Tulare County Welfare Department v. Carolyn M.

On January 22, 1971, Mark’s teachers at the Woodlake Elementary School District requested Frances Phillips, a school nurse, to take the boy home because he was filthy and smelled so badly of urine and other disagreeable odors that his classmates were complaining. The nurse discovered that the boy’s home was also in a filthy condition and that appellant and her children were in dire need; Ms. Phillips obtained food for the family from the Red Cross and reported the situation to the Tulare County Welfare Department.

On January 27, 1971, Esther Arden, a public health nurse for the Tulare County Health Department, went to appellant’s home in Woodlake. Appellant was extremely thin and obviously pregnant; appellant expressed concern over her economic plight and told Ms. Arden that she only had beans, rice, oatmeal and a half of cube of butter in the house; she said that she had no money to purchase groceries, was without transportation and had not visited a doctor for her pregnancy since December 10, 1970. Ms. Arden noted that the inside of the house was extremely dirty and that dirty clothes and unwashed dishes, pots and pans were cluttered all about. The two children were very pale, and Mark looked poorly nourished; neither child had been washed for sometime, and both were “caked” with dirt.

On February 9, 1971, Ms. Arden made a second visit to appellant’s home. By then appellant had received supplementary food from the county welfare department, and her financial situation was improved. The house was still very dirty.

On February 26, 1971, the public health nurse returned to appellant’s house for the third time. Appellant again expressed concern over her economic plight and said she was considering placing her unborn child for adoption after the baby was bom. She told Ms. Arden that she had a difficult time accepting the pregnancy because she was not sure who the father was and that she did not feel she could care for the infant, either emotionally or economically. The house, as usual, was in /a filthy condition.

On March 5, 1971, appellant gave birth to Susan; the infant weighed 5 pounds, 10 ounces.

On May 18, 1971, Dr. George Tiss, a pediatrician, examined Susan at the Visalia Medical Center. The examination disclosed that the baby was severely anemic, somewhat cyánotic and inflicted with bronchiolitis. The examination also disclosed that the infant was very malnourished, tremendously dehydrated and had a severe and diaper rash; she weighed only six pounds, eight ounces.

In June 1971, the Juvenile Court of Tulare County, pursuant to sections 600, 726 and 727 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, adjudged Susan to be a dependent child of the court, removed the infant from appellant’s custody and control and committed her to the care, custody and control of respondent Tulare County Welfare Department; in turn, respondent placed the infant in a foster home in Dinuba, California, operated by Dale and Erika Swiney. The welfare department then arranged for the Swineys to take the baby twice a month to a welfare office near appellant’s home so that appellant could visit the child; appellant showed up for less than half the visits.

In January 1972, appellant obtained her own means of transportation, and the scheduled semi-monthly visits at the welfare office terminated. Thereafter, appellant visited her daughter on two occasions, once in January or February, and again in May 1972; in early July 1972, appellant moved to San Francisco.

On July 29, 1972, appellant returned to Tulare County to attend a review hearing conducted by the juvenile court. After the hearing, appellant talked with Judith Kassen of the Child Protective Services Division of the Tulare County Welfare Department and told the welfare worker she was having, mental difficulties. Appellant stated, “I am not

On July 10, 1973, the Tulare County Welfare Department instituted this action, pursuant to section 232 of the Civil Code, to have Susan declared free from the custody and control of her parents. The petition, in two causes of action, alleged that appellant had abandoned her child within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 232 and that she had neglected the baby within the ambit of subdivision (b) of section 232; the petition also alleged that the father was unknown.

On August 8, 1973, appellant wrote to the clerk of the Tulare County Superior Court, stating that she would like to have Susan back but that she did not have funds to travel to California. She explained that she was on “Wichita welfare” and had given birth to another child who was then five months old.

In October 1973, appellant, through an attorney, again wrote to the clerk of the court, stating that she wanted to have custody of her daughter and her interests protected. In the interim, appellant’s wrote a letter to the Swineys, stating that appellant’s health was improving and that- she was getting over her nervous condition and mental depression.

