Opinion
B320321
07-25-2023
In re ROHAN H. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. CHRISTINA H., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from findings of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. 21CCJP05087A-B Cynthia A. Zuzga, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.
Christina H. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings regarding her two children, Rohan H. (born Dec. 2010) and D.H. (born Mar. 2013) (collectively children). She contends that these findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Referral and Initial Investigation
Mother and father have been married for 15 years; Rohan and D.H. are their only children together. The family moved from Texas to California around April or June of 2021. By the time they arrived in Los Angeles, they had become homeless. As of August 2021, the family had moved into transitional housing, father had found employment, and both children were attending a nearby elementary school.
On October 19, 2021, Rohan told an adult at his school that "last night . . . father hurt mother." (Italics omitted.) He reported that in the morning, father "grabbed him by his shoulder so hard he . . . thought his shoulder had 'popped out of its socket.'" Rohan said that he intervened in fights between his parents, and that he would "'give his life' to protect . . . mother."
That same day, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) dispatched social workers to the family home.
A. Interview with Mother
Mother admitted that she and father "'had an argument'" the night before which had awakened and scared the children, but insisted that they had only "'seen [father] trying to hold me down[,] [t]rying to get me to do some self-soothing technique [sic], I was having a panic attack.'" Mother said that father's intervention further "'flared'" the panic attack, but that she was able to calm down when she realized the children were watching. She denied being injured.
Mother said that she and father "'don't usually argue,'" but told the social workers that they had been under a lot of stress because of their housing situation and father's new job. When asked about her history with father, mother admitted that "'years ago,'" father "became physical toward her" while he was using methamphetamine. When father did get physical, Rohan would intervene in the fights.
Mother also admitted that she sometimes disciplined the children by spanking them, but that she only did this in "'severe situation[s]" like Rohan "'us[ing] the F word.'"
Mother confirmed that father had previously abused methamphetamine for a period of five years. During that time, she and the children lived with mother's family, and mother averred that she tried to limit the children's interactions with father. She said that father had been sober since attending rehab in 2018, apart from one brief relapse, but that he smoked medicinal marijuana daily. To her knowledge, father was not participating in services to maintain his sobriety.
B. Interview with Father
When the social worker first encountered father, he walked away from her, muttering incomprehensibly, and led her out of the apartment. The social worker commented that father's behavior seemed "bizarre" and that he "did not appear lucid and appeared to be under the influence."
When father eventually consented to be interviewed, he denied ever "'putting his hands'" on mother and confirmed her version of the prior night's altercation. He acknowledged that as he restrained mother, she "was screaming and the children then started telling [him] 'don't hurt mommy.'"
Father also reported a prior history of substance abuse, admitting that he had been an alcoholic and methamphetamine addict from 2013 to 2018. He said that he began addiction treatment in 2018 and had been sober since October 2020, except for medicinal marijuana use. On October 21, 2021, father tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana.
C. Interview with D.H.
When the social worker asked D.H. if she had seen her parents arguing lately, she reported that the night before, father initiated a fight with mother, Rohan tried to intervene, and father grabbed Rohan by his shoulders to prevent him from getting involved. D.H. reported feeling safe with mother and Rohan, but she "'worried about dad hurting mom.'" She could remember multiple incidents when father had hurt mother, including one in which father "'grabb[ed] . . . mother by her neck and chok[ed] her out'" when the family still lived in Texas. She volunteered that she had "'also seen something so disgusting. They even fight when they're naked!'" She said that father "'always looks angry and it scares me .... Sometimes I wish I can just lock myself in the closet so I won't see my dad.'"
D. Interview with Rohan
Rohan told the social worker that parents fought regularly, and that on some days, the children would be awoken by mother and father screaming. Rohan confirmed that father and mother fought the night before. He said that he saw father "'throwing mommy like a ragdoll'" and "'holding mommy to the bed and [he] wouldn't let her up.'"
When asked if he had been hurt during the fight, Rohan reported that father "'put his arms on my shoulders and held on tightly until mommy got into the fight again and told him not to touch me. Then he went back to putting his anger at mommy.'"
