Opinion
C096291
07-25-2023
In re C.E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.E., Defendant and Appellant. YUBA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. JVSQ2100087, JVSQ2100088
HORST, J. [*]
Appellant D.E. (father), father of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court's March 2022 jurisdictional/dispositional order. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 395.) Father contends the allegations in the dependency petition were not supported by substantial evidence. He further contends his appeal has not been rendered moot by the subsequent termination of dependency jurisdiction. We will affirm the juvenile court's orders.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
October 24, 2021, Incident of Abuse
Father and A.B. (mother) lived in separate homes and shared joint legal and physical custody of the two minors, C.J.E. and C.W.E. The family came to the attention of the Yuba County Health and Human Services Department (Department) when, in October 2021, child and adult protective services received an emergency referral regarding injuries minor C.J.E. received at the hand of father. During an examination by Patricia Gurney, a nurse practitioner, C.J.E., then six years old, reported father "grabbed him by the chest and lifted him by his skin." Gurney diagnosed C.J.E. as having "bruising and 'traumatic petechiae and physical abuse of child, initial encounter' from his upper, anterior chest to his clavicles." Gurney surmised that C.J.E. sustained those injuries on October 24, 2021, while in father's care. Minor C.W.E., then 13 years old, reported having seen father pick up C.J.E. by his chest in anger.
Prior Incidents of Abuse
Mother reported there had been prior incidents of child abuse by father against C.W.E. During the first incident in March 2021, father choked C.W.E. During the second incident in July 2021, father hit and threw objects at C.W.E., resulting in bruises to C.W.E.'s body. Those reports were corroborated by the family's prior child welfare history which revealed multiple reports of physical abuse by father against C.W.E., including a July 2021 incident during which father hit C.W.E. five times in the back of the head, pinned him down and yelled profanities at him, and punched him in the side while pinned down, and March 2021 incidents during which father choked C.W.E. and pushed him up against a wall. Father denied the abuse but agreed to a verbal safety agreement stating he would not hit, smack, or slap the minors.
The social worker interviewed father regarding the current incident and when asked to explain C.J.E.'s injuries, father again denied abusing the minors and stated C.J.E. simply had a rash.
Current Dependency Proceedings
On November 2, 2021, the Department filed dependency petitions on behalf of the minors pursuant to section 300, subdivision (a), alleging father inflicted serious physical harm on C.J.E. during the October 2021 incident which resulted in injury to the minor's chest, and that father previously inflicted serious physical harm on C.W.E. during the July 2021 incident which resulted in injury to the minor's legs. The petition further alleged, pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c), that father inflicted serious emotional damage on C.W.E. when he hit C.W.E. and said things to hurt C.W.E.'s feelings such as" 'fuck you,'" " 'you're a bad person,'" " 'you're going to juvenile hall/prison,'" and" 'you're a bitch.'" It was also alleged that C.W.E. and C.J.E. felt unsafe and sad as a result of father's physical abuse.
At the November 3, 2021, detention hearing, the court ordered the minors detained from father and placed with mother. The court also ordered twice weekly supervised visits for father.
The jurisdiction report, filed November 24, 2021, set forth the Department's evidence in support of the petition. Regarding the subdivision (a) allegation for serious physical harm, the report stated facts regarding the October 24, 2021 incident, including statements by both minors about physical and verbal abuse by father (e.g., how father "grabbed [C.J.E.'s] shirt and chest" and left a "rash," how father choked C.W.E., how father hit and slapped C.W.E., how father" 'pop[ped]'" C.W.E. in the mouth, and how father threw toys at C.W.E.), police reports, the social worker's observation of a "rash" and "red spotted marks" on C.J.E.'s body and bruises on C.W.E.'s body, nurse practitioner Gurney's statements and notes, statements by mother, and father's agreement to a verbal safety agreement despite his denial of abuse. Regarding the subdivision (c) allegation for serious emotional harm, the report referred to the evidence offered for the subdivision (a) allegations, along with a letter from Theresa Maraganis, LMFT, noting father's refusal to provide consent for mental health treatment for C.J.E., and a letter from Megan Stutler, LMFT, opining that C.W.E. suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of exposure to threats of serious injury by father, such as hitting the minor, damaging his belongings, calling him derogatory names and using profanity, yelling at him, and putting him down.
