From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re L.G.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Feb 7, 2012
No. G045525 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2012)

Opinion

G045525 Super. Ct. No. DP021199

02-07-2012

In re L.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD M., Defendant and Appellant.

Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. Keough, Judge. Affirmed.

Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for the Minor.

Ronald M. (Father) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders entered regarding his three-year-old son L.G. Y.G. (Mother) does not appeal. We conclude the evidence supports the court's orders. We affirm the orders.

The record refers to the minor as L.M. until June 29, 2011, when the court legally changed his name to L.G.

I

L.G. and his 10-year-old half-siblings, P.R. and M.R., were taken into protective custody on May 5, 2011. Mother had been psychiatrically hospitalized and was unable to care for the children. There were allegations of ongoing domestic violence between Mother and Father. P.R. and M.R.'s father, Manuel R., Sr. (hereafter Manuel), was incarcerated. The children were placed in Orangewood Children's Home.

Manuel and Mother's relationship ended in December 2001. Manuel physically attacked Mother, kicking her and choking her because he believed she was cheating on him. Manuel stated he would rather kill her than leave her. Mother escaped and went to the police department. She obtained a restraining order. Manuel moved away. Manuel has an extensive drug-related criminal history dating back to 2001.

Father began dating Mother five years before L.G.'s conception in 2007. Father enjoyed physical custody of L.G. on weekends and had financially supported L.G. since his birth three years ago. Father lived in a separate apartment from Mother and was employed full-time with a tow trucking company. Father had been diagnosed with depression, and he currently takes prescribed medication.

Mother had been diagnosed as having depression, a bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, but she refused to take her prescribed medication. For the past five years, she had lived with the children's maternal grandmother and maternal aunt, S.V. Mother was 29 years old.

S.V. stated she began to notice a change in Mother when she began dating Father. S.V. recalled Father would hit Mother, and when she came home from seeing Father she would act differently. One time she shaved her head. S.V. recounted that approximately one year earlier, Father forced Mother to go to the doctor and she was prescribed medication. Mother flushed the medication down the toilet. S.V. stated, "the older children do not like Father because he hits their mother." S.V. remembered that after Mother and Father stopped seeing each other, Mother resumed dating Manuel because he had "completed rehab." S.V. recalled Mother was doing fine and caring for the children for a while. S.V. said she could once again trust Mother with the children. However, when Mother and Manuel broke up again, Mother began to act strange.

S.V. described the events leading to Mother's hospitalization as follows: For the Easter weekend, Mother took the children to Father's house. When they returned home, L.G. stated Father hit Mother. Mother began to "'act hysterical.'" She took off her clothes, rode a bicycle naked, and hit maternal grandmother. S.V. stated she no longer trusted Mother with the children because of her bizarre behavior.

Maternal grandmother admitted to the social worker that she could no longer control her daughter, and she knew Mother could no longer take care of herself or the children. Maternal grandmother stated Mother was fine a few years earlier, but within the last year she had begun to "'act bizarre.'" Maternal grandmother stated she had to miss work because she did not trust Mother being alone. She stated that after Mother was released from the hospital, she had not been making any sense.

With respect to the allegation of domestic violence, maternal grandmother stated Mother came home with marks and bruises on her face after being with Father. Maternal grandmother reported Father convinced Mother to say she hurt herself, but it was Father who hit her. Maternal grandmother stated the children told her Father hits Mother. Mother would not call the police to report the domestic violence because she was afraid of losing L.G. Maternal grandmother stated L.G. reported he saw Father kick Mother and pull her hair on Easter.

The social worker interviewed the three children. L.G. stated, "'My dad hit my mom. He kicked her on the leg and he pulled her hair.'" M.R. stated he had seen his sister and Mother hit each other. M.R. had seen marks on P.R. when she was disciplined with a belt or hit for behaving badly. M.R. had not seen any similar marks on L.G., but reported Mother would slap his hands. M.R. said he did not witness the Easter incident, but he had seen Father hit his mother and Mother's face bruised due to Father's physical abuse.

M.R. explained he knew his mother had problems, He stated she acted "'bizarre,'" and she did not take her medication. He recalled the day Mother was hospitalized she was upset because she could not find her cell phone. She turned everything off early in the day and said everyone had to go to sleep. He saw her take off her clothes and get on his bike. When maternal grandmother tried to stop Mother, she hit her. The police came and took Mother to the hospital. M.R. admitted he got scared when Mother behaved bizarre because he did not know what she was going to do.