On December 6, 1973, the superior court held a hearing on the welfare department’s petition. At the hearing, appellant’s counsel attempted to prove that between the time Susan was made a dependent child of the juvenile court, pursuant to section 600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the bringing of the present proceeding by respondent, the “child protective services” mentioned in the federal aid to families with dependent children program ( 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 601-610 [42 U.S.C.S. §§' 601-610]), and the federal child-welfare services program ( 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 620-626 [ 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 620-626 ]), as implemented by sections 16500-16511 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, never were offered to appellant or considered by either the Tulare County Welfare Department or the juvenile court as a possible solution to the problems at hand. The court rejected the proffered evidence even though it was undisputed that the services were available in Tulare County in June 1971 when the child initially was removed from the custody of her mother.

Respondent stresses these points: Before obtaining her own appellant visited Susan only once a month at the welfare office near her home even though the welfare department made for semi-monthly visits; appellant moved to Kansas without giving an adequate explanation for leaving and then wrote only four letters to the Swineys during the one-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition which precipitated this litigation; and appellant failed to appear at the hearing in this proceeding. Respondent argues that these facts support an implied finding of abandonment under the last sentence of the first paragraph of subdivision (a) of section 232 which states that “[i]f in the opinion of the court the evidence indicates that such parent or parents have made only token efforts to support or communicate with the child, the court may declare the child abandoned by such parent or parents.” .

Respondent’s contentions are frivolous. It is true that appellant visited her daughter only once a month at the welfare office near her home even though the welfare department had made arrangements for visits; it is undisputed that at that time appellant was having mental problems and, under these circumstances, the monthly visits cannot be deemed token visits. Although appellant left California without giving the authorities an explanation for leaving, her reasons for doing so are apparent; all of appellant’s children had been removed from her custody, and she returned to Kansas to be near the who raised her. Mrs. Swiney testified that she received only four letters from appellant during the year preceding the filing of the petition, but neither the letters nor their contents were admitted into evidence; to characterize those communications as “token” without knowing their contents “would be to engage in . . . speculation.” (In re T. M. R., supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 694 , 699.) Appellant did not attend the hearing, but it is uncontradicted that she was in Kansas and did not have funds to travel to California; and it was at appellant’s request that the court appointed counsel to represent her in this proceeding because of her indigency.

Clearly, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to respondent, and when respondent is given the benefit of every legitimate inference, the evidence shows that there was a “demonstrated on appellant’s part to care for her children and that this incapacity placed Susan in a situation of danger from which any parent could reasonably have foreseen that serious physical damage would have resulted to the child if the danger had been allowed to continue. (In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679 , 694, 699, fn. 27 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 ]; Ferreira v. Ferreira (1973) 9 Cal.3d 824 , 837 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 512 P.2d 304 ]; In re Morrow (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 39 , 54-56 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 142 ]; In re Raya (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 260 , 265 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; In re Halamuda (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 219 , 225-226 [ 192 P.2d 781 ]; In re Gutierrez (1920) 47 Cal.App. 128 , 130 [ 190 P. 200 ]; see also People v. Harris (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 393 , 398 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 677 ]; People v. Beaugez (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 650 , 658 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 28 ].)

The Child Protective Services

We subscribe to the thesis that all avenues should be explored by the courts, the state and state agencies before a child is declared free from the custody and control of its parents and placed for adoption. A judgment freeing a child from the custody and control of its parents results in the total severance of the natural ties between the parents and the child and amounts to the taking of “a liberty” under the due process clause of the United States Constitution. (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) 420 U.S. 636 , 652 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 514 , 527, 95 S.Ct. 1225 , 1235]; Stanley v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645 , 651 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 551 , 558-559, 92 S.Ct.

