Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Referee., Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK74070
Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KLEIN, P. J.
Michael G. (father) appeals orders of the juvenile court entered with respect to his four children. He contends the jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence and, based thereon, the disposition order must be set aside. We reject father’s contentions and affirm the orders.
BACKGROUND
1. Detention of the children.
The detention report indicated mother and father shared joint legal custody of their four children, ages 14 to 7 years, under a family court order and alternated physical custody of the children on a weekly basis. Father was referred to the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) on July 16, 2008. The referral indicated father and his girlfriend, A.C., lock themselves in a detached garage for two to three hours at a time and leave the children unsupervised. The children have smelled marijuana emanating from the garage and have heard father and A.C. arguing and yelling at each other, things breaking and struggling noises. The children have not witnessed domestic violence or observed marks or bruises on A.C. but stated “we usually have three good days and four really bad days when we go to dad’s house.”
On July 25, 2008, an emergency response (ER) children’s social worker (CSW) interviewed each of the children separately. M.G. (age 9 years) reported father and A.C. argue every day or every other day and he feels sad when they argue because father “is hurting” A.C. M.G. asked father and A.C. to stop arguing because he saw her crying. M.G. stated father takes his anger out on the children by hitting them “very hard” with his hand. M.G. stated A.C. left the home because father is mean to her. M.G. denied seeing drugs in the home but stated he knows they are present and indicated father has “powder drugs and hard, regular drugs.” M.G. also has seen father’s gun hidden under the bed, in a medicine cabinet or behind a television M.G. does not feel safe at father’s home and he would like father to stop yelling.
J.G. (age 7 years) saw powder drugs in the garage in a plastic container with a clear lid. J.G. learned about drugs at school. J.G. also saw a gun in the bathroom, behind the television and under the bed. J.G. has heard father and A.C. argue and fighting but has not seen them hit each other. J.G. did not feel safe at father’s home because of the arguing and because father sometimes acts “coo-coo.”
H.G. (age 9 years) reported father is “doing drugs and hurting [A.C.]” H.G. stated she knows these things because she heard her mother talking about them. H.G. described drugs as “white powder stuff, cigarettes and beer.” H.G. has never seen the white powder but indicated M.G. and J.G. saw it on the counter where father works in the garage. H.G. stated father and A.C. fight almost every night. Father turns the radio up so the children cannot hear the arguments.
A.G. (age 14 years) stated that, when father and A.C. argue, father takes his anger out on the children and “gets mad at stupid stuff, or he yells.” A.G. also stated A.C. “is in... father’s control which is not healthy.” A.G. had never seen father strike A.C. but has seen a large bruise on A.C.’s arm. A.G. smelled marijuana coming from the garage during her birthday party in March of 2007. A.G. has not seen drugs in the home but reported her siblings told her they saw “white powder on the top shelf in the garage.” A.G. feels safe in the home when father is not acting “weird or crazy.”
Mother stated father used cocaine and marijuana when he was a teenager and in college and she suspects he used drugs during their marriage due to the debts he incurred. The children frequently telephone mother crying or upset when they are with father because of his erratic temper. Mother stated concern for the children’s safety in father’s care and questioned his emotional stability, noting he recently lost his job of 14 years and he appears to have many personal problems. Father was emotionally abusive toward mother in the past and, according to his ex-girlfriends with whom mother has had contact, he was abusive to them as well. A.C.’s mother telephoned mother from New York and indicated father threatened A.C. with a gun and A.C. has marks on her back from father. A.C.’s mother further reported father was using drugs and was trying to get A.C. to use drugs.
