Opinion
F073805
01-11-2017
In re D.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MARIPOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV2513)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Mariposa County. F. Dana Walton, Judge. Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Ronald M. is the father of now 15-year-old D.N. The juvenile court found that D.N. is a child described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) (serious physical harm) following a contested jurisdictional hearing and, at the dispositional hearing, removed him from parental custody and ordered reunification services for Ronald. Ronald challenges the jurisdictional finding on direct appeal from the juvenile court's dispositional order. We dismiss his appeal pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In November 2015, a sheriff's deputy responded to a report of a fight at Ronald's home. Ronald (father) stated that D.N., then 14, came home late and lied, stating that Robin, father's girlfriend, told him he could stay out late. Father attempted to discipline D.N. by striking him but D.N. struck back, punched the dog and ran away from the house.
Social worker Heidi Huffman interviewed D.N. at the hospital emergency room. D.N. said his father held him down with his foot on his neck while Robin hit him with the belt. D.N. felt three hits, one of which was to the scrotum. He said the dog bit him on the right shoulder. When he moved to push the dog away, his father hit him in the right jaw with a closed fist. Father told Huffman that he slapped D.N. in the face but did not punch him in the face and the only thing that D.N. understood was physical punishment.
The Mariposa County Department of Human Services (department) filed a dependency petition on D.N.'s behalf under section 300, subdivision (a) (serious physical harm) and placed him in foster care. The juvenile court ordered D.N. detained pursuant to the petition and ordered the department to offer father parenting classes, family counseling and supervised visitation.
The department reported that father and Robin had a history of using corporal punishment to discipline D.N. and that father was arrested and booked in 2013 for child abuse and corporal injury to a child. He entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and the charges were dropped in 2014.
In March 2016, the juvenile court conducted a contested jurisdictional hearing. Huffman testified D.N. sustained multiple scratches on his arms, a red mark on his neck, a bruise on his right jaw, a bump on the left side of his face and a small abrasion on his right shoulder. She said he had behavioral problems and was defiant to authority.
Father testified he had had custody of D.N. all of D.N.'s life except for a brief period. He said he had only disciplined D.N. by physical force five times. On the night of the incident, father forced D.N. to the ground twice, the first time as D.N. was trying to leave the house and the second when D.N. was lying on his bed. He also hit D.N. six times with a belt and slapped him after D.N. bit him. He said he held D.N. down with his arm, not his foot, and that the mark on D.N.'s neck was from his fingernails. Father said D.N. was a disciplinary problem at school and his out-of-control behavior required the sheriff's department to get involved on multiple occasions.
The paternal grandmother testified D.N. lived with her for two and one-half years. During that time, she witnessed him attempt to injure himself by throwing his head against the wall and biting his hand. D.N. had also wrestled with her and slapped her a couple of times.
D.N. testified father may have slapped rather than punched him. He said father was a very honest man and that his testimony was truthful. He admitted having a problem with authority. He did not remember if father put his foot on his neck and was not sure whether Robin struck his scrotum.
The juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true and adjudged D.N. a dependent child under section 300, subdivision (a). The court believed that father intended to discipline D.N. but that the situation spun out of control.
In April 2016, the juvenile court conducted the dispositional hearing. The department's recommendation was to remove D.N. from father's custody, place him with his paternal grandmother and provide father reunification services. Father's attorney advised the court that father wanted D.N. returned to his custody and wanted to re-litigate the jurisdictional hearing. When the court declined to do either, father argued with the court and left the courtroom. The court adopted the department's recommended orders and stated, "[T]his court sees [the way in which father] deals with difficult issues, and I can see very clearly that it is in the best interests of this young man not to be living with his father."
DISCUSSION
After father filed his notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Appellate counsel examined the entire record on appeal and then advised this court in writing that there are no arguable issues. (See Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 845 ["[c]ounsel appointed to represent an indigent parent on appeal from a ruling affecting parental rights does not have an obligation to challenge the judgment if there is no colorable basis for such a challenge."].) Appellate counsel advised father of his evaluation of the record, provided him with a copy of the appellate record and advised him this court may grant him permission to personally file a brief on his own behalf. We granted father leave to file with this court a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable legal issue does, in fact, exist. (Id. at p. 844 [if appointed counsel files a brief raising no issues on behalf of an indigent parent in a dependency action, the appellate court has discretion to permit the parent to personally file a brief].)
Father filed an eight-page handwritten letter effectively challenging the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding. He does so by refuting the allegations in the dependency petition, characterizing them as "false statements" and "lies." For example, he denies punching D.N. and denies D.N. sustained a bruise and a dog bite. Father further denies using corporal injury on a regular basis or that the situation got out of hand. Instead, he claims he was exercising "controlled discipline." He contends he followed the law but the court and the department did not. Instead, "they made up their own."
Father's letter does not identify any legally cognizable error in the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding. Instead, he asks this court to reweigh the evidence which we do not do. (See In re Jordan R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 111, 135 [in determining whether jurisdictional finding is supported by substantial evidence, appellate court "do[es] not reweigh the evidence, ...."].) Because father has not asserted substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (a), his letter fails to show good cause that an arguable issue exists. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.