Opinion
B314506 B316622
09-26-2023
In re J.H. et al., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.H. et al., Defendants and Appellants LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.H. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.H. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 21CCJP02742 A-C Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.
Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.H.
Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.H.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MORI, J.
Mother, M.H., and father, S.H., challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings over their children, J.H., I.H., and Ju.H., made under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300based, among other things, on mother leaving the children alone for extended periods of time without adult supervision and father's physical abuse of the children. The parents contend the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence because, at the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, there was no current risk of harm to the children. We disagree and affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother and father joined in each other's arguments on appeal. Father further joined in mother's reply brief.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Detention
Mother and father are the parents of J.H. (born 2012), I.H. (born 2013), and Ju.H. (born 2016). Between 2014 and 2016, J.H. and I.H. were dependents of the juvenile court in San Bernardino County based on sustained allegations of nonaccidental linear bruising ("strap welts") on J.H.'s left arm and back. Mother successfully reunified with the children on April 29, 2016, while father's family reunification services were terminated because of non-compliance. In September 2020, father assaulted and choked mother, and mother reported that father again physically abused J.H. After that, father did not see the children or mother.
More recently, on June 1, 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral alleging the children were victims of general neglect by mother. It was reported that a security guard found I.H. wandering alone outside her apartment after she exited through a window. I.H. had been left with the autistic son, P., of mother's companion at that time, Samuel (not father). I.H. said that she was looking for mother. Mother and Samuel reported they had gone to the hospital because mother was not feeling well, leaving the sleeping children at home. Ju.H. was with mother and Samuel.
P. was found in a locked bedroom of the apartment, sleeping on the floor. It was reported that P. functions at a three-to five-year-old level.
The next day the Department received an expedited referral generated by the Child Abuse Hotline, indicating that J.H. was found alone, in the middle of the night, at a building where mother rented an office. When security guards spoke to J.H., he told them that he lived on the fourth floor and did not know where his mother was. Surveillance footage showed that J.H. had been roaming around the building that night and on other nights. The footage showed an unknown male dropping off food to the child around 8:00 p.m., leaving at 10:00 p.m., and returning at 11:00 p.m. to drop off more food. At about 2:00 a.m., mother was seen coming to check on J.H. for two to five minutes and leaving. When law enforcement officers responded to the expedited referral, J.H. tried to run away from them and started punching the walls when he could not get away. J.H. told the officers that he had been living in the office for two to four days. An officer reported that "[t]he office . . . looked really lived in with a mattress." The officers and the building's management tried to contact mother, but they did not receive a return call. They left mother a message asking her to pick J.H. up at the police department.
Later that day, the children's social worker met with J.H. at the police department. The social worker observed a long scratch starting from the back of J.H.'s hand at the thumb to the back of his wrist, which J.H. stated he got from accidentally stabbing himself with a screwdriver. J.H. told the social worker that his sisters made him mad, so he asked Samuel to take him to the office, where he stayed two to three days a week. J.H. explained that he was wandering around because he had to use the restroom, so he went into the stairwell but forgot he did not have a keycard needed to get back into his living area. J.H. then disclosed that he had been left alone overnight on prior occasions, including once when mother was too tired to pick him up, and another time when he stayed there with his sisters while mother stayed at Samuel's apartment.
When the social worker asked J.H. if anyone hurts him, J.H. replied that father did, but they did not live with him anymore. J.H. stated the last time his father hit him was around September 20, 2020, when father struck him with a "keychain or something" that left a zig-zag bruise on his back. J.H. stated that father would also hit I.H.
Once mother arrived at the police department, she was interviewed by the social worker. Mother claimed that Samuel was supposed to be with J.H. but got called into work, and she was lightheaded from painting the office earlier, so she was sleeping. Mother denied she was the person seen on the surveillance footage checking on J.H. and denied leaving the children in the office for extended periods. Regarding the domestic violence between mother and father, mother stated that she obtained a "no contact" restraining order against father after the September 2020 incident and had no contact with him since.
When interviewed, the leasing consultant for the family's apartment stated that there were multiple instances of the children being left alone without adult supervision. Additionally, Samuel denied being with J.H. at the office the night J.H was found and told the social worker that he did not know who dropped J.H. off that night. Mother was later arrested for child endangerment.
During an interview with the social worker, I.H. reported there was another day she was left alone at the apartment while her mother stayed at the office overnight. Further, I.H. reported that father had punished her by slapping her with an open palm, which would cause her skin to turn red or purple.
