Opinion
D079651
04-06-2022
In re SEBASTIAN M., et al., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. N.G. Defendant and Appellant. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Emily Harlan, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J520714 Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Emily Harlan, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
DATO, J.
N.G. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's orders at a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing declaring her now six-year-old son, Sebastian M., a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), and removing him from her custody. The hearing focused on allegations that Mother physically abused Sebastian. She argues the court violated her right to due process by limiting her time to present her case. We conclude, however, that the court acted within its broad discretion to control the proceedings and did not violate Mother's due process rights. Accordingly, we affirm the orders.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless noted. Sebastian's father, CM. (Father), is not a party to this appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Events Leading to Dependency Petition
Sebastian was born in September 2015. Mother and Father's relationship ended when he was a baby, and they shared custody. Mother was married to H.B., and had two other children: a teenage boy, A.S. and a preteen girl, Ella A. Father had five other children: a teenage daughter, Valerie G., and four adult children.
Between late February 2021 and April 2021, Sebastian sustained multiple injuries: an injury to his buttocks on February 23; an abrasion and bruise to his lip noticed on March 3; arm bruising noticed on March 17; and ear bruising noticed on April 5. We summarize the events surrounding these injuries.
On March 3, Father took Sebastian to Rady's Children's Hospital for the lip injury, and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) received a report of physical abuse by Mother based on the lip and buttock injuries. Dr. Shalon Nienow, a child abuse expert at Rady's, provided a telephone consult during the hospital visit. She stated the lip injury was "non-specific in that [it] could be the result of either accidental or inflicted injury."
Social worker Maria Mosqueda spoke with Sebastian, Father, and Mother. When asked about his lip, Sebastian said Mother "hit him on the mouth with the 'chancla/sandal' because he took Ella's tablet," his mouth bled, and Mother put water on it. Father said Sebastian told Valerie about the incident, and she asked him to repeat it and recorded him. Father then took Sebastian to Rady's, where he said Ella hit him. As for Mother, she denied hitting Sebastian with her sandal. She saw the redness on his lip, but said it was from "fidgeting" and noted he previously burned his mouth blowing out a candle at Father's home. She explained that the buttock injury happened when he slipped and fell in the bathtub.
Chancla is a Spanish word for sandal.
On March 19, the Agency received another abuse report, after Father brought Sebastian to Rady's on March 18 due to arm bruising. Dr. Premi Suresh, another Rady's child abuse expert, provided a telephone consult. She said the injuries appeared "consistent with an inflicted injury based on their pattern," namely "grab marks."
Social worker Jazmin Sandoval talked to Sebastian and the parents. He did not know how he got the arm bruises, but did state Mother "hits him with a '[c]hancla.'" Father noticed the bruises on March 17, took Sebastian to the hospital after work on March 18, and filed a police report for suspected child abuse. Mother denied physical discipline and said Sebastian had no bruises when she dropped him off on March 17. On the buttock injury, she said he was standing on a ledge when he fell and hit the shower knob. She also provided photographs of injuries between September 2019 and February 2021. A September 2020 photograph showed bruising on Sebastian's upper left arm.
In late March, Sebastian was interviewed twice at Rady's with a police detective present. He was asked how Mother disciplined him, and said she hits him with her chancla. For Father, he made a gesture that looked like a flick. At the second interview, when asked about Mother hitting him with her chancla, he said "Do not tell my mom that; do not tell her that at all" and that Mother told him, "Do not tell people that I hit you with a chancla." By this time, both parents agreed to safety plans that required supervision.
On April 7, Sandoval and social work supervisor Luis Nunez spoke with Mother, who reported that Sebastian had an ear bruise when she picked him up on April 5. Father said Sebastian had been playing on a trampoline for a few days, and Sebastian did not know how he got the bruises. Dr. Nienow reviewed pictures of the bruise, and said it was inflicted, it was not caused by the trampoline, and she could not rule out either parent based on the custody schedule. Two days later, Sebastian told Sandoval that Mother hit him with her chancla the previous day.
On April 12, Dr. Nienow provided a paper consult. She said Sebastian "sustained numerous injuries over time that are diagnostic of repeated acts of physical abuse," but it was difficult to tell where they happened due to the custody schedule and reporting delays. She was concerned about Sebastian's "repeated disclosures that [M]other hits him with a chancla" and "instructs him not to tell anyone about this."