P.R. had a similar recollection of the events. She had seen Father hit Mother on numerous occasions. She had seen marks on her mother's face from Father's physical abuse. P.R. stated Mother hit her arm on Easter, leaving a bruise. She described the event to the social worker as follows: Mother and Father were in their room with the door closed having sex and P.R. did not like this because it made her feel bad for her own father, Manuel. P.R. began to yell and stated she wanted to go home. She hit Mother prompting Father to say, "'You're gonna [sic] let her do that to you?'" Mother then punched P.R. on the arm. P.R. disclosed Mother has hit her in the past with a belt on her bottom, over her clothes. She denied having any marks or bruises. P.R. stated she had anger problems, and she had hit Mother on numerous occasions and Mother hit her back. P.R. had been suspended from school due to fighting with other students.

Like her brothers, P.R. stated Mother had been saying strange things. She saw Mother take off her clothes and ride a bicycle around the apartment nude. P.R. remembered maternal grandmother tried to stop Mother, but Mother pulled her grandmother's hair. P.R. stated Mother had come home from the hospital a few days earlier "'but she is not okay.'" She recognized her mother was sick and not taking her medication.

The social worker also interviewed Father. He stated the allegations of domestic violence were untrue, Mother was lying, and she had brainwashed L.G. He admitted pushing Mother "a while back," but he denied ever hitting Mother. Father stated Mother's family does not like him and told Mother to tell lies about him. Father stated that on Easter he and Mother were talking in the bedroom, not having sex as P.R. alleged. Father explained Mother is "'not okay,'" and he believed she was not taking her medication. She broke a restraining order to come to his home on Easter. Father stated he tried telling social services and the court about Mother's problems, but no one would take him seriously.

Father explained that approximately four months earlier he asked the family court to give him custody of L.G. The social worker located the filing and discovered that in December 2010, Father sought an order to show cause (OSC) in family court regarding visitation, child custody, and seeking new orders. Father explained he was concerned about L.G. being in Mother's care. Specifically, Father expressed concern about L.G. sleeping on the floor and his sharing Mother's two-bedroom apartment with 12 other people. Father alleged the environment was chaotic because the inhabitants cursed and fought with each other consistently and there were "men coming in and out, including [Mother's] boyfriend [Manuel]." Father requested an order that L.G. not be in Manuel's presence.

After participating in mediation, Mother and Father executed a partial parenting agreement stating the family law court would decide if L.G. could spend time with Manuel and his family, the parents would share joint legal and physical custody of L.G. They formulated a visitation schedule stating Mother was responsible for L.G. every week from Tuesday to Friday. Father was responsible for L.G. over the weekend and until Tuesday morning. L.G.'s paternal grandmother cared for him when Father was working.

The family law court took judicial notice there was a 2001 criminal protective order to shield Mother from Manuel. As described above, Mother alleged Manuel physically abused her. The criminal protective order expired in December 2004.

Finally, the social worker interviewed paternal grandmother. She denied the allegations of domestic violence, explaining she would be the first to report if Father neglected or abused his family. She stated Mother broke the restraining order she had against Father. Paternal grandmother opined Mother neglects the children and they are not safe due to her erratic behavior. Paternal grandmother had tried to keep L.G. safe, but she was not successful. When she stopped by the house, she saw how Mother lived and knew it was not okay, but there was nothing more she could do to keep L.G. safe.

The social worker held a team decision making (TDM) meeting on May 6, 2011, to discuss the initial removal of the children. They identified the family's strengths and weaknesses. They developed a plan that the children would remain in out-of-home care pending the next hearing and the paternal and maternal grandmothers would be evaluated for placement. On May 11, at a detention hearing, the court found prima facie evidence supported the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition, alleging the children were described by subdivisions (a), (b), and (g). Father was referred to counseling, parenting classes, and anger management classes.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.

In the social worker's next report, dated June 9, 2011, she noted that on May 16, 2011, Manuel pled guilty to one count of possessing narcotics. He was sentenced to two years in prison. Mother told the social worker she had moved to Arizona on May 26, 2011. The children were again interviewed, and more details emerged regarding the Easter incident.

