From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. A.D (In re K.V.)

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Aug 22, 2023
No. B318108 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2023)

Opinion

B318108

08-22-2023

In re K.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.D., Defendant and Appellant.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP05337A Philip L. Soto, Judge.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent

ASHMANN-GERST J

Defendant and appellant A.D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's January 24, 2022, jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders in which her daughter, K.V. (minor, born Sept. 2008), was declared a dependent of the court and removed from her custody. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Prior Juvenile Dependency Case

In 2009, the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 dependency petition alleging that minor's father, R.V. (father), had a history of substance abuse, which interfered with his ability to provide regular care and supervision of minor. The court terminated its jurisdiction a year later and issued an exit order awarding mother sole legal and physical custody of minor. Father was granted monitored visitation.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Referral

On October 4, 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral regarding minor. According to the caller, minor had disclosed that her stepfather started showing her pornography when she was six or seven years old. This had stopped when mother and the stepfather moved to Arizona. Minor had also disclosed having suicidal thoughts.

Initial Investigation

On October 7, 2021, a DCFS social worker visited father's home and spoke to father and his fiancee. Father had been attempting to obtain full custody of minor. Minor had disclosed thoughts about hurting herself because no one listened to her and mother had told her "that everything was her fault and she is no good." Minor had been "acting out with anger" and having "'meltdowns' at night before bed." Minor had also reported that mother's boyfriend, Arturo L. (Arturo), would put on pornography. There had also been incidents when minor slept in the same bed as mother and Arturo, who would engage in sexual acts when they thought, erroneously, that minor was asleep. Mother had been in Arizona for several months and had only returned once to see minor for about 30 minutes.

The social worker returned to the home a few days later. Minor's older sister told the social worker that minor had reported that Arturo "force[d] her to watch inappropriate movies with violence and suicide." Minor was interviewed when she returned home from school. She stated that she had not seen mother in several months. Prior to mother leaving for Arizona, minor would visit mother and Arturo. Minor had witnessed domestic violence between mother and Arturo "because they were drunk." Arturo made fun of minor for being in special education classes and called her "stupid and dumb[.]" Arturo told minor that her brain did not "process things right and called her retarded." He also told minor that she could not "do anything right." Instead of defending minor, mother "would just 'let out a chuckle[.]'"

Minor told the social worker that when she was about six or seven years old, Arturo would put on pornography and gore movies. Mother was present, but she would not say anything. This had occurred "'too many times to count'" but ceased when minor was about nine or 10 years old.

Minor stated that she had suicidal thoughts because of the names Arturo had called her and feeling "'useless[.]'" She had a plan to hang or strangle herself. She had slit her wrist with a razor about two months prior. She denied current suicidal or homicidal ideations. When minor had to talk to mother over the telephone, minor felt "a 'twisted, weird and disgusting feeling' in her stomach." Minor did not feel that mother was "protective of her" or took care of her.

Mother had mentioned visiting minor with Arturo sometime that month. Minor asked the social worker how she could get a restraining order to protect father from Arturo. Arturo had threatened to have his friends hurt father, saying "'we don't talk, we kill[.]'" Minor reported being scared of Arturo and not feeling happy or safe with mother.

The social worker spoke with mother on the telephone. Mother told the social worker that the allegations against Arturo were false and that father was "putting things in [minor]'s head" because he wanted custody. Mother stated that she just found out information about minor's sexuality. Mother explained that "her family is against gay people and lesbians"-a viewpoint she had explained to minor. Mother wanted to take minor to Arizona.

The social worker also spoke to minor's school counselor, who had been meeting with minor for a few weeks. Minor had recently discussed her sexuality with mother and Arturo. Minor told the social worker that mother had said that minor "was going to hell[] and that God was going to punish her." Minor had disclosed watching pornography with Arturo as well as having suicidal thoughts.

Detention

On November 17, 2021, DCFS sought and obtained an order authorizing the detention of minor from mother. Minor was placed with father.

Dependency Petition

On November 19, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition seeking the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction over minor pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), and (d) (sexual abuse). Count b-1 alleged that mother allowed Arturo to emotionally abuse minor by calling her derogatory names, which resulted in minor having suicidal thoughts and attempting suicide. Count c-1 alleged that mother had emotionally abused minor by making demeaning comments to her and allowing Arturo to call minor derogatory names. Counts b-2 and d-1 alleged that mother allowed Arturo to show minor pornographic videos.

