In re N.N. CA2/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 4/19/23 In re N.N. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule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 TWO
In re N.N. et al., Persons B318483
Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County
Court Law. Super. Ct.
No. 21CCJP03993A-C)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Martha A. Matthews, Judge. Affirmed.
Janette F. Cochran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford and David
Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
******
B.V. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional order that
resulted in the detention of N.N. (born March 2013), L.N. (born
March 2015), and J.R. (born April 2017).1 Mother argues the
evidence did not support the finding that the children were at
substantial risk of physical harm from domestic violence or
mother’s substance abuse, but mother does not address the other
basis for jurisdiction. We find substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prior referrals to DCFS in 2016 and 2019
On April 18, 2016, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging
emotional abuse and general neglect of N.N. and L.N. by mother
and their father, J.E. It was claimed that on April 15, 2016,
mother went to J.E.’s home to pick up the children when a fight
ensued and resulted in J.E. grabbing a knife and chasing mother
out of the house. J.E. was arrested by law enforcement. The
children were present and left alone in the home for an unknown
amount of time while J.E. and mother were outside.
1 N.N. and L.N.’s father is J.E. J.R.’s father is M.R. Neither
father is a part of this appeal.
2
Mother and J.E. stated their relationship had ended in
September 2015 after it became violent and J.E. had harmed
mother.
The claim of general neglect was substantiated for J.E., but
not against mother. The claim of emotional abuse was
inconclusive.
On March 13, 2019, DCFS received a new referral that
alleged mother had caused emotional abuse to N.N., L.N., and
J.R. The conduct, however, involved J.R.’s father, M.R. It was
claimed that mother came to M.R.’s apartment and vandalized
his cars. Law enforcement arrived, and while investigating, they
overheard mother admitting she had vandalized the cars and
wanted to hit M.R. with a car.
M.R. also reported a prior incident (March 11, 2019) of
domestic violence involving mother. This occurred when M.R.,
mother and the children went to dinner to celebrate N.N.’s
birthday. When M.R. advised mother he needed to leave because
it was late, mother became angry and started hitting M.R. in the
face. M.R. showed law enforcement his injuries.
Mother was arrested for felony vandalism and domestic
violence. N.N. and L.N. went to live with the maternal
grandmother and J.R. lived with M.R.
During the investigation, M.R. obtained a temporary
restraining order protecting him and J.R. from mother.
J.R. remained in M.R.’s care. Though mother had sole legal
custody of N.N. and L.N. through a family law order, mother left
them in the care of the maternal grandmother and maternal
aunt. DCFS found insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim
of emotional abuse and closed the case as inconclusive.
3
In 2020, there was a claim against J.E. for emotional abuse
and general neglect based on him attacking another driver while
the children were in his car. This incident did not involve mother.
Afterward, mother was granted full custody of the children, and
she obtained a three-year restraining order protecting her and
the children from J.E.
Criminal investigation of mother and fathers
Mother’s criminal history included infliction of corporal
injury to a spouse or cohabitant and making a criminal threat.
J.E.’s criminal history included criminal threats, possession of a
deadly weapon, a warrant for failure to appear, kidnapping, sex
with a minor, disorderly conduct, intoxication, infliction of
corporal injury on a spouse, receipt of stolen property, child
cruelty, violation of an order preventing domestic violence,
assault with a deadly weapon, driving with a suspended license,
battery, and reckless driving. The other father, M.R., had a
history of battery on a peace officer and emergency personnel,
disorderly conduct, intoxication, several acts of driving under the
influence, driving with a suspended license, giving false
information to a peace officer, and a hit and run while driving
under the influence of alcohol.
Current referral
On July 26, 2021, mother called police because M.R. had
struck mother with a metal marijuana grinder while J.R. was
present.
DCFS received a child abuse referral on the same date,
alleging that N.N. and L.N. were victims of emotional distress by
the father, M.R., and that J.R. had been present when M.R.
attacked mother.
