In re N.V.
Filed 3/14/13 In re N.V. CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
In re N.V., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B243067
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTONIO V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK89260)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of
County.
Robert Stevenson, Judge.
Dismissed.
Lisa A.
Raneri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Antonio V.
(father) appeals from the judgment adjudicating his daughter, N.V., a dependent
child within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 subdivion
(b) and placing her with mother.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] We dismiss.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and father were not married
when N.V. was born in September 2008.
After N.V. was born, mother continued to live in an apartment with her
three brothers. Father lived elsewhere
but had keys to the apartment. On October 30, 2010, mother called
the police after she came home with N.V. at about 11:45 p.m. to find father in the apartment. When she refused to have sex with him, father
hit mother in the head with a metal wastebasket, then threw the wastebasket at
the television and knocked over a table with glass bottles on it, causing the
bottles to shatter on the floor. He then
fled the apartment. Mother did not
follow up on the officers’ suggestion that she obtain a restraining order
against father.
On July 7, 2011, police investigated an anonymous report that
N.V. had been sexually abused by a maternal uncle. Two days later, mother was arrested for
spousal abuse after father accused her of stabbing him with a kitchen
knife. On July 11, mother entered a
domestic violence shelter with N.V. The next day, police investigated mother’s
report that father had made criminal threats against her. That same day, July 12, the
(DCFS) received a referral alleging general neglect as well as physical and
sexual abuse of N.V. The social worker
responded to mother’s apartment and interviewed the apartment building’s
resident manager, who stated that mother had lived in the building with the
maternal uncles since October 2007; father visited occasionally but did not
live there; N.V. seemed happy and well cared for. The manager did not observe any evidence of
domestic violence but mother had asked to have the locks changed several times,
including the day before, because of “problems†with father.
The social worker returned to the
apartment building the next day and interviewed one of the maternal
uncles. The uncle stated that father had
taken N.V. out of school without mother’s permission the previous Friday and
then refused to return her. The uncle
also reported that there had been domestic violence in mother’s and father’s
relationship for a long time, but mother had been afraid to call the
police. The social worker interviewed
the other uncles a few days later. They
denied any sexual abuse and generally corroborated mother’s version of events. They were afraid of father and did not
believe mother was able to protect herself from him.
The social worker interviewed
mother at the domestic violence shelter a few days later. N.V. was clean, well groomed and had no marks
or bruises. During a tantrum, N.V. hit
her own head with her closed fists and pulled her own hair. Mother stated that she and father frequently
argued in the front seat of father’s car while N.V. was in the back seat either
awake or awakened by the arguing. On
these occasions father would intentionally drive erratically – at excessive
speeds and with sudden stops – causing N.V., who father never strapped into her
car seat, to flail around. Mother would
ask father to stop in order to strap in N.V. properly, but he always
refused. Mother accused father of
fabricating the sexual abuse allegation against her brother because mother
denied ever physically abusing N.V. or father.
Mother accused father of physically
and emotionally abusing her. She did not
go into a shelter after the October 2010 incident because she feared for the
safety of her brothers and mistakenly believed she could protect them from
father. Mother denied attacking father
with a knife. She explained that father
took N.V. from school that day and refused to return her. Later that night, father told mother he would
not return N.V. unless mother agreed to reconcile with him. Mother refused and when a patrol car drove
by, father ran to it. The next thing
mother knew, a second patrol car had arrived and she was arrested. Mother speculated that father had sustained
injuries at his job which he falsely blamed on her.
Father told the social worker that
although he was the resident manager of an apartment building, he lived with
mother. He accused mother of being the
aggressor in the domestic violence that occurred in their relationship.
N.V. was detained from mother on August 4, 2011, and placed with foster
parents. That same day, mutual stay-away
orders were issued against mother and father.
Father did not appear at the detention hearing on August 9, at
which he was found to be an alleged father.
Finding that DCFS had made a prima facie case for detaining N.V., the
juvenile court ordered no contact with father, and monitored visits for mother,
with DCFS discretion to place N.V. with mother.
