From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. A.R. (In re P.L.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 10, 2024
No. E081766 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2024)

Opinion

E081766

06-10-2024

In re P.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.R., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Mansi H. Thakkar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. DPRI2300192. Mona M. Nemat, Judge. Affirmed.

Mansi H. Thakkar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

FIELDS J.

INTRODUCTION

A.R. (mother) contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), regarding her children, E.M., A.A., S.A., and P.L. (the children). Mother also argues the court erred in removing the children from her custody. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

On May 31, 2023, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children. At the time, E.M. was 14 years old, A.A. was six years old, S.A. was five years old, and P.L. was two years old. The petition alleged they came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). Specifically, the petition alleged that mother neglected the health, safety, and well-being of the children in that she minimized the impact domestic violence had upon her children, and continued to engage in a relationship with her significant other; further, on May 28, 2023, mother was issued an emergency protective order (EPO), but allowed her significant other to return to the home.

The other allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), concern fathers M.A. and S.A., who are not parties to this appeal. This opinion will focus only on mother.

The social worker filed a detention report stating that, on May 28, 2023, DPSS received a referral at 4:30 a.m. regarding a domestic violence dispute. Mother and her live-in boyfriend, A.P.C. (Boyfriend), got into an argument and Boyfriend choked her for about one minute. She sustained bruising on her arms and redness on her neck. The children witnessed the incident but were not involved or injured. Mother contacted law enforcement wanting to press charges and was issued an EPO. However, Boyfriend left the scene before law enforcement arrived.

The social worker went to mother's residence that day. Mother confirmed that she had been in a romantic relationship with Boyfriend for two years, and he moved into her home seven months ago. Mother said he was the children's father figure and was a huge help with them, and she could not do it without him. Mother said her son E.M. had autism and received special education at school. As to the domestic violence incident, mother said she and Boyfriend went out for drinks Friday night after the children were asleep. She left E.M. in charge of the younger children. Mother and Boyfriend each had four shots of tequila and were both intoxicated when they returned home. They got into an argument and started yelling and using profanity. Mother said this argument occurred between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Boyfriend wanted to leave and asked her to help him pack his belongings. She declined and told him to leave immediately. Mother added that she was using profanity and being disrespectful. At that point, Boyfriend wrapped his hand around her neck, choked her for "several seconds," and then pushed her. She called 911 to have law enforcement assist in getting him to leave the residence. Mother wanted him to leave to "cool off." Boyfriend left after she called 911. Mother confirmed she told the police that Boyfriend grabbed her arms and choked her neck. She denied being injured or in pain from being choked. The social worker observed faint marks on her neck but no visible injuries on her arms.

Mother denied prior physical altercations between her and Boyfriend and said they only had arguments. She confirmed the children witnessed the incident, as they woke up due to yelling and profanity. She denied the children were injured, and denied that Boyfriend posed a threat to the children, since he did not hit them. The social worker offered mother services, including domestic violence counseling, general counseling, and parenting classes, but she declined, stating she had parenting education with staff at E.M.'s school. She said she had telephone sessions twice a week that started a couple of weeks ago, and she did not have time for additional services.

With mother's consent, the social worker interviewed A.A., S.A., and E.M. A.A. said she witnessed mother and Boyfriend yelling and screaming at each other. A.A. said Boyfriend grabbed a knife and stabbed the television. Boyfriend then grabbed mother's neck and choked her. A.A. said she was scared, since her mother was crying. S.A. denied prior physical altercations between mother and Boyfriend. S.A. said she was scared Boyfriend would hurt mother if he returned to the home. Both A.A. and S.A. did not want Boyfriend to return home because they were concerned he would hurt mother.

The social worker attempted to talk to P.L. but could not obtain any information from her because of her young age and lack of verbal skills.

