In re C.B. CA2/3 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 2/1/22 In re C.B. CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
    In re C.B., Jr., a Person Coming                             B312379
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    (Los Angeles County
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                           Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP00599A)
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
    AND FAMILY SERVICES,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    C.B.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore.
    Affirmed.
    Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
    Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
    County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    C.B. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
    findings and disposition order. Father challenges the sufficiency
    of the evidence supporting the court’s exercise of jurisdiction
    over his son under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300,
    subdivisions (a), (b), and (j), and the order removing the child
    from father’s custody. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    I.     Dependency referrals and petition
    Father has two children—a son born in December 2010,
    and a daughter born in August 2006. The children’s mother died
    by suicide in 2013.
    The family first came to the attention of the Los Angeles
    County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
    in November 2020, based on a referral alleging that there was
    insufficient food in the family’s home. The following month, in
    December 2020, DCFS received a second referral alleging
    that father had been out of work and the family was struggling to
    obtain food. The reporting party also disclosed that the then 14-
    year-old daughter required emergency follow-up care from an
    endocrinologist, neurologist, and psychiatrist. According to the
    reporting party, the daughter had been diagnosed with diabetes,
    extreme tremors, and depression, and had not been sleeping.
    During DCFS’s investigation of the referral, the children’s
    social worker expressed concern to father about his daughter
    being depressed and requested that he enroll the child in
    therapy. Father failed to do so. The social worker also expressed
    1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references
    are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    2
    concern about father’s own mental health. Father had told the
    social worker, “I take care of my kids. I talked to them last year
    about what’s happening now. I was able to pre-warn them about
    COVID. I explained everything to them about what’s happening
    now[,] and I told their teachers, family members, and my ex-
    girlfriend at the time. I said there is something going on in
    the air and with people’s mental stability.” Although father
    initially agreed to participate in an up front assessment, he later
    cancelled his appointment and failed to reschedule. As of
    February 2021, DCFS’s investigation of the referral remained
    open.
    On February 1, 2021, the daughter committed suicide by
    jumping from her third floor bedroom window. When officers
    responded to the scene, father refused to allow them inside the
    home or to speak to them without an attorney present. The
    officers observed that father showed no emotion regarding the
    death of his child, though he said it was because the death had
    not yet hit him. He denied his daughter suffered from a mental
    illness or had made any statements indicating she was depressed.
    While executing a search warrant on the family’s home, law
    enforcement found multiple pencil drawings on the daughter’s
    bedroom wall. Some of the drawings depicted: (1) a grim reaper
    with the words “straight to hell”; (2) a figure in a long dress with
    the words “learning to dance with my depression”; (3) a girl
    swinging from a tree by the neck with the words “deadmen
    deadmen swinging in a tree how many deadmen do you see?
    Tongue turned blue face gone grey. Watch them as they twist
    and sway”; (4) wrists and hands with the words “I’m done”; and
    (5) lips and teeth with the words “everyone talks too much.”
    3
    DCFS’s Multi-Agency Response Team immediately began
    an investigation. On February 1, 2021, the children’s social
    worker assigned to conduct the investigation interviewed father
    at the family’s home. Father stated he did not notice anything
    out of the ordinary the day before his daughter’s suicide. He also
    reported he had a good relationship with his daughter, and
    denied the child had ever said she wanted to hurt herself. When
    asked about the drawings found on the daughter’s bedroom wall,
    father replied that he had no concerns about them because the
    family was artistic and his daughter liked to draw. When the
    social worker pointed out that the images were concerning, father
    minimized the drawings and said they were two years old.
    Father acknowledged the previous social worker had told him
    that his daughter was depressed and needed follow-up care with
    different medical professionals. He disclosed he never questioned
    his daughter about the social worker’s concerns because he did
    not want to invade the child’s privacy.
    Father described his son as outgoing and outspoken. He
    initially stated he loved his son, and then said he loved both of
    his children equally. The social worker observed a difference in
    the way father spoke about his son compared to his daughter.
    When the social worker tried to set up a safety plan with father
    to have the son stay with a family member, father refused and
    stated the child needed to be in the home with him. The social
    worker noticed father exhibited a flat affect during his interview.
