From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re N.C.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Jan 26, 2012
No. B231560 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012)

Opinion

B231560

01-26-2012

In re N.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABEL C., Defendant and Appellant.

Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant Abel C. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK85074)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Donna Levin, Referee. Affirmed.

Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant Abel C.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Abel C. appeals the dependency court's February 2011 sexual abuse finding and jurisdictional order under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (g) and (j). Because the order is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mother and Abel C. (father) have three children together; at the time of the petition N.C. (age 9), M.C. (age 7) and B.C. (age 4). Mother also has two children from a prior relationship, B.E. (age 14) and R.E. (age 18). B.E. and R.E. also live with mother and father.

Mother and father are not married but at the time of the petition had been in a relationship for 11 years.

Only N.C., M.C. and B.C. are parties to this appeal.

In November 2010, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging physical and emotional abuse of the children by father. A social worker interviewed B.E. at school in response to a report that B.E. was hit with an electrical cable. During the interview, B.E. described altercations between father and mother, and father and R.E. She said father hit her with a cable on the upper part of her legs and with an open hand on the face. She also said that on multiple occasions in the past, father hit her with a belt.

The social worker then asked B.E. about sexual abuse. B.E. described one time when father touched her breasts over and under her clothes. She said the incident occurred in her bedroom with her mother and sisters present. Mother did not intervene and B.E. said she did not feel mother was capable of protecting her. B.E. became very uncomfortable so the social worker changed the subject.

N.C. was interviewed and initially denied any domestic violence but eventually told the social worker that her father pulled mother's hair. N.C. also said her father hit her with an open hand and with a belt on her arms and legs, but she denied any sexual abuse.

M.C. and B.C. were interviewed together because they refused to speak to the social worker alone. B.C. immediately said that "my daddy hits my mommy." M.C. quickly nudged B.C. in an apparent attempt to quiet her. The social worker asked M.C. if anyone had told her not to speak. M.C. said her mother told her not to say anything to the social worker. B.C. disclosed that father hit B.E. and mother. Both girls denied sexual abuse or neglect.

When the social worker spoke with mother and father about the allegations contained in the report, mother denied domestic violence but admitted that she and father argued. She denied using corporal punishment on the children and said she had never witnessed any sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior with the children. Father admitted that he hit the children with an open hand on the buttocks. The only exception was B.C. who father said was too young. He said he had used a belt on their buttocks in the past but it never left a mark. He denied hitting B.E. with a wire or cable but admitted to hitting her with a branch to get her attention. Father admitted that he hit mother on two occasions. He disclosed that he hit her with an open hand on the face but could not remember where he hit her on the other occasion and could not remember if he left a mark or bruise. Father admitted to pushing mother but could not remember grabbing her hair. He denied inappropriate touching of the children.

At a Team Decision Making meeting in November 2010, mother admitted that B.E. had informed her that Father had touched her breasts under her clothes. Mother said she spoke with B.E. and Father together and concluded it was a misunderstanding, but felt that Father and B.E. should have more formal boundaries to prevent future misunderstandings. After the meeting, the social worker determined that the children were at "very high" risk of future abuse. The children were detained from father but released to mother.

On November 10, 2010, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging physical abuse of the children by father, and mother's failure to protect; sexual abuse of B.E. by father; domestic violence between mother and father; and failure to provide by the younger daughter's biological father.

All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In December 2010, a dependency investigator interviewed the children. In his Jurisdiction/Disposition report the investigator said that the children were reluctant to speak with him but they denied allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, and domestic violence. The children denied making the earlier statements to the social worker.

Mother and Father both denied use of corporal punishment. Mother said that she would not permit sexual abuse in the home but acknowledged that the social worker had asked her something about father and B.E. Mother said she did not allow father and B.E. to hug because he could "accidently do something" that B.E. "may not like." Mother said she talked with B.E. about sexual abuse and told B.E. to tell her if someone had abused her. Mother claimed to have no reason to believe that father had sexually abused B.E.

Father denied sexually abusing B.E. He said he tried hugging B.E. once, but she resisted. He said he "did try a couple of times to hug her but only to kind of bug her . . . ." He said he did not mean any malice by it. None of the other family members had any reason to suspect sexual abuse.

In February 2011, the court found most of the allegations contained in the petition to be true and declared the children dependents of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (g), and (j), based on father's physical abuse, father's sexual abuse, domestic violence in the home, and mother's failure to protect the children. The children were released to mother. Father was given reunification services and ordered to participate in domestic violence counseling, parent education, conjoint counseling, individual counseling to address anger management and sexual boundaries, and Alcoholics Anonymous.

With respect to N.C., M.C. and B.C., the court sustained the section 300 petition under subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (j).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

On appeal, we review both jurisdictional and dispositional findings for substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) "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. (Ibid.) In certain cases "[e]ven the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may constitute substantial evidence." (Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Services, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1144.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Dependency Court's Sexual Abuse Finding and Order Under Section 300 Subdivision (J)

Section 300, subdivision (j) allows the dependency court to take jurisdiction where "[t]he child's sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e) or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected as defined by those subdivisions." The statute requires the court to consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling "and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child." (Ibid.) Father does not contest the jurisdictional order other than the sexual abuse findings. Accordingly, we treat any error in making those findings as waived. (In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1274.)

Because the petition was sustained on several grounds, any one of which were sufficient for the juvenile court to take jurisdiction over the children, any error with respect to the sexual abuse finding is harmless. (See In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 445.) However, father makes a separate argument that without the sexual abuse finding, it was inappropriate to require sexual boundary counseling. Accordingly, we address the sexual abuse finding.

We also acknowledge father's argument that the error is not harmless because of the adverse impact an unsubstantiated finding of sexual abuse may have.

Here, the dependency court's jurisdictional findings of sexual abuse against him were supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates that during her first interview, B.E. told the social worker that father had touched her breasts both "over and under her clothes." B.E.'s story was eventually corroborated by her mother a few days later during the team meeting when she admitted that B.E. had informed her that father had touched her breasts.

Although at the jurisdictional hearing B.E. denied making the statement and claimed the incident was actually a misunderstood hug she had discussed with father and mother, the juvenile court was entitled to believe the initial version of B.E.'s account. The court had the benefit of watching B.E. testify and was able to weigh her statements accordingly. The court expressly noted B.E.'s apparent reluctance in court to say what really happened. Finally, the court could have reasonably inferred, from mother's admission that she had to require "formal boundaries" between B.E. and father, that this was more than a "family misunderstanding."

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

RUBIN, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR:

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.


Summaries of

In re N.C.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Jan 26, 2012
No. B231560 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012)
Case details for

In re N.C.

Case Details

Full title:In re N.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

Date published: Jan 26, 2012

Citations

No. B231560 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012)