In re S.V. CA2/4 ( 2023 )

Filed 10/10/23 In re S.V. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR
In re S.V. et al., B322239 and B326530
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County
Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP01943A-E)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Z.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Gina Zaragoza, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County
Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Z.R. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and
dispositional orders over her five children: S.V. (born Feb. 2013), twins M.V.
and H.V. (born Dec. 2014), and twins Zu.R. and Zi.R. (born Aug. 2017).
Mother also appeals the court’s denial of her request to dismiss the
dependency petition.1 We affirm.
DISCUSSION2
A. Mootness
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) contends mother’s appeal should be dismissed as moot because the
juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, with the children continuing to reside
with mother. We disagree.
“A court is tasked with the duty ‘“to decide actual controversies by a
judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.”’” (In re D.P.
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276, quoting Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc.
Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863.) “A case becomes moot when events
‘“render[ ] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of
[appellant], to grant him [or her] any effect[ive] relief.”’ [Citation.] For relief
to be ‘effective,’ two requirements must be met. First, the [appellant] must
complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be redressable or
1 On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals for purposes of oral
argument and decision.
2 We discuss only the facts germane to the issues raised on appeal.
2
capable of being rectified by the outcome the [appellant] seeks. [Citation.]”
(In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 276.)
Mother argues that her appeal is not moot because there is a “specific
legal or practical consequence that will be averted upon reversal” of the
jurisdictional findings. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) Specifically,
she contends the jurisdictional findings resulted in her inclusion in
California’s Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) (Pen. Code, § 11170), which
carries several legal consequences. We are inclined to agree.
“California’s Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA; Pen.
Code, § 11164 et seq.) requires that several state agencies, including [DCFS],
forward substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect to California’s
Department of Justice (DOJ) for inclusion in the CACI. (Pen. Code, § 11169,
subd. (a).) CANRA sorts reports of child abuse and neglect into three
categories: unfounded, inconclusive, and substantiated. (Pen. Code,
§ 11165.12.)” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 278.) As relevant here, “[a]
report is substantiated if it ‘is determined by the investigator who conducted
the investigation to constitute child abuse or neglect.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
“When an agency forwards a substantiated report, the agency must
provide written notice to the person whose conduct was reported to the CACI.
(Pen. Code, § 11169, subd. (c).) Persons listed in the CACI are generally
entitled to challenge the basis for their inclusion at a hearing before the
reporting agency. (Pen. Code, § 11169, subd. (d).)” (In re D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 279.) This is an important protection because “if ‘a court of
competent jurisdiction has determined that suspected child abuse or neglect
has occurred,’ the hearing request ‘shall be denied.’ (Pen. Code, § 11169,
subd. (e).)” (Ibid.) Mother’s request for a CACI grievance hearing is
currently pending.
3
In addition, inclusion in the CACI carries several consequences for
mother. “A CACI check is required for ‘any prospective foster parent, or
adoptive parent, or any person 18 years of age or older residing in their
household.’ (Health & Saf. Code, § 1522.1, subd. (b).) California law also
requires state agencies to search the CACI before granting a number of rights
and benefits, including licensing to care for children in a daycare center
(Health & Saf. Code, § 1596.877, subd. (b)) and employment in child care (id.,
§ 1522.1, subd. (a)). Even if an agency or employer is not legally required to
check the CACI, it may do so as a matter of internal policy. CACI
information is available to a variety of entities, including law enforcement
entities investigating a case of known or suspected child abuse (Pen. Code,
§ 11170, subd. (b)(3)), a court appointed special advocate program conducting
a background investigation for employment or volunteer candidates (id.,
subd. (b)(5)), an investigative agency, probation officer, or court investigator
responsible for placing children or assessing the possible placement of
children (id., subd. (b)(7)), a government agency conducting a background
investigation of an applicant seeking employment as a peace officer (id., subd.
(b)(9)), a county child welfare agency or delegated county adoption agency
conducting a background investigation of an applicant seeking employment
or volunteer status who will have direct contact with children at risk of abuse
or neglect (id., subd. (b)(10)), and out-of-state agencies making foster care or
adoptive decisions (id., subd. (e)(1)). These agencies and employers are not
barred from hiring or granting a license to an applicant listed in the CACI,
but they may be hesitant to do so. A CACI search may also occur if there are
allegations of child abuse or neglect . . . . Moreover, because the information
included in the CACI is available to a wide variety of state agencies,
4
employers, and law enforcement, it may be stigmatizing to the person listed.”
(In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 279.)
Here, mother has shown that the jurisdictional findings against her
were reported for inclusion in the CACI. Thus, we conclude her CACI claim
is not “too speculative to survive a mootness challenge” (In re D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 280) and reach the merits of her appeal.