The ER CSW interviewed father on July 30, 2008. Father admitted arguing with A.C. but indicated A.C. moved from the home two weeks ago. A.C. moved out on two previous occasions. Father now realizes A.C.’s instability has affected his life and his children. Father indicated A.C. caused him to lose his job of 14 years. She also hacked into his phone and computer to track his whereabouts. On February 19, 2008, father reported damage to his computer to the police after an argument with A.C. On May 5, 2008, father reported theft of cell phone services to the police. Father indicated A.C. has been diagnosed as passive aggressive. Father tried to argue with A.C. out of the children’s presence and took responsibility for his actions. Father complained mother reported him to the Department as a ploy to remove the children from his care. Father admitted he had a gun in the home and that it was not always in a lock box. Father signed a safety plan stating he would not expose the children to domestic violence and would store the gun in a lock box. Father denied drug use and agreed to test the following day but he failed to appear. On August 7, 2008, father stated he forgot to test but volunteered to test the following day. However, father again failed to appear.
On August 14, 2008, the ER CSW made an unannounced visit to father’s home and informed him of a team decision-making meeting (TDM) scheduled for the following day at 10:00 a.m. Father stated he would attend and indicated he did not drug test on August 8, 2008, because he has been working on getting his phone and computer to work and ran out of time. Father gave the CSW a receipt for a drug test he took on August 12, 2008. However, only father could obtain the results.
Father failed to attend the TDM. At the meeting, the Department developed a safety plan under which the children would be detained from father and released to mother.
After the TDM, the ER CSW made an unannounced visit to father’s home with two police officers. M.G. had to wake father to come to the door. The CSW informed father the children were being placed in protective custody. Father was arrested on a warrant for a city code violation. Father indicated he no longer had the gun and a check of gun registrations revealed no guns registered to father.
The detention report concluded father had exposed the children to ongoing domestic disputes; father possessed and stored an unsecured and unregistered handgun in the home; the children reported seeing a white powder in father’s work area and on another occasion smelled marijuana coming from the garage; father failed to drug test on demand and failed to attend a TDM; and, father lost his job of 14 years and allowed the children’s medical insurance to lapse thereby preventing them from continuing their counseling and being seen by their pediatrician.
The Department filed a dependency petition on August 20, 2008. The juvenile court ordered the children released to mother.
2. The jurisdiction report.
The jurisdiction report filed September 23, 2008, included additional statements obtained from mother and the children by a dependency investigator (DI). Mother stated father smoked marijuana every day in college and after they were married. Mother also stated father had “a large cocaine problem in high school.” Father also admitted using cocaine on one occasion when mother was pregnant with their first child. However, father tested with negative results on September 4, 2008.
Mother told the DI that father degraded her job and criticized her, especially toward the end of their marriage. When father fought with the children and said demeaning things to them, mother ended the marriage. Mother indicated there were “a couple of ugly episodes” at the end of the marriage “that got physical.” On one occasion, mother “smacked” father during one of father’s tirades. Father pushed mother onto a bed with their youngest child, then an infant, in her arms. Mother explained she knew it was wrong to smack father but she was tired of father berating her. Father called the police as a result of that incident but no arrests were made. Mother called the police after an incident in 1999 in which father grabbed her. On Mother’s Day in 2008, mother met A.C.’s mother at father’s home. A.C.’s mother telephoned mother five to six weeks ago and stated father beats A.C., put marks on her and put a gun to her head.
M.G. told the DI that father hit the three youngest children “between soft and hard and he just leaves a little mark on us with his hand.” M.G. recalled being hit three times and said it made him feel “sad and it hurt.” A.G., H.G. and J.G. denied physical discipline by father.
In an interview with the DI, father denied physical abuse of mother and indicated mother was the aggressor in the pushing incident. Father denied physical altercations between himself and A.C. but admitted arguments. Father denied these arguments took place in the presence of the children and indicated they occurred after the children had gone to bed. Father denied physical abuse or corporal punishment of the children and denied possessing illicit drugs in the home or smoking marijuana in the garage. Father indicated he no longer owned a gun and stated he kept it unloaded and separate from the ammunition when he did have it. Father admitted marijuana use in high school and college but denied past or current use of any other illicit drugs.
A last-minute information for court officer form filed October 21, 2008, indicated father tested with negative results on September 15 and 25, and October 6, 2008.
A supplemental report dated November 20, 2008, indicated father demonstrated road rage behavior during an unmonitored visit with A.G. on October 27, 2008. The report indicated A.G. became fearful of father and his erratic driving.
