Opinion
B296564
05-04-2020
In re NATHAN D. et al. Persons Coming Under Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent v. REYNALDO T., Defendant and Appellant.
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephanie Jo Reagan, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK71041F-G) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephanie Jo Reagan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
After sustaining separate petitions filed on behalf of minors Nathan D. (born July 2012) and Precious G. (born February 2015) due to their mother Nathali G.'s substance abuse, the court placed Nathan and Precious with Nathali's mother Susana, and Susana's husband, appellant and defendant Reynaldo T. Also living in the home were two biological children of Reynaldo and Susana's, and two more of Nathali's children whom Reynaldo and Susana had adopted. At the time this case was filed, Reynaldo and Susana were in the process of adopting Nathan and Precious.
In October 2019, we decided a previous appeal filed by Reynaldo regarding the court's jurisdictional finding as to these four other children (In re Adrian G. (Oct. 18, 2019, B294840) [nonpub. opn.]). In reciting the facts in this case, we borrow from the facts set forth in our previous opinion where appropriate.
On September 11, 2017, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 (Supplemental Petition), alleging that the court's previous disposition placing Nathan and Precious in the home of Reynaldo and Susana was ineffective at protecting the children. After an adjudication hearing at which two of Nathan and Precious's aunts testified to Susana's abuse of Nathan and Precious, the court sustained the Supplemental Petition and, at the dispositional hearing, ordered Nathan and Precious removed from Susana, but permitted them to remain with Reynaldo in the family home.
That same day, DCFS also filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 regarding the four other children living with Reynaldo and Susana.
On appeal, Reynaldo challenges the jurisdictional and dispositional orders regarding Nathan and Precious, arguing that substantial evidence did not support the court's findings. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
A. DCFS Places Nathan and Precious with Reynaldo and Susana
In 2013, DCFS filed a petition as to Nathan due to Nathali's substance abuse. The court sustained the petition and ordered reunification services for Nathali which were subsequently terminated in 2014. The court then ordered permanent placement services for Nathan, and he was placed with Reynaldo and Susana. In 2015, the court sustained a petition filed as to Precious (again due to Nathali's substance abuse), ordered no family reunification services, and ordered permanent placement services for Precious. Precious was also placed with Reynaldo and Susana. Also living with Susana and Reynaldo were two of their biological children, and two other children of Nathali whom Susana and Reynaldo had adopted.
B. DCFS Investigates a Referral and Files a Petition
On September 1, 2017, DCFS received a referral for Susana. Among other things, the reporting party alleged that Susana did not adequately feed the children in her care and that Nathan appeared "extremely malnourished"; that Susana often left certain of the children in charge of the other children; that she screamed at the children "for anything"; that she gave them cold showers; and that she hit them.
DCFS began its investigation the same day. Both Reynaldo and Susana denied the allegations to the investigating Children's Social Worker (CSW). The CSW also interviewed the children living in the home. Nathan appeared clean and properly groomed, denied any abuse, and stated he was not left at home alone. In response to concerns regarding lack of food, Nathan claimed there was food in the house. Other children responded similarly, though one child began to cry in her interview and stated "she did not want her mom or dad to get into trouble." In the presence of a sheriff's deputy who had come to assist, one child "stated that siblings get hit with a sandal as a form of discipline," but denied the sandal ever left marks or bruises. Another child also told the deputy that "sometimes the children get hit with shoes."
Susana's adult daughter Viviana (the children's aunt) asked to speak with the CSW privately. Viviana had been living in the home for over two months. Viviana told the CSW that Reynaldo and Susana left the children home all day to run errands. Viviana opined it would be hard to get a truthful statement from the children because they were coached and threatened. She stated that Nathan and Precious were two of the three "target children that are being abused." She reported that Susana deprived the children of food and water, threw them from the bed, and hit them. She stated Susana had no patience for the children, and would take her anger out on them, hitting the younger children every day, and choking them. She stated Susana would "pull Precious from the bathroom to the floor."
