Opinion
G056038
06-21-2018
In re Y.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.C. et al., Defendants and Respondents; Y.C., Appellant.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Robert N. Ervais, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent N.C. Law Offices of Christopher R. Booth and Christopher R. Booth, for Defendant and Respondent W.G.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17DP0997) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary L. Moorhead, Judge. Affirmed. Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Robert N. Ervais, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent N.C. Law Offices of Christopher R. Booth and Christopher R. Booth, for Defendant and Respondent W.G.
* * *
Y.C. (minor) contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered reunification services for the parents. Finding no error, we affirm the order.
I
FACTS
One-month-old minor was brought to the emergency room by the parents with numerous bruises and two acute left leg fractures. An Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) report states they were "all without a reasonable explanation."
The minor sleeps in the bed with the mother and father. The mother reported a loud cry from the minor that woke her up at 3:00 a.m., but the minor eventually went back to sleep. In the morning, the mother noticed bruising around the minor's left ankle.
"The mother is the primary caregiver . . . ." The minor's father "only takes care of the child when [the mother] showers, goes to the bathroom or takes [another of the children] to school." The mother stated there had been no accidents, she has no concerns that anyone, including the father, would ever hurt the minor and that she has never hurt the minor.
There was concern by medical professionals that the minor bruises easily due to a blood disorder known as Coagulopathy Disorder. The minor was given an injection of Vitamin K. However, the types of fractures the minor had are called metaphyseal fractures which are usually caused by pulling or twisting. The minor was taken into protective custody by an emergency response social worker.
A psychologist performed psychological testing and evaluated the father for the juvenile court. The report stated the prognosis is "guarded" and contained the following statements: "[The father] needs to address and sustain his understanding and significantly enhance his problem-solving skills, parenting skills, and stress management skills in order for the likelihood and propensity for abuse of the minors to decrease," and "[c]urrently, the likelihood and propensity of abuse and/or neglect is moderately strong." The same psychologist tested and evaluated the mother, and reported to the court that she has low insight, the prognosis is "guarded" and states: "Currently, the likelihood of abuse is moderate and the propensity for abuse is moderate." Prior to the dispositional hearing, SSA recommended the court order no reunification services for the parents.
At the contested dispositional hearing, one witness testified. The social worker said she became aware the femoral fracture was unrelated to a blood disorder and resulted from possible abuse. She was of the opinion that the injuries to the minor were not accidental, and that the mother lacks sympathy and insight. She was not aware of any bruises sustained since the minor has been in foster care.
In one of the SSA's reports, the social worker stated the father has an explosive personality. She explained: "There was one incident where the father appeared to be agitated. He would walk out on the phone." But she said the father was "appropriate with the child."
Both parents were having supervised rather than monitored visitations with the minor. The social worker clarified: "With monitoring, normally the monitor is sitting in a closer proximity to hear the conversation between the parent and the child. With the baby being so young, there's no concern about the parents sharing any information . . ., and the parents have been appropriate. The caretakers have not expressed concern about them."
The social worker told the juvenile court that the minor's caretakers reported the mother called twice daily to inquire about the baby's well-being. Despite the fact the court had not ordered her to do so, the mother attended parenting and child abuse classes. Both parents had been cooperative and effectively communicated with SSA, and both enrolled in all the counseling and programs recommended by SSA.
After the dispositional hearing arguments, the juvenile court gave a lengthy explanation of its reasoning. The court's remarks included: "It's hard for this court to believe that a parent would intentionally yank a child's leg to cause a fracture. I believe it's nonaccidental . . . ." "I do have evidence that the father has anger issues, and I also have evidence that Dr. Canul [the psychologist] feels that his prognosis is worse than the mother's prognosis with respect to rehabilitation with services." The court continued to discuss the evidence and then concluded: "Based on all of that evidence, I do find that the bypass exception in this case under [Welfare and Institutions Code, section] 361.5[, subdivision] (b)(5) applies. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [T]he court does find that there is competent testimony linking Dr. Canul's suggested services towards reunification with the progress that the social worker has confirmed that these parents have made to prevent future abuse or continued neglect, and, therefore, I am ordering further reunification services to both parents under that section dealing with the bypass." (All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)
II
DISCUSSION
The minor filed a petition for writ of mandate on April 4, 2018, asking this court to reverse the juvenile court's order granting reunification services to the parents. On May 3, 2018, that petition was denied. --------
The minor contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered reunification services for the parents because there was no evidence that services were likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect. County counsel's letter brief states that SSA's position is aligned with the minor's position. The mother argues substantial evidence supports the court's finding that reunification services were likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect. She also argues that failure to provide reunification services would be detrimental to the minor. In a letter brief, the father joins in the mother's arguments.
"'When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. [Citation.] In making this determination, all conflicts [in the evidence and in reasonable inferences from the evidence] are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. [Citation.] In dependency proceedings, a trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it exceeds the bounds of reason.'" (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393, abrogated on another ground in In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628.)
"Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (5) That the child was brought within the jurisdiction of the court under subdivision (e) of Section 300 because of the conduct of that parent or guardian." (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(5).)
"In addition, the court shall not order reunification in any situation described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) unless it finds that, based on competent testimony, those services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child or that failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to that parent. The social worker shall investigate the circumstances leading to the removal of the child and advise the court whether there are circumstances that indicate that reunification is likely to be successful or unsuccessful and whether failure to order reunification is likely to be detrimental to the child." (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(3).)
Here, while the juvenile court did find the abuse was "nonaccidental" and that reunification services could be bypassed, it also found, based on competent evidence, that further reunification services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect. The record reflects the court noted "the parents have engaged in all case plan services offered to them," and is giving the parents an opportunity to reform. But at the same time, the court has assured the minor will be safe by not exposing the child to unsupervised interaction with the parents as the minor remains in foster care with only supervised visits for the parents. Also, the court set a six-month review hearing for August 14, 2018, at which time there will be an opportunity for it to evaluate the parents' progress in the near future. Under the circumstances we find in this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's order and it does not exceed the bounds of reason.
III
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
MOORE, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. THOMPSON, J.