Opinion
A131343
10-31-2011
In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.W., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. J40399 & J40400)
Defendant R.W. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional orders in dependency proceedings, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,declaring his daughter, A.B., and son, R.B., wards of court. Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the children. We affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2010, Solano County Department of Health and Social Services, Child Welfare Services (Department) filed duplicate juvenile dependency petitions in regard to A.B. (age 14) and R.B. (9). The petitions allege the children are minors described under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (g) and (j). The detention report filed with the petitions stated that the minors were taken into protective custody by the Vallejo Police Department. The police report states A.B. sustained injuries when father hit her after he discovered A.B. had a boyfriend, and that father was arrested for child abuse. Father was heavily intoxicated at the time of his arrest. When interviewed at the county jail by the social worker, father reported that his family successfully petitioned for legal residency in the U.S. for him and his children, A.B. and R.B. Father stated he and his children immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines in February 2009 to have access to more financial and educational opportunities. Father also stated the minors' mother consented to the minors immigrating to the U.S. and that she remains in the Philippines.
The Department filed a separate petition for each minor and alleged the same facts in each petition.
The sole allegation under subdivision (a) alleges serious physical harm, as further described below, by father against his daughter A.B. Four allegations under subdivision (b) allege failure to protect: b-1 alleges prior physical abuse by father against A.B.; b-2 alleges violence by father against mother in the presence of the children; b-3 alleges father's alcohol abuse periodically impairs his ability to safely parent the children, as evidenced by his violence against A.B. while intoxicated; and b-4 alleges that the mother is a victim of domestic violence by father and is unwilling or unable to protect the children from exposure to such violence. Two allegations under subdivision (c) allege serious emotional damage: c-1 alleges father inflicted significant injuries on mother in the presence of the minors; c-2 alleges father's alcohol abuse periodically impairs his ability to safely parent the children. The allegation under subdivision (j) alleges abuse of a sibling as to R.B., based on father's physical abuse of his sister, A.B. The Department subsequently dismissed the failure to provide support allegation under subdivision (g) because father was no longer in custody.
At the detention hearing on September 30, 2010, father appeared with counsel and was assisted by a Tagalog interpreter. The juvenile court ordered both children detained and placed in a confidential county foster home. Pending further proceedings, the court ordered that father be provided with alcohol and drug testing, as well as parenting education.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on December 13, 2010. Father appeared with counsel and was assisted by a Tagalog interpreter. At the hearing, Department social worker Cecilia Lopez testified that in the course of her investigation she interviewed father and the two minor children. According to Lopez, A.B. described the physical abuse perpetrated upon her by father, and A.B.'s descriptions of the physical abuse were corroborated by her brother, R.B. In addition, both children recounted incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by father upon mother when they lived in the Philippines, and they also told Lopez that father was intoxicated when he recently abused A.B.
At the hearing, counsel for mother informed the court she had spoken with mother by telephone with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter, and that mother had waived reunification services after consulting with an attorney in the Philippines.
Lopez further testified that she interviewed father with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter. Father did not deny physically abusing A.B. Father explained A.B. was not allowed to have a boyfriend and that he learned A.B. was having a secret relationship with a boy. Father admitted he was struggling to parent A.B. because he (father) was reared in a traditional Filipino culture and A.B. was growing more and more Americanized. At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained by a preponderance of evidence the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), and (j) (abuse of sibling), and set a disposition hearing.
The Department prepared a disposition report prior to the hearing. The report states father does not understand U.S. laws regarding child abuse and why the children have not been returned to his care. The manner in which father disciplined A.B. is the " 'custom in the Philippines' and the way he was disciplined as a child." The disposition report also notes that A.B. refused to participate in visitation with father and she prefers to live with her paternal uncle rather than return to father's care. R.B. told the social worker he wanted more visitation with his father and wanted to return to father's care. The Department recommended that the children be adjudged dependents and remain in out-of-home care, and that father receive court-ordered reunification services.
A disposition hearing was held on February 18, 2011. The juvenile court received testimony from social worker Josita Camacho and father, who testified through a Tagalog interpreter. After presentation of evidence and argument, the juvenile court expressed concerns "about cultural issues in this case," in particular that father was not engaging sufficiently in services, possibly due to language difficulties, and that he had not acquired an understanding of the "cultural norms" associated with parenting in this country. Nevertheless, the court adopted the Department's recommendation, finding by clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial risk of harm if the children are returned home. However, the court granted father reunification services, and ordered the Department to ensure father received services in his native language and that the Department look "very carefully" at whether there are any "barriers to reunification that none of us understand at this point."
Father's native language is the Visayan dialect, not Tagalog.
The juvenile court's dispositional findings and orders were filed on February 23, 2011. Father filed a timely notice of appeal on February 28, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Father does not challenge the juvenile court's dispositional findings and orders. Rather, father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings that it had jurisdiction over A.B. and R.B. under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (j). After careful review of the record, we reject father's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting jurisdiction.
"A jurisdictional order is only a finding. The dispositional order is the judgment. Only the judgment is appealable. On appeal from the judgment, the jurisdictional findings can be reviewed." (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 112.)
