Opinion
B303995
01-21-2021
In re L.F., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. F.C., Defendant and Appellant.
Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06204A-B) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Filomena C.J. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's December 5, 2019 orders sustaining two counts of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition against her and continuing jurisdiction over minors L.F. and J.F. pending future judicial review. Mother contends the court's jurisdictional findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and the court abused its discretion when maintaining jurisdiction at disposition. We affirm.
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and Juan F. (Father) are married and have four children together: adult children Olga F. and Alan F., minor daughter L.F., and minor son J.F. All four children lived at home with Mother and Father until the July 29, 2019 incident giving rise to dependency jurisdiction. At the time of the incident, J.F. was almost 15 years old and L.F. was 17 years old.
L.F. has since turned 18.
A. Prior Child Welfare History
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral on September 7, 2012 alleging Father hit Alan when disciplining him. An investigation revealed insufficient supporting evidence, and the Department closed the allegation as unfounded. The disposition noted Alan was participating in therapy.
The Department received a separate referral on May 3, 2013, alleging Alan and Olga had been subjected to sexual abuse. Olga, then a high school student, reported that when she was of elementary school age, her younger brother Alan had sexually abused her on two occasions by touching her breast and vaginal area. Olga could not recall the precise time frame of the abuse. Olga had not previously reported the abuse because Alan had threatened Olga, and she was upset, scared, and trying to forget the abuse. Following an investigation, the Department closed the allegation as unfounded for sibling at risk and inconclusive for sexual abuse. The Department noted Alan and Olga were attending therapy, and Mother and Father presented as being well-centered, loving, and caring.
B. July 2019 Incident and the Department's Investigation
On or about July 31, 2019, the Department received a telephonic referral alleging J.F. and L.F. were at risk for sexual abuse by Father. Mother's brother Juan C. and his wife had arranged for Mother to babysit their children A.C., N.C., and R.C. overnight on July 28, so that the couple could have some alone time. According to the referral, while Mother showered the next morning, Father pulled his then eight-year-old niece R.C. towards him on Mother and Father's bed and touched R.C.'s vaginal area over her clothing for about 10 minutes. Mother returned to the bedroom and caught Father moving up and down like he was having intercourse with R.C. R.C. at first denied anything had happened but later confirmed Father had "tickled her vagina." R.C.'s brother A.C. was in the room watching television at the time of the incident but denied seeing anything.
All subsequent dates are in 2019, unless otherwise indicated.
A.C. and N.C. walked home the morning of July 29 and told their father Juan C. that Mother wanted him to pick up R.C. in person. When Juan C. arrived at Mother's home, Mother was crying and told him that she had seen Father touching R.C.'s vaginal area over her clothing with her legs open while Father moved upward and downward as if having sex with the child. Mother told Juan C. she yelled at Father to stop and Father backed away from R.C., telling Mother he couldn't control himself from temptation and that he was sorry. Mother told Juan C. that Father had attempted to play it off as if he was just tickling R.C. Juan C. confronted Father and punched him in the face, and Mother kicked Father out of the home.
Juan C. asked R.C. to tell him what had happened. R.C. said Father opened her legs and touched her vagina on top of her clothing. R.C. asked Father to stop but Father continued touching her for about 10 minutes. Juan C. asked R.C. if Father had touched her in the past and R.C. answered, "last week." R.C. reported that Father had previously "tickled her vagina" on the couch while Mother was sleeping.
Juan C. stated that about three days following the July 29 incident, Mother received a letter from Father's attorney instructing her not to speak to anyone regarding the incident because Father intended to sue Juan C. Juan C. then called the police and reported the incident.
Juan C. told the police and social workers that Father had also inappropriately touched another of his nieces, W.C., several years prior during a Mother's Day celebration at Juan C.'s home, but the family had not believed W.C. at the time, even though a neighbor had reported seeing Father touch W.C. on her vagina and buttocks areas at the event. W.C. reported that Father had touched her on approximately 13 different occasions around 2015 when she was approximately 10 years old, including twice under her underwear, and that Father had exposed his penis to her on one occasion. W.C. denied any ongoing abuse.
