Opinion
C085711
07-19-2018
In re T.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.T., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JD238301)
In May 2017, R.T. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders concerning her two oldest children, K.H. (then age 12) and A.T. (then age five). She argued, among other things, that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's assumption of jurisdiction over K.H. or A.T., and that the dispositional order denying reunification services as to A.T. was not supported by substantial evidence. In October 2017, while this appeal was pending, mother appealed from the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders in a separate case concerning her youngest child, T.T. (then age 11 weeks). In her opening brief, mother asserts that her claims of error "largely consist of a joinder in the arguments made in the related appeal."
In an unpublished opinion filed on February 16, 2018, we affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders in the case involving K.H. and A.T. (In re A.T. (Feb. 16, 2018, C084646) [nonpub. opn.].) We subsequently granted the motion in this case of respondent Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (now called the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services) (the Department) to incorporate by reference the record in the earlier related case pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.147(b). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the juvenile court's orders in this case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother has given birth to five children: K.H. (born Oct. 2004); A.T. (born Feb. 2012); K.T. and B.T. (twins born Dec. 2014); and T.T. (born July 2017). Only T.T. is the subject of this appeal; however, the background facts of all five children are discussed where relevant to the issues raised on appeal. Except for the facts related to the current case, the facts recited below are taken from our unpublished opinion disposing of the earlier related case. (In re A.T., supra, C084646.)
J.H. is the biological father of K.H.
T.S. is the biological father of A.T. and the twins.
R.A. is the father of T.T.
Prior Child Protective Services (CPS) History
The family has multiple CPS referrals dating back to 2005, involving mother's substance abuse, general neglect, and emotional abuse of the children. We do not attempt to summarize the entire CPS history.
In August 2010, the Department received a referral alleging general neglect and threat of emotional abuse of K.H. It was reported that mother and her boyfriend, T.G. (boyfriend), were using drugs, would fight over Oxycontin pills, and used heroin. In addition, it was reported that there were straws and pieces of foil with black "stuff" on them all over the house, which were easily accessible to K.H. It was further reported that mother would pass out from drug use, K.H. was often left unsupervised, and mother rarely cooked a meal for K.H. Mother agreed to participate in informal supervision services designed to treat her substance abuse issues. However, due to mother's continued drug use and failure to maintain contact with the Department, mother's informal supervision case was eventually closed. The maternal grandparents continued as K.H.'s caregivers with the understanding they would seek legal guardianship of him.
In February 2012, the Department received a referral from a mandated reporter alleging general neglect of A.T. It was reported that mother was on a methadone program, and that she had tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at A.T.'s birth and every time she was tested during her pregnancy. Mother admitted to smoking marijuana all the time and believed that doing so was acceptable because she had a medical marijuana card. Mother also tested positive for methamphetamine, heroin, opiates, and methadone while pregnant.
Mother, again, agreed to participate in informal supervision services designed to treat her substance abuse issues. After mother tested positive for methamphetamine and refused to enter a residential treatment program, a juvenile dependency petition was filed alleging that A.T. came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). In July 2012, the juvenile court adjudged A.T. a dependent of the court, ordered reunification services, and continued out-of-home placement for A.T. with the maternal grandparents. In November 2012, A.T. was returned to the care of her parents. After A.T. was removed from her father's care due to his relapse and failure to maintain contact with the Department, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction in January 2014 with an order granting sole physical and legal custody of A.T. to mother.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In December 2014, mother gave birth to twin boys, K.T. and B.T. The twins were medically fragile and had special feeding needs. They were diagnosed with pharyngomalacia, which is a condition resulting in a narrow esophagus and noisy breathing. On April 7, 2015, the twins were discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit. At that time, both twins had a gastronomy tube (G-tube) inserted for feeding, which allowed nutrition to be delivered directly to their stomach. Mother was told that bottle feeding was not recommended. She was instructed to feed the twins only using the G-tube in a very calm setting with a structured routine.
On April 9, 2015, mother brought B.T. to the emergency room because he was not breathing. Due to his condition, he had to be resuscitated in the parking lot. At the hospital, mother was observed feeding B.T. with a bottle. When she was questioned as to whether the conduct was appropriate, she failed to respond. After a bottle was found in B.T.'s crib and formula was found in his throat, the twins were placed into protective custody.
