Filed 11/17/21 In re Z.S. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 FIVE

In re Z.S., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B310954

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

20CCJP02281A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed.

Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
3

E.G. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction 

findings, removal order, and custody order concerning her 

daughter Z.S., who was five years old at the time dependency 

proceedings commenced. The juvenile court credited Z.S.’s 

reports that Mother physically abused Z.S. and asserted 

dependency jurisdiction over Z.S. and her younger brother S.S.1 

In addition to sustaining allegations related to Z.S.’s reports of 

abuse, the juvenile court sustained an allegation that Mother’s 

anxiety and depression (which prompted her to use 

methamphetamine at one point after dependency proceedings 

were already underway) placed Z.S. and S.S. at substantial risk 

of serious physical harm.2 The juvenile court removed Z.S. from 

Mother’s physical custody, gave sole physical custody of Z.S. to 

her father, Sa.S. (Father), and granted Mother and Father joint 

legal custody. We consider whether substantial evidence 

supports the juvenile court’s rulings, focusing primarily on Z.S.’s 

reports of abuse, which did differ over time in some respects.

1 The juvenile court’s orders pertaining to S.S. are not at 

issue in this appeal. We are concerned solely with a challenge to 

the orders made in connection with Z.S.

2 As we mention post, the juvenile court dismissed an 

allegation that the children were at substantial risk of serious 

physical harm from Mother’s drug abuse, believing that a positive 

test for methamphetamine that occurred roughly a year before 

the jurisdiction hearing was insufficiently probative of a current 

risk of harm.
4

I. BACKGROUND

A. Z.S. Reports Mother Abused Her

Father and Mother, who were no longer in a relationship, 

had an existing, agreed-upon schedule for sharing visitation with 

Z.S. Z.S. was visiting Father one weekend in March 2020 when 

she told him Mother had hit her with a broom, kicked her in the 

stomach, and pushed her into a wall. Father called the police, 

and an officer asked Father to bring Z.S. to the police station.

Once there, a law enforcement officer interviewed Z.S.—

then six years old—alone. Z.S. disclosed during the police station 

interview that Mother hit her with a broom and pushed her into 

a wall; she also said this abuse occurred between one to three 

weeks earlier. The interviewing officer found Z.S.’s answers to 

his questions about the abuse very vague, and the officer found it 

significant she responded “I don’t know” to numerous questions 

(many of which were not open-ended). The officer also presented 

Z.S. with a broom and asked her to demonstrate how Mother 

used a broom to hit her; Z.S., however, said she could not.

During the police station interview, the officer inspected

Z.S.’s back. The officer observed light red marks (described as 

resembling scratches) on her back, and the officer believed one of 

the marks appeared to be old and healing. The officer was not of 

the opinion that the scratches were consistent with being hit with 

a broom, but he could not determine how Z.S. would have 

sustained the marks. One of the marks was under Z.S.’s right 

arm and the officer thought it could be attributable to being lifted 

up by that part of her body.

The officer also spoke to Mother and inspected her home. 

Mother denied hitting Z.S. or harming her. Mother told the 

officer that Z.S. wants attention and lies about whichever parent 
5

she is then mad at. Following the police investigation, Z.S. was 

left in Father’s care for the time being while S.S. would remain 

with Mother.

B. The Department’s Initial Investigation

1. Mother’s statements

A Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (Department) social worker interviewed Mother a few 

days after Z.S. spoke to the police. According to Mother, she and 

Father had been separated for approximately two years and were 

engaged in an ongoing feud. Father was emotionally abusive, 

verbally abusive during a period in which she suffered from 

postpartum depression, and eventually he became physically 

abusive. Mother never reported any domestic violence to law 

enforcement because she was afraid.

Regarding Z.S.’s allegations of abuse, Mother said she could 

not believe Z.S. made false allegations against her. In Mother’s 

view, Z.S. was being manipulated by Father and his mother, M.S. 

(Paternal Grandmother). Mother admitted to occasionally 

spanking Z.S. with an open hand and to at times picking Z.S. up 

by her arms and her sides to move her away from S.S. when Z.S. 

would hit him. Z.S. throws tantrums because she wants to visit 

Paternal Grandmother. Mother believes Z.S. is being triggered 

by Paternal Grandmother asking Z.S. if Mother hurts her, to 

which Z.S. has replied that Mother hits her.

