In re Thomas L.
Filed 1/30/14
In re Thomas L. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re THOMAS L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
STANISLAUS
COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
VANESSA L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F067285
(Super. Ct. No. 516562)
THE COURT
APPEAL
from orders of the Superior Court of
Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral,
Judge.
Merrill
Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John
P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie
M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Vanessa
L. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional
order. She challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence upon which the juvenile
court ordered her nine-year-old son, Thomas, detained and subsequently
removed from her physical custody at the dispositional hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.)
orders must be reversed because there was no evidence Thomas was at risk in her
care and there were less restrictive alternatives to removal. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Vanessa
is the mother of nine-year-old Thomas, the subject of this appeal. She is also the stepmother of 14-year-old
Alexander, the son of her husband, and Thomas’s father, Fernando. Dora, Fernando’s ex-girlfriend, is Alexander’s
mother.
These dependency
proceedings were initiated as to Thomas in January 2013. However, because Thomas’s detention and
removal stems from Vanessa and Fernando’s mistreatment of Alexander, we incorporate
Alexander’s history into our summary of the case.
Fernando
has a history of domestic violence referrals beginning in 2000 in Santa Clara
County. In March 2000, Dora reported
multiple incidents of domestic violence in which Fernando assaulted her,
striking her head, stomach, chest, back and legs with his fists. At the time, Alexander was 11 months old and Fernando
and Dora shared custody of him. There
were two additional reports of domestic violence in 2000 stemming from
arguments Fernando and Dora had while exchanging custody of Alexander.
When
Alexander was five years old, he was removed from Dora’s custody and placed
with Fernando who was granted full custody of him. By that time, Fernando was involved with Vanessa
and Thomas was an infant.
In November
2005, eight months after Alexander was placed with Fernando, the Stanislaus
County Community Services Agency (agency) received a report that Vanessa hit Alexander
in the face because he “got his numbers wrong.â€
Alexander had facial bruising, a cut lip and a bloody nose. Alexander stated that he knew Vanessa did not
like him because she was mean to him, but said he loved her. Fernando begged the agency not to place
Alexander in foster care and said he would keep Alexander out of the home until
the next day. Vanessa denied hitting
Alexander and said that then two-year-old Thomas hit him. Vanessa and Fernando agreed to participate in
family maintenance services.
By late February
2006, Fernando and Vanessa had made an appointment for parenting classes, and
the agency reported she and father were following their case plan. At the same time, however, the agency
received a report that then six-year-old Alexander was found wandering in the
street. Over the ensuing five months,
the social worker had monthly contact with the family except for March and May
when the social worker attempted home visits but no one answered the door. When the social worker saw Alexander and
Thomas, they appeared healthy and clean.
In July 2006, the social worker asked Vanessa if she wanted to continue
receiving family maintenance services and she said she did not. The social worker closed their case because
the children appeared safe and the parents were not willing to cooperate. In May of that year, Alexander stated in
class that he was angry and wanted to kill himself.
In January 2008,
the agency received a report that Vanessa made Alexander stand outside naked because
he got in trouble. Vanessa denied the
allegation. She said Alexander had been
in school counseling since he lived with them, but that she cancelled it the
year before because it was not helping.
The social worker explained that Alexander may benefit from a private
counselor and asked Vanessa how she felt about medication if it was
recommended. She said she was
opposed. Fernando, however, became very
emotional and said he would allow Alexander to try medication if a counselor
recommended it. About a week later,
Fernando told the social
worker Alexander revised his story that Vanessa made him stand outside naked. Alexander told Fernando he defecated in his
pants and Vanessa made him strip off his clothes in the entry way of the
home. The tile in the entry way was cold
and that made him angry at her. Fernando
said he was interested in counseling for Alexander and an assessment to
determine if he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The agency determined Alexander’s allegation
was unfounded and did not pursue it.
In July 2009,
while staying with Dora in Sunnyvale, Alexander reported that Vanessa slapped
him on the right side of the face causing bruises and pinched him on the legs
causing them to bleed. He said he was
afraid of Vanessa and did not want to return to his father’s house. He did, however, return and was interviewed
by a social worker from the agency. Alexander
said he had not seen Dora since he was in kindergarten and he was excited to
see her. However, she questioned him
about how Vanessa and Fernando treated him, asking whether Vanessa hit him and
whether they hurt him. Alexander emphatically
denied that Vanessa and Fernando hit him.