In an addendum report filed January 10, 2022, the Department reported that father was communicating with C.W.E. in violation of the court's orders. C.W.E. was exhibiting mental health issues and was described as "unstable and very fragile." It was further reported that father "still has taken zero accountability" regarding his actions and how they affected the minors. The Department recommended the court suspend father's visitation until father could "show he can follow the rules and implement the services being offered into his life, as well as take accountability for his actions."
The contested jurisdictional hearing commenced over several days, finishing on March 3, 2022. Mother testified she observed something that looked like a rash on C.J.E.'s chest when he returned home from school after having been with father. When mother asked what happened, C.J.E. first told her he and C.W.E. were playing with towels and C.W.E. snapped the towel and caused the injury, but then said father grabbed him. C.W.E. confirmed the injury was due to father grabbing C.J.E. Mother took C.J.E. to the emergency room with what mother thought was a rash. However, nurse practitioner Gurney informed mother the injury was a traumatic petechiae likely caused by physical abuse. Mother also testified C.W.E. had, in the past, told mother he had been hit, choked, and called names by father.
After hearing oral argument and considering the jurisdiction and addendum reports, the court sustained the allegations in the petitions.
DISCUSSION
I
Mootness
As a preliminary matter, father contends his claims are not rendered moot by the juvenile court's subsequent termination of dependency jurisdiction. He claims the court's custody order and order terminating dependency jurisdiction are not final because he filed a notice of appeal of those orders on November 28, 2022. The Department argues father's claims are indeed mooted by the termination of dependency jurisdiction. While both parties reference the court's order terminating dependency jurisdiction, that order is not part of the record in the current appeal. And while father directs our attention to exhibits attached to the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on the same date as his opening brief, that petition and its exhibits are also not part of the record in the current appeal. We therefore do not consider the claim.
The Department's request to consolidate father's petition with this and a subsequently filed appeal was denied by this court on May 30, 2023.
II
Substantial Evidence Supports the Section 300, subdivision (a) Allegations as to C.W.E.
Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations under section 300, subdivision (a). We disagree.
Section 300 provides that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court 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. For purposes of this subdivision, a court may find there is a substantial risk of serious future injury based on the manner in which a less serious injury was inflicted, a history of repeated inflictions of injuries on the child or the child's siblings, or a combination of these and other actions by the parent or guardian that indicate the child is at risk of serious physical harm." (§ 300, subd. (a).)
Father asserts that the juvenile court expressly found the minors did not suffer serious physical harm, and any allegations that there was a substantial risk of serious future injury were either not supported by substantial evidence or were "related to disciplinary techniques that did not rise to the level of substantial future risk of nonaccidental serious physical harm." In particular, father claims there was no evidence other than the statements of the minors that father hit C.W.E. in the back of the head, threw toys at C.W.E. causing bruises on C.W.E.'s legs, or choked C.W.E. Father notes he denied the claims, and in any event, his actions were nothing more than disciplinary techniques "turned into physical abuse allegations." We are not persuaded.
It is true the court agreed that father's actions, in and of themselves, did not rise to the level of serious physical harm. However, the court stated more than once that the allegations did not represent an isolated incident but rather a pattern of behavior, some of which father corroborated. For example, both minors reported father's past and recent abuse, including reports of father choking C.W.E., grabbing C.J.E. by his chest, slapping C.W.E. across the face, grabbing C.W.E. by the chin and squeezing his jaw hard, hitting C.W.E. in the back of the head five times, pinning down C.W.E. and punching him on his side and on his arm, popping C.W.E. in the mouth and making him bleed, throwing toys at C.W.E., and backhanding C.W.E. on his upper arm and on his thigh. The minors each corroborated the other's accounts of abuse, and mother corroborated some of the abuse as well. The minors also disclosed the abuse to their respective therapists and to law enforcement. The court concluded father's pattern of behavior posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the minors.