E.M. said his mother left him in charge of his younger sisters on the night of the incident, when mother, Boyfriend, and another friend went out. When mother and Boyfriend returned home, he heard loud exchanges between them and went out to the living room to check on mother. E.M. saw Boyfriend "grabbing a knife and stabbing the TV." Boyfriend subsequently choked mother. E.M. said he immediately intervened out of concern for mother's safety. At one point, when mother was fighting back, she swung her arms and tried to hit Boyfriend, but accidently struck E.M. in the face. E.M. confirmed his sisters witnessed the incident, as the loud commotion woke them up. E.M. said mother called the police because she was afraid Boyfriend was going to hurt her. He said he would be scared if Boyfriend returned to their home, out of concern Boyfriend would hurt mother. E.M. denied prior physical altercations between mother and Boyfriend.

The social worker then talked to mother at length about her concerns with mother's refusal to accept services. She advised mother that there was an EPO, but mother denied that she accepted an EPO and said she would contact the police to ask for it to be dismissed. The social worker said she was concerned that not having a restraining order could allow Boyfriend to return to the home after the EPO expired. However, mother said she wanted Boyfriend to return home, since he helped with the children, and she wanted him to return to help her. Mother stated this was an isolated incident, they both were intoxicated, and she was easily triggered to lose her temper. She said if they were sober, she would have reacted differently. Mother said Boyfriend put his hands on her neck, but she was not injured, and she regretted involving the police. She said a restraining order was not necessary and denied the children were unsafe, as they were not injured. Regarding the knife Boyfriend used, mother said it was a steak knife, and he just damaged the television that he bought, but did not threaten her with the knife. Mother said she did not want the court involved and wanted assurance it would not be involved if she accepted services. However, mother then said she did not have time to participate in services.

The social worker spoke with Boyfriend on the phone, and he confirmed he and mother got into an argument, but denied choking or grabbing her. He said they did consume alcohol beforehand, but they were not drunk. Although they did argue, he said he left before things escalated. Boyfriend completely denied damaging the television with a knife. He said he would stay out of mother's home and would live with his cousin or his mother.

The social worker spoke with the responding police officer. He said mother gestured that Boyfriend grabbed her by the neck and choked her. Mother also said he grabbed a knife and damaged a television with it. The officer said an EPO was issued after mother requested one, and it was set to expire on June 4, 2023. He said he called the trauma intervention team, which offered mother resources, including a domestic violence shelter, counseling, and referrals for assistance with getting a restraining order and counseling. Mother was also offered a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Exam, and the SART nurse called to schedule an exam but was unable to make contact with her. The officer conveyed concern there could be a reoccurrence, as mother minimized the domestic violence and had contacted him stating she did not want the EPO.

The social worker followed up with mother regarding the restraining order, services, and SART exam. Mother said she wanted to participate in services with Boyfriend and asked the social worker to sign her up for counseling and parenting education. She then said she wanted to wait until the EPO expired, and she would allow Boyfriend to move back into the home. Mother denied that she agreed to the SART exam. She later declined the exam since she was not injured.

The children were placed in protective custody on May 29, 2023, due to the social worker's concerns that mother and Boyfriend engaged in domestic violence in their presence, placing them at risk of harm. The social worker stated that mother failed to protect the children by accepting an EPO and refused to file an application to obtain a restraining order. The social worker reported that mother was offered "referrals to Family Justice Center, Differential Response, Counseling, Parenting Education and Other Services," and on May 28, 2023, she declined Differential Response and domestic violence counseling, and "was adamant that she did not need help or services."

The court held a detention hearing on June 1, 2023, and detained the children in foster care. The court considered the incident serious since there was a lot of alcohol involved and someone was choked. The court noted that the altercation was significant enough that the older child intervened, and that witnessing this type of behavior has a serious effect on children. The court ordered mother not to discuss the case with the children.

Jurisdiction/Disposition

A newly assigned social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on June 30, 2023, recommending that the court sustain the petition, declare the children dependents of the court, and order that mother be provided with reunification services. The children were placed together with their maternal aunt.