Detention Hearing

At the November 24, 2021, detention hearing, mother entered a general denial, while father submitted to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The court found that a prima facie showing had been made that minor was a person described by section 300. The court detained minor from mother and released her to father under DCFS supervision. Mother was granted monitored visitation. The court ordered no contact between Arturo and minor.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

When interviewed in December 2021, minor reported feeling happier since living with father and wanting to remain in his care. Minor wanted to continue having monitored contact with mother. Minor explained: "'If no one was monitoring, she will say bad things about my dad and get mad at me for what I said.'" During minor's last phone call with mother earlier that month, a social worker had ended the call after mother mentioned Arturo and spoke negatively about father's partner. Minor did not want to return to mother's care or live in Arizona.

Minor said she felt worthless when Arturo called her names. Her treatment in mother's household caused her to feel suicidal and to engage in self-harming behaviors such as "'using a shaver in the bathroom' to 'release pain.'" Although mother was aware of Arturo's comments to minor, mother did not stop him and, instead, just laughed. Minor denied current suicidal ideation while in father's care.

Minor also confirmed that Arturo watched pornographic videos in her presence. Mother was present but never stopped him. Minor denied that Arturo ever exposed or stimulated himself while watching pornography or that he ever sexually abused her.

Mother denied each of the allegations in the dependency petition and accused father and minor's paternal relatives of brainwashing minor. Arturo also denied the allegations and stated, "'It's not [minor] saying these things. It's [R.V.], her dad.'" Adjudication Hearing

After entertaining oral argument on January 24, 2022, the juvenile court sustained counts b-1 and c-1. The court dismissed as "not proven" counts b-2 and d-1 regarding Arturo allegedly showing minor pornographic videos.

According to count b-1, mother "allowed" Arturo "to emotionally abuse" minor. Arturo called minor "derogatory names, such as stupid, retarded[,] and dumb," which made minor feel sad. Arturo made fun of minor for being enrolled in special education classes. He told minor that her "brain process[es] things slow" and that "she can't do anything right[.]" These comments made minor "feel useless" and "exhibit[] suicidal ideation[.]" Minor formed "a plan to hang . . . or strangle herself." Minor previously attempted suicide by "slit[ting] her wrist with a razor." Mother was aware of Arturo's emotional abuse of minor but failed to protect her by allowing Arturo to have unlimited access to minor and minor's home. Arturo's emotional abuse and mother's failure to protect minor placed minor "at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal[,] and aggressive behavior toward herself or others."

According to count c-1, mother "emotionally abused" minor. Mother told minor "that everything is her fault and she is no good[.]" This caused minor to "feel[] sad, depressed[,] and suicidal." "[M]other made demeaning comments to" minor "about her sexuality, including" that minor "was going to hell[] and that God was going to punish her." Mother also "emotionally abused" minor by allowing Arturo to call minor "derogatory names," which made minor "feel useless." The "emotional abuse" caused minor to "exhibit suicidal ideation" and form "a plan to hang . . . or strangle herself." Minor previously "displayed self-harming behavior, including cutting . . . [her] wrist with a razor." Minor "reported feeling physically sick and anxious when" she had to speak with mother by telephone. Minor was "experiencing mood changes and . . . exhibited aggressive behavior toward[] others." Mother's emotional abuse of minor placed minor "at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal[,] and aggressive behavior toward herself or others."

The juvenile court declared minor a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c), and removed her from mother's custody. The court placed minor in father's home under DCFS supervision. The court ordered enhancement services for mother and granted her monitored visitation with minor in a therapeutic setting. The court prohibited contact between minor and Arturo.

Appeal Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, mother contends that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. Mother does not independently challenge the dispositional order removing minor from her custody but asserts that the dispositional order should be vacated if we reverse the jurisdictional findings.

I. Relevant Law

Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A), the juvenile court has jurisdiction over and may adjudge to be a dependent of the court a "child [who] has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] . . . [t]he failure or inability of the child's parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child."

Section 300, subdivision (c), authorizes the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over and adjudge to be a dependent of the court a "child [who] is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent ...."