On June 9, 2021, the juvenile court granted an order removing J.H., I.H., and Ju.H. from mother's and father's care. The Department subsequently filed a section 300 petition alleging that the children were at risk of harm due to the parents' conduct. The Department added that mother did not show any remorse for leaving the children alone. At the detention hearing, the court ordered the children detained from mother and father.
B. Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
In less than three weeks after being found at the office building, J.H. was hospitalized twice for having thoughts of self- harm. J.H.'s initial psychiatric evaluation provided, "patient states he wants to run into traffic and get killed.... He states he still remembers getting beaten by his father. He states it has been a[ ]while, but that has caused him to feel depressed." I.H. and Ju.H. were placed in maternal grandmother's care.
The social worker did not interview J.H. due to his being hospitalized, but I.H. and Ju.H. each told the social worker that father had physically assaulted mother and choked her. I.H. said that father would pull I.H.'s hair and hit her with a belt, and Ju.H. added that father would "hurt[ ] [the children] with the belt."
Father denied ever physically harming mother. Father also denied ever striking I.H. or Ju.H. and claimed he only lightly spanked J.H. on two occasions. Mother, however, stated that in March or April 2020, father "kicked down [her] door in Texas" and threatened to have her killed, so mother agreed to live with father as a family because she was afraid. She stated that on the night of September 20, 2020, father put her in a chokehold. Mother called law enforcement and reported that father assaulted her multiple times over the course of an hour. J.H. witnessed this incident. Father was arrested for domestic battery.
Mother disclosed she was concerned about father being back at the residence after his arrest and told officers that the children did not feel safe either. She reported that father hit J.H. in the back and showed officers pictures of the bruising. J.H. stated that a few days earlier, for unknown reasons, father grabbed him behind the neck and threw him to the ground, causing him to hit his face on a headboard. Father then hit J.H.'s back with a keychain lanyard nine to 10 times. J.H. had bruising and red markings on his back. Mother had initially told J.H. not to say anything about the abuse because she was working on a plan to leave father.
After being released from the psychiatric hospital, J.H. was placed in a foster home, but his foster parents asked that he be removed after an incident involving an unannounced visit from mother. Mother tracked J.H. to the foster home through an iPad maternal grandmother had given J.H. Upon mother's arrival, the foster parents informed her she could not see J.H. When J.H. saw mother outside, he began throwing items, kicking and punching the door, and cursing.
As of September 2021, father was enrolled in services, including a batterers' intervention program and anger management classes. When the social worker recommended that father participate in a 52-week domestic violence program, father stated he did not understand why he had to participate in such a program when he lived in Texas. Father asserted the restraining order was invalid because he was living in Texas, and he claimed that mother was planning to remove it. Father expressed frustration and told the social worker she needed to "use her brain," "write a report releasing the children to him," and that the Department did not want to mess with him because he was trained in combat. Father's criminal history included domestic violence, assault, and attempted murder.
C. Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on November 1, 2021. Father testified and denied ever having a physical altercation with, choking, or hitting mother. Father stated that he only spanked J.H. on the buttocks, and father denied ever physically disciplining I.H. and Ju.H. Concerning the restraining order, father asserted that it allowed for "peaceful contact" with the children and mother.
Following the parties' arguments, the court found true the allegations concerning father's domestic violence and mother's failure to protect (counts a-1 and b-1), and the allegations concerning father's physical abuse of J.H. and I.H. (counts a-2, a-3, b-2, b-3, j-1, and j-2). The court struck an allegation that mother made an inappropriate plan for the children's care by leaving them with Samuel (count b-6) because there was no evidence that Samuel was still around the children or mother. Regarding the allegation that mother left the children unattended for extended periods without adult supervision (count b-5), the court stated that this was clearly the basis for the filing of the dependency action in Los Angeles. Mother left the children alone, and when she left J.H. alone, this exacerbated his mental health issues. The court sustained the petition as amended by interlineation.
Regarding disposition, father requested the children be placed with him or that he be allowed unsupervised visits, including extended visits in Texas. The court denied the requests, declared the children dependents, and removed them from mother's and father's custody. Mother and father timely appealed.
D. Post-Appeal Proceedings
Mother, in pro per, filed a notice of appeal on August 12, 2021, providing that she intended to file a writ petition from an order setting a section 366.26 hearing. Thereafter, mother and father filed notices of appeal concerning the November 1, 2021, hearing. The appeals were consolidated. In her appeal, mother challenges the jurisdictional findings and the removal order. She does not provide any argument regarding the setting of a section 366.26 hearing. Father challenges the jurisdictional findings made as to him.
