Opinion
B299480
06-30-2020
In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIELA G., Defendant and Appellant.
Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Tracey F. Dodds, Principal 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP02413A) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rashida A. Adams, Judge. Affirmed. Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Gabriela G. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's finding that her son, A.B. (minor), was a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Mother contends the jurisdictional finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) contends the finding is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior referrals and investigations
Mother was previously involved in a juvenile proceeding in 2010, when her older child, minor's half-sibling, was a toddler. The half-sibling was detained from his father and adjudicated a dependent based on the presence of drugs in the home. He remained with mother, who was living with maternal grandparents. After mother tested drug free and complied with all court orders, the court terminated jurisdiction in November 2011, granting mother sole legal and physical custody of the child. A second referral to the Department involving mother's older child, in June 2017, alleged that mother was using methamphetamine. The referral was substantiated, but the matter was closed after maternal grandmother became the older child's legal guardian.
Minor was born in December 2018. On February 28, 2019, mother was arrested for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. Mother stated she and her male companion, A.B., had an argument about mother taking minor to maternal grandmother's home, and she accidentally scratched A.B. as he attempted to pick up minor. Based on a referral arising from the February 28, 2019 incident, a Department social worker interviewed mother at the Department office on March 29, 2019. Mother told the social worker she was not sure if A.B. was minor's father, but he was listed on the birth certificate and had assumed responsibility for minor. According to mother, A.B was aware that he might not be minor's biological father. Mother reported that A.B. had been abusive on two recent occasions, and she was concerned he might be using drugs. A.B. told her he refused to drug test because he was not using drugs. On March 24, 2019, father would not allow mother to hold minor and insulted her when she tried to attend to minor, who was lying on the bed. He also broke her cell phone. On March 28, 2019, minor was not in the home, and father gave conflicting explanations, eventually disclosing that minor was at a friend's place of business. The friend initially denied having minor, but then admitted minor was in the office sleeping. Once A.B. and mother brought minor home, A.B. verbally and physically abused mother, slapping her face. Mother did not contact law enforcement because she feared that A.B. would retaliate against her and minor, as A.B. had already hit himself on the forehead with a can of formula, stating "Is this what you want?" A.B. kicked mother out of the family home; mother provided the social worker with a new phone number but no additional contact information.
Incident leading to current case
On April 1, 2019, the social worker conducted a visit to the family home and discovered from the landlord's spouse that a more serious domestic violence incident between A.B. and mother the prior evening had resulted in A.B.'s arrest. The social worker contacted mother, who stated she made two attempts to take custody of the minor from A.B. on March 31, 2019. On her first attempt, mother returned to the family home in response to A.B. contacting her to say he would not withhold the child. However, when mother arrived at the family home, she learned the child was with A.B.'s friend. After mother insisted, A.B. retrieved the child and returned home. Mother asked to take the child to maternal grandmother's home, but A.B. refused, threatened mother, told mother he would call the police, and left with the child. Mother returned to the family home in the evening to try again. She heard noises in the home and knocked, but A.B. did not answer while mother waited for two hours. When A.B. finally answered, he claimed he had locked himself out and had to climb through a second story window to get inside. A.B. had left minor in his truck, which was double parked in the street. After A.B. brought the child into the home, mother put the child in a car seat and tried to leave. A.B. became physically aggressive: he slapped, choked, punched, and headbutted mother, and dug his nails into her hand in an attempt to have her release the car seat. A roommate living in the same house in the adjacent room tried to intervene, but father yelled at her, telling her no one could tell him what to do. The roommate called 911. Law enforcement officers responded and interviewed mother and A.B. separately. Mother described A.B.'s violent behavior. According to the police report, mother had redness and swelling on her hands and cheeks, a lump on her head, a split upper lip, and early bruising on her throat. A.B. claimed mother had violated a restraining order against her, he had sole custody of minor, and mother tried to take minor from him. He also told police mother was a drug abuser and a bad mother. The police did not find a restraining order or custody order. The police arrested A.B., who later changed his story, pointing out superficial scratches on his cheek and forehead and claiming mother swung a broomstick at him. A.B. also began banging his head in the squad car, leading the officers to take him for medical clearance before booking. On April 2, 2019, mother obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against A.B., listing both her children as additional protected persons, including an order giving her temporary sole custody of minor, with no visitation with the minor provided to A.B.
The Petition and Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
On April 16, 2019, the Department filed a petition alleging minor was a dependent under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), based on the risk created by ongoing domestic violence. At the detention hearing, mother identified A.M. as minor's father, but A.B. also claimed paternity. The court deferred the paternity question and ordered the Department to locate and notify A.M. of the proceedings.
