Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J516496A-B, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge.
NARES, Acting P. J.
Hector L. and Patricia C. (together, the parents) appeal an order continuing juvenile court jurisdiction of their minor children Leslie L. and Hector L., Jr., (together, the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (c). The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding its continued supervision was necessary to protect the minors. We affirm the order.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2006 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (a), alleging four-month-old Hector, Jr., had numerous fractures, which were inflicted nonaccidentally, and those injuries would not have occurred unless they were the result of unreasonable acts by the parents. Agency also filed a petition on behalf of 22-month-old Leslie under section 300, subdivision (j), alleging she was at substantial risk of serious physical harm in light of the injuries sustained by Hector, Jr.
According to a detention report, Hector, Jr., had fractures in his arm and leg that were recently inflicted. He also had older healing rib fractures. Neither parent knew how Hector, Jr., was injured. Patricia said she was Hector, Jr.'s, primary caregiver, although relatives had been assisting in his care. Hector had a history of substance abuse, including methamphetamine, but he had not used drugs for three months. The court detained the minors in out-of-home care and ordered supervised visits for the parents.
In February 2007 the court sustained the allegations of the petitions, declared the minors dependents and removed them from parental custody. The court ordered the parents to comply with their case plans.
During the next six months, the parents had psychological evaluations and regularly participated in services. They were employed and consistently visited the minors. A physical examination showed Hector, Jr., had good bone structure and no calcium deficiency. He tended to tremble suddenly, as if in fear, and woke up screaming several times a night. Leslie had behavior problems and also woke up screaming in the night. She clung to her foster caregiver, to whom she went for approval and reinforcement during visits with the parents. At a six-month review hearing, the court continued the minors as dependents placed in foster care.
According to a 12-month review report, the parents were beginning to take some responsibility for Hector, Jr.'s, injuries. Patricia admitted Hector, Jr.'s, injuries could have occurred at the time she left the minors with relatives and friends when she was depressed. She said she would supervise the minors more carefully in the future. The parents continued to participate in therapy and were having regular unsupervised visits with the minors. Patricia's therapist reported Patricia had made progress and understood the importance of providing a safe and healthy environment for her children. The therapist recommended reunification for the family. However, because of the nature of Hector, Jr.'s, injuries and the minors' young ages, the social worker continued to assess the case as one of high risk and therefore recommended six more months of services.
At a contested 12-month hearing in February 2008, the court found returning the minors to parental custody would be detrimental to them, but there was a substantial probability of return within the next six months. The court ordered further services and allowed the parents to have unsupervised overnight visits with the minors. In April 2008 the court authorized a 60-day trial visit.
In a review report for the 18-month hearing, social worker Gerald Attia recommended placing the minors with the parents, with family maintenance services. Attia noted the parents had been providing good care for the minors for the past two months. The minors had adjusted well to being home. Although Attia was no longer concerned about the minors' safety, he recommended six more months of family maintenance services because the minors were young and vulnerable, and no credible explanation had been provided for Hector, Jr.'s, multiple injuries. In June 2008 the court placed the minors with the parents and set a family maintenance review hearing in six months.
During the next several months, Attia visited the family and found the home was clean and tidy, and the minors were receiving good care. The parents had complied with all case plan requirements. In October 2008 the parents took Hector, Jr., to a local clinic when he became lethargic and had two seizures. Hector, Jr., had to be transported by ambulance to an emergency room, where he received a diagnosis of seizure and hyponatremia. The parents had given Hector, Jr., large amounts of water because he appeared very thirsty. This caused his blood sodium level to drop, resulting in seizures. The parents were counseled that in the future, they should call 911 instead of transporting a sick child themselves. Patricia agreed to participate in a nutrition class and to continue receiving services from a public health nurse.