    The social worker also conducted a private interview with
    the son. The child reported his sister had fallen or jumped out of
    her bedroom window. The son recounted he was in his own
    bedroom when he heard a loud thump. He went to his sister’s
    bedroom, looked out the open window, and saw her on the
    4
    ground. After he told father, they put on their shoes and jackets
    and then went downstairs where father called the police. The son
    denied his sister ever told him that she wanted to hurt herself.
    According to the son, neither he nor his sister talked much to
    father because the family tended to remain in their respective
    bedrooms. Father and his daughter only spoke when father went
    to the market and asked her what she wanted. The son stated he
    felt safe in the family’s home, and there was always enough food
    to eat. He denied having any suicidal thoughts or feeling sad.
    When asked if he felt sad about his sister’s death, the son
    responded he was “a little sad,” but would think about “happy
    memories.”
    The social worker subsequently interviewed a number
    of maternal and paternal family members. The maternal
    grandmother (MGM) reported that she had concerns about
    the children since November 2020. The children consistently
    complained they did not have food in the home, and acted as if
    they were starving when they visited her. After the son’s school
    contacted the MGM because the child had missed two weeks of
    distance learning, father agreed that the son would go to MGM’s
    home during the week and she would help him with his online
    schooling. The MGM also believed father had neglected the
    daughter’s medical needs. Father took his daughter to the doctor
    in January 2020, but did not follow through on the doctor’s order
    for lab work. In December 2020, the MGM took the daughter to
    the doctor to have the lab work completed and to a follow-up
    appointment regarding the results. The daughter’s doctor had
    emergent concerns about her health because she was pre-
    diabetic, was allergic to dairy and required an inhaler, was
    experiencing tremors in her hands and short term memory loss,
    5
    and was suffering from depression. The doctor referred the
    daughter to counseling as well as to a neurologist,
    endocrinologist, nutritionist, and psychiatrist. The MGM
    reported that father never followed up with any of the child’s
    medical appointments.
    The MGM also believed father suffered from mental health
    issues. The children had told her that father would lecture them
    for hours and jump from topic to topic without making any sense.
    The daughter had disclosed that father talked to himself in a
    manner that at times seemed aggressive, and he sometimes went
    to her bedroom while she was sleeping and would stand there
    and stare at her. The daughter also had reported that father
    would accuse her of stealing household items that he
    had misplaced and would call her a liar when she denied his
    accusations. Both children had said they were uncomfortable
    around father.
    In his interview with the social worker, the maternal uncle
    expressed similar concerns about the children. According to
    the maternal uncle, father was an entrepreneur who would
    spend money on materials for his clothing business rather than
    on necessities for the children. The weekend before the daughter
    died, she visited the MGM’s home and said there was no food in
    father’s home. The maternal uncle reported that father was
    verbally abusive toward the daughter, would accuse her of
    stealing things from the home, and would favor the son over the
    daughter. The maternal uncle also believed father neglected the
    daughter’s medical needs by failing to follow through on her
    doctor’s appointments. He noted that father did not take the
    daughter to a neurologist for the tremor in her hands. Father
    6
    also failed to take the daughter to an optometrist for glasses, and
    instead said, “God would cure her eyes.”
    A paternal aunt who saw the daughter the weekend before
    her suicide did not observe any unusual behavior. The paternal
    aunt braided the daughter’s hair that weekend, and the child
    seemed excited to have her hair done. While the paternal aunt
    did not have any concerns about father’s care of the children, two
    paternal great-aunts shared a number of concerns. According to
    paternal great-aunt R.R., father had been distant from the family
    since 2019. R.R. had been told that father talked to himself. She
    also had heard the daughter was unhappy and did not want to
    live with father. R.R. noted that the paternal grandmother
    suffered from bipolar schizophrenia and would talk to herself
    when she was not taking medication. R.R. believed father needed
    psychiatric help, and she feared the son would attempt suicide in
    the future because of father. The paternal great-aunt, I.R.,
    reported there were many signs that the daughter was suffering
    from depression, but father failed to address them. I.R. believed
    the son needed to be removed from the home to ensure his safety.
    She stated that if the son remained in the home, she foresaw the
    child attempting suicide and father not doing anything about it.
    On February 8, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition
    on behalf of the son under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).
    In counts b-1 and j-1, the petition alleged that the son was at
    substantial risk of harm because father had medically neglected
    the daughter by failing to obtain a mental health evaluation for
    her or to follow through with her doctor’s recommendations for
    medical care. In count b-2, the petition alleged that the son was
    also at substantial risk of harm because father had failed to
    provide the children with adequate food.
