From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re K.P.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Feb 8, 2012
No. B236016 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)

Opinion

B236016

02-08-2012

In re K.P. et al, Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. G.P., Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy Counsel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK06075)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Gary P. ("the father"), the alleged father of C.T. and the presumed father of K.P. and G.P., appeals from juvenile court findings and dispositional orders concerning K.P. and G.P. The father asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the failure to support findings. We affirm.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY


A. The Petition

K.P. and G.P., were born in 1998 and 1999 respectively. The mother, A.T., hit their older sibling C.T. in the mouth during a fight. C.T. was born in February 1997. Both parents had histories with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services ("the department"). The department filed the current petition on May 17, 2011, in which it was alleged that the children were dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j).

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

B. The Detention Report

In the detention report, the department summarized the family's substantial history with the department. The mother had a family reunification case with the department in August 1994. The mother tested positive for cocaine and failed to comply with court orders. C.T. and five older siblings were prior dependents of the juvenile court due to the mother's drug use. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction under permanent placement services. C.T. was adopted by her maternal grandmother in August 2000. The maternal grandmother was also the legal guardian of two of the mother's older children, T.W. and M.J. However, the maternal grandmother died in December 2002. The mother filed a section 388 petition in December 2002. The mother raised issues concerning C.T.'s adoption and the legal guardianship of T.W. and M.J. The mother adopted C.T. in 2005.

The current case arose after a referral was made about an incident between C.T. and the mother in February 2011. There was an altercation between the mother and the child. The altercation arose because the mother felt C.T. was being disrespectful. C.T. indicated the mother was yelling because the youngster was talking to a boy. The mother stated C.T. should not be talking to boys. This was because C.T. still would wet herself in the bed. C.T. responded to the mother by yelling, "[S]hut up." The mother then became angry and slapped C.T. on the face and on the head. C.T. was slapped several times. During the fight, C.T. grabbed and pushed the mother against the stove.

The mother's older daughter, 26-year-old C.W., intervened and took C.T. upstairs. At which point, the mother telephoned an emergency operator to report the incident. K.P. and G.P. were present during the fight. They did not intervene. The mother usually disciplined C.T. by hitting the child. The mother admitted always striking C.T. No marks or bruises were reported. And C.T. did not need medical attention. C.T. did not verbalize or express fear.

A police report indicated two officers responded to the mother's home on allegations a 14-year-old was assaulting her mother. The mother told the police officers about the fight with C.T. The mother admitted slapping C.T. twice in the face. C.T. then grabbed the mother's arm. C.T. attempted to hit the mother. However, the adult older sibling, C.W., broke up the fight. The mother told the police officers that C.T. is rebellious and defiant. The mother wanted C.T. arrested. No marks or bruises were observed by the police officers. An officer informed the mother of child abuse laws. The mother stated that she understood. The mother said she did not agree with the child abuse laws. The mother also said she would discipline her children regardless of those laws.

Children's Social Worker Tifhanie Coleman visited the mother's home on April 21, 2011. The mother stated that she would never have called the police if she knew the department would be notified. The mother stated she had "been through all of this" previously. The mother stated that she had been involved with the department before and had to take parenting classes. The mother stated, "I will not let any of these children come and hit me and just sit back and take it."

The mother stated that the incident arose because C.T.'s room was "dirty." C.T. became angry and called the mother "stupid" and began walking up the stairs. The mother told C.T. to come back downstairs. While they were talking, C.T. told the mother to shut up. The mother then slapped C.T.'s face. According to Ms. Coleman's report, after the slapping incident, the following occurred, "The mother stated that [C.T.] then pushed her and raised he hand like she was going to hit her, but the adult sibling [C.W.] intervened."

The mother stated that nothing like this had ever happened before this incident. The mother stated she does not hit her children as a form of discipline. Rather, she took things away from them. The mother stated that she runs an in home day care center and worked for Charles Drew Medical Center, in child development services. The mother indicated that she had domestic violence problems with the father. The mother explained the problems with C.T. were due to the youngster having lived with the father's family. C.T. wanted to continue living there. C.T. had to return to the mother's care. Since then, C.T. had challenged the mother. According the mother, C.T. had to come home because the other family was the subject of a referral. The mother stated C.T. is not going back to the father's family.

The mother admitted she had a history of cocaine use. The mother denied currently using cocaine or any other controlled substance. The mother also stated that she had been involved with the department for a long time. The mother was currently "fighting" to regain custody of a younger son, who was living with a maternal aunt. The mother did not know where the child was but knew that he had not been adopted.

The social worker met privately with the children. C.T. explained the altercation occurred when a boy telephoned her and asked to speak to her. The mother answered the telephone and said boy could not call C.T. Ms. Coleman described what happened next according to C.T.: "The minor stated that she then walked up the stairs and yelled down the stairs for her mother and sister to 'shut-up[.]' The mother then told her to come back downstairs and the mother slapped her in the face twice, and then she pushed her mother on the stove and told her to stop hitting her." C.W. intervened taking C.T. upstairs. C.W. told C.T. not to hit the mother. C.W. then pushed C.T. on the bed. C.W. then slapped C.T. The mother then entered the room and stepped on C.T.'s throat. C.T. stated that she was unafraid of the mother or C.W. According to C.T., the mother disciplines C.T. by yelling at her and slapping her.