The CSW noted there was no food in the cupboards, barely any food in the freezer, and minimal food in the refrigerator. At first, Susana explained this by saying Reynaldo had not been paid yet, and was waiting for his check to buy groceries. Then Susana and Reynaldo stated there was no food because the house had been fumigated, and they were not allowed to buy food for four or five days. (On further investigation, the fumigator denied telling the family they could not buy food for four or five days.) The CSW reported that Susana told her there was food in a locked pantry, but after the sheriff's deputies arrived, Susana stated she had never said there was food in the pantry, just that the pantry was where food was stored. The CSW believed Reynaldo and Susana were "not being forthcoming about the food explanation and were attempting to make up reasons for food not being present in the home." The CSW noted that Precious and Nathan "appear to be very thin" while other children in the home "appear to be obese." Reynaldo and Susana signed a 30-day safety plan, agreeing the children would not be hit, and food would be purchased.
On September 2, 2017, DCFS spoke with a former tenant, Claudia, who stated the children were being "maltreated" in the home. She confirmed the children were left unsupervised for several hours, and that Susana's behavior would quickly change from "being okay to being aggressive and explosive towards the children." She reported Susana had no patience for the children and would hit Precious, and force feed her so she would stop asking for food and water. Claudia reported hearing Susana hit "the little children" in the shower. She also reported Susana spanking the children and hitting them on their hands. She stated Precious was one of the three children who were targeted because they were younger. She also stated Susana would put on an act for visitors, but would yell at the children after they left, telling them they were useless, stupid, and "other bad words." Claudia claimed Susana would tell her to leave the home with Claudia's children when a social worker was coming over. She stated the children were coached on what to say to social workers.
Of the children living in the home, Nathan and Precious were the two youngest.
On September 6, 2017, the CSW spoke with Susana's daughter Maria, who confirmed physical abuse of Nathan and Precious. Maria stated all the children had been abused for several years but had been coached to deny the abuse. Later that day, Nathan and Precious were detained at a DCFS office. In a September 11, 2017 detention report, DCFS classified the family as at "'high' risk for future abuse."
On September 11, 2017, DCFS filed the Supplemental Petition, alleging three counts:
S-1: "The children Nathan . . . and Precious['s] . . . maternal grandmother, Susana G[], physically abused the child Nathan, by throwing the child from the bed and striking the child. Such physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and suffering. The maternal grandfather, Reynaldo T[], knew or reasonably should have known of the physical abuse of the child by the maternal grandmother and failed to protect the child. Such physical abuse of the child by the maternal grandmother and the maternal grandfather's failure to protect the child endangers the child's physical health and safety and places the child and the child's sibling Precious at risk of serious physical
harm, damage, physical abuse and failure to protect."
S-2: "The children Nathan . . . and Precious['s] maternal grandmother, Susana G[], physically abused the child Precious, by throwing the child from the bed, pulling the child from the bathroom to the floor and striking the child. On a prior occasion, the maternal grandmother repeatedly struck the child on the mouth. Such physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and suffering. The maternal grandfather, Reynaldo T[], knew or reasonably should have known of the physical abuse of the child by the maternal grandmother and failed to protect the child. Such physical abuse of the child by the maternal grandmother and the maternal grandfather's failure to protect the child endangers the child's physical health and safety and places the child and the child's sibling Nathan at risk of serious physical harm, damage, physical abuse and failure to protect."
S-3: "On prior occasions, the children Nathan . . . and Precious['s] maternal grandmother, Susana G[] and maternal grandfather, Reynaldo T[], made an inappropriate plan for the children's ongoing care and supervision, in that the maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather left the children home alone for several hours in
a day, in the care of the children's 13-year old sibling . . . . Such failure to make an appropriate plan by the maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather endanger[s] the children's physical health and safety and place[s] the children at risk of serious physical harm and damage."
At the conclusion of the detention hearing, the court ordered Nathan and Precious detained from Susana and Reynaldo; three weeks later, the court released Nathan and Precious to Reynaldo, under the condition that Susana remained "outside of the family home."
