Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK53303, Marguerite Downing, Judge.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ALDRICH, J.
INTRODUCTION
Jason N. appeals from the jurisdiction and disposition order of the juvenile court declaring Sincere T. (10 years old) and S. N. (6 years old) dependents pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j). He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the order sustaining the petition. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This family is the subject of another appeal (B228534) being heard concurrently with this appeal and has been the subject of more than a dozen prior referrals and two prior dependencies. The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) has provided extensive maintenance services to help the family because of allegations of neglect, unsanitary home, substance abuse, and most important, repeated allegations of physical abuse of the children. The last dependency was closed on May 26, 2010, just 16 days before the June 11, 2010 referral giving rise to this appeal.
This section 300 petition on behalf of Sincere and S. alleged that father’s female companion, Ebony T., inappropriately disciplined her nine-year-old stepdaughter and father’s daughter, Serenity N., by striking the child in the face causing bruising. Father knew Serenity was being inappropriately disciplined by Ebony and failed to take action to protect the child. Serenity, Sincere, and S. are prior dependents of the juvenile court because of Ebony’s physical abuse and father’s failure to protect the children. The inappropriate discipline of Serenity and father’s failure to protect her endangers the physical and emotional health and safety of the three children, creates a detrimental home environment, and places the children at risk of physical and emotional harm, neglect, and physical abuse.
The court declared father S.’s presumed father. After sustaining a petition on behalf of Serenity under section 300, subdivision (b), the court declared Sincere and S. dependents of the court under subdivision (j).
The following is the evidence supporting the petition: On the morning of June 11th the Department received a referral that Ebony physically abused Serenity and Ebony’s biological children Sincere and S. The referring party observed a one and a half inch red mark on Serenity’s temple. Serenity told the reporting party that Ebony hit her because she had not finished cleaning the dogs’ urine and feces that morning. Ebony hit her hard on the face while wearing a ring. According to Serenity, this “ ‘hurt’ a lot.” Serenity stated that Ebony hit her on purpose. “ ‘It wasn’t an accident.’ ” Serenity showed a social worker the red mark the size of a half-dollar on her left temple. Serenity admitted she was afraid of Ebony. She stated that father saw that she had a hand up to her temple and was crying, but his only response was to drive her to school.
Father told the social worker he first learned of the incident from an investigating police officer in the afternoon of June 11th. Father stated he immediately ended his relationship with Ebony. Father claimed he did not hear or see Ebony hit Serenity and saw no mark on the child’s face when he took her to school that day. Father admitted that Ebony has hit Serenity before.
Sincere told the social worker that during the incident, he went to wake father because the boy was frightened by Ebony’s screaming. Sincere stated that father went to see what happened and looked at Serenity who had red marks on her temple. S. also stated that father “ ‘woke up and came out, ’ ” and then went back to bed. Sincere denied being hit by his parents and stated that S. does not get hit much “ ‘because she’s smaller.’ ” When Ebony screams at Serenity it “ ‘freaks me out. Sad, ’ ” Sincere stated. He explained Serenity gets hit most often because “ ‘she’s hard headed[.]’ ”
Ebony denied that she intended to hit Serenity on the morning of June 11th. Serenity has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and will probably need to be medicated. Ebony explained, “ ‘it is so hard to be this child’s mother.’ ” When the social worker transported the children to the emergency room to have them medically cleared, she found the smell of the children in the car to be overwhelming.
A few days after they were removed, S. stated that she was afraid that Ebony or father would hurt her. She stated that Ebony hits her and Sincere, but father hits her more than Ebony does. Ebony only “whooped” her once with a belt on her back. Father hits her for not cleaning the house. S. liked her foster placement because she does not get any “whooping” there. Sincere admitted that his parents hit him on the arms or bottom with an open hand. Serenity disclosed “a lot of physical abuse in the home.... [Ebony] and father would regularly hit her with their hands and belts.”
The psychologist conducting a mental health assessment of Serenity called the social worker to express “several concerns” about Serenity’s safety and well being. Serenity had disclosed to the psychologist that father and Ebony regularly hit her with a belt and Ebony hits her with a hanger or holds her up against a wall by her neck so that her feet are hanging. Father has witnessed these events but has not stopped Ebony. Serenity is scared of Ebony and has nightmares, the psychologist reported.
Father stated that Ebony moved out of the family home on June 11, 2010. He stated that if ordered by the juvenile court, Ebony would stay out of the home and he will make sure she “ ‘doesn’t return home without clearances from you guys.’ ” The record contains conflicting evidence about whether Ebony is still in the family home. Although Ebony reportedly moved into a friend’s house where she stays on the couch, the social worker found Ebony’s clothing still in father’s closet in July 2010. According to father the friend could not accommodate all of Ebony’s belongings. Father has a close relationship with his children and expressed a strong desire to continue caring for them.
Serenity’s therapist at Children’s Hospital, who has been working with the family for three years, explained that the root of the problem is the conflict between Ebony and Serenity. They had been working very hard to improve their relationship and the therapist “truly believed” they had made a lot of progress. The turning point was when the children were placed in foster care nearly two years earlier. The therapist was surprised that Ebony has been hitting Serenity.