    7
    On February 11, 2021, the juvenile court detained the son
    from father. The court granted father monitored visitation with
    the child, and set the matter for an adjudication hearing. DCFS
    placed the son with the MGM.
    II.   Jurisdiction and disposition report
    For its jurisdiction and disposition report, DCFS conducted
    further interviews with the family about the allegations in the
    petition. In his interview, father stated he was not comfortable
    discussing the allegations without his attorney present. He
    indicated he was upset with DCFS because he felt the agency had
    done nothing for him and his family. He also expressed his belief
    that DCFS had been negligent and should be held accountable
    because the agency “pushed his daughter to the edge.” Father
    declined to make a statement regarding the allegations of
    medical neglect. He denied the allegations that he failed to
    provide the children with adequate amounts of food, and stated
    there was plenty of food in the family’s home.
    Father reported that he had a good relationship with his
    daughter, and had maintained open communication with her.
    According to father, the child never told him that she was sad or
    stressed. Instead, the daughter said she liked living with father
    and did not want to leave the home. Father noted that the
    daughter was very artistic, and that the drawings in her bedroom
    were two and a half years old. He did not believe the drawings
    indicated that the daughter was depressed or intended to hurt
    herself. Father stated that he believed the DCFS’s involvement
    with the family had caused the daughter to take her own life. He
    further expressed that DCFS should be liable for the funeral
    expenses and the emotional distress he was experiencing.
    8
    In his interview, the son denied all forms of abuse.
    Although the son initially denied any feelings of sadness, he
    admitted he felt sad when he thought about his sister. He stated,
    however, that he tried not to focus on what happened the day his
    sister died and to instead focus on positive things such as school.
    The son indicated that he liked living with the MGM, and that he
    would like to live with both her and father. He also reported
    having a good relationship with father. With respect to the
    medical neglect allegations, the son initially expressed that he
    did not want to talk about his sister, and he became emotional
    during the interview. The child then said he did not interact
    much with father because everyone stayed in their own rooms,
    including during mealtimes. The son also said he had a better
    relationship with father than his sister had, and father did not
    talk much to his sister. With respect to the inadequate food
    allegations, the son reported that there was always food in the
    family’s home. He noted that the MGM offered more food options
    than father, but he always had enough food to eat.
    In her interview with DCFS, the MGM reiterated her
    concerns that father did not provide the children with adequate
    food, neglected the daughter’s medical needs, and had mental
    health issues. According to the MGM, the daughter would spend
    the weekends at her home, and they would regularly
    communicate during the weekdays via telephone calls and text
    messages. The daughter had disclosed that she was not
    comfortable living with father, but she believed he would not
    allow her to move to the MGM’s home. The daughter also had
    reported that she felt neglected by father because he rarely spoke
    to her. The daughter never expressed feelings of depression or
    thoughts of suicide to the MGM.
    9
    The MGM shared text messages she had received from the
    daughter. In one message, the daughter stated that she lived in
    an “awful toxic household,” she was dealing with “a terrible
    father,” and “[c]ertain things are blatantly wrong but nothing
    changes.” She also expressed that there was neglect in the home,
    not enough food or water, and both mental and physical abuse.
    In a subsequent message, the daughter reported that she had not
    had anything to drink or eat, father had not spoken to her, and
    she sat in her room all day. In another message, the daughter
    stated she “was old enough to remember how [her] dad acted
    when he was normal,” and she “had to watch [him] slowly spiral
    into this de[s]cent of madness.”
    The MGM last spoke with the daughter the weekend before
    her death. She also received a photo from the daughter showing
    that the child had just had her hair done. The MGM did not
    believe the daughter had planned to commit suicide, and
    suspected something had happened on the night of her death that
    made her feel there was no way out. The MGM reported that,
    since the daughter’s death, the son had not shown any sadness or
    mentioned his sister. She believed the son would benefit from
    mental health services due to the trauma he had suffered in
    losing both his mother and his sister.
    In his interview, the maternal uncle indicated that he was
    concerned about father’s mental health. Prior to her death, the
    daughter disclosed that father displayed bizarre behavior and
    would lock himself in the bathroom and talk to himself for hours.