He said they disciplined him by restricting him, taking away privileges
and/or spanking him. According to the
social worker Alexander and Thomas presented as healthy, intelligent boys. The social worker believed that Alexander may
have been encouraged to change his story, but also found Dora’s behavior
suspect. The agency was unable to
substantiate the physical abuse allegation.
In December
2009, Alexander reported at school that he wished he were dead, that Fernando
did not give him dinner the night before or breakfast that morning, and that Fernando
punched him in the arm and stomach. Alexander, however, did not have any bruises
and did not appear afraid of his father.
In March 2011,
the agency received a referral that Thomas, then six years old, returned to
school after three days of absence with a swollen and bruised ear. Thomas said that he and Fernando were playing
when Fernando got mad and kicked him in the face, knocking him into the dresser. Fernando and Vanessa said the family was
wrestling and Fernando accidentally kicked Thomas in the head, sending him into
the dresser. The agency concluded
Fernando did not physically abuse Thomas and the family agreed to modify their
wrestling activities.
In January 2012,
Fernando and Vanessa told a mandated reporter that they threatened to beat
Alexander until he was “black and blue.â€
They did not allow him to sleep on a mattress because he urinated on it or
to eat in the school cafeteria as punishment for misbehavior. The agency did not intervene because
Alexander did not report he was hungry and because he, Vanessa and father were
in counseling.
In March 2012, the
agency received reports that Vanessa had removed Alexander’s bed and carpet,
and he slept naked on the floor with two sheets. The carpet was removed because Alexander
defecated and urinated on the floor deliberately. Alexander disclosed that he was not fed at
home for several days in a row and not permitted to eat at school. He was made to wear soiled clothes for
several weeks and not allowed to change his soiled underwear. In addition, Alexander had to run back and
forth to school, and he was hit and pushed at home. He was allowed six minutes to arrive home
after school. Once he arrived, he was
locked in his room and had to call for bathroom breaks and dinner. Alexander was told he was going to be sent to
a foster home and feared for his safety.
He appeared underweight and had been diagnosed with attachment
disorder. He was participating in
counseling but father and Vanessa were not.
Thomas stated
Fernando and Vanessa disciplined him by making him stand next to a wall without
his hands touching the wall. He was also
yelled at, sent to his room, spanked with a spoon on his bottom, punched in the
stomach and had things taken away. He
said Alexander got in trouble a lot for stealing and was locked in his bedroom
at night for watching the family sleep or stealing food. He said Alexander was not allowed to eat
breakfast because he was “bad.â€
Alexander was also “bad†according to Thomas because he stole food.
Vanessa said
that Alexander had “lots of issues†and had been seeing a counselor and
psychiatrist since 2006. She said he was
defiant and thought he was the boss. Fernando
and Vanessa said Alexander was aggressive toward Thomas. They placed a lock on Alexander’s bedroom
door because he stood and watched them sleep and tried to suffocate Thomas with
a pillow when Thomas was two or three years old. They limited Alexander to two outfits in his
bedroom because he urinated and used his clothing to wipe up his feces. They did not feed him breakfast because he
refused to take the trash out. They were
frustrated by Alexander’s inappropriate behavior, did not believe their
discipline worked anymore and wanted help.
The social
worker helped the family develop a verbal contract with Alexander and he
responded well for several days, but then resumed urinating in his clothing. In April, Fernando told Alexander to pack his
belongings and not return to the home after school. Alexander reported at school that he had
nowhere to go and was scared and sad.
Fernando told
the social worker he needed a break and asked her to place Alexander somewhere
else. The social worker explored a
temporary placement, but determined that Alexander’s behavior was too severe
and would be a threat to staff and other clients. Not long after, the family began receiving
home-based services to address the situation.
By May, father
and Vanessa were no longer giving Alexander sheets. He was not allowed to sit on the furniture or
wear clothes.