A. Standard of Review
On appeal, we apply the substantial evidence rule to the juvenile court's findings under section 300. "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. [Citation.]" (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547; see also In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) In applying this standard, we must not evaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. (In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 216.) Further, we must not disturb the juvenile court's order unless it is patently unreasonable. (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.) We must also bear in mind that the "paramount purpose" of dependency proceedings is protection of the child. (In re Jason L., supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1214.)
B. Sufficient Evidence Supports Jurisdiction Under Subsections (a) and (j)
Under section 300, subdivision (a), the juvenile court has jurisdiction over any child if "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the child's parent or guardian." (§ 300, subd. (a).) Under section 300, subdivision (j), the juvenile court has jurisdiction over any child if "[t]he child's sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions." (§ 300, subd. (j).)
Father does not challenge the subdivision (a) finding with respect to A.B. Rather, father asserts that the juvenile court erroneously made a subdivision (a) finding with respect to R.B. absent any evidence R.B. had suffered serious physical harm. We reject Father's contention because it is based upon a misreading of the operative petition and the evidentiary record. Contrary to Father's contention, the 300 subdivision (a) allegation of serious physical harm related solely to A.B., and the concomitant allegation under subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling) related solely to R.B. At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing the juvenile court clearly stated that "there was a preponderance of the evidence that the Department has, in fact, met the burden showing serious physical harm to the minor child [A.B.] as a result of the father's actions, and that [the] court would sustain based on . . . a preponderance of the evidence (a-1)." Thus, the record clearly reflects that the juvenile court determined it had jurisdiction over A.B. pursuant to subdivision (a). The court did not make a jurisdictional finding under 300 subdivision (a) regarding R.B.
Father also challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding over R.B. under subdivision (j). As noted above, to assume jurisdiction over R.B. under subdivision (j), the trial court had to find: (1) R.B.'s sibling, A.B., "has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i)," and, (2) "there is a substantial risk that [R.B.] will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions." (§ 300, subd. (j).) In our view, the record amply supports the juvenile court's finding that each of the required elements under subdivision (a) and (j) were met.
First, the record supports the trial court's finding that A.B. was abused as defined in subdivision (a), i.e., suffered "serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally" by father. (§ 300, subd. (a).) The detention report states that on the day of the incident in question, the arresting officer told the social worker he placed the minors in protective custody after father assaulted A.B. for having a boyfriend. The officer reported that A.B. sustained bruises on her forehead from father punching her; bruises on her right arm from the father kicking her with his work boots; bumps on her head from the father punching her; and defensive scratches and bruises on her forearms from the minor trying to protect herself from further abuse by the father. Moreover, A.B. told the social worker that when the family arrived home after school that day, father asked her if she had a boyfriend. After A.B. ignored father's question and refused to answer him, father became very angry and threw her on her bed. Father then got on top of A.B., punched and slapped her five to ten times on her face and head, and kicked her three times with his work boots on her right arm and buttocks. A.B. showed the social worker the injuries she sustained. The social worker observed a large red bruise on the left side of her forehead, a bruise that covered most of her left upper arm in the shape of a boot imprint, numerous scratches on her right and left forearms, and at least two large bumps on the top of her head.
Notwithstanding the ample evidence that R.B.'s sister A.B. was abused as defined under subdivision (a), father asserts jurisdiction over R.B. under subdivision (j) was erroneous because the record fails to establish a "substantial risk" that R.B. would be "abused or neglected." (§ 300, subd. (j).) On this point, father argues there was no evidence R.B. was physically harmed by father or hurt during any instance of domestic violence between his parents. Father also argues there was no evidence "R.B. was presenting similar behavior difficulties or that father would discipline him in a similar way. " We disagree.
Subdivision (j) states that in assessing the risk of abuse to the minor, the court must "consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the [minor's] sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child." (§ 300, subd. (j).) In this case, in assessing the risk of abuse to R.B., the court was entitled to consider the fact that the violence against R.B.'s sister was committed while father was heavily intoxicated. As noted in the detention report, both R.B. and his sister A.B. reported that father is quick to anger when he is drunk, and that he gets drunk at least once a week. Both minors stated father was drunk when he picked them up from school on the day of the incident in question. Father admitted beating A.B. that day but stated he was so intoxicated he did not remember how often, how hard or where he struck her. In short, the surrounding circumstances showing father regularly drank to the point of intoxication, was quick to anger when drunk, and administered violent physical beatings to A.B. when his authority was questioned, adequately supports the juvenile court's determination that there was a substantial risk of similar abuse to R.B. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err by assuming jurisdiction over R.B. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (j).
Because jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j) extends only to R.B., the jurisdictional findings and orders in case number J40399 (In re A.B.) must be amended to strike the subdivision (j) finding as to A.B.
--------
Having concluded substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdiction over A.B. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (a), and jurisdiction over R.B. under subdivision (j), we need not consider whether there was also sufficient evidence to support jurisdiction over A.B. and R.B. under subdivisions (b) and (c). (See In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [when dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for jurisdiction, "a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence"]; see also In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875 ["reviewing court may affirm a juvenile court judgment if the evidence supports the decision on any one of several grounds"].)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's dispositional findings and orders are affirmed. The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and orders are affirmed, subject to the amendments described herein.
Jenkins, J. We concur: Pollak, Acting P. J. Siggins, J.