Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK70445. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Judith A. Luby, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minors.
DOI TODD,, J.
Regina C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings pertaining to her two children, Sophia C. (age six) and Luke C. (age four). She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s findings-made after her husband was arrested for drug-related offenses-that she shared in the creation and establishment of a detrimental home environment that placed their children at risk. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2010, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) filed a petition on behalf of Sophia and Luke under section 300, subdivision (b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. As amended and sustained, the petition alleged that on January 13, 2010, mother and the children’s father, Michael C. (father) “created a detrimental and endangering home environment for the children in that methamphetamine, marijuana and/or prescription medication was found in the children’s home within access of the children”; father exposed the children to illicit drug trafficking; on January 13, 2010 father was arrested for possession and sale of controlled substances; live ammunition was found within access of the children; father has a history of substance abuse, which contributed to the children being previously declared dependents of the juvenile court; father has four criminal convictions of possession of a controlled substance for sale; and the “detrimental and endangering home environment established for the children by the children’s father and mother endangers the children’s physical and emotional harm and safety and places the children at risk of harm, damage and danger.”
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references shall be to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
The department’s detention report stated that three years earlier in 2007 father was arrested at the family home for possession of controlled substances, and that mother was home at the time of the search and arrest. The children were detained, but returned to mother’s care a week later. The sustained petition alleged that father had a history of substance abuse and that mother failed to take action to protect the children. They were declared dependents of the juvenile court, and father was remanded to a drug program under Proposition 36. After father completed the program, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction in August 2008.
A police report attached to the detention report stated that on January 13, 2010, police officers executed another search warrant at the family’s home. When the officers knocked on the front door to announce their presence and purpose, father fled from the house and was detained in the backyard. Luke was found alone inside the house; Sophia was at school and mother was at work.
Prior to searching the property, a “walk through” was made by one of the officers and his narcotic scent detecting dog, who “alerted” the officer to the presence of narcotics in a large black speaker and work bench in the garage, and in a Ford truck registered to father that was parked in the driveway, and which later was found to contain $350 in cash.
A search of the garage revealed marijuana hidden in the black speaker, as well as surveillance cameras and equipment. On the workbench was a radio scanner, a computer screen depicting live surveillance of the driveway, and unused plastic bags. Live shotgun shells were recovered in a box on a shelf above the workbench. An informant had recently told one of the officers that father kept drugs and drug paraphernalia hidden in pieces of wood in the garage that appeared to be structural components of the garage. Officers discovered that some of the wooden pieces were hollowed out; one piece of wood contained a scale, and another contained 20 blue pills. Officers also discovered a woman in the garage, who stated that she had come to the garage the prior day to purchase methamphetamine, as she had on other occasions. When mother had arrived home the prior day, father had “panicked” and had asked the woman to stay the night in the locked garage, which she did.
While walking along the driveway during the search, an officer heard an “auditory tone.” He located a wireless driveway alert device concealed in a bush, which displayed a red light every time he walked past it.
Officers also searched the interior of the house. In a kitchen cabinet, they recovered a black bag containing $1,020 in cash and what appeared to be methamphetamine.
While the search was still in progress, one of the department’s social workers arrived and mother returned home. The social worker interviewed the family members. Mother stated that she and father had been married for 19 years, and had lived at the residence for 18 years. She did not believe that father had used illegal drugs since his last arrest in 2007, and thought he was in “rehab” meetings since that time. She was the sole breadwinner as a teacher, and father was supposed to take care of the children. Mother stated that she had retrieved a thermometer that morning from the same cabinet where the officers discovered the methamphetamine, but she did not see any drugs. Mother also stated that she had recently been home for three weeks during the holiday break and did not see any strangers approach the home during this time.
Mother and father were not getting along because mother had recently discovered that father was having an affair. She told the social worker she was planning to divorce father, and signed a safety plan stating that she would not allow him to live in the family home.
The social worker also interviewed the children, who appeared to be well groomed, dressed appropriately and had no visible marks or bruises. Sophia said she once saw father using drugs, but the social worker believed Sophia was describing a cigarette. Luke stated that he had seen different colored drugs in the house and that people came to visit father during the day, but he did not know why. All family members denied physical abuse. The children were allowed to remain in mother’s care with family maintenance services.
For the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the department reported that the social worker had returned to the house and observed that both the house and garage were very messy and cluttered, including the cabinet where drugs were found inside the house. Mother denied knowing that the property had surveillance, but the social worker noted that when the police raided the house in 2007, the house and garage were wired for surveillance. Mother also denied knowing that father had ammunition. She stated that she did not go into the garage because that was father’s space and the lock was hard to open. She also stated that she wanted father to switch to a different drug program that “would be more beneficial to him, one that was more religion based.” Mother has known father since high school and admitted knowing that father had been using drugs since he was 13 years old, but she thought he had stopped. She stated that her father had been an alcoholic and that her mother had been in denial regarding the extent of his alcohol problem.