Rohan said that this type of fighting had been going on "'for the past few years.'" He reported that mother "'said that all that was going to stop this morning . . . but every time mommy says it's going to stop it comes back. I don't want [father] in jail, but I'm worried about me getting hurt because I put myself in the fights. I don't want mommy getting hurt.'"
Rohan reported that one week before, the family had gone to surprise father at his new job and found him drinking. This worried Rohan, because "'any time [father] would drink he would have a fight with mommy.'"
Rohan reported that both parents had spanked him, occasionally leaving "'big fat rashes'" on his bottom. He said that both parents also slapped his cheeks; a few days ago, they had slapped him in the face because he peed on the toilet seat. Rohan said that his parents "'always say they're barely slapping, but to us it hurts.'" Rohan said that sometimes they hit hard enough to cause bruising on his face.
Rohan said that he had difficulty getting along with other children at school, and "'all the time I think about hurting someone else.'" He said "'I'm always alone. I have no friends because I'm always cussing and threatening. No one wants to be my friend.'"
Towards the end of the interview, Rohan told the social worker about "'a big accident'" in which he had overdosed on medication and had to be hospitalized. He said that he has grabbed knives from the kitchen and thought about stabbing himself. He reported "'chok[ing]'" himself "'for a second'" one week earlier after thinking about parents yelling at each other. The night before, he said that he had "'wanted to hurt himself'" because he "'wanted to feel how mommy felt when she was hurt.'" He told the social worker that "'I always tell myself to hurt myself and kill myself because I'm having a bad life.'"
II. Removal and Detention
On November 1, 2021, the juvenile court granted a removal order. DCFS removed the children from their parents' custody and placed them with a foster family. When a social worker arrived to execute the removal order, the children reported that parents had fought again the night before.
That same day, DCFS contacted mother's case manager at the family's transitional housing complex. She expressed surprise that the children were being removed. She described the parents as "proactive," and notified DCFS that they both attended parenting classes.
One week later, the juvenile court held a detention hearing and ordered the children detained in the custody of DCFS. The court ordered weekly monitored visitation for both parents.
III. Dependency Petition
In November 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition seeking the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b)(1) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), and (j) (abuse of sibling).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
DCFS made four categories of allegations against mother. First, it alleged that mother and father's domestic violence warranted jurisdiction. Counts a-3 and b-5 stated that "[t]he violent conduct by . . . mother and . . . father, endangers the children's physical health and safety, creates a dangerous home environment, and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and danger."
The petition also alleged multiple counts against father; because he is not a party to this appeal, we do not describe those counts except as they relate to the allegations against mother.
Second, DCFS alleged that mother physically abused Rohan, including by "striking [his] buttocks with [her] hands, resulting in . . . multiple rashes" and "striking [his] face with [her] hands, resulting in . . . bruises on [his] face." Count b-3 alleged that this abuse "was excessive and caused [Rohan] unreasonable pain and suffering . . . endanger[ed] his physical health, safety, and well-being . . . [and] place[d] [him] . . . at risk of serious physical harm, damage, [and] physical abuse[.]" Count b-4 alleged that mother failed to protect Rohan from similar abuse by father. Counts j-1 and j-2 alleged that mother's abuse of and failure to protect Rohan also "plac[ed] . . . [his] sibling, [D.H.], at risk of serious physical harm, damage, physical abuse, and failure to protect."
Third, DCFS alleged that both parents emotionally abused Rohan "by frequently engaging in domestic violence in [his] presence . . . resulting in the child intervening in the physical altercations." Count c-1 outlined Rohan's history of thoughts about harming himself and others, and alleged that both parents "fail[ed] to obtain consistent and appropriate mental health treatment for [Rohan's] mental and emotional issues . . . [which] place[d] [him] at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage."