4
On August 19, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the children
removed and placed with the maternal aunt.
On August 25, 2021, a petition was filed alleging the
children, N.N., L.N., and J.R., were within the court’s jurisdiction
based on Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions
(a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (j) (abuse
of sibling).2
The petition alleged a history of domestic violence between
mother and M.R. that endangered the children’s physical health
and safety. This included the July 26, 2021 incident when M.R.
struck mother with a metal marijuana grinder and nine prior
occasions when mother attacked M.R. or his mother (paternal
grandmother): (1) mother struck M.R. on March 20, 2021 with a
metal tool and broke three of his ribs, (2) mother threw a full
water bottle at M.R. on May 20, 2020, (3) mother struck M.R.’s
leg while it was in a cast in 2020, (4) mother attacked the
paternal grandmother when she intervened, (5) mother
vandalized M.R.’s vehicles with a knife on March 12, 2019, (6)
mother threatened to hit M.R. with a motor vehicle on March 12,
2019, (7) mother grabbed M.R.’s hair and scratched his face on
March 9, 2019, while the children were in the vehicle, (8) mother
repeatedly struck and scratched M.R. in January 2019, (9)
mother grabbed a knife with a serrated edge and lacerated M.R.
in September or October 2018, and (10) mother struck M.R. with
a vehicle on February 12, 2018.
2 All further unattributed statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
5
In addition, the petition alleged that M.R. had physically
abused L.N. by striking him with a clothes hanger. It added that
mother had failed to protect L.N. from M.R.
The petition alleged a failure to protect the children from
experiencing the violence in the household between mother and
M.R. under section 300, subdivision (b).It also alleged that
mother was incapable of ensuring the young children were
properly supervised due to her history of and current substance
abuse of both marijuana and alcohol. It alleged that M.R. also
abused alcohol while the children were in his care. Mother was
alleged not to have protected the children from the consequences
of this substance abuse.
The petition also included allegations that mother knew
that father, J.E., had violent tendencies, such as his attack on
another motorist with a hammer, and she had failed to protect
the children from his violent outbursts.
The petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (j) that
M.R. had physically abused L.N. by striking him with a hanger,
and there was a danger of abuse to the other siblings.
DCFS submitted a detention report and addendum report
on August 25, 2021,3 that included a summary of the July
incident when M.R. struck mother with the marijuana grinder.
DCFS recommended that the children be detained because
mother had a history of substance abuse, that she currently
abused marijuana and alcohol, M.R. had a history of substance
abuse, and J.E. had violent behavior. The detention report
3 The detention report and an addendum were omitted from
the clerk’s transcript. On October 14, 2022, counsel for mother
noted the omission and requested the reports be added to the
record under California Rules of Court, rule 8.407.
6
included the fact that when the investigator was meeting with
the mother at her home on July 30, 2021, M.R. tried to enter and
speak with the investigator, at which time mother began yelling
at M.R. and demanding he leave.
Mother admitted to the investigator she had been arrested
after vandalizing M.R.’s vehicle, that M.R. continued to visit the
children, and that there were four incidents of domestic violence
involving M.R. The children all told the investigator that M.R.
does not live with them, but visits and fights with mother. L.N.
stated that M.R. had hit him with a hanger and that “he hits us
when he drinks Papa juice.” J.R. said M.R. drinks a lot, beats on
the door all the time, and had hit him one time.
M.R. told the investigator that the incident was an accident
and that he had taken mother’s marijuana grinder to upset her
after she returned late from work. He added that he had a
complicated history with mother, and he had obtained custody of
J.R. after mother had vandalized his car and been arrested. He
also stated that a few months earlier, mother had beat him up
and broken three of his ribs. M.R. stated he had been living with
mother consistently for the past year and that he cares for the
children when mother is at work at night. He also reported
mother smoked marijuana daily and drank alcohol every morning
before falling asleep for the day. Father denied that “papa juice”
was alcohol and asserted it was “shakes” he made for himself and
the children.
