In re Isaiah D.
Filed 2/6/13 In re Isaiah D. CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 FOUR
In
re ISAIAH D., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B240538
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK63509)
LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NANCY
D.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Timothy R. Saito, Judge. Affirmed.
M.
Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
John F.
Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Melinda
White-Svec, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________________
Appellant
Nancy D. appeals from the juvenile court order sustaining a dependency petition
under subdivisions (b) and (j) of Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300.
were persons described by section 300, but did not declare them dependents of
the court. Appellant contends there was
not substantial evidence to support the court’s findings. Respondent Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) cross-appeals the trial court’s dismissal of an allegation
under section 300, subdivision (a). We
affirm the court’s jurisdictional findings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Appellant
is the mother of Isaiah D. (born October 2003), E.R. (born March 2006), and
B.R. (born July 2008). In April 2006,
DCFS substantiated allegations of emotional abuse against appellant, and the
children were removed from the home. The
case was closed in December 2006.
Appellant has an extensive history with DCFS as a minor; she was placed
in DCFS custody when a juvenile court found her suicidal and a danger to her
siblings.
DCFS
received a referral in November 2011 alleging physical abuse of the children by
appellant. Isaiah recounted an incident
in which appellant became angry with him for urinating in appellant’s bed
during the night. Appellant told Isaiah
to extend his arms, and she hit him repeatedly with a metal-studded belt. Swelling and bruising were observed on his
arms. Isaiah stated that he was afraid
to go home and did not want to go with appellant. He stated that appellant also hits E.R. with
a belt.
Appellant
told a law enforcement officer she was
struggling to raise three children on her own.
Appellant stated that Isaiah had a history of wetting himself and that
she had just recently washed her bedding.
When she found the bed wet in the morning, she said she just “lost her
cool†and admitted hitting Isaiah.
Appellant further stated that the incident was not the first time she
had physically disciplined her children, but it was the first time she had ever
left a mark or bruises.
The
children were released to mother on December
15, 2012, and remained with her throughout the dependency
proceedings.
Appellant
told a DCFS social worker that she was frustrated with Isaiah’s urinary issue
and had sought help from counselors and doctors but nothing had helped. She expressed regret for her actions and
reported that she was actively participating in parenting classes and anger
management. She expressed how stressful
she found her life and her obligations as a single mother without proper
support from the fathers of her children.
Appellant agreed to participate in therapy with her children and to
complete her parenting and anger management classes. DCFS reported that it found appellant was
“diligently working on getting all the help she can for her children†and was
“dedicated to providing a safe home for her children.â€
DCFS filed
a dependency petition alleging each of the children comes within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b),
and that the two younger children, E.R. and B.R., also come within its
jurisdiction under subdivision (j). The
petition alleged appellant physically abused Isaiah by repeatedly striking him
with a studded belt, inflicting visible injuries. Appellant’s excessive abuse endangered
Isaiah’s physical health and safety, and placed the three children “at risk of
physical harm, damage, danger, and physical abuse.â€
An
adjudication hearing was held on February
24, 2012. DCFS submitted
their reports. Appellant submitted a
series of documents mainly related to the progress she and her children have
achieved since the incident. This
included a letter from a therapist at the Children’s Institute, Inc. The letter indicated that appellant and her
children had been dutifully attending their domestic violence group
meetings. The therapist stated appellant
was “making great efforts to change patterns that have been learned since she
was a young child herself.†However, the
therapist noted that “at times [appellant] appear[ed] overwhelmed due to the
lack of support she has from her family and the children’s fathers.†It was recommended that appellant and her
children continue to attend the group in order to avoid continuing the “cycle
of violence.†Appellant’s counsel argued
at the hearing that this was a one-time incident and there were no ongoing
concerns for the children’s safety. The
children’s counsel also urged the court to dismiss the petition, arguing this
was an isolated incident that did not indicate risk of future harm. Counsel for DCFS argued appellant inflicted
serious physical harm on Isaiah and that all three children were at risk of
future abuse. He urged the court to
sustain the allegations, but to leave the children in the home with appellant
so that she could complete the programs in which she was enrolled.
The court
found by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegation under section 300,
subdivision (a) should be dismissed, but those under subdivisions (b) and (j)
should be sustained as amended. The
court struck the phrase “physical abuse†from the allegations and replaced it
with “inappropriate physical discipline.â€
It based its findings on evidence from medical examinations, police
reports and statements from Isaiah and appellant. The court expressed its concern that
appellant continued to be frustrated with and overwhelmed by her duties as a
single parent. The court pointed to the
fact that the two younger children are reaching the same age as Isaiah was when
the incident occurred, and, while appellant was working toward improving her
conflict resolution skills, there was still a danger that this stress could be
manifested inappropriately, possibly resulting in further physical harm to the
children. The court declined to take
jurisdiction or to declare the children dependents of the court. Instead, it ordered services to be provided
to the family and a six-month period of DCFS supervision. (§ 360, subd. (b).) This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I
Appellant
contends there was no substantial evidence before the court to support the
finding that her children were individuals described by section 300. While she admits to inappropriately
disciplining Isaiah with a studded belt, she argues there is no evidence of any
future risk to the children.
We review a
juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for sufficiency of the evidence. (In re
S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1140.)
We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence before the court in
favor of its finding. (
“We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but
merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the
trial court.†(In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.)
In order
for a court to find jurisdiction over a child under section 300, subdivisions
(b) and (j), there must be sufficient evidence of conduct by the parent causing
physical harm or illness
to the child or putting the child at future risk of such harm. (See In
re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828-829.) “[A] single incident of harmful or
potentially harmful conduct may be sufficient, in a particular case, to
establish current risk depending upon present circumstances.†(In re
J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1026.)
Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of
future risk of harm to the three children.
Appellant
points to her cooperation with DCFS throughout the initial investigation and
through these proceedings. She argues
her documented participation in various programs and the positive reviews by
counselors indicate the physical abuse of Isaiah with a studded belt was a
one-time occurrence and that there was no current risk to any of the children
at the time of the hearing.
However, a
court’s finding will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if there is substantial evidence to support a contrary finding. (In re
Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 230.)
In stating its finding, the court identified factors it found troubling
despite appellant’s diligence. It
pointed to evidence of appellant’s continued struggle to overcome the stressors
of raising children alone and her feeling of being overwhelmed by the
task. The court indicated that it did
believe appellant was making progress, but found the circumstances still
presented a risk that appellant would be unable to control herself when future
stressors presented themselves. The
court was concerned that the physical harm inflicted on Isaiah could eventually
be turned on his siblings. These fears
find inferential support in a statement made by appellant in one of the DCFS
reports indicating that she had begun expressing frustration over “potty
training†issues with B.R., the same trigger for the inappropriate disciplining
of Isaiah. Although the allegations are
heavily based on a single incident, the nature and circumstances surrounding
that incident, along with the history of physical discipline, support the
court’s findings that a current risk of harm existed. (In re
J.N., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1026.)
We find the
evidence contained in the DCFS reports, the various letters from counselors and
appellant’s own statements adequately support the court’s findings.
II
DCFS
cross-appeals the order of the court dismissing the allegation in the petition
under section 300, subdivision (a). It
argues the single incident was sufficient to support a finding of jurisdiction
under that subdivision.
The same
dismissal of this count. (
We find the
evidence before the court was sufficient to support its conclusion that the
allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) were proven by a
preponderance of the evidence, but finding the record failed to support a
finding of jurisdiction under subdivision (a).
DISPOSITION
The
jurisdictional findings of the juvenile court are affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We
concur:
WILLHITE,
J. MANELLA,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory citations are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