Fourth, DCFS alleged that mother failed to protect the children from father's substance abuse issues. The petition alleged that father "has a history of substance abuse including methamphetamine and alcohol and is a current abuser of methamphetamine, amphetamine, alcohol and marijuana," and that he had recently "tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana." Count b-2 alleged that mother "knew of . . . father's substance abuse and failed to protect the children by allowing [him] to reside in the children's home and have unlimited access to the children."
The petition also alleged that mother had a history of substance abuse and currently abused marijuana. These allegations were not substantiated.
IV. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
In December, DCFS asked both parents about the allegations made in the section 300 petition.
Mother generally denied the allegations. She maintained that she and father had not fought the night before DCFS's initial investigation, and denied that father had ever been violent to her except during his past struggles with methamphetamine addiction, when he had been "'slightly aggressive'" and "'ha[d] anger issues.'" She now said that the children had never seen any fights between the parents. She also denied slapping Rohan or spanking him hard enough to leave rashes.
She claimed to know nothing about Rohan's suicidal thoughts or impulses but said that he had been diagnosed with severe ADHD and social anxiety, for which he received services. She said that he had always struggled with behavioral issues, and attributed his recent anger issues to frustration with his foster placement.
Mother denied any awareness of father's recent drug use. She had no suspicions that he had relapsed on methamphetamine and claimed that he could not be drinking alcohol because it would aggravate an underlying medical condition that had been diagnosed six or seven years earlier. Mother reported that father had moved out of the family home and was currently living in a tent in the park across the street.
Father also denied all the allegations. He maintained that he never physically fought with mother, but said that when he tried to restrain her during a panic attack "'it looked like domestic violence.'"
Father said that he never slapped or spanked the children because mother "'does the disciplining.'" Father admitted that mother had recently "'popped [Rohan] on the mouth with two fingers for cussing,'" but insisted that "[s]he barely tapped his face."
Father denied any current drug use apart from smoking medicinal marijuana and said that he had not consumed alcohol for 48 days.
V. Last Minute Information Forms
In the three months between the jurisdiction/disposition report and the adjudication hearing, DCFS filed multiple last minute information forms with the juvenile court.
A. Last Minute Information Dated January 18, 2022
DCFS reported that in January 2022, Rohan's foster mother took him to the emergency room because he tried to choke himself twice. He was placed on a section 5150 hold and hospitalized for one week.
B. Last Minute Information Dated February 9, 2022
DCFS informed the juvenile court that mother was participating in weekly individual therapy sessions, parenting classes, and narcotics anonymous meetings. She submitted to weekly drug testing, reporting five consecutive negative tests. Both parents consistently visited the children.
Rohan continued to struggle with behavioral problems. D.H. told her foster mother that when the children lived with their parents, Rohan used to choke himself "all the time," which scared her.
C. Last Minute Information Dated March 8, 2022
DCFS learned that Rohan had been placed on a second section 5150 hold in February, again after attempting to choke himself. At the hospital, "[h]e reported homicidal ideation with no plan but he wants to hurt the bullies" at his school. Rohan was hospitalized for 10 days before being released to a new foster placement, where he appeared to improve.
Father and mother continued to test negative and visit appropriately.
D. Last Minute Information Dated March 9, 2022
DCFS informed the juvenile court that mother's psychotherapist submitted a letter stating that mother had made great progress in her individual therapy sessions. The therapist felt that "[a]t this time, there are no concerns currently about mother's ability to provide competent and loving care to her children."
However, DCFS noted that while "the parents continue to show consistent compliance with the services they are currently participating in and they continue to maintain regular contact with the children[,] [t]he parents need to address the domestic violence which was the main concern that brought the family to the attention of DCFS. It is imperative that parents gain insight as to how the violent dynamic in the home affects the children and specifically Rohan who has behavioral and emotional issues."
VI. Adjudication Hearing
In March 2022, the juvenile court held a contested adjudication hearing on the section 300 petition. The court took notice of DCFS's reports, and received documentation of the various services each parent had participated in up to that point.
After hearing argument, the juvenile court sustained the following allegations against mother: Counts a-3 and b-5 (domestic violence); counts b-3, b-4, j-1, and j-2 (physical abuse and failure to protect); count c-1 (emotional abuse); and count b-2 (failure to protect from father's substance abuse).
