Opinion
B299386
04-01-2020
In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENITA M., Defendant and Appellant.
Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP03209) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Renita M. (Mother), the mother of minor M.S., appeals from the juvenile court's orders at a jurisdiction and disposition hearing, declaring M.S. a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and removing the child from Mother's care and custody. On appeal, Mother argues the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Initiation of Dependency Proceedings
This matter came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on May 9, 2019, based on a referral alleging general neglect of Mother's eight-year-old daughter, M.S. According to the reporting party, Mother suffered from mental health issues and claimed that people were breaking into her home and injecting her and M.S. with a fluoride solution to kill them and steal their identifies. Mother also believed that all of her neighbors were out to kill her and the child. Mother's neighbor and apartment manager expressed concerns about her mental health and how it was affecting M.S. The reporting party had met with M.S. and was concerned the child was "mirroring [M]other's delusional and paranoia behavior."
On May 13, 2019, the DCFS received a second referral alleging caretaker incapacity by Mother. The caller reported that Mother was currently presenting with symptoms of psychosis. Mother claimed someone had broken into her home and injected M.S with fluoride. Mother also believed her apartment manager was putting a fluoride powder in the building's boiler system, and another person may have put fluoride in M.S.'s food at school. Mother had taken M.S. to several hospitals to be treated for fluoride poisoning. She also had given M.S. rescue breaths while the child was breathing on her own.
In response to the May 13, 2019 referral, the DCFS spoke with a social worker at Children's Hospital, where Mother had taken M.S. The social worker stated that there was nothing medically wrong with the child, but Mother believed she and M.S. had been injected with fluoride. Mother was observed at the hospital giving M.S. rescue breaths while the child was fully alert. The social worker also reported that M.S. had brought food from home, but Mother was anxious about allowing the child to eat it because she believed the food was poisoned. The social worker expressed concern that Mother was mentally unstable, and that her behavior appeared to be escalating.
On May 13, 2019, a case social worker from the DCFS met with M.S. and Mother at the hospital. M.S. reported that she was in elementary school, but did not attend school that day because she was experiencing shortness of breath. Mother had told M.S. that she passed out twice on the way to the hospital. According to M.S., Mother "gives [her] a lot of air, like eight times," by breathing air into her body while the child lies awake with her mouth open. M.S. believed she and Mother were being poisoned with fluoride, which was being put in the family's tap water and injected into her and Mother while they slept. When asked about the basis for her belief, M.S. responded that the neighbors were trying to get revenge against Mother after she caused them to be evicted. M.S. indicated that she and Mother were no longer sleeping in their home because of the injections, and had been staying at different places for the past few days. When asked if she was afraid of anyone, M.S. admitted she sometimes was afraid of Mother. The child was reluctant to discuss her fear, but she eventually showed the social worker an entry in her journal in which she wrote about Mother hitting her for no reason. M.S. then shared that Mother would hit her on her buttocks with an open hand as a form of discipline, and would sometimes grab her by her neck. M.S. said that the incident she wrote about in her journal involved Mother hitting her hard on her back with an open hand and taking her cell phone. M.S. told the social worker that she did not like it when Mother hit her for no reason, and that she wished Mother would "stop thinking the phone is bugged because it's not."
In her interview with the social worker, Mother stated that she and M.S. were being injected with fluoride by the neighbors, and that they had spent the past week staying with a friend. Mother claimed that the landlord also was putting fluoride in the boiler system to contaminate the water in the family's home. Mother believed her neighbors broke into the home on a daily basis, committed acts of vandalism, and took documents to try to steal her identity. Mother had installed a surveillance camera, but she removed it because she thought the camera and her cell phone were being hacked. Mother also believed several men were living in the attic of her home because she heard them following her around. Mother stated that the men in the attic were armed so she kept a loaded gun under the couch for protection. She also said that M.S. knew where the gun was stored and how to use it. According to Mother, when M.S. woke up that day, she was having shortness of breath so Mother took her to the hospital for fluoride testing. On the way there, Mother had to blow air into the child's mouth because she was having difficulty breathing. When the social worker noted that M.S.'s vital signs were normal, Mother said, "Whatever they're giving us is undetectable because they can't find it." Mother reported that she had thrown out all the food in her home because it was contaminated with fluoride. She also stated that she was in the process of moving, and planned to stay in a shelter until she secured new housing. Mother denied having any auditory or visual hallucinations or history of mental health issues.