Mother also told the social worker she suffers from anxiety, 

feels overwhelmed by S.S.’s needs, and struggles parenting Z.S. 

Mother admitted using drugs before S.S. was born, specifically 

methamphetamine, but she denied any current drug usage.
6

Later during the same month of this initial interview 

(March 2020), however, Mother called a Department social 

worker two days after submitting to a drug test that had not yet 

returned results. Mother said she “‘made a mistake this 

weekend’’’ but initially expressed concern about elaborating

because it might impact her children. When the social worker 

asked Mother if she drug tested two days earlier, Mother 

confessed she was worried about what the results would be and 

said, “‘You are going to find out anyway so I should just tell you.’” 

Mother then disclosed she used methamphetamine on a recent 

Sunday night when a friend came over to help with the kids and 

Mother “left the home for a few hours to get a break.”

The social worker and Mother developed a safety plan and 

Mother agreed not to again use methamphetamine. Mother’s 

pending drug test came back positive for amphetamines and 

methamphetamines. Mother’s next drug test, taken the following 

month, was negative (as were subsequent drug tests).

2. Father’s statements

Father told the social worker he lives with his girlfriend, 

D.L., and D.L.’s child from a prior relationship. D.L., at the time, 

was also pregnant with Father’s child. When Z.S. first revealed 

abuse by Mother, Father and Mother were operating under an 

agreed-upon custody schedule (there was no Family Court order

in place) where the children lived with Mother in a back house on 

Paternal Grandmother’s property during the week and had

overnight weekend visits with Father.

Regarding the abuse allegations, Father stated Z.S. refused 

to return home to Mother after a visit with Father and said she 

did not want to go home because Mother was hitting her. Z.S. 
7

told Father that Mother hit her with a broom stick, pulled her 

hair, pushed her, and kicked her in the stomach. Z.S. could not 

tell Father when this happened, but she reported Mother would 

hit her almost every day. Z.S. also told Father that Mother 

threatens her. After Z.S. told him about the abuse, Father called 

the Pomona Police Department and, at their request, took Z.S. to 

the police station.

3. Z.S.’s statements

Z.S. stated she did not want to return to live with Mother. 

She said Mother pushed her into a wall, hurting her face, and 

said she had scratches on her back because of Mother. When 

asked, Z.S. could not provide additional details about the

allegations of abuse, nor could she detail exactly when the abuse 

occurred or how she got the scratches on her back. Z.S. said her 

15-year-old half-sister R.A. (same mother, different fathers) was 

present in the home when Mother hit Z.S., but R.A. did not see it 

because she was on her phone. Z.S. maintained she was afraid of 

Mother.

Z.S. stated she was happy living with Father and wanted to 

continue to do so. When asked, Z.S. denied knowing what 

tantrums are, but she admitted to screaming, yelling, and

throwing herself on the ground at Mother’s home. Z.S. said she 

cries because she misses Paternal Grandmother and Mother does 

not let her go to Paternal Grandmother’s house.

4. Other relatives’ statements

P.G. (Maternal Grandfather) stated he visits Mother and 

the children almost daily. Maternal Grandfather reported 

Mother is a good Mother who cares for S.S. He acknowledged 
8

Mother has spanked Z.S. in the past, but he denied witnessing 

Mother push, kick, or hit the children with objects at any time.

Z.S.’s half-sister R.A. reported she lives with her father and 

his girlfriend, but she would prefer to live with Mother. She 

visits Mother on weekends from Saturday until Sunday. R.A. 

said she has seen Mother spank Z.S. with an open hand on her 

buttocks, but R.A. denied Mother ever hit, pushed, kicked, or 

scratched Z.S. R.A. also reported Z.S. lies about a lot of things, 

including other people hurting her. She stated Z.S. once told her 

Father instructed her to say bad things about Mother. R.A. 

denied seeing Mother physically discipline S.S.

