In
re Breanna Y.



















Filed 4/25/13
In re Breanna Y. CA2/1

>

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.











IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION ONE




>

In re BREANNA Y., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B243900 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK91396)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUSTIN Y., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Veronica McBeth, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Patricia K. Saucier, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel,
James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Melinda A. Green, Senior
Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Justin
Y. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders finding jurisdiction over
his daughter, Breanna Y., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivision (b),href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] based on father’s failure to
protect Breanna from risks of harm associated with the known mental illness of
the child’s mother. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral in mid-October
2011 alleging that then six-month-old Breanna was at substantial risk of abuse
and neglect after her mother, Cameron F. (mother) was placed on an involuntary
hold (§ 5150) after attempting suicide in front of father and Breanna. Mother (who is not a party to this appeal)
was diagnosed with major depression and hospitalized for a week. A police report, dated October 11, 2011,
indicates that mother had several cuts on one wrist, and admitted trying to
kill herself by ingesting several pills and cutting her wrist with a piece of
glass. The police interviewed father who
told them mother was depressed about a custody dispute over Breanna’s
half-siblings.

During its investigation DCFS
learned that Breanna’s parents had a history of domestic violence, including
one incident in which father was arrested.
In December 2011, DCFS presented the parents a voluntary case plan to
address issues related to their domestic violence problems and mother’s mental
health. At first, mother was irate and
refused to sign the case plan, but did so on January
4, 2012
with father’s encouragement.

Two days later, DCFS received a
message from Breanna’s maternal grandmother (grandmother) who was afraid mother
was having a “mental health breakdown.”
Grandmother said Breanna’s paternal grandfather (grandfather) had argued
with mother the evening before when taking her to her psychiatrist’s office,
and mother left with father and Breanna.
Father called grandmother later to say:
he and mother had argued when they got home, the police were called and
he had left Breanna with mother. At this
point, because father left Breanna with mother after the altercation, DCFS
determined circumstances had become “exigen[t] and the child would need to be
detained.”

DCFS contacted father who said the
parents had argued after mother threatened to leave him. During the argument, mother held Breanna in
one arm, using her other shoulder to push father away. Mother had screamed and called father
names. He had tried to calm her and
convince her to put the baby down; she refused.
Father barricaded himself in a bedroom and called grandfather, who
advised him to take Breanna and leave.
After several minutes, father heard mother leave. The police arrived soon thereafter. Father did not know mother had left Breanna
alone on a bed before leaving. The baby
woke up when the police began knocking.
Father said he and mother had argued all weekend. He believed she was so argumentative because
she stopped taking her medication. When asked why he had left Breanna with
mother if he believed she was aggressive and wasn’t taking her medication,
father said he had tried to share that information with the police, but they
had not listened. A police report, dated
January 5, 2012, recounted a response to a
family disturbance call at the parents’ home.
Father told the police he and mother had argued about her having an
affair, and he locked himself in a bedroom to prevent the argument from
escalating into domestic violence.
Mother pounded repeatedly on the door, yelling for him to come out and
was uncooperative with the police. The
police ultimately asked father to leave.
The baby stayed with mother.

Mother’s psychiatrist told DCFS that
mother had attended her appointments, but was not participating in her
treatment and refused to complete assigned tasks. When grandfather brought mother to her most
recent appointment, mother engaged in “extremely aggressive and argumentative,”
behavior she had not previously displayed.
Grandfather told the psychiatrist mother had stopped taking her
medication.

Mother denied having stopped taking her medication, and
told DCFS father was always the aggressor when they fought. Father told DCFS that mother was
argumentative and physically aggressive with him.

DCFS filed a section 300 petition on
January 11, 2012, alleging that Breanna was at
risk of harm due to the parents’ domestic violence, mother’s mental health
issues, and father’s failure to protect Breanna. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b).) Breanna was detained from mother and father,
each of whom received monitored visitation.

