San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. C.M. (In re G.M.)
| Decision Date | 04 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | E075957 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re G.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.M., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Nos J285319, J285320, J285321, J285322, Erin K. Alexander, Judge.
Rich Pfeiffer under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Martin Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) filed juvenile dependency petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1] (Petition), on behalf of C.M.'s (Mother) four children, G.G. (born in 2016), A.M. (born in 2014), J.M. (born in 2012), and B.M. (born in 2008). The three oldest children (the older children) share the same biological father, D.C. (Father D.). G.G. has a different father, B.G. (Father B.). Following a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found jurisdiction, ordered the children removed from Mother's physical custody, and awarded custody of the children to their respective fathers. The court terminated jurisdiction, dismissed the case, issued family law exit orders addressing custody and visitation (August 19, 2020 orders), and entered a final judgment (September 8, 2020 judgment). Mother appeals from the orders and judgment.
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support removal of the children from her. Mother also argues the juvenile court erred in ordering such limited visitation and failed to address sibling visitation. In addition, Mother argues the juvenile court should have construed her request for reconsideration of the August 19, 2020 orders as a petition for relief under section 388. We reject Mother's contentions and affirm the August 19, 2020 orders and September 8, 2020 judgment.
On March 8, 2020, CFS received a referral from the police that G.G. (then three and one-half years old) was being physically and sexually abused while in Mother's care. G.G.'s father, Father B., reportedly took G.G. to the hospital after discovering bruises on G.G.'s penis. G.G. told Father B. the bruises were from Mother making blue marks on his penis with a pencil. The police told the CFS social worker that G.G. appeared happy and active, with no visible marks or bruises.
On May 27, 2020, CFS received a second referral, alleging physical abuse, general neglect, and sexual abuse to G.G. The following day CFS obtained a detention warrant and detained the four children. G.G. was examined by a Children's Assessment Center (CAC) nurse practitioner (Ms. H.) who found non-patterned bruising on G.G.'s forehead and abrasions on his arm. During the exam, G.G. stated that Frank, his maternal step-grandfather (MGF), pushed him into a wall. G.G. also stated, “‘my mom was drawing on me'” as he pointed to his penis. The CFS social worker reported that Ms. H. told her G.G. also stated, “‘my mom was drawing on me'” as he pointed to his penis. Ms. H. advised the social worker that “there is a history of [G.G.] having bruising to his penis; [Ms. H.] stated she could not comment on said bruising at this time, as further assessment is needed.”
On May 27, 2020, the social worker privately spoke to G.G. at Father B.'s home. When the social worker pointed to G.G.'s bruise on his forehead, G.G. said, “ ” When asked about the bruise on the top of his head, G.G. said “‘mommy... did it.'” During the interview, G.G. was in good spirits. Father B. told the social worker that almost every time G.G. returned to Father B.'s home, he had new marks and bruises. Father B. said Mother never had an explanation for the injuries.
The social worker privately interviewed the older children on May 27, 2020. They confirmed MGF lived in their home. A.M. stated Mother “‘spanks us on the butt with her hand and she whoops me on the butt with a belt four (4) times.'” A.M. said Mother hit J.M. in the eye with the belt. J.M. and B.M. said maternal grandmother (MGM) and MGF constantly argued in the children's presence. B.M. denied Mother abused drugs or alcohol but said he witnessed MGF and an uncle smoke marijuana. The older children denied there was any sexual abuse.
MGF also denied G.G. was physically abused. MGF told the social worker that on May 24, 2020, G.G. had a tantrum. MGF grabbed G.G. by the hand and guided him to a wall for a time-out. G.G. resisted, lunged forward, and hit his forehead on the wall. MGF said he had been living with the family for over a month. He admitted having a history of using methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. He stated he last used methamphetamine a month earlier.
Mother stated during her interview on May 27, 2020, that MGF no longer lived with her but he visited once or twice a week. She was aware of MGF's substance abuse problem. The last time he abused a controlled substance was within the past month. Mother denied physically abusing the children. She disciplined them with time-outs and assigning the children additional chores. Mother said she did not know how G.G. obtained his marks and bruises.
On May 28, 2020, Mother was served with a detention warrant and the children were detained by CFS. She reported she was not currently married to Father B. or Father D. G.G. was transported to Father B.'s home, where he was placed under Family Maintenance. That same day, Father D., the father of the older children, A.M., J.M., and B.M., called CFS and said he lived in Las Vegas with his grandmother, uncle, cousin, and girlfriend. Father D. said he was on his way to California and requested the children released to him. Father D. stated he had been seeing the children regularly and last saw them two weeks ago. The older children were detained in foster care on May 28, 2020.
On June 1, 2020, CFS filed juvenile dependency petitions on behalf of each of the four children. The petition filed on behalf of G.G. was brought under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (d) (sexual abuse). The petition alleged CAC examined G.G. and found that G.G. had sustained multiple injuries, including acute injury to his forehead, bruising on his penis, and abrasions on his upper right arm. CAC found the injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma, and they occurred while in Mother's care. The petition further alleged Mother and Father B. failed to protect G.G. and adequately care for him. The petition also alleged mother had sexually abused G.G. but those allegations were later stricken from the petition.
The petitions filed on behalf of the older children on June 1, 2020, alleged jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling). The petitions alleged that Mother had physically and sexually abused the older children's sibling, G.G., and there was a substantial risk Mother would also abuse or neglect the older children. The sexual abuse allegations were later stricken from the older children's petitions.
In CFS's detention report, CFS reported that Mother had no criminal history in the county. Father B. had a 2008 conviction for driving without a license, and two convictions in 2011 for possession of a controlled substance. Father D. had a conviction in 2013 for battery. CFS further reported that there were no custody arrangements between Father D. and Mother regarding the older children. Father D. stated he had been visiting the older children for four hours twice a month in March, April, and May 2020. Before then, Father D. did not visit because Mother did not allow it, Father D. did not have reliable transportation, and he was financially unstable
Father D. said he was unemployed partly because of the pandemic but was receiving unemployment benefits. His relatives and live-in girlfriend were helping him financially. Father D. denied that he or anyone in his home had any mental illness, committed domestic violence, or abused drugs or alcohol. Father D. reported he had a great relationship with his children and communicated regularly with B.M. by phone. Father D. stated he wanted custody of the older children and wanted them to live with him in Las Vegas. CFS recommended the older children be returned to Father D.'s custody, pending a successful home assessment.
During the detention hearing on June 2, 2020, Mother objected to detaining the children but did not request a hearing. Mother acknowledged Father D. was the father of the older children, which was previously confirmed by a DNA test in a child support matter. The juvenile court gave CFS authority to place the older children with Father D., pending a positive home assessment. Mother also confirmed Father B. was G.G.'s father, and informed the court that there was a family court order granting him and Mother joint legal custody. The juvenile court ordered the children temporarily detained. MGF was ordered prohibited from having contact with G.G. G.G. was ordered to remain in Father B.'s custody.
CFS reported on June 4, 2020, that it completed a home assessment of Father D.'s home. Father D. lived with his girlfriend grandmother, and uncle. CFS found the home appropriate and had no concerns regarding the older children living with Father D. CFS recommended the older children be returned to Father D.'s custody. At the continued contested detention hearing on June 4, 2020, Mother stated she was very concerned about being able to visit the older children if placed with Father D. in Las Vegas. The juvenile court...
To continue reading
Request your trial