Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD226357
SIMS, J.In June 2007, a routine doctor’s visit uncovered injuries to B. S. (the minor), caused by her sibling hitting her with a belt. An investigation conducted by Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) revealed five years of referrals for abuse and neglect, many of which focused on the minor, an 11-year-old child with autism, severe developmental delays, and an inability to communicate. On September 13, 2007, the Department filed a petition to declare B. S. a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).
At a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the court allowed the minor to remain in the home with T. S. (Mother), but asserted jurisdiction over the minor to protect her from further injury. Mother appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction. The Department joins Mother’s arguments but did not file its own appeal. The Department also challenges the sufficiency of the juvenile court’s findings. We shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The minor was born in 1996. Afflicted with autism and severe developmental delays, she is unable to speak and has been identified by the Department as “severely handicapped.” She receives ongoing services from the Alta Regional Center for her autism and developmental delays, and weight management at the U.C. Davis Medical Center.
The minor has two siblings: a 17-year-old brother, who is six feet tall, weighs 400 pounds and suffers from learning disabilities and a five-year-old brother who has been identified as “borderline intellectual functioning” and is treated for cerebral palsy. Mother suffers from high blood pressure, kidney disease, and diabetes, for which she receives dialysis three times a week. The family has an extensive history with the Department, with at least 13 referrals since September 2002 alleging abuse and neglect of the children, many of these referrals concerning the minor.
In June 2007, during a routine medical exam, the minor’s doctor noticed “five belt marks . . . a quarter inch wide” on the minor’s back. Mother thought the injuries may have occurred in the car on the way to the appointment when the minor’s four-year-old sibling became upset with her and hit her with a belt. Yet, the minor’s 17-year-old sibling also admitted to hitting the minor with a belt only the day before, claiming Mother gave him permission to do so. Finding the claims of abuse and neglect were substantiated, the Department offered Mother informal services, which she twice refused.
As a result of the injuries suffered by the minor, the Department filed a dependency petition in September 2007, alleging that the minor and her two siblings (collectively, the children) had suffered, or were at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness, “as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or legal guardian to supervise or protect the [children] adequately.”
At the initial hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children to remain with Mother under the close supervision of the Department, with “intensive services,” including individual counseling and anger management for the older sibling. The court ordered that the minor not be left alone with her siblings and that any childcare provider be preapproved by the court.
One month later, the Department requested the petition be dismissed, claiming the risks to the children had been alleviated. In support of its request, the Department noted that the minor’s older sibling was in counseling, would soon be moving out of the home, and had acknowledged that he was not the family disciplinarian. The Department also found Mother at a disadvantage--caring for three disabled children given her own illness--but was impressed that she was using appropriate childcare providers, family counseling was occurring in the home once a week, and the family reportedly was “doing well” with the services. The attorney for the minor was not persuaded and questioned whether there were sufficient safeguards to protect the minor, who, unlike her siblings, was unable to communicate.
The juvenile court held a combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, at which it dismissed the petition as to the minor’s siblings but sustained the petition as to the minor, agreeing that she remained in need of the court’s protection. The court ordered that the minor remain in Mother’s custody and ordered the Department to develop a service plan for Mother and the minor.
DISCUSSION
I
On appeal, Mother claims, and the Department agrees, that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction over the minor. Counsel for the minor disagrees, as do we.
“At the jurisdictional hearing, the court determines whether the minor falls within any of the categories specified in section 300. [Citation.] ‘“The petitioner in a dependency proceeding must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child . . . comes under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.”’ [Citation.] On appeal from an order making jurisdictional findings, we must uphold the court’s findings unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no substantial evidence to support the findings. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.]” (In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.)
Mother and the Department argue the evidence was insufficient to sustain a jurisdictional finding because “by the time of the jurisdictional hearing, [Mother] had more than adequately addressed, as to all three of her children, the circumstances underlying the risk alleged in the Department’s petition.” Thus, they claim, there was no longer a risk of serious harm or illness to the minor.
The petition alleged that Mother failed to provide adequate protection, care, and supervision of the minor, a special needs child. Specifically, the petition described the welts left on the minor’s back when one of her siblings hit her with a belt at Mother’s direction. It recounted the allegations of similar abuse inflicted on the minor by her other sibling, and it alleged that Mother refused voluntary services to assist her with parenting skills and appropriate discipline measures.
The social worker’s report recounted five years of referrals for abuse and neglect of the minor and supported the allegation in the petition that Mother had twice refused voluntary services offered by the Department, although Mother denied refusing services. In any event, at the time of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, Mother had been participating in services for only two months, and then only because she had been ordered to do so.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction over the minor. The abuse perpetrated against the minor was serious, particularly because her severe disabilities left her defenseless. In addition, the family had a lengthy history of referrals for abuse and neglect, and Mother had refused to voluntarily participate in services. We agree with the juvenile court that, under such circumstances, two months of services did not alleviate the risk to the minor. Accordingly, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings.
II
In their responding brief, the Department contends the juvenile court committed reversible error by failing to make sufficient findings on the record. Mother alludes to the issue in her opening brief, and affirmatively joins the argument in her reply brief. Whether the issue is properly before this court, we find the claim to be without merit.
“It has been held in this state that the Juvenile Court Law does not require the making of specific findings and that a general finding that the allegations of the petition are true is sufficient to show the facts upon which the court exercised its jurisdiction to declare the minor a ward or dependent child of the court.” (In re J. T. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 633, 640.) Here, the juvenile court found true the allegations contained within the petition, which were more than adequate to support the juvenile court’s decision to declare the minor a dependent child of the court. The Department does not claim otherwise. Accordingly, we reject this claim.
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J. DAVIS, J.