The social worker reported that she interviewed A.A. on June 27, 2023. She reviewed the allegations with her and asked why A.A. thought DPSS was involved with her family. A.A. stated, "I can't talk about it, they said I can't talk about the arguments." The social worker explained that she needed to know the truth and just wanted to know if A.A. was safe. A.A. said she was safe with her aunt and explained, "mommy and my dad fight a lot yelling 'cussing' and that one time my dad was pushing her back like this (the child placed her hand on her throat). They were fighting because they went to the club and they drink a lot and they fight and they were scared the people took my daddy to jail. They said [the] social worker would take us away. I can't talk about the fights."

The social worker also interviewed S.A., explained the allegations, and asked why she thought DPSS was involved with her family. S.A. said "because [Boyfriend] choke her, because they were at the club with [their] friend. . . and they were drunk. We were going to go with my grandma house but [Boyfriend] got arrest[ed]." The social worker asked if she felt safe, and she responded, "yes, I stay with my aunt because my mom has a baby in her stomach and the fight."

The social worker also interviewed mother on June 27, 2023. When asked about the allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), mother stated: "And I told Karla, why. Like where the f--- is he going to go and it is not like the three [sic] or forth time, if that was the case then I understand. If I was beat up and bleeding on the floor, then okay. I don't know what they have seen, the kids have everything these past two years. Not because of one incident . . . I just felt that she wanted to take the kids away and she was trying to help me[,] now I see why people aren't reporting things and you guys over exaggerate things and then I was also calm and by law I didn't have to have them talk to the kids, . . ."

We observe that the prior social worker, who filed the detention report, was named Karla.

The social worker reported that after DPSS removed the children from mother, mother completed online courses on June 12, 2023, in parenting and domestic violence, and she sent over the completion certificates. The social worker spoke to her about her relationship with Boyfriend, and mother said she was still in an active relationship with him, and they were now expecting a child together.

The social worker deemed out of the home placement necessary at this time, due to her concern with mother's protective capacity. The social worker noted that mother had declined all services and said she would move Boyfriend back into the home after the EPO expired on June 4, 2023. Mother minimized the magnitude of the incident, and despite being informed that her children did not feel safe having Boyfriend back in the home due to concerns of a reoccurrence, she insisted the children's safety was not compromised and Boyfriend was not a threat to them. Mother wanted Boyfriend back in the home, as she relied on him to help with the care of the children.

The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on July 6, 2023, and mother set the matter contested, asking to be placed on family maintenance. The court set a contested hearing for July 13, 2023, and reminded the parties about the no-discussion order that was put in place at the last hearing.

The court held a hearing on July 13, 2023. County counsel recommended the court sustain the petition, remove the children from mother, and order reunification services for her. The children's counsel agreed with the recommendations and also asked the court to give Boyfriend non-statutory services, since the social worker's report indicated mother was pregnant and intended to stay in a relationship with him. Mother's counsel argued that DPSS had only alleged that one incident occurred, there was no pattern of domestic violence, and mother eventually took the "appropriate step" of deciding to have Boyfriend leave the home. Thus, mother's counsel argued there was insufficient evidence to support the section 300, subdivision (b) allegation of failure to protect. He then argued that even if the court sustained a true finding, it should allow the children to remain with mother at home, since Boyfriend was out of the house and there was no current risk of harm. Mother's counsel further asserted that mother indicated she had not received any referrals for services. Her counsel confirmed that mother was pregnant and also asked for non-statutory services for Boyfriend.

The record is unclear as to exactly when the Boyfriend left the home, as mother said that, on the night of the incident, she wanted the Boyfriend to leave in order to cool off, and he left the home after she called 911. However, it appears he may have returned soon thereafter, since, in the jurisdiction/disposition report, the social worker stated that "mother exposed the children to domestic violence and allowed her perpetrator to remain in the home."