The social worker consulted with the medical staff at Children's Hospital who had examined M.S. The technician who took M.S.'s vital signs advised Mother that the child did not need any supplemental oxygen. Mother nonetheless proceeded to give M.S. rescue breaths in the technician's presence while the child was fully alert. The attending physician reported that Mother was "all over the place" in the statements she provided to the hospital staff. While Mother claimed that M.S. was being injected with fluoride and eating food tainted with fluoride, there were no puncture marks on the child or other evidence to support Mother's claims. The physician observed that M.S. "just goes along" with Mother, and as Mother became more agitated, so did the child. Fluoride testing was not ordered for M.S. at the hospital because the child exhibited no symptoms of excessive fluoride exposure.
On May 13, 2019, the social worker also spoke with a Los Angeles police detective who had been working with the family for the past month. According to the detective, Mother was not mentally stable. Mother believed that her neighbors were trying to kill her, and that her property manager was poisoning her with fluoride. On one occasion, Mother brought her pet hamster to the police station because she believed someone was burning it with cigarettes, but no burn marks were observed. The detective initially was not concerned about M.S.'s safety because it did not appear Mother's mental health was affecting her ability to care for the child. However, when the child began to mimic Mother's behavior, the detective became concerned that Mother's mental health issues were "emotionally damaging" to M.S., and that the child should not be in Mother's care.
The social worker spoke to other individuals about Mother's mental state. M.S.'s adult sister, Kiyania, stated that Mother's behavior began to change following the death of their father. Mother had told Kiyania that the neighbors were breaking into her home and poisoning her and M.S. Kiyania claimed her only concern about the behavior was that M.S. was "starting to say the same things" as Mother. M.S.'s maternal aunt and grandmother similarly reported that Mother believed her current and former neighbors were breaking into and vandalizing her home because they did not like her. Neither the aunt nor the grandmother had any concerns about M.S.'s safety, but the aunt thought Mother might need mental health treatment. Mother's property manager stated that Mother had "snapped" when M.S.'s father died. The manager denied Mother's allegations about people entering her home without permission and trying to poison her with fluoride. She described Mother's behavior as "not normal," and expressed concern about M.S.'s safety in Mother's care.
The DCFS subsequently learned that Mother was placed on a psychiatric hold for being a danger to herself and others. On May 17, 2019, a social worker from the hospital where Mother was being held spoke with the DCFS about Mother's condition. According to the hospital social worker, Mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had a fixed delusion that she and her daughter were being poisoned with fluoride. Mother's treatment plan involved stabilizing her mental health through psychotropic medication. The social worker stated that Mother was compliant with her medication, was actively participating in group therapy, and was a very pleasant person.
On May 17, 2019, the DCFS obtained a removal order for M.S., and placed the child in the home of a non-relative extended family member. M.S. indicated that she felt comfortable staying in that home until Mother was better. On May 20, 2019, Mother was released from the hospital. She told the case social worker that she planned on moving into a shelter until she could obtain new housing for her and M.S.
II. Section 300 Petition
On May 21, 2019, the DCFS filed a dependency petition on M.S.'s behalf pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The petition alleged that Mother physically abused M.S. by grabbing the child's neck and forcefully striking her body. It also alleged that Mother suffered from mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of schizophrenia and delusion, which rendered her incapable of providing M.S. with regular care and supervision. The DCFS subsequently filed a first amended petition that added allegations that Mother had created a detrimental and endangering home environment by possessing a firearm and ammunition within access of the child.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At a May 22, 2019 detention hearing, the juvenile court found there was prima facie evidence that M.S. was a person described by section 300, and ordered the child detained from Mother. The court granted monitored visitation to Mother for at least one hour per week with discretion to the DCFS to liberalize the visits. The court set the matter for an adjudication hearing on July 22, 2019.
III. Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
For its jurisdiction and disposition report, the DCFS conducted interviews with M.S. and Mother about the allegations in the petition. In her interview, M.S. indicated that Mother would discipline her by making her stand in the corner or by spanking her on the buttocks. Mother had only spanked M.S. once or twice with her hand and had never hit any other part of her body. M.S. admitted that Mother "sometimes" grabbed her neck, but then said it only happened once and described it as "a gentle little pull." When asked what she liked about Mother, the child reported that they always used to do fun things like go to the mall, ride the bus, visit family, and play together. M.S. did not like it when Mother talked about people coming to their home and injecting them. M.S. said that Mother was confused and thought the neighbors were injecting her with fluoride and putting fluoride in the water. When asked whether she was also injected with fluoride, M.S. answered, "Yes." M.S. believed she had been injected with fluoride in her sleep by the same people that were injecting Mother. She also believed the neighbors were "bugging" Mother's phone. M.S. was aware that Mother kept a shotgun inside the home, but stated that it was kept in a box in the closet for safety. M.S. had been told that the people who took Mother away also had taken the gun.
