. He said that he and mother had engaged in domestic
violence but not for a long time.
1 T.S. is not a party to this appeal.
2 Department personnel filed a juvenile dependency petition as to S.S. alleging that
mother failed to protect her from a risk of physical abuse (A.1), that mother had a
substance abuse problem (B.2), that mother engaged in domestic violence with her
husband (B.3), that mother had untreated mental health issues (B.4), that minor’s father
had passed away (G.5), and that T.S., minor’s sister, had been physically abused (J.6).
On December 21, 2020, the court detained minor.
On February 4, 2021, minor’s attorney filed a motion to amend the allegations to
conform to proof. This included allegations that mother had acted complicity with or
gave tacit approval of her husband’s act of restraining T.S. (J.1). At the contested
jurisdiction and disposition hearing on February 4, 2021, the department moved to
dismiss the B.4 allegation. The court changed the A.1 allegation to a B allegation,
dismissed the B.4 allegation, and found the remaining allegations, as amended, true.
The court removed minor from mother’s custody and granted mother reunification
services.
On April 30, 2021, department personnel filed an application to prescribe
psychotropic medication for S.S. Minor was in weekly individual therapy. The doctor
alleged that minor presented with poor attention and focus, was hyperactive, easily
frustrated, sad, mad, irritable, and slept poorly. The doctor alleged that
nonpharmacological treatment had been tried, but it was too soon to assess its efficacy.
The doctor diagnosed minor with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
depressive disorder. The doctor proposed to administer Focalin for minor’s ADHD and
3 Clonidine for both minor’s insomnia and ADHD to improve her attention, focus, and
sleep. Possible side effects included tics, seizures, and dizziness.
On May 7, 2021, mother filed opposition to the request. Mother noted that minor
was “a well-behaved girl,” who was “kind,” “respectful,” and had “always been at the
top of her class.” Mother alleged minor “sleeps well.” Mother wrote that she did not
want minor on a stimulant; she insisted that minor did not have ADHD and was “acting
out because she misses her parents.” Mother wrote, “I have NEVER been told that
[minor] is ADD, or ADHD, and I do NOT agree with stimulants for her, as both parents
had/have addiction problems.”
On April 30, 2021, a consulting physician from the San Bernardino County
Department of Behavioral Health filed a statement reflecting that she had reviewed the
application to prescribe psychotropic medication for minor and determined that the
proposed treatment “is generally appropriate given the clinical condition and other
information indicated on the form.” The court set the matter for a hearing.
At the hearing on May 25, 2021, at which mother was present by phone with her
counsel, mother’s counsel noted that although mother “doesn’t have an issue with
clonidine, she does not want [minor] on Focalin. Minor’s never had any attention issues
or diagnosis before. Given the history of substance abuse for the parents, Mother
doesn’t want her to be given a stimulant.” Mother’s counsel asked that the current,
nonpharmacological treatment be increased so that it could be determined whether that
alone could prove successful.
4 Minor’s counsel observed that, “Therapy is notoriously ineffective for ADHD
treatment. The one real reliable way to treat the condition is to use stimulant
medication.” Minor conveyed to counsel that she “would like the Court to know that
she is in agreement with whatever her parents think she should take or do, but she
herself is open to medication.”
The court noted, “we have the diagnosis being reached by the treating psychiatrist
. . . and we had the matter reviewed by our Department of Behavioral Health for the
appropriateness of the medication. And their recommendation was to go ahead and
approve the medication. . . . [¶] Medication is not the first recourse, but the Court is not
trying to substitute its judgment for a psychiatrist and does rely on both of those entities
to help—both the treating psychiatrist and the . . . Department of Behavioral Health,
psychiatrist to review it. [¶] The Court notes that . . . [minor] is 11 years of age, and the
Focalin that is being recommended for her is, by the way of a maximum each day,
almost half of what the recommended maximum is. . . . [¶] So with that, the Court
believes that it is in the best interest of [minor] to receive this and to help her.” The
court approved the treatment.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s order. The
department maintains the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion and that
the court acted within its discretion in granting the order. Assuming, arguendo, that the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 11/19/21 In re S.S. 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
In re S.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E077210
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J287548)
v. OPINION
T.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B.
Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.
Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 The juvenile court granted a request to place S.S. (minor) on psychotropic
medication over defendant and appellant’s, T.W. (mother), objection. On appeal,
mother contends the court erred in granting the request. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2020, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino
County Children and Family Services (department), received an immediate response
referral alleging physical abuse, emotional abuse, and general neglect. The reporter
alleged that on December 14, 2020, mother’s husband handcuffed mother’s daughter,
T.S. (age 14),1 and dragged her to a neighbor’s home to return cigarettes she had stolen.
He then left her handcuffed overnight.
Mother told the social worker that the father had slapped T.S. in the face and left
her handcuffed from 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. She reported domestic violence
between she and her husband five years earlier. Mother said she used marijuana every
day. Mother reported she had been diagnosed as “Schizoaffective” three years earlier
and managed her mental health with medication.
Mother’s husband said he had handcuffed T.S. overnight because otherwise she
would have run away. He said he had obtained the handcuffs several weeks earlier and
had handcuffed T.S. four times but usually only for a few hours. Mother’s husband also
reported using marijuana daily. He said that he and mother had engaged in domestic
violence but not for a long time.
1 T.S. is not a party to this appeal.
2 Department personnel filed a juvenile dependency petition as to S.S. alleging that
mother failed to protect her from a risk of physical abuse (A.1), that mother had a
substance abuse problem (B.2), that mother engaged in domestic violence with her
husband (B.3), that mother had untreated mental health issues (B.4), that minor’s father
had passed away (G.5), and that T.S., minor’s sister, had been physically abused (J.6).
On December 21, 2020, the court detained minor.
On February 4, 2021, minor’s attorney filed a motion to amend the allegations to
conform to proof. This included allegations that mother had acted complicity with or
gave tacit approval of her husband’s act of restraining T.S. (J.1). At the contested
jurisdiction and disposition hearing on February 4, 2021, the department moved to
dismiss the B.4 allegation. The court changed the A.1 allegation to a B allegation,
dismissed the B.4 allegation, and found the remaining allegations, as amended, true.
The court removed minor from mother’s custody and granted mother reunification
services.
On April 30, 2021, department personnel filed an application to prescribe
psychotropic medication for S.S. Minor was in weekly individual therapy. The doctor
alleged that minor presented with poor attention and focus, was hyperactive, easily
frustrated, sad, mad, irritable, and slept poorly. The doctor alleged that
nonpharmacological treatment had been tried, but it was too soon to assess its efficacy.
The doctor diagnosed minor with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
depressive disorder. The doctor proposed to administer Focalin for minor’s ADHD and
3 Clonidine for both minor’s insomnia and ADHD to improve her attention, focus, and
sleep. Possible side effects included tics, seizures, and dizziness.
On May 7, 2021, mother filed opposition to the request. Mother noted that minor
was “a well-behaved girl,” who was “kind,” “respectful,” and had “always been at the
top of her class.” Mother alleged minor “sleeps well.” Mother wrote that she did not
want minor on a stimulant; she insisted that minor did not have ADHD and was “acting
out because she misses her parents.” Mother wrote, “I have NEVER been told that
[minor] is ADD, or ADHD, and I do NOT agree with stimulants for her, as both parents
had/have addiction problems.”
On April 30, 2021, a consulting physician from the San Bernardino County
Department of Behavioral Health filed a statement reflecting that she had reviewed the
application to prescribe psychotropic medication for minor and determined that the
proposed treatment “is generally appropriate given the clinical condition and other
information indicated on the form.” The court set the matter for a hearing.
At the hearing on May 25, 2021, at which mother was present by phone with her
counsel, mother’s counsel noted that although mother “doesn’t have an issue with
clonidine, she does not want [minor] on Focalin. Minor’s never had any attention issues
or diagnosis before. Given the history of substance abuse for the parents, Mother
doesn’t want her to be given a stimulant.” Mother’s counsel asked that the current,
nonpharmacological treatment be increased so that it could be determined whether that
alone could prove successful.