The court sustained similar allegations against father.
The juvenile court then ordered the children to remain removed from the parents, finding that "it would be premature to issue [a] home-of-parent order for mother." The court stated that "the crux of this case is domestic violence," and that the domestic violence had been "going on [for] a long time." The court expressed concern that the parents had not yet gained insight into their domestic violence issues, and found that "the relationship between mother and father needs to be addressed in specific domestic violence counseling." Although father had moved out of the house, the court was troubled by the fact that "father's in a tent close by." The court stressed the need for a "slow transition" back to parental custody given the severity and length of the parents' domestic violence history.
VII. Appeal
Mother timely appealed.
We took judicial notice of these proceedings at mother's request.
In September 2022, the juvenile court found that mother and father had made substantial progress towards alleviating the problems that had necessitated jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court terminated its prior disposition order and returned the children to mother's physical custody.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, mother challenges each of the jurisdictional findings made against her. She asks us to strike from the record any jurisdictional findings that are not evidentiarily supported.
I. Relevant Law
Section 300 authorizes the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over and adjudge to be a dependent of the court children who meet certain enumerated statutory conditions. Four such conditions are relevant here: (1) a "child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the child's parent" (§ 300, subd. (a)); (2) a "child 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 . . . [¶] . . . [or by the] inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's . . . substance abuse" (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)); (3) a "child 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" (§ 300, subd. (c)); and (4) a child's "sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a) [or] (b) . . . and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions" (§ 300, subd. (j)).
"[S]ection 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.]" (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.) "Substantial evidence may include inferences, so long as any such inferences are based on logic and reason and rest on the evidence." (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 318.)
III. Analysis A. Justiciability
DCFS urges us to dismiss this appeal because, even if we were to strike every finding the juvenile court made against mother, the jurisdictional order would still stand under the numerous unchallenged findings made as to father.
We agree that mother's appeal is moot. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283-284 (["[W]here jurisdictional findings have been made as to both parents but only one parent brings a challenge, the appeal may be rendered moot"].) Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, we turn to the merits of mother's appeal.
B. Jurisdictional Findings
As described above, the juvenile court made four categories of findings against mother, stemming from (1) mother and father's domestic violence (counts a-3 and b-5); (2) mother's physical abuse of Rohan and her failure to protect the children from father's physical abuse (counts b-3, b-4, j-1, and j-2); (3) mother and father's emotional abuse of Rohan (count c-1); and (4) mother's failure to protect the children from father's substance abuse (count b-2). We examine each of these in turn.
1. Counts a-3 and b-5 (domestic violence)
The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings regarding mother and father's domestic violence are amply supported by the record. Mother and father had been engaging in domestic violence for years. The children had witnessed multiple parental fights, telling social workers that they had seen father choking mother, physically fighting her while naked, throwing her into furniture "'like a ragdoll[,]'" and preventing her from leaving the room. And mother conceded that father had "became physical toward her" in the past, and that those prior fights had taken place in front of the children.
But parents' violence was not limited to the distant past. At the outset of DCFS's investigation into the family, the children reported two physical altercations between parents within two weeks. Mother attempted to distance the family from their history of domestic violence by linking father's aggression to his use of methamphetamine, which she insisted was no longer an issue. But father tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine just two days after DCFS received the initial report alleging domestic violence.
Most troublingly, Rohan became involved in parents' fights. During the fight that instigated DCFS's investigation, Rohan physically intervened, leading father to grip Rohan's shoulders forcefully and painfully until mother yelled at him to stop. The day after that fight, Rohan said that he would "'give his life' to protect . . . mother" from father. Even mother conceded that Rohan had put himself in parents' fights in the past.
Yet, despite this body of evidence, mother consistently denied any current violence between her and father, minimized the impact of such violence on the children, and failed to seek out classes or counseling specifically tailored to address domestic violence issues. Rohan implied that this was not the first time mother had closed her eyes to the ugly reality of domestic violence and its consequences, reporting that "'every time mo[ther] says [the violence is] going to stop it comes back.'"
