Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK67880, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Marilyn M. Mordetzky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Owen L. Gallagher, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Joseph H. (father) appeals from the judgment of July 18, 2007, declaring his daughter Joanne H. a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. He contends substantial evidence does not support the sustained jurisdictional allegation that his criminal history and conduct place Joanne at risk of harm. As substantial evidence supports the findings, we affirm the judgment and orders.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Joanne was born in 2005 to father and Jessenia (mother). Father was 18 and mother was 15. They lived with mother’s siblings in the home of the maternal grandparents. The home was the subject of child abuse referrals involving physical abuse by the maternal grandparents. Some of mother’s siblings had behavioral issues involving gang affiliations, drugs, and illegal activities. Father, a prior dependent of the court, abused drugs, dropped out of school, and had a criminal history involving the sale of drugs, beginning when he was a juvenile. Mother abused drugs and did not go to school. She hung out with local gang members.
Mother did not appeal.
In February 2006, the maternal grandparents’ home was raided by the police who found drugs in father’s and mother’s room. Father was convicted of the transportation or sale of cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352 and was placed on probation for 36 months.
Father separated from mother and moved out of the home in February 2007. He was arrested in March 2007 on a drug sales charge, but father reported the charges were dropped.
On April 20, 2007, police and probation officers conducted a probation compliance search of the home in the belief father still lived there. They found a significant quantity of marijuana, some packed in baggies, and a digital scale in the room of mother’s siblings, Antonio, age 13, and Jacqueline. Antonio had previously been arrested for possession of crack cocaine for sale. Both Joanne and mother, then age 17, were detained by the Department of Children and Family Services (Department).
Mother and father admitted knowing Antonio used marijuana. Father acknowledged he had been selling drugs for several years but stated he was getting away from the environment that led to his criminal activity. Through probation, father completed a six-month alcohol and drug program on May 14, 2007, and, as of May 21, 2007, had 21 clean drug tests. Mother, who was five months’ pregnant carrying father’s child, admitted she smoked marijuana during the pregnancy. She stated she sent Joanne to father’s house when she smoked marijuana. Father had a third child on the way from a different relationship. The social worker referred father to on-demand drug testing.
On July 18, 2007, the dependency court sustained the following allegation regarding father under section 300, subdivision (b): Joanne was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness in that “[father] has a criminal history consisting, but not limited to numerous arrests and a conviction involving possession of controlled substances and the transportation/sale of narcotics. Further, . . . father is currently on probation for three years due to his conviction for the sale of narcotics. Further, . . . father’s criminal history and conduct endangers the child’s physical and emotional health, safety, well-being and creates a detrimental home environment, placing the child at risk of physical and emotional harm and damage without [the Department] and/or court supervision.” The dependency court declared Joanne a dependent of the court and made an order for home-of-parents under the Department supervision, with primary custody to mother. Mother and father were to receive family maintenance services. Father was granted unmonitored contact, including weekends and overnights. Father was ordered to submit to weekly random drug tests, and if a test was dirty or missed, father would have to complete a drug rehabilitation program. Father was also ordered to complete parenting education, participate in individual counseling, and comply with the terms of probation. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence Supports The Sustained Allegations Against Father
Father contends substantial evidence does not support the allegation against him that was sustained under section 300, subdivision (b) in that there was no proof father’s past actions created a present risk of harm to Joanne. (See In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824 [there must be evidence of a current risk of harm].) We conclude substantial evidence supports the sustained allegation.
“In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court. [Citation.]” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.” (In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.)
Section 300, subdivision (b) describes, inter alia, a child who is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent’s failure “to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.”
At the hearing on the petition, the jurisdiction-disposition report was admitted into evidence. The report contains substantial evidence to support the findings. For a young adult, father had a long history of selling drugs, involvement with the criminal justice system, and endangerment of Joanne. He exposed Joanne to drugs by maintaining them in his room. His criminal activity caused the family to be evicted, which placed Joanne at risk and created a risk of caretaker absence. He failed to protect Joanne from mother’s drug use and association with local gang members. He failed to protect Joanne from a maternal uncle’s drug use and criminal activity, and from exposure to maternal uncle’s drugs in Joanne’s home. Father failed to protect his second child, who mother was carrying, from exposure to the drugs mother smoked. Father had two years left on his grant of felony probation. Although he had completed a six-month drug program and had 21 clean tests, there was no evidence he currently was clean, as he did not test in the two months leading to the hearing despite the social worker’s direction to him to submit to further testing. Moreover, there is no evidence that the drug program he completed addressed the issues of his endangerment of Joanne and failure to protect her from neglectful or harmful conduct by others. This is substantial evidence that his criminal history and conduct had not been fully addressed, and still created a substantial risk of harm to Joanne. Thus, the allegations are supported by substantial evidence.
As we conclude that the sustained allegations are supported by substantial evidence, father’s contention that the dispositional orders must be reversed because the evidence was not sufficient to support the jurisdictional allegations is moot.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., MOSK, J.