The paternal grandmother told the investigator that she
was taking care of J.R. and that she wanted to care for him so he
could be safe. The paternal grandmother asked that her residence
be kept confidential because mother had threatened to kill her
and sent people to vandalize her property. The paternal
7
grandmother also stated that mother had shown up at M.R.’s
work and tried to run him over and then broke three of his ribs
when she hit him with a metal tool.
The investigator confirmed that mother was on probation
for the vandalism that occurred in 2019.
Detention hearing
A detention hearing was held on August 30, 2021. The
court found that J.E. was the presumed father of N.N. and L.N.
At a subsequent hearing on October 4, 2021, the court found M.R.
to be the presumed father of J.R. In addition, at the August 30,
2021 hearing, the court found a prima facie case to remove the
children pending disposition or further order.
N.N. told the investigator that he lived with his mother,
M.R., and siblings. He denied any physical abuse but shared that
M.R. had accidentally thrown a hanger at him. He added that
M.R. drank and his mother smoked. He said the police had been
to the home a few times because his mother reported their “dad.”
He mentioned having heard his parents fighting and some
screaming on many occasions, but he had not seen them fighting
because he was in his room.
L.N. said he lived with his mother, brothers, and M.R. He
admitted that M.R. had disciplined him with a hanger, which had
left marks. He added that he had also been hit with a belt and
that his mother had hit him with a hanger once. He stated that
M.R. drank “papa juice” and that his mother smoked with the
children present. He also stated that the police had come to the
home many times because his mother needed their help with
M.R. He added that he had seen his mother and M.R. fight with
their hands and with their words.
8
On September 15, 2021, a DCFS investigator talked with
mother, who admitted to a history of violence with M.R. and to
calling the police on several occasions because he would come to
the home drunk or on drugs. She said M.R. had thrown the
marijuana grinder at her but denied that she had thrown a water
bottle at him, hit him when he was in a cast, attacked his mother,
or hit him with a car. She admitted having said she wanted to
run him over and had scratched his car.
Mother denied any physical abuse had occurred to her
children or that she abused any substances. She stated she had
not failed to protect the children and that her use of marijuana
had not caused any harm to the children. Mother added that she
did not want to reconcile with either father, and she does not use
marijuana when the children are present.
DCFS was unable to contact the fathers.
DCFS spoke with the maternal aunt, who was a caregiver
for the children and had provided care for the children when
mother was incarcerated. She said she was not in contact with
either father and that the family had little contact with J.E.
DCFS filed a last minute information report for the court
on October 18, 2021, that advised the court that M.R. had come to
the maternal aunt’s home on September 27, 2021, in the middle
of the night. M.R. had broken windows and dented the doors
when trying to use something to enter the home. The caregiver
reported that M.R. also appeared at her home on October 4, 2021,
and had spit on her when she asked him to leave. The report also
advised the court that mother confirmed she had allowed M.R.
into the house to help her with the children because she needed
the help. She also had received an eviction notice and was trying
to find housing.
9
DCFS filed an interim review report on December 3, 2021,
that indicated J.E. had not completed an interview about the
petition, would not engage with the social workers, and would
just rant about the children’s placement. The report also showed
mother was receiving substance abuse treatment, but would be
discharged if she did not stop testing positive for marijuana.
Mother had tested positive on eight occasions between
September 20 and November 22, 2021. DCFS argued that the
minors would be in danger if released to the care of any parent
because of the history of substance abuse and domestic violence.
DCFS filed a last minute information report to confirm that
mother remained enrolled in her programs but continued to test
positive for drugs on December 6, 2021. However, she did test
negative for drugs on December 15 and 22, 2021.
Jurisdiction hearing
The jurisdiction hearing was held on January 12, 2022. The
juvenile court admitted into evidence the DCFS reports that
contained the facts its investigators had compiled during their
interviews with mother, the children, the fathers, and relatives.
Mother testified that she had been married to M.R., they had
J.R., and she had taken care of her two other children, N.N. and
L.N. with M.R. She testified that she had not lived with M.R.
since February 2018.