The Present Conditions

We note that under subdivision (b) of section 232, before a petition, to declare a minor free from the custody and control of its parents because of parental neglect may be filed in the superior court, the minor must be a dependent child of the juvenile court whose parent or parents have been deprived of the custody of the child for a period of at least one year. While we stated earlier that sufficient evidence was presented in this case to support an implied finding of parental neglect, we observe now that no evidence was presented to show that the factors which gave rise to the parental neglect in the first instance still persisted at the time of the hearing in the superior court, even though such evidence readily was attainable through social welfare agencies and similar sources located in the Wichita, Kansas area where appellant was residing. (See In re Zimmerman (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 835 , 843-845 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 329 ]; In re Cardenas (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 849 , 855 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 238 ]; cf. Prouty v. Prouty (1940) 16 Cal.2d 190 , 194 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) Upon retrial, this problem, as well as the problem which has arisen as a result of the welfare department’s alleged failure to offer appellant child protective services, should be resolved by the trial court. As was said in In re Morrow, supra, 9 Cal.App.3d 39 , 55-56: “. . . the parent was entitled to have the circumstances leading to the earlier order reviewed in light of subsequent events, and with consideration of the nature of the order sought in the second proceedings. ... [H] ... It is reasonable to consider under subdivision (b) [of section 232] whether the conditions which gave rise to the cruelty or neglect still persist.”

The Specific Finding Issue

Appellant argues that the trial judge committed reversible error in freeing Susan from the custody and control of appellant without making the specific finding mandated by section 4600 of the Civil Code.

We agree with appellant’s contention that the specific finding requirement of section 4600 embraces an order and judgment declaring a minor child free from the custody and control of the parents for the purpose of placing the child for adoption. (See In re T. M. R., supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 694 , 703-704.) Prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969, the pivotal question in child custody proceedings was the unfitness of the parents. With the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard was changed, and now the court, before awarding custody of a minor to a nonparent must find that an award to the parent would be “detrimental to the child.” As our Supreme Court explained in In re B. G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679 , 695-696, California has at least eight separate proceedings in which child custody questions can be litigated, and the last paragraph of section 4600 fulfills the desirable objective of a uniform rule. In that case the Supreme Court observed in footnote 25 on page 696 that:

“In most juvenile court dispositional hearings custody awards are governed by Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, which states that: ‘. . . no ward or dependent child shall be taken from the physical custody of a parent or guardian unless upon the hearing the court finds one of the following facts:

“ ‘(a) That the parent or guardian is incapable of providing or has failed or neglected to provide proper maintenance, training, and education for the minor.

‘(b) That the minor has been tried on probation in such custody and has failed to reform.

‘(c) That the welfare of the minor requires that his custody be taken from his parent or guardian.’

“The language of section 726 should be interpreted in pari materia with the requirement of section 4600 that in any proceeding in which

custody is at issue, an award to a nonparent against a parent claim requires a finding of detriment. Under this interpretation, subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 726 present specific instances of detriment justifying an award of custody to a nonparent; the term ‘welfare of the minor’ in subdivision (c) encompasses a requirement that an award of custody to the nonparent rests upon a finding that parental custody would be detrimental.”

Nevertheless, it seems very clear that it can be presumed that the trial court made the requisite finding under section 4600 if the record shows that in awarding custody of a minor to a nonparent the court used the proper standard. Thus, in Chaffin v. Frye (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 39 , 44-45 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 22 ], the lower court awarded custody of two minor children to the mother’s parents without making an express finding of detriment pursuant to section 4600. The appellate court upheld the judgment because the pleadings and the evidence presented at the hearing disclosed that the only question presented to the trial court was whether an award of custody to the mother would be detrimental to the children and an award of custody to the grandparents was required to serve the best interests of the children.

We believe that the same can be said of a proceeding brought under subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of section 232 of the Civil Code where, as here, the proceeding is predicated entirely upon “specific instances of detriment.” (See In re B. G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679 , 696, fn. 25.) Certainly, evidence which supports an implied finding that the parents abandoned or neglected their minor child to the extent that the child should be declared free of their custody and control, and that the conditions which gave rise to the neglect in the first instance still persisted at the time of hearing, necessarily embodies a finding that an award of custody to the parents would be detrimental to the child and that an award of custody to a nonparent would serve the best interests of the child. However, the better practice would be to make the statutory finding even though it was not requested.

The order and judgment declaring Susan M. free from the custody and control of appellant and referring her for adoption placement is reversed, with directions to the trial court, on the basis of the evidence previously presented and such additional evidence as either side may wish to present, to resolve the issues discussed herein and to