C. The Petition and Detention Hearing

The Department filed a five-count dependency petition in 

April 2020. Counts a-1, b-1, and j-1 alleged Mother physically 

abused Z.S. by striking her with a broom resulting in redness and 

scratches on Z.S.’s body. It further alleged Mother previously 

struck Z.S. with belts and a broom, pulled her hair, pushed her, 

kicked her stomach, and pushed her against a wall. According to 

the petition as filed, Father failed to protect Z.S. because he knew 

or reasonably should have known about the abuse.

Count b-2 of the dependency petition alleged Mother had a 

history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of 

amphetamine and methamphetamine, which rendered her 

incapable of providing regular care to the children. Count b-3 

alleged Mother had mental and emotional problems, including 

depression and anxiety, that rendered her unable to provide 

regular care to the children. As filed, these two b-2 and b-3 

counts alleged Father knew of Mother’s substance abuse and 

mental and emotional problems, respectively, and failed to 
9

protect the children by allowing Mother to reside in the children’s 

home and have unlimited access to them.

The juvenile court held a detention hearing that same 

month. The court detained Z.S. from Mother and placed her with 

Father. The court, however, found there were reasonable 

services available to prevent the need to detain S.S. and allowed 

him to remain in Mother’s care.

D. Further Interviews

The Department conducted additional interviews prior to 

the jurisdiction and disposition hearing.

Z.S. was interviewed again in November 2020.3 When 

asked about physical abuse by Mother, Z.S. stated Mother used to 

hit Z.S. a lot with her hand and Z.S. would have bruises all over. 

During this interview, Z.S. denied being hit with a broom, but she

said Mother and R.A. pulled her hair. She also said Mother 

would hit S.S. when he was bad. When asked about her 

monitored visits with Mother, Z.S. stated they have been nice.

Mother was interviewed in December 2020. Mother stated 

Z.S.’s allegations were false and argued that if she had engaged 

in the extreme behavior Z.S. alleged, there would have been more 

signs of abuse. Mother speculated Z.S. made up allegations of 

abuse because she wanted to be with Father.

Father was interviewed again in February 2021. He denied 

being aware of Mother’s abuse of Z.S. prior to the date on which 

Z.S. told him about it and he took her to the police. Father said 

3 This court granted Mother’s request for judicial notice of a 

last minute information report and the juvenile court’s custody 

order, which were not included in the Clerk’s Transcript.
10

he was suspicious that Mother might have been using drugs, but 

he did not know she was doing so prior to the dependency 

proceedings. Father denied knowing Mother was dealing with 

depression or anxiety. Father reported that, most recently, he 

and Mother were communicating and co-parenting well. Z.S. was 

less stressed and anxious, and she was doing well in school.

E. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing

The juvenile court held a jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing in February 2021. The Department asked to amend the 

petition to strike all allegations of Father’s failure to protect and 

the juvenile court agreed, making him a nonoffending parent.

The Department and counsel for Z.S. asked the juvenile 

court to sustain the petition as so amended. Counsel for Z.S. 

emphasized the red marks seen on Z.S.’s back were corroborative 

of abuse, particularly when more prominent evidence of injury 

could have healed in the week or weeks between the abuse and 

Z.S.’s disclosure of it to Father. Counsel for Z.S. also complained 

that the police stationhouse interview of her client resorted to 

leading questions rather than open-ended questions that are 

appropriate for a child of her age. Z.S.’s attorney argued her 

client’s inability to pinpoint when the abuse occurred was 

common for a child of her age and Z.S.’s “I don’t know” responses 

“show[ ] her credibility” by revealing she was not simply “trying 

to make up a time frame.” Counsel for Z.S. added that her client 

was very happy with her visitation with Mother and even 

expressed interest in having longer visits, which in counsel’s 

view, again supported Z.S.’s credibility and the lack of any 

ulterior agenda against Mother. The Department joined the 

arguments made by minor’s counsel.
11

Mother’s attorney asked the juvenile court to dismiss the 

petition, believing the Department had not carried its burden to 

establish there was any physical abuse. Mother’s attorney 

conceded Z.S. did not want to return to Mother’s home but saw

this as evidence not of fear of unmonitored contact with Mother 

but of a desired to fabricate abuse allegations to stay with a 

preferred parent. As Mother’s attorney put it: “At this time we 

have a child who has a lot of motive to make false allegations and 

in fact makes very, very inconsistent statements, some of them 

ridiculous at times, and it’s something to do with her age, and I 

don’t think that Mother is blaming her child. Rather, Mother is

very concerned. She has indicated that she felt guilty about what 

went on, that the child was torn in the middle when the [parents’] 

separation happened, and she may have had some traumatic 

results of the parents’ separation. [¶] I believe that [Z.S.] is 

doing well in therapy. Mother would do everything to support 

her and continue to support her mental health treatment, but at 

this time I don’t believe that in any way, shape, or form the 

Department has met their burden to show that [Mother] was 

abusive.”