L.G. stated Manuel visited Father's home. L.G. recalled, "'It didn't feel so good'" to see Father kick Mother. P.R. told the social worker she believed Mother's illness was caused by Mother smoking marijuana. When P.R. was asked what Mother used to smoke it, she drew what appeared to be a glass bong and indicated where Mother would put "'the drug.'" P.R. said she told her mother not to smoke "'because something will happen to her.'" P.R. believed Mother went to Father's house to get drugs because once she saw a larger bong at his house in the backyard. She had once seen Father smoke marijuana with two of his friends. P.R. stated Mother would smoke marijuana at Father's house, but he would yell at her to not smoke drugs in front of the children.

P.R. stated she sometimes only pretends to like Father because when she was nine years old he got mad at her and pushed her to the wall. She recalled recently Father got mad at Mother and pushed her because he did not like the way she cleaned. P.R. reported Father kept condoms next to his bed so they would not have more babies. She stated Manuel never hit Mother.

When asked again to describe what happened at Easter, P.R. told the social worker Manuel found Mother and the children at Father's house. Father was not home. Manuel became upset and said to Mother, "'I thought you were with me.'" Manuel then threatened to take the children from Mother. P.R. began getting her things ready to go and Manuel stated he would be back for her. However, he did not return. When asked about the bruise on her arm, P.R. stated she wanted to go home and was crying because she did not want to be at Father's house anymore. Father told Mother to "'"go take care of it in the room"'" and then Mother took P.R. to a room and hit her. P.R. stated she did not want to visit Mother until she got better, but she did not think Mother would get better.

M.R. stated that at Easter, Father and Mother were doing "'adult stuff'" in the bedroom and "'P.R. threw a tantrum and she wanted to go home.'" He recalled Father told Mother, "'To do something with her because I'm watching the movie.'" Mother took P.R. to a bedroom and hit her. M.R. stated they had been at Father's residence for several days. When asked about Mother's drug use, M.R. stated he had only seen marijuana. M.R. described Mother's bong said she hid it on top of the refrigerator or in the plants. M.R. stated he, maternal grandmother, and P.R. had all told Mother to stop using drugs, but Mother claimed she needed them for stress relief. Mother often blamed P.R., stating the child refused to listen and it stressed her out.

M.R. stated the last time Manuel hit Mother was several years ago. On the other hand, Father recently hit Mother at a casino and broke her jaw. M.R. did not witness this event but said Mother told him about it. However, he had seen Father push and shove Mother. He commented Mother would not call the police and he did not know why she continued to return to Father. He felt sad, hurt, and frustrated that she kept seeing him.

On May 24, Father provided the social worker with a written time line of what happened during the Easter weekend. He said Mother walked to his house late on Friday night, April 22. The children played and then went to sleep. The following day, they watched television, played football, went on a bike ride, and washed Father's truck. P.R. would not listen to her mother before bed, and Mother spanked her three times. Father stated this was not abuse as stated in report. Father and Mother went to his room to sleep and P.R. got mad and started hitting the door. The kids eventually went to sleep, and he got called into work to tow a car. After the tow call, he bought the children Easter gifts. The next morning was Easter Sunday, April 24, and the children woke early and got their presents and candy. The family decided to have a barbeque and invited the landlord and some other friends. Father stated Mother started smoking marijuana and stopped functioning. She was unable to clean the house before the guests arrived. She could not look after the kids. Father recalled the house was a "disaster" when the guests arrived, and he argued with Mother over cleaning. Father stated M.R. did not like when his mother cleaned Father's house. Father "glanced at him and he looked concerned" and scared. Father then went to the garage.

Mother cleaned a little and then came to the garage without her shirt on and just her bra. Father stated "everybody saw and I felt bad for her. So I took her inside and she went her own way!! [sic] I remember her acting like a child and saying 'no,' 'no' like a [three-year] old." Father stated that because everyone had seen Mother undressed he felt sorry for her. He wrote, "I knew something wasn't right. The kids were there. It was Easter I thought it was the weed!! [sic] So she calmed down and we decided to go to Salt N Pepper for Easter Dinner!" Father stated that after dinner M.R. wanted to ride his bike home but his pedal broke off. Father gave him and the family a ride home.