On November 4, 2008, the Department conducted a TDM at which father agreed to sign a Welfare and Institutions Code section 301 contract. However, when father was advised that, as a result of his failure to submit to a drug test on October 20, 2008, father would be required to submit eight additional negative drug tests, father indicated he would not sign the contract. Thereafter, father reconsidered and indicated he would sign the contract. However, when the CSW met with father and explained the contract would include individual counseling for both parents and the children and conjoint counseling at the recommendation of the children’s therapist, father again stated he would not sign the contract.
Subsequent unspecified section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3. Adjudication.
a. Evidence.
At the start of the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court took judicial notice of the previously filed reports with their attachments.
Mother testified she and father separated in March of 2001 after 11 and a half years of marriage. Mother recalled there was “a lot of turmoil at the end of the marriage” and mother “endured a lot of” verbal and emotional abuse. Father’s behavior was unpredictable and he physically abused mother “once or twice.” On one occasion, father pushed mother onto a bed while mother had an infant in her arms. The police were called. To the best of mother’s recollection, the other children did not witness this incident. On another occasion, father came home in an angry mood. Father was “ranting and tirading around” and mother called the police fearing he was “going to snap” and do something physical to her. Mother does not recall the details but testified, “for me to... suffer the embarrassment of the police pulling up in front of my house,... it must have been pretty scary.”
Mother knew father used drugs during their relationship because she smelled marijuana being smoked outside the house or in the garage while the children were at home. Mother never saw father use cocaine but he once told her he was at a friend’s house “doing coke” and he was going to stay there because he was upset about something. Mother recently sought counseling for the children because they disclosed fighting in father’s home and said father acted in an angry and mean way toward them. M.G. told mother that father hit him and that he would wake up in the night to find father and A.C. were not there.
A.G. testified she was happy with the prior custody arrangement of alternating weeks with mother and father. She never saw any physical altercations between father and mother or between father and A.C. A.G. indicated father did not use physical discipline with any of the children and her siblings have not told her that father hit them. They have indicated they were afraid of father “when he gets really mad.” A.G. has not seen drugs in the home but has smelled marijuana emanating from the garage and friends who attended her birthday party said the smell of marijuana was coming from the garage. A.G. did not think father made an effort to argue with A.C. in the garage. Rather, father and A.C. “were normally in the garage all the time, so they just ended up fighting in there.”
Regarding the road rage incident, A.G. testified a lady honked and went around father and father decided to swerve into her lane. Father claimed the lady hit his car or almost hit it. Father then “went off about a lot of other stuff that happened between him and my mom.” A.G. was afraid during the road rage incident. A.G. indicated that, after A.C. left the house, everything “got kind of crazy... and [father] took out his anger on us.” Every visit ended with A.G. going to mother’s house crying.
Father testified there were never any physical altercations between himself and mother or A.C. With respect to the incident in which mother smacked father, father denied he pushed mother and testified anything that may have happened was in self-defense. Father testified A.C. was clinically passive aggressive and it was frustrating to live with her. Father denied he argued with A.C. but admitted there were “discussions” after the children went to bed. Father told A.C. to move out shortly before the Department became involved in the case and father has no intention of resuming a relationship with her. Father denied he has ever hit any of the children, denied he ever possessed illicit drugs in the home or the garage and denied the use of illicit drugs in the last eight years. Father claimed mother frequently has alleged that father uses drugs but father has never tested positive for drugs. In father’s version of the “road rage” incident, a lady driver stopped next to him and berated his driving. Father threatened to report the lady to the police but did not get out of his car and made no verbal threats. A.G. pointed her finger at father, told him to calm down and said she was going to report him to children’s services. Father complained that “basically all my kids are doing at this point” is threatening him with reports to children’s services.
Father indicated he recently had enrolled in a drug program and a parenting class and he now realizes it is not in the children’s best interests to fight with mother over custody issues.
b. The juvenile court’s findings and orders.