The social worker was concerned about father’s ability and willingness to protect the children. The social worker listed the history these parents have had with the Department and the juvenile court since 1999, for which the family has received extensive services over the previous seven years, including counseling, in-home support, parenting classes, drug counseling and testing for Ebony, all from a variety of agencies and programs. Nonetheless, the same problems seem to resurface every few months. Although the family cooperates with the service agencies, and appears to benefit from the services while participating in them, the parents seem unable to maintain the preferred behaviors once services cease and the Department is no longer watching. The social worker explained that father “continued to minimize [Ebony’s] inability to handle Serenity without the use of excessive physical discipline.” He insists “that these are all isolated incidents and that the family ‘just looks bad on paper.’ ” In the social worker’s view, father has not stood up for Serenity by stopping the abuse or insisting he will not tolerate it.
At the jurisdictional hearing, Ebony denied having been angry at Serenity on the day of the incident. The juvenile court declared Serenity a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (b). Turning to Sincere and S., the court then sustained the above-mentioned allegations and declared them dependents of the court under subdivision (j). The court ordered that the children be placed under the Department’s supervision but that father retain physical custody of them. The court ordered family maintenance services for father. Father filed his appeal.
CONTENTION
Father contends there is no evidence that Sincere and S. are at risk of harm and so the juvenile court erred in sustaining the section 300 petition.
DISCUSSION
At a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court determines whether the allegations in the petition that the child comes within section 300 and hence within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction – are true. The findings must be supported by a preponderance of evidence, legally admissible in the trial of civil cases. (§ 355; In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1432.) The purpose of the dependency statutes “is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.” (§ 300.2.)
On appeal, we review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under the substantial evidence test. (In re J.K., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1433.) Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
Subdivision (j) of section 300 authorizes dependency jurisdiction when, “The child’s sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions. The court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.” (Italics added.)
“[Section 300, ] subdivision (j) allows the court to assume jurisdiction of the child if, after considering the totality of the child’s circumstances, the court finds that there is a substantial risk to the child in the family home, under any subdivisionenumerated in subdivision (j), taking into consideration the totality of the child’s and sibling’s circumstances.” (In re Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 65.) Subdivision (j) of section 300 has two elements: the petition was filed on behalf of Sincere and S. because (1) their half sibling Serenity had been abused, and (2) there was a substantial risk that Sincere and S. would also be abused. (In re Joshua J. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 984, 992.)
Addressing the first prong, in the related case No. B228534, we determined that there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s order sustaining a petition alleging that Serenity was inappropriately disciplined by Ebony and that father failed to protect the children. (§ 300, subd. (b).) We recited the evidence that “Ebony admitted that she made contact with Serenity’s forehead. Serenity stated that Ebony slapped her on purpose. Although father claims he did not know about the event until later that day, the record also contains both Sincere’s and S.’s statements that father knew of the incident. Yet, father did nothing but go back to bed and then take Serenity to school. Moreover, this family not only has had numerous referrals in the past because of physical abuse, but a dependency case just closed based on the same kind of abuse allegation. All of the children have stated that their parents hit them. No one has stated that father has taken steps to prevent the abuse or to protect the children from it.” Based on this evidence, we affirmed the order finding Serenity a dependent under section 300, subdivision (b). Accordingly, the first prong of subdivision (j) is satisfied here.
Turning to the second prong, namely the existence of “a substantial risk that [Sincere and S.] would also be abused” (In re Joshua J., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 992), there is ample supporting evidence. To begin with, both Sincere and S. stated that Ebony and father hit them. In fact, S. stated father hits her more than Ebony does. Six-year-old S. is afraid that mother or father would hurt her if she returns home. What S. likes about her foster placement is that she does not get “whoopings” there. Also, Serenity disclosed “a lot of physical abuse in the home.” Stated otherwise, even assuming Serenity was the only child the parents inappropriately disciplined and father failed to protect her, Sincere and S. are also at risk of violence as they too are being physically disciplined and father does not protect them. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Thus, there is evidence that they have already been directly harmed, and are not simply at risk because Serenity has been abused.
Father contends there is no longer a risk of harm to the children because Ebony has moved out of the family house, Serenity’s therapist felt the problems the child was having with Ebony had ameliorated, and father was unaware that Ebony had hit Serenity until the police called him later that day. However, apart from the fact that the children have stated that father hits them, the allegations with respect to father are that he fails to protect his children from the inappropriate physical abuse perpetrated by Ebony. Although father claims he did not know about the June 11th incident until later that afternoon, the record contains both Sincere’s and S.’s statements that father learned of the abuse immediately after it happened. Yet, rather than to take steps to intervene or prohibit such abuse, father did nothing but go back to bed and then take Serenity to school. The juvenile court was entitled to believe the two children and conclude therefore that father knew about the event and failed to protect Serenity. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52.) Further, the court was entitled to infer that father’s failure to safeguard the children would persist without court intervention. Such a conclusion is supported by the social worker’s unimpeached opinion that father appears unwilling or unable to protect the children. After seven years of services from a variety of agencies and programs, the same problems continue to resurface. These parents appear unable to apply what they have learned after services cease and the Department is no longer watching. “The fact that [father] is not a protective parent... significantly increases the level of dysfunction in the home, ” and “thus, the consequential harm or risk of harm to the children.” (In re Maria R., supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 69, italics added.) Therefore, the evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that both prongs of section 300, subdivision (j) are satisfied. The juvenile court did not err in sustaining the petition.
Father also challenges the jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (g) that Sincere’s father, who is not a party to this appeal, failed to provide Sincere with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Apart from the fact that this allegation is aimed at a parent who is not a party to his appeal, we need not address the question whether the evidence supports the section 300, subdivision (g) allegations because we may affirm a jurisdictional ruling if the evidence supports any of the grounds concerning the children. (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875; In re Dirk S. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1045.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, Acting P. J.KITCHING, J.