In re Prince T.
Filed 11/5/13 In re Prince T. CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
TWO
In re PRINCE T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law.
B247459
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK68029)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDREA P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from findings and an order of
the Superior Court
of
County. Timothy R. Saito, Judge. Reversed.
Marsha F. Levine, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Krattli, County
Counsel, and William D. Thetford,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________
Andrea P. (mother) and Wilson
T. (father) are the parents of Prince T. (Prince, born Feb. 2007), Savannah T. (Savannah, born July 2008), and Grant
T. (Grant, born Aug. 2010). The juvenile
court sustained allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivision (j),
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] against both parents and removed the children
from parental custody. Mother appeals,
arguing that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding is not supported by
substantial evidence. The
(DCFS) concedes that there was insufficient evidence to support the
jurisdictional finding by the juvenile court.
We agree with the parties that the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the jurisdictional
finding and the resulting dispositional findings and order.
Companion Case
Mother and
father were involved in a companion case with respect to the children’s
half-siblings, Jasmine T. (Jasmine) and D.T. (D.), father’s children by a
different mother. In that case, a
petition was filed in 2012 based on allegations that in 2007 mother had
physically abused Jasmine by striking and biting her face, causing a laceration
and bruises, and that father failed to take action to protect her. That petition was sustained in part and
dismissed in part.
On May 11, 2012, DCFS filed another
dependency petition in the companion case that alleged, among other things,
that mother had physically abused Jasmine by striking her nose with her fists,
inflicting a bleeding laceration to the child’s nose, and that mother
physically abused Jasmine on prior occasions by striking her and inflicting
welts, bruises, and marks to her body.
The petition further alleged that father knew of mother’s physical abuse
of Jasmine and failed to protect her. On
July 31, 2012, the juvenile
court sustained the physical abuse allegations, released Jasmine and D. to
their mother, and ordered that father’s visits with Jasmine and D. be
monitored.
Prior Petition on
Behalf of Prince, Savannah
In March
2012, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Prince, Savannah,
and Grant. The petition alleged domestic
violence between mother and father and that father suffered mental and
emotional problems, including a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. That petition was dismissed on July 31, 2012.
Instant Case
On August 6, 2012, DCFS filed the instant
section 300 petition on behalf of Prince, Savannah,
and Grant. The petition contained
allegations pursuant to subdivisions (b)
for detaining the children and set the matter for a pretrial resolution
conference and an adjudication hearing.
Mother and
father denied the allegations in the petition.
Regarding the allegation that mother had physically abused Jasmine,
mother and father explained that they had received services from DCFS, were
compliant, and that the matter had been resolved. DCFS confirmed the parents’ representations. Furthermore, as a result of mother’s negative
drug test on September 21, 2012,
DCFS was satisfied that mother was not a current abuser of marijuana.
Other
unrelated allegations of abuse and neglect were investigated and determined to
be unfounded.
After a few
hearings, on January 23, 2013,
the juvenile court sustained count j-1 of the petition and dismissed the
remaining counts. A contested
disposition hearing was set for February
11, 2013. At that hearing,
the social worker reported that DCFS had assessed the parents and recommended
that they receive unmonitored visits because “DCFS has no current evidence that
mother and father present a threat or danger to their children and because each
parent is equally vested in spending quality time with their children.â€
The
juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court and found that
there was a substantial danger to the children if they were returned home. Both parents were provided reunification
services; mother was granted monitored visitation; father was allowed unmonitored
visitation.
Appeal
Mother’s timely appeal
ensued.
I. Standard of Review
“When the sufficiency of
the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, the
reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is,
evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the
conclusion of the trier of fact.†(
552, 564.)
II. Analysis
Section 300, subdivision (j), provides, in relevant
part: “Any child who comes within any of
the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (j) The 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. The court shall
consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the 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.â€
“[S]ubdivision (j) has two
prongs: (1) that ‘[t]he child’s sibling
has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or
(i)’; and (2) ‘there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or
neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.’
[Citation.]†(
Here, as DCFS concedes,
there is no evidence that Prince, Savannah, and Grant are currently at
risk of being abused. The only evidence
before the juvenile court was that mother had physically abused Jasmine in 2012. But, DCFS acknowledged mother and father had
addressed all allegations raised in the petition in the companion case, by
complying with all services and resolving the issues that led to DCFS
involvement. Thus, there is no evidence
that these three children are at risk of being abused. (In re
Ricardo L., supra, 109
Cal.App.4th at p. 566; In re David
M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 832.)
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding must be reversed.
It follows that the
juvenile court’s removal order must be reversed as well. There is no evidence that the children were
at risk of harm. (See, e.g.,
367.)
The juvenile court’s findings
and order are reversed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
______________________________,
J.
ASHMANN-GERST
We concur:
_______________________________, P. J.
BOREN
_______________________________, J.
CHAVEZ
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
year history of illicit drug abuse and is a current abuser of marijuana which
renders the mother incapable of providing the children with regular care and supervision.†Count b-2 alleged mother’s prior physical
abuse of Jasmine.