Adjudication was continued numerous
times. Father appeared for the first
time at the continued hearing on October 6.
He represented that a Temporary Restraining Order had issued against
mother on July 14 with a return date of August 3, and that father had been
given full custody of N.V. The juvenile court granted mother’s request for a
temporary restraining order against father (except for monitored visits).
On November 15, mother was in
compliance with the reunification plan, and DCFS was recommending that N.V. be
declared a dependent child and placed with mother. At father’s request, the hearing was
continued, pending which N.V. was released to mother. By March 15, both parents were
participating in services. Over DCFS
objection, father was given unmonitored visits, with the exchange to occur at a
local police station. Adjudication was
continued to May 10. On May 10,
DCFS reported problems with father’s unmonitored visits. In particular, the people who transported
N.V. to the visits claimed that father threatened and intimidated them. In addition, father reported that N.V. said
mother had hit her; mother reported that N.V. had begun wetting the bed; father
threatened the social worker that he was going to speak to the news media about
his case; and father continued to blame mother for everything. The social worker believed father had not
benefitted from his domestic violence programs.
In a Last Minute Information For
Court Officer filed on July 20, DCFS recounted what it characterized as “some
bizarre behaviors†by father, including accusing maternal grandfather of being
a drug dealer in Mexico, mother of being a drug mule for maternal grandfather,
alleging that two men “from immigration†came to his home looking for mother,
and these same two men have been following father. According to DCFS, father said he had stopped
answering his phone because of various calls he had received: a woman called and told him the May 10 court
date had been canceled; and someone called father’s employer and accused father
of being a child molester but father would not give the social worker his
employer’s name or number.
At the July 20, 2012, contested adjudication hearing,
father testified that he was enrolled in a domestic violence batterer’s program
because of the court order, but denied there was any domestic violence in his
relationship with mother, including the incidents described in the
petition. He reiterated the claim that
mother attacked him with a knife on July 8,
2011, and that he called the police. Father denied ever driving erratically while
N.V. was a passenger in his car.
A., father’s daughter, recalled
that on July 8, 2011, she
went with father to drop off N.V. A. saw
mother poke at father with a knife and heard mother say she did not want
N.V. A. telephoned her brother to come
pick her up so that father could call the police. A. was not present when the police arrived
and never spoke to them. A. never saw
father being aggressive toward mother, and he was never aggressive toward
A. A. testified that she had been a
passenger in a car in which N.V. was seated in a car seat; father drove well
and A. was never afraid of his driving.
After finding that father and A.
were not credible, the juvenile court sustained two allegations in the
petition, one based on a history of domestic
violence and the other based on father placing N.V. in a detrimental and
endangering situation when he drove erratically with an unrestrained N.V. N.V. was placed with mother under DCFS
supervision, and family maintenance services were ordered for them. Father was given monitored visits and ordered
to participate in a 52 week domestic violence program, parenting program and
individual counseling.
Father timely appealed and we
appointed counsel to represent him.
After reviewing the record and juvenile court file and conferring with
trial counsel, appellate counsel filed a letter stating she could not find any
arguable issues for appeal. (
13 Cal.4th 952.) We sent a letter
to father telling him he could file a letter or brief raising any issues he
wished us to consider in his appeal.
Father submitted a letter asserting
that he did not do the things he was accused of doing. We understand this as a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional order but find no
merit to the challenge. Credibility
questions are exclusively the domain of the juvenile court, not this
court. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) As the court explained in
576, evidence of domestic violence in the same household where children are
living constitutes a failure to protect the children from the substantial risk
of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness
from it under section 300, subdivision (b). Here, there was ample evidence of domestic
violence between mother and father in N.V.’s presence, as well as dangerous
driving while N.V. was not restrained in a car seat. This evidence was sufficient to establish
dependency jurisdiction. We have
reviewed the appellate record and find no arguable issues on appeal. The matter is therefore dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
RUBIN,
J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW,
P. J.
GRIMES,
J.
future undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