Under these circumstances, the juvenile court was justified in entering both jurisdictional findings based on parents' domestic violence.
Mother raises four arguments against our conclusion. First, she argues that the juvenile court should not have sustained the domestic violence allegations under subdivision (a) of section 300. Mother claims that the record in this case demonstrates, at most, a risk of unintentional harm caused by parents' domestic violence, which is insufficient to impose jurisdiction under subdivision (a). (See In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 603 ["An unintended injury to a bystander child that results from an intentional act directed at another-for example, due to an object thrown by one parent at another during an argument-does not satisfy that statutory requirement"].)
We cannot agree. "Although many cases based on exposure to domestic violence are filed under section 300, subdivision (b) [citations], section 300, subdivision (a) may also apply." (In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.) Subdivision (a) has been held to cover domestic violence cases where "an older child intervenes during a fight to protect h[is] mother from h[is] father's abuse," as Rohan did here. (In re Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 603.)
Second, mother asserts that she, as the victim of domestic violence, should not be held accountable for father's aggressive acts. Her argument misunderstands the function of the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. It is axiomatic that "[i]n the dependency context, the juvenile court intervenes to protect a child, not to punish the parent." (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233.) It follows that jurisdictional findings are made not to blame the victims of domestic violence, as mother claims, but rather to protect children from the serious safety risks posed by their exposure to that violence.
Accordingly, a jurisdictional allegation may be sustained against a domestic violence victim when the aggressor's behavior is "entirely foreseeable" due to a history of "consistent[] violen[ce] with the [victim] for years," especially when the victim denies the reality of her situation and minimizes the severity of the violence. (In re Johnathan B. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 115, 120-121; see also In re Giovanni F., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 599-600.)
That is precisely what happened here: Parents had engaged in domestic violence for years, but mother denied any current violence and downplayed the impact of parents' fights on the children. Mother's attempt to analogize her case to In re Johnathan B., in which a court struck jurisdictional findings entered against a victim of domestic violence, is unavailing. (See, e.g., In re Johnathan B., supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 119-120 [jurisdictional finding regarding domestic violence struck against a mother who had been separated from her children's father for 10 months before being unexpectedly attacked by the father during a routine custody transfer].)
Third, mother contends that no safety risks existed at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, citing father's move out of the family home as well as mother's consistent participation in general parenting classes and individual counseling. But, as the juvenile court noted, these factors did not meaningfully diminish the safety risks posed by parents' turbulent relationship. Father had only moved into a temporary shelter across the street, remaining within close proximity to mother and the children. And, more importantly, mother's participation in general rehabilitative services did not increase her insight into the family's problems regarding domestic violence. (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 213 [a parent's refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the conduct giving rise to the dependency proceedings supports finding that children face a current risk of harm].)
Fourth, mother maintains that the juvenile court could not find a substantial risk of nonaccidental harm because neither child had been physically hurt by parents' domestic violence. But a child does not need to be injured for a juvenile court to determine that a substantial risk of future injury exists. (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773; In re K.B. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 593, 603 ["The court need not wait for disaster to strike before asserting jurisdiction. [Citation.] This is why the statute uses the word 'risk'"].)
Relatedly, mother argues that the domestic violence allegations should be struck entirely with respect to D.H. because she "did not display the same emotional symptomatology" as Rohan and thus could not be found to be at substantial risk. But the juvenile court did not have to wait until D.H. exhibited more severe symptoms of emotional harm before intervening. (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) D.H. witnessed numerous violent altercations between her parents, saw her brother put himself between father and mother, and expressed profound fear of father's anger and his capacity to hurt mother. This evidence sufficiently supports the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction over D.H. (In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 134 [a child may be "at substantial risk of harm" from exposure to domestic violence if she "[i]s clearly aware of her parents' domestic violence"].)