B. Dependency Petition and Detention
On April 16, 2021, the Agency filed a dependency petition alleging Mother subjected Sebastian to physical harm, including "patterned bruising to [his] buttocks" and "[l]aceration and bruising to [his] lip," and that Sebastian said Mother "hits him with a sandal and . . . instructed [him] not to disclose the abuse." The petition further alleged "patterned bruising on both . . . arms," which was "diagnostic of physical abuse," and that Sebastian also suffered patterned bruising on his arm in September 2020. Sandoval filed a detailed detention report, with Rady's hospital records and photographs. The report addressed the recent events, as well as the family's child welfare history and input from witnesses.
The child welfare history included multiple allegations of emotional and/or physical abuse by Mother toward A.S., Ella, and, later, Sebastian. The referrals were inconclusive or unfounded, but certain underlying incidents are relevant. In February 2016, Mother was arrested for domestic violence after she hit Father in the face while he was holding Sebastian and bit his hand when he tried to get in his truck to leave. During a 2018 referral investigation, Mother admitted to slapping A.S. Around that time, Ella said Mother did not hit her, but had "choked her" a "couple of years ago." In May 2020, Mother hit A.S. with a metal rod, which she admitted during an investigation, and he went to live with the maternal grandparents.
There was one substantiated referral in May 2016 against both parents for general neglect after Sebastian sustained an eye injury.
As for the witnesses, A.S. initially denied Mother made him feel bad, but later shared the metal rod incident and said she emotionally abused him. Ella denied physical discipline and said she felt safe at home. Maternal grandmother I.G. said Ella sent her a message while at school that Mother was "mad" and "going to hit her," but a police welfare check found the children were fine and Ella told I.G. it had "been more than a year since [Mother] hit her." I.G. also said Mother was a good mother, but "needs to be patient." She had seen Mother "grab the children by the arm when they were younger." Ella's father, B.A., denied seeing Mother hit the children. Mother's husband, H.B., did not see Mother hit Sebastian.
Maternal aunts and uncles also provided input. Uncle O.G. was not worried about the children being in Mother's care, but acknowledged she hit A.S. "one time." Aunt G.M. denied Mother hit Sebastian, saying he was hyperactive, Father did not know how to deal with him, and Sebastian always returned to Mother with "a bruise." Uncle L.G. denied seeing Mother hit or yell at Sebastian, but said family members talk about how she goes "overboard" with the children, and she verbally abused and hit them in the past. Aunt M.G. said Mother was mean to A.S., and "used to hit and slap" him. F.C., A.S.'s paternal uncle, reported that Mother had hit A.S. and verbally abuses him.
Father's daughter Valerie described her discovery of Sebastian's lip injury and provided the video to the social worker. She also confirmed that she saw the bruising on Sebastian's arm on March 17. Father's adult daughter P.M. and son C.M. denied he used physical discipline, while his adult son AM. described his discipline style as "good" and had no concerns about Sebastian.
Other witnesses included the police detective who was present at the Rady interviews. Although he did not know for sure, he believed Mother was the dominant aggressor, stating she "hit him with a shoe" and it "seem[ed] the dad was only flicking him." Sebastian's teacher denied any worries, stating she saw a "little mark under his lip" and "did not think much of it. . . ." Meg Rogers said she was the "therapist in Sebastian's classroom . . . not [his] individual therapist." Father asked for advice after the lip injury, and she advised him to get Sebastian into private therapy. She noted that Sebastian presented with "fantasy behavior and play," and "does not know what is real and not."
Mother complained that Father makes Agency referrals "only when Sebastian gets injured in her home accidentally, but. . . also sends [him] back to her with injuries . . . ." At the detention hearing, Mother's counsel indicated that Mother believed the injuries were occurring in Father's care and, as a result, she was setting the matter for trial. The juvenile court detained Sebastian with Father and granted Mother liberal, supervised visitation.
C. Pretrial Jurisdiction and Disposition Proceedings
Social worker Melanie Hoff provided the jurisdiction and disposition report, which recommended that Sebastian be placed with Father. Mother denied knowing how he got his injuries, saying he was active and that "kids do fall and hurt themselves." She also expressed concern about his surroundings in Father's care and prior abuse by Father's ex-wife. Sebastian reported he "loved living with his father and felt safe."