In response, the children's counsel voiced her concern that mother continued to minimize the domestic violence incident, as she was not completely forthcoming when she reported the incident and only informed the social worker that Boyfriend choked her and pushed her; however, E.M. reported that he saw Boyfriend grab a knife and stab the television and choke mother, which caused E.M. to intervene and get hit in the face. The children's counsel argued that if the children were returned home, there was no way to ensure that mother would keep Boyfriend out of the home, as she had not demonstrated any insight. The children's counsel pointed out that when interviewed about the allegations and asked why Boyfriend did not leave the home, mother said, "Where the 'f' is he going to go?" and said DPSS was exaggerating things.

County counsel joined in the children's counsel's comments and added that the children expressed being scared that Boyfriend would hurt mother again, if returned to the home. County counsel also pointed out the responding officer expressed that mother appeared to be minimizing the incident and that it might happen again. With respect to services, county counsel noted that mother declined services at detention, and that between the detention and jurisdiction hearings, although she was given referrals, she opted to only participate in her online courses. County counsel noted that the completion certificates were all from one day, and there was no indication the curriculum was appropriate in addressing the issues that led to removal. Mother's counsel responded that mother was a victim of domestic violence who asked for help, and then had her children removed. She now just wanted her children back, and there was no current risk of harm.

After hearing argument from counsel, the court stated that it reviewed the jurisdiction report and recognized that the domestic violence incident may have been a one-time occurrence, and there was no history of domestic violence. However, all the information before it showed that mother lacked a protective capacity after the fact. The court cited the circumstances that mother left out the significant details that Boyfriend had a knife and damaged the television; when asked about it, mother's response was that the television was his property. The court stated what was most telling was when mother minimized the incident and said that DPSS was blowing things out of proportion, since it was not like she was bleeding on the floor. The court further noted that one of the children had to intervene, and they all indicated not feeling safe at home. The court understood Boyfriend was out of the house and that mother took an online course; however, her statement regarding the significance of the incident was made after taking the course. The court then found the allegations in the petition true. As to disposition, the court found the children at risk, since mother was still minimizing the incident. It then ordered DPSS to provide referrals for reunification services and to assess the online domestic violence course mother took to see if it met DPSS's requirements. The court also ordered non-statutory services for Boyfriend, since it was very likely he would return to the home.

DISCUSSION

I. The Court Properly Took Jurisdiction of the Children

Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding against her under section 300, subdivision (b). She argues that the domestic violence was a one-time incident, and there was no current risk of harm since Boyfriend moved out of the house and she had completed online courses. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the true finding and, thus, the court properly took jurisdiction of the children.

We note there is some evidence that there were more arguments, as A.A. stated, "they said I can't talk about the arguments." However, there is no indication whether those arguments involved physical altercations.

A. Relevant Law

"The purpose of section 300 'is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.'" (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601 (Cole L.).) "Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing [citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child." (Id. at pp. 601-602; See In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 (N.M.).)

Section 300, subdivision (b), provides that a child may be declared a dependent of the court when "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [t]he failure or inability of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child." The burden of proof at the jurisdictional hearing is a preponderance of the evidence. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248 .)

"The issue of sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the same rules that apply to all appeals." (In re Christopher L. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333.) "In juvenile cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate court asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible. Where there is more than one inference which can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the appellate court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trier of fact." (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547 (Katrina C.).)