In connection with the subsequent
jurisdiction/disposition report, mother told DCFS she had filed href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">domestic violence charges against father
in 2010, after he punched her in the lip and “busted her teeth and mouth.” She was pregnant when this abuse
occurred. Father was arrested, but
mother declined to press charges. Father
apologized and both parents agreed to attend joint counseling. Neither parent completed domestic violence
counseling. A police report from October 21, 2010 stated that mother, then three months pregnant, said
father punched her face with a closed fist.
Mother’s nose was swollen, her top and bottom lips were “busted,” and
she had sustained bruising on her chest, arm and knee after father shoved her
to the floor the previous day. Mother
declined an emergency protective order.
Mother said she and father had another incident of domestic violence in
January 2012 that involved pushing.

Father admitted engaging in domestic
violence repeatedly during his relationship with mother. He hit her in the mouth, giving her a bloody
lip. He said he and mother were “‘pretty
aggressive with one another,’” and it had “‘gotten out of control.’” A relative of mother told DCFS that mother
“‘tends to be the aggressor’” in relationships.
Grandmother said mother had “anger management issues” and a significant
history of relationships involving domestic violence.

Mother told DCFS she was depressed
in October 2011 over a custody battle with the father of Breanna’s
half-siblings, and that pressure caused her to suffer a breakdown. She “‘couldn’t take it anymore,’” took an
herbal supplement and punched a mirror, cutting her wrist. In October, she was tested for Huntington’s
Disease (which is prevalent in her family), and began seeing a psychiatrist and
taking Prozac. Father denied any
awareness of mother’s mental health issues before her suicide attempt, although
he did say he had heard she had threatened to commit suicide in the past. He tried to prevent mother’s suicide attempt,
but she “ended up cutting herself and bleeding pretty bad.” Father took mother to her therapist one time.

Grandmother said mother suffered
from “‘severe mental illness.’” She
believed mother had always had mental health issues, and had become
increasingly violent towards herself and others after having children.

At a February 22, 2012 hearing, DCFS
was ordered to interview father and provide a supplemental report. DCFS was also given discretion to place
Breanna with father if mother moved out of the home. At some point in spring 2012, the parents
enrolled in couples counseling, and signed up for individual counseling,
parenting and domestic violence programs.

In mid-March 2012, DCFS reported
that mother was not receiving psychiatric care and had canceled all
appointments with her psychiatrist. By May 24, 2012, mother had returned to her
psychiatrist and was taking her medication.
The parents were attending domestic violence and parenting programs, and
had begun marriage counseling. Their
couples counselor, unaware of the case history or mother’s clinical diagnosis,
wrote a letter stating the parents had a “very strong marriage.”

The adjudication hearing transpired
on July 5, 2012. Both parents pleaded no
contest to count b-1, which alleged Breanna was at risk of harm because of
domestic violence between the parents.
Mother also pleaded no contest to count b-2, alleging that Breanna was
at risk of harm due to mother’s mental and emotional problems and that father
failed to protect Breanna from mother’s mental illness. Father argued that count b-2 should be
dismissed. The juvenile court sustained
the petition under section 300, subdivision (b) as to both counts.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
Breanna was declared a dependent of the juvenile court, and ordered
suitably placed with a relative. Father
was given monitored visitation, and ordered to participate in a domestic
violence program and counseling. He
appeals from one jurisdictional finding.

DISCUSSION

Father’s sole contention on appeal
is that the juvenile court erred when it found Breanna was at risk because he
was aware of mother’s mental health and emotional problems, but failed to
protect his child. DCFS asserts that
father’s appeal lacks merit because he has not identified any specific
potential impact from the jurisdictional finding at issue, and his assertion that
the finding might harm future dependency or family law proceedings is too
speculative. DCFS also argues that, in
the event we address the merits of father’s assertion, substantial evidence
supports the juvenile court’s findings.
DCFS’s second assertion is well-taken.