At the initial jurisdiction and disposition hearing in May 2021, the juvenile court asked Mother's counsel for her time estimate for trial. She anticipated four hours. As for anticipated witnesses, she listed Mother, a medical expert, "the social worker," and "a doctor from Rady's" for cross-examination, whom she believed was Dr. Nienow.
Social worker Hoff provided an addendum report in July 2021. She supervised visits between Mother and Sebastian, as did social workers Kyle Leonard and Ian Davenport. On June 16, the Agency received a referral from Mother, which it investigated. Sebastian denied Father hit him, and again reported that Mother hit him with a chancla, but he did not remember the last time. A school incident report stated that Sebastian had done a cartwheel and bumped his leg, and he and another child "hit each other with a shoe and toy." The Agency closed the referral as unfounded, "as the injuries that [he] did have, happened at school."
An initial pretrial settlement conference was held in July 2021. Mother's counsel reiterated that Mother believed there were persons "around [F]ather's household" causing Sebastian's injuries. She then stated that "because we're in the defensive posture," she had 19 witnesses and they likely needed "three or four days." When the juvenile court said, "let's go through those," counsel addressed her proposed witnesses:
"Social Worker Sandoval did some of the interviews and got statements from different witnesses. And I am going to be cross-examining her about her interviews. ...[¶] Melanie Hoff. Social Worker Leonard. Social worker Ian. The [sic] are two social workers that have been observing visits. Social Worker Luis Nunez. He's a supervisor. I have a lengthy cross-examination for him regarding the preinvestigation that was done on this case. Social Worker [Mosqueda] .... who also did some initial interviews on the case. [¶].... I have Dr. Grogan in my case-in-chief. Cross of Dr. Nienow. Cross of Dr. Suresh. And then I have in my case-in-chief Meg Rogers, who is the minor's therapist at school. ... I would be addressing issues of credibility with [her] ....[¶] Regarding . . . ancillary witnesses, I would be bringing [O.G.], maternal uncle, in my case-in-chief. [G.M.] for cross-examination, maternal aunt. I would be asking for Ella ... in my case-in-chief. Maternal aunt, [M.G.]. Maternal uncle, [F.C.] Maternal grandmother in my case-in-chief, [I.G.]. And then Mother and Father."
The judge responded, "Understood. I don't believe you will need more than a day to present any of that evidence." She then said, "I think we can do this in 12 hours," and that time limits would be provided at the next hearing. Mother's counsel did not object.
Addendum reports in September 2021 reflected that Mother had reported more bruises and marks. The Family Visitation Center (FVC) said she was "constantly looking for injuries." At one point, social worker Davenport, who was a visitation supervisor at FVC, noted red spots on Sebastian's ears, but the school nurse and social worker Hoff did not see anything.
At a continued pretrial conference that month, County counsel noted that Davenport was not a County employee and would have to be subpoenaed. Mother's counsel said she could "get the subpoenas out." She indicated her witness list included "all the names" she identified at the prior hearing, but was unsure "all of them would be able to come." The juvenile court set a six-hour limit for Mother, two hours for the Agency, one hour for Father, and 45 minutes for minor's counsel. Again, Mother's counsel did not object.
D. Contested Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
The contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing commenced on October 1, 2021. Throughout the hearing, the juvenile court advised the parties about the amount of time they had left. County counsel entered the Agency reports into evidence, and then made the social workers and Rady's doctors available for cross-examination; Mother also called her medical expert, Dr. Grogan, and testified herself.
Social worker Kyle Leonard testified about visits she supervised, and said she did not see Mother injure or yell at Sebastian.
Dr. Suresh explained she gave the March 2021 telephone consult on the arm bruising, based on photographs from the urgent care doctor. She confirmed it was a patterned injury consistent with being grabbed, but could not identify how old it was. She also consulted with Dr. Nienow and County counsel about the buttock injury, including examining the physical shower knob. She did not think the explanation that Sebastian fell on the shower knob was plausible.
Dr. Nienow said she provided the March 2021 telephone consult on the lip injury based on photographs, and found it could be accidental or inflicted. She opined the buttock injury was from a hand slap. She said it likely did not result from falling on a shower knob, which would cause amorphous bruising and not be visible nine days later (when the pictures were taken). She opined the April 5 ear injury was highly concerning, as childhood ear injuries were uncommon and typically the result of pinching, pulling, or twisting. Dr. Nienow also testified about prior incidents, including the September 2020 arm marks, which she described as a "pretty classic . . . squeeze mark injury."
