In Re Randy B.
EVANS, J.
Yvonne, mother of Randy, a minor child, appeals from an order of the juvenile court finding Randy to be a minor coming within the provisions of
The record reveals the following facts to have been developed at the jurisdictional hearing. Randy, now age seven, is the natural child of Randy, Sr., and Yvonne. From birth until his parents’ separation, Randy lived with them sporadically, spending lengthy periods of time with his maternal aunt Marie. Randy‘s father is unable to care for him, and his mother admittedly has difficulty in coping with her child and his needs.
James Hatton, employed by the child welfare division of the department of public assistance, was the social worker for Yvonne‘s daughter who is a dependent of the court and lives with her grandmother. As a result, he had occasion to observe Randy and his mother as early as July 1971. At that time, he observed Randy to be highly energetic, “Running and banging into everything;” it appeared to him that Yvonne was unable to control her son.
Three years later, in February of 1974, Hatton again saw Randy and noted his terrible behavior and poor interaction with his mother. He observed them to be in a constant cycle of arguing; little things would set one off which would “start the other one going ... they just fed into each other and the whole situation heightened and got worse and worse.” Hatton described Randy‘s behavior as approaching a “dangerous level;” he was defiant, swearing at, and hitting his mother whenever she approached him. At that time, Hatton suggested out-of-home placement in order to break the cycle of arguing, but Yvonne rejected the idea. However, she did accept his referral to mental health services. Hatton‘s evaluation of the situation at that time was that the mother expected Randy to act as an adult and treated him as such; and that she was unable to do otherwise. He concluded that Yvonne could not meet the needs of a small child.
In April 1974, Yvonne took Randy to the San Joaquin Hospital Child Development Clinic where he was seen by a pediatrician, Dr. English, specializing in child psychiatry. In his pediatric assessment, the doctor noted that the mother was having problems dealing with her son‘s behavior and was quite perplexed by him. He concluded that Randy was a hyperkinetic child who lacked discipline. The doctor began Randy on medication for the hyperkinesis and suggested a preschool placement. Because of transportation problems, the preschool placement was not achieved.
In July, psychological testing revealed that although Randy was four years and seven months in age, he functioned at mental levels ranging from three to four years, two months.
On a subsequent visit to the pediatrician, Yvonne advised the doctor that although Randy was on medication, she still felt him to be hyperactive and advised the doctor he was getting on her nerves. She told the doctor he easily angered her, and she was afraid she might harm him out of frustration. Because of his hyperactivity and his mother‘s difficulty managing him, Dr. English placed Randy on additional medication in an attempt to control or retard the hyperactive behavior. The doctor concluded that Randy was confusing to Yvonne because of his hyperactive aggressive behavior and his lack of response to certain disciplines, making it difficult for her to deal with him or be a parent to Randy in a constructive way.
In March 1975, at the request of a public health nurse, the social worker Hatton again visited Yvonne and Randy. During the visit, Hatton
At the outset while in Marie‘s care, Randy was nervous and would not listen to his aunt. Slowly, his behavior began to change. He listened more, got along better with other children, and wanted to learn and was learning to write. However, on his mother‘s frequent visits, Randy would become uncontrollable and after Yvonne left, Marie would have behavior problems with him.
The social worker saw Randy again in May of 1975 and observed a 100 percent improvement following the placement with his aunt. In June of 1975, a petition under
(1) On July 25, a jurisdictional hearing was held before Judge Cechini. He found the essential allegations of the petition to be true; and a determination was made that Randy came within
I
A finding of jurisdiction does not necessarily require, and in this instance did not require the removal of the minor from the then existing custodial circumstance.
After determining the question of jurisdiction, the court, in establishing the time for the dispositional hearing, stated: “All right. Ten-thirty on August 12th. And in the meantime, the minor will remain with the paternal —
“MR. SWEIGART: Maternal.
“THE COURT: Maternal aunt, Mrs. Marie [A.]” (Italics added.)
Randy‘s custody was not affected by the court‘s jurisdictional hearing or finding.
At the dispositional hearing on August 12, the court made the finding required by
II
The matter of an award of custody is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or a failure to make findings as required by
(3) Relative to the general claim that the judge who awarded custody of the minor was not familiar with the record, this court will not make such a presumption. (People v. Connolly, supra.) The appellant has failed to point out in the record any indication that the court was not familiar with its contents when making the custody award.
Moreover, the objection now voiced is not timely. At the dispositional hearing, appellant did not suggest the judge who heard the jurisdictional proceeding should conduct the dispositional hearing. When asked by the court if there was any legal cause why the disposition should not then be made, counsel for appellant responded negatively. (People v. Mancha, supra; People v. Privitier (1962) 200 Cal. App.2d 725, 730 [19 Cal. Rptr. 640].)
III
(4) Finally, Yvonne has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court‘s action declaring Randy to be a dependent child and placing him in the custody of the department of public assistance. We
The order is affirmed.
Puglia, P.J., and Regan, J., concurred.
Appellant‘s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 12, 1976.
Notes
Welfare and Institutions Code section 600, subdivision (a), provides:
“Any person under the age of 18 years who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge such person to be a dependent child of the court.
“(a) Who is in need of proper and effective parental care or control and has no parent or guardian, or has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care or control, or has no parent or guardian actually exercising such care or control.”