1. Father’s jurisdictional challenge is not moot.

DCFS maintains that we need not
review father’s argument that there is insufficient evidence to support the
juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that Breanna was at risk because father
was aware of but failed to protect the child from risks posed by mother’s
mental illness. The agency insists the
issue is moot because father does not challenge the assertion of dependency
court jurisdiction over Breanna as to him on the domestic violence count, and
mother has not joined this appeal.

Further, DCFS argues that father’s contention that he may
suffer future harm is speculative and that, even if his evidentiary challenge
is successful, it will not change Breanna’s status as a dependent child. (See In
re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1494–1495 [concluding that
jurisdictional findings must be predicated on current conditions, not potential
future harm]; In re Alexis E. (2009)
171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [appellate court may opt to affirm jurisdictional
findings if substantial evidence supports any alleged statutory basis].) We recognize that we have the discretion to
do so, but decline to refrain from addressing the merits of father’s appeal.

An erroneous jurisdictional finding
could potentially impact father’s parental rights in this or future dependency
proceedings. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762–763; >In re D.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1010,
1015.) Further, “refusal to address such
jurisdictional errors on appeal . . . has the undesirable result of insulating
erroneous or arbitrary rulings from review.”
(In re Joshua C. (1994) 24
Cal.App.4th 1544, 1548.) For these
important reasons, although dependency jurisdiction over Breanna remains in
place regardless of the merit of father’s substantive assertions because the
remaining findings based on the parents’ domestic violence and mother’s conduct
are unchallenged, we review father’s appeal on the merits.

2. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings.

“‘“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. [Citation.] In making this determination, all conflicts
[in the evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence] are to be
resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of fact and credibility
are questions for the trier of fact.
[Citations.]”’” (>In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th
1251, 1258–1259.)

“‘A jurisdictional finding under
section 300, subdivision (b) requires:
“‘(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms;
(2) causation; and (3) “serious physical harm or illness” to the child, or a
“substantial risk” of such harm or illness.’
[Citation.]” [Citations.]’” (In re
Precious D., supra,> 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1259.) DCFS bears the burden at the jurisdictional
hearing to prove these elements by a preponderance of evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a).) “The appellant [bears] the burden to
demonstrate there is [insufficient] evidence . . . to
support the [juvenile court’s] findings.”
(In re Jordan R. (2012) 205
Cal.App.4th 111, 136.)

Father maintains there is
insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding on
count b-2, that he “knew of mother’s mental and emotional problems and failed
to protect [Breanna].” We disagree.

Mother was placed on an involuntary
hold for a week in October 2011 after admitting to the police she tried to kill
herself by ingesting pills and cutting her wrists. Father understood at the time that mother was
very depressed. While hospitalized,
mother was diagnosed with major depression.

Several months later, both parents
agreed to a plan proposed by DCFS to address mother’s mental health problems
and the parents’ domestic violence issues.
But mother’s mental health worsened significantly shortly after that
case plan was signed. Father and Breanna’s
grandparents all believed that mother had stopped taking her medication, and
mother’s family thought she was undergoing a “breakdown.” Mother’s psychiatrist said mother had been
displaying uncharacteristically and “extremely aggressive and argumentative”
behavior.

It was at this time, and after a
weekend of arguments, that father and mother had a particularly ferocious
dispute. During that argument, mother
held Breanna in one arm, and pushed father with the other, refusing to put the
baby down. The dispute became very
heated and father barricaded himself away from the child and mother. While he was inside the barricaded room,
mother continued yelling at father and pounding on the door. Eventually, she left the house, leaving the
infant unattended on a bed while father remained in the barricaded room until
the police arrived. Despite mother’s
extremely aggressive and volatile emotional state, and his fear that she was
off her medication, father left Breanna in mother’s care.

On these facts, we conclude that
ample evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that father was aware of
mother’s emotional and mental health problems, and failed to protect Breanna by
leaving her alone with mother, thereby placing the child at risk of harm.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



JOHNSON,
J.

We
concur:

ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.



CHANEY, J.