B. There Was Sufficient Evidence to Support the Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 300, Subdivision (b)

Here, there was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the children came within section 300, subdivision (b). As one court stated, "[i]t is clear . . . that domestic violence in the same household where children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect [the children] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it. Such neglect causes the risk." (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 (Heather A.).) Mother and Boyfriend engaged in a domestic violence incident at home, in the presence of the children. Mother and Boyfriend drank alcohol, became intoxicated, and then started arguing between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Their yelling, screaming, and cussing woke up the children. Boyfriend grabbed a knife and stabbed the television. He then wrapped his hand around mother's neck, choked her for about one minute, and pushed her. E.M. was so concerned about mother's safety that he intervened to try and protect her. The children were clearly put in a position of physical danger from the fight, since Boyfriend was intoxicated and angry, was using a knife, and was being violent. (See Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 194, fn. omitted ["Obviously the children were put in a position of physical danger from this violence, since, for example, they could wander into the room where it was occurring and be accidentally hit by a thrown object, by a fist, arm, foot or leg, or by [mother] falling against them."].) In fact, when mother was fighting back, she swung her arms and struck E.M. in the face.

Furthermore, the court was properly concerned there was a current risk of harm because mother lacked protective capacity, as demonstrated by her minimization of the domestic violence. In recounting the incident to the social worker, she left out significant details, such as E.M. being struck in the face and Boyfriend's use of a knife. As the court pointed out, mother downplayed the fact that Boyfriend damaged the television with the knife by saying the television was his own property. Clearly, Boyfriend could have used the knife against mother. Mother also said she regretted involving the police, and she did not want the court involved.

In addition, when the social worker first interviewed mother, she described the domestic violence incident and then said she wanted Boyfriend to return home to help her with the children. In contrast, the evidence showed the children did not want Boyfriend to return to the home. E.M., A.A., and S.A. said they would be scared he would hurt mother if he came back.

Moreover, mother's minimization of the domestic violence incident was also demonstrated by the fact that she declined services at least twice, saying she did not have time for them. The social worker said mother was "adamant that she did not need help or services." The social worker offered her domestic violence counseling, general counseling, and parenting classes, when she initially interviewed mother. The trauma intervention team also offered mother resources, including a domestic violence shelter, counseling, and referrals to obtain assistance with a restraining order and counseling, as well as a SART exam. Mother declined all services offered and declined a SART exam. She also said a restraining order was not necessary and denied the children were unsafe. Mother instead took one-day online courses in parenting and domestic violence on her own; however, there was no information given regarding the content of those courses and no apparent benefit from them.

Significantly, the record showed mother was still in an active relationship with Boyfriend at the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, and they were expecting a child together. Mother's counsel asked for non-statutory services for Boyfriend, which the court granted, noting that it was highly likely he was going to return to the home.

Mother claims the primary basis for the court's decision to sustain the section 300, subdivision (b) allegation was an excerpt from her conversation with the social worker on June 27, 2023. The court did state its concern that, during that conversation, mother minimized the incident by saying DPSS was blowing things out of proportion. The court was especially concerned since that conversation took place after mother took the online course and seemed to imply that she did not benefit from the course. Mother argues that her statements during the conversation were taken out of context, since it is unclear whether they were made "in reference to her feelings on June 27, 2023 when she spoke with the Department social worker over the phone, or whether Mother was responding to how she felt about the Department's initial investigation, prior to the filing of the dependency petition." This is a distinction without a difference, in light of all the other evidence supporting the court's true finding. (See ante.)

Mother acknowledges the jurisdiction/disposition report states that she informed the social worker she was pregnant with Boyfriend's child and was in a relationship with him. However, she points out that such information "bears little relevance" on whether there was a current risk of harm, since it is unclear whether she made the statements before or after the dependency petition was filed. The timing of her statements is also a distinction without a difference, especially since her counsel confirmed at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing that mother was pregnant and asked for non-statutory services for "mother's significant other."

In her reply brief, mother further argues the respondent's brief repeatedly references an "ambiguous, out-of-context statement" in the jurisdiction/disposition report that she continued to have a relationship with Boyfriend and wanted him to move back into the home with her and the children. She also claims the respondent's brief falsely asserts that she became pregnant after the domestic violence incident. However, the social worker simply stated in the jurisdiction/disposition report that mother informed her that she "[was] newly pregnant." In any event, to the extent mother is claiming the respondent was trying to mischaracterize the facts and mislead this court, we disagree.