In May 2012, Alexander
was evaluated by psychologist James A. Wakefield, Jr. who reported Dora exposed
Alexander to drugs prenatally and then to her drug use in the home until he was
five years old. Subsequently, Fernando exposed
him to inappropriate punishment. As a
result, Alexander retaliated through enuresis, encopresis and feces smearing. Dr. Wakefield further reported that Alexander
was of average intelligence and was not having behavioral or academic problems
at school. However, he opined that
Alexander was emotionally disturbed and had been so for a long time. He said Alexander was engaged in a power
struggle with his parents and he was not controlled by punishment. Dr. Wakefield diagnosed Alexander with
schizoaffective disorder and reactive attachment disorder, recommended
continuing counseling, and suggested Fernando take over as the primary disciplinarian.
In July 2012,
social worker Julian Wren reported that Fernando and Vanessa refused to let
Alexander participate in treatment as suggested by the family’s counselor. Vanessa said she was participating in
treatment but that it did not work. She
referred to Alexander as a “lying ass.â€
Wren further reported that after Alexander fulfilled a goal, Vanessa
increased her expectations and consequences, and Fernando used punishment to
humiliate Alexander. Wren stated Fernando
and Vanessa “shut down every avenue the family’s counselor suggested to
decrease Alexander’s target behaviors†and when Fernando was asked to
participate in treatment, he declined to do so.
In September
2012, Vanessa and Fernando agreed to participate in family maintenance services. However, they refused to sign a case plan
that included Thomas. Consequently, in
November 2012, the agency closed their case.
In January 2013,
the agency received a report that Vanessa burned Alexander’s wrist. Alexander said she held his hand over a hot
pan and burned his wrist. The day
before, she hit him on the hand with a baseball bat for taking a pen.
An agency social
worker took then 13-year-old Alexander into protective custody and a police
officer arrested Fernando for child endangerment after seeing the condition of
Alexander’s room and interviewing Fernando.
The agency
placed Alexander in foster care and filed a dependency petition alleging he was
a minor described under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (c)
(serious emotional damage) and (i) (cruelty).
During the
investigation, Thomas described how he and Alexander were treated differently
in the home. Thomas said sometimes
Alexander only ate a cheese sandwich while the rest of the family ate chicken,
vegetables and potatoes. He said
Alexander was locked in his room while the rest of the family went on outings
and for Christmas Thomas received games and toys while Alexander received an
empty box with a note from Santa Claus telling him he was too bad to receive
presents. Thomas said he also wet the
bed but did not get into trouble. Thomas
let Alexander out of his room at night so he could go to the bathroom and took
him back to his (Alexander’s) bedroom.
Alexander was
also interviewed. He admitted having an
anger problem and easily angered if he did not get his way. Once, he punched Fernando in the stomach because
Fernando was trying to force him outside the house when it was cold and
dark. He had pushed and socked Thomas in
the past, and bit Vanessa once when she would not let him go. As to punishment he received, he remembered
an occasion when he was picking up his clothes and Vanessa got mad at him. She choked him and he blacked out for about
30 seconds. When he regained
consciousness, everything was spinning and he was cold inside.
Vanessa denied hitting
Alexander on the head with a pan. She
said he made that up because he was in trouble for threatening to stab some
girls at school. As for the burn on his
wrist, she explained she and Alexander were making enchiladas. Alexander was stirring the sauce and it “poppedâ€
and splashed on her and Alexander. She
said her burns healed but Alexander’s did not because he picked at them. She showed the detective the pan they
used. He compared the edge of the pan
with the images taken of Alexander’s burn scar and determined they were a good
match. The detective arrested Vanessa
for child endangerment. She was
subsequently charged in addition with inflicting injury upon a child.
Approximately a
week after removing Alexander, the agency took then eight-year-old Thomas into
protective custody out of concern that he was exposed to the emotional abuse
inflicted upon Alexander. The agency
filed a dependency petition alleging that Thomas was described under section
300, subdivisions (b) and (j) (abuse of sibling). Thomas was also placed in foster care.
The juvenile
court ordered Alexander and Thomas detained and set their
jurisdictional/dispositional hearings (combined hearings) in February
2013.
