Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. NJ13588 Harry Elias, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
Nina G. and Joshua D. (together the parents) appeal orders declaring their minor children Anthony C., Xavier D., Jonathan D., Keanu D. and Christian D. (collectively the minors) dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removing the minors from parental custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional orders which were based on findings of domestic violence and unsanitary conditions in the home. We affirm the orders.
Joshua is the biological father of all the minors except Anthony.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2006 seven-year-old Anthony telephoned the police to report he was afraid because the parents had been fighting. When the police arrived, Joshua was not there. Nina had a swollen face and scratches, and complained of head pain. The police reported the apartment was a mess. Nina declined to get a temporary restraining order.
Joshua was back in the home when the social worker visited the next day. Nina admitted there had been domestic violence. She said Anthony witnessed the incident and the other children heard the fighting. Nina allowed Joshua to return because it was cold outside and he had nowhere to go, and because Joshua hurt her, not the minors. Joshua left the home when the social worker called the police.
An inspection revealed there was some food in the home, including a turkey and corn. The two bedrooms contained three mattresses, none of which had sheets. The bedrooms were cluttered with dirty clothes which smelled of urine, including a stack in a closet piled five feet high. The bedroom door had numerous holes that appeared to have been made by punching and kicking. The walls were dirty and had peeling paint. The floors were filthy, greasy and sticky, and there were live and dead cockroaches in the kitchen. The sink was full of old food and the kitchen counters were dirty and cluttered. The apartment smelled of marijuana and Nina admitted Joshua smoked marijuana in the home. Nina claimed the apartment was in this condition when the family moved in several months earlier. However, the landlord told the social worker he had made thousands of dollars in improvements to the apartment before the family moved in, and the parents failed to move out despite being evicted. The landlord and his wife were afraid of the parents.
In an interview with the social worker, Anthony described the recent fight between the parents. He said Joshua smoked cigarettes and "weed," and the smoking made baby Christian sick. Because Nina worked, Anthony was the caregiver for four-year-old Xavier, two-year-old Jonathan, one-year-old Keanu, and three-month-old Christian. Anthony also cooked for them. Anthony was afraid of Joshua, stating Joshua "whoops" him with a belt.
In an interview from jail, Joshua told the social worker he fought with Nina because she accused him of taking her money. When Nina spit in his face, he threw water in her face, grabbed her by the hair and threw her down. He left when Anthony called the police. Joshua admitted he did not help Nina clean the apartment, and agreed the home was not healthy for the minors. He also admitted he smoked marijuana in the home and knew Anthony was aware he used drugs.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed petitions in the juvenile court on behalf of the minors under section 300, subdivision (b). Count 1 alleged the minors' home was unsuitable because it was filthy, unsanitary and in a state of severe disrepair. Count 2 alleged the minors were exposed to domestic violence between the parents. At a contested jurisdiction hearing, the court sustained the allegations of the petitions by clear and convincing evidence. The parents submitted on Agency's recommendations for disposition. The court removed the minors from their parents' custody, placed them in out-of-home care and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services.
DISCUSSION
The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings. They assert the minors were not at substantial risk of harm because the condition of the home was not dangerous and the parents' violent altercation was an isolated incident.
A
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order and affirm the order even if there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53; In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610.) The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
B
Section 300, subdivision (b) provides a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent's failure to adequately supervise or protect the child or provide adequate medical treatment. In enacting section 300, the Legislature intended to protect children who are currently being abused or neglected, "and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm." (§ 300.2; emphasis added.) The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194-196; In re Michael S. (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 348, 357-358.) The focus of section 300 is to avert harm to the child. (In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536.)
C
Here, the evidence supports the court's findings the parents failed to provide the minors with a suitable home. The apartment was cluttered with dirty clothes, which smelled of urine, including some piled five feet high. Sleeping arrangements for this family of seven consisted of three mattresses, without sheets or blankets, on filthy floors. The bathroom and kitchen floors were sticky and caked with dirt. Paint was peeling off the walls, and the kitchen had old food in the sink, dirty counters and cockroaches, creating health hazards and unsanitary conditions for these young children. This was not simply a "messy" home, but rather one showing real neglect. (Cf. In re Paul E. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 996, 1005.)
Further, Joshua admitted the home was not a healthy environment for the minors. He admittedly smoked marijuana in the house, and knew Anthony was aware of his drug use. Although the weather was cold, four of the minors were wearing bathing suits, and no shirts or shoes. Xavier was assessed as having mild mental retardation, vision problems and severe tooth decay. Jonathan had possible speech delays. Only three-month-old Christian was current with immunizations. Anthony, who was the primary caregiver for his siblings, was afraid of Joshua and reported Joshua hits him with a belt. Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably find the minors were not well cared for in the home. Substantial evidence supports the court's findings under section 300, subdivision (b) on count 1.
D
Substantial evidence also supports the court's findings the minors were at risk because of domestic violence between the parents as alleged in count 2. During a fight about money, the parents engaged in mutual combat. Joshua grabbed Nina by the hair, threw her against a wall and punched her in the face. Nina had scratches, a swollen face, and pain in her head from the altercation. Joshua broke a VCR by throwing it out the door. Anthony witnessed the violence and the other minors heard it. Anthony became so frightened that he called the police. Although the parents claim this was an isolated incident of domestic violence not likely to continue, the court could reasonably find otherwise. There were numerous holes in the bedroom door that appeared to have been caused by kicking or punching, and Joshua hit Anthony with a belt, causing Anthony to be afraid of him. From this, the court could reasonably infer there was ongoing violence in the home.
Moreover, Nina refused to obtain a restraining order and allowed Joshua to return home, further exposing the minors to a risk of harm. She did not understand the seriousness of the incident, claiming the minors were not hurt by Joshua's violence. However, domestic violence in a minor's home constitutes neglect in that it is a failure to protect the 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., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 194; see also In re Sylvia R. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 559, 562 [children suffer secondary abuse from witnessing violent confrontations]; In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [minors were at substantial risk of serious harm due to violent confrontations in family home]; In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, fn. 5 [common sense and expert opinion indicate domestic violence is detrimental to children].) Even if children are not the ones being physically hurt, domestic violence impacts them "because they see and hear the violence and the screaming." (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 192; see also In re Jon N. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 156, 161.)
E
It was reasonable for the court to infer from the parents' having an unsanitary home, neglecting the needs of the minors and engaging in domestic violence in the minors' presence that the minors were at risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness. Under these circumstances, the court was entitled to intervene to prevent further harm. Substantial evidence supports the court's jurisdictional findings. (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 194-196.)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., McINTYRE, J.