After hearing argument, the juvenile court sustained 

amended petition counts a-1 (harm or risk of harm from 

nonaccidental physical abuse by a parent), b-1 (risk of harm from 

physical abuse), b-3 (risk of harm from mental and emotional 

problems), and j-1 (risk of harm from physical abuse of a sibling). 

The court dismissed the b-2 count (risk of harm from substance 

abuse), apparently of the view that the evidence of then-current 

use of methamphetamine was insufficient.

Proceeding to disposition, the juvenile court declared Z.S. a 

dependent of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), 
12

and (j). The court found it reasonable and necessary to remove 

Z.S. from Mother and released her to Father. The court found the 

conditions that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction no 

longer existed and were unlikely to exist if it withdrew 

supervision. It terminated jurisdiction with a custody order 

granting Mother and Father joint legal, and Father sole physical,

custody of Z.S. The court also terminated jurisdiction as to S.S., 

granting Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody.

The juvenile court explained the differences between its 

orders regarding Z.S. and S.S., noting Z.S. was “in a different 

situation” than S.S. Elaborating, the court stated: “The reason 

the court finds that removal of [Z.S.] from [Mother] is necessary 

is because, according to [Z.S.]—and the allegation has been 

sustained—[Mother] physically abused [Z.S.]. She did have 

marks on her. She did go to the police station, and [Z.S.] is 

uncomfortable living with [Mother] and is happier with [Father] 

and is having monitored visits with [Mother] and feels 

comfortable with that.”

II. DISCUSSION

The core of Mother’s argument is that the juvenile court 

erred by crediting Z.S.’s report of abuse, which Mother denied. 

Though Mother advances a litany of reasons in support of her 

position, none are persuasive under the governing deferential 

standard of review. Z.S. consistently asserted Mother physically 

abused her, and while she provided different details about the 

abuse during different interviews, those details were generally 

consistent—with one exception we shall discuss (concerning use 

of the broom) that does not convince us to abandon due deference 

to the juvenile court’s findings. The bottom line is we believe the 
13

juvenile court was entitled to credit Z.S.’s report of abuse on the 

record we have before us. And that resolves the remainder of 

Mother’s arguments on appeal.

A. Standard of Review

We review jurisdictional findings “‘to see if substantial 

evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. 

[Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable 

inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of 

the dependency court . . . [and] we review the record in the light 

most favorable to the court’s determinations . . . .’ [Citations.]” 

(In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.); accord, In re I.J.

(2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).) Where substantial evidence 

supports a challenged order, we “affirm the order even if there is 

other evidence supporting a contrary finding.” (In re R.V. (2012) 

208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843; see also Haraguchi v. Superior Court

(2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711, fn. 3 [that lower court findings are 

based on declarations and other written evidence, as opposed to 

live testimony, does not lessen the deference due those findings].)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s 

Order

Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, 

subdivision (a) authorizes a juvenile court to exercise dependency 

jurisdiction over a child if “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a 

substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm 

inflicted nonaccidentally . . . by the child’s parent.” (Welf. & Inst. 

Code, § 300, subd. (a).)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding 

that Mother nonaccidentally inflicted physical harm upon Z.S. 
14

and there was a substantial risk Z.S. would suffer serious 

physical harm in the future. Z.S. initially reported Mother hit 

her with a broom, kicked her in the stomach, and pushed her into 

a wall. During later interviews, Z.S. reiterated Mother pushed 

her into a wall, hurting her face. She also stated she had 

scratches on her back because of Mother, and that Mother hit 

Z.S. with her hand and caused bruises. This is sufficient to 

establish Mother nonaccidentally physically harmed Z.S. Though 

Mother denied harming Z.S., the juvenile court was entitled to 

credit Z.S.’s account of what happened over Mother’s. We are 

obligated to give due deference to the court’s determination. (I.J., 

supra, 56 Cal.4th at 773 [“‘“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”’”].)