During an interview on May 15, 2019, mother expressed regret at moving in with A.B. Maternal grandmother did not allow A.B. to move in with the family, which included mother and her older child, when mother was eight months pregnant with minor. A.B. would show up at two or three in the morning, demanding that mother make him food, and maternal grandmother would tell him to stop and ask him why he was doing this. He would respond by telling maternal grandmother, "I won't rest until you die of a heart attack." A.B. convinced mother to name her son after him because he would help and be there for them. A.B. hit mother for the first time two or three weeks after mother moved in with him, when minor was one month old. A.B. made threatening statements to mother, like "I wish I was in Mexico, I would cut your tongue out" and "I would cut your head off." He refused to permit her to visit her parents or her older son, threatening her and controlling her every move.
Mother stated that her February arrest followed an incident where A.B. injured himself, and then lied to the police. The district attorney declined to prosecute a criminal case against mother. Although the Department permitted mother to return to caring for A.B. a week after she was released from custody, A.B. manipulated her by threatening to lie again, so she would never see minor. A.B. forced her into oral sex to see minor.
Maternal grandmother reported that after mother moved in with A.B., he did not allow mother to tell maternal grandmother where they lived. After mother was arrested, A.B. threatened maternal grandmother and did not allow her to see minor.
A.B. claimed mother gave him custody of minor; he denied hitting her; and he accused her of lying and abusing drugs. He also claimed maternal grandparents were alcoholics. The social workers noted that many of A.B.'s statements lacked credibility. For example, he told two different social workers on two different days that no one had told him he might not be minor's father. He was unable to provide a driver's license to show that he was able to drive minor; he also made conflicting statements about his income and his residence. A database search showed that he had a prior arrest, and at least three different aliases.
The Department reported that mother had admitted to being in domestic violence relationships in the past, and opined that she was in need of supervision because "she has been unable to make safe decisions in regards to the relationships that she has chosen to be in." The Department recommended family maintenance services for mother, including a domestic violence counseling program for battered women and individual counseling to discuss healthy boundaries and relationships. It recommended that the court order A.B. to provide a DNA sample for paternity testing, and deferred on making a recommendation about reunification services until the results of paternity testing were available. It recommended no reunification services for A.M., the person mother identified as minor's father, until he could be located.
Interim proceedings
On June 5, 2019, both A.M. and A.B. appeared at the scheduled adjudication hearing. The court continued the hearing and ordered both alleged fathers, A.M. and A.B., to undergo paternity testing. The court also extended the TRO and ensured that A.B. was served.
On July 1, 2019, the Department reported that A.B. had been behaving erratically and suspiciously. The Department sought ex parte relief because it was concerned A.B. was a possible flight risk. The court restricted A.B.'s visits with minor.
A last minute information report stated that A.M. had not yet made himself available for DNA testing, but that testing had ruled out A.B. as minor's biological father. The Department recommended terminating A.B.'s visitation and ordering no reunification services. Mother reported she had an active restraining order against A.M, and that all of her relationships had resulted in domestic violence.
Jurisdiction and disposition hearing
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 24, 2019, A.B.'s attorney stated that A.B. no longer wished to be a party and asked to be struck from the petition. After admitting the Department's reports into evidence and hearing argument from all parties, the court struck the petition allegation under section 300, subdivision (a), but sustained an amended allegation under section 300, subdivision (b), that mother and A.B. have a history of domestic violence in minor's presence and that mother failed to protect minor, placing him at risk of serious physical harm. Explaining its decision, the court noted that the evidence indicated that mother had a history of relationships involving domestic violence, and the relationship between A.B. and mother was one where A.B. subjected mother to detrimental power and control. Under that power dynamic, mother had allowed A.B. to put his name on minor's birth records even though mother knew he was not the father, and "this same dynamic escalated into extreme physical abuse in the presence of the child."
The amended allegation stated: "[Minor's] mother . . . and the mother's male companion, [A.B.] have a history of domestic violence in the child's presence. On 04-01-19, the companion repeatedly slapped the mother's face and struck the mother in the child's presence. The companion choked the mother and head butted the mother's head. The companion pushed the mother causing the mother to fall to the ground. The companion scratched and dug his nail into the mother's hand. The companion attempted to kick the mother outside the bedroom while the companion held the car seat and the child was in the seat. The companion broke a broom and scratched his own forehead with broom and threatened the mother that he would tell Law Enforcement that the mother had assaulted him. On a prior occasion, the companion struck the mother. On a prior occasion, the mother struck the companion. On 04-01-19, the companion was arrested for the Domestic Violence. The mother failed to protect the child in that the mother allowed the companion to reside in the child's home and to have unlimited access to the child. Such violent conduct on the part of the companion against the mother and the mother's failure to protect the child endanger the child's physical health and safety and place the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger and failure to protect."
Regarding disposition, the court ordered mother to have six drug tests, including any that were already administered, plus a domestic violence program and individual counseling, but no parenting classes. It also issued a two-year restraining order protecting mother and minor from A.B.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues there is insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's decision to exercise jurisdiction, we find the abuse in mother's relationship with A.B., coupled with her actions in responding to that abuse, sufficient to support dependency jurisdiction.
