Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. Monica A. (In re Nathan E.)

• Decision Date: 22 February 2021
• Docket Number: B306909
• Citation: 61 Cal.App.5th 114,275 Cal.Rptr.3d 380
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE NATHAN E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Monica A., Defendant and Appellant.

61 Cal.App.5th 114

275 Cal.Rptr.3d 380

IN RE NATHAN E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Monica A., Defendant and Appellant.

B306909

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Filed February 22, 2021

Roni Keller, Newbury Park, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHANEY, J.

The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed Nathan E. (Nathan) (then four), Andrew A. (Andrew) (then two), and Noah E. (Noah) (then eight months old) from their parents, Monica A. (mother) and Joey E. (father) on March 30, 2020, after investigating a report of a February 2020 domestic violence incident. DCFS's petition alleged two counts each under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b) (failure to protect), and another count under subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling).¹

At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 9, 2020, the juvenile court sustained counts a-1 and b-1 based on the parents’ history of multiple domestic violence incidents and dismissed counts a-2, b-2, and j-1 as to each of the children. The juvenile court ordered reunification services, separate visitation for mother and father, and ordered that the children remain placed with their paternal grandparents.

Mother appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders, contending that the record lacks evidence sufficient to support those orders. We find substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's orders, and we will affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mother and father began dating in 2008 and married in 2015. Nathan was born in 2015, Andrew in 2017, and Noah in 2019.

On the evening of February 1, 2020, the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) responded to a domestic violence call at mother and father's apartment. According to mother, she and father began arguing in her bedroom while the children all slept in a different bedroom. Mother told police that evening that father began yelling at her and pulling on a necklace that mother was wearing. Mother told police that father scratched and clawed at her neck and the responding officers saw scratches on mother's neck.

When father left the bedroom, mother reported, she shut and locked the bedroom door behind him. The police report says that father started "punching and hitting the bedroom door" and that he fled the apartment shortly thereafter.

In the police report that sparked DCFS's investigation, one of the responding officers stated: "I was able to locate three previous domestic violence incidents between [mother and father.] I also located a restraining order violation between the two." Another LBPD officer—one who had not responded to the incident that prompted DCFS's investigation, but who later accompanied DCFS to the apartment to serve an investigative search warrant on mother—told DCFS that "he is familiar with the family as he has been out to the home for domestic violence between the parents" and that around the time of the February incident, police were at the apartment "two days in a row." The officer reported that he personally had "discussed with the parents the detriment of domestic violence especially in the presence of the children."

DCFS initiated its investigation based on a referral after the February 1, 2020 incident and was able to contact mother on February 18, 2020. Mother confirmed an appointment with DCFS on February 20, 2020 at the parents’ apartment, but there was no answer at the door or mother's phone number when DCFS arrived for the appointment. After repeated DCFS attempts to contact her, mother answered her phone again on February 25, but, according to the social worker who called her, when asked to schedule a meeting with DCFS, mother started saying "Hello," repeatedly and then hung up the phone and did not answer repeated attempts to reach her.

DCFS was able to schedule another meeting for February 27, 2020. But when the social worker tried to confirm the meeting, mother told the social worker that she did "not feel that it is necessary to have a DCFS investigation" and said that she was unwilling to meet with the social worker.

DCFS sought, obtained, and served an investigative search warrant on mother at her apartment on March 2, 2020. When the social worker and accompanying LBPD officer knocked on mother's door, the social worker heard mother tell someone to not open the door. Nathan opened the door in spite of mother's instruction.

When the social worker interviewed Nathan about the February 1 incident, Nathan reported—contrary to mother's report to the police—that he was in the room when the incident happened. He also told the social worker that his mother "got a scratch." Asked how mother was scratched, "Nathan stated that mother scratched herself." Nathan told the social worker that he had seen mother push father down stairs during a prior domestic violence incident.

Nathan and Andrew both reported that mother disciplined them by giving them "pow pows." Nathan described a "pow pow" as a spanking on the bottom and hand with a slotted wooden spoon, but denied ever having any physical injury as a result of the spankings.

The social worker asked mother what happened during the February 1 incident; mother responded, "I am not going to say." Mother reported that when the incident happened, the children were all asleep in a different room. Mother expressly denied that Nathan was in the room with mother and father during the fight, and repeated that the children were all asleep. But when asked where in the home she and father were, she replied, "I'm not going to say."

Asked whether she had obtained an emergency protective order as she had told police and DCFS she would, mother replied, "I'm not going to say." Asked about a criminal protective order father had obtained against her from 2015 (later modified to be a peaceful contact order so the parents could live together), mother responded that she had her record expunged so that there would be no record of it. The social worker explained that the order remained in place, and would be in place until 2025.

Mother shared with the social worker that she had been arrested for domestic violence against father—mother had stabbed father—in 2015 and had completed a 52-week domestic violence course, but told the social worker that she had no other criminal history. (Mother's 2015 arrest and subsequent conviction also included a charge for resisting an executive officer.)

DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) on March 12, 2020, alleging five counts as to each child. Counts a-1 and b-1 alleged that mother and father had placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm by engaging in violent physical altercations with each other in the children's presence. Counts a-2, b-2, and j-1 each alleged that mother physically abused Nathan by striking him with a wooden spoon on his buttocks, which placed Nathan and his siblings at risk of serious physical harm. The juvenile court entered orders on March 13, 2020 detaining all three children from the parents.

During an interview on March 27, 2020 (after the children were detained), mother was more cooperative with DCFS. During this interview, mother reported that after the February 1 incident, "I had a small scratch, but I think I may have done that myself, I was scratching myself." Mother denied ever having pushed father down stairs. Mother told the social worker that she did not believe she had violated a protective order because she believed she had applied for her record to be expunged.

In documents filed with the juvenile court, DCFS identified evidence regarding the parents’ domestic violence issues with the following bulleted list:

• "In January 2019 father was charged with violating a court order to prevent domestic violence[.]

• "Father was issued a Criminal Protective Order to be protected from mother after a [domestic violence] incident between the parents in 2014[.]

• "Mother and father conceived the child Andrew in the time that the Criminal Protective Stay Away Order was active and before the order was modified to be peaceful contact.

• "The parents have failed to uphold the peaceful contact order as there was a [domestic violence] incident on 2/1/2020 in the home while the children were present.

• "Mother was issued an Emergency Protective Order after the [domestic violence] incident on 2/1/2020, but she failed to follow up to get a Restraining Order against father after the referral incident and stated to [the social worker] that she intended to do so ‘eventually’ but as of yet has not made such efforts to be protective of the children."

The juvenile court held combined jurisdiction and disposition hearings on July 9, 2020. The juvenile court sustained counts a-1 and b-1 (the domestic violence counts) and dismissed counts a-2, b-2, and j-1 (the physical abuse counts) for each child as to both parents, and concluded each child was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The court ordered the children removed from the parents and placed with the paternal grandparents under the supervision of DCFS. The court ordered reunification services and visitation (never together) for both parents.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.²

DISCUSSION

On the face of her arguments, mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings. Underlying mother's contention, however, runs an assertion that evidence of domestic violence between parents will never suffice to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (a), because such violence is not aimed at the child and thus...