On March 23, 2023, the juvenile court ordered the children back to mother's custody. We have taken judicial notice of the court's post-judgment March 23, 2023, orders. Further, we have granted the Department's motion for partial dismissal as to mother's challenge of the removal order, which mother did not oppose. Therefore, we address only the parents' challenges to the jurisdictional findings.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
Juvenile dependency proceedings are intended "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.) Under section 300, subdivision (a), a juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction over a child if "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally . . . by the child's parent."
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) authorizes a juvenile court to exercise jurisdiction over a child if it finds that "[t]he 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 [his or her] parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child." "A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three elements: (1) the parent's or guardian's neglectful conduct or failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness." (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601.) Additionally, under section 300, subdivision (j), the juvenile court may exercise dependency jurisdiction over a child if "[t]he 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."
"Although section 300 requires proof that the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing [citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child." (In re Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-602.) The court may consider past events in determining whether a child presently requires the court's protection, and parents' past conduct may be probative of current conditions if there is reason to believe it will continue. (Id. at p. 602; see also In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133 ["[a] parent's past conduct is a good predictor of future behavior"].)
"'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. "In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court." [Citation.] "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court."'" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdictional Findings
The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over the children based on: (1) father's domestic violence and mother's failure to protect the children (count a-1 and b-1), (2) father's physical abuse of J.H. and I.H. and mother's failure to protect (counts a-2, a-3, b-2, b-3, j-1, and j-2), and (3) mother's lack of supervision based on mother leaving the children alone for extended periods without adult supervision (count b-5). We find there is substantial evidence to support the jurisdictional findings as to mother's lack of supervision of the children. Although a jurisdictional finding involving one parent is sufficient as to both, we determine substantial evidence further supported the jurisdictional findings regarding father's physical abuse of J.H. and I.H. (See In re IA. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492 ["an appellate court may decline to address the evidentiary support for any remaining jurisdictional findings once a single finding has been found to be supported by the evidence"]; see also In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451-452 [addressing remaining findings "[f]or Father's benefit" and finding his substance abuse constituted risk of harm to the children].)
1. Lack of Supervision
Mother argues that count b-5 cannot provide a basis for the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the children because the court failed to rule on the allegation. Mother adds that, in any event, count b-5 is not supported by substantial evidence because the relevant events were remote in time and there was no current risk of harm. We disagree with mother's contentions.
At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court dismissed some counts but made it clear that the count b-5 allegations remained. Regarding the count b-5 allegations, the juvenile court stated on the record, "it is clear . . . the basis of the whole case opening up in Los Angeles County, is mother leaving the children alone, specifically [J.H.], in the office building . . . . [I]t was clear from all of the investigation that the child was alone all night, several nights, and then trying to go to the bathroom; unfortunately opened the door that led him outside and then he was frantic about not being able to get back in, not knowing where his mother was and . . . this is mistreatment of the child and should not have happened in that fashion for a child that young and that he had serious mental health issues that were exacerbated and were shown to be demonstrated by harmful conduct [ sic ] threats to his life." In addition, the court's minute order for the jurisdiction hearing provides the section 300 petition against the parents was sustained as amended by the court. The court's amendments were made clear by interlineation on the petition, as it crossed out the counts from the petition it dismissed or found not true at the hearing. The court did not cross out count b-5.
While mother asserts that the court found the "closely related [b]-6 allegation" that she inappropriately left the children with Samuel not true and struck it from the petition on the ground that it was not current, this was because there was no evidence that Samuel was still around the children or mother. Mother does not show that this reasoning applied to the count b-5 allegation regarding mother's actions. Additionally, mother claims that the court's statement that it would have found true a section 300, subdivision (c) count for emotional abuse somehow demonstrates that the court was not making a ruling as to the b-5 count. The court, however, expressed it "very likely would have found . . . to be true that the mother's negligence and mistreatment of [J.H.] led to the child wanting to commit suicide. That's serious emotional abuse. That's what this child has been suffering at the hands of the mother." This language indicates that the court was inclined to find true a section 300, subdivision (c) claim, had such been alleged against mother, in addition to the finding being made under subdivision (b)(1). The court's intent was clear here. It found the count b-5 allegations provided the primary basis for jurisdiction over the children.