On April 14, 2015, the Department filed juvenile dependency petitions alleging that K.T. and B.T. came within section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) in that mother had failed to follow medical directives. At the combined jurisdictional/ dispositional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and adjudged the twins dependents of the court. The court found mother was not entitled to reunification services based on her prior drug use (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13)), but found clear and convincing evidence that services would be in the best interest of the twins (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2)). Mother was also ordered to, among other things, participate in continued education on how to feed the twins with the G-tube. In November 2015, the twins were returned to mother's custody. In May 2016, the court terminated dependency jurisdiction with an order granting sole physical and legal custody of the twins to mother.
Earlier Related Dependency Case
On October 13, 2016, the 22-month-old twins were brought to the emergency room with severe injuries. At the emergency room, K.T. was pronounced dead. The treating physician determined that the "obvious" cause of death was strangulation. An autopsy confirmed that K.T. had been strangled. According to the coroner, the injuries to K.T.'s throat were caused by excessive, sustained pressure. K.T.'s throat was completely black with blood and his gastric content contained white particulate that was sent out for testing. K.T. also had other injuries, including petechia on his face (i.e., a red or purple spot on the skin caused by a minor bleed from broken blood vessels), a second degree burn mark on his foot with circular skin peeling (which appeared to have been caused by a cigarette), and a small linear abrasion across the right side of his neck.
An examination of B.T. revealed numerous injuries that were life threatening and consistent with inflicted trauma. Upon his admission to the emergency room, he required continuous positive airway pressure and needed to be connected to a ventilator due to his high white blood count and fever. He was admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Due to his declined mental status, he received packed red blood cells, as he was suffering from severe traumatic pericardial effusion (fluid around the heart) that was causing cardiovascular compromise. He was assessed to have a Glasgow Coma Scale of 8 and tested positive for benzodiazepines and opiates.
B.T.'s visible injuries included a black left eye, petechia on his face, a slap mark on his left cheek, redness on his left ear, subconjunctival hemorrhages (blood blisters) on his left eye, facial bruises, a healing abrasion on his lip, a burn mark on his foot with skin peeling (which appeared to have been caused by a cigarette), circular bruises on his back in different stages of healing, patterned scars on his right leg that were likely caused by cigarette burns, and blood coming out of his mouth. B.T. also had numerous other injuries, including, but not limited to, the following: two liver lacerations, a splenic laceration, pericardial traumatic campenon (blood around the sac of the heart), retinal hemorrhages in both eyes, subretinal hemorrhage in his left eye, diffuse hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation), multiple acute and subacute rib fractures (some new, some old), fluid in the pelvis, dislocation where the cartilage meets the rib, healing right clavicle fracture, a healing abrasion inside the left cheek, acute and chronic subdural hemorrhages on both sides of the brain, intraparenchymal hemorrhages inside the brain, and intraventricular hemorrhages. The day after B.T. was brought to the emergency room, he was " 'very ill' " and stopped breathing. A procedure was performed to release the fluid around his heart.
On the day the twins were brought to the emergency room, K.H. and A.T. were with their grandmother. Both mother and her boyfriend denied causing any of the injuries to the twins. Mother explained that she left her apartment to meet up with A.T.'s father, T.S. Around 30 minutes later, she received a phone call from her boyfriend asking if he could feed the twins. Mother told him that he could feed K.T. but not B.T. Mother explained that K.T. was able to eat food through his mouth but B.T. could not and needed to be fed with the G-tube. Around 30 minutes later, the boyfriend called mother again, saying there was something wrong with K.T. He stated that K.T. was taking little breaths and did not seem okay. According to her boyfriend, mother arrived home around 10 to 15 minutes later. After finding K.T. unresponsive on the floor, mother immediately called 911. During the phone call, which occurred at approximately 5:21 p.m., mother claimed that K.T. had sleep apnea and was no longer breathing. When emergency medical personnel arrived, the apartment smelled like marijuana and mother was performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on K.T. Medical personnel, however, noticed that K.T.'s arms were cold.
