Opinion
B326906
03-29-2024
In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.C., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 22CCJP01945 Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WEINGART, J.
D.C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's assertion of jurisdiction over her daughter A.C. (born 2008). At the jurisdiction hearing, the court sustained counts in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging Mother physically and emotionally abused A.C. (§ 300, subds. (a) and (c)) and failed to protect A.C. from abuse by other family members (id., subd. (b)(1)). A.C.'s father, Joshua W. (Father), was nonoffending, submitted to dependency jurisdiction, and is not a party to this appeal.
The dependency proceedings also involved A.C.'s siblings; we reference them only to the extent necessary to provide context to the facts involving A.C.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
During the pendency of Mother's appeal, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over A.C. and returned her to Mother's custody. Although Mother's appeal is moot, we exercise our discretion to consider its merits at least in part and find that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction. We therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We limit our summary of the factual and procedural background to what is necessary to adjudicate this appeal.
A. Prior Child Welfare History
In 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral of general neglect after Mother refused to provide her home address and other ordinary information to hospital staff after giving birth to one of A.C.'s siblings, admitted to marijuana use, and had tested positive for marijuana at a prior birth. The matter was closed as inconclusive for lack of contact as Mother claimed she now resided in Indiana and otherwise was uncooperative with DCFS during the investigation.
In 2014, DCFS found inconclusive a referral of general neglect stating Mother smoked marijuana in front of A.C. and her siblings and failed to protect one of the children from physical assaults by another. Mother had a criminal history from 2014 to 2020 for being a fugitive from justice, getting credit in another's name, possession of bad checks, forgery, possession of a driver's license in another's name, obtaining credit in another's name, and drug sales. In 2020, DCFS found inconclusive an allegation of general neglect based on Mother's drug use.
At all times relevant to this appeal, Father was incarcerated. A.C. lived in Indiana most of her life with her stepmother or paternal relatives and not Mother. While in the care of the paternal relatives, A.C. was sexually molested from the ages of six until 10 by a paternal relative. A.C. did not disclose this abuse to anyone and told DCFS she did not want to talk about it further. A.C. also stated paternal great-grandmother was emotionally abusive, doing things such as locking A.C. in a closet.
In 2020, Mother came to Indiana to pick up A.C. and her siblings and moved them to California to live with Mother.
B. Facts Leading to the Filing of the Instant Dependency Petition
1. May 16, 2022 Altercation
On May 17, 2022, DCFS received a referral alleging that the previous day A.C. was physically abused by Mother, Mother's male companion Ramone S., and maternal aunt. When interviewed soon after the incident, A.C. told police that Mother choked A.C. and scratched A.C.'s neck after Mother felt A.C. was disrespectful. A.C. tried to leave the house, and the adults held A.C. down to stop her from leaving. During the incident, maternal aunt and Ramone punched A.C. with fists to the head. A.C. reported that she may have lost consciousness but was not sure.
A.C. elaborated in later interviews that Mother allowed A.C.'s 16-year-old female friend to move in with them after that friend ran away from home. Ramone saw A.C. and her friend kissing and called Mother, which led A.C's older sibling J.C. or Ramone ordering the friend to leave the house. Mother knew A.C.'s sexual orientation. Some record evidence indicates it did not bother Mother, but she did not want A.C. to display it in Mother's home. Other evidence indicated Mother told A.C. she was going to hell for liking girls. Mother informed DCFS she told A.C. that she "was not having that mess in my house," meaning A.C. "laying up with anyone" because A.C. was still a child and her girlfriend was older than A.C.
When A.C.'s girlfriend was ordered out of the home, A.C. left along with her. The maternal aunt drove after them and told A.C. to get in the car. A.C. said that when she refused, maternal aunt put A.C. in a chokehold and pushed A.C. into the car. Maternal aunt kept A.C. pinned inside the car while Ramone drove them home. While in the car, maternal aunt pulled A.C.'s hair and punched A.C. in the head. Once A.C. was back home, J.C. put A.C. in a chokehold. A.C. responded by trying to fight back, at which point Mother, Ramone, maternal aunt, and J.C. physically assaulted A.C. A.C. heard Mother telling everyone to hit A.C. more. Mother either choked A.C. with her hands or put her knee on A.C.'s neck until A.C. passed out. A.C. said she was face down and unable to clearly see who was doing what. When A.C. regained consciousness, she tried to stand up and was thrown again to the ground. A.C. was pinned down in a prostrate position (this time by J.C. and Ramone) until she foamed at the mouth. A.C. was not released until maternal grandmother arrived.
Mother called the police during the May 16, 2022 incident. After police responded, they interviewed the family. A.C. did not report any physical abuse when initially speaking with the police. A.C. said she was trying to leave the home and the adults held her down to stop her. A.C. told DCFS she did not report abuse to the police right after the incident because she was in shock. Responding officers noted bruises on A.C.'s hip and back, and a scratch on her neck. A medical examination on May 18, 2022 also showed A.C. had bodily bruising and abrasions.
