Opinion
B232884
12-21-2011
In re VANESSA S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATASHA J., Defendant and Appellant.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK29388)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn H. Mackel, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Natasha J. (Mother) is the mother of Vanessa S. (born Feb. 1997), Sariah J. (born Dec. 2006), and C. J. (born Aug. 2009, collectively referred to as the children). Darren J. is the father of Sariah and C. and is not a party to this appeal. Vanessa's father, Alfonso R., is not a party to these proceedings. Mother also has two other children, Kierra W. (born Feb. 2003) and Christopher W. (born March 2001), who do not live with Mother and are not the subjects of this appeal. Mother appeals from the juvenile court's findings that the children came under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (g), and (j). We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about January 24, 2010, Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies arrested Darren for domestic violence against Mother. Mother reported that he punched her and threatened to kill her with a knife and "beat her face in" with a dumbbell.
While investigating the case against Darren for domestic violence, Detective O'Quinn obtained Darren's cell phone. There were sexually explicit text messages and photographs exchanged between Darren and Vanessa. Darren admitted to sexual contact with Vanessa. Vanessa told Detective O'Quinn that Darren sexually abused her approximately 15 times and sent her photos of his penis and sexually explicit messages via his cell phone. Alexis R., Vanessa's friend, advised the detective that Darren touched or rubbed her vagina over her clothing, 5 to 10 times.
On January 18, 2011, a social worker visited Kierra and Christopher at their home. Christopher told the social worker that Darren used to hit Vanessa and him with a belt and did "nasty stuff" to Vanessa. When asked what he meant by "nasty stuff," Christopher covered his face with both hands and said, "[Y]ou can ask [M]om[.] I can't talk about it; it is nasty." Christopher said Mother would leave Kierra and him with Vanessa from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. Kierra also said that Darren hit Vanessa and that Mother told her (Kierra) never to talk to Darren or to run away and hide if she saw him.
The social worker then went to Mother's home. During the visit, Vanessa, Sariah, and C. were present. Mother was cursing and saying, "[A]ll the social workers are devils[;] you need to go to [c]hurch." Mother did not want the social worker to speak to the children. When the social worker offered Mother voluntary services, Mother abruptly changed her demeanor and agreed to voluntary family maintenance.
The next day, Mother came to an office of the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) and told the social worker that Darren's family wanted to kidnap Vanessa and she was concerned for the safety of her children. She said Darren might be released on January 28, 2011. When asked why she had not obtained a restraining order against Darren, Mother contradicted her earlier statement and said that he was going to prison for 25 years to life and was not coming out.
The following day, Mother attended a team decision meeting. When Mother was asked why she had not filed for a restraining order after Darren had molested her daughter, Mother said, "[H]e filed for divorce in 2008." The social worker and her supervisor noted that Mother's responses were "off." During a later conversation, the social worker asked Mother if she was aware that Darren was having sexual intercourse with Vanessa. Mother said that it was not true because Darren did not confess to doing so.
Detective O'Quinn told the social worker that Mother knew Darren was sexually abusing Vanessa. He denied telling her that Darren was serving a 25-year-to-life sentence.
The Department filed a petition on January 26, 2011, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (g), and (j).
There had been previous reports of physical abuse by Vanessa's father against Christopher and domestic abuse by Christopher's father against Mother. Christopher's father was arrested for domestic abuse and he admitted punching Mother in the mouth. Mother denied, however, that there was any domestic violence by Christopher's father.
Vanessa told the social worker in February 2011 that Darren would sexually abuse her when Mother was in the house. She stated she did not tell Mother about the incidents. She said that Mother had seen Darren hit her with a belt.
Mother denied seeing Darren physically abuse any of her children. She admitted that he was emotionally abusive and physically violent with her and once threatened to slit her throat with a knife. She said that the children had observed only one incident of violence. Mother acknowledged that Darren had spanked Vanessa once and concluded he "did not know how to discipline children." She had seen Vanessa and her friend Alexis huddled together on a couch with Darren and she thought he was "grooming" them. When she asked him if he was "into touching kids," he got upset and attacked her. She denied leaving the children home alone, saying, "I don't go out."
The matter was set for an April 7, 2011 mediation session and an April 18 adjudication. On the mediation date, Mother appeared with counsel and Darren's counsel appeared. Darren was not present as he was incarcerated. The parties were able to reach a compromise agreement with the Department. The agreement stated that Mother and Darren would submit on the amended petition with respect to the domestic violence and physical abuse allegations. There was no agreement reached with respect to the sexual abuse allegations. The agreement contained a disposition plan that provided family maintenance services. Mother was to participate in domestic violence and parenting programs and she and Vanessa were to attend individual counseling. The children were to be placed with Mother with unannounced home calls by the Department.