Mother referred to T.S., father of A.T. and the twins, as a good friend. However, she accused him of physically assaulting her and choking her numerous times in February 2014. T.S. was convicted of felony corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant in February 2014. The maternal grandmother reported that T.S. was violent and abused methamphetamine. She also reported that there was domestic violence between T.S. and mother.
When interviewed by law enforcement, mother's boyfriend was up and down, shaking, and sweating. He said that mother had given the twins melatonin because she did not want to "deal with them." He also said that mother had relapsed and was using drugs, and that the twins had not been fed all day except for breakfast. The boyfriend admitted that he and mother were both using liquid methadone. He also commented that he would kill himself if K.T. died.
Melatonin is a hormone found in the body. Melatonin supplements are sometimes used to treat sleep problems.
Mother refused to consent to an alcohol and drug test. However, when she was informed that law enforcement had a warrant to draw her blood, she admitted she would test positive for methamphetamine. Mother also admitted to using marijuana, methadone, and Klonopin—a drug she did not have a prescription to use. When mother spoke to the social worker, she explained that she told her boyfriend to feed K.T. She admitted that he was not trained in how to care for the twins but claimed she had shown him how to feed and take care of them. Mother also admitted that she gave the twins five milligrams of melatonin. She explained that a friend's pediatrician told her about melatonin, and a visiting nurse who cared for the twins told her it was okay for them to take it. Mother admitted that it was wrong for her to give the twins melatonin without consulting a doctor. Mother, however, denied any abuse in the home and claimed she did not hit or abuse her children. She explained that she had known her boyfriend for about six months and completely trusted him. She described him as kind and very gentle with her children.
The record reflects that mother's boyfriend has a criminal record and is a Del Paso Heights Blood gang member.
When the maternal grandmother was interviewed by a social worker, she reported that B.T. had a black eye two days before the twins were taken to the emergency room on October 13, 2016. When the maternal grandmother asked mother about B.T.'s black eye and told her to take B.T. to the doctor, mother blamed his twin brother for the injury and said that she would not bring B.T. to a doctor because the doctor would think she caused the injury and contact CPS. The maternal grandmother explained that 12-year-old K.H. stays with her during the week and with mother on the weekends. She further explained that four-year-old A.T. went back and forth between her house and mother's house. She described the arrangement as "somewhat 50/50."
Following K.T.'s death, the older half siblings, K.H. and A.T., were placed into protective custody on October 14, 2016. On October 18, 2016, the Department filed juvenile dependency petitions alleging that K.H. and A.T. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b)(1) (failure to protect), (f) (death caused through abuse or neglect), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The allegations were based on mother's substance abuse and the injuries sustained by B.T. and K.T., including K.T.'s death.
At the detention hearing, the minors were detained. Twelve-year-old K.H. was released to his father while four-year-old A.T. was placed in the custody of the Department. The juvenile court scheduled a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.
The jurisdiction/disposition report recommended the juvenile court sustain the allegations against mother, strike the allegations against K.H.'s father under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), and adjudge K.H. and A.T. dependent children of the court. The report further recommended continued placement of K.H. with his father and continued placement of A.T. with the paternal aunt. It was also recommended that reunification services be denied to mother under multiple bypass provisions (i.e., § 361.5, subd. (b)(4), (5), (6), and (13)), and that dependent supervision services be provided to K.H.'s father.
In support of these recommendations, the jurisdiction/disposition report detailed the numerous injuries suffered by the twins as well as the following additional information: Mother admitted during an interview with a social worker that she would not have taken the twins to the hospital if she had known they were injured out of fear CPS would be contacted. In addition, K.H. and A.T. appeared " 'coached' " during their respective Special Assault Forensic Evaluation (SAFE) interviews. After observing both interviews, Detective Deborah Bayer-Evans concluded, " 'The mother has manipulated those kids and they are definitely fearful to talk about it.' "
When K.H. was interviewed, he appeared very loyal to mother. He claimed that her boyfriend did not discipline any of the children, and denied that anything happened in his mother's home that " 'wasn't ok,' " i.e., abuse. K.H., however, admitted that mother and her boyfriend ignored the twins, he would tell the twins to " 'shut up,' " and mother yelled at A.T. K.H. stated that he " 'sort of' " believed mother when she told him B.T.'s black eye was caused by K.T. However, he admitted that mother had a history of lying. K.H. further stated that while he was initially mad at his mother about K.T.'s death because he thought mother " 'let something happen' " to K.T., he forgave her when he found out K.T. had died from taking melatonin.