Mother said A.C. was lying about what happened and pointed to A.C.'s failure to inform responding officers of any abuse. Mother said Ramone was not her boyfriend and did not live with her but was at the home daily helping her with the children. Mother said A.C. was the only person hitting anyone during the May 16, 2022 incident. When lashing out at family members, A.C. fell and Mother sat on top of A.C. to keep her from hitting anyone. Mother asked responding officers for mental health services for A.C., but officers did not offer any because A.C. had not threatened anyone.
Maternal grandmother, maternal aunt, Ramone, and J.C. generally corroborated Mother's account of what occurred on May 16, 2022. J.C. did say that maternal aunt placed A.C. in a chokehold but said she believed the aunt did so to calm A.C. down. Maternal aunt said J.C. told her that A.C. made false allegations against paternal relatives in Indiana when A.C. did not get her way. J.C. told DCFS that J.C. and A.C. "are seen as the defiant teenagers not wanting to listen to their mom" but said, "That is not the case." Mother said negative things to both J.C. and A.C. that were harmful, and J.C. herself did not want to live with Mother. A.C. likewise described her relationship with Mother in negative terms, and said she resented Mother for her lack of presence when A.C. and her siblings were growing up.
2. A.C.'s Suicide Attempts
Later on May 16, 2022, after the police left, A.C. attempted suicide by swallowing a bottle of pills. A.C. initially stated that after ingesting the pills and falling asleep, A.C. woke up and vomited. A.C. later stated maternal grandmother walked into the bathroom, saw A.C. swallowing pills, and put two fingers in A.C.'s mouth to get her to vomit. Maternal aunt and Mother's description of what occurred largely matched A.C.'s later account. Mother called 911 but said 911 would not send an ambulance because A.C. was refusing medical treatment. A.C. told DCFS she also attempted suicide in 2017 by trying to hang herself. A.C. did not tell any family members about the prior suicide attempt.
3. Previous Altercations
A.C. said that Mother occasionally hit A.C. with her hands. Mother admitted that in the summer of 2021 she "popped" A.C. three times in the mouth. Both A.C. and Mother stated the 2021 incident began when A.C. yelled at Mother to complain about her siblings' behavior. Mother said A.C. was being disrespectful; after A.C. pointed a finger in Mother's face, Mother "popped" her. A.C. responded by punching Mother in the chest. A.C.'s recollection of this event was similar to that of Mother, although A.C. described Mother as slapping A.C. on the mouth with an open hand.
C. DCFS Files a Section 300 Petition, and the Juvenile Court Asserts Jurisdiction over A.C.
On May 19, 2022, DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), and (j). The petition alleged that Mother physically abused A.C. (§ 300, subds. (a) and (j).) The petition also alleged that Mother failed to protect A.C. from physical abuse by other family members. (Id., subd. (b)(1).) Finally, the petition alleged that Mother emotionally abused A.C. by physically abusing the child which in turn caused suicidal ideation. (Id., subd. (c).) The juvenile court detained A.C. from her parents. The court ordered family reunification services along with monitored visitation for Mother.
On August 31, 2022, A.C. failed to return to her caregivers' home and remained missing. The juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant, and A.C. was eventually located in December 2022.
On January 13, 2023, A.C. was arrested on robbery and criminal threat related charges.
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on February 2, 2023. The juvenile court sustained the petition as interlineated as to Mother under section 300, subdivision (a) for physical abuse, under subdivision (b)(1) for failing to protect A.C. from physical abuse by other family members, and under subdivision (c) for emotional abuse. The court dismissed the section 300, subdivision (j) count. As for disposition, the court ordered the minor removed from Father and released to the home of Mother with family maintenance services. The court ordered a case plan for Mother that included anger management and conjoint counseling with A.C.
D. Post-jurisdiction Hearing Events
At a July 28, 2023 section 364 review hearing, Mother was found to be in compliance with her case plan. The juvenile court ordered A.C. was to remain a dependent over the objection of counsel for both A.C. and Mother.
We sua sponte augment the record to include the minute orders from the hearings on July 28, 2023, December 1, 2023, and January 12, 2024, and the January 12, 2024 juvenile judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
On January 12, 2024, the juvenile court granted Mother sole legal and physical custody of A.C. and ordered dependency jurisdiction terminated.
DISCUSSION
A. Mootness and Discretionary Review
In light of the exit order awarding Mother sole custody and the termination of dependency jurisdiction, we asked the parties whether Mother's appeal is moot. Both Mother and DCFS agree that it is. Mother argues we nevertheless should exercise our discretion to consider her appeal on the merits. DCFS does not take a position on the discretionary review question, asserting only that this court "may conclude that discretionary review of Mother's appeal is not warranted."
