Opinion
D060085 Super. Ct. No. J518073
12-14-2011
In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER H., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Martindill, Referee. Affirmed.
Christopher H. appeals a judgment declaring his minor son, C.H., a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Christopher challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings. We affirm the judgment.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2011, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging six-month-old C.H. was at substantial risk of serious physical harm as a result of domestic violence between his parents, Christopher and Valerie G. (together, the parents). Specifically, the petition alleged that on February 27, 2011, the parents engaged in an argument involving threats of physical force; Valerie used an object to scratch the television; and the parents had a history of domestic violence. The court detained C.H. in out-of-home care.
Christopher told San Diego police officer Michael Brown that at the time of the February 27 incident, Valerie had been drinking and became angry about not having her cell phone. She then used a tool to cut a telephone line. Valerie yelled, "[s]omeone is going to get hurt;" "[s]omeone is going to jail." She used a tool or other object to scratch the television screen, and the walls and counters in the kitchen. Valerie left before the police arrived. Christopher said C.H. became upset and cried when Valerie was yelling.
Social worker Bridget Ikponmwosa reported the parents had made 16 calls to the police since March 2009, 10 of which were for domestic violence. During an incident in May 2009, Valerie stabbed Christopher in the arm and stomach. The parents' statements to Ikponmwosa about the February 27 incident were inconsistent with those they gave to police. For example, the parents now denied C.H. was present during the argument. They also said the telephone line had not been cut, but instead had gotten stuck under the door. However, the police had photographs showing the telephone cord had been cut. Ikponmwosa believed the risk to C.H. was very high because Valerie did not understand the cycle of domestic violence and its impact on her and C.H. Ikponmwosa recommended the court order reunification services for the parents to help them reduce their violent contacts with each other, and to promote health and safety for C.H.
During an interview with social worker Suzy Cervantes, Valerie acknowledged she had a long history of domestic violence with Christopher. Valerie said the domestic violence had occurred about once every few months since 2009, and the police were called after each incident. Cervantes contacted Christopher, but he provided only limited information. Christopher said Valerie was an excellent mother. He claimed calls to the police were from former girlfriends, not Valerie. He also claimed C.H. was not at home during the February 27 incident.
The parents' friend, Sarah E., reported she was aware the parents argued while holding C.H. However, Sarah denied ever seeing the parents get physical with each other, although she did hear them yelling in C.H.'s presence.
Social worker Barbara Keehr reported Valerie had a substantial criminal history that included more than 40 arrests. She also had a history of being a domestic violence victim, had anger management problems and may have been using alcohol to cope with depression. Keehr recommended Valerie participate in services, including developing a safety plan, acquiring parenting skills and learning how domestic violence impacted C.H.
Christopher's criminal history consisted of 17 arrests, including charges of sex crimes with minors. Christopher had been convicted of violating a restraining order. Keehr recommended he undergo a psychological evaluation, and participate in individual therapy, domestic violence treatment, and a parenting class.
Since C.H. was born, the parents had made five calls to the police for domestic violence incidents. In Keehr's opinion, it would be detrimental to C.H. to be placed with the parents because they had not mitigated the protective issues regarding C.H.'s exposure to domestic violence.
At a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Officer Brown testified about the February 27 domestic violence incident. Christopher told the dispatch operator he was blind and his girlfriend (Valerie) was in the house with a knife. When police arrived, Valerie was not there. Christopher reported Valerie had been drinking and had a seizure in the front yard. After Christopher helped her into the house, she became angry when she could not find her cell phone. Valerie began yelling, and Christopher believed she was holding a knife because he heard her scratching the television and kitchen walls. Brown testified he saw numerous scratches on the face of the television, but none on the kitchen walls. The telephone cord appeared to have been cut. The court received in evidence photographs of the cut cord and scratched television screen.
Brown further testified that shortly after he and other officers arrived at the parents' house, a woman, later identified as Sarah, came to the house, went upstairs and returned with C.H. Christopher acknowledged C.H. was upstairs during the incident with Valerie.
Ikponmwosa testified both Christopher and Valerie told her that C.H. was upstairs sleeping during their argument. Based on the number and severity of prior domestic violence incidents, C.H.'s young age, and the possibility a weapon was used in the latest incident, Ikponmwosa believed C.H. was at high risk.
Keehr testified, recommending the court assume jurisdiction of C.H. and place him in foster care. She believed C.H. was at high risk because of the parents' history of domestic violence, the number of calls they had made to the police, and the description of the latest domestic violence incident. Because Valerie had been cooperating with services, Keehr recommended the court place C.H. with her under Agency supervision. Christopher had expressed no interest in participating in services.
Sarah testified that C.H. was with her at the time of the February 27 incident. After receiving a telephone call from Christopher that evening, Sarah and her boyfriend immediately went to the parents' house with C.H. The police were there when they arrived. Sarah took C.H. upstairs, changed his diaper, brought him downstairs and handed him to Christopher. Contrary to what Sarah had previously told the social worker, she testified she never saw the parents yell at each other while they held C.H.
