Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. CEJ300128-1. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
Hana B. Balfour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Hill, J.
L.M. (mother) appeals from jurisdictional findings and the consequent dispositional order that removed her son, Y.M., from the physical custody of mother and Y.’s father, and ordered reunification services for both parents. Mother has joined in arguments made by Y.’s father in his appeal, In re Y.M. (Nov. 24, 2009, F057142) [nonpub. opn.]. Father contended (1) the juvenile court erred in finding jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), and (2) the order temporarily removing Y. from his parents’ custody is not supported by evidence that removal was necessary to avoid a substantial danger to Y.’s physical health or emotional well-being and there were no reasonable means to protect his physical or emotional health without removing Y. from their custody. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On review, we concluded the juvenile court did not err, as substantial evidence supported (1) the jurisdictional findings that Y. had suffered severe physical abuse inflicted non-accidentally by his mother and father, as Y. was taken to the hospital on May 1, 2008, where it was discovered he had suffered physical injury including a subdural hematoma and fractures to his clavicle and femur, and his parents had no reasonable explanation as to how Y. sustained the injuries, and (2) the dispositional order temporarily removing Y. from the parents’ physical custody.
With respect to the propriety of the dispositional order, mother cites one case that father did not, In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (Henry V.), which she asserts is similar to the instant case. There, the juvenile court was reversed because the four-year-old child’s injury (burn marks on his buttocks consistent with a curling iron) was a single occurrence and it was not clear the juvenile court applied the clear and convincing standard to its dispositional findings. (Id. at pp. 529-530.) This case, however, does not compel a different result, as here the juvenile court used the correct standard and it is not clear Y.’s injuries, which were much more serious than the injuries to the minor in Henry V., were inflicted during a single event.
Mother also asserts in addition to placement of Y. with her and father in her parents’ home, there were other options short of removal, such as providing intensive supervision, the assistance or supervision from a public health nurse, or in-home parenting coaching or counseling. Even if these options were available, they do not alter our conclusion that the juvenile court reasonably could find it would not be safe to return Y. to his parents’ custody until they had completed the domestic violence evaluation and recommended treatment, especially in light of the severity of Y.’s injuries and the parents’ denial that the abuse occurred.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.