Where a dependency appeal is moot, "[an appellate] court has discretion to decide the merits" of that moot appeal. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.) Our Supreme Court laid out in In re D.P. a non-exhaustive list of factors for assessing "whether a court should exercise discretionary review of a moot appeal." (Id. at p. 286.) Specifically, courts may consider (1) "whether the challenged jurisdictional finding 'could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings,' or' "could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction"' "; (2) "whether the jurisdictional finding is based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct"; and (3) "why the appeal became moot." (Id. at pp. 285-286.)
Tracking these factors, Mother argues that we should exercise our discretion to review her appeal because the challenged jurisdictional findings might prejudice Mother in any future dependency or family law proceedings, are based on serious conduct, and because dependency jurisdiction was terminated due to Mother's compliance with her case plan. After considering the applicable factors, we exercise our discretion to consider Mother's appeal on the merits at least in part. As explained below, we find it necessary to address only the jurisdictional allegations based on physical abuse. Substantial evidence supported the allegations of physical abuse, which were at the core of why the court exercised jurisdiction, and those findings were sufficient in themselves to support dependency jurisdiction.
B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court's Assertion of Jurisdiction
1. Standard of Review
"' "We review the [dependency court's] jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. [Citation.] We consider the entire record, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court's findings and affirming the order even if other evidence supports a different finding. [Citation.] We do not consider the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence." [Citation.] "The parent has the burden on appeal of showing there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order."' [Citation.]" (In re M.D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 836, 851.)
2. Evidence Regarding Mother's Physical Abuse
Mother does not deny having hit A.C. She instead argues (1) the May 16, 2022 incident involved reasonable parental discipline and self-defense, not physical abuse, and (2) the 2021 incident in which Mother "popped" A.C. in the mouth was isolated and remote in time. Mother also asserts she posed no ongoing risk to A.C. at the time of the jurisdiction hearing because Mother was attending anger management and parenting classes, and there were no reported incidents of physical abuse after A.C. was released to Mother for extended visitation starting in January 2023.
Section 300, subdivision (a) authorizes dependency jurisdiction over "a child [who] 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 . . . . [A] court may find there is a substantial risk of serious future injury based on the manner in which a less serious injury was inflicted, a history of repeated inflictions of injuries on the child or the child's siblings, or a combination of these and other actions by the parent . . . that indicate the child is at risk of serious physical harm." (§ 300, subd. (a).)
Mother notes that" 'serious physical harm' does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks if there is no evidence of serious physical injury." (§ 300, subd. (a).) But Mother is not alleged to have spanked A.C. on the buttocks. Instead, substantial evidence showed that Mother hit A.C. in the head three times when Mother felt disrespected, and then later suffocated A.C. to the point of unconsciousness in a group assault that left A.C. with bruises and abrasions. Moreover, Mother not only failed to protect A.C. from a physical assault by other relatives on May 16, 2022, she urged other family members and Ramone to join in the assault and hit A.C. more.
Mother argues A.C.'s version of what occurred on May 16, 2022 is not consistent or credible. But as explained above we do not consider the credibility of witnesses when reviewing for substantial evidence (In re M.D., supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at p. 851) and "[e]vidence from a single witness, even a party, can be sufficient to support the trial court's findings" (In re Alexis E. (2009) 1171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451).
Mother also argues her actions were isolated, remote in time, and unlikely to recur. But evidence of a single incident of serious physical harm to a child can be sufficient for the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction. (In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438.) Here, Mother's violence was escalating in seriousness, going from hitting A.C.'s head to a group assault in which Mother encouraged others to hit A.C. and strangled the minor until she was unconscious. Although Mother was taking steps to address anger management concerns and learn appropriate parental discipline, and several months had passed before the jurisdiction hearing without further incident, given the seriousness of the May 16, 2022 incident the juvenile court did not err in asserting jurisdiction over A.C. under section 300, subdivision (a). While section 300, subdivision (b)(4) permits dependency jurisdiction "only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness," subdivision (a) does not contain similar language. Thus, in a case such as this one, proof "that a child has suffered serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by a parent . . . is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (a)." (In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1644.)
3. The Failure to Protect and Emotional Abuse
Allegations
" '[W]hen a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court's jurisdiction, 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.'" (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 328-329, quoting In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451.)
As we find substantial evidence that Mother's physical abuse of A.C. supported the exercise of dependency jurisdiction, we need not address whether Mother failed to protect A.C. from the risk of abuse from other family members or emotionally abused A.C. by contributing to the child's suicidal ideation. The failure to protect and emotional abuse allegations are closely related to the May 16, 2022 incident, such that they carry no independent stigma and present no additional concerns that warrant review. Because we affirm the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction, we need not reach every single ground on which that jurisdiction was based. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283-284; In re Madison S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 329.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdiction order is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, P. J. CHANEY, J.