In a status review report, Attia recommended six more months of family maintenance services. Attia noted the case had been in the system for almost two years, and the parents had never been able to explain the cause of Hector, Jr.'s, bone fractures. Attia doubted any explanation would be forthcoming, but praised the parents for taking some responsibility and learning to be more protective of their children. Despite the parents' progress, Attia believed the minors were still at risk. He stated the parents needed and would benefit from further services in light of Hector, Jr.'s, recent hospitalization, which showed the parents did not know about proper hydration for children or the importance of calling 911 to get medical attention.
At a contested family maintenance review hearing in December 2008, Attia testified the parents had fully participated in services and had benefited from them. The minors were happy living with the parents. Attia had no concerns about the minors' care and believed the parents would be able to protect the minors in the future. Both parents had a safety plan in place. Patricia made progress by exploring her role as a parent and taking responsibility for leaving the minors with relatives when she became depressed. Attia still hoped the parents would acknowledge how Hector, Jr.'s, injuries occurred. He noted that if the court retained jurisdiction, Agency would be able to monitor the case by making announced and unannounced visits in order to assess any further risk to the minors. Agency's involvement would allow the situation to continue to stabilize. Without a disclosure as to how Hector, Jr.'s, injuries occurred, Attia assessed the current risk to the minors as "low to medium."
After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions still existed to justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction, or those conditions were likely to exist if supervision were withdrawn. The court continued the minors as dependents placed in parental care, and set a review hearing in six months.
DISCUSSION
The parents contend no substantial evidence supports the court's finding the conditions that led to the initial assumption of jurisdiction still existed to make continued jurisdiction necessary. They assert the court improperly relied on conjecture, speculation and the lack of an explanation for Hector, Jr.'s, injuries to support its finding the minors would be at risk without court supervision.
A
Section 364 provides for review hearings at least every six months when a dependent child is not removed from the physical custody of the parent. (§ 364, subd. (a).) Section 364 hearings focus on whether continued supervision by the juvenile court is necessary. (In re Natasha A. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 28, 36.) "The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn." (§ 364, subd. (c).) "By its very terms section 364 limits the court's inquiry to whether the conditions for continuing supervision exist." (In re Elaine E. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 809, 814.) If the court continues dependency jurisdiction, it must set a further review hearing within six months. (§ 364, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.710(e)(2).) This review process is repeated until the court terminates jurisdiction. (§ 364, subd. (d); rule 5.710(a)(2).)
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
When reviewing an order under section 364, "we look to the entire record for substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court." (In re N.S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172.) We do not consider the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence or attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings and view the record favorably to the juvenile court's order. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.) The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
B
Here, the evidence showed the court initially assumed jurisdiction under section 300, because Hector, Jr., had multiple broken bones from inflicted trauma. The injuries were at various stages of healing, indicating there was more than one episode of abuse. Although the parents had completed services and benefited from them, they had not fully addressed the cause of Hector, Jr.'s, injuries. Because there has never been an explanation for these acts of violence, the court could reasonably find the conditions that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction would exist if supervision were withdrawn.
Patricia's therapeutic progress consisted of exploring her role as a parent and acknowledging she should not have left the minors with relatives when she became depressed. However, the court believed this was insufficient to show the protective issues had been adequately addressed.
We agree there is no legal requirement that the parents identify a perpetrator before jurisdiction can be terminated. However, the court did not retain jurisdiction based solely on the parents' failure to identify who inflicted Hector, Jr.'s, injuries. The court could not reasonably ignore the serious nature of the injuries—multiple fractured bones at various stages of healing—and the lack of any explanation for them. As the court noted, regardless of who perpetrated the abuse, primary responsibility for the minors' safety and well-being remained with the parents. Further, Hector, Jr.'s, recent hospitalization showed the parents could benefit from more services. The minors, who were particularly vulnerable at two and four years old, needed to be monitored for six more months in order to assess any further risk and allow continued stabilization of the family. In this regard, the court could properly exercise its authority to make an order that protects the safety and well-being of the minors while they are living in the family home. (See Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 309.) Substantial evidence supports the court's order continuing its supervision.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, J. O'ROURKE, J.