B. Jurisdictional Order
1. Applicable Law
The purpose of the dependency law “is to provide maximum safety and
protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or
emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the
safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are
at risk of that harm.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.2, subd. (a)3; see In re A.F.
(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289; In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594,
599.)
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), provides in pertinent part that a child
may be declared dependent if “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a
substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm” as a result
of “[t]he failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or
protect the child.” A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
requires DCFS to prove three elements: (1) the parent’s neglectful conduct or
failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical
harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. (In
re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848.)
3 All unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
5
Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to the defined
risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing (In re D.L. (2018) 22
Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146), the court need not wait until a child is seriously
abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect
the child. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re Kadence P. (2015) 241
Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383; In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.) The
court may consider past events in deciding whether a child currently needs
the court’s protection. (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210,
1215–1216; In re N.M., supra, at p. 165.) A parent’s “‘past conduct may be
probative of current conditions’ if there is reason to believe that the conduct
will continue.” (In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461; accord, In re J.N.
(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 775 [“[e]vidence of past conduct may be probative
of current conditions, and may assist DCFS in meeting [its burden of
proof]”].)
“‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial
evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. “In making this
determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to
support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record
in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that
issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” [Citation.]
“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 I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) We review the whole
record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine
whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact
6
could find that the order is appropriate. (Ibid.; accord, In re I.C. (2018) 4
Cal.5th 869, 892.)
2. Substantial Evidence
Mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s
jurisdictional findings that her inappropriate physical discipline places the
children at risk of serious physical harm. We disagree.
DCFS presented evidence that mother engaged in a pattern of using
inappropriate physical discipline against the children. All five children
initially reported mother struck them with belts and a “chancla.”4 The court
found mother’s denial of any physical discipline not credible and that she
coached the children to subsequently recant their statements. (See In re E.B.
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 578 [the trial court assesses witness credibility
and weighs conflicting evidence], disapproved on another ground in
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989.) Mother’s denial of any
physical discipline in the face of credible evidence to the contrary and her
coaching the children to lie about such discipline supported an inference that
mother knew her physical discipline of the children was unreasonable and
excessive.
Importantly, mother has a significant dependency history, including
two cases in which the court found mother physically abused the children’s
half-siblings. The half-siblings were eventually removed from mother’s
custody and permanently placed in the care of relatives. In addition,
mother’s most recent dependency case resulted in a conviction of child cruelty
after she failed to take S.V. to the hospital for third degree burns on her leg
4 The Spanish word “chancla” is referred to in the record as a slipper,
sandal, or shoe, and in other places not translated at all.
7
and foot. Thus, a juvenile court could reasonably determine that mother’s
inappropriate physical discipline could escalate into the severe physical
abuse previously experienced by S.V. and the children’s half-siblings.
Mother claims the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the
children faced a risk of serious physical harm because the children never
suffered any visible injuries as a result of mother’s conduct. This argument
lacks merit. As noted, a court need not wait until a child is seriously injured
by his parent’s conduct before the court may exercise jurisdiction over the
child. (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993.) DCFS need only
prove that the parent’s conduct places the child at risk of suffering serious
physical harm at the time jurisdiction is established. (Ibid.) DCFS has met
its burden in this case.
Mother asserts that the physical discipline does not rise to the level of
“serious physical harm,” and cites to In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634(D.M.). In D.M., a mother used her hand and sandal to spank her children on
the rare occasion when lesser disciplinary measures proved ineffective.
(D.M., supra, at p. 637.) The spanking was never hard enough to leave a
mark or bruise, and the mother later expressed remorse. (Id. at pp. 637,
644.) The court found dependency jurisdiction was appropriate in light of the
judge’s categorical view that spanking children with a shoe constitutes
physical abuse and that it was a prohibited form of discipline. (Id. at p. 637.)
The Court of Appeal reversed, instructing the juvenile court to examine
whether the mother’s conduct fell within her right to reasonably discipline
her children. (Id. at p. 643.) Specifically, the juvenile court was instructed to
consider mother’s disciplinary motive, the necessity of her punishment, and
the reasonableness of its severity. (Ibid.) Mother’s reliance on D.M. is
misplaced. Mother did not raise a defense of exercising discipline below;
8
instead, she denied the existence of the alleged abuse. In any event, mother
cannot simultaneously argue the alleged abuse never occurred and that it fell
within the scope of reasonable discipline.
Given mother’s extensive history of physical abuse and her categorical
denial of physical discipline that was reported by her children, the court
could reasonably find that the children were currently at substantial risk of
serious physical harm. Thus, mother did not meet her burden of showing the
evidence is insufficient to support the court’s jurisdictional findings under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1).5
C. Dispositional Order
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in declaring
the children dependents, rather than proceeding with informal supervision
under section 360, subdivision (b). (§ 360, subd. (b) [“If the court finds that
the child is a person described by Section 300, it may, without adjudicating
the child a dependent child of the court, order that services be provided to
keep the family together and place the child and the child’s parent or
5 Because we affirm the jurisdiction findings under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), based on mother’s inappropriate physical discipline of the
children, we do not reach whether substantial evidence supports the
jurisdiction findings under section 300, subdivision (j). “‘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., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773; accord, In
re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 896; In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th
297, 309–310.)