In her interview, Mother stated that she disciplined M.S. by putting her in the corner or by spanking her buttocks with her hand. She admitted, however, that she once grabbed the back of M.S.'s neck and hit her upper back with her hand because the child was refusing to listen. Mother indicated that she had been involved in a dispute with her neighbors for the past two years. She believed they were "hacking" her cell phone to listen to her calls so she took the phone apart. She also believed the neighbors were breaking into her home with a key supplied by the landlord. According to Mother, the neighbors would use anesthesia to put her to sleep and then inject her with fluoride. In addition to the injections, Mother believed the landlord put fluoride in her water and the neighbors put fluoride in her food to poison her. Mother had stopped sleeping in her home and would stay at a friend's house or ride the bus all night. When asked why she took M.S. to the hospital, Mother stated that the child was having difficulty breathing. One of the physicians at the hospital saw Mother blowing air into M.S.'s mouth and considered it to be a form of child abuse. Mother was then hospitalized for six days and prescribed medication. She had stopped taking the medication as soon as she was discharged because it caused drowsiness and headaches. Mother admitted she was the owner of a 12-gauge shotgun. She kept the loaded shotgun under the couch for protection, and took it out at night so that she could use it if she "needed to protect [her] daughter." She stored additional ammunition in an unlocked box in the closet. Mother stated that the gun was confiscated when she was hospitalized, and that she had "put in an application for a hearing to get [her] gun back." She did not know the status of the application, however, because she believed the neighbors were taking her mail.
For its report, the DCFS also spoke with the social worker at the hospital where Mother was placed on a psychiatric hold. The social worker confirmed Mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed medication. She was discharged after six days because she was not threatening to hurt herself or anyone else. Mother was referred to an outpatient mental health clinic to continue her psychiatric services. During her hospital stay, Mother had shared that she was having problems with her neighbors and did not feel comfortable in her home.
The DCFS stated that it believed Mother's untreated mental illness was placing M.S.'s health, safety, and well-being at risk of harm. Although M.S. appeared happy during her visits with Mother, the child had to stop Mother from talking about being poisoned with fluoride. Since her discharge from the hospital, Mother had not been taking her prescribed psychotropic medication or participating in any psychiatric services. Mother also owned a shotgun and ammunition that were accessible to M.S. before they were seized by the police. Given that Mother was not addressing her mental health issues, the DCFS was concerned she might obtain another weapon. The agency also was concerned that Mother had inappropriately disciplined M.S. by grabbing the child by her neck and hitting her on her buttocks and upper back. The DCFS recommended that M.S. be declared a dependent of the juvenile court and that Mother be provided with family reunification services.
IV. Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
On July 22, 2019, the juvenile court held the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Without objection, the court admitted into evidence the various reports filed by the DCFS. Mother's counsel stipulated that, if Mother were called to testify, she would affirm the statements attributable to her in the DCFS's reports. Her counsel then asked that the petition be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence because Mother's physical discipline of M.S. did not rise to the level of abuse, her mental illness did not prevent her from meeting the child's needs, and her prior possession of a firearm did not pose any current risk to the child. Counsel for M.S. and counsel for the DCFS joined in requesting that the petition be sustained. M.S.'s counsel argued that Mother's use of physical discipline was excessive, her mental illness caused delusional behavior that was detrimental to the child, and her stated intent to retrieve her firearm placed M.S. at a continued risk of harm.
The juvenile court sustained the first amended petition, and declared M.S. a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The court found that Mother's physical discipline of M.S. was abusive because the child reported that there were times when Mother would strike her for no reason. The court also found that Mother's mental health issues were causing delusional behavior that was directly impacting M.S. and placing the child at risk of harm. In addition, the court found that Mother had created a dangerous condition by keeping an unsecure loaded firearm in the home within access of the child. The court ordered that M.S. be removed from Mother's care and custody and suitably placed by the DCFS. The court also ordered family reunification services for Mother, including monitored visitation, psychiatric evaluation, parenting education, individual counseling, and housing assistance. Following the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. Mother specifically contends the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that her use of corporal punishment was excessive and placed M.S. at risk of physical abuse under section 300, subdivision (a). Mother also claims there was insufficient evidence to establish that her mental health issues and prior ownership of a firearm posed a current risk of physical harm to her child under section 300, subdivision (b). We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction over M.S. under section 300, subdivision (b) based on Mother's significant mental health issues and prior possession of a loaded and accessible firearm. We accordingly affirm the jurisdiction and disposition orders.