Father wrote the following day, Monday April 25, he came home for lunch and saw L.G. walking around naked and Mother was "incoherent argumentative!" Mother went into his garage, and Father noticed she was cutting her eyebrow with a safety pin. He saw three cuts. When he asked her what she was doing, Mother replied she was cutting an old scar. Father said he would drop her off at her house and Mother "began cussing at me in front of L.G. bringing up my ex-girlfriend Sabrina! I tried to calm her down by evading the argument. Didn't work! So I called my mom to talk to her! She was bizarre and wasn't making sense! I almost called the police but when she then calmed down! I took her and my [son] home! When I dropped them off she again cussed at me [in] front of L.G.! I left."

That night Mother was hospitalized after an incident in which she took off her clothes, began riding a bicycle around her apartment, and ran out into the street. Maternal grandmother tried to stop Mother, but Mother punched her. When the police arrived, Mother was placed on a section 5150 psychiatric hold. Mother was released from the hospital a few days later.

The social worker reported that on April 28, 2011, Mother obtained an emergency protective order against Father, protecting her and L.G. The order, scheduled to expire on May 5, 2011, stated Mother and Father had a verbal argument over Mother's cleaning habits after Mother failed to follow Father's cleaning instructions. The order stated Father punched Mother three times in the face and head causing bruises.

The social worker also reported that in recent weeks Mother threatened the staff where the children are residing. Mother attempted to flee with the children by trying to make secret arrangements for them to meet her. The social worker learned Mother had been receiving mental health services since 2004 and had difficulties maintaining a job. The most recent discharge paperwork stated Mother's prognosis was considered to be poor. The social worker recommended the court order family reunification services. The prognosis for reunification with Father was good, but the same could not be said for reunification with Mother.

On June 29, 2011, the court held a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. The agency submitted an amended petition. At the hearing, Father waived cross-examination of the social worker. Father did not introduce any additional evidence. His counsel argued that paragraphs b-6, b-7, b-11, b-12, and b-13 of the petition should not be sustained. The court disagreed and sustained all the jurisdictional allegations and determined there was a substantial risk to L.G. if he was returned to Father's care. The court ordered reunification services for Father and scheduled a six-month review hearing.

II

"At the jurisdictional hearing the juvenile court determines whether the allegations in the petition that the minor comes within section 300 (and therefore within the juvenile court's jurisdiction) are true. The court's jurisdictional findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. (See § 355.) If the court finds jurisdiction under section 300, it declares the child a dependent of the juvenile court and proceeds to the disposition phase, where the court considers whether the child should be removed from the parents under section 361." (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1432, fn. omitted (J.K.).)

"On appeal, the 'substantial evidence' test is the appropriate standard of review for both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. [Citations.] 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. [Citation.] With these principles in mind, we examine appellant's contentions." (J.K., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1433.)

We begin by considering whether the appeal is moot. Father concedes that even if the allegations against him were unsupported, the court could have correctly assumed jurisdiction over L.G. based on the other allegations regarding Mother. (In re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, 391.) He asserts the appeal is not moot because the allegations against him may infect the outcome of subsequent proceedings relating to reunification and custody orders. In addition, Father's contact with L.G. has already been reduced from 84 to six hours per week because of the sustained allegations. We agree the issue is not moot. The jurisdictional findings are relevant because they were directly relevant to the dispositional orders denying Father full custody and, in fact, related to a reduction in visitation time. Moreover, the jurisdictional findings could affect Father in future proceedings. (In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547 [appeals in dependency matters are not moot if "the purported error is of such magnitude as to infect the outcome of [subsequent proceedings]"].)

Turning to the merits of the appeal, we have carefully considered the record and conclude each of the allegations as to Father was supported by substantial evidence. We have addressed each allegation separately.

A. Allegations b-6 and b-7 Regarding Domestic Violence

Allegation b-6 stated that on April 24, 2011, L.G. was exposed to an act of domestic violence. He saw Father kick Mother on the leg and pull her hair. "Said domestic violence placed the child at significant risk of bodily harm and emotional distress." Allegation b-7 stated Mother and Father "have an ongoing conflictual relationship which on several occasions has escalated to physical violence in the presence of children. On numerous, unspecified occasions, the violence consisted of . . ." Father kicking Mother and hitting her face resulting in bruising. It added, "Such acts place the children at risk of bodily harm and emotional abuse."

On appeal, Father acknowledges the domestic violence allegations were reported by Mother, maternal relatives, and the minors. Father stated he disagrees with the allegations but nevertheless "recognizes that on appeal the allegations of abuse contained in the record on appeal are probably sufficient to constitute substantial evidence in support of allegations b-6 and b-7." He is right. Mother and the children all reported Father physically abused Mother on April 24 and on other occasions. His vague suspicion all the witnesses had been brainwashed to make up stories about the abuse is based on speculation.