On August 13, a social worker made an unannounced visit to Mother's home, observing it to be clean and adequately appointed with furniture, food, working utilities, and other necessities for the children. The social worker observed no indication of drug or alcohol abuse, and Mother reported there were no weapons or firearms in the home. Mother denied any past or present mental health, drug, or alcohol issues, any criminal arrest history, and any abuse as a child.
State law enforcement databases revealed no criminal history for Mother.
Mother told the social worker that R.C. had spent the night on July 28, and the next morning R.C. was laying on the bed next to Father while Mother showered. When Mother returned to the bedroom, she saw R.C. lying on the bed, her legs open in an "X" position, with Father standing over her and his hand over her. Mother stated she didn't really see what Father was doing, but she assumed the worst. When she asked Father what was happening, Father replied he was just playing with the child. Mother then asked R.C. if Father had touched her inappropriately. R.C. said "no", stating Father had tickled her stomach. Mother stated she called her brother Juan C. and told him what had happened. Mother asked Father to leave the home. Father had not returned since, other than to drop off groceries for the children. Mother stated she and the children had remained in contact with Father and Father had asked her to allow him to return to the home, saying Mother misinterpreted the situation and he had not abused R.C.
Mother told the social worker "I think I saw [Father] touching [R.C.]," but she also said she might have overreacted and she hadn't really seen Father touching R.C.'s private areas. Mother added she struggled with self-esteem and jealousy issues, and her insecurities might have led her mind to play tricks on her. Mother stated she is a stay-at-home mom while Father works two jobs as the family's breadwinner. Mother related that Father had never forced her to do anything she did not want to do.
When asked about Father's abuse of his niece, W.C., Mother responded that, when W.C. was younger, a neighbor reported Father had hugged W.C. and rubbed her on his penis during a family party. Mother stated nobody at the party saw anything inappropriate, W.C. had never reported any abuse, and W.C. had denied being sexually abused by Father.
The social worker also spoke with J.F. and L.F. on August 13, and observed them to be clean, appropriately dressed, in good physical health, and free of marks and bruises. J.F. and L.F. reported showering daily and having regular access to food. They denied any past or present mental health, drug, or alcohol issues, or that they were ever inappropriately touched or otherwise abused. However, the detention report noted L.F. was receiving school-based therapy for depression. Alan and Olga denied ever seeing Father act strangely or abuse their siblings or Mother.
J.F. told the social worker his parents argued frequently due to Mother's jealousy issues, and Mother always assumed Father was cheating on her. J.F. was not in his parents' bedroom when the incident involving R.C. took place and did not know what had happened. J.F. went to his cousin's house when he heard his parents arguing; when J.F. returned home, his uncle and aunt (R.C.'s parents) were present, and J.F. learned that R.C. had said Father touched her private parts. J.F. stated Father was a really good person and J.F. did not believe R.C.'s allegations, adding R.C. tended to lie. J.F. was worried Father might go to jail over R.C.'s allegations, and stated he wanted Father to return home quickly.
L.F. and Olga reported being asleep the morning of July 29 when J.F. ran into their bedroom to inform them their parents were arguing. When L.F. and Olga went to their parents' room, Father had already left the home. Mother and R.C.'s parents were crying. L.F. heard her Mother telling R.C.'s parents that Father had been standing between R.C.'s legs and had admitted touching R.C., but it was unknown where Father had touched her. L.F. stated R.C.'s parents assured Mother they would not sue or press charges because they did not want to harm the family. L.F. and Olga reported not knowing what had happened because they were not in the room when the incident occurred, but each had difficulty believing Father had abused R.C.
L.F. stated she always felt safe with Father; he was a great father; and he never hurt or attempted to inappropriately touch her. L.F. missed Father and wanted Father to return to the home. Olga stated J.F. cried uncontrollably when they told him what happened, and he continued to be sad and continued to cry since the incident occurred. Olga called her Father for an explanation, but he just said that he wasn't returning home.
Alan was sleeping in his bedroom at the time of the incident, and went to his cousin's house when he heard his parents arguing because he did not know what was going on and did not want to be a part of it. When Alan returned home, Father was not there, and his Mother and aunts and uncles were all crying and hugging each other. The family members told him what Father had done, but Alan had a very difficult time believing Father had abused R.C., who Alan said tended to lie.