In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether jurisdiction also was proper under section 300, subdivision (a) based on Mother's physical discipline of M.S. (See, e.g., In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452, ["[a]s a general rule, a single jurisdictional finding supported by substantial evidence is sufficient to support jurisdiction"]; In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 ["[A] reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence."].)
Although Mother appeals both the jurisdiction and disposition orders, she does not raise any argument regarding disposition, but rather seeks to have the disposition order vacated based on the lack of sufficient evidence supporting jurisdiction. Because we conclude the jurisdiction order is supported by substantial evidence, we also affirm the disposition order.
I. Applicable Law
Section 300, subdivision (b) provides, in pertinent part, that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if 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 his or her parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child, the willful or negligent failure of the parent to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or the inability of the parent to provide regular care for the minor due to the parent's mental illness, developmental disability or substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).)
A finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) requires the DCFS "to demonstrate three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) one or more of the statutorily specified omissions in providing care for the child (inability to protect or supervise the child, the failure of the parent to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or inability to provide regular care for the child due to mental illness, developmental disability or substance abuse); (2) causation; and (3) "serious physical harm or illness" to the minor, or a "substantial risk" of such harm or illness." (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561; see In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628.) "Although section 300 generally requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing [citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child [citation]. The court may consider past events in deciding whether a child currently needs the court's protection. [Citation.] A parent's "'[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions" if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.' [Citations.]" (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383-1384.)
We review a juvenile court's jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Substantial evidence is "evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401.) Under this standard of review, we examine the whole record in a light most favorable to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court and defer to the juvenile court on issues of credibility of the evidence and witnesses. (In re A.J. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103.) We determine only whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the juvenile court's order, resolving all conflicts in support of its determination and drawing all reasonable inferences to uphold its ruling. (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1124.) If there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's order, we must uphold the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 168.)
II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional Finding Based On Mother's Mental Health Issues
The juvenile court sustained count b-1 in the first amended petition as follows: "The child [M.S.'s] mother, Renita M[.], suffers from mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of schizophrenia, delusion and a danger to self, which renders the mother incapable of providing the child with regular care and supervision. On 5/13/19, the mother was involuntarily hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the mother's psychiatric condition. The mother's mental and emotional problems endanger the child's physical health and safety and place the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and danger."
On appeal, Mother argues the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that her mental health issues placed M.S. at substantial risk of serious physical harm. It is true, as Mother asserts, that the DCFS had the "'burden of showing specifically how the minor[ ] [has] been or will be harmed and harm may not be presumed from the mere fact of mental illness of a parent.'" (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136; see also In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 542 [child welfare agency "must demonstrate with specificity how the minor has been or will be harmed by the parents' mental illness"].) In this case, however, the DCFS met its burden of showing that M.S. remained at a substantial risk of physical harm based on Mother's untreated mental illness.
The evidence presented at the jurisdiction hearing established that Mother was suffering from schizophrenia and paranoid delusions that directly impacted her ability to adequately care for M.S. As a result of her mental illness, Mother believed that her neighbors were breaking into the family's home at night, injecting both Mother and M.S. with fluoride while they slept, and poisoning their food and water to try to kill them. Mother's delusions caused her to take M.S. to the hospital and seek unnecessary medical testing for the child. At the hospital, Mother ignored explicit medical advice and gave M.S. "rescue breaths" even though the child was fully alert. Mother's delusions also caused her to throw out all the food in the family's home and to cease sleeping in the home at night. Prior to M.S.'s detention, Mother had been taking the child to a friend's home at night because she believed they would be injected with fluoride if they slept in their own home. After M.S. was detained and Mother was released from the hospital, Mother stayed with friends or rode the bus all night because she did not feel safe in her home and had been unable to secure new housing. Mother told the DCFS that she believed her neighbors wanted to follow her to the next place where she and M.S. moved.
The evidence further showed that Mother was not seeking treatment for her mental illness following her release from the hospital. During her June 21, 2019 interview with the DCFS, Mother admitted she had not taken her prescribed psychotropic medication since she was discharged on May 20. Mother also admitted she was not participating in mental health services because she did not like the therapist assigned to her. Mother nonetheless believed that, even though she was not taking her medication, her neighbors were injecting her with it because she was experiencing side effects. Mother also continued to share her delusions with M.S. during their monitored visits, causing the child to instruct Mother to stop talking about being poisoned. Although M.S. appeared to recognize at times that Mother's delusions were not real, the child also told the DCFS that she believed she was being injected with fluoride by the same people who were injecting Mother. When asked who was injecting Mother, M.S. stated: "My neighbors. I remember feeling it. This happened when I was asleep, but I wasn't really asleep. I couldn't sleep because I was afraid of the dark."