Father argues there was no evidence the domestic violence presented a risk of harm to L.G. because section 300, subdivision (b), is designed to protect children from a substantial risk of future serious harm. He asserts that because Mother was living in Arizona, and there was a restraining order in place, there was no reason to conclude domestic violence would continue. He concludes there was no evidence to support the conclusion the past domestic violence presented a current risk of harm. We disagree.

Exposing children to recurring domestic violence may be sufficient to establish jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193-194 (Heather A.) [domestic violence in household of children amounts to neglect and a failure to protect the children from "the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it"]; see also In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717 (Daisy H.) [physical violence can support jurisdictional finding where violence is ongoing or likely to continue, and places child at risk of physical harm].) "'Both common sense and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to children.'" (In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 576 (E.B.).) Domestic violence effects children even if they are not the ones being physically abused "because they see and hear the violence and the screaming." (Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 192; see also In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 460-461.)

The evidence here showed the parents had a volatile relationship and they had engaged in domestic violence for many years. Mother, the maternal relatives, and all the children, reported seeing marks and bruises on Mother's face after she was with Father. S.V. stated the older children disliked Father because he hit their mother. The maternal grandmother reported the children told her about the abuse, but Mother was afraid to tell the police. The children reported seeing Father abuse Mother many times. During the Easter altercation, Father kicked and pulled Mother's hair. L.G. stated "'It didn't feel so good'" to see Father kick Mother. M.R. said Mother told him Father broke her jaw, and although he did not witness this event, he had seen Father push and shove Mother. M.R. commented he did not understand why Mother would not call the police and why she continued to return to Father. He felt sad, hurt, and frustrated that she kept seeing him.

Although the minors had not been physically harmed, the cycle of violence between the parents constituted a failure to protect the minors "from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it." (Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 194; see also In re Sylvia R. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 559, 562 [children suffer secondary abuse from witnessing violent confrontations]; In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169, superseded by statute on another point as noted in In re Lucero L. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1227, 1239-1242 [minors were at substantial risk of serious harm due to violent confrontations in the family home].) The restraining order and Mother's temporary residence in Arizona do not change this conclusion. Father stated he allowed Mother into his home on Easter despite a restraining order. There was no evidence Mother would permanently reside in Arizona. She intended to return to California for her court date, and had made other trips to the social worker's offices in California. Moreover, Father's history of violence and abuse is evidence that behavior could continue with a different mate or another female. P.R. recalled a time when Father pushed her against the wall, and thereafter she felt the need to pretend to like him.

Based on these facts, one can reasonably infer that without juvenile court intervention, the violence was likely to continue, further exposing the minors to the risk of serious physical harm. (E.B., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 [experience shows past violent behavior in a relationship is the best predictor of future violence]; cf. Daisy H., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 717 [evidence was insufficient to support jurisdictional findings where physical violence between parents occurred between two and seven years earlier].)

B. Allegation b-11 Regarding Mother's Mental Health History

Allegation b-11 states Father "failed to protect his child L.G. in that he knew about Mother's history of mental instability and abuse of controlled substances and failed to take consistent action to protect his child. Such failure to protect by the father placed the child at risk of abuse or neglect." Father asserts the allegation is untrue because he took steps to protect L.G. There was evidence he sought additional custody in the family law court and he encouraged Mother to seek treatment and take her medication. Father acknowledged he knew Mother was "not okay," but his complaints were not taken seriously. Father asserted he had been coping with her mental health issues for well over a year.

In summary, Father admitted he was aware of Mother's instability but asserts there was evidence he took adequate consistent action to protect his child. We disagree. While filing the OSC in December 2010 was one step toward protecting L.G., his decision to stipulate to a 50/50 custody arrangement was not. Father offered no explanation for why he willingly agreed to leave L.G. in Mother's care for three days a week knowing she was unstable and "not okay." Paternal grandmother stated she also knew Mother neglected the children based on her visits to Mother's house. She told the social worker L.G. was not safe due to Mother's erratic behavior. Sadly, the two people in the best position to protect L.G. from harm (Father and paternal grandmother) said they were powerless to help the three-year-old boy and failed to intervene on his behalf. Father said he once thought to call the police but then changed his mind. Father did not explain which individuals would not take his complaints seriously, or the number of times he attempted to seek help to remove his son from harm's way.

