Opinion
G063960
09-26-2024
In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.R., Defendant and Appellant. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torez and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 23DP0965 Robert Goodkin, Judge. Affirmed.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torez and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
GOETHALS, ACTING P. J.
C.R. (Mother) appeals from a disposition order maintaining juvenile court supervision over her teenage son A.R. Mother contends the court abused its discretion by continuing court services and ongoing supervision as to A.R. following the disposition hearing.
We disagree. Given Mother's violation of the juvenile court's order not to discuss the case with her children, her testimony minimizing the extent of her physical confrontations with A.R., her refusal to engage in services, and A.R.'s evasive responses in his most recent interactions with the social worker, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to continue supervision. We therefore affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In September 2023, A.R. (then age 14) was taken into protective custody after reporting an argument he had with Mother earlier that afternoon. He told police that Mother struck him on the shoulders, kicked him multiple times, and threatened to kill him. He fled from the house and contacted police because he was afraid to return home.
When interviewed by Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) that same day, A.R. explained he had been having trouble with a Boy Scouts assignment on his computer and asked Mother for help. Mother got upset, told him to '"shut up,"' and said '"If I had a baseball bat, I would kill you with it."' Mother then hit A.R. on his shoulder several times and kicked his upper thighs near his groin. A.R.'s younger brother yelled at him to leave, so A.R. ran to the library and then to the police. He said he was afraid to return home because of Mother's threats.
When asked about Mother's disciplinary methods, A.R. reported that Mother sometimes struck him on the head and spanked him and his siblings on their bare buttocks. He recounted that a year earlier Mother had gotten mad at him, struck him all over his body, and kicked him.
A.R. also told SSA that Mother did not take him to the doctor when needed because she preferred to deal with medical issues at home. For example, in August, when he passed out and lost consciousness, Mother did not take him to the doctor for evaluation.
When SSA interviewed Mother about the altercation, she explained A.R. was struggling with some Boy Scouts paperwork; she told him his siblings were able to do it so he should be able to as well. She asked him to go clean the bathroom, and he said "yes" and began walking toward the bathroom. Mother became upset because A.R. did not say, "yes mom," and they began to argue. A.R. threw his paperwork and glasses at her, and they started hitting each other. Mother admitted she hit A.R. on the shoulder once or twice, kicked his legs once or twice, and tried to kick him in the groin. She also admitted she occasionally struck A.R. on the head or arm if he did not listen.
As for the issue of medical treatment, Mother said she took A.R. to the hospital when he passed out in July due to heat exhaustion, but she did not take him to get medical attention after he lost consciousness about one month later, explaining she prefers to handle medical issues herself.
When asked if she had any concerns, Mother said the family was due to leave on a camping trip that afternoon; she then asked how long the interview would take. When the social worker explained that she would need to interview A.R.'s siblings, Mother reportedly rolled her eyes and said, "You're going to ruin our weekend."
The social worker next met with A.R.'s younger brother R.R. (then age 10). R.R. recounted that A.R. and Mother had been mad at each other, A.R. threw a clipboard at Mother, and he (R.R.) had grown scared as the fight escalated so he screamed for A.R. to leave. When asked about Mother's disciplinary methods, R.R. said Mother sometimes spanked his bare buttocks. He reported feeling safe at home and was not fearful of anyone in the home.
The social worker also interviewed A.R.'s older sister J.R. (then age 16). She did not witness the fight, but recounted that Mother sometimes hit A.R. on the arm or head when he was not listening.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2023, SSA filed a petition as to A.R. and his siblings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 based on the altercation and Mother's failure to consistently meet A.R.'s medical needs. The juvenile court ordered A.R. detained but released him into Mother's care and custody subject to numerous protective orders, including that Mother attend an anger management program, not use corporal punishment on the children, and not "discuss this case or any of the underlying facts with" A.R.