On September 5, a social worker conducted a follow-up visit to discuss newly reported information Mother had withheld during her initial interview. The social worker asked Mother whether she saw Father moving up and down as if he was having intercourse with R.C. Mother replied "yes" and added Father was holding baby K. while moving up and down in front of R.C. Mother confirmed R.C.'s brother, A.C., was in the bedroom at the time of the incident, but he was watching television and did not see what had happened. Mother also confirmed R.C. told her Father had previously touched her vagina on the couch while Mother slept. During the follow-up visit, the social worker observed J.F. and L.F. to be clean, well dressed, and free of marks and bruises on their exposed extremities. The social worker tried to speak with J.F., but he appeared to be upset, hostile, and unwilling to talk. L.F. handed the social worker a letter from Father before L.F. went to her room to complete homework.
Mother reported that she babysat other children as a source of income.
R.C. and W.C. were not mentioned in Father's letter. It only briefly referenced the July 29 incident, which Father referred to as his "alleged mistake." Father asserted Mother had jealousy issues and had turned her family against him. Father noted he talked with his children on the telephone, and he still paid the family's rent and bills. In the letter, Father also alleged Juan C. did not take proper care of his own children and one of Mother's other brothers had committed tax fraud.
On September 17, a social worker informed Mother that a judge had ordered J.F.'s and L.F.'s removal from Father. The social worker left Father a detailed voicemail that day requesting a return call. The next day, Father sent a text message to the social worker indicating he had put his story in writing and stating that his family was being destroyed. The social worker again attempted to reach Father on September 19, left another detailed voicemail message requesting a return call, and texted Father about providing him with legal documents. Father replied by text messaging the social worker a picture of a letter from his attorney. On September 20, the social worker mailed Father a copy of the removal order to his last known address and also provided notice to Father via a text message.
C. Dependency Petition and Detention Hearings
The Department filed a dependency petition on September 24, alleging juvenile court jurisdiction over J.F. and L.F. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). The petition alleged that Father's sexual abuse of R.C. placed J.F. and L.F. at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, and sexual abuse. The petition also alleged Mother's knowledge that Father had sexually abused W.C. on numerous occasions in or about 2015, and Mother's failure to protect J.F. and L.F. from Father in that she allowed Father to reside in the family home and have unlimited access to the children despite such knowledge, placed J.F. and L.F. at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, and sexual abuse. In its September 25 addendum report, the Department recommended that the juvenile court order J.F. and L.F. detained in Mother's home, conditioned upon Father residing elsewhere and Mother's cooperation with the Department's recommendations and court orders.
At the September 25, detention hearings, Mother and Father denied the allegations, and the juvenile court noted the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to J.F. or L.F. The court found a prima facie case for detention and ordered the children released to home of Mother under the Department's supervision on condition that Mother did not allow Father to live in or visit the home. The court ordered monitored visitation for Father and Mother was not to be the monitor.
D. Adjudication Hearings
1. Department's Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
The Department's November 11 report noted J.F. and L.F. appeared to be attached to Mother and Father, and they were healthy and meeting all developmental milestones. A well-child exam noted L.F., then 17 years old, had a moderate level of distress, exhibited depression, experienced mood swings, and presented as anxious, with poor attention span and concentration. The report also noted J.F. and L.F. were in the process of being linked to therapy services.
The Department indicated Mother reported she could ensure proper supervision and care of J.F. and L.F. Mother stated, "I need my husband to come back. We need him and his company." Prior to the July 29 incident, Mother reportedly earned income by babysitting, but she was no longer working in that capacity. Father paid the family's rent and other bills. L.F. stated she really missed Father. Both J.F. and L.F. reported feeling safe in their home.
Father did not make himself available to the Department for an interview.
a. Investigation of Previous Abuse Allegations Concerning Alan and Olga
When asked by a social worker whether any of her children had been victims of sexual abuse, Mother replied "No." When pressed about 2013 allegations of Alan sexually abusing Olga, Mother stated Olga had started therapy after being bullied in school, and Olga had "supposedly reported that Alan had touched her." Mother emphasized repeatedly that Alan was a "baby" in elementary school at the time of the alleged abuse and that "he would not do those things."
When the social worker asked Olga about her 2013 claim that Alan had sexually abused her, Olga replied she had talked about the abuse when she was in high school, but the abuse took place when she was in elementary school. Olga insisted she did not remember what had happened and did not want to further discuss it.