C. The Court Sustains the Petition
The adjudication of the Supplemental Petition occurred over two days in September and October 2018, and the disposition hearing took place in November 2018. Maria and Viviana, Susana's daughters, testified on the first day of adjudication, and the court permitted Susana to present evidence and testify at the disposition hearing.
Maria testified she spent "around two to three days a week" at the family home, "mostly in [the] summers" and would spend the night there. Viviana testified she lived in the house for approximately three months in 2017, starting in July.
Maria testified Susana would often "be in [a] rage" and would "tak[e] her anger and frustration [out] on the kids." She thought the abuse began after Precious was placed with the family, and "[i]t became more stressful." Maria and Viviana testified that they had seen Susana engage in the following conduct:
- "smacking" Precious (who was two years old when DCFS filed the Supplemental Petition) in the face and arms for various reasons, including asking for food and "eating . . . her boogers";
- throwing Precious from her crib onto a bed;
- pulling Nathan's and Precious's ears;
- pulling Precious's hair; and
- administering a cold shower to Nathan while pushing him back and forth, "smacking" him, and choking him, leaving a scratch on his neck.
Maria also testified that not long after Precious was placed with Susana and Reynaldo, Susana came to Maria's house and complained she was unable to stop Precious from screaming. Among the methods Susana admitted she had tried to silence the child were "smacking her in her mouth" and "put[ting] a sock in her mouth."
Viviana testified she told Reynaldo about Susana's abuse of Nathan in the shower, and Reynaldo responded by telling her to stop being nosy, adding that "if [Susana] wanted to kill [the children], she could kill them." Reynaldo told Viviana to stop "butting in" or she would "get kicked out" of the house. Viviana also testified Reynaldo was sometimes present in the same room when the abuse occurred. Maria testified she did not tell Reynaldo about the abuse, but believed he knew because he had "been in the home for so many years" and "everything was stressful in that home."
No other witnesses testified at the adjudication hearing. Proceeding to argument, DCFS asked the court to sustain the Supplemental Petition, and Nathan's and Precious's counsel asked the court to dismiss it. Susana's counsel asked the court to dismiss the Supplemental Petition, arguing the evidence of abuse was not credible, reminding the court that Susana was participating in counseling, and asking the court to permit Susana to return home. Reynaldo's counsel asked the court to dismiss the Supplemental Petition because there was no present risk, because it was moot given that DCFS was not seeking to remove Nathan and Precious from Reynaldo, and because the evidence of abuse was not credible.
The court found, "based on the various reports that have been referred to . . . and the testimony at trial, that there is evidence of abuse of three children, in particular, [sibling], Nathan, and Precious." The court found Maria credible because she "was careful not to overstate what she had seen, and in general, the court found her manner credible." Similarly, the court found "Viviana was particularly credible at the hearing, in that she specifically indicated that she had not seen" certain acts of abuse alleged, reasoning that "if she were to lie, she would have a tendency to embellish, and she did not." The court also found the former tenant, Claudia, "corroborate[d] the credibility of Maria and Viviana." The court noted "[a]ll three of these women lived in the house enough to be witnesses to these events, and their descriptions are fairly similar."
The court found Susana was neither credible nor forthright: "She didn't appear forthright, she did not seem to acknowledge anything, and has not, to this day, acknowledged anything." The court expressly found that Susana "has had a pattern of not wanting to divulge things to the department." The court also found Reynaldo not credible. The court voiced further concerns of "coaching by the parents," noting Viviana and Maria both told DCFS the children had been coached. The court noted that when interviewed, one of Nathan's and Precious's siblings "seemed to rattle off the allegations on her own, which is unusual for such a young child, indicating she was likely told what the allegations were and what to say." The court additionally remarked that "when initially interviewed, the children acknowledged they were hit with sandals and shoes. In subsequent [interviews, they] denied any abuse."