At the jurisdictional hearing in October, Mother pleaded nolo contendere to the petition as amended. The juvenile court sustained the amended petition as to all three minors and ordered that all prior orders remain in full force.
Over the next few months, Mother repeatedly told SSA she wanted the case closed. She did not engage in any services, asserting that she would not benefit from anger management and that adding anything to the family's already busy schedule would be nearly impossible. None of the children showed any signs of abuse, and all three reported things were going well.
When the social worker interviewed A.R. in front of the family in February 2024, however, he did not make eye contact and apparently did not want to speak to the social worker.
After several continuances, the dispositional hearing went forward in March 2024; Mother was the sole witness. Mother admitted that she and A.R. had an altercation in September after he was disrespectful to her, that she had tried to kick his legs, and that the type of physical discipline she used was "not appropriate." As for the issue of medical care, Mother testified A.R. did not currently have a primary care doctor, and he had not seen a doctor since the time he lost consciousness the previous summer.
Mother explained she did not participate in the parenting program because she is a single working mother of three children who are involved in multiple activities; she did not participate in anger management because this was a "one-time issue." Mother admitted she discussed what she perceived to be inaccuracies in the social workers' reports with A.R.
Counsel for both SSA and A.R. urged the juvenile court to maintain family maintenance supervision over A.R. After considering the evidence and the parties' arguments, the court decided to terminate dependency proceedings as to A.R.'s siblings, but it declared A.R. a dependent of the court and kept family maintenance open as to him.
In explaining its ruling, the juvenile court noted it observed "a lot of really positive things" in the family and that "mom gets a lot of credit for that," but it expressed concern that Mother violated the court's order not to discuss the allegations with A.R. The court also noted that according to the most recent SSA report, A.R. had not wanted to speak or make eye contact with the social worker, making it "hard to tell if the kid's being coached," and the court wanted "to be able to hear from [A.R.] . . . how he feels like things are going at home." The court added it was "optimistic, based on all the success that this family has had and how far they've come since September of 2023, with absolutely no new incidents of violence . . . [,] that this family is go[ing to] successfully close the case on our next date."
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
Mother's sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by not terminating A.R.'s dependency case at disposition. She asserts A.R. was safe in her custody, so services and ongoing supervision are not needed.Since she does not pose a danger to A.R., Mother argues, it is not necessary to subject the family to continued interviews by social workers, therapy, programs they have very little time to attend or a need for, or the unnecessary stress of supervision.
Mother correctly concedes that since she pleaded no contest to the petition's allegations, she cannot challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jurisdictional allegations.
A juvenile court has "the discretion to terminate jurisdiction at the conclusion of the disposition hearing in an appropriate case when child welfare services and continued court supervision are no longer necessary to protect the child." (In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 211 (Destiny D.).) However, "such action should [not] be the norm. To the contrary, 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." (Ibid.)
We review the juvenile court's decision whether to terminate jurisdiction at the disposition hearing for abuse of discretion. (See Destiny D., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 213.) ""'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.'"" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
Applying that deferential standard here, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to keep A.R. under its supervision. The incident that spurred the case was not insignificant. Mother allegedly struck A.R.'s shoulders, kicked at his groin, and said, '"If I had a baseball bat, I would kill you with it,"' causing the child to contact police and express fear of returning home. Mother also had a history of striking A.R. Mother later took responsibility for the incident, and the family was reportedly doing well under her care. But Mother also tried to minimize what happened during her testimony, characterizing the altercation as a "one-time issue" contrary to her children's disclosures. Mother also consistently rejected services aimed at preventing future episodes.
As the juvenile court observed, Mother's failure to abide by the court's no-discussion order, coupled with A.R.'s guarded interactions with the social worker, also inhibited the court's ability to determine how A.R. was progressing at home. We cannot say the court exceeded the bounds of reason by providing for at least one additional period of family supervision to monitor Mother's continued handling of disciplinary issues and A.R.'s day-to-day care.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOTOIKE, J. DELANEY, J.