Mother additionally contends the court erred in citing her refusal to engage in services as a reason for sustaining the jurisdictional finding. She cites Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th 591, in support of her argument. She cites the portion of Cole L. where the court discussed the mother's "refusal" to participate in services. However, Cole L. is inapposite. The court in that case found that the mother's "decision to defer participating in counseling or other services because she did not know what the court would order . . . did not constitute a 'refusal.'" (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 607.) Here, mother did not "defer" services offered; rather, she declined them.

Furthermore, Cole L. is distinguishable. In that case, the appellate court reversed the juvenile court's domestic violence finding under section 300, subdivision (b), since the juvenile court relied on the parents' long history of domestic violence, despite there being no evidence of any such history. (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 596, 604-605.) Furthermore, in that case, the parents' argument involved some pushing and grabbing of the father's cell phone outside of the presence of the children, and there was no risk of harm by the time of the jurisdiction hearing, over nine months later. (Id. at pp. 606-607.) Here, mother's boyfriend choked her in the presence of the children, and the jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held approximately two months after the incident.

Ultimately, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the true finding under section 300, subdivision (b). The domestic violence occurred in the presence of the children, and mother failed to recognize the significance of the incident. Thus, the court properly assumed jurisdiction of the children and took the steps necessary to protect them. (N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 165.)

II. The Court Properly Removed the Children From Mother's Custody

Mother next contends the court's order removing the children from her care and custody was not supported by sufficient evidence. She incorporates by reference the same arguments regarding the jurisdictional finding. She further argues that the record contains little to no evidence DPSS conducted any assessment to determine whether the children could remain safely in her home and that there were reasonable alternatives to removal. We conclude the court properly removed the children from her custody.

A. Relevant Law

Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that there "would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home," and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 145-146 (Hailey T.).) "A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and proof of a potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child." (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136, disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 (Diamond H.).) "The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test." (Hailey T., at p. 146.)

B. The Court's Removal Order Was Supported by Substantial Evidence Here, the court found that the children were at risk of harm since mother was still minimizing the domestic violence incident, even during the jurisdictional interview, and she did not have "the adequate tools to be protective." We agree. The evidence shows that mother did not see the incident as a problem and felt that DPSS exaggerated the situation. The social worker explained to mother that she could demonstrate protection to her children through her active participation in services; however, mother declined the services offered by DPSS. The responding officer was concerned about reoccurrence and called the Trauma Intervention Team, which offered mother resources (e.g., a domestic violence shelter, counseling, help to obtain a restraining order); however, it appears that mother did not utilize the resources. When the social worker followed up with her, mother stated she wanted to participate in services with Boyfriend. She also told the social worker she would wait until the EPO expired and allow Boyfriend to return to the home. The EPO expired on June 4, 2023, and mother decided not to continue having a restraining order. Mother was still in a relationship with Boyfriend and they were expecting a child together. Although she was informed that the three oldest children expressed fear over having Boyfriend back in the home, due to their concern of more domestic violence occurring, mother still wanted him to return home to help with the children. Thus, she appeared to put Boyfriend and her own needs ahead of the children's well-being. Given mother's lack of insight into the seriousness of the domestic violence incident, her failure to see the need for the services offered, the facts that she and Boyfriend were expecting a child together and she wanted to have him back in the home, despite the children's fears, we conclude the children would be at risk of physical and/or emotional harm if they remained in her care. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)

Mother argues the evidence was insufficient for the court to find the children were at substantial risk of harm if returned to her custody, since DPSS failed to elicit statements from her about her protective capacity, what insight she gained from her online courses, and whether she had a safety plan in place. She further asserts DPSS failed to elicit statements from the children about whether they wanted to return home or felt safe returning home, and she points out there were no "follow-up conversations" with Boyfriend, after the petition was filed. However, the evidence showed the older children told the social worker they did not want Boyfriend to return home out of their fear and concern of more domestic violence. We also note Boyfriend completely denied that he and mother were drunk on the night of the incident, that he stabbed the television with a knife, or that he choked or grabbed mother. Thus, it is unclear what type of "follow-up conversation" with Boyfriend mother is referring to. In any event, none of these statements or conversations were required for the court to find there was a risk of harm to the children if returned to mother's custody, especially in light of the evidence discussed ante.