The juvenile court found this “case is all about control. Father has been in control of everything and everyone. He controls if and when he does drug tests. He controls the Department and what services they are going to provide, and if he doesn’t like it he walks away. He controls the mother. He controls the passive girlfriend. He controls the children, and when any of those areas of control fails his anger escalates and the domestic violence begins.” “I found the mother... very credible and... [t]he picture that she paints is one of years and years and years of control. [¶] And while the actual physical incidents of abuse were old and minimal, the emotional abuse – which is so much a part of domestic violence – has been ongoing for years.” The juvenile court found that, in order to believe father’s testimony, “which was very incredible,” it would have to conclude everyone else involved in the case had lied.
The juvenile court found the children were dependents within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The juvenile court sustained counts a-1, b-4 and c-1 as amended to allege the children “have been exposed to years of physical and emotional abuse by their father to both their mother and then the father’s female companion.... This abuse included but was not limited to the father pushing the children’s mother while she was carrying the child, [J.G.]” Regarding these counts, the juvenile court noted, “[t]he children have spent years doing things like turning on the radio to try to prevent them overhearing father inflicting emotional abuse on the women around him. [¶] And the incident in the car recently was no different than that, indicating that father’s testimony again [was] about... his daughter ‘... pointing her index finger... and telling [father] how to behave’ and [father] found that disrespectful.”
Under section 300, a child is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court where: “(a) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the child’s parent or guardian.... For purposes of this subdivision, ‘serious physical harm’ does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury.
The juvenile court sustained counts a-2 and b-5 finding: “[Father] physically abused the children [M.G., H.G. and J.G.] by striking their bodies with his hands, resulting in the child, [M.G.,] sustaining a mark.” The juvenile court sustained count b-1 finding father “established an endangering and detrimental home environment for the children in that the father possessed illicit drugs in the father’s home within access of the children. The father’s home emitted the smell of marijuana while the children were in father’s care and supervision. The father possessed a gun in the father’s home within access of the children.” The juvenile court sustained count b-2 based on its finding father “has history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of illicit drugs, which renders the father incapable of providing the children with regular care and supervision. On prior occasions, the father abused illicit drugs and was under the influence of illicit drugs in the father’s home while the children were in the father’s care and supervision.”
The juvenile court removed the children from father’s physical care and custody and terminated jurisdiction with a family law order giving mother full physical and legal custody of the children. The juvenile court ordered father’s visits to be monitored, citing the road rage incident. When father’s counsel requested joint legal custody, the juvenile court indicated joint legal custody would allow father “to continue to try to control things....” and that would not be in the children’s best interests.
CONTENTIONS
Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of the dependency petition and, because the jurisdictional findings are unsupported, the disposition order similarly fails.
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of review.
At a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court determines whether the child falls within any of the categories specified in section 300. (In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082.) To find jurisdiction under section 300, the juvenile court must determine whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the child to the defined risk of harm. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824; In re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, 388.) Evidence of past events may have a probative value in finding jurisdiction, but only if circumstances existing at the time of the hearing make it likely the child in the future will suffer the same type of serious physical harm or illness as alleged in the petition. (In re Rocco M., supra, at p. 824; In re Janet T., supra, at p. 388.) The jurisdictional finding must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248; § 355, subd. (a).)
In reviewing a juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding, we apply the substantial evidence test. (In re P.A. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1344; In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828; In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649.) We “must accept the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact. [Citation.]” (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 53.) Under this standard, the juvenile court, not this court, assesses the credibility of witnesses, resolves conflicts in the evidence, and determines where the weight of the evidence lies. (Id. at pp. 52-53.) “We affirm the rulings of the juvenile court if there is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value to support them. [Citations.]” (In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1319.)