2. Counts b-3, b-4, j-1, and j-2 (physical abuse and failure to protect)
The jurisdictional findings regarding mother's physical abuse of Rohan and her failure to protect him from father's physical abuse are also supported by the record. Rohan told social workers that both mother and father spanked him so hard that he was left with "'big fat rashes'" on his bottom, that they disciplined him for peeing on the toilet seat by slapping him in the face, that they had previously slapped him hard enough to bruise his cheeks, and that both parents seemed unaware how hard they were hitting Rohan despite his attempts to tell them that they were hurting him.
Although mother purportedly appeals from counts b-3 (alleging that mother physically abused Rohan) and b-4 (alleging that father physically abused Rohan and that mother failed to protect him from such abuse), she does not raise any substantive arguments against count b-4.
Contrary to mother's assertions that no physical abuse had occurred during this case and that father "denied [m]other played any role in any physical abuse," father confirmed that while this case was proceeding, mother disciplined Rohan by "'popp[ing] him on the mouth.'" Father maintained that she did not hit him that hard, which appears to corroborate Rohan's statement that his parents "'always say they're barely slapping, but to us it hurts.'" Under these circumstances, the juvenile court was entitled to sustain the allegations regarding physical abuse.
Mother urges us to strike counts j-1 and j-2, arguing that any physical abuse of Rohan did not pose substantial risks to D.H.'s safety as contemplated by subdivision (j) of section 300, especially since no evidence shows that D.H. was ever physically abused. We disagree.
As relevant here, a juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction over a child whose "sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision . . . (b) . . . and there is a substantial risk that the child will [also] be abused or neglected." (§ 300, subd. (j).) "'Subdivision (j) does not state that its application is limited to the risk that the child will be abused or neglected as defined in the same subdivision that describes the abuse or neglect of the sibling. Rather, subdivision (j) directs the trial court to consider whether there is a substantial risk that the child will be harmed under subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e) or (i) of section 300, notwithstanding which of those subdivisions describes the child's sibling.'" (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 774; see also In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 329-330 [jurisdiction proper under section 300, subdivision (j) when the parents subjected the child to emotional abuse and physically abused his brother].)
As discussed above, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the children were at substantial risk of harm for numerous reasons, including parents physically abusing Rohan (§ 300, subd. (b)) and exposing both Rohan and D.H. to domestic violence (§ 300, subds. (a), (b)). And additional risk factors support jurisdiction under subdivision (j): Although mother was participating in parenting classes when DCFS began investigating the family, she continued to slap Rohan and minimize the pain her physical discipline inflicted on him. This evidence suggests that these classes did not increase mother's awareness of how her conduct endangered the children. Accordingly, the juvenile court appropriately exercised jurisdiction over D.H. under section (j).
Moreover, as discussed above, D.H. did not herself have to be physically abused before the juvenile court could conclude that, under the totality of these circumstances, mother's physical abuse of Rohan (and her failure to protect him from similar abuse by father) posed substantial risks to D.H. (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.)
3. Count c-1 (emotional abuse)
The record also supports the jurisdictional finding based on parents' emotional abuse of Rohan under section 300, subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) "'sanctions intervention by the dependency system in two situations: (1) when parental action or inaction causes the emotional harm, i.e., when parental fault can be shown; and (2) when the child is suffering serious emotional damage due to no parental fault or neglect, but the . . . parents are unable themselves to provide adequate mental health treatment.'" (In re Roxanne B. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 916, 921.) Where the petition alleges the emotional damage is a result of a parent's conduct, the juvenile court must find that her conduct caused "serious emotional harm or the risk thereof, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior." (In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557.)
The record supports just such a finding. Rohan showed numerous signs of profound emotional disturbance, including a history of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. (In re Roxanne B., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 922 [a child's suicidal ideations constitute evidence of serious emotional damage].) Twice during these proceedings, Rohan was involuntarily hospitalized after attempting to choke himself. After the first such hospitalization, D.H. reported Rohan often choked himself when the children were living with their parents.
Rohan's emotional issues also caused him to be alienated from and aggressive toward his peers at school. He lamented his inability to make friends, expressed "homicidal ideation", and said that he routinely struggled with suicidal impulses "'because I'm having a bad life.'" This record evidences that Rohan was not only at substantial risk of future emotional harm, but was actively suffering from severe emotional damage throughout these proceedings.