After a month in
foster care, Alexander was no longer smearing feces and defecating and
urinating in his clothes and bedding. He
said he felt safe and loved and was doing well in school.
In its report
for the combined hearing as to Alexander, the agency recommended the juvenile
court use caution in considering Dr. Wakefield’s psychological evaluation of
Alexander since much of the background information was provided by Fernando and
Vanessa. The agency recommended the
juvenile court offer Dora reunification services but deny them to Fernando.
In its report
for the combined hearing as to Thomas, the agency recommended the juvenile
court adjudge Thomas a dependent child, remove him from Fernando and Vanessa’s
custody, and order reunification services for them. The agency believed Thomas’s removal was
necessary to prevent Fernando and Vanessa from physically abusing and
neglecting him as they did Alexander, and from involving Thomas in Alexander’s
abuse. In order to safely return Thomas
to his parents, the agency believed Fernando and Vanessa needed to stop blaming
Alexander for the family situation and acknowledge their parenting errors
through intensive counseling and parenting services.
The juvenile
court set a contested combined hearing for April 2013. Meanwhile, the agency placed Thomas with a relative. The agency reported Fernando completed a drug
and alcohol assessment but did not require substance abuse treatment. In addition, he and Vanessa completed a
clinical assessment with Amy Coleman, a marriage and family therapist intern, who
recommended they participate in individual counseling. In addition, they participated in parenting
classes and individual parenting sessions but it was too soon to assess their
progress. They regularly visited Thomas
and all three were sad and cried at the end of visits.
The agency advised
the juvenile court that despite Fernando and Vanessa’s progress, they did not
recognize they subjected Alexander to emotional cruelty and exposed Thomas to
it. Until they did so, the agency could
not recommend family maintenance services.
In April 2013,
the juvenile court conducted a contested combined hearing as to Alexander and
Thomas. Ms. Coleman testified Fernando and
Vanessa were participating in individual parenting sessions with her. Fernando and Vanessa believed Thomas was
removed from their custody in order to protect him from Alexander. They acknowledged treating Alexander
differently but only Fernando provided an explanation ─ he stated
Alexander and Thomas had different needs.
Ms. Coleman further
testified it was too early to determine if Fernando and Vanessa made progress
in their parenting services. There were
additional topics she planned to discuss with them such as their prior child
welfare history and their method of disciplining Alexander. Ms. Coleman declined to give an opinion as to
whether it was safe to return Thomas to Fernando and Vanessa’s custody,
explaining that it was beyond the scope of her professional duty.
Social worker
Sarah Hernandez testified concerning a risk assessment tool, the structured
decision-making (SDM), used by the agency to determine a parent’s risk level
with respect to a child. She testified that,
according to the results of Vanessa’s SDM assessment, Thomas was at high risk
for abuse.
The juvenile
court sustained the allegations in the petitions and ordered Alexander and
Thomas removed from parental custody, stating there was “extreme violence†in
the home for a “number of years†of which Alexander was a direct victim and
Thomas a victim by exposure. The
juvenile court ordered reunification services for Dora and Fernando as to
Alexander despite the agency’s recommendation to deny Fernando services. The juvenile court ordered reunification
services for Fernando and Vanessa as to Thomas.
This appeal ensued.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[2]
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence Supports the Detention Order
Vanessa contends the agency failed to
make reasonable efforts to prevent Thomas’s removal. Therefore, she further contends, the juvenile
court erred in ordering Thomas detained.
A
juvenile detention hearing is the first hearing conducted once a child has been
taken into temporary custody and a petition is filed with the juvenile court to
exercise its dependency jurisdiction. (§§
309; 319.) The juvenile court must order
the child’s release from custody unless a prima facie showing is made that the
child comes within section 300 (the grounds for jurisdiction), that continuance
in the parent’s home is contrary to the child’s welfare and, as relevant here, that
there is a substantial danger to the child’s physical health or the child is
suffering severe emotional damage and there are no reasonable means by which
the child’s physical or emotional health can be protected without removing the
child from the parent’s physical custody.
(§ 319, subd. (b).)
