In re T.D.
Filed 1/8/08 In re T.D. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re T. D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON D. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G038899 (Super. Ct. Nos. DP015213, O P I N I O N |
Appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary L. Vincent, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ramon D.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Natalie S.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Alexandra G. Morgan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minors.
* * *
Introduction
The juvenile court entered an order making the three young daughters of Natalie S. (mother) and Ramon D. (father) dependents of the court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (g). (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother and father appeal the jurisdiction order. We affirm. There was sufficient evidence supporting the juvenile courts findings that the children were at a substantial risk of harm or of sexual abuse. Mother and father had been arrested for kidnapping and committing lewd acts on a 15‑year‑old female neighbor. The maternal grandfather, who had sexually abused mother when she was a young girl, was living with the family.
Statement of Facts and Procedural History
In April 2007, mother and father were arrested on charges of kidnapping, inducing consent to a sexual act by fraud or fear, committing lewd acts on a child, and procurement of a child under age 16 for lewd or lascivious acts. Mother and father were accused of having held a 15‑year‑old female neighbor captive in their home for two and a half weeks and threatening her life so that father and mother could engage in sexual acts with her. Mother and father were incarcerated and each held on $1 million bail.
Mother and fathers three daughters, then ages seven, three, and one and a half, were taken into protective custody by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA). SSA filed a dependency petition, which alleged the children were within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (d) (substantial risk of sexual abuse), and (g) (no provision for support). In addition to the allegations of sexual abuse against the neighbor, the juvenile dependency petition alleged mother had been sexually abused by her own father as a child, yet was allowing her children to live in the same home as the maternal grandfather, placing the children at risk of sexual abuse. The children were placed with their paternal uncle and aunt.
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the parties stipulated to amend the dependency petition by interlineation. Mother and father pleaded nolo contendre to the amended petition, except as to the section 300, subdivision (d) allegations regarding the risk of sexual abuse. The juvenile court heard argument on the section 300, subdivision (d) allegations, and then found all allegations in the amended petition true by a preponderance of the evidence. I cannot remember the time in which I have seen a case that involved both parents in admittedly illegal and despicable and reprehensible behavior. You would wonder what in the world are they capable of next. [] I just fail to see how an argument can stand that would ask the court to wash away this in its entirety. These parents appear to be capable of potentially anything. And just because nothing has happened to their kids doesnt mean something will or wouldnt. [] . . . [] . . . This crossed a huge line and showed an incredible lack of judgment or at least extremely poor judgment. My opinion, it showed no judgment. [] . . . [] In any case I believe the children are clearly at risk here. Its hard to understand the length and depth and full parameters of the parents disposition mentally at this time. Certainly, the best thing to protect these children and, frankly, the only way to ensure that there could be a reuniting of the parents with the children is to deal with this issue. This issue clearly involves thee [sic] children, and they are at risk because of what the parents have done.
The court then declared the children to be dependents of the juvenile court, and vested custody of them with SSA. Mother and father separately appealed from the jurisdictional order.
Discussion
SSA initially argues mother and father cannot challenge the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings because they pleaded nolo contendre to at least some of the allegations of the amended petition. In In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1181, the California Supreme Court concluded that by admitting to or pleading no contest to the allegations in a juvenile dependency petition, the parent waives the right to challenge the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings. A plea of no contest to allegations under section 300 at a jurisdiction hearing admits all matters essential to the courts jurisdiction over the minor. Accordingly, by their knowing and voluntary acquiescence to the allegations of the petition, parents waived their right to challenge on appeal the legal applicability of section 300[, subdivision ](e) to their conduct. (Ibid.)
The California Rules of Court require that, when a parent makes a plea of no contest in a juvenile proceeding, the juvenile court must make various findings as to the parents knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to trial on the jurisdictional findings, as well as whether the no contest plea is freely and voluntarily made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.682(f)(3), (4), (5).) The record on appeal in this case contains no findings by the juvenile court pursuant to rule 5.682(f). Based on such a record, we cannot conclude mother and father waived their rights to challenge the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings on appeal.
We review the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings for sufficiency of the evidence. (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828.) We may affirm the juvenile courts jurisdictional order if the evidence supports its decision under any one of the three subdivisions of section 300 found true by the juvenile court. (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875.)
Both mother and father argue that because the children had not been sexually abused, did not witness the sexual acts committed by mother and father against the 15‑year‑old neighbor, and were much younger than the neighbor, the juvenile court should not have made the jurisdictional findings. We strongly disagree. Section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d) require evidence of a substantial risk of harm or of sexual abuse. SSA made the required showing in this case. The evidence supported the juvenile courts findings that the conduct of mother and father was despicable and reprehensible. Mother and fathers callous and depraved acts toward a young girl, whom they had known for most of her life, could lead to a reasonable inference they would commit depraved acts against their own children, or permit others to do so. The law does not require the children to be protected be identical in terms of age or even sex as another person who has been abused. In In re Karen R. (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 84, 90‑91, the appellate court concluded a parents incestuous rape of his minor daughter was so sexually aberrant that both male and female siblings of the victim are at substantial risk of sexual abuse. Similarly, here mother and fathers complicity in committing forcible sexual acts against a 15‑year‑old friend of the family, while essentially holding her captive for more than two weeks, is so depraved and aberrant that the juvenile court was justified in finding mother and fathers own children, although younger, were at substantial risk of sexual abuse.
The juvenile court could also find the sexual abuse committed by mother and father against a neighbor and friend could cause harm to the children in other ways. In In re Rubisela E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 177, 198, the court concluded: Brothers can be harmed by the knowledge that a parent has so abused the trust of their sister. They can even be harmed by the denial of the perpetrator, the spouses acquiescence in the denial, or their parents efforts to embrace them in a web of denial. Mother and father have been arrested and incarcerated for kidnapping a young neighbor and forcing her to engage in sexual acts with them. It would be reasonable for the juvenile court to conclude the children would suffer harm due to their parents actions, even when those actions were directed toward a nonfamily member.
Additionally, mother admitted her own father had begun sexually abusing her when she was eight years old. The maternal grandfather lived in the same home with mother, father, and their children. Mother and fathers oldest daughter was seven years old at the time mother and father were arrested. The juvenile court could reasonably infer that the children were at a substantial risk of sexual abuse by their maternal grandfather, who had a history of committing such acts against young female relatives near them in age. The court could further infer that mother and father, given their own history of illegal, depraved sexual conduct, would be incapable of preventing any abuse by the maternal grandfather, or would be unwilling to do so.
Because we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile courts findings regarding section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), we need not consider whether the subdivision (g) allegation was also supported by substantial evidence. (In re Jonathan B., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 875.)
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
FYBEL, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
ARONSON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.