The court found a "current" and "ongoing risk" to the children because "the parents have [sh]own a pattern of not being forthcoming with the department, trying to hide information from the department, and there is no indication that I can find in the record that either parent has acknowledged what the problems are with the family and the problems that brought this case to the court." The court then sustained count S-1, amended and sustained count S-2, and dismissed count S-3. As amended, count S-2 read: "The children Nathan . . . and Precious['s] maternal grandmother, Susana G[], physically abused the child Precious, by throwing the child from the bed. On a prior occasion, the maternal grandmother repeatedly struck the child on the mouth. Such physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and suffering. Such physical abuse of the child by the maternal grandmother endangers the child's physical health and safety and places the child and the child's sibling Nathan at risk of serious physical harm, damage, physical abuse and failure to protect."
At the disposition hearing, DCFS recommended that Nathan and Precious remain with Reynaldo, with Susana "out of the home," but given unmonitored visits with the children. The court also permitted Susana to present evidence and testify about her recent attendance at counseling. During that testimony, Susana denied responsibility for Nathan's and Precious's abuse, and denied that any abuse occurred. In argument before the court, Susana's counsel again questioned the evidence of abuse, and claimed the family was "loving" and "remarkable." Reynaldo's counsel argued that Susana should be permitted to return home and also asked the court to limit the number of programs Reynaldo was ordered to attend, given that he needed to work to support the family, and then return home to care for six children.
After hearing argument in the companion case, the court discussed the evidence again, noting that it was "not finding those specific instances were the only instances of physical abuse" but that there was "a pattern of abuse in the house." He further found Reynaldo's and Susana's "complete denials of anything happening was not credible and was evidence of consciousness of guilt." The court found "by clear and convincing evidence that there is or would be a substantial danger to the [children's] physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well being if the children [in the companion case] were returned to [the] home of [Susana]." The court found the same "clear and convincing evidence" as to Nathan and Precious.
Nathan's and Precious's counsel then argued that the court should place the children with Reynaldo, and DCFS confirmed it was not seeking to remove them from Reynaldo. The court entered a "specific placement order that [Nathan and Precious] shall be returned to" Reynaldo, but removed from Susana. Reynaldo timely appealed. Though he states his appeal "is from the juvenile court's November 1, 2018, jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders," he makes no actual argument as to the court's dispositional orders, and concludes by asking us to "reverse the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings sustaining the section 387 petition and dismiss this case." We therefore consider only Reynaldo's challenge to the jurisdictional findings which, if reversed, would necessitate reversing the dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
"On appeal, the 'substantial evidence' test is the appropriate standard of review for both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings." (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) Under a substantial evidence review, "'we view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's determinations, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the juvenile court's findings and orders. Issues of fact and credibility are the province of the juvenile court and we neither reweigh the evidence nor exercise our independent judgment. [Citation.]'" (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 560, quoting In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.)
A. Reynaldo's Appeal Is Justiciable
Preliminarily, Reynaldo argues that regardless of the jurisdictional findings as to Susana (who has not appealed), we should consider the jurisdictional findings as to him. DCFS does not argue otherwise and we agree. "[W]e 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.) Because the jurisdictional findings are prejudicial to Reynaldo's and Susana's attempt to adopt Nathan and Precious and serve as the basis for removing the children from Susana, we will consider his appeal on the merits.
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Findings on the Supplemental Petition
"In proceedings on a supplemental petition, a bifurcated hearing is required. [Citations.] In the first phase of a section 387 proceeding, the court must follow the procedures relating to a jurisdictional hearing on a section 300 petition . . . . At the conclusion of this so-called 'jurisdictional phase' of the section 387 hearing [citation], the juvenile court is required to make findings whether: (1) the factual allegations of the supplemental petition are or are not true; and (2) the allegation that the previous disposition has not been effective in protecting the child is, or is not, true. [Citation.] If both allegations are found to be true, a separate 'dispositional' hearing must be conducted under the procedures applicable to the original disposition hearing . . . ." (In re Jonique W. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 685, 691.) "The ultimate 'jurisdictional fact' necessary to modify a previous placement with a parent or relative is that the previous disposition has not been effective in the protection of the minor. [Citations.] The department must prove the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of legally admissible evidence." (Ibid.)