9
guardian under the supervision of the social worker for a time period
consistent with Section 301”].) “Whether to exercise this option under section
360, subdivision (b), is a discretionary call for the juvenile court to make; it
may opt to do so, but it need not.” (In re N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p.
171.) “A court exceeds the limits of legal discretion if its determination is
arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. The appropriate test is whether the
court exceeded the bounds of reason.” (Ibid.)
Mother never asked the court to proceed under this section.6 Rather,
she asked for the dependency petition to be dismissed. It was counsel for the
children that requested a section 360, subdivision (b) disposition. “[I]f the
law does not require the juvenile court to act in a certain way, the parent
bears the responsibility to care for his or her own interests by asking the
court to exercise its discretion in a manner favorable to the parent. In such
circumstances, the courts have not permitted the silent parent to argue that
the juvenile court erred in not being psychic.” (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54
Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339.) Mother has therefore forfeited this argument.
Even were we to consider her argument, the court aptly noted that
mother continuously denied any physical discipline and coached the children
not to disclose her actions. (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197
[“[o]ne cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”]; In re Esmeralda
6 We note that at the detention hearing, mother only asked the court to
order DCFS “to assess [a section] 301 contract and [section] 360[, subdivision]
(b).” Section 301 authorizes DCFS to engage in informal supervision where
the social worker “determines that a child is within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court or will probably soon be within that jurisdiction.” (§ 301, subd.
(a).) The difference in proceeding under section 360, subdivision (b) is that
DCFS would not first have to establish that the child is described by section
300 as that already would have been established. (In re Adam D. (2010) 183
Cal.App.4th 1250, 1260.)
10
B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 [recognizing a parent’s denial is a
relevant factor in determining whether the parent is likely to modify
behavior].) Also, mother had engaged in physical abuse with the children’s
half-siblings as well as S.V. in the recent past. Given this history, even had
mother requested this course of action, we would find the court was well
within the bounds of reason to decline to order informal supervision.
D. Request to Dismiss the Dependency Petition
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her
request to dismiss the dependency petition. We disagree.
At a review hearing, DCFS recommended continuing family
maintenance services while mother requested the court terminate
jurisdiction or dismiss the petition. In support of dismissal, mother’s counsel
argued that “it’s in the interest of justice and welfare of the children and the
mother no longer needs treatment. The children are doing well . . . and she
does not need any rehabilitation. She has been participating in ‘family
preservation.’” Counsel for the children opposed dismissing the petition but
was in support of terminating jurisdiction. The court noted it was not
inclined to dismiss the petition, found continued supervision of the children
was no longer necessary and terminated jurisdiction. The court reasoned
that “[t]here’s been no safety concerns presented to the court,” and mother
has “been engaging in ‘family preservation’ successfully.”
The juvenile court may dismiss a dependency petition, “at any time
before the minor reaches the age of 21 years, . . . if the court finds that the
interests of justice and the welfare of the minor require the dismissal, and
that the parent . . . is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation.” (§ 390; In re
Natasha H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1156–1157.) Dismissal is
11
appropriate only if the court makes both findings and “‘[s]uch dismissals are
rare and usually occur only when the goal of protecting the child has been
achieved without court intervention.’” (In re Carl H. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th
1019, 1038.) We review an order denying a request to dismiss a dependency
petition for abuse of discretion. (In re K.S. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327, 339–
340; In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 207.)
At the hearing, mother presented no evidence or argument to support
the findings that “the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor[s]
require the dismissal.” Thus, the court was well within its discretion to deny
mother’s request. For the first time on appeal, mother argues that her
inclusion in the CACI as a result of the sustained petition requires dismissal.
“‘It is axiomatic that arguments not asserted below are waived and will not
be considered for the first time on appeal.’ [Citation.]” (Martinez v. Scott
Specialty Gases, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1249.)
In any event, mother cites no authority that potential legal
consequences from a sustained petition warrant its dismissal. Here, the
court’s intervention was necessary to ensure the children’s safety, and the
goal of protecting the children would not have been achieved without such
action. (See In re Carl H., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1038–1039.) As noted,
the evidence shows mother engaged in inappropriate physical discipline, had
an extensive history of physically abusing the children’s half-siblings, and her
prior abuse of S.V. led to a criminal conviction of child cruelty. Thus, the
court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for dismissal.
//
//
//
//
12
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZUKIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
COLLINS, Acting P. J.
MORI, J.
13