Mother added that after she had moved out, she had lived
with her mother until she went to jail for two months. She was
put on probation for five years and ordered to complete a
domestic violence program. Mother testified that she completed
the program.
When asked whether there was domestic violence in her
relationship with M.R., she testified that she had been a victim in
10
her relationship with J.E. and then a batterer in her relationship
with M.R. because “Habits just followed. I just did what I knew.”
She said she had been taking domestic violence classes and that
therapy had been very helpful.
Mother admitted that the domestic violence had a negative
effect on both her and her children. She testified that she had
learned the environment was unhealthy and could be teaching
that the behavior was normal. Mother said she noticed she had a
control issue and had decided not to be in a relationship so she
could focus on herself and her children. She identified her past
behavior as mistaken and recognized that her attitude and
actions affected the children.
Mother also testified that she was in a substance abuse
program because she was smoking marijuana and had prior
problems with alcohol and drugs. She said that she had not
drunk alcohol since July the prior year and had not smoked
marijuana since August or September 2021. She testified that
she would smoke on weekends while her children were with her
sister or their grandmother. She asserted she was never
intoxicated when she was caring for her children.
Mother also said she had learned parenting skills and that
she wanted to become a parent who would play with her children,
as opposed to watching them play with the crafts and toys she
had bought for them. She testified that providing a safe home for
her children was her “priority number one.”
Mother said she had never seen M.R. strike any of her
children and she never used physical discipline on her children.
She had not seen M.R. care for the children while intoxicated,
and she would not allow anyone who was intoxicated to watch
over the children. She left M.R. because he had a drinking
11
problem. After she left, she chose not to coparent with M.R. for
almost a year and had only recently started coparenting with
him.
Mother ended her direct testimony by saying she was
committed to continuing in the programs and that she would do
anything and everything for the children. She added that if the
children were returned to her, she would be moving into a place
that her grandmother had rented for them.
On cross-examination, mother testified that she was not
aware that M.R. had claimed to be living at her home with her
since 2020. She stated she had not seen him since August 2021,
when she called the police because he was angry with her. When
asked about coparenting with M.R., she testified that some days
were good and free of problems, but others were not because he
seemed to be intoxicated. She added that M.R. would take the
children and, since she knew M.R. had a drinking problem, she
would always make sure he appeared sober. Mother testified that
her efforts to ensure M.R. was sober created trouble because he
did not think it fair for her to decide when he could take the
children.
Mother denied that M.R. was coming over to her home. She
testified that he was there just for the exchange of the children.
On redirect, mother testified that she did not share a
residence with M.R. in 2019 or 2020. She said there was no
contact in 2019 and that the interactions in 2020 and 2021 were
coparenting.
Mother admitted to having been in jail for vandalizing
M.R.’s vehicle in 2019, but she denied the claims that she had
thrown a water bottle at him or struck him with a metal tool.
Mother agreed there was a problem with domestic violence when
12
she was with M.R., but that had been addressed after she left
him.
The juvenile court dismissed the counts based on section
300, subdivision (a), because it found that DCFS had not
established that the children would suffer a substantial risk of
serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally on them by the
parents.
The court sustained the count based on section 300,
subdivision (b), because it found DCFS had established there was
a substantial risk that the children would suffer serious physical
harm based on the history of violent altercations between mother
and M.R., mother’s awareness of his drinking problems, and the
children’s statements that they had seen M.R. drinking. The
court also found that the evidence in the interviews with the
children in the DCFS reports established that mother knew or
should have known that M.R. had been drunk around the
children and had hit them. The court noted that the
investigations showed that one of the children had told mother
about M.R. hitting him.
The court also sustained the count based on section 300,
subdivision (j), because it found that one of the children had been
abused or neglected and there was a substantial risk that a
sibling would be.
The other father, J.E., had pleaded no contest to the claims
in the petition about his conduct. The court found that DCFS had
not proven that mother had failed to protect the children from
J.E.’s violent conduct.