In
addition, the juvenile court must find the agency made reasonable efforts to
prevent or eliminate the need for the child’s removal from the home and there
are no services available that would prevent the need for further detention. If the juvenile court can return the child to
parental custody through the provision of services, it must do so. (§ 319, subd. (d)(1)-(2).)
Vanessa
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support this last finding. She argues the agency could have prevented
the need to detain Thomas by removing Alexander and providing services.
On
a challenge to the juvenile court’s findings and orders, appellant bears the
burden of affirmatively showing error on the record. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2
Cal.3d 557, 564.) We review the record
for substantial evidence, resolving all conflicts in favor of the court and
indulging in all legitimate inferences to uphold the court’s finding. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th
1373, 1378-1379.) On this record, we
conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s detention order.
Vanessa’s contention that Thomas’s
detention could have been avoided by removing Alexander presumes that Alexander
was the only person who endangered Thomas.
However, that is not the case. Vanessa
exposed Thomas to his brother’s physical abuse for years and made him an unwitting
participant. Undoubtedly, Thomas was
emotionally damaged as a result. In
addition, there was some evidence Thomas was inappropriately disciplined if not
physically abused himself. Consequently,
there is no reason to believe that simply removing Alexander from the home
would eliminate any danger to Thomas.
Further, the agency provided Vanessa
parenting instruction, individual counseling and home-based services prior to
Thomas’s detention. Vanessa admits
refusing these services, claiming they were ineffective. She does not, however, identify what other services
the agency could have offered that would have prevented Thomas’s removal. She, thus, failed to meet her burden.
We conclude the agency made
reasonable efforts to prevent Thomas’s detention and affirm the juvenile court’s
detention order.
II. Substantial
Evidence Supports the Removal Order
the dispositional hearing, ... there
is a statutory presumption that the child
will be returned to parental custody.†(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th
295, 308.) In order to remove a child
from parental custody, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing
evidence that removal is the only way to protect the physical or emotional
well-being of the child. (§ 361, subd.
(c)(1).) The juvenile court must also
determine reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the
child’s removal. (§ 361, subd.
(d).)
Section
361, subdivision (c), the governing statute, provides in relevant part:
“A dependent child may not be
taken from the physical custody of his or her parents ... with whom the child
resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds
clear and convincing evidence ...: [¶] (1) [t]here is or would be a substantial
danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable
means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the
minor from the minor’s parent’s ... physical custody.â€
In
determining whether to order a child removed from parental custody, the
juvenile court is not required to find the child was harmed. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82
Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136, disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v.
Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.) The juvenile court only has to have some
reason to believe that circumstances which place the child at a substantial
risk of harm would continue in the future.
(In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824.) Thus, the purpose of the removal statute is
to avert harm to the child. (In re
Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536.)
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
on appeal, we look to the entire record to determine whether there is
substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass judgment on the credibility of
witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the
weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we
draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in
the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order
even if there is other evidence that would support a contrary finding. [Citation.] When the [juvenile court] makes findings by
the elevated standard of clear and convincing evidence, the substantial
evidence test remains the standard of review on appeal. [Citation.]
The appellant has the burden of showing that there is no evidence of a
sufficiently substantial nature to support the order. [Citations.]â€
(In re Cole C. (2009) 174
Cal.App.4th 900, 915-916.) In our view, Vanessa
failed to meet her burden.
Vanessa contends the agency failed to provide
reasonable counseling services between the detention and dispositional
hearings. Specifically, she faults the
agency because Thomas was not yet in counseling. She also faults the agency for referring her
to Ms. Coleman who she argues was not qualified to provide the level of
counseling she needed because she was an intern with little experience, and who
had yet to address her parenting of Alexander.
Vanessa fails, however, to show how the agency was responsible for any
delay in Thomas receiving therapy, that Ms. Coleman was not qualified to
counsel her and/or that Ms. Coleman’s failure to raise the issue of her
parenting of Alexander sooner rendered the quality of her counseling
inadequate. Most importantly, Vanessa
fails to show how any of the counseling discrepancies she alleges resulted in Thomas’s
removal at the dispositional hearing.