A.T. refused to reveal anything about the injuries suffered by the twins during her SAFE interview. She made a comment about mother telling her not to disclose anything about how the twins were injured. She denied having any knowledge about how K.T. died, and denied that she or the twins had ever been " 'hurt' " or that anything had ever happened to them when they got into trouble. In response to a question asking her why she had hair missing from the top of her head, she said, " '[I]t just fell out.' "
When mother spoke to Detective Bayer-Evans, she said that B.T. might have caused K.T.'s injuries. As for the injury to B.T.'s eye, mother stated that he must have fallen but indicated that neither she nor her boyfriend saw him fall.
A forensic pathologist concluded that it was not possible for B.T. to have caused K.T.'s injuries, explaining that the injuries to K.T.'s neck "were worse than that of a hanging as it appeared pressure was applied to cause his death." Additionally, child abuse expert, Julia Magana, M.D., concluded that it was extremely unlikely that K.T. caused the injury to B.T.'s eye. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Magana noted that it is very suspicious when a person accuses a young child of causing injuries when that child has no history of trauma or aggression. Dr. Magana also concluded that it was impossible for K.T. to have caused the other injuries suffered by B.T. She explained, " 'No other injuries that [B.T.] had could have been caused by a twenty-two month old. There was so much trauma to [his] chest that the cartilage on top of the bone on the front rib had fractured in one spot and dislocated in multiple others. I've only read about injuries this severe a couple times before. [B.T.] also had a pattern bruise on his left cheek and an abrasion on the inside of his mouth that a twenty-two month old could not have done. [B.T.] was slapped so hard it caused those injuries and the slap mark imprint was left.' " According to Dr. Magana, " 'There are child abuse cases that are a lot harder to detect or figure out, but this case is not one of them. This is child abuse.' " Dr. Magana noted that B.T. had healing posterior rib fractures, " 'which only happen in abuse cases.' "
When mother was asked about the multiple burn marks on the twins, she indicated that the marks appeared to have been caused by a cigarette. According to Detective Bayer-Evans, it would have been " 'physically impossible' " for mother not to have seen the burn marks on the twins.
Prior to the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, mother and her boyfriend were arrested. Mother was charged with murder and child endangerment. At the outset of the contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile court struck the allegations against K.H.'s father under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). As for jurisdiction, mother denied the allegations in the petitions and argued there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. She admitted that the injuries to the twins could have been caused by her boyfriend but denied that she caused the injuries or that she knew or should have known the twins had been injured or were at a risk of being injured by him. Mother argued that there was no evidence the melatonin caused any harm, and that, while there was evidence she had been suffering from a substance abuse problem, she was not using "at that specific time" and denied that her substance abuse impacted her ability to care for the children. As for disposition, mother objected to placement of A.T. with the paternal aunt and requested reunification services. She argued that the bypass provisions cited in the jurisdiction/disposition report did not apply and, even if one or more of those provisions did apply, services should be ordered under the exception found in section 361.5, subdivision (c). Mother did not present any evidence at the hearing.
At the conclusion of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the remaining allegations with regard to K.H., adjudged him a dependent of the court, removed him from mother's custody, placed him with his father, bypassed services for mother, ordered visitation for mother but limited visitation to contact by letter and telephone while mother was in custody, and terminated dependency. The court sustained the allegations with regard to A.T., adjudged her a dependent of the court, removed her from mother's custody, placed her with her paternal aunt, bypassed services for mother, and ordered visitation with mother but limited visitation to supervised letter and phone contact while mother was in custody. The court also ordered that mother's boyfriend have no contact with K.H. or A.T. The court found that it was appropriate to change the educational rights for K.H. and A.T. and indicated that it would sign the relevant forms upon their submission by the Department. Without elaboration, mother objected to a limitation of her educational rights.