K.P. witnessed the fight and confirmed C.T.'s version of what led to the altercation: the exchange of words; the slapping; the shoving; and C.W.'s intervention. K.P. confirmed that the mother struck C.T. K.P. also had seen the mother smoking marijuana about a week prior to the interview with Ms. Coleman. G.P. stated the mother hit him in the chest once after he threw a book at her. However, she usually disciplined him by yelling at him. C.T., K.P. and G.P. stated there was always food in the home.

The mother was asked about stepping on C.T.'s throat. The mother stated that she would not allow any of her children to put their hands on her. The mother stated she would discipline her children the way she wanted. And, the mother added, "[T]his is what is wrong with your department, they try to tell children they can do whatever they want." The mother said that was the reason her children were the way they are. The mother stated she has to take the blame for everything. The mother also stated that she has to deal with all the children's and father's problems. The mother further stated the department was involved with her because of money. The mother's sister and the maternal grandmother wanted custody of the children so they could get financial assistance. The mother said each of her older children had tried to physically hurt her. The mother did not think the department needed to intervene and she would continue doing what she did. According to the mother, the department did not help children or families but broke them up and caused them to have issues. The mother stated, "If your department was to be destroyed that will be the happiest day for me." The mother said she was unwilling to participate in any programs and that this would be the last time she dealt with the department. At one point during the conversation Ms. Coleman was told she needed to hurry up and get out of the family residence.

Ms. Coleman reported that the father had previously failed to reunify with G.P. and K.P. The father's parental rights over C.T. had been terminated. The father needed further assessment to determine if he was an appropriate caregiver because his parental rights were terminated. The father did not comply with any of the court orders while family reunification services were provided. (The father had not visited the children for several years.) The father stated that he would be a better placement for the children than with the mother. The father thought the children would do well with him. The father also stated that when C.T. stayed with him, she improved both academically and behaviorally.

C. Detention Hearing

The juvenile court found the father to be K.P. and G.P.'s presumed father and C.T.'s alleged father. The juvenile court found a prima facie case existed that the children were dependents as described in section 300. Over the department's objections, the children were released to the mother. The department was ordered to provide family preservation services. The father was given monitored visits after he contacted the department. The department had discretion to liberalize the visits and the mother was authorized to act as the monitor.

D. Jurisdiction/Detention, Addendum And Last Minute Information Reports

In the jurisdiction/disposition report, the department listed the mother's criminal history which included convictions for prostitution and deadly weapon assault. The father's history included arrests and convictions for: petty theft; bookmaking; robbery; receiving stolen property; controlled substance possession; infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant; driving under the influence; and driving with a suspended license. C.T. was not doing well in school. K.P. and G.P. were both doing well in school. However, after the mother tested positive for marijuana, she agreed to participate in parenting classes. The mother subsequently obtained a medical cannabis permit dated May 3, 2011.

C.T. said about the father's failure to provide for K.P. and G.P.: "Sometimes, he does, but not all the time. He is not the type that this just going to give it to you if you don't ask." K.P. said about the father: "When we need food he does give it because he is a chef. He doesn't help pay rent because he says he doesn't live here. He does help sometimes, but not all the time. I guess he does give us medical because he just took my brother to the doctor." G.P. stated about the father: "I don't know what happens with the money. I just know I get stuff. My mom buys most of our stuff, but when I go over my dad's house he buys me food and clothes." C.W., the mother's adult daughter, stated: "When they call him, he is there for them. When they are hungry, he goes and gets them food. He does the best he can. I don't see anything wrong with him being a daddy." The mother said about the father's failure to provide: "And they ain't kidding. I told him I would give him 20 dollars to take me to the grocery store and he didn't. I have no help period. I take care of my kids by myself."

The father had 13 children. The father stated that he supported his kids. The father is a self-employed chef. He has a catering business but had not worked in over a year. He stated: "Since my kids have been on this planet, I have been a father to them. They have spent summers with me. If they need clothes, they call me and I provide it." The father explained that he provided spiritual guidance to his children. Every year they had a family gathering with the father's oldest son. G.P. and K.P. work on the father's food truck. K.P. would take orders and G.P. collected money. The father explained that in the past he saw the children regularly. However, he stopped seeing them regularly around the end of 2010. The father admitted he did not send money on a monthly basis. The father stated that he did not keep track of how often he bought the children clothing. But, when they were ready to go back to school he bought G.P. whatever she wanted. The father also bought G.P. shoes.

The dependency investigator, Joseph Aparcio, noted the father's presence in the lives of his children was minimal. Mr. Aparcio further stated, "[The] father has been unemployed for over a year, and has not provided food, clothing, shelter, or medical care for the children on a regular basis." Mr. Aparcio concluded the father's action displayed a total disregard for the well being and safety of the children.

