In re Jack C., D052156 (Cal. App. 6/11/2008)
| Decision Date | 11 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | D052156 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re JACK C. III, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNA C., Defendant and Appellant. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J516832, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed.
Anna C. appeals a judgment declaring her son, Jack C. III, a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j).1 We affirm.
Jack C. III (Jack), born June 2006, is the son of Anna C. and J.C.2 Anna and J.C. have three other children, Jackie, Elizabeth and Andrew (siblings), ages 15, 13 and 11,3 respectively. Anna had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and she and J.C. had a history of domestic violence. The maternal grandparents helped care for the siblings and became their legal guardians in 2005. Jack lived with his parents in a room at a YWCA family center.
On September 1, 2007, San Diego Police officers arrested Anna and charged her with attempted murder of her daughter, Jackie.4 Officers reported that Anna assaulted Jackie with a heavy galvanized metal pipe. Jack and Elizabeth were present. Jackie told officers that she hid in the bathroom during an altercation but Anna forced the bathroom door open with the pipe. Anna then struck Jackie in the head and upper torso with the pipe. Jackie briefly lost consciousness. Her right eye was swollen and discolored. Jackie was taken by ambulance to an area hospital where she was diagnosed with blunt head trauma and a concussion. Officers recovered a metal pipe 17 inches long and two inches in diameter in the basket compartment of a baby stroller.
Officers detained Jack in protective custody. On September 5, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (j) alleging Jack's sibling suffered non-accidental physical injuries inflicted by a parent and there was a substantial risk that Jack would also be abused or neglected.
A contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held November 13 and 16, and December 4, 2007. The court entered the Agency's reports into evidence. Jackie testified on Anna's behalf.
On September 4, 2007, a social worker interviewed Jackie, Elizabeth and Andrew separately. Jackie stated that Anna hit her on the head with a pipe on September 1. About two years earlier, Anna had punched her in the face with her fist. Anna also tried to hit Jackie with a car club but missed.
Elizabeth stated that Anna and Jackie had been play fighting on September 1, and then Jackie pulled Anna's hair "really hard," and then Anna pulled Jackie's hair "really hard." Jackie went into the bathroom. Anna hit the bathroom door with the pipe and was able to open the door. When Anna opened the door, the pipe flew out of her hand and hit Jackie in the eye. Elizabeth said Anna had hit them in the past, most recently in July 2007.
Andrew told the social worker he had not seen his parents in about four months. He reported that Anna had hit him when he was five or six years old.
An investigator with the public defenders office interviewed Jackie on September 27, 2007. Jackie said she and Anna were play fighting on September 1. Jackie stepped on Jack's toy and hit her head on the corner of the doorway into the bathroom. Jackie was mad because she lost the play fight. She lied and said her mother hit her. Jackie said that Anna had never hit her; they only play fight or "slap box." Jackie wanted her mother to be released from jail.
An investigator with the alternate public defender interviewed Elizabeth on November 5, 2007. Elizabeth said Anna and Jackie were play fighting on September 1. Jackie hit Anna hard on the cheek with her fist. Anna then became angry and hit Jackie. Elizabeth said she did not see any pipes. About three years earlier, Jackie was saying "bad stuff" to Anna. Anna hit Jackie in the face and made Jackie's lip bleed.
Jackie testified that she did not tell anyone Anna had hit her. She just said she "got hit." Anna did not hit her with a pipe. She and Anna were play fighting or "slap boxing," which meant they were slapping each other on the arms. They also pulled each other's hair. Anna would not let go of Jackie's hair. Jackie tore some of Anna's papers. Anna then let go of Jackie's hair to recover her papers. Anna became angry. Jack was crying. Jackie then slipped on one of Jack's toys and hit her head on the bathroom door. Jackie lost consciousness, and suffered a concussion with memory loss and dizziness for a week.
The court stated the uncontroverted evidence showed there was physical combat between Anna and Jackie. Having heard Jackie's testimony and observed her demeanor, the court determined that Jackie's prior statements to police officers, the YWCA security guard, medical personnel and the social worker were credible. Jackie's injuries were not consistent with a slip and fall. Further, Jackie initially stated that Anna hit her with a pipe and hid the pipe, and police officers found the pipe in Jack's stroller. The court determined that the evidence clearly showed that Jack was exposed to a disturbing physical altercation. The court sustained the petition under section 300, subdivision (j).
Substantial Evidence Supports The Jurisdictional Findings Under Section 300, Subdivision (j)
Anna contends insufficient evidence supports the court's finding there was a substantial risk that Jack would be physically abused or neglected. Anna argues the petition lacked any specific, defined allegations describing a logical nexus between the risk of abuse or neglect to one-year-old Jack and the single incident of physical abuse to 15-year-old Jackie. Anna asserts the evidence does not support a reasonable inference that the violence she exhibited on September 1 was likely to recur, or that it would be directed at Jack.
The Agency contends Anna does not meet her burden on appeal to show there is no substantial evidence to support the court's findings. Minor's counsel joins with the Agency's argument and further asserts the evidence supports the court's finding that Jack was at substantial risk of serious physical harm. Minor's counsel maintains that a serious domestic disturbance occurred between Anna and Jackie in Jack's presence, resulting in Anna's arrest and Jackie's hospitalization with blunt head trauma.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the court considers only the question whether the child is a person described by section 300. Allegations that a child is a person described by section 300 must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a).)
Under section 300, subdivision (j), the Agency must prove "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." In determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child, "[t]he court shall 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).)
We review the trial court's findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 577.) The evidence must be reasonable in nature, credible and of...
To continue reading
Request your trial