2. Counts a-1, b-4 and c-1 (physical and emotional abuse of mother and A.C. by father).
Father contends the sustained counts did not demonstrate that, at the time of the adjudication, any of the children actually suffered or there was a substantial risk any of them would suffer: (1) serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally by father (§ 300, subd. (a)); or, (2) physical harm or illness as a result of father’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the children (§ 300, subd. (b)). Father notes none of the incidents of emotional or physical abuse described by mother occurred near the time of the adjudication, the only child present during these incidents was an infant and there was no evidence the infant was aware of any emotional or physical abuse. Further, father’s girlfriend had moved from the home by the time of the adjudication, father’s anger decreased after she moved, father attempted to protect the children by arguing only in the garage after the children went to bed, father denied physical altercations with A.C., he took responsibility for his actions and there was no indication father would act inappropriately in the future.
Father also contends there is insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c), which requires “serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian....” (§ 300, subd. (c).) However, the juvenile court found the children dependents under section 300 subdivisions (a) and (b). The amended dependency petition did not allege the children came within section 300, subdivision (c), and the juvenile court made no finding under that subdivision.
Father’s arguments are not persuasive.
Although A.C. had moved from father’s home by the time of the adjudication and father’s abuse of mother occurred when they were married, evidence of past events have probative value in determining whether a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. (In re Rocco M., supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 824; In re Janet T., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 388.) Here, M.G. and J.G. said they felt unsafe in father’s home because of father’s behavior. M.G. reported hearing arguments between father and A.C. and M.G. thought father was hurting A.C. M.G. asked father and A.C. to stop arguing because he saw her crying. M.G. reported A.C. left the house because father was mean to her. H.G. also reported father was hurting A.C. and he heard them arguing at least every other night. A.G. said father controlled A.C. and A.G. saw a large bruise on A.C.’s arm. J.G. heard father and A.C. arguing and saw A.C. crying. Mother indicated father emotionally abused her and A.C. A.C.’s mother told mother in a telephone call that father threatened A.C. with a gun, put marks on her back and tried to get A.C. to use drugs. Further, mother testified father physically and emotionally abused her during their marriage. She described two specific incidents of abuse, one when she had J.G. in her arms and another when she called the police because she was afraid father would “snap.” Although J.G. was not hurt when father pushed mother with J.G. in her arms, this incident permitted the juvenile court to conclude J.G. and her siblings were at risk of suffering serious physical injury inflicted nonaccidentally by father. Because the abuse occurred in the presence of at least J.G., the other children were at risk of abuse under section 300, subdivision (b). “[D]omestic violence in the same household where children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect [children] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it. Such neglect causes the risk.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194.)
Unless a party to the jurisdictional hearing raises a timely objection to the admission of specific hearsay evidence, hearsay statements found in social reports filed in a dependency case constitute admissible, competent evidence on which to base jurisdictional findings. (§ 355, subds. (b), (c)(1); In re Lucero L. (2000)22 Cal.4th 1227, 1242-1244; In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 15, 21-22.) As father did not challenge the hearsay statements before the juvenile court, he has forfeited the hearsay contention on appeal. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.)
Additionally, father denied emotional or physical abuse of mother or A.C. and he blamed mother and A.C. for the difficulties in their relationships. Based thereon, the juvenile court reasonably could infer father would continue to abuse any future partner and that he had not resolved the issues that caused his physical and emotional abuse of women.
Although father claims he argued with A.C. in the garage to protect the children and that his anger subsided after A.C. left the home, the juvenile court did not find father credible. Further, A.G. testified father made no effort to argue outside the children’s presence. Rather, he and A.C. argued in the garage because they spent all their time there. Also, A.G. testified the situation in father’s home got worse after A.C. moved from the home because father directed his anger at the children.
In sum, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude father’s history of physical and emotional abuse of mother and A.C., and his refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing created a substantial risk to any child in his care. (In re Rebekah R. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1638, 1655-1656; In re Tiffany Y. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 298, 303; In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 504, 515-517.)
3. Counts a-2 and b-5 (physical abuse of H.G., M.G. and J.G.).
Father contends the evidence does not establish that, at the time of the adjudication, the children were at a substantial risk of serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally by father. Father notes M.G. was the only child who indicated father physically disciplined him and his statements were inconsistent. Thus, physical discipline may not have occurred at all.