Furthermore, substantial evidence supported the finding. (See e.g., In re Andrea G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 547, 554-555 ["ample" evidence supported implied finding and result "obvious" from the record]; In re Corienna G. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 73, 8384 [substantial evidence "amply" supported implied finding].) The evidence showed that mother repeatedly left the children alone for extended periods. Mother left J.H. alone in the office building, where he not only locked himself out, but also cut himself with a screwdriver. One of the police officers that responded expressed, "the child appears to have [mental health] issues," as J.H. started punching the walls after trying but being unable to run away from the officers. Indeed, J.H. was soon hospitalized twice for expressing thoughts of self-harm.
Mother similarly left I.H. alone when she was found by a security guard wandering outside of Samuel's apartment. I.H. stated that she exited through the window, which was adjacent to the street, to search for her mother. According to the leasing consultant for the family's home, there were multiple instances of the children being left alone without any adult supervision.
Mother's conduct in leaving J.H. and I.H. alone repeatedly and for extended periods of time created a substantial risk of harm to the children. "Children are immature, inquisitive, clever about escaping, and inexperienced with life's hazards. With impulsive urges and without much judgment about what could go wrong, children need supervision. A speeding car, a fire, a fall, a predator: disasters can strike swiftly and without warning." (In re K.B. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 593, 602.) The juvenile court "need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child." (In re Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-602.) And that is particularly true where, as here, the lack of supervision had already resulted in the screwdriver injury and apparent exacerbation of J.H.'s mental health issues.
Moreover, mother did not recognize the gravity of leaving her children alone. Mother's failure to acknowledge her neglectful conduct further supports the juvenile court's finding that the lack of supervision created a substantial risk of current harm to the children. (See In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 ["In light of mother's failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there was no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the minor remain in her home"]; see also In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge"].)
2. Father's Physical Abuse of the Children
Father argues that by the time of the jurisdiction hearing, the children did not face a current risk of harm from his physical abuse because he had not had any contact with the children for more than a year, and the parents were complying with the restraining order mother obtained against father in October 2020. In addition, father contends that he voluntarily engaged in services that further minimized the risk. We are not persuaded.
Although father denied physically abusing the children, there was substantial evidence to support the court's findings. The parents had a previous dependency case in San Bernardino County from 2014 to 2016 due to physical abuse allegations involving strap welts on J.H.'s upper left arm and back. After father choked mother on September 20, 2020, law enforcement observed bruising and red markings near the middle of J.H.'s back. J.H. reported that father hit him in the back with his keychain lanyard nine to ten times. I.H. also reported that father hit her with an open palm, causing bruises, or with a belt. Moreover, the abuse continued to impact the children, as even after mother left father, J.H., I.H., and Ju.H. each remembered father's physical abuse. Further, J.H. stated during his psychiatric evaluation that he wanted to run into traffic and kill himself because "he still remember[ed] getting beaten by his father."
Father claims that there was no current risk of physical abuse to the children because he had not had any contact with mother or the children for more than one year and mother had obtained a restraining order against him. At the same time, father maintained that the restraining order allowed him to have "peaceful contact" with mother and the children, and he asserted that the restraining order was not valid because he lived in Texas. He also claimed that mother was planning to remove the restraining order. Accordingly, there was a possibility that he would come into contact with the children and that they would be at risk of harm.
Father also asserts that the juvenile court expressed skepticism regarding a current risk to the children because it asked the Department how the children were still at risk as of the jurisdictional hearing. However, after the court heard the Department's argument as to why there was a current risk to the children, which included father's failure to address his issues, the court found true the allegations that father physically abused J.H. and I.H. and that Ju.H. was at risk.
Lastly, while father asserts that he participated in voluntary services, including domestic violence and anger management courses, parenting classes, and individual counseling, the record demonstrates that father continued to deny any wrongdoing or accept responsibility for abusing the children. The court reasonably found that it "[could not] say that [father] learned what [he] needed to learn to keep the children safe if [he] w[ould] not admit the wrongdoing of [his] conduct." "[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision." (In re A.F., supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 293.) The court was permitted to infer from father's denial of the physical abuse that violence was likely to recur and that the children faced a current risk of harm. (See 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]; see also In re Gabriel K., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at 197; In re T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 133.)
Given the jurisdictional findings against mother and father, we do not reach the remaining issues. "'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.'" (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773; accord, In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 896 ["'[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate'"].)
DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction orders are affirmed.
We concur: CURREY, P. J., ZUKIN, J.