Social worker Mosqueda testified about her investigation into the March 3 lip injury referral, and confirmed she found it inconclusive.
Social worker Sandoval testified that she prepared the detention report, and about why she believed Mother perpetrated the physical abuse. Among other things, she stated, "Sebastian was consistent with one thing to multiple people and that was that his Mother hit him with the chancla." She acknowledged Father could not be ruled out for certain injuries.
Dr. Grogan, Mother's expert, had examined photographs of the buttock injury and physical shower knob, and opined the injury was consistent with falling from the edge of the bathtub and striking the knob. He said it was not impossible for a bruise to last nine days, and disagreed the injury was consistent with a slap mark, which would have been wider and more diffuse. He did not opine on the other injuries.
Social worker Melanie Hoff began testifying, but the juvenile court stopped proceedings for the day and provided a time update, telling Mother's counsel she had used five hours and four minutes. Mother's counsel indicated she had not called most of her witnesses. The court "strongly encourage [d]" her to reach stipulated testimony on character witnesses, and she said, "I'm always happy to do stipulated, your honor."
The hearing resumed on October 6. Mother's counsel said the time limit "[was] not going to work out." She explained she tried to "streamline things" and would not call all the witnesses, but still needed more time, including to lay the foundation for exhibits. The juvenile court said, "Let's see how it goes."
Hoff continued testifying. She prepared the jurisdiction report, and had no concerns about Sebastian being in Father's care. She was aware of Mother's concerns about injuries happening in his care, and that there was a family court order barring Sebastian from being around Father's ex-wife. She stated that on two occasions, when she asked Sebastian what happened when he gets in trouble, he said Mother would hit him with a chancla.
The Agency presented stipulated testimony from social work supervisor Nunez that one reason he determined Mother was the perpetrator was Dr. Nienow's opinion that the buttock injury was not caused by a fall.
Mother then took the stand. She maintained Sebastian injured his buttocks when he fell from a bathtub ledge, and showed how the mark could be made using the shower knob and black paint. She also testified that Father returned Sebastian with injuries, violated their custody arrangement by not handing off him at one point, and allowed Sebastian to be in the ex-wife's home in violation of the court order. Her counsel had her authenticate numerous exhibits, including photographs going back to 2019, text messages with Father, and calendars she kept of her custody days. The juvenile court alerted Mother's counsel she had one minute left, and she asked for an extension. The court denied the request, stating, "A lot of the documents that you're introducing are already referenced throughout the reports. We already have a lot of information about this."
After cross-examination, during which Mother denied hitting Sebastian with a sandal, the juvenile court denied her counsel's request for redirect and noted she had been "given well over six hours." The court then gave each party 20 minutes for closing arguments. The court let Mother's counsel go over by six minutes and declined to let her continue, stating, "You're well past your time. ... I understand the points you are trying to make."
At the final hearing day the following week, Mother's counsel indicated there was a stipulated agreement on exhibits that had not been addressed. The juvenile court said it would lodge the exhibit list once she provided it, but it was not reopening the case for "voluminous documents . . . already received into evidence both as attachments to the reports .... but also submitted by you on behalf of your client."
The juvenile court found "most of the allegations" true, except for the buttock injury. It characterized Dr. Grogan's testimony that the injury was accidental as "far more persuasive" than Dr. Nienow's testimony that it resulted from a slap. By a preponderance of the evidence, however, the court determined that Mother "did inflict the other injuries described in the petition; namely, the September 2020 bruising to Sebastian's arms; the March 3, 2021, injury to his lip; and the March 18, 2021, bruising, again, to Sebastian's arms."
As for specifics, the juvenile court first explained that although Sebastian was "in some ways ... an unreliable historian," he was "quite consistent his Mother hits him with a chancla" and his description of events was "remarkably detailed and credible." It went on to find "strong circumstantial evidence" that Mother was the perpetrator. It cited A.S. and Ella's previous reports of abuse by Mother, and Mother's admissions to hitting A.S. with a rod and slapping him. The court then stated that "[w]hile many family members deny [Mother] hits the children," maternal uncle L.G. described her as going "overboard," aunt M.G. said Mother hit A.S., and both reported she had been abusive. It also noted the maternal grandmother's statement that Mother needed to be more patient, and found it interesting she mentioned that Mother used to grab the children by the arm, as incidents here involved arm injuries. In addition, the court noted Mother's 2016 domestic violence arrest, stating, "[T]here is a pattern here. . . . [W]hen [Mother] is frustrated, she can become verbally abusive or violent."