The fact that father repeatedly stated the minors were lying was insufficient to refute the minors' claims of abuse. As the Department aptly notes, there was no suggestion the minors were incompetent or unavailable to testify but father elected not to elicit their testimony. Father also asserts that he denied each of the minors' claims of abuse. The record confirms father did deny the abuse. However, we do not weigh father's denials against the minors' claims. "Weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving conflicts in evidence and in the inferences to be drawn from evidence are the domain of the [juvenile] court." (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) Finally, we are not persuaded by father's assertion that there was no evidence, other than C.W.E.'s statements, that he hit C.W.E. on the back of the head five times. It is axiomatic that evidence from the minor alone was sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding. (Ibid.)
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545), there was sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that there was a substantial risk of serious future injury to the minors based on the manner in which less serious injuries were inflicted and on father's history of repeated inflictions of injuries on them. (§ 300, subd. (a).)
III
Substantial Evidence Supports the Section 300, subdivision (c) Allegation as to Both Minors
Father also contends the allegations under section 300, subdivision (c), were facially insufficient and were not supported by substantial evidence. While we need not decide the merit of father's claim given our determination that there was sufficient evidence to support the court's dependency orders under subdivision (a) (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875), we nonetheless exercise our discretion to do so and conclude there was substantial evidence to support the subdivision (c) allegations.
Section 300 provides in relevant part that a child is within the juvenile court's jurisdiction if "[t]he child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent ...." (§ 300, subd. (c).)
The petitions alleged, pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c), that father hit C.W.E. and said things to hurt C.W.E.'s feelings, and that both C.W.E. and C.J.E. "fe[lt] unsafe and sad when the father is mad or angry, and they do not understand why the father hits or chokes them for no reason." Father argues the petition was facially insufficient because it failed to allege facts to support serious emotional damage. We disagree.
As father acknowledges, the record demonstrated that C.W.E. struggled emotionally, had been medically diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder, and had been having suicidal thoughts, issues C.W.E. claimed were related to father's behavior. The record also demonstrated that C.W.E. felt helpless and hopeless. He punched, broke, and destroyed things in the house, jumped out of a window and rubbed his wrists on the stucco, choked C.J.E. and said, "I will choke you like dad used to choke mom," and once ran to the neighbor's house to call 911 as he looked back to see if father was coming after him.
As for C.J.E., the record demonstrated that C.J.E. witnessed significant physical and verbal abuse of C.W.E. by father and he was "scared [C.W.E.] was going to jail" for calling the police on father. The record also demonstrated that C.J.E. was struggling with his behaviors and being mean to his peers with increasing anger and sadness due to witnessing father physically and verbally abusing C.W.E., necessitating therapeutic services for C.J.E. While there is limited information in the record as to C.J.E.'s mental health, it is worth noting that father prevented the Department from obtaining specialty mental health services, including an intake assessment, for C.J.E. by refusing to provide consent for treatment for C.J.E.
The fact that the aforementioned evidence was not alleged in the petitions is of no consequence." 'We uphold judgments if they are correct for any reason, "regardless of the correctness of the grounds upon which the court reached its conclusion." [Citation.] "It is judicial action and not judicial reasoning which is the subject of review ...."' [Citation.] We will not reverse for error unless it appears reasonably probable that, absent the error, the appellant would have obtained a more favorable result. [Citations.] Such is not the case here." (In re Jonathan B., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 876.) There was substantial evidence to support the section 300, subdivision (c), allegations as to both minors.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
We concur: RENNER, Acting P. J., BOULWARE EURIE, J.
[*] Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.