    The maternal uncle also expressed concern about the son’s
    mental well-being. He believed the son would benefit from
    therapy because the child appeared to have a lot on his mind but
    did not talk about his sister.
    10
    In her interview with DCFS, paternal great-aunt R.R.
    stated she last saw the daughter in the summer of 2020, and the
    child did not seem happy. R.R. had minimal contact with the
    daughter in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and when she
    attempted to reach out to father, he did not respond. R.R. had
    heard from a nephew that father “slapped the crap out of” the
    son, but she could not recall which nephew made that comment.
    She also had heard from another relative that the daughter had
    been looking for ways to kill herself.
    DCFS spoke with a counselor at the son’s school who
    reported that she had submitted a referral for mental health
    services for the child. The counselor explained that she had been
    checking in with the son twice a week, and that the child
    appeared nonchalant and not visibly affected by the recent
    events. The counselor was concerned the son was unable to
    verbalize his grief at that time.
    In its report, DCFS expressed concern about father’s
    mental health issues and his failure to enroll the daughter in
    therapy or to follow up with the child’s medical appointments.
    DCFS also noted that father minimized the concerning drawings
    found in the daughter’s bedroom, and blamed DCFS for the
    child’s death despite the evidence that the daughter needed
    emotional support before the agency became involved with the
    family. DCFS recommended the juvenile court sustain the
    petition and assert jurisdiction over the son. DCFS did not make
    a recommendation as to family reunification services for father
    because law enforcement was continuing to investigate whether
    the daughter’s death was a suicide or homicide.
    11
    III.   First amended petition and last minute information
    On March 2, 2021, DCFS filed a first amended dependency
    petition that added counts under section 300, subdivisions (a) and
    (b). Count a-1 of the amended petition alleged that father
    physically abused the son on a prior occasion by grabbing the
    child’s forearm and pinching his cheek. Count b-3 alleged that
    father had unresolved mental health issues that inhibited his
    ability to provide regular care to the son.
    In a last minute information report filed on March 3, 2021,
    DCFS stated that the MGM had reported that the son suffered
    possible physical abuse in father’s care. The MGM provided a
    photo showing a large mark and bruise on the son’s forearm, and
    a second photo depicting a large scrape on the child’s left cheek.
    The son told the MGM that, in November 2020, father grabbed
    him by the arm and pinched him on the cheek. When DCFS
    asked the son about the physical abuse allegations, the child
    initially stated he did not remember how he had sustained the
    injuries shown in the photos. The son then disclosed that father
    pinched his forearm as he was lecturing the child about his
    behavior. The son said he scraped his cheek when he fell one
    morning on his way to meet the MGM for school.
    In a follow-up interview with DCFS, father denied the
    allegations in the amended petition. He stated he did not
    physically discipline the children, and did not have any mental
    health issues. Father reported that DCFS’s intervention was the
    result of “someone disagreeing with [his] parenting style.” He
    also questioned why DCFS was raising new allegations so close to
    the adjudication hearing, and reiterated his belief that the
    agency was responsible for his daughter’s suicide because the
    child died on “DCFS’s watch.”
    12
    In another last minute information report filed on April 1,
    2021, DCFS indicated that law enforcement had concluded its
    investigation of the daughter’s death, and no criminal charges
    would be filed against father. DCFS recommended the juvenile
    court maintain jurisdiction and father participate in a mental
    health evaluation. DCFS also recommended father’s visits with
    his son remain monitored in an agency-approved setting.
    IV.    Jurisdiction and disposition hearing
    On April 15 and 27, 2021, the juvenile court held a
    combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court
    admitted into evidence the reports filed by DCFS. Father’s
    counsel called four witnesses to testify: (1) the MGM; (2) the
    maternal uncle; (3) the paternal great aunt, R.R.; and (4) the
    paternal great aunt, I.R.
    The MGM testified that she last had a meal in father’s
    home two years ago. When she saw the daughter the weekend
    before her death, the child seemed happy and did not express any
    suicidal thoughts. The MGM denied telling DCFS that father
    failed to follow up with the daughter’s medical appointments;
    rather, the social worker told the MGM that father was not
    following up. The MGM was comfortable caring for the son if the
    child was removed from father’s custody and would be supportive
    of reunification with father.
