In re NATHAN E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B306909 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01475)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
February 22, 2021
Sabina A. Helton, Judge.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MONICA A., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for
The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed Nathan E. (Nathan) (then four), Andrew A. (Andrew) (then two), and Noah E. (Noah) (then eight months old) from their parents, Monica A. (mother) and Joey E. (father) on March 30, 2020, after investigating a report of a February 2020 domestic violence incident. DCFS‘s petition alleged two counts each under
At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 9, 2020, the juvenile court sustained counts a-1 and b-1 based on the parents’ history of multiple domestic violence incidents and dismissed counts a-2, b-2, and j-1 as to each of the children. The juvenile court ordered reunification services, separate visitation for mother and father, and ordered that the children remain placed with their paternal grandparents.
Mother appeals from the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction and disposition orders, contending that the record lacks evidence sufficient to support those orders. We find substantial evidence to support the juvenile court‘s orders, and we will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mother and father began dating in 2008 and married in 2015. Nathan was born in 2015, Andrew in 2017, and Noah in 2019.
On the evening of February 1, 2020, the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) responded to a domestic violence call at mother and father‘s apartment. According to mother, she and father began arguing in her bedroom while the children all slept in a different bedroom. Mother told police that evening that father began yelling at her and pulling on a necklace that mother was wearing. Mother told police that father scratched and clawed at her neck and the responding officers saw scratches on mother‘s neck.
When father left the bedroom, mother reported, she shut and locked the bedroom door behind him. The police report says that father started “punching and hitting the bedroom door” and that he fled the apartment shortly thereafter.
In the police report that sparked DCFS‘s investigation, one of the responding officers stated: “I was able to locate three previous domestic violence
DCFS initiated its investigation based on a referral after the February 1, 2020 incident and was able to contact mother on February 18, 2020. Mother confirmed an appointment with DCFS on February 20, 2020 at the parents’ apartment, but there was no answer at the door or mother‘s phone number when DCFS arrived for the appointment. After repeated DCFS attempts to contact her, mother answered her phone again on February 25, but, according to the social worker who called her, when asked to schedule a meeting with DCFS, mother started saying “Hello,” repeatedly and then hung up the phone and did not answer repeated attempts to reach her.
DCFS was able to schedule another meeting for February 27, 2020. But when the social worker tried to confirm the meeting, mother told the social worker that she did “not feel that it is necessary to have a DCFS investigation” and said that she was unwilling to meet with the social worker.
DCFS sought, obtained, and served an investigative search warrant on mother at her apartment on March 2, 2020. When the social worker and accompanying LBPD officer knocked on mother‘s door, the social worker heard mother tell someone to not open the door. Nathan opened the door in spite of mother‘s instruction.
When the social worker interviewed Nathan about the February 1 incident, Nathan reported—contrary to mother‘s report to the police—that he was in the room when the incident happened. He also told the social worker that his mother “got a scratch.” Asked how mother was scratched, “Nathan stated that mother scratched herself.” Nathan told the social worker that he had seen mother push father down stairs during a prior domestic violence incident.
Nathan and Andrew both reported that mother disciplined them by giving them “pow pows.” Nathan described a “pow pow” as a spanking on the bottom and hand with a slotted wooden spoon, but denied ever having any physical injury as a result of the spankings.
The social worker asked mother what happened during the February 1 incident; mother responded, “I am not going to say.” Mother reported that
Asked whether she had obtained an emergency protective order as she had told police and DCFS she would, mother replied, “I‘m not going to say.” Asked about a criminal protective order father had obtained against her from 2015 (later modified to be a peaceful contact order so the parents could live together), mother responded that she had her record expunged so that there would be no record of it. The social worker explained that the order remained in place, and would be in place until 2025.
Mother shared with the social worker that she had been arrested for domestic violence against father—mother had stabbed father—in 2015 and had completed a 52-week domestic violence course, but told the social worker that she had no other criminal history. (Mother‘s 2015 arrest and subsequent conviction also included a charge for resisting an executive officer.)
DCFS filed a petition under
During an interview on March 27, 2020 (after the children were detained), mother was more cooperative with DCFS. During this interview, mother reported that after the February 1 incident, “I had a small scratch, but I think I may have done that myself, I was scratching myself.” Mother denied ever having pushed father down stairs. Mother told the social worker that she did not believe she had violated a protective order because she believed she had applied for her record to be expunged.
In documents filed with the juvenile court, DCFS identified evidence regarding the parents’ domestic violence issues with the following bulleted list:
- “In January 2019 father was charged with violating a court order to prevent domestic violence[.]
-
“Father was issued a Criminal Protective Order to be protected from mother after a [domestic violence] incident between the parents in 2014[.] - “Mother and father conceived the child Andrew in the time that the Criminal Protective Stay Away Order was active and before the order was modified to be peaceful contact.