This case is thus distinguishable from In re Joaquin C., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th 537, in which we held that there was no substantial evidence to support a finding that the mother's mental illness rendered her incapable of providing regular care to her infant child. In Joaquin C., the evidence showed that, while the mother previously had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, she cared for her son appropriately at all times, was providing him with a safe and comfortable home, and was participating in mental health treatment. (Id. at pp. 562-564.) Here, Mother had convinced her eight-year-old daughter that they were being injected with poison by intruders who entered the family's home at night. Because Mother's untreated mental illness caused her to believe that their home, food, and water were not safe, she was unable to provide M.S. with a stable and healthy home environment. Moreover, while M.S. had no known medical issues, she had begun to internalize Mother's delusions, and believed that she was having severe headaches and other symptoms from fluoride poisoning. A number of individuals who had contact with Mother and M.S.-including the medical staff at Children's Hospital, the detective who had been working with the family, and Mother's property manager-expressed similar concerns that M.S. was not safe in Mother's care due to Mother's persistent delusions. Given the totality of this record, there was substantial evidence to support the jurisdictional finding that Mother's mental health issues rendered her incapable of providing M.S. with regular care and supervision, and therefore, placed the child at a substantial risk of serious physical harm.
III. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional Finding Based on Mother's Firearm Possession
In sustaining count b-3 of the first amended petition, the juvenile court found as follows: "The child [M.S.'s] mother, Renita M[.], created a detrimental and endangering home environment for the child in that the child's mother possessed a firearm and ammunition in the child's home within access of the child. Such a detrimental and endangering home environment established by the child's mother endangers the child's physical and emotional health, safety and well-being and places the child at risk of physical and emotional harm, damage, and danger."
Mother asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that her prior possession of a firearm posed a substantial risk of harm to M.S. at the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Mother reasons that, once the firearm and ammunition were removed from the home by law enforcement, the risk of harm to M.S. was eliminated. We disagree. "[S]ection 300, subdivision (b) dependency jurisdiction may be based on evidence that the parent stored a loaded gun in such a manner that it could be accessed by a child. Such conduct indicates 'a gross lack of attention to the child's welfare' with potentially greater repercussions than leaving drugs and paraphernalia within a child's reach. [Citation.]" (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 995; see also In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1147 ["[d]ependency jurisdiction may be based on evidence that a parent stored a loaded gun in such a manner that it could be accessed by a child"].) Moreover, the fact that law enforcement previously removed the firearm from the home does not preclude a finding of jurisdiction if there remains a risk of future harm to the child. (In re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 996.)
In this case, the evidence showed that Mother created a dangerous situation by keeping a loaded shotgun inside the family's home underneath the living room couch. Mother told the DCFS that she had the shotgun for protection because she believed there were armed men living in the attic who wanted "to make their presence known." Mother also said that she would take the shotgun out at night so that she could use it if she needed "to protect [her] daughter." M.S. was aware of the presence of the firearm inside the home and had access to it. Given Mother's paranoid delusions about intruders, her possession of a loaded shotgun that she took out at night for protection clearly presented a risk of harm to her child.
Contrary to Mother's contention, the fact that the police confiscated the gun and extra ammunition when Mother was hospitalized did not eliminate the risk of harm to M.S. After her release from the hospital, Mother expressed her concern to the DCFS that, without a firearm, the neighbors had "free reign" to do what they wanted. As a result, Mother had submitted an application to regain possession of the gun. On appeal, Mother points out that, under California law, she was prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for a five-year period based on her involuntary psychiatric hold. As the juvenile court observed, however, it would not be difficult for Mother to obtain another firearm if she was intent on doing so.
The record also reflects that Mother took no precautions to protect M.S. from the danger posed by the presence of a loaded firearm inside the home. Mother simply told M.S. not to touch the gun because it was dangerous. Mother thus lacked insight into how her past conduct created a future risk of harm to her child. (In re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at 996 ["father's lack of insight into the danger posed by the loaded gun in the home provided support for the potential of future risk"]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge."].) Under these circumstances, the juvenile court reasonably could find that Mother's possession of an unsecure, loaded firearm that was easily accessible to M.S. placed the child at a substantial risk of serious physical harm.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
ZELON, Acting P. J. We concur:
SEGAL, J.
FEUER, J.