On the adjudication date, Mother appeared at the beginning of the hearing with counsel, but left early. The Department's counsel informed the court that there was a mediation agreement. Mother's counsel said she was authorized to submit the matter on her client's behalf. Mother had signed a waiver of rights form, indicating that she submitted on the petition on the basis of the social worker's report and other documents. Her counsel argued the insufficiency of the evidence as to only the sexual abuse allegations. The court sustained the petition.
The counts sustained by the court that pertained to Mother were as follows: (1) Darren physically disciplined Vanessa and Christopher and Mother knew or reasonably should have known and did not protect them; (2) Darren sexually abused Vanessa, exposed her to nude photos of himself, and asked for nude photos of her, and Mother knew or reasonably should have known and failed to protect Vanessa and her siblings, endangering their safety and putting them at risk of physical and emotional harm; and (3) Mother and Darren engaged in physical altercations in the presence of the children, Mother permitted Darren to have access to them following the altercations, and her failure to protect placed the children at risk of harm.
The court ordered the children placed with Mother, family maintenance services, counseling for Vanessa and play therapy for Sariah. The disposition virtually mirrored the plan set forth in the mediation agreement.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends there is no evidence that she knew Darren had hit Vanessa and Christopher with a belt or that she knew or reasonably should have known he was sexually abusing Vanessa. She asserts she acted appropriately to protect the children after she became aware of Darren's abuse. She also claims there is no risk of future harm to the children because Darren is no longer living in her home. She points out that the one incident of domestic violence occurred over a year prior to the jurisdictional hearing.
The Department contends Mother forfeited any argument with respect to the physical abuse and domestic violence allegations because she negotiated a settlement in which she conceded jurisdiction in exchange for an acceptable disposition. Mother argues she merely submitted the jurisdictional issue to the court based on the Department's reports and did not forfeit her right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We agree with the Department.
Mother cites In re Tommy E. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1234 for the proposition that a submission requires the court to weigh the evidence and make findings. Thus, the parent does not forfeit his or her right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support those findings. However, Mother did not merely submit the jurisdictional question to the court. She negotiated a disposition plan that the court followed, whereby the children were placed with her and the family received maintenance services.
The case of In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159 is instructive. There, the father agreed to address the physical abuse allegations in the amended petition by participating in therapy. In concluding he forfeited the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying those allegations, the court wrote: "[Father's] agreement to deal with the physical abuse issue in therapy is akin to an admission because otherwise there would be no need for therapy if the juvenile court was not going to take jurisdiction of the case. The negotiated settlement was essentially a contract; both Agency and [Father] were entitled to enforcement of the terms of their agreement." (Id. at p. 167.) Similarly, Mother agreed to accept maintenance services and avoid the burden of successfully completing a reunification plan. "By accepting the negotiated settlement— and its benefits—[Mother] implicitly waived [her] right to challenge the true finding [of the physical abuse and domestic violence allegations]." (Ibid.)
We turn to the sexual abuse allegations that Mother did challenge below. She urges there is no evidence that she knew or reasonably should have known that Darren was sexually abusing Vanessa. We disagree.
Jurisdictional findings by the juvenile court are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 482.) "The term 'substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. (See In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298.)" (In re J.K., supra, at p. 1433.)
Vanessa told the social worker that Darren sexually abused her when Mother was in the home. Christopher, who did not live in the home with Vanessa, complained that Darren did "nasty stuff" to Vanessa. When asked to explain what he meant, Christopher covered his face and said, "[Y]ou can ask Mom[.] I can't talk about it; it is nasty." Detective O'Quinn informed the social worker that Mother was aware that Darren was sexually abusing Vanessa. In response, Mother claims Vanessa did not tell her she was being sexually abused; however, she does not explain why she asked Darren if he was "into touching kids" after simply seeing him sitting on the couch with Vanessa and her friend, Alexis. The court also had evidence that Mother denied Darren and Christopher's father physically abused the children despite: (1) Christopher's father's admission of such abuse; (2) Vanessa's statement that Mother had witnessed Darren striking her with a belt; and (3) Kierra's acknowledgment that Mother told her never to speak to Darren and to run if she saw him. In addition, Mother insisted that Christopher's father did not physically abuse her even though he was arrested for domestic violence and admitted that he punched Mother in the mouth. The court had every reason to find Mother not credible. There is ample evidence supporting the court's conclusion that Mother knew or reasonably should have known that Darren was sexually abusing Vanessa.
DISPOSITION
The court's jurisdictional order with respect to Mother is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J. We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J. MANELLA, J.