Here, the court found that Susana had physically abused Nathan by throwing him from the bed and hitting him, that the abuse was excessive and caused him unreasonable pain and suffering, that Reynaldo knew or reasonably should have known of the abuse and failed to protect Nathan, and that Susana's abuse and Reynaldo's inaction placed both Nathan and Precious at risk of serious physical harm. The court also found that Susana abused Precious by throwing her from the bed and striking her repeatedly on the mouth, and that this abuse placed both Precious and Nathan at risk of serious physical harm.
Reynaldo does not challenge the court's factual findings regarding Susana's conduct, but argues the court erred in sustaining the petition despite the conduct because: (1) there was no current risk to the children; (2) the abuse was "trivial" and "protected by the parental discipline doctrine"; (3) there was no evidence Reynaldo failed to protect the minors from Susana; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the prior disposition was ineffective at protecting Nathan and Precious We address each argument in turn.
1. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Finding of Ongoing Risk to the Children
The court found "an ongoing risk" of abuse. Given that the court's previous order had placed Nathan and Precious in a home with Reynaldo and Susana, an ongoing risk of serious physical harm in that home would self-evidently prove that "the previous disposition has not been effective in the . . . protection of the child[ren]." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387, subd. (b).)
In his opening brief, Reynaldo argues there was no evidence of ongoing risk because the alleged abuse "occurred in 2017, more than a year prior to the jurisdiction hearing" and, "[b]y the time of the September and October 2018 jurisdictional hearing, no substantial evidence existed to support the finding that the prior dispositional placement order . . . was ineffective in protecting the minors."
"[A] court may find there is a substantial risk of serious future injury based on the manner in which a less serious injury was inflicted, a history of repeated inflictions of injuries on the child or the child's siblings, or a combination of these and other actions by the parent or guardian that indicate the child is at risk of serious physical harm." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (a).) Here, the court found an ongoing risk based on the "disturbing pattern of abuse in the house," as well as Reynaldo's and Susana's failure to acknowledge that any abuse had occurred, and the court's concern that they had coached the children to deny the abuse to DCFS. Substantial evidence supports these findings.
Maria testified that Susana abused Nathan and Precious as an outlet for her anger and frustration. She relayed incidents such as forbidding them from asking for food, and locking Nathan in his room to prevent him from playing outside. She also testified about physical abuse such as Susana "smacking" two-year-old Precious, and stuffing a sock in her mouth in response to normal toddler behaviors, such as "eating her boogers" or screaming. Viviana testified to seeing Susana pinch Precious, and throw her from the crib onto a bed. Maria saw Susana pull Nathan's ear and heard Susana pushing him back and forth and "smacking" him in the shower. Viviana witnessed the shower incident, and saw Susana choking Nathan, and scratching his neck. Maria testified that the physical abuse began when Precious arrived in the house, and "[i]t became more stressful." Viviana testified that Reynaldo was sometimes in the same room when the children were being abused, and when she brought up Susana's abuse of Nathan in the shower, Reynaldo told Viviana to "stop butting in," adding that Susana could kill the children if she wanted to. Susana herself took no responsibility, and denied that any abuse ever occurred. On this record, we find substantial evidence supports the court's finding that there was an ongoing risk that Nathan and Precious would suffer serious physical harm at the time of the adjudication hearing.