    The maternal uncle testified that he never had any meals
    in father’s home or checked his refrigerator for food. R.R.
    testified that the paternal grandmother had been hospitalized for
    a nervous breakdown and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia
    or bipolar disorder. When R.R. last saw the daughter, the child
    did not look happy. I.R. testified that the daughter was an
    introverted child, and that she did not know if the daughter had
    13
    been depressed. I.R. believed the son should be removed from
    father’s home immediately after the daughter’s death, but felt it
    was currently safe for the child to return to father’s care.
    After hearing the argument of counsel, the juvenile court
    sustained the first amended petition as pleaded. Turning to
    disposition, the juvenile court declared the son a dependent of the
    court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j), and ordered
    the child removed from father’s custody. The court ordered
    father to participate in an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation,
    mental health counseling, parenting education, and conjoint
    counseling with the son if recommended by the therapist. Father
    was granted monitored visitation a minimum of nine hours per
    week.
    Father filed a timely appeal.
    DISCUSSION
    On appeal, father challenges the sufficiency of the
    evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings and orders at
    the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. He specifically contends
    the evidence was insufficient to support each of the jurisdictional
    findings because DCFS failed to prove that any alleged conduct
    by father placed his son at substantial risk of harm at the time of
    the hearing. He also claims there was insufficient evidence to
    support the disposition order because DCFS failed to establish
    that his son would be at substantial risk of harm if returned to
    father’s care, or that removal was the only reasonable means
    of protecting the child from such risk.
    I.    Applicable law and standard of review
    “At the first stage of dependency proceedings, the juvenile
    court determines whether the child is subject to juvenile court
    14
    jurisdiction; DCFS has the burden to prove jurisdiction by a
    preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] At the second stage,
    the juvenile court must decide where the child will live while
    under juvenile court supervision; to support removal from
    parental custody, DCFS has the burden to prove by clear and
    convincing evidence that there is a risk of substantial harm to the
    child if returned home and the lack of reasonable means short of
    removal to protect the child’s safety.” (In re Yolanda L. (2017)
    
    7 Cal.App.5th 987
    , 992.)
    We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence
    underlying jurisdictional findings and disposition orders for
    substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 
    56 Cal.4th 766
    , 773.)
    “ ‘ “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.” ’ ”
    (Ibid.) “When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by
    clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate
    court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial
    evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found it
    highly probable that the fact was true.” (Conservatorship of O.B.
    (2020) 
    9 Cal.5th 989
    , 1011.) “The appellant has the burden of
    showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial
    nature to support the findings or orders.” (In re E.E. (2020)
    
    49 Cal.App.5th 195
    , 206.)
    15
    II.    Substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional
    finding under section 300, subdivision (j).
    The juvenile court sustained count j-1 in the first amended
    petition as follows: “The child[’s] . . . father . . . medically
    neglected the child’s now deceased sibling . . . . The child’s sibling
    demonstrated mental and emotional problems including
    depression, and on or about January 2020, the sibling was
    referred for a psychiatric evaluation, due to the child’s mental
    and emotional problems. The father failed to obtain a mental
    health evaluation for the sibling. Further, on or about January
    2020, the sibling’s primary doctor ordered lab work for the sibling
    and the father failed to ensure that the sibling obtained the
    necessary lab work. The sibling’s primary doctor expressed
    concerns in regards to the child being pre-diabetic, the tremors
    in the sibling’s hands and the sibling’s short term memory loss,
    allergy to milk, and the use of an inhaler. The sibling was
    referred to counseling, a neurologist, an endocrinologist, and
    a nutritionist and the father failed to follow through with the
    sibling’s primary doctor’s medical recommendations. The medical
    neglect of the child’s sibling . . . by the father, endangers the child
    a[nd] places the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage,
    danger, and neglect.”
    Section 300, subdivision (j) provides that a child comes
    within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if the “child’s sibling
    has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b),
    (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will
    be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.” A
    jurisdictional finding under “section 300, subdivision (j) has two
    elements: first, that the [child’s] sibling has been abused or
    neglected, and second, that there is a substantial risk that the
    16
    [child] will be abused or neglected.” (In re Ashley B. (2011)
    
    202 Cal.App.4th 968
    , 981.) In determining whether there is a
    substantial risk to the child, the juvenile court must “consider the
    circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the
    age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of
    the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and
    any other factors the court considers probative.” (§ 300, subd. (j).)