"While evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions, the question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the child to the defined risk of harm." (In re Emily L. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 1, 15 (Emily L.).) Still, "section 300 does not require that a child actually be abused or neglected before the juvenile court can assume jurisdiction. The subdivisions at issue here require only a 'substantial risk' that the child will be abused or neglected. The legislatively declared purpose of these provisions '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.' [Citation.] 'The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.' [Citation.]" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)

II. Standard of Review

Jurisdictional findings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.) We review those findings for substantial evidence-"evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value. [Citations.] We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or determine the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile court's order and affirm the order even if there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding." (In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)

"When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court's jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence. [Citations.]" (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 (Alexis E.); see also In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 284 ["where there are multiple findings against one parent, the validity of one finding may render moot the parent's attempt to challenge the others"].)

III. Analysis

Arturo made demeaning and hurtful comments to minor, including calling her stupid, dumb, and "retarded" and telling her that she could not "do anything right." Instead of defending minor from Arturo's emotional abuse, mother effectively endorsed his conduct by standing by and laughing at his comments. Arturo's conduct caused minor to feel "'useless'" and contemplate suicide, including thinking about specific methods of killing herself. Minor also engaged in a potentially deadly act of selfharm when she slit her wrist with a razor. Although several months had passed since minor last saw or interacted with Arturo, minor remained scared of him. The mere mention by mother that she would visit with Arturo made minor want to seek a restraining order against him. Minor felt unsafe with and unprotected by mother.

The foregoing constitutes substantial evidence from which the juvenile court could make a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), that mother had and would again expose minor to a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm because of mother's failure to protect minor from Arturo's emotional abuse. Mother offers several arguments against this conclusion, but we find them unavailing.

Because we affirm the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction on this basis, we need not reach the merits of mother's challenge to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c), and decline to exercise our discretion to do so. (See In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283-284; Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451.)

Mother's primary argument is that, because minor had not had contact with Arturo for many months, no defined risk of harm existed at the time of the adjudication hearing. Certainly, "section 300 requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time" the jurisdictional findings are made. (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601.) And "[w]hile evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions," "previous acts of neglect, standing alone, do not establish a substantial risk of future harm; there must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe they will reoccur. [Citation.]" (Emily L., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 15.)

Here, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude- without resorting to speculation-that mother's failure to protect minor from Arturo's emotional abuse would continue. Mother completely denied that Arturo made demeaning comments to minor and instead accused father and his family of brainwashing minor. Mother's failure to acknowledge Arturo's harmful behavior, her role in allowing it to happen, and its potentially fatal effects on minor, supports the inference that mother's neglect would reoccur. (See In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613, 622 ["Realizing conduct needs improvement is a first step to improvement"]; In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 996 [a parent's "lack of insight . . . provided support for the potential of future risk"]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge"].) Further, nothing in the record suggests that mother intended to end her relationship with Arturo.

Mother also suggests that minor's suicidal ideation was caused by her "ongoing apprehension with processing her sexuality." Mother points to inconsistencies in minor's statements to DCFS and the lack of medical documentation that minor actually attempted suicide with a razor. In so doing, mother essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence and make credibility determinations, which the substantial evidence standard of review does not permit. (In re R.V., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 843.)

Finally, mother argues that this was a matter best left for the family court, where father could seek custody of minor if he desired. "The juvenile courts must not become a battleground by which family law war is waged by other means." (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 975.) But where, as here, DCFS "is able to prove that dependency jurisdiction is warranted, these concerns must give way to the primacy of dependency court jurisdiction and its special role." (In re Nicholas E. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 458, 466.) Whereas "[f]amily court proceedings are aimed at assessing 'the best interests of the child as between two parents[]'" (id. at p. 465), "[d]ependency proceedings are not so narrow in focus, and invoke the state's role as parens patriae in evaluating the best interest of the child, even if it means placement with someone other than the parents. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 465-466.) That father could have sought family court intervention does not absolve the juvenile court from its duty to assume jurisdiction and protect minor when presented with sufficient evidence of mother's neglect.

As substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction and mother has provided no independent basis to reverse the removal of minor from her custody or other dispositional orders made at the January 24, 2022 adjudication hearing, we affirm those as well.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders are affirmed.

We concur: P. J. LUI, LUI HOFFSTADT J


Summaries of

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. A.D (In re K.V.)

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Aug 22, 2023
No. B318108 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2023)
Case details for

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. A.D (In re K.V.)

Case Details

Full title:In re K.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Aug 22, 2023

Citations

No. B318108 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2023)