Valerie testified C.H. was with Sarah on the evening of February 27. Valerie said she went to Christopher's house around 5:00 p.m. to get some of her belongings. She had a seizure and Christopher brought her inside the house to rest. When she woke up, she could not find her cell phone. Valerie denied having a knife, threatening Christopher or scratching the television. She denied having a history of domestic violence with Christopher, stating they never physically fought with each other, and she never stabbed him. She did, however, acknowledge calling the police from Christopher's home because of incidents between them. She also acknowledged she and Christopher had been arguing on the evening of February 27.
Christopher testified that on the evening of February 27, Valerie had a seizure while at his house and then she could not find her cell phone. Valerie called 911 and asked for someone to come and get her cell phone so she could leave. Christopher told the dispatcher there was no problem. By the time the police arrived, Valerie had left at Christopher's request.
Christopher did not recall speaking to Officer Brown on February 27. He denied ever saying Valerie had been drinking alcohol that night or had cut the telephone cord. Christopher also denied arguing or physically fighting with Valerie. He said the television screen got scratched when moving it from the patio. Although he acknowledged making numerous 911 calls, he claimed none of them involved Valerie. He said he had been stabbed in May 2009 by two Hispanic men, not by Valerie.
After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court sustained the allegations of the amended petition under section 300, subdivision (b), finding domestic violence had occurred between the parents while C.H. was in the upstairs bedroom. The court declared C.H. a dependent, placed him with Valerie, and ordered the parents to participate in services.
DISCUSSION
Christopher contends the evidence was insufficient to support the court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b). He asserts there was no showing C.H. had suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm as a result of the parents' domestic violence.
A
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we consider the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings. Evidence is "substantial" if it is reasonable, credible and of solid value. (In re S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1140.) We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or weigh the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile court's order and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary finding. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 230.) The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the court's findings or orders. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
B
Section 300, subdivision (b), provides a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent's failure to adequately supervise or protect the child or provide adequate medical treatment. In enacting section 300, the Legislature intended to protect children who are currently being abused or neglected, "and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm." (§ 300.2; emphasis added.) The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194-196.) The focus of section 300 is on averting harm to the child. (In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536.)
The court may consider past events when determining whether a child presently needs the juvenile court's protection. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 749, fn. 6; In re Troy D. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 889, 899-900.) A parent's past conduct is a good predictor of future behavior. (In re Petra B. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1163, 1169.) Nevertheless, the question "is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm." (In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134.)
Exposing children to recurring domestic violence may be sufficient to establish jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 193-194 [evidence of continuing violence between father and stepmother, where at least one incident occurred in presence of minors, was sufficient for jurisdictional finding].) " 'Both common sense and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to children.' " (In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 576.) Domestic violence impacts children even if they are not the ones being physically abused, "because they see and hear the violence and the screaming." (In re Heather A., at p. 192.) Thus, "domestic violence in the same household where children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect the [minors] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it. Such neglect causes the risk." (Id. at p. 194; accord In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 460-461.)
C
Here, the evidence showed the parents engaged in a course of conduct that put C.H. at substantial risk of physical harm. C.H. was present in the home when the parents had an argument that included threats of physical violence. Valerie became angry, and armed herself with an object capable of cutting the telephone cord and scratching the television screen. In response to the yelling, C.H. became upset and began to cry. The incident was sufficiently serious that the police were called, and when they responded, C.H. was present in the home.
Other evidence showed Valerie was capable of throwing objects and breaking glass during fits of rage.
Further, this was not a "single episode of endangering conduct." (Cf. In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022 [single episode of parents' drinking and driving with minors in the car was insufficient to sustain jurisdictional finding].) The parents' domestic violence was ongoing and likely to continue without juvenile court intervention. The police responded on at least 10 occasions to reports of domestic violence between the parents, five of which occurred after C.H. was born. Sarah reported the parents argued and yelled in C.H.'s presence, sometimes while holding him. On one occasion, Valerie stabbed Christopher, showing their verbal disagreements could escalate into physical violence. (See In re E.B., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 [experience shows that past violent behavior in a relationship is the best predictor of future violence].) Although C.H. had not been physically harmed, the cycle of violence between the parents constituted a failure to protect him "from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it." (In re 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 [minors were at substantial risk of serious harm due to violent confrontations in the family home]; In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, fn. 5 [common sense and expert opinion indicate domestic violence is detrimental to children].)
Christopher asserts the evidence is "confusing" because he and Valerie denied there was any physical abuse, and he disputed the information provided by Officer Brown and the social workers. However, the juvenile court was the exclusive arbiter of facts, and was entitled to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. (In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 52-53; In re Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 230.) The court could reasonably find the statements and testimony of Brown and the social workers to be credible, while viewing Christopher's testimony as attempting to minimize the parents' conduct, exacerbating concern for C.H.'s welfare. Substantial evidence supports the court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b).
We disagree with Christopher's argument the court could not reasonably or logically believe he, a blind man, could engage in acts of physical violence against Valerie.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_____
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________
NARES, Acting P. J.
__________
McINTYRE, J.