Mother testified at the contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on February 25, 2010. She has been a teacher for 19 years and usually works from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. She thought father had changed his “old ways” because he had a sponsor and was going to Narcotics Anonymous meetings twice a week, though she wanted him to attend meetings that were more religious. She denied knowing there was surveillance around the garage. But in her later testimony she admitted that she had learned in 2007 that the home had surveillance, that there were monitors in the garage, and that the police again found monitors in the garage during the latest raid. Mother denied ever seeing the monitors. Mother never suspected there were drugs in the garage. She believed father used the garage for woodworking projects and to smoke cigarettes. The keys for the garage are kept on a key ring that Sophia could probably reach with a step stool. Mother did not know how many times father had been arrested for drug-related offenses during their 19 years of marriage; she did know that he had been arrested and served time prior to their marriage. As a teacher, mother has had training in drug abuse and awareness, but she testified that father did not exhibit any symptoms of drug abuse. She attended Alanon meetings for a year after father’s arrest in 2007.
After hearing argument, the court found that mother was not credible “regarding her belief or knowledge to the extent she knew or should have known something was going on.” The court noted that she had concerns about father’s drug program not being sufficient, which indicated that she had concerns about father. Combining that with the fact that the garage was locked and she knew there was surveillance “does create concern about her previous ability to protect and her future ability to protect her children, as well.” The court amended the petition to conform to proof. As to disposition, the court ordered the children removed from father’s custody and placed with mother under the supervision of the department, and ordered the department to provide mother with family maintenance services and father with family reunification services. The court also ordered mother to attend and complete a substance abuse awareness program with ten consecutive random drug tests, and to participate in individual counseling and Alanon with a sponsor. This appeal followed.
Mother does not challenge the court’s dispositional order on appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review.
Challenges to a juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649; In re Clara B. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 988, 1000.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is “‘reasonable, credible and of solid value’” such that a reasonable trier of fact could make such findings. (In re Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1080.) “We review the record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or not, which supports the court’s conclusions.” (In re Kristin H., supra, at p. 1649.) “‘All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible.’” (Ibid.) Issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trial court and it is not our function to redetermine them. (In re Rubisela E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 177, 195.)
II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Jurisdictional Findings.
Section 300, subdivision (b) provides that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged a dependent child of the court if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child or inability to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s substance abuse.
Mother argues there is “absolutely no evidence” that she knew of father’s drug activity in the home or that she shared any responsibility for “creating” a potentially detrimental living environment for the children. Mother is mistaken.
The trial court found that mother was not credible as to her knowledge of father’s drug-related activities. We are bound by that credibility finding (In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 199–200), which alone supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order. But beyond that, the evidence as a whole supports the juvenile court’s findings.
Mother has known father since high school and knew that he had used drugs since he was 13 years old. During their 19-year marriage, mother knew father had been arrested several times for drug-related offenses, including in 2007 while mother was present. Luke told the social worker he saw people he did not know coming to see his father. Indeed, when the police executed their most recent warrant, they found a woman hiding in the garage, who admitted that she had come to purchase drugs as she had previously done several times at that location. Though mother claimed she thought father had stopped using and selling drugs, she admitted having recently been concerned about the sufficiency of his substance abuse program. She also understood the concept of “denial” from her own father’s alcohol abuse. Despite father’s long drug-related history, mother allowed father to be the sole caretaker of her two young children while she was at work all day. When confronted by the police during their most recent raid, father tried to run away, leaving young Luke alone in the house.
Additionally, father’s behavior and the surroundings of the residence should have alerted mother that father was selling and possibly using drugs again. Father kept the garage locked and was in the garage every day. Records from father’s 2007 arrest indicated the presence of surveillance cameras at the home, but mother initially denied knowing about the surveillance to the social worker and in her testimony. Later in her testimony she changed her position and admitted knowing there were surveillance monitors, but claimed that she had never seen them. In addition to the surveillance cameras, as well as the computer monitor depicting live coverage of the driveway and a police scanner in the garage, a red light blinked and sounded whenever anyone walked along the driveway. While it is possible that mother may not have seen hidden cameras or well-concealed drugs, the juvenile court could reasonably infer that mother was at least aware of these other obvious signs of surveillance and the reason for their existence. Indeed, the social worker commented in the jurisdictional/dispositional report that the family home was in a “nice neighborhood.”
Mother asserts that no harm came to the children while living in the home with father. She also argues that “any potential risk of harm that the children could have encountered in the future, ended the minute law enforcement arrested their Father on January 13, 2010, ” and therefore there was no risk to the children at the time of the jurisdictional hearing on February 25, 2010. But the record indicates that father had been selling drugs for some time. The trial court could easily infer that someone seeking to purchase drugs from father would still come to the family home unaware that father had been arrested. As the department noted in its detention report: “According to narcotic law enforcement experts, it is common for narcotics activity in a home to lead to violent confrontations and/or altercations with criminal associates, rivals and/or those seeking to purchase narcotics while under the influence of a controlled substance or not. Most of these contacts with those committing narcotic related crimes are also known to carry weapons. The minors in this home were exposed to said volatilities that placed the children at imminent risk to health, safety and potential fatality. Further, it is known that homes that store illegal narcotics are subject to armed robbery for said narcotics.”
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings as to mother.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional order is affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.