Further, if physical discipline did occur, it fell within the acceptable range of spanking. Father notes that, in the jurisdictional report, M.G. stated father did not use a belt or any other object and stated father hit the three youngest children “between soft and hard and he just leaves a little mark on us with his hand.” Father contrasts this evidence with the purple bruises inflicted with a belt in In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438-439. Father claims the evidence was insufficient to show a risk of serious physical harm within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (a) or (b). (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1202.)
For purposes of section 300, subdivision (a), “ ‘serious physical harm’ does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury.” (§ 300, subd. (a).)
Father’s argument overlooks M.G’s statement in the detention report that father took his anger out on the children and hit them “very hard” with his hand. M.G. did not state that father spanked his buttocks. Rather, M.G. said father hit him very hard and usually hit the children on the arm. M.G. said father hit him three times, causing him to feel hurt and sad. M.G. also said father used his hand to “kind of hit” H.G., M.G. and J.G. between “soft and hard,” leaving little marks on the children. This evidence was sufficient to permit the juvenile court to conclude father inflicted non-accidental physical harm on the children within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). Father’s refusal to acknowledge his wrongdoing created a substantial risk of harm to any child left in his care.
4. Count b-1(endangering and detrimental home environment based on possession of illicit drugs and a gun within access of the children) and count b-2 (endangering and detrimental home environment based on history of substance abuse and current abuse of illicit drugs).
Father contends neither his possession nor his alleged use of drugs was proved. Father asserts the allegation of substance abuse was supported only by A.G.’s statement she smelled marijuana coming from the garage. However, A.G. did not smell marijuana after her birthday party and the evidence indicated father did not frequent the garage after A.C. moved from the home. A.G. stated her siblings told her they saw white powder in father’s work area in the garage but none of the children saw father possess or use drugs and there was no evidence that, at the time of the adjudication, any of the children suffered harm or illness due to father’s possession or use of drugs in the home. Father further asserts there is no evidence father’s past use of illicit drugs might continue in the future because there was no evidence father ever engaged in drug abuse and there was no reliable evidence that illicit drugs were in the home when father cared for the children. Father concludes nothing more than speculation supports the allegation the children suffered or there was a substantial risk they would suffer serious physical harm or illness in the future due to father’s alleged substance abuse.
With respect to the gun, father contends that, by the time of the adjudication, father no longer had the gun. Thus, there was no evidence father’s previous possession of a gun placed the children at risk of harm.
The juvenile court properly could conclude father possessed illicit drugs and a handgun within access of the children. With respect to the drug allegations, in addition to the children’s reports of finding drugs in the home and smelling marijuana emanating from the garage, mother reported father used cocaine and marijuana before and during their marriage. Additionally, father failed to appear for drug testing on multiple occasions. These facts permitted the juvenile court to conclude father had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of illicit drugs. Father’s refusal to acknowledge responsibility suggests this danger will continue.
Although father claimed he no longer had the gun, the juvenile court found father’s testimony incredible and thus reasonably could conclude he continued to possesss the unregistered weapon.
In sum, the evidence was sufficient to permit the juvenile court to conclude father maintained an endangering and detrimental home environment.
5. Only one valid ground of jurisdiction must be shown.
To the extent any of father’s contentions may have merit, the error is harmless as long as the evidence supports jurisdiction on any one of the multiple grounds cited by the juvenile court. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451; In re Shelley J. (1998)68 Cal.App.4th 322, 330; In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875-876.) Consequently, unless father is able to show that jurisdiction was improper under each of the counts found true by the juvenile court, his claim the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction must fail on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur:CROSKEY, J., ALDRICH, J.
Pursuant to section 301, when a social worker “determines that a child is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court... the social worker may, in lieu of filing a petition or subsequent to dismissal of a petition already filed, and with consent of the child’s parent or guardian, undertake a program of supervision of the child... to ameliorate the situation which brings the child within, or creates the probability that the child will be within, the jurisdiction of Section 300 by providing or arranging to contract for all appropriate child welfare services....” (§ 301.)
“(b) 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 or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child,... or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s... substance abuse.... ”