    As our Supreme Court has explained, section 300,
    subdivision (j) “ ‘was intended to expand the grounds for the
    exercise of jurisdiction as to children whose sibling has been
    abused or neglected as defined in section 300, subdivision (a), (b),
    (d), (e), or (i).’ ” (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 774.) “ ‘The
    broad language of subdivision (j) clearly indicates that the trial
    court is to consider the totality of the circumstances of the child
    and his or her sibling in determining whether the child is at
    substantial risk of harm. . . . The provision thus accords the trial
    court greater latitude to exercise jurisdiction as to a child whose
    sibling has been found to have been abused than the court would
    have in the absence of that circumstance.’ ” (Ibid.)
    In assessing the risk of harm posed to a child, it also is
    necessary to recognize that “ ‘[s]ome risks may be substantial
    even if they carry a low degree of probability because the
    magnitude of the harm is potentially great.’ ” (In re I.J., supra,
    56 Cal.4th at p. 778.) Accordingly, “[t]he more severe the type
    of sibling abuse, the lower the required probability of the child’s
    experiencing such abuse to conclude the child is at a substantial
    risk of abuse or neglect under section 300.” (Ibid.; accord, In re
    D.B. (2018) 
    26 Cal.App.5th 320
    , 328.)
    In this case, we conclude there was substantial evidence
    supporting the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction under
    17
    section 300, subdivision (j) because father’s failure to address the
    daughter’s significant medical needs placed the son at substantial
    risk of suffering neglect or abuse in father’s care. On appeal,
    father does not dispute that he neglected his daughter within the
    meaning of section 300, subdivision (b).2 Indeed, father
    acknowledges that he “neglected his duties to [his daughter] by
    failing to seek help for her depression and by failing to follow up
    with doctor’s appointments to address her medical needs.”
    Rather, father argues that his son was not at substantial risk of
    neglect or abuse because there was “no evidence [the son]
    suffered from depression or any other psychological or physical
    ailment,” and thus, “no evidence [the son] had any similar needs
    that required addressing.” Father’s argument lacks merit.
    There was ample evidence to support the juvenile court’s
    finding that the son was at substantial risk of abuse or neglect at
    the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. During the
    course of the dependency proceedings, multiple family members
    shared concerns about the son’s mental health following the
    death of his sister. The maternal uncle told DCFS that the son
    appeared “to have a lot on his mind,” but the child did not talk
    about his sister’s death or about her at all. The MGM similarly
    related that the son had suffered traumatic experiences in losing
    2 Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) provides, in relevant part,
    that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court 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
    the failure or inability of child’s parent or guardian to adequately
    supervise or protect the child, . . . or by the willful or negligent
    failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with
    adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment.”
    18
    both his mother and his sister to suicide; however, the child did
    not mention his sister or share his feelings about the tragic
    events that had taken place. As a result, both the maternal uncle
    and grandmother believed the child would benefit from therapy.
    Two paternal great-aunts, R.R. and I.R., also expressed concern
    about the son’s mental health, and told DCFS that they feared
    the child might attempt suicide in the future if left in father’s
    care. Additionally, the school counselor reported that she had
    requested mental health services for the son because she had
    observed him to be nonchalant about his sister’s death, and she
    was concerned that he was not verbalizing his grief. Thus,
    contrary to father’s claim that his son was not suffering from
    depression or any other emotional problems, the record contains
    substantial evidence that the child was struggling with mental
    health issues that needed to be addressed.
    The record also reflects that, throughout the dependency
    proceedings, father showed a persistent lack of insight into the
    mental health issues suffered by his daughter, and an
    unwillingness to recognize how his conduct contributed to the
    child’s depression and failure to receive necessary medical care.
    When DCFS first became involved with the family, the social
    worker expressed her concern to father that the daughter was
    depressed, and she requested that he enroll the child in therapy.
    Father failed to do so, and he later revealed that he did not speak
    to the child about the social worker’s concerns because he “never
    wanted to invade his daughter’s privacy.” Following his
    daughter’s suicide, father continued to minimize the warning
    signs that preceded her death, asserting that he had no concerns
    about the drawings on his daughter’s bedroom wall depicting
    19
    depression and death because the child was artistic, and the
    drawings were not recent.