Father provided his own timeline of the Easter weekend, and it is very telling. By his own account, Father knew Mother was incoherent and argumentative over a two-day period. She was unable to function or clean the house, she exhibited bizarre behavior by taking off her shirt with friends over, and she tried to cut her eyebrow with a safety pin. Father did not call the police for help, he called his own mother. When it appeared Mother had calmed down somewhat, Father's solution was to drop off Mother and L.G. at her house. His assertion Mother was calmer is suspect, given his admission Mother was cussing at Father in front of L.G., before and after as Father dropped them off. None of these actions are consistent with a Father protecting his son from an angry, upset, and mentally unstable person. He could have called the police or another relative to look after his son. His poor parenting decision placed his son directly at risk of harm.

C. Allegation b-12 Regarding an Unresolved Substance Abuse History

Allegation b-12 stated Father had an unresolved substance abuse history. "Such actions by the father place the child L.G. at risk of abuse or neglect." Father asserts P.R.'s statements about his marijuana use are insufficient to sustain the allegation. We disagree. There was no reason to doubt the credibility of P.R.'s statements regarding Father's possession of marijuana paraphernalia and her knowledge Mother and Father smoked marijuana. P.R.'s account of the domestic violence was supported by several other family members. In addition, P.R. was well aware of her Mother's drug use and she told the social worker that in her opinion the drugs contributed to Mother's mental illness. P.R. recounted Father told Mother not to use drugs in front of the children and P.R. stated she asked Mother to stop using drugs. Unlike many other 10-year-olds, she could accurately describe and draw pictures of drug paraphernalia. P.R.'s recollections and observations of the drug culture existing in her household are significant. We conclude P.R.'s statements constituted sufficient evidence to support the court's ruling.

D. Allegation b-13 regarding inappropriate discipline

Allegation b-13 stated Father "encouraged" Mother to use "inappropriate physical discipline to the child P.R. Such actions by the father place his child L.G. at risk of abuse or neglect." Father concedes Mother's "actions were inappropriate" but argues nothing in the record showed Father encouraged Mother to punch her daughter. True, Father did not specifically direct Mother to punch P.R. Rather, the evidence shows M.R. and P.R. heard Father encourage Mother to "do something" to discipline P.R. Specifically, M.R. remembered Father told Mother '"to do something with her because I'm watching the movie.'" P.R. recalled Father goaded Mother stating, "'You're gonna let her do that to you?'" and "'go take care of it in the room.'" Given the evidence Mother was particularly unstable Easter weekend, physical abuse was a regular occurrence in the household, and Mother was known to strike P.R. with a hand or her belt when she misbehaved, it was reasonable to conclude Father would (or should) have anticipated his comment would prompt Mother to hit P.R. yet again. Encouraging a mentally unstable and aggressive person to "do something" to a child shows a lack of basic parenting skills. It was relevant to whether L.G. would be placed at risk of harm in Father's care.

E. Dispositional Order Removing L.G.

Father contends the court's decision to remove L.G. from his care was not supported by substantial evidence. His challenge is based largely on his claimed lack of evidentiary support for the jurisdictional findings discussed above. As described in some detail above, Father's arguments with respect to each of those findings lack merit. Evidence of his drug usage, domestic violence, and poor parenting decisions provided ample evidence to support the court's decision.

Father's reliance on In re Jeannette S. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 52, is misplaced. In that case, the only significant problem was a "filthy home," which can be remediable with home maintenance services. (Id. at pp. 60-61.) Here, in contrast, amelioration of the risk posed by several years of domestic violence and unresolved substance abuse is far more difficult and problematic. Father can benefit from therapeutic services to address his anger issues and drug usage. In addition, parenting classes will help Father learn to appreciate how his past decisions placed his child at risk of harm. Given this record, Father's promises to drug test and avoid contact with Mother at this juncture is insufficient to ensure L.G.'s safety. We are hopeful that given Father's past efforts to be a good father, his strong family support, and his strong desire to regain custody of L.G., he will be successful with his reunification plan.

III

The orders are affirmed.

O'LEARY, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR:

MOORE, J.

FYBEL, J.


Summaries of

In re L.G.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Feb 7, 2012
No. G045525 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2012)
Case details for

In re L.G.

Case Details

Full title:In re L.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Feb 7, 2012

Citations

No. G045525 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2012)