Filed 7/10/14 In re Dinah L. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
In re DINAH L., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B251669 (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent,

v. GABRIELLE L. et al., Defendants and Appellants. Super. Ct. No. CK89595)

APPEAL from an order of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry Truong, Referee and Carlos E. Vazquez, Judge. Affirmed. Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant, Gabrielle L. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant, Leslie C. Office of the County Counsel, John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.2 Gabrielle L. (mother) and Leslie C. (fa ther) appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings made in connection with a subsequent pe tition in an ongoing dependency case involving 13-year-old Di nah L., nine-year-old Elizabeth C., six-year-old Jacob L., a nd four-year-old Eduardo C. 1 Mother and father contend there was no substantial evidence supporting the cour t’s findings that father hit Jacob on the shoulder or that mother allo wed father to have unmonitored contact with the children. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Prior Child Abuse Referrals of Neglect and Physical Abuse There were multiple child abuse referrals in this case. In October 2005, the Department of Children and Family Servi ces (Department) received a referral alleging that the children were unkempt. The Depart ment did not investigat e the allegation as it was unable to locate the referral source. In November 2010, an anonymous calle r alleged that she often heard mother screaming at the children and that the children were left home alone at night. In January 2011, the Department received a thir d referral alleging that Elizabeth, who was six years old at the time, was not being fed at home and had said that father hits her with his shoe when he is angry. During the De partment’s investigation of these referrals, Elizabeth told the social worker that her parents hit her w ith a shoe, that father hits her brothers who were one and thr ee years old at the time, and that mother “told her not to

1 Father is the biological father of Eliz abeth and Eduardo, and was found to be the presumed father of all four children.3 say that her father hit her with a belt.” The Department found that the neglect and physical abuse allegati ons were substantiated. 2
2. The Department Receives a Referral Regarding Eduardo’s Head Trauma On September 1, 2011, the Department received a referral alleging physical abuse of one-year-old Eduardo. Eduardo had fallen off the sw ing at daycare, sustaining a head injury. At th e hospital, x-rays showed “ ‘une xplained healing rib fractures’ ” which the doctor opined had occurred at an earlier date. When a social worker interviewed the family, the parents denied th at Eduardo had sustained any injuries while in their care. On September 7, 2011, a petition was f iled alleging that Ed uardo had sustained “injuries [that] would not ordinarily occur except as the result of deliberate, unreasonable and neglectful acts by the child’s mother and fa ther who had care, custody and control of the child.” These acts were al leged to have placed both Eduardo and his siblings at risk of physical harm. The ca se was assigned to Referee Terry Truong. At the detention hearing, the court detained th e children from mother only, and ordered the three older children released to father over the Departme nt’s objection. Eduardo was detained in shelter care. On September 19, 2011, the Department filed an Interim Review Report with the following evidence: (1) mother said she had been the vi ctim of domestic violence for ten years, and was “terrified of [father] beca use he threatens her regularly by telling her

2 The Department initiated a case based on these substantiated allegations, but the record does not indicate how that case was processed or resolved.4 that he will ‘destroy her and he r family’ ”; (2) Dinah, who wa s 10 years old at the time, said that father had “slapped her in the f ace very hard” and had “hit” her siblings; (3) maternal grandmother said that father “pushed and hit the children”; (4) the daycare worker said that “many times when [father] is in the home she can hear him screaming at the children”; and (5) father admitted to having hit Elizabeth. Included with the report was a doctor’s statement opining that Eduardo’s head trauma and rib fractures were “most consistent with in flicted injury, child abuse.” The Department recommended removing th e children from the parents’ care and assessing maternal grandmother as a possibl e caretaker. However, at trial setting conferences on September 21, October 14, No vember 7, and November 28, 2011, the court rejected the Department’s recomme ndation and ordered that the three older children remain in father’s custody. On December 21, 2011 , the Department filed a Supple mental Report, stating that father “ha[d] not been cooper ative with following court orde rs, maintaining contact with this [department investigator] or [the social worker] . . . ha[d ] failed to ensure that the children receive services as re ferred,” and had refused to a llow court-ordered visits with maternal grandmother. Included with th e Department’s report was a statement by a forensic expert opining that Eduardo’s in juries were “classic shaken baby syndrome and blunt force head trauma.” The expert reported that the “b leeding occurred around [Eduardo’s] brain at least several weeks prio r to the swing incident,” and the “[rib] fractures . . . are weeks old. . . . The nature of these injuries suggests that Eduardo has been a chronic victim of abuse or neglect or both.” The Department requested that the5 children be detained from father and placed in foster care. However, the court did not detain the children, and, on December 22, 20 11, allowed mother to move back into the home. At the jurisdiction hearing on February 2, 2012, the court sustained the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code, se ction 300 and remove d Eduardo from the custody of both parents. 3 The court ordered that the three older children remain in father’s custody. Mother and father were offered reunification services, ordered to participate in parenting classes, and were allowed visitation with Eduardo. On August 2, 2012 , the Department reported to the court that the parents had been compliant with court orders and th e Department case plan. However, the Department noted that “the perpetrator” of Eduardo’s injuries was still unknown, and assessed the potential of future risk to the children as moderate. At the review hearing that day, the court returned all four ch ildren to the custody of both parents. 3. The Department Receives Another Referral Alleging Physical Abuse On December 7, 2012, the Department re ceived a referral alleging that Dinah and Elizabeth were being physi cally abused by father. 4 A social worker interviewed the girls the following week. Dinah said that father “hits her . . . ‘a lot,’ ” and had choked, slapped and kicked her. Elizabeth said that fa ther had hit her with a belt on her bare feet and “makes her stick three fingers inside his mouth and then he bite s her fingers.” He

3 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

4 Father was also arrested the following week on an outsta nding warrant pending misdemeanor charges for child abuse. The r ecord does not reveal the nature of those charges or how the criminal actio n against father was resolved.6 was “abusive daily.” Dinah said that father also “puts his hand under her shirt and rubs her stomach, which makes her feel uncomfort able.” Both children said that father abused their siblings in the same manner and that they were frightened of him. Dinah also said that she had told mother that father had ch oked her and had put his hand under her shirt, and mother had re sponded that she would talk to father. Mother admitted to the social worker that she was aware fa ther had choked Dinah, and said she had “observed Dinah holding her neck and coughi ng.” However, mother also said she “had no knowledge that father was abusive to her children,” and now denied there had ever been any domestic violence. On December 28, 2012, the court granted a warrant for removal and the children placed with maternal grandmother. One week later, the court returned the th ree younger children to mother’s care. Dinah remained with maternal grandmothe r. The court allowed father to have monitored visits with the child ren but ordered that the visits were “not to be monitored by the mother or maternal grandmother.” The Department filed a supplemental petition alleging that father physically abused the th ree older children and that mother knew of the abuse but allowed father to ha ve unlimited access to the children. 4. The Court is Provided With C ontinued Evidence of Father’s Physical Abuse and Mother’s No ncompliance With the Case Plan The Department interviewed the family further on January 16, 2013. Dinah said that mother had