Vanessa
further contends there was insufficient evidence that
Thomas would be abused or neglected if returned to her custody. She points out she and Fernando have a good
relationship and there is no evidence of domestic violence, substance abuse or
mental illness. She also points out
that, unlike Alexander, Thomas does not have any problems that would trigger
family conflict. Thomas is healthy,
well-mannered and old enough to complain if he were abused or neglected.
Vanessa,
in essence, highlights favorable evidence to support her argument. However, there is substantial unfavorable
evidence that supports the juvenile court’s finding. Vanessa cruelly abused Alexander physically
and emotionally for eight years. It
began within eight months of his placement in the family. He responded by acting out and she
intensified the mistreatment. She either
resisted the agency’s efforts to treat Alexander and the family or stopped
participating. By the time Alexander was
finally removed, he was sleeping naked on a concrete floor in a locked bedroom
and denied food. To make matters worse,
Thomas had to lock his brother in his room so as to comply with the family
system. Given the cruelty and
persistence of Vanessa’s abuse, there is no reason to believe that Thomas would
not be targeted in a similar fashion if he were the only child in the home.
Vanessa cites this court to
(Hailey T.) for the proposition that
the abuse of one child does not justify the removal of the child’s sibling. (Id.
at pp. 147-148.) Hailey T., however, is distinguishable on a key point. In that case, a four month old sustained
bruising on and underneath his eye. He
and his three-year-old sister Hailey were removed from parental custody. The parents could not explain the injury and
a child abuse expert testified the injuries were nonaccidental and unlikely
inflicted by Hailey. The expert could
not tell if the injuries were sustained during a single or multiple
episodes. Another expert testified that
it was impossible to determine if the injuries were caused intentionally and
that they could have been caused by Hailey.
(Id. at pp. 142-144.)
The appellate court in
removal order, concluding there was insufficient evidence to order Hailey
removed from the home because there was no evidence of any abuse and the
evidence of abuse was disputed. (
In this case, there was ongoing child abuse.
Vanessa also contends “stringent
conditions of supervision†such as unannounced home visits were an alternative
to removal. We disagree. Even stringent conditions are not a viable
alternative to removal given evidence in this case strongly suggesting that
Vanessa and Fernando attempted to cover up and deny Alexander and Thomas’s
injuries. Notably, in March 2011, Fernando
and Vanessa kept Thomas out of school for three days because he had a swollen
and bruised ear. Thomas said Fernando
was angry and kicked him in the face.
Fernando and Vanessa said he was injured during rough wrestling. In addition, there is more than one instance
of Alexander alleging abuse only to deny it occurred, presumably after a conversation
with his parents. No amount of
supervision can protect a child in an abusive home if parents hide their
children’s injuries and prevent them from disclosing the abuse to authorities.
Finally,
Vanessa contends the juvenile court’s order removing Thomas served more to
punish her than to serve Thomas’s best interest given his strong desire to
return to her custody. For this
proposition, she cites In re B.T.
(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 685 (B.T.), also
factually distinguishable.
In B.T., the
juvenile court found the child was at risk of sexual abuse and neglect because
the child was the product of a sexual relationship between the mother, an
adult, and her neighbor’s minor son. (
having sexual relations with a minor, the mother in B.T.
had an exemplary track record of childrearing, had no prior criminal record,
there was no evidence of any past abuse of her other children, and there was no
evidence that her lapses in judgment would continue. (Id. at pp. 687,
692-693.) The Court of Appeal reversed the
juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding because there was no evidence the child
had been injured, and mother’s unlawful sexual relationship with a minor did
not constitute evidence that she would sexually abuse the child. (Id. at pp. 692-696.)
The Court of Appeal in B.T. did, however, find evidence of an effort to punish the mother
at the child’s expense which it found incongruent with dependency
proceedings. The court stated: “Juvenile
dependency proceedings … have a different focus: protecting children and
serving their best interests, not punishing the parent. [Citations.]â€
(B.T., supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 695.)
Unlike the mother in B.T., Vanessa does not
have an exemplary record of childrearing, but rather a significant history of child
abuse. Further, there is no evidence the
juvenile court’s decision to remove Thomas from Vanessa’s custody was motivated
by anything but serving Thomas’s best interest.
We find no error on this record and
affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional orders entered on April 19,
2013, are affirmed.
J.
Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