The juvenile court further found that since Sebastian had been placed with Father, and Mother's visits were supervised, there had not been safety concerns. The court noted the June 16 injuries were "adequately explained by the school," and the later report of ear redness was "not cause for alarm," as no injury was observed.
The juvenile court proceeded to disposition, during which it removed Sebastian and placed him with Father, with services for both parents. The court rejected Father's request to terminate jurisdiction or set an interim review as to him, noting he "has at times violated family court orders by allowing Sebastian to be cared for by his ex-wife or by not returning [him] on time." Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Mother's sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court violated her right to due process by limiting her trial presentation to six hours.
A. Legal Principles
The juvenile court "is accorded broad general authority to control its proceedings." (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 758 (Ingrid E.).) Section 350, subdivision (a)(1), states: "The judge of the juvenile court shall control all proceedings during the hearings with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment of all information relative to the present condition and future welfare of the person upon whose behalf the petition is brought."
The juvenile court's discretion to control proceedings must be exercised consistent with due process. (Ingrid E., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at pp. 756-757; Lois R v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 895, 902 [parent has "right to the custody of her child," which "could not be deprived without an essential ingredient of due process, to wit, a fair hearing"].) "The essential characteristic of due process in the statutory dependency scheme is fairness in the procedure employed by the state to adjudicate a parent's rights." (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265 (James Q.).) "Due process guarantees' "notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case" '" (In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 601; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.534(g) [in § 300 cases, court must advise parents of, inter alia, "right to confront and cross-examine the persons who prepared reports" and "right to present evidence to the court"].) "But due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors." (Ingrid E., at p. 757.) Further, the "due process right to present evidence is limited to relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue before the court." (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 (Jeanette V.).)
We review juvenile court orders regarding the control of dependency proceedings for abuse of discretion. (See Ingrid E., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 753; Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1515-1516; see In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 [court abuses discretion by"' "making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination"' "].)
B. Analysis
Mother argues the juvenile court denied her a meaningful opportunity to be heard both by imposing a six-hour time limit, and by refusing to extend it. We conclude she had ample opportunity to present her case, and does not establish any abuse of discretion or due process violation.
First, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by giving Mother a six-hour time limit. The court's authority to manage proceedings includes the ability to expedite matters. (§ 350 [judge shall control proceedings "with a view to the expeditious . . . ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts"]; see James Q., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th 255 [recognizing juvenile court's "authority and discretion to conduct the hearing with reasonable dispatch"]; Ingrid E., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 760 ["time is not an unlimited commodity in today's busy juvenile courts"].) The time limit was reasonable given the scope of the hearing, and it was imposed after counsel provided input.
The contested issues at the hearing were framed by the dependency petition: whether Mother subjected Sebastian to physical abuse, including the buttock injury in February 2021, the lip injury in March 2021, and the arm bruising in September 2020 and March 2021, as well as Sebastian's disclosure that Mother hit him with her sandal. Mother's position was that the injuries were either accidental or sustained in Father's care. Thus, while the allegations were significant, the hearing still just focused on the single issue of physical abuse, a discrete set of incidents, and limited possible explanations as to how they took place.
Further, the juvenile court obtained input from Mother's counsel in setting the limit. It is unclear how counsel went from estimating four hours and four witnesses at the hearing in May 2021, to 19 witnesses and three to four days in July 2021; her explanation in July that she was in the "defensive posture" was true in May, too. Yet, the judge accepted her shift in strategy, and said "let's go through those," which they did. Mother's counsel then did not object when the court said she would not "need more than a day" to present the evidence, and later imposed the six-hour limit.
On this record, we cannot conclude the juvenile court acted arbitrarily or unfairly by giving Mother six hours to present her case. (See Denny H., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 [no prejudicial abuse of discretion in limiting review hearing to three hours and denying more time, where, inter alia, "the numerous items detailing what counsel would have pursued . . . focus on failures of the social worker to assist the family," but the "ultimate issue . . . was [father's] inability to secure housing and income" and he "conceded he was not ready" to have daughters back].)