4 Minor’s counsel observed that, “Therapy is notoriously ineffective for ADHD
treatment. The one real reliable way to treat the condition is to use stimulant
medication.” Minor conveyed to counsel that she “would like the Court to know that
she is in agreement with whatever her parents think she should take or do, but she
herself is open to medication.”
The court noted, “we have the diagnosis being reached by the treating psychiatrist
. . . and we had the matter reviewed by our Department of Behavioral Health for the
appropriateness of the medication. And their recommendation was to go ahead and
approve the medication. . . . [¶] Medication is not the first recourse, but the Court is not
trying to substitute its judgment for a psychiatrist and does rely on both of those entities
to help—both the treating psychiatrist and the . . . Department of Behavioral Health,
psychiatrist to review it. [¶] The Court notes that . . . [minor] is 11 years of age, and the
Focalin that is being recommended for her is, by the way of a maximum each day,
almost half of what the recommended maximum is. . . . [¶] So with that, the Court
believes that it is in the best interest of [minor] to receive this and to help her.” The
court approved the treatment.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s order. The
department maintains the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion and that
the court acted within its discretion in granting the order. Assuming, arguendo, that the
proper standard of review is substantial evidence, the department argues sufficient
evidence supported the court’s order. We agree with the department.
5 “If a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court under Section 300 and the
child has been removed from the physical custody of the parent under Section 361, only
a juvenile court judicial officer shall have authority to make orders regarding the
administration of psychotropic medications for that child. . . . Court authorization for
the administration of psychotropic medication shall be based on a request from a
physician, indicating the reasons for the request, a description of the child’s diagnosis
and behavior, the expected results of the medication, and a description of any side
effects of the medication.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 369.5, subd. (a)(1); see § 739.5,
subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.640(b)(2).)
A substantial evidence standard of review applies where the court below has
engaged in an “essentially . . . factual determination.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th
614, 639-640 (Caden C.).) An exercise of discretion involves a balancing of
“determinations as part of assessing the likely course of a future situation that’s
inherently uncertain.” (Id. at p. 640.) “[T]he practical difference between the standards
is not likely to be very pronounced. Review for substantial evidence applies to factual
determinations; abuse of discretion applies when a lower court must delicately balance
factual determinations to assess an uncertain future situation.” (Id. at p. 641.)
Here, the court “makes the assessment by weighing the harm” of minor going
without the medication “against the benefits of” undergoing treatment. (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) “And so, the ultimate decision . . . is discretionary and
properly reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.) “A court abuses its discretion only
when ‘“‘the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary,
6 capricious, or patently absurd determination.’”’ [Citation.] But ‘“‘[w]hen two or more
inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no
authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’”’” (Id. at p. 641.)
Here, the court acted within its discretion in granting the application to treat
minor with psychotropic medication. The doctor alleged that minor presented with poor
attention and focus, was hyperactive, easily frustrated, sad, mad, irritable, and slept
poorly. The doctor alleged that nonpharmacological treatment had been tried. The
doctor diagnosed minor with ADHD and depressive disorder. The doctor proposed to
administer Focalin for minor’s ADHD and Clonidine for both minor’s insomnia and
ADHD to improve her attention, focus, and sleep. A consulting physician from the
San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health indicated that she had
reviewed the proposed treatment and determined that it was appropriate.
The court considered the opposition paper filed by mother. The court set the
matter for a hearing at which both mother and her counsel were “present.” The court let
counsel argue the matter and then exposited the basis for its ruling: “the Court believes
that it is in the best interest of [minor] to receive this and to help her.” The court acted
within its discretion in approving the proposed treatment. For all the same reasons,
substantive evidence supports the court’s order.
7 III. DISPOSITION
The court’s order granting the request to treat minor with psychotropic
medication is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
MILLER J.
RAPHAEL J.