Alan reported that he convinced Olga to do sexual things to him when he was six or seven years old. Mother and Father had walked in on Alan asking Olga to do something sexual, and had told Alan what he was doing was wrong and he had to wait until he was much older. Mother and Father did not do anything about Alan's behavior beyond talking to him about it.
b. Investigation of Previous Abuse Allegations Concerning W.C.
In a forensic interview, W.C. reported Father had "sexually harassed" her four or five years earlier, when she was almost nine to 10 years old. Father showed W.C. pornography and touched her private parts, even while W.C.'s cousins were in the same room playing video games. This happened most times W.C. would go to Mother and Father's house when Mother used to babysit her. When she asked Father to leave her alone, he would not do so. W.C. recalled an instance at Mother and Father's house when Father told her to look at his exposed penis while he was touching himself. On another occasion, Father picked W.C. up from school and touched her inappropriately, told her to remove her pants, unbuttoned her pants in a playground and licked her genitalia. W.C. recalled thinking that the playground might have cameras so Father would be caught soon. W.C. did not tell anyone about the playground incident because Father had threatened her in the past and she was scared—Father had once grabbed her wrists when she tried to walk away while Father touched her, warning her if she told anyone he would do something worse. W.C. was worried Father would touch her younger siblings.
Although the details of Father's conduct, as reported by W.C., appear to go beyond harassment, because W.C. used the phrase "sexual harassment" in responding to the interviewer's question concerning what had happened to her, we use the phrase here.
W.C. reported the last time Father had "sexually harassed" her was at a party at Juan C.'s house. A neighbor stated she had seen Father touch W.C. inappropriately while giving her a piggyback ride. W.C. recalled Father was crying because he got caught, and family members told W.C. Father deserved it. W.C.'s mother, Amparo O.G., asked her if Father was touching her, and W.C. said no because she was afraid of what Father would do. But when her mother asked her again, W.C. started crying and replied "yes." W.C. stopped going over to Mother and Father's house after that incident. Amparo asked W.C. if she wanted to report the incident, but W.C. was concerned that Father was the only person working in his family, and the family needed the money. W.C. regrets not reporting Father at the time.
Amparo confirmed in an interview that W.C. told her in 2015 that Father had put his hands in her pants and had touched her breast. W.C. told Amparo that Father also had sexually abused her on other occasions in other ways, including asking W.C. to hold his genitalia and showing W.C. pornography. Amparo did nothing in response to W.C.'s disclosure, stating nobody wanted to support her (Amparo) because no one believed her (Amparo), not even her husband, because the family had said W.C. was a liar.
When asked in October about previous allegations that Father had abused W.C., Mother said that Father "[s]upposedly" touched W.C. while the family was celebrating Mother's Day in May 2015. Mother said W.C. and R.C. were jumping on Father's back during the celebration and would cling to and rub on Father. Mother stated Father had to put his hands on the girls' butts so that they would not fall. When a neighbor told the family that she had supposedly seen Father touching W.C., Mother told the neighbor that Father was just tossing the girls and had not grabbed them inappropriately. Mother stated W.C. was always looking at guys and jumping on top of her uncles; sometimes she found playdough in W.C.'s private parts; and W.C. moved very sexually and tended to lie.
L.F. stated Mother had told her about W.C.'s past allegations against Father a while ago, and L.F. did not believe W.C. L.F. also knew Mother had found playdough in W.C.'s private parts when she was younger. J.F. stated he knew W.C. had said Father touched her, but he claimed the family "found out it was not true and it was all fine." J.F. added W.C. and R.C. both tended to do things like play spin the bottle. Alan indicated W.C. always "made stuff up," and the neighbor's statement that Father had inappropriately touched W.C. was confirmed as just a rumor. Olga overheard Amparo talking about what had happened—that a neighbor had said that Father was touching W.C.—but Amparo had not reported it. Olga did not know if anything had happened, noting W.C. was always jumping on Father.
Juan C. recalled the Mother's Day 2015 gathering when a neighbor had told him she did not like the way Father was touching W.C.'s private area. The neighbor said Father was grabbing W.C. and rubbing her on his body. Juan C. stated Mother and Father confronted the neighbor and told her she was causing problems. The neighbor replied Father would be caught one day. Amparo had told Juan C. that W.C.'s father did not believe W.C. because she lies. Juan C. added that when W.C. found out about what had happened to R.C., W.C. started blaming herself for not reporting Father sooner.
c. Investigation of Abuse Allegations Concerning R.C.