The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child if the Department establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that allegations made pursuant to section 300 are true. (§ 355; In re Jonathan B. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 (Jonathan B.).) Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes jurisdiction when "[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 the failure or inability of his or her parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child."
We review the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633; In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 940.) Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that adequately supports a conclusion. It is evidence that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. (In re R.C., supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 940-941; In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 575.) We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the juvenile court and adhere to the principle that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the juvenile court. (In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633; In re R.C., supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 941.)
Exposure to domestic violence may support jurisdiction under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300. (In re R.C., supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 941 [jurisdiction under subdivision (b)]; In re E.B., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576.) Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), applies when a parent fails, or is unable, to protect the child from a substantial risk of serious physical harm because of exposure to domestic violence. (In re R.C., supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 941; In re E.B., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) Jurisdiction is appropriate since a minor can be "put in a position of physical danger from this violence, since, for example, they could wander into the room where it was occurring and be accidentally hit by a thrown object, by a fist, arm, foot or leg . . . ." (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194, abrogated on other grounds by In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th 622.)
"When the jurisdictional allegations are based solely on risk to the child, that risk must be shown to exist at the time of the jurisdiction finding. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1435.) The juvenile court need not wait until a child is seriously injured to assume jurisdiction if there is evidence that the child is at risk of future harm from the parent's negligent conduct. (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.)" (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993.) 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. [Citation.]" (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136.) Evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions. (Id. at pp. 135-136.)
Mother argues that because she obtained a temporary restraining order just days after the incident resulting in A.B.'s arrest, by the time of the jurisdiction hearing, there was no ongoing risk of harm to minor. We disagree, and find there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to infer that absent court involvement, minor remained at risk of being exposed to domestic violence, in spite of the restraining order already in place.
Mother's focus on obtaining a restraining order ignores the broader history and context of domestic violence in her relationship with A.B. A.B. was controlling and verbally abusive even before minor was born. Despite the abuse, mother and minor moved in with A.B., over maternal grandmother's objections, allowing him to isolate mother from her own family and verbally abuse her with threats of physical harm, like cutting her head off or cutting out her tongue. A.B.'s abuse of mother went beyond threats, as he began hitting mother a few weeks after minor was born. Mother did not take action, and only came to the attention of law enforcement following her arrest arising from a physical confrontation between her and A.B. Following this incident, mother did not alert the Department that A.B. continued to restrict her access to minor, or that he was threatening to self-harm in order to have her arrested again. Instead, it was the Department that initiated contact with mother. But even after Department's intervention, mother continued to deal directly with A.B. to resolve custody disputes, despite his threats, refusals, and violent history. This resulted in the violent incident on March 31, 2019, when A.B. slapped, choked, punched, and headbutted mother, causing visible injuries to her hands, throat, face, and head, all while mother was holding the infant minor in a car seat. The fact that A.B. made false claims to the police about having sole custody of minor and a restraining order against mother supports the inference that mother had continued to endure A.B.'s threatening and violent behavior in order to visit minor, even after the Department was already involved.
We acknowledge the record includes some evidence of actions that might mitigate the ongoing risk of domestic violence toward mother, and domestic violence in the presence of minor. Mother did take steps after the most recent, most violent altercation with A.B., obtaining a restraining order protecting herself and her two children from A.B. Then, during the dependency proceedings, A.B. abandoned his claim to parental status. Nevertheless, the record contains ample documentation of A.B.'s history of successfully manipulating and isolating mother despite the attempted interventions of family, law enforcement, and the Department. Likewise, there is evidence of mother not being proactive to enlist the help of family and authorities despite their interventions, and instead attempting to deal directly with A.B. As the juvenile court noted at the adjudication hearing, mother had allowed A.B. to put his name on minor's birth records even though mother knew he was not the father. Despite his abandonment of claims to parental status in court, A.B. remains on the birth certificate. On this record, where there is evidence that A.B. may have some underlying motivation to claim paternity, where he has shown a willingness to lie to law enforcement about his relationship with mother and minor, and where there is a discernable pattern of mother continuing to put herself and the minor at risk of abuse by A.B., we find substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the risk to minor was ongoing at the time of the jurisdictional hearing.
We note that the juvenile court appears to have also considered that mother has a documented history of being manipulated by her partners in a manner that places her children at risk of harm. As far back as 2010, mother was in a relationship with a man who kept drugs in the home within reach of their child, minor's older half-sibling. The sibling's father failed to participate in reunification services, and mother was left with sole custody of the child. More recently, mother admitted she had a restraining order against the minor's alleged father, supporting an inference that her relationship with him had ended in violence. We acknowledge this longer history, but do not rely on it in reaching our decision.
DISPOSITION
The court's jurisdictional finding and dispositional orders are affirmed.
MOOR, J. We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
KIM, J.