2. The Abuse Was Neither Trivial nor Protected by the Parental Discipline Doctrine
"A parent has a right to reasonably discipline by punishing a child and may administer reasonable punishment without being liable for a battery. [Citations.] This includes the right to inflict reasonable corporal punishment. [Citation.] However, a parent who willfully inflicts unjustifiable punishment is not immune from either civil liability or criminal prosecution. [Citations.] As explained in [People v.] Curtiss [(1931) 116 Cal.App.Supp. 771], corporal punishment is unjustifiable when it is not warranted by the circumstances, i.e., not necessary, or when such punishment, although warranted, was excessive." (People v. Whitehurst (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050, italics omitted.) "Whether a parent's use of discipline on a particular occasion falls within (or instead exceeds) the scope of this parental right to discipline turns on three considerations: (1) whether the parent's conduct is genuinely disciplinary; (2) whether the punishment is 'necess[ary]' (that is, whether the discipline was 'warranted by the circumstances'); and (3) 'whether the amount of punishment was reasonable or excessive.'" (In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 641.)
The specific acts of abuse the court found included striking two-year-old Precious for asking for food, stuffing a sock in her mouth for crying, and throwing her onto a bed; pulling Nathan's and Precious's ears and hair; and administering a cold shower to Nathan while striking and choking him. Notably, the court found these specific instances were not the only instances of physical abuse, but part of a "pattern of abuse in the house."
Reynaldo presents no authority, and we are aware of none, finding the type of conduct described above to be a reasonable or necessary punishment. Susana's abuse was neither "trivial" nor protected by the parental discipline doctrine.
3. The Court Did Not Err in Finding That Reynaldo Failed to Protect Nathan
Reynaldo argues he "did not fail to protect the minors from Susana" because: (a) "Nathan indicated he felt safe visiting Reynaldo and Susana and wanted to live with them"; and (b) "[e]ven if Reynaldo knew of Susana's physical discipline of the minors, he was often away from the home when it occurred and was unable to protect the children." We are not persuaded.
Viviana testified she told Reynaldo about Nathan's abuse, and his response was to tell her to stop being nosy. He even volunteered that "if [Susana] wanted to kill the [children], she could kill them." He also told Viviana to stop "butting in" or she would be "kicked out" of the house. Viviana also confirmed that Reynaldo was in the same room when some of the abuse occurred. Thus, despite five-year-old Nathan's stated desire to stay with the only parents he had ever known, substantial evidence supports the court's findings that Reynaldo knew of Susana's abuse of Nathan and failed to protect him.
Reynaldo's excuse that he was "often away from the home" when the abuse occurred and thus was unable to protect the children misses the mark. Even if he was "often" away, he fails to explain why he did not protect the children during those times when he was home. To the extent Reynaldo suggests he should not be blamed for the failure to protect because of his physical absence, he misunderstands the relevant standard: parental fault is not required to find jurisdiction due to a parent's inability to protect a child. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624 ["the first clause of section [Welfare and Institutions Code] 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inability to supervise or protect her child"].)
4. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Finding That the Previous Disposition Was Ineffective to Protect Nathan and Precious
As discussed, the court found that the previous disposition placing Nathan and Precious in the home of Reynaldo and Susana was ineffective in protecting the children, because they faced an ongoing risk of serious physical harm; substantial evidence supported this finding. Reynaldo argues the previous disposition was effective at protecting the children, because: "Nathan and Precious were free of any marks or bruising"; "CSWs Novoa and Martinez and the children's teacher had no concern for the minors' safety in the home"; "Nathan's teacher described the child as having a 'blossoming' personality"; "Nathan also reported feeling safe in the home and wanted to live with Susana and Reynaldo"; "Nathan and Precious both appeared bonded with Reynaldo"; and "the minors enjoyed their monitored and unmonitored visits with Susana [and] Precious was affectionate and comfortable with Susana and referred to her as 'mom.'"
These facts do not compel a different result. "'"'[W]hen two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts,' either deduction will be supported by substantial evidence, and a 'reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.'"'" (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) Ample evidence supported the court's finding that the previous disposition was ineffective at protecting Nathan and Precious because they faced an ongoing risk of sustaining serious physical harm if left in the home of Reynaldo and Susana. It is thus irrelevant whether other evidence would have supported a different finding.
DISPOSITION
The court's orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MANELLA, P. J. We concur: WILLHITE, J. COLLINS, J.