Mother's arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. She contends that "[u]nder the circumstances of this case, with referrals dating back to 2009, an ongoing custody dispute with allegations of physical abuse by both parents and . . . [an] allegation of serious physical harm," it was impossible to put on a complete case in six hours. She also contends she was left with unreasonably little time per witness. But Mother does not establish her allotted time was unreasonable under the actual circumstances of the case. The hearing was not about the parent's custody dispute or, with few exceptions, historical referrals. It was about discrete injuries sustained by Sebastian in 2020 and 2021. Further, certain witnesses only testified on limited matters (like Dr. Grogan, who addressed only the buttock injury), or had testimony entered by stipulation (social work supervisor Nunez).
Second, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend the time limit. Rather, it fairly managed the hearing and reasonably concluded that additional evidence and argument were unnecessary.
When Mother's counsel said she still had most of her witnesses at the end of the first hearing day (October 1), the juvenile court encouraged her to use stipulated testimony for character witnesses, and counsel said she was "happy to"-but no witness stipulations were entered the next hearing day (October 6). Instead, Mother's counsel said she had tried to streamline things, but still needed more time. Instead of simply denying an extension, the court said, "Let's see how it goes." When counsel reached her time limit while laying the foundation for exhibits, and the court did deny her request for more time, it explained why: a "lot of the documents" were "already referenced" in the reports, and they "already had a lot of information about this." The court later cited similar reasons when it declined to reopen the case for more exhibits, reiterating that the documents were "already received into evidence" and voluminous. Likewise, the court explained why it would not extend Mother's closing argument time, stating it "understood] the points [she was] trying to make."
It is unclear if Mother's counsel tried to obtain witness stipulations. She said had been "going through all of the exhibits, making offers of stipulations. [Opposing c]ounsel responded back-I can't remember."
In other words, the juvenile court considered Mother's counsel's concerns about time and found it did not need further evidence or argument to fully grasp her case. The record is in accord. Again, Mother's position was that Sebastian's injuries were either accidental or occurred in Father's care. The Agency reports described her position, and the input of supportive family members (along with some who were critical of her). Mother reiterated her position on the witness stand, where the court could assess her credibility. Her counsel cross-examined the social workers and Rady's doctors at length, and offered testimony from her expert, whom the court found "significantly more persuasive" on the buttock injury issue. And the court's ruling acknowledged concerns about Father's violation of family court orders, which necessitated continuing jurisdiction as to him, too. Mother had a more than meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Mother does not establish otherwise. She first contends she was not able to cross-examine the "other social worker" or "all of the social workers." Her counsel cross-examined Leonard, Mosqueda, Sandoval and Hoff, and stipulated testimony by Nunez was entered. The only other social worker witness identified by Mother's counsel was Davenport, whom she was advised was not a County employee and had to be subpoenaed. Mother's counsel said she could get a subpoena out, but there is no indication she did so or that Davenport was otherwise available to testify.
Mother argues she also was not able to examine "Sebastian's therapist Meg Rogers," Father, uncles O.G. and F.C., aunts G.M. and M.G., maternal grandmother I.G., and sibling Ella. The juvenile court already had ample evidence before it, it was not required to accept cumulative testimony, and Mother does not explain what these witnesses would have materially added to her case. (See Evid. Code § 352 [court can exclude evidence if "probative value is substantially outweighed" by probability of "undue consumption of time"]; In re Alexandria P. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 331, 360-361 (Alexandria P.) [juvenile court did not abuse discretion by denying foster parent's request to cross-examine social worker, where they had "ample opportunity to present evidence, testimony, and argument," and testimony "would be cumulative"]; cf. In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1177 [affirming exclusion of expert testimony of "minimal importance" that would entail delay, citing § 352].)
One could reasonably conclude these witnesses would not materially add to Mother's case. Rogers was not "Sebastian's therapist." She was the classroom therapist, and her only potentially relevant input was that Sebastian engaged in fantasy play and did "not know what is real." But the juvenile court recognized he was not always a reliable historian, and still found him consistent and credible in reporting that Mother hit him with a chancla. With respect to Father and the family, the court's ruling reflected it was aware of Mother's concerns about Father's care and that some relatives reported she abused the children, while others denied it. As for Ella, her testimony would not have changed the fact that she previously reported Mother physically abused her, or that there was evidence Mother physically abused A.S. too-circumstances noted by the court in its ruling.
