Opinion
G045184
10-28-2011
In re E.A., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. X.A., Defendant and Appellant.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. DP019255, DP019256, DP019326, DP019516)
OPINION
Appeal from judgments and postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Douglas J. Hatchimonji, Judge and Richard Lee, Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
X.A. (father) appeals from dispositional judgments following orders assuming jurisdiction over his daughters E.A., V.A., G.A., and D.A. He contends insufficient evidence supported two jurisdictional findings: (1) he sexually abused E.A., and (2) his past drug abuse, domestic violence, and anger issues pose a current risk to the children. But father concedes multiple other jurisdictional findings. Thus, the court properly assumed jurisdiction over the children, regardless of the claimed errors. We affirm.
FACTS
The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed the initial dependency petition on behalf of E.A. (then age 13) and V.A. (then age 10) in December 2009. It alleged father physically abused E.A. and V.A. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (a).) It alleged father's drug abuse history impaired his parenting ability. (§ 300, subd. (b).) It alleged their mother, Ei.A. (mother #1), failed to protect the children from father's physical abuse or his domestic violence against her and his current girlfriend, K.A. (mother #2) (Ibid.) And it alleged their full sibling and several half-siblings had been declared dependents of the court. (§ 300, subd. (j).) The next month, SSA filed a similar dependency petition on behalf of G.A. (then age 3), the daughter of father and mother #2. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), & (j).)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
SSA amended the petition to add allegations father sexually abused E.A. and V.A. "[o]n an ongoing basis, since at least 2008." (§ 300, subd. (d).) The girls had confided the sexual abuse to their foster parents.
D.A. was born to mother #2 and father in 2010. SSA filed a similar dependency petition on her behalf. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), (d), (j).)
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing transpired over 20 different days from October 2010 to March 2011. Early in the proceedings, mother #1 pleaded no contest to the allegations concerning her daughters, E.A. and V.A. Mother #2 also pleaded no contest to the allegations concerning her daughters, G.A. and D.A.
At the hearing, E.A. and V.A. testified about father's sexual and physical abuse. A therapist testified V.A. and E.A. told her about the abuse, and did not appear to be collaborating to create a story. A social worker testified E.A. and V.A. had been consistent and believable in their reports of father's abuse. On the other hand, father's relatives testified they had not seen or heard about any such abuse.
Meanwhile, father was arrested on an outstanding warrant. He was sentenced to three years in state prison for burglary, and committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sustained the petitions and declared the children wards of the court.
The court found father and mother #1 failed to protect E.A. and V.A. (§ 300, subd. (b).) It found father and mother #1 had histories of drug abuse and domestic violence. It found true allegations that father has neglected another son who was a dependent of the court. But it did not find father physically abused E.A. or V.A., or slapped mother #2, or held a knife to mother #1.
The court also found father and mother #2 failed to protect G.A. (§ 300, subd. (b).) It found father had a history of drug abuse and neglected his court-dependent son. It did not find father had physically abused E.A. and V.A., hit and threatened mother #2, threatened mother #1, or had an anger control problem.
And it found father and mother #2 failed to protect D.A. (§ 300, subd. (b).) It found father sexually abused E.A. and V.A., had a history of drug abuse, and neglected his court-dependent son. It did not find father had physically abused E.A. and V.A., hit and threatened mother #2, threatened mother #1, or had an anger control problem.
The court also found father sexually abused E.A. and V.A. (§ 300, subd. (d).) It found a substantial risk that G.A. and D.A. would be sexually abused. (Ibid.) The court amended each petition to add allegations father was incarcerated and could not arrange for his daughters' care, and found these allegations true. (§ 300, subd. (g).) It found father and mother #1 neglected the children's sibling and half-siblings. (§ 300, subd. (j).) But the court did not find father physically abused E.A. and V.A., and dismissed those allegations. (§ 300, subd. (a).)
At disposition, the court vested custody of E.A. and V.A. with SSA. It did not offer reunification services to father. They were placed with foster parents. The court continued disposition on G.A. and D.A. It eventually returned them to mother #2 under voluntary family services and terminated its jurisdiction over them. (§ 360, subd. (b).)
We "construe the order of the juvenile court for informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b) as a disposition order. In dependency proceedings, the order entered at the dispositional hearing is a final judgment and thus is an appealable order." (In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261.) Father noticed an appeal from Judge Lee's later order denying visitation and restricting contact with E.A. and V.A. He makes no supporting argument on appeal, waiving any issue.
DISCUSSION
Father challenges some of the findings underlying the conclusions that jurisdiction was warranted by section 300, subdivisions (d) and (b).
First, he contends insufficient evidence showed he sexually abused E.A. (§ 300, subd. (d).) He notes the court found E.A. not credible, and instead relied on the testimony of V.A. and the therapist. He claims V.A.'s testimony about seeing father "'on top of'" E.A. left "unclear whether [father's] actions were sexual in nature."
Second, he contends insufficient evidence showed his drug abuse, domestic violence, and anger issues placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) He "does not dispute that the alleged incidents of domestic violence in early 2000 occurred. Nor does he challenge the fact that he has struggled with drug use and anger control problems in the past." Instead, he claims SSA "failed to show how these facts translated into a current risk of harm for the minors or impaired his ability to parent."
But father acknowledges "if this court upholds some but not all of the allegations then it can be said that the lower court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the minors." This is true. "The reviewing court may affirm a juvenile court judgment if the evidence supports the decision on any one of several grounds. (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875.) "When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court's jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence." (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)
We need not reach father's claims. He concedes sexually abusing V.A., placing the other children at risk of sexual abuse. (§ 300, subd. (d).) He concedes neglecting E.A.'s and V.A.'s full sibling. (§ 300, subd. (j).) And he concedes he is incarcerated and cannot not arrange for the children's care. (§ 300, subd. (g).) These uncontested findings support jurisdiction despite father's claims on appeal. (In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 451; In re Jonathan B., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 875.)
Moreover, both mother #1 and mother #2 pleaded no contest to the jurisdictional allegations. "[A] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring her within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent. [Citations.] This accords with the purpose of a dependency proceeding, which is to protect the child, rather than prosecute the parent." (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.)
Father asserts we should reach his contentions anyway. He asserts the challenged findings "have the potential to continue to infect these dependency proceedings" in the future and may "prejudice [him] in unrelated dependency proceedings in the future." He also laments "the undesirable result of insulating the erroneous or arbitrary jurisdictional findings from review."
We are not persuaded. Father's claims of future prejudice are vague and speculative. His cited cases stand in stark contrast. In one case, a de facto parent could still challenge an order removing a child from her custody, even though the dependency was terminated, because it barred her from serving as a custodian if the child was removed from his mother's custody again. (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1193.) In the other case, a father could still challenge jurisdictional findings, even though the dependency was terminated, because they "resulted in [custody and visitation] orders which continue to adversely affect" him. (In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1548.) Here, father identifies no similarly specific threat of prejudice from the challenged jurisdictional findings. And unlike father's cited cases, the assertion of jurisdiction is amply supported by several unchallenged findings.
DISPOSITION
The judgments and postjudgment order are affirmed.
IKOLA, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, ACTING P. J. ARONSON, J.