In a forensic interview, R.C. stated on July 29, Father was holding baby K. and R.C. wanted to touch the baby. When she approached, Father tickled her in "the middle part." R.C. felt scared and asked Father to stop, but he did not listen. R.C. reported Father had tickled her in the middle part on two occasions; nobody saw the first incident, but Mother saw R.C. on the bed at the end of the second incident.
During an interview in October, Mother stated she had not seen Father touch R.C.; she had only seen Father standing in between R.C.'s legs and moving "like he was dancing" while tossing baby K. in the air. Mother said R.C. told her Father had touched the lower part of her stomach rather than her private area. Mother added, "It was not what I was imagining and I kicked [F]ather out. . . . I let myself go by my imagination that he had touched her. . . . I did not let him talk. I do not think that happened."
Mother and Father's adult children also provided statements in October about the July 29 incident between Father and R.C. Olga stated Mother told her she had seen Father holding baby K. near the edge of the bed while rocking baby K. back and forth. Mother had to ask R.C. three times whether Father had done something to her before R.C. replied "Yes." Olga did not really understand what had happened and called Father to ask if he was coming home; Father replied "No, I think that is it" and told Olga "your mom saw what she wanted to see."
Alan stated Father was probably just playing with R.C. and Mother had misinterpreted it. Alan claimed R.C. was a troublesome kid who was always playing inappropriate games with boys.
L.F. could not believe it and did not understand when family members said Father had touched R.C. L.F. stated she did not like Juan C. because he had reported the incident despite telling the family he was not going to do so.
J.F. referred to R.C.'s allegations as "[d]umb" and said R.C. used to play spin the bottle with other kids. J.F. did not like people thinking badly of Father.
In an October statement, Juan C. asserted Mother told him she saw R.C. at the edge of the bed with her legs open while Father was in the middle, holding baby K. to trick R.C. into believing they were playing. Father was touching R.C.'s vaginal area and making movements like he was having sex with her. Juan C. asked Father if he did those things to R.C. Father responded that he had touched R.C. but nothing had happened. Juan C. asked Father how that could be. Father replied it seemed easy for him to do it, and he kept saying "but nothing happened." Juan C. hit Father, and Father left the home.
When Juan C. asked R.C. what had happened, she replied Father had touched her private parts. She told Father to stop, but he did not want to stop. R.C. told Juan C. that Father had also touched her on a prior occasion. Juan C. stated, when W.C. learned what had happened to R.C., she started blaming herself, saying that if she would have reported Father back then, this would not have happened to R.C.
Juan C. added that Mother initially stated she would cooperate if he contacted law enforcement, but when Father returned home three days later with a letter from an attorney, Mother was no longer willing to cooperate. Juan C. then decided to call the police.
d. Department's Recommendations
The jurisdiction/disposition report noted the Department's concerns regarding Mother's protective capacity and ability to keep Father out of the family home. Mother was financially dependent on Father, giving Father a strong nexus to remain in contact with the family. Additional risk factors included Mother's denial, minimization, and lack of understanding of sexual abuse; Alan, Olga, and Mother's statements regarding the 2013 allegations of abuse between the siblings; and Father's lack of regard for his children's exposure to inappropriate behavior, as demonstrated by Father having sexually abused R.C. at home while his children were also in the home.
While Mother initially demonstrated that she could be protective of her children by removing Father from the home after discovering him with R.C., Mother subsequently recanted her initial statement that she had observed Father touching R.C.'s vaginal area and eventually denied having witnessed any abuse. The report noted statements by R.C. and other collateral witnesses gave the Department reason to believe Mother did, in fact, witness sexual abuse. Moreover, Mother was aware of W.C.'s prior sexual abuse allegations against Father and had continued to allow Father to live in the family home with minors J.F. and L.F.
The Department expressed concern for J.F.'s and L.F.'s safety, given that Mother appeared to be protective of Father, irrationally justified Father's actions, and minimized Father's abuse of R.C. and W.C. While the evidence suggested Father had a history of engaging in inappropriate behaviors with minors, Mother lacked understanding and acceptance of the severity of Father's behavior and the risk Father posed to J.F. and L.F.