Mother next points out the jurisdiction/disposition report failed to meaningfully discuss any reasonable efforts made by DPSS to prevent removal of the children. We disagree. The report reflects that mother was offered services and a core services referral was submitted on her behalf, but she declined all services. Notably, the social worker observed mother was adamant that she did not need help or services. Mother also points out the court never explicitly stated on the record that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for removal. To the extent the court erred in not making such explicit statement, any error was harmless, in light of DPSS's efforts and the evidence supporting the court's decision. (See ante.)

Mother further claims there were reasonable means to protect the children to prevent removal, but the court did not consider any of them. She asserts the court failed to consider the options of "sua sponte issuing an EPO" on behalf of her and the children, putting a safety plan in place, authorizing DPSS to conduct unannounced home visits, and ordering her to participate in additional services. She also argues the court did not consider removal of each child, based on their ages (e.g., removing the youngest child, but not the older ones). Mother points out the evidence showed she initially agreed to participate in services, and she voluntarily sought out and participated in online courses. We first note that nothing in the record indicates she suggested any of these options at the time of the hearing. In any event, the record demonstrates that none of these options would have been effective. At the outset of the case, mother said she regretted involving the police and said she did not want the court involved. The evidence showed there was an EPO, but she contacted the police and asked that it be dismissed. She also refused to obtain a restraining order, and the social worker reported that she was adamant she did not need services, while insisting the children's safety was not compromised. Although she did voluntarily take online courses, there was no apparent benefit from them, as she was still in a relationship with Boyfriend, they were expecting a child together, and she wanted him to return home, despite the children's fear after having witnessed the domestic violence. In light of this evidence, we cannot see how mother's suggestions on appeal would have been effective.

These were apparently one day courses which were not shown to comply with DPSS standards or be equivalent to courses required by the DPSS.

Moreover, in finding the children could not safely remain in mother's custody, the court necessarily considered but rejected the alternative of placing them with her on family maintenance. (See Diamond H., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137.) Mother's counsel requested that the children remain in mother's custody on family maintenance. However, the court denied that request in favor of removal.

Mother additionally notes the court failed to state on the record that it was making its findings by clear and convincing evidence, as required by section 361, subdivision (c)(1). However, section 361, subdivision (c)(1), does not appear to require a court to expressly state on the record that it is making its findings by clear and convincing evidence. "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the court was aware of and applied the proper burden of proof. (See Evid. Code, § 664.)" (People v. Abdelsalam (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 654, 662.) In any event, there was clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the protection or physical or emotional well-being of the children if they were returned home, and that there were no reasonable means by which they could be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); see ante.)

Finally, we acknowledge mother's counsel's assertion at the hearing that mother was a victim of domestic violence who asked for help, had her children removed, and now just wanted her children back. If those were the only circumstances, this case would be a close call. However, in reviewing a dispositional order on appeal, "[w]e consider the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings." (Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 146.) Considering all the circumstances detailed in the record, the evidence supports that mother would not protect the children. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude the court properly found mother lacked protective capacity, ordered the children removed from her custody, and ordered her to engage in reunification services. (See Katrina C., supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 547.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.

We concur: MILLER Acting P. J. MENETREZ J.


Summaries of

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. A.R. (In re P.L.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 10, 2024
No. E081766 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2024)
Case details for

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. A.R. (In re P.L.)

Case Details

Full title:In re P.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.R.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Jun 10, 2024

Citations

No. E081766 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2024)