Furthermore, contrary to mother's suggestions that Rohan's emotional dysregulation was unrelated to parents' conduct, Rohan told social workers that he had recently choked himself after thinking about parents fighting. He said that he wanted to hurt himself so that he could "'feel how mo[ther] felt when she was hurt.'" The juvenile court could reasonably conclude from these statements that Rohan's emotional damage was caused by his parents' domestic violence.
Mother argues that she should not be held responsible for Rohan's emotional damage because she did not instigate the domestic violence that harmed him. As we discussed above, mother's denial of ongoing domestic violence and her failure to take protective steps to shield the children from father's foreseeable aggression endangered Rohan as well as herself. (In re Johnathan B., supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 120-121; see also In re Giovanni F., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 599-600.)
Mother argues that she did take protective steps to address Rohan's emotional distress, including seeking out mental health treatment for his ADHD and anxiety, and taking parenting classes to better address his needs. But mother maintained that she was totally unaware of Rohan's suicidal ideations, and, after he was removed from parental custody, mother tried to wholly attribute Rohan's anger to frustration with his foster placement, denying that she had played any role in causing his emotional problems. (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge"].)
Moreover, as the juvenile court observed, mother had not gained meaningful insight into the family's domestic violence problems before the jurisdictional hearing. It follows that the protective actions mother took prior to the hearing did not adequately address the parental conduct that caused Rohan's emotional damage.
4. Count b-2 (failure to protect from father's substance abuse)
Lastly, we affirm the finding that mother failed to protect the children from the risks caused by father's substance abuse.
Father's drug use posed real safety concerns. Mother admitted that when father had used methamphetamine in the past, he became aggressive and got physical with her, prompting Rohan to intercede at the risk of his own safety. (Contra, In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [the fact that a parent uses drugs, without more, does not authorize dependency jurisdiction].) And father had indisputably relapsed, testing positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine two days after DCFS began investigating the family. Yet mother continued to allow father to live in the family home and have full access to the children.
Mother argues that she could not be found to have failed to protect the children because, when father had struggled with addiction years earlier, she had separated him from the children until he received treatment. The record shows that mother's prior protective acts are not an accurate predictor of her future behavior. By the time of DCFS's investigation, mother had apparently ignored multiple warning signs that father had relapsed.
Upon first meeting father, social workers remarked that he was behaving "bizarre[ly]" and observed that he "did not appear lucid and appeared to be under the influence." Rohan reported that when the family went to surprise father at his new job, they found him drinking. Even father admitted that he had been sober for, at most, 48 days, despite mother's insistence that he could not have been drinking alcohol due to a health condition that had been diagnosed six years prior. Mother's apparent inability to recognize and act on these warnings belies the notion that she "acted in a protective manner and did not place her children at risk."
Mother also repeats her earlier argument that, by the time of the jurisdiction hearing, any risk stemming from father's conduct had been mitigated by his move out of the house. But, as noted above, the juvenile court had reasonable concerns about father's continued proximity to the family, particularly combined with the absence of any suggestion that mother could take timely protective action when the family reunited.
IV. Conclusion
Mother justifiably notes that she had made progress by the time of the jurisdictional hearing, repeatedly citing her consistent visitation with the children, her negative drug tests, and her enthusiastic participation in parenting classes, individual counseling, and narcotics anonymous meetings. These commendable activities doubtlessly played a large role in the juvenile court's decision to return the children to mother's physical custody six months after taking jurisdiction.
However, when measured against parents' long and turbulent history of domestic violence, their physical and emotional abuse of Rohan, and mother's failure to protect the children from father's relapse into substance abuse, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that mother's efforts in the five months between removal and the jurisdiction hearing were simply not enough to sufficiently resolve the serious safety risks endangering both children. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are well supported by the appellate record.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are affirmed.
We concur:, HOFFSTADT, J. [*] KWAN, J.
[*] Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.