Mother argues, though, that no reasonable trier of fact 

would have found Mother physically abused Z.S., contending 

primarily that Z.S.’s testimony was internally inconsistent, 

illogical, contradicted by other witnesses, and deemed insufficient 

by law enforcement. Mother may be right that some details of 

Z.S.’s account are vulnerable to attack, but overall, we believe the 

core abuse allegations remained within the juvenile court’s 

purview to credit.

First, though Z.S.’s March 2020 and November 2020 

statements regarding Mother’s abuse identified some different 

methods of abuse, Z.S. did not change her testimony that Mother 

had, in fact, physically abused her. Other than Z.S.’s later denial 

that Mother hit her with a broom, Z.S.’s statements were not 

actually inconsistent. The juvenile court was entitled to credit 

her reports despite the inconsistency, particularly given her 

young age (six years old at the time proceedings commenced) and 
15

the time that passed between the first statements and the later 

statement (approximately eight months). In addition, we believe 

the discrepancy concerning use of the broom could be seen by the 

juvenile court as likely to arise from a reluctance to accuse a 

parent of more serious wrongdoing (particularly with Z.S. and 

Mother’s relationship improving during monitored visits that 

were going well) rather than a recantation of something not true 

when reported closer to the time of the event in question.

Next, Mother emphasizes Maternal Grandfather and R.A. 

did not report witnessing any abuse. This, of course, does not 

mean the juvenile court was required to disregard Z.S.’s 

consistent assertion that physical abuse occurred. Z.S.’s 

statements did not describe something impossible or inherently 

improbable (see People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 963 

[“‘[U]nless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently 

improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support 

a conviction’”]), and the red marks observed on her back were 

significant corroborative evidence. Moreover, Maternal 

Grandfather did not live with the family and R.A. only stayed 

with Mother on weekends; they were obviously not in a position 

to say what did and did not happen when they were not around.

Mother’s argument that there was no evidence Z.S. was 

abused is belied by her own recognition of the fact that the police 

observed scratches on her back. Though the police officer who 

observed the scratches did not believe they were consistent with 

being hit with a broom, the officer had no explanation for how 

Z.S. sustained the marks and the severity of the observed marks 

may have subsided during the week or weeks between the abuse 

and the reporting of it. The juvenile court also could have 

appropriately viewed Mother’s admitted methamphetamine use 
16

as significant in deciding whom to believe; the court could 

reasonably conclude that Mother was not a reliable historian 

about her interactions with Z.S. if Mother were under the 

influence of drugs—particularly when she also admitted she was 

anxious and depressed largely as a result caring for the children.

Mother’s contention that Z.S. was motivated by jealousy 

and encouraged to fabricate the report by Father and Paternal 

Grandmother is similarly unpersuasive. There is no direct 

evidence Z.S. fabricated her allegations. Mother’s conjecture that 

she did so does not require reversal.

Finally, the juvenile court’s disparate rulings as to Z.S. and 

S.S. do not demonstrate Z.S. would be safe in Mother’s custody. 

Z.S. consistently said Mother had abused her. Her initial 

statements reported Mother had not abused S.S. All other 

reports similarly stated Mother takes good care of S.S. and 

attends to his needs. Z.S.’s lone November 2020 statement that 

Mother hit S.S. when he was bad went against the weight of the 

evidence regarding Mother’s behavior as to S.S. The weight of 

the evidence supported the juvenile court’s conclusion that Z.S. 

and S.S. were differently situated, and that S.S. could safely 

remain with Mother while Z.S. could not.

C. Mother’s Remaining Arguments

Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's 

jurisdiction finding based on Mother’s abuse of Z.S., we need not 

consider Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s finding 

regarding her mental and emotional issues under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). (I.J., supra,56 

Cal.4th at 773 [“‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple 

grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the 
17

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’”].)

Nor need we consider Mother’s request for reversal of the 

disposition and custody orders. The sole basis for Mother’s 

argument is that reversal is warranted because there was no 

basis for dependency jurisdiction. We have held otherwise.
18

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.