The Department recommended that the juvenile court sustain the petition as pled, declare J.F. and L.F. dependents of the court, and place them with Mother under the Department's supervision and assessment.
2. December 5 Hearings
At the December 5 adjudication hearings, Father's counsel argued the Department had presented insufficient evidence to establish any substantial risk to J.F. or L.F. as a result of the allegations in the petition. Mother's counsel joined in this argument and asked that she be dismissed from the petition and the case be closed with an order giving Mother custody of J.F. and L.F. Mother's counsel argued Mother had essentially reported Father's abuse of R.C. by informing the family and had put Father out of the home, and counts asserted against Mother concerned allegations from 2015 that no one in the family other than W.C.'s mother had believed. Mother's counsel added the fact no abuse occurred between 2015 and 2019 proves there was nothing from which Mother needed to protect her children.
The minors' counsel opposed deeming Mother non-offending on the petition, noting that while Mother initially acted appropriately following the incident between Father and R.C., Mother subsequently recanted and tried to minimize her statements to be protective of Father, and the family wished to reunify with Father. The Department joined in this argument and added Father's past conduct involving his nieces was abhorrent and egregious and subjected J.F. and L.F. to risk of sexual abuse.
The juvenile court sustained all petition counts as alleged against Father and counts b-2 and d-2, relating to Father's abuse of W.C. in and around 2015, as alleged against Mother. The court held it reasonable and necessary to remove J.F. and L.F. from Father, declared the children dependents of the court under section 300, and ordered the children released to the home of Mother with monitored visits for Father in a neutral setting with a Department-approved monitor. The court-ordered case plan required Father to participate in a parenting program, individual counseling, and sex abuse counseling for perpetrators, and to eventually complete conjoint counseling with Mother. The case plan also required Mother to participate in individual counseling, sex abuse awareness counseling, and eventual conjoint counseling with Father. The court set a section 364 judicial review hearing for June 4, 2020, which was subsequently continued to February 22, 2021.
Mother timely appealed the juvenile court's December 5 orders.
DISCUSSION
A. Application of the Justiciability Doctrine
The Department argues Mother's appeal is not justiciable because J.F. and L.F. will remain dependents of the court based on Father's conduct, even if the lower court's jurisdictional findings against Mother are reversed. The justiciability doctrine counsels against our deciding an appeal unless it involves "a present, concrete, and genuine dispute as to which the court can grant effective relief." (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Effective relief is "the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status." (Id. at p. 1490.) "When the court cannot grant effective relief to the parties to an appeal, the appeal must be dismissed." (Ibid.)
Father did not appeal the juvenile court's December 5 orders. Accordingly, J.F. and L.F. will remain under the court's jurisdiction regardless of the outcome of Mother's appeal. A single jurisdictional finding supported by substantial evidence is sufficient to support jurisdiction and render nonjusticiable or moot a challenge to the other jurisdictional findings. (In re Ashley B. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979; In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1491-1492).
"However, we generally will exercise our discretion and reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdictional finding when the finding (1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; or (3) 'could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction [citation].'" (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) The appellant must show a "specific legal or practical consequence from [the challenged] finding, either within or outside the dependency proceedings." (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.)
Mother requests we exercise our discretion to decide her appeal on the merits because the court's findings against her have stigmatized her as an offending parent and have impacted her ability to earn income from babysitting. Mother also challenges the court's dispositional orders requiring her to complete time-consuming and expensive counseling programs. Thus, Mother contends she has been harmed by the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders, and reversal of these findings and orders would provide her effective relief by removing the stigma of having been found an offending parent and relieving her from having to complete counseling.
The allegation sustained against Mother is that she failed to protect J.F and L.F. from Father. The jurisdictional finding against Mother impacts the dispositional orders the court issued as to her—continuing jurisdiction and participating in individual counseling, sex abuse awareness counseling, and conjoint counseling with Father. Thus, although dependency jurisdiction over J.F and L.F. will remain in place because the findings based on Father's conduct are unchallenged, we will review Mother's appeal on the merits. (In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 763.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court's Jurisdictional Findings
1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
"At the first stage of dependency proceedings, the juvenile court determines whether the child is subject to juvenile court jurisdiction; [the Department] has the burden to prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a).)" (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.)