The juvenile court indicated that K.H.'s father had the discretion to allow K.H. to visit mother in person while she was in custody.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal in May 2017.
Current Dependency Case
On July 17, 2017, CPS received an emergency referral from a mandated reporter stating that mother had delivered a baby (T.T.), and that there was no caregiver for T.T. because mother was currently incarcerated on charges related to the injuries sustained by T.T.'s half siblings (the twins K.T. and B.T.), including K.T.'s death. The following day, T.T. was moved to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit because she was exhibiting symptoms related to methadone withdrawal.
On July 25, 2017, T.T. was placed into protective custody. On the same day, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that T.T. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b)(1) (failure to protect), (f) (another child's death caused through abuse or neglect), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The allegations were based on mother's substance abuse and the injuries sustained by B.T. and K.T. As mother acknowledges, the allegations in the petition largely mirror the allegations made in the earlier related case involving T.T.'s half siblings, K.H. and A.T.
T.T.'s petition is different from the petitions filed in the earlier related case in several respects. T.T.'s petition alleges that mother was currently incarcerated on charges related to the physical abuse of B.T. and K.T., and that T.T. was suffering from withdrawal symptoms as a result of mother's ongoing use of methadone. T.T.'s petition also alleges that T.T.'s father (R.A.) had an untreated substance abuse problem and tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines on July 24, 2017.
At the detention hearing, T.T. was detained and placed in the custody of the Department. The juvenile court scheduled a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.
The jurisdiction/disposition report recommended the juvenile court sustain the allegations in the petition. An addendum to the report recommended that the court bypass reunification services to mother under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(4), (7) and (13) as well as section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). The addendum further recommended that T.T. be adjudged a dependent of the court, removed from mother's custody, placed in out-of-home placement, and not be permitted to have contact with mother while she was incarcerated. The addendum stated that T.T. would be at a significant risk of physical harm, abuse, and neglect if returned to her parents' care in that her half siblings (B.T. and K.T.) suffered severe non-accidental trauma while in the care of mother, and both mother and father had a substance abuse problem from which they had failed and/or refused to rehabilitate. In support of its recommendations, the Department relied on evidence as well as the jurisdictional and dispositional findings in the earlier related case involving T.T.'s older half siblings, K.H. and A.T. The Department specifically referenced the evidence adduced in the earlier case detailing the numerous injuries suffered by B.T. and K.T., and subsequent death of K.T., as well as mother's substance abuse problem. The Department also relied on evidence in the current case showing that T.T. had tested positive for methadone at birth, mother had an ongoing substance abuse problem with heroin and methamphetamine, and mother had used THC throughout all of her pregnancies and ingested methadone twice a day while incarcerated and while in the hospital for T.T.'s birth. In recommending that reunification services be denied to mother, the Department determined, among other things, that mother was not entitled to services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(7) because she was bypassed for services in the earlier related case under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6).
At the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the matter was submitted on the reports filed by the Department. As for jurisdiction, mother denied that she caused the injuries sustained by B.T. and K.T., and denied that she knew or should have known that anyone else caused the injuries. Mother also denied the substance abuse allegations. She argued that she was prescribed methadone, and that it is "recommended" that a woman taking methadone continue to do so throughout the course of her pregnancy. As for disposition, mother objected to out-of-home placement of T.T. and the denial of reunification services. Thereafter, the juvenile court adopted the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders set forth in the addendum to the jurisdiction/disposition report.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and the dispositional orders denying her reunification services. She argues that the juvenile court erred for the same reasons she articulated in her opening brief in the earlier related case. The Department argues that mother's claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and, in any event, fail on the merits. We agree with the Department.
Because we agree with the Department's arguments regarding the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the merits, we need not, and do not, address the Department's mootness argument.