The three minors were declared dependents of the court,
and the court ordered them placed in suitable placement under
the supervision of DCFS.
13
The juvenile court recognized mother’s progress but found
more time was needed to ensure that the children were safe due
to the history of substance abuse and domestic violence. It found
that a three-month progress review was appropriate.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal on February 9, 2022.
Six months later, on August 29, 2022, the juvenile court ordered
the children returned to mother. The court found that the mother
had made substantial progress toward alleviating or mitigating
the causes and that the return of the children would not create a
substantial risk to the safety, protection, or well-being of the
children.
DISCUSSION
Mother appeals from the January 12, 2022 order resulting
in the detention of N.N., L.N., and J.R. Although the children
have been returned to mother, in view of the length of time since
the initial referral of this family to DCFS (2016), the nature of
the referrals and the young ages of the children, we cannot
assume there will be no further need for intervention by the
dependency system, which may be informed by this appeal. We
therefore find the case is not moot as the jurisdictional finding
could affect future proceedings. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266,
285-287.)
I. Mother failed to address each basis for the juvenile
court’s jurisdiction
Mother argues a lack of substantial evidence of her conduct
to establish grounds for jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivision (b). We note the juvenile court found the children
were dependents based on the conduct of the three parents:
mother and the two fathers, J.E., and M.R.
14
“It is commonly said that the juvenile court takes
jurisdiction over children, not parents.” (In re I.A. (2011) 201
Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491, overruled in part by In re D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th 266.) “The law’s primary concern is the protection of
children. [Citations.] The court asserts jurisdiction with respect
to a child when one of the statutory prerequisites listed in section
300 has been demonstrated.” (Ibid.)
“As a result of this focus on the child, it is necessary only
for the court to find that one parent’s conduct has created
circumstances triggering section 300 for the court to assert
jurisdiction over the child. [Citations.] Once the child is found to
be endangered in the manner described by one of the subdivisions
of section 300—e.g., a risk of serious physical harm (subds. (a) &
(b)), serious emotional damage (subd. (c)), sexual or other abuse
(subds. (d) & (e)), or abandonment (subd. (g)), among others—the
child comes within the court’s jurisdiction, even if the child was
not in the physical custody of one or both parents at the time the
jurisdictional events occurred. [Citation.] For jurisdictional
purposes, it is irrelevant which parent created those
circumstances. A jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a
particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders
binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been
established. [Citation.] As a result, it is commonly said that a
jurisdictional finding involving one parent is ‘“good against both.
More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either
parent bring [him] within one of the statutory definitions of a
dependent.”’” (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1491-
1492.)
An appellate court, therefore, may decline to address the
evidentiary support for one jurisdictional finding if another single
15
finding has support. (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1492.) For example, in In re I.A., the father challenged only the
evidentiary support for the jurisdictional findings based on his
conduct. He did not challenge juvenile court’s findings that it had
jurisdiction over the children based on the evidence of the
mother’s drug abuse. The court found the father’s appeal could
not obtain any relief because, even if the findings concerning his
conduct lacked evidentiary support, it could not reverse the
juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
Mother’s appeal is similarly defective because mother did
not address the findings regarding J.E. or M.R. J.E. pleaded no
contest to the claim that he had been unable to provide regular
care of the children due to his mental illness, developmental
disability, or substance abuse. The January 12, 2022 minute
order shows that counts B3, B5, and J1 were sustained as
pleaded and counts B1, B2, and B4 were sustained as amended
based on the no contest plea entered by J.E. This included the
claim that J.E. had struck a woman with a hammer while in the
presence of the children. The court found that the portions of the
counts that referred to J.E. were true as alleged or amended.
The court also sustained counts as to M.R. that alleged
M.R. had failed or was unable to supervise or protect the children
due to his substance abuse.