    Moreover, rather than accept any responsibility for his
    neglect of his daughter’s substantial medical needs, father
    repeatedly tried to shift blame to DCFS. He claimed in his
    interviews that DCFS should be held accountable for the child’s
    suicide because the agency had “pushed his daughter to the
    edge,” and she had died on “DCFS’s watch.” The evidence
    showed, however, that the daughter’s mental health issues
    existed before DCFS’s involvement with the family, and the child
    had expressed to her maternal relatives that she felt neglected
    and unloved by father. While the son reported having a better
    relationship with father than his sister had, he admitted that
    father rarely interacted with either sibling, and they spent most
    of their time alone in their respective bedrooms. Given father’s
    conduct in failing to recognize and address the daughter’s serious
    mental health issues and need for treatment, the juvenile court
    reasonably could infer that the son’s mental health needs would
    likewise be neglected.
    Considering the totality of the record, the juvenile court
    reasonably could conclude that the son was at substantial risk of
    suffering neglect or abuse in father’s care, and that jurisdiction
    over the child was necessary to protect him from such risk of
    harm. The juvenile court’s finding that the son came within the
    jurisdiction of the court under section 300, subdivision (j) was
    therefore supported by substantial evidence.3
    3  “ ‘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
    20
    III.   Substantial evidence supported the order removing
    the son from father’s custody.
    “ ‘At the dispositional hearing, a dependent child may not
    be taken from the physical custody of the parent under section
    361 unless the court finds there is clear and convincing evidence
    there is or would be a substantial danger to the child’s physical
    health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if
    returned home, and that there are no reasonable means to
    protect the child’s physical health without removing the child.’ ”
    (In re D.P. (2020) 
    44 Cal.App.5th 1058
    , 1065; see § 361,
    subd. (c)(1).) The court must determine “whether reasonable
    efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the need for removal
    of the minor from his or her home” and “shall state the facts on
    which the decision to remove the minor is based.” (§ 361,
    subd. (e).)
    “In determining whether a child may be safely maintained
    in the parent’s physical custody, the juvenile court may consider
    the parent’s past conduct and current circumstances, and the
    parent’s response to the conditions that gave rise to juvenile court
    intervention.” (In re D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 332.) “A
    removal order is proper if it is based on proof of (1) parental
    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.) In this case,
    because there was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile
    court’s exercise of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j),
    we need not consider whether jurisdiction was also proper under
    subdivisions (a) or (b).
    21
    inability to provide proper care for the minor and (2) potential
    detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent.
    [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need
    not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus
    of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re T.W. (2013)
    
    214 Cal.App.4th 1154
    , 1163; accord, In re D.B., at p. 328.)
    In this case, the same evidence that supported the juvenile
    court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (j)
    also supported its removal order. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); see In re
    D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 332 [“ ‘jurisdictional findings
    are prima facie evidence the minor cannot safely remain in the
    home’ ”].) As discussed, father neglected his daughter’s mental
    health because he prioritized his desire to respect the child’s
    privacy over her urgent need for psychological care. Following
    his daughter’s suicide, father continued to rationalize and
    minimize the signs that she may have been suffering from severe
    depression and suicidal ideation, and he repeatedly claimed
    DCFS was solely responsible for the child’s tragic death. There
    was no indication that, as of the jurisdiction and disposition
    hearing, father had gained any insight into his conduct and the
    substantial risk of harm that it posed to his surviving child.
    In challenging the juvenile court’s removal order, father
    asserts there were less drastic alternatives to removal such as
    returning his son to his custody “under stringent conditions of
    supervision by the agency.” (In re Hailey T. (2012)
    
    212 Cal.App.4th 139
    , 148.) Father reasons that his son had
    already been referred for counseling, and that the services
    ordered for father could have been pursued without removing the
    child from his care. However, prior to the daughter’s death,
    father had not been receptive to services from DCFS. He also
    22
    maintained throughout the proceedings that DCFS’s intervention
    was the result of a disagreement with his parenting style rather
    than any neglectful conduct on his part. On this record, the
    juvenile court reasonably could conclude that father’s medical
    neglect of his daughter presented a substantial risk of harm to
    his son, and such risk could only be obviated by removing the
    child from father’s custody. The removal order was supported by
    substantial evidence.
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    VIRAMONTES, J.*
    We concur:
    LAVIN, Acting P. J.
    EGERTON, J.
    *Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
    Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
    Constitution.
    23
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B312379

Filed Date: 2/1/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/1/2022