Mother elsewhere suggests she was prevented from examining A.S. She never identified him as a witness. (4 RT 410-416, RB 66)!
Next, Mother argues she could not "complete her examination of Mother or admit all of her exhibits into evidence." But she does not establish this additional testimony and evidence would have been probative and not cumulative. (Evid. Code, § 352; Alexandria P., supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 360-361.) Her position was well documented in the Agency reports and at prior hearings, her counsel had nearly an hour to examine her, and she entered numerous exhibits-to the point where the juvenile court found some were already in evidence or they were otherwise excessive.
Lastly, Mother contends she was "not even able to present a complete closing argument." Mother had 26 minutes, six more minutes than the other parties; the juvenile court indicated it understood her points; and its ruling makes clear it did. Courts have discretion to limit closing arguments, even in criminal matters. (See Guardianship of Baby Boy M. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 254, 277 [no prejudicial abuse of discretion in limiting closing to 10 minutes]; Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853, 862 [judge has "great latitude in controlling . . . closing summations," and "may limit counsel to a reasonable time and . . . terminate argument when continuation would be repetitive"]; accord, People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 147.)
Having determined the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by setting or maintaining the time limit here, we further conclude Mother does not establish any due process violation. Due process requires balancing interests, including a parent's interest in "presenting] [her] side of the story" and the "agency's interest in expeditious decisionmaking." (James Q., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 267.) The juvenile court fairly balanced Mother's right to defend the allegations with ensuring an efficient hearing. Further, consistent with the evidentiary principles we have already discussed, due process did not require the court to accept cumulative evidence. (Jeanette V., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 817 [due process right is to present relevant, significantly probative evidence]; In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 612 [procedural due process rights "are subject to evidentiary principles"]; cf. In re Daniela G. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1086, 1094-1095 [juvenile court did not violate father's right to due process by excusing children's testimony, where it would not have materially impacted resolution of disputed issues and a favorable statement by one child "was in evidence anyway"].)
The cases cited by Mother do not compel a different result. If anything, they underscore the due process she received. Ingrid E. and James Q. both involved denials of contested hearings; Mother plainly received one. (Ingrid E., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 758-759 [juvenile court abused discretion by denying contested 18-month review hearing]; James Q., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 267 [due process precludes denial of contested review hearing].) Jeanette V. recognized a right to cross-examine relevant witnesses at the jurisdiction hearing; Mother was able to do so. (Jeanette V., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 816.) And In re George G. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 146 and Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407 involved alleged failures to provide complete information to the parties; Mother asserts no such error here. (See George G., at pp. 156-157 [failure to provide parents access to social service records violated due process]; Crystal J., at p. 413 [report errors and omissions cannot violate due process where report "is prepared, is available to the parties in advance of the noticed hearing, and does address the principal questions at issue"], italics omitted.)
We address one remaining point. Mother contends that the Agency was "allowed to submit any and all evidence" and "put on its full case," noting it had two hours to present its case and its lengthy reports were admitted into evidence. To the extent Mother is arguing that the juvenile court's comparative treatment of the Agency highlights her alleged lack of due process, we disagree. The Agency had the burden of proof (In re G.B. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 475, 487), and having two hours for its case was reasonable. As for the reports, they were not simply evidence for the Agency, as Mother implies. The Agency is "statutorily mandated to prepare social study reports and make recommendations to assist the court," in which role it "acts as an impartial arm of the court . . . ." (In re Ashley M. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1, 7-8; see In re B.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 803, 821 ["[I]t is the recognized professional objectivity of social workers, and the 'trustworthiness' and 'reliability' of their work, that justifies the admissibility of their reports"].) Here, the reports included multiple interviews with Mother that clearly indicated her position, as well as input from supportive relatives. She was also able to cross-examine the social workers who prepared the reports.
Mother does not establish any due process issue on this basis, either.
Because we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process, we need not and do not address the parties' arguments regarding the applicable standard for harmless error.
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by imposing reasonable time limits for the presentation of evidence and argument at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.