Mother’s appeal does not challenge these findings. Since
the children are dependents of the court if the actions of any
parent bring them within one of the statutory definitions of a
dependent jurisdictional finding, the findings for J.E. and M.R.
are sufficient to make the children dependents. Mother’s appeal
cannot obtain relief because, even if the findings against her lack
evidentiary support, the jurisdictional findings will not be
16
reversed. The juvenile court will retain jurisdiction over the
children because of the findings concerning J.E. and M.R.
In addition, the court found that DCFS had established its
counts under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), for all three
children. “‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds
for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency
court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile
court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the
statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the
petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the
reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other
alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the
evidence.’” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) Mother’s
opening brief addresses only the findings in support of
subdivision (b). She does not identify any basis to find that the
juvenile court did not have substantial evidence to support its
finding in support of subdivision (j). Since only one subdivision of
section 300 is needed to find the children dependents of the court,
mother has not shown grounds to reverse the jurisdictional order
of January 12, 2022.
II. Substantial evidence supports the finding of
jurisdiction
A. Applicable law and standard of review
A child may be adjudged a dependent of the court under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if the “child has suffered, or there
is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical
harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] [t]he failure or inability of
the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the
child.”
17
The “‘three elements’” for jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivision (b) are “‘(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of
the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) “serious physical harm
or illness” to the minor, or a “substantial risk” of such harm or
illness.’” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628.) “‘The court need
not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume
jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child.’” (In
re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.)
In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition,
we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or
uncontradicted, supports them. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5
Cal.App.4th 728, 733.) Under this standard, we must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order,
drawing every reasonable inference in support of the judgment.
(In re Marina S. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 165.) We do not
reweigh evidence. (Ibid.)
B. Evidence of mother’s substance abuse and the
history of domestic violence established
jurisdiction
Mother argued there was no evidence that her marijuana
use caused any harm to the children. She testified she had not
used alcohol since July 2021, she had last smoked marijuana in
August or September 2021, and she had enrolled in an outpatient
program for substance abuse education.
The jurisdictional hearing, however, occurred only months
later, in January 2022. The evidence showed that mother had
tested positive for marijuana as recently as November 22 and
December 6, 2021. Mother testified that until she stopped in
August or September of 2021, she had used marijuana weekly
and only when the children were with her sister or a
18
grandmother. The DCFS report, however, contained statements
from the children that they had seen her smoking. In addition,
M.R. had reported that mother smoked marijuana every day and
drank alcohol every morning before she slept for the rest of the
day while working nights. Mother’s frequent marijuana use, with
the children present, coupled with her day sleeping after smoking
and drinking in the morning is substantial evidence that her
substance abuse could result in lack of adequate supervision and
care. This evidence identifies potential neglectful conduct that
could cause a substantial risk of harm if the children are not
properly supervised. The juvenile court also noted that it was
early in mother’s recovery from a lengthy and frequent habit of
using marijuana and that a risk of future harm existed because
relapses are common.
Mother also argued that the evidence of domestic violence
was insufficient because she was no longer in a relationship with
M.R., and she had completed domestic violence courses. The
juvenile court, however, based its findings on a history of
domestic violence between mother and M.R. This included
mother as the aggressor when she vandalized M.R.’s vehicles,
and with M.R. as the aggressor, such as when he broke windows
and battered the door at maternal aunt’s home in his effort to
enter the place where the children were staying. This conduct
created a substantial risk of harm to the children.
Although the evidence showed mother did not want a
relationship with M.R., it also showed he continued to want to
visit the children and was not taking advantage of services
needed to improve his substance abuse problem. The juvenile
court acknowledged mother’s efforts but found that the children
had been exposed to years of violence with M.R. and a risk of
19
future harm remained. This conduct could cause substantial
harm to the children if they are present.
The juvenile court, therefore, had substantial evidence to
support its finding that it had jurisdiction over the children
because there were circumstances that subjected the children to a
risk of harm.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional order is affirmed.
________________________
CHAVEZ, J.
We concur:
________________________
LUI, P. J.
________________________
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
20