- “The parents have failed to uphold the peaceful contact order as there was a [domestic violence] incident on 2/1/2020 in the home while the children were present.
- “Mother was issued an Emergency Protective Order after the [domestic violence] incident on 2/1/2020, but she failed to follow up to get a Restraining Order against father after the referral incident and stated to [the social worker] that she intended to do so ‘eventually’ but as of yet has not made such efforts to be protective of the children.”
The juvenile court held combined jurisdiction and disposition hearings on July 9, 2020. The juvenile court sustained counts a-1 and b-1 (the domestic violence counts) and dismissed counts a-2, b-2, and j-1 (the physical abuse counts) for each child as to both parents, and concluded each child was a person described by
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.2
DISCUSSION
On the face of her arguments, mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court‘s jurisdictional and dispositional findings. Underlying mother‘s contention, however, runs an assertion that evidence of domestic violence between parents will never suffice to support a jurisdictional finding under
For its part, DCFS contends mother‘s appeal is moot. DCFS contends that because mother appealed and father did not, we need not consider mother‘s contentions. (See In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491-1492.) Mother contends that findings in this matter may impact any possible future dependency proceeding involving these or any children mother may have in the future. Although mother‘s argument appears to assume that there will be future dependency proceedings and offers no other specific harm that sustained jurisdictional and dispositional findings may bring her, we nevertheless exercise our discretion to consider her appeal on the merits. (Id. at p. 1493.)
We disagree with mother‘s contentions on the merits. The evidence here is sufficient to sustain the juvenile court‘s jurisdictional and dispositional findings.
A. Domestic Violence and Section 300, Subdivision (a) Jurisdiction
Our colleagues in the Fourth District have specifically rejected this contention. In In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 598-599 (Giovanni F.), they concluded that “the application of
The court also explained that “[a]lthough many cases based on exposure to domestic violence are filed under
We firmly reject mother‘s contention that domestic violence cannot be the basis for juvenile court jurisdiction under
B. Applicable Legal Standards Below and on Review
To establish jurisdiction under
Even after DCFS makes either showing and the juvenile court determines jurisdiction is proper, in order to remove a child from a parent, DCFS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the dispositional hearing, “a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor” exists, and that there are “no reasonable means by which the minor‘s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor‘s parent‘s . . . physical custody.” (
” ‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court‘s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Jurisdictional and Dispositional Orders
The history of domestic violence between mother and father that DCFS outlined for the juvenile court spanned for the entire duration of their marriage. Mother and father were married in 2015. That same year, mother stabbed father and was arrested for domestic violence and resisting an executive officer. She completed a 52-week domestic violence course as part of her sentence. Nevertheless, violence persisted between mother and father. When police responded to the domestic violence call at the parents’ home on February 1, 2020, the responding officers located records of an additional three domestic violence incidents between the couple. DCFS provided the juvenile court with evidence that father had received a criminal protective order—later modified to be a peaceful contact order—to protect against mother. And it appears on the face of the record that mother had also received a domestic violence court order against father at some point: “In January 2019[,] father was charged with violating a court order to prevent domestic violence.”
DCFS‘s investigation revealed that the parents had their violent altercations in the presence of the children. Although their testimony differs as to the timing of his presence, both father and Nathan reported that Nathan was present during different times of the parents’ fight on February 1, 2020. The parents’ fights were pervasive enough that the paternal grandmother and grandfather worried for the children‘s wellbeing.
Mother relies heavily on her participation in services after the juvenile court detained the children as evidence that jurisdiction and disposition are inappropriate. While we need not consider evidence that does not support the juvenile court‘s orders, we reject mother‘s contention. Mother had the benefit of a 52-week domestic violence course resulting from her stabbing father in
Nor are the juvenile court‘s findings the product of speculation simply because DCFS has not identified exactly how the children could be injured in another of mother and father‘s serial domestic violence incidents, particularly given that several of them involved severe forms of violence (such as stabbing and pushing someone down stairs).
This record provides substantial evidence to support both (1) the court‘s jurisdictional finding by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the parents’ ongoing domestic violence issues created a substantial risk that the children would suffer physical harm under
Finally, substantial evidence supports that there existed no reasonable means of protecting the children other than removing them from mother. As we outline above, the record contains evidence that mother failed—over the course of many years—to comply with court-ordered restrictions and refrain from domestic violence with father, as well as evidence that completing a domestic violence training program did not stop her domestic violence with father, and that mother was initially evasive and uncooperative with DCFS. The court could reasonably infer from this record that a combination of services and monitoring that might, under different circumstances, provide a viable alternative to removal, would not sufficiently protect the children in this case.
The juvenile court‘s jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
FEDERMAN, J.*
* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.