1.0 Legal Principles
"Under collateral estoppel, the litigation and determination of an issue by final judgment is conclusive upon the parties or their privies in a subsequent suit on a different cause of action. [Citation.]" (In re Joshua J. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 984, 993.) "A party is collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue previously adjudicated if: (1) the issue necessarily decided in the previous suit is identical to the issue sought to be relitigated; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits of the previous suit; and (3) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted was a party, or in privity with a party, to the previous suit. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
2.0 Jurisdictional Findings
Mother contends the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. In making this argument, mother incorporates by reference the arguments she made in her opening brief in the earlier related case, including her contention that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling) because there was no substantial evidence she had abused or neglected K.T. or B.T.
Mother's claim is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. All three requirements are satisfied here. Mother was a party to the earlier case. The issue she now raises regarding the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under section 300 subdivision (j) is identical to the issue decided against her in that case. In the earlier case, the juvenile court found that K.H. and A.T. came within multiple subdivisions of section 300. In our unpublished opinion filed on February 16, 2018, we focused on the allegations under section 300 subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling) and concluded that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that K.H. and A.T. came within section 300, subdivision (j). Our conclusion was based on evidence showing that K.H. and A.T.'s half siblings, K.T. and B.T., suffered severe physical harm as a result of mother's failure to adequately protect them, and that there was a substantial risk that K.H. and A.T. would be abused or neglected if they were returned to mother's care. We explained, in part, as follows: "Given the nature and severity of the physical harm inflicted on the twins, mother's ongoing substance abuse, mother's history of dating men who were violent and/or substance abusers, and mother's behavior regarding the injuries suffered by the twins, there was a substantial risk that K.H. and A.T. would be abused or neglected if they were returned to mother's care." (In re A.T., supra, C084646.) The judgment in the earlier case became final when the remittitur was issued on April 18, 2018. (See McClain v. Rush (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 18, 26 [issuance of remittitur after appeal renders judgment final for all purposes, including collateral estoppel].)
But even assuming for purposes of argument that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply, mother's claim fails on the merits for the same reasons we stated in our prior opinion. (In re A.T., supra, C084646.) We see no basis to depart from that opinion.
3.0 Dispositional Orders
Mother contends that the juvenile court's dispositional orders denying her reunification services must be reversed. According to mother, the court erred in bypassing reunification services to her under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(4), (7) and (13). In support of her claim, mother incorporates by reference the arguments she made in her opening brief in the earlier related case, including her contention that the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services to her under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) because there was no substantial evidence she had actual knowledge that her boyfriend was abusing B.T.
Mother's claim is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Subdivision (b)(7) of section 361.5 provides that reunification services need not be provided to a parent when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that "the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling or a half sibling of the child pursuant to paragraph . . . (6)." (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(7).) Subdivision (b)(6) of section 361.5 provides that reunification services need not be provided to a parent when "the child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of . . . the infliction of severe physical harm to . . . a half sibling by a parent . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with the offending parent . . . ." (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6)(A).) Infliction of severe physical harm includes, but is not limited to, "deliberate and serious injury inflicted to or on . . . the body of a . . . half sibling of the child by an act or omission of the parent . . . ." (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6)(C).)
In the earlier related case, the juvenile court relied on several provisions to bypass reunification services to mother, including subdivision (b)(6) of section 361.5. (In re A.T., supra, C084646.) In our unpublished opinion filed on February 16, 2018, we considered only the applicability of subdivision (b)(6) of section 361.5 and concluded that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's bypass of reunification services on that basis. In doing so, we determined that the evidence in the record showed that mother, at best, was willfully indifferent to the physical abuse suffered by K.T. and B.T. We identified multiple reasons the juvenile court could have relied on to reasonably infer that mother knew about the abuse prior to the death of K.T. (In re A.T., supra, C084646.) Under the circumstances, mother is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether the juvenile court erred in bypassing reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). She was a party to the earlier case, the issue she now raises regarding the bypass of reunification services is identical to the issue decided against her in that case, and the judgment in that case is final.
In the earlier case, mother did not contend the juvenile court erred in finding that it would not benefit A.T. to pursue reunification services with mother. (In re A.T., supra, C084646.) Mother does not make such a contention in this case.
But even assuming for purposes of argument that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply, mother's claim fails on the merits for the same reasons we stated in our prior opinion. (In re A.T., supra, C084646.) We see no reason to depart from that opinion.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
BUTZ, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. ROBIE, J.