Section 300 governs a dependency court's initial acquisition of jurisdiction over a child. Section 300, subdivision (b) provides, in relevant part, jurisdiction exists when there is a substantial risk that a child will suffer serious physical harm or illness "as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left." Section 300, subdivision (d), provides jurisdiction over a child when "there is a substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused . . . by his or her parent or guardian or a member of his or her household, or the parent or guardian has failed to adequately protect the child from sexual abuse when the parent or guardian knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in danger of sexual abuse."
"The [section 300] 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.'" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
In deciding whether there is a substantial risk of serious physical harm to a child under section 300, subdivision (b), "courts evaluate the risk that is present at the time of the adjudication hearing. 'While evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions, the question . . . is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.'" (In re Roger S. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 572, 582.) "To establish a defined risk of harm at the time of the hearing, there 'must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.'" (In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146.) "[A] finding of current risk is required for jurisdiction under [section 300,] subdivision [ ] (b) . . . but not for jurisdiction under subdivision (d)." (In re Carlos T. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 795, 803.)
We review the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings of fact for substantial evidence. (In re Francisco D. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 73, 80; In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which adequately supports a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. [Citations.] We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the juvenile court. We adhere to the principle that issues of fact, weight and credibility are the provinces of the juvenile court." (In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941; accord, In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) "But substantial evidence 'is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citations.] A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on appeal.'" (In re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 992.) "'"Inferences may constitute substantial evidence, but they must be the product of logic and reason. Speculation or conjecture alone is not substantial evidence."'" (Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 420.) "'"'The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record.'"'" (In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 763.)
If there is substantial evidence to support the court's order, we must uphold the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251; In re Carlos T., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 804-805.) "The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the court's findings or orders." (In re A.E. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 820, 826.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supported Jurisdiction Under Section 300 , Subdivisions (b)(1) and (d)
The record contains substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's conclusions that J.F. and L.F. faced substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or sexual abuse due to Mother's failure to protect J.F. and L.F. from Father, despite her awareness of the risk Father posed to the children.
Sexual abuse constitutes serious physical harm. (See In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 398 ["It may be inferred from the fact of a lewd touching that the victim suffered serious physical harm . . ."]; In re Ricky T. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 515, 520-524 [sustaining petition finding minor at risk of harm within the meaning of § 300, subds. (b) & (d), based on father's prior sexual abuse of minor's extended family members].)
Mother argues the Department was obligated to prove she was subjectively aware of the danger Father might sexually abuse J.F. and L.F. Section 300, subdivision (d) provides for jurisdiction when a parent "knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in danger of sexual abuse." (§ 300, subd. (d), italics added.) Actual knowledge is not required. However, the record contains evidence that Mother was aware in 2015 of the danger Father posed to J.F. and L.F.
In response to allegations that Father had sexually abused W.C. in 2015, Mother denied Father had engaged in any misconduct and called W.C. a liar. Mother was present at the 2015 celebration when a neighbor reported seeing Father inappropriately touch W.C., but she insisted "nobody saw anything inappropriate." Mother confronted the reporting neighbor, telling her that she was causing problems and Father was just playing with the child. When discussing the neighbor's allegations with social workers years later and after having caught Father inappropriately touching R.C., Mother still refused to believe either the neighbor or W.C., explaining away Father's behavior at the 2015 celebration and accusing W.C. of having a tendency to lie, moving very sexually, and always looking at guys.
Mother's response to the 2015 sexual abuse allegations against Father is consistent with her refusal to acknowledge her own son Alan's previous sexual abuse of his sibling Olga. Mother reported that none of her children had been victims of sexual abuse and insisted Alan could not have sexually abused Olga in the past, despite Olga reporting such abuse in 2013 and Alan's statement that Mother and Father had witnessed an instance of such abuse. "'[P]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions' if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue." (In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461.)