In an addendum report, the department stated that the mother said the father had not paid child support for K.P. or G.P. The department recommended individual counseling and parenting classes for the father. On August 2, 2011, in a last minute information report for the court, Mr. Aparcio reported that the family had not cooperated with the department or complied with the case plan. C.T., K.P. and G.P. refused to attend individual therapy. The mother refused to enroll in any services and refused to submit to random drug testing. The father had unmonitored visits with the children in spite of the juvenile court order stating his visits were to be monitored.

E. Adjudication and Dispositional Orders

The juvenile court sustained allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) including the allegations the father failed to provide for K.P. and G.P. As sustained, the petition alleged: on April 20, 2011, the mother physically abused C.T. by repeatedly striking the child's head and face; the mother had slapped the child on prior occasions; the inappropriate discipline endangered C.T.'s physical health safety and well being and placed K.P. and G.P. at risk of physical harm or physical abuse; the mother had a history of substance abuse including cocaine and was a current marijuana user; the mother had possessed, used and was under the influence of marijuana in K.P.'s presence; the mother had a positive toxicology screen for cannaboids on April 25, 2011; and the mother's substance abuse endangered the children's physical health and safety and placed them at risk of physical harm and damage. With respect to the father, the sustained petition alleged the father had failed to provide the children with necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter and medical care. The father's failure to provide for the children endangered their physical and emotional health, safety and well-being, placing them at risk of physical and emotional harm.

The juvenile court declared C.T., K.P. and G.P. dependents of the court under section 300, subdivision (b). The children were placed with the mother under the department's supervision. The department was ordered to provide the family maintenance services to the mother. The father was ordered to participate in individual counseling to address case issues and parental responsibility. The father was ordered to take a parenting class for teens. The father was given unmonitored visits. The father filed a timely appeal challenging the findings and orders as to K.P. and G.P.

III. DISCUSSION

The father argues the juvenile court jurisdictional and dispositional orders against him must be reversed for insufficient evidence to support the failure to support findings. The father asserts the evidence does not support a connection between his failure to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care any harm to justify jurisdiction. According to the father, the evidence showed both K.P. and G.P. were doing well and had all they needed in their mother's care. And the father argues he helped the family on occasions.

A juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433; In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649. But, the department is correct that the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings can be affirmed if any one of the bases for jurisdiction is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451; In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) And, here the juvenile court could declare jurisdiction over the children based on the actions of the mother alone. (§ 302, subd. (a); In re Alysha S. supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 397; see also In re Alexis H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 11, 16.) No challenge is made to the jurisdictional findings as to the mother so this is a sufficient basis to uphold the dependency orders under review.

Therefore, based on the unchallenged findings against the mother, the orders under review must be affirmed. The rationale for the rule is that the dependency law is based on protection of the children rather than punishment of the parent. (In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451; In re Alysha S., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 397.) For that reason, it is irrelevant that the jurisdictional findings were against the mother and not the father. (In re Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202; In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 330.) As the Third District Appellate Court explained: "As a result of this focus on the child, it is necessary only for the court to find that one parent's conduct has created circumstances triggering section 300 for the court to assert jurisdiction over the child. [Citations.] Once the child is found to be endangered in the manner described by one of the subdivisions of section 300—e.g., a risk of serious physical harm (subds. (a) & (b)), serious emotional damage (subd. (c)), sexual or other abuse (subds. (d) & (e)), or abandonment (subd. (g)), among others—the child comes within the court's jurisdiction, even if the child was not in the physical custody of one or both parents at the time the jurisdictional events occurred. [Citation.] For jurisdictional purposes, it is irrelevant which parent created those circumstances. A jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been established. [Citation.] As a result, it is commonly said that a jurisdictional finding involving one parent is '"good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent."' [Citation.]" (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491-1492; see also In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1212.) Because the allegations against the mother are unchallenged, the jurisdictional order must be affirmed.

Furthermore, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the father to attend parenting classes and individual counseling. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006; In re Jose M. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1103-1104.) The father suggested that the children should be placed with him. The father failed to reunify with C.T., who was adopted by the maternal grandmother. C.T. was subsequently adopted by the mother. The father also failed to reunify with K.P. and G.P. The father had not visited the children at all for several years. The father had not completed any of the prior court ordered programs. The father was currently not complying with the court ordered monitored visits. The father only provided sporadic support to the children. Even then, the support was tied to requests by the children for food and other necessities of life. The father had a long criminal history involving possession of dangerous weapons and controlled substances, bookmaking, domestic violence, and driving under the influence and with a suspended license. No abuse of discretion occurred.

IV. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J. We concur:

ARMSTRONG, J.

MOSK, J.


Summaries of

In re K.P.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Feb 8, 2012
No. B236016 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)
Case details for

In re K.P.

Case Details

Full title:In re K.P. et al, Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. G.P.…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Feb 8, 2012

Citations

No. B236016 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)