Mother insists these past actions cannot support jurisdictional findings of a current risk of harm because her conduct in response to the July 2019 incident between Father and R.C. was appropriate and protective, demonstrating her previous troubling conduct would not recur. However, while Mother initially reported to the police and her brother that she had caught Father touching R.C.'s vaginal area and making movements like he was having intercourse with the child, Mother quickly backtracked from this position, recharacterized Father's movements as "like he was dancing" and told social workers she had not seen Father touch R.C. and "It was not what I was imagining and I kicked [F]ather out. . . . I let myself go by my imagination that he had touched her. . . . I do not think that happened." Moreover, while Mother at first told her brother she would cooperate if he contacted law enforcement, Mother changed her mind days later and was no longer willing to do so.
Evidence in the record of Mother's habitual refusal to acknowledge sexual abuse even after witnessing such abuse, and Mother's pattern of minimizing and denying Father's inappropriate touching of his nieces, suggest Mother is ill-equipped to recognize or respond to future sexual abuse allegations. They also support the juvenile court's findings that J.F. and L.F. remain at risk of harm due to Mother's failure to protect them from Father's conduct. "One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge." (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197; see In re Katrina W. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 441, 446-447 [a mother's disbelief that anything improper occurred placed her child at risk reports of future abuse might be ignored by the mother].)
C. The Juvenile Court Acted Within Its Discretion When Maintaining Jurisdiction at Disposition
1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
"If the juvenile court finds a basis to assume jurisdiction, the court is then required to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition for the child. [Citations.] Typically, once the child has been adjudged to be a dependent child . . . the juvenile court determines what services the child and family need to be reunited and free from court supervision." (In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 205.) "[T]he juvenile court enjoys wide discretion to make any orders necessary to protect the dependent child [citation], including 'all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child' [citation] and those orders directed to the parents of a dependent child that it 'deems necessary and proper for the best interests of or for the rehabilitation of the minor' [citation]. That authority necessarily includes, in an appropriate circumstance, discretion to terminate dependency jurisdiction when the child is in parental custody and no protective issue remains." (Id. at p. 207; see also § 300, subd. (b)(1) ["The child shall continue to be a dependent child pursuant to this subdivision only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness"].)
"There is no such provision limiting the duration of dependency in subdivision (d) . . . ." (In re Carlos T., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 803.)
However, "it will be an unusual case when protections imposed at disposition will be sufficient to permit the conclusion that termination is appropriate. It will be rarer still for a juvenile court to reach that conclusion when the parent with whom the child remains has been found to be an offending parent. Nevertheless . . . the court's decision is to be guided by the relevant facts. [Citations.] Jurisdiction should not be terminated unless the court concludes services and ongoing supervision are not necessary to protect the child." (In re Destiny D., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 211.)
We review the juvenile court's dispositional orders for an abuse of discretion. (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) "In reviewing an order for abuse of discretion, we '"must consider all the evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. [Citation.] The precise test is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude that the trial court order advanced the best interests of the child."' [Citation.] 'The trial court is accorded wide discretion and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent "a manifest showing of abuse."'" (In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 186-187; accord, In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 180 [A court abuses its discretion "when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice"]; In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) When two or more inferences reasonably can be deduced from the facts, we have no authority to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court. (In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 881.)
2. The Juvenile Court Reasonably Concluded Ongoing Supervision Was Necessary to Protect J.F. and L.F.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it determined services and ongoing supervision were necessary to protect J.F. and L.F from a future risk of serious physical harm or sexual abuse.
Mother, J.F., and L.F. were skeptical that Father had sexually abused R.C. and W.C., and they expressly stated they wanted Father to quickly return to the family home. The family was financially dependent on Father and had remained in contact with him. Mother also denied having witnessed sexual abuse between her older children, despite her children's statements to the contrary.
Father denied any wrongdoing and asked Mother to allow him to return home. Father's only statement to the Department was in a letter in which he superficially referred to his "alleged mistake" without discussion or explanation. The inference from Father's denial and minimization is that he is less likely to change his behavior in the future. (In re Gabriel K., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 197.)
Law enforcement requested that the Department not interview Father during its criminal investigation.
The evidence in the record supports the court's determination that Mother needed services to help her recognize and respond to future sexual abuse allegations in order to safely maintain J.F. and L.F. in her home. The record also supports the court's decision to maintain jurisdiction in order to ensure Father could safely return to the family home. Therefore, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by maintaining jurisdiction over the family.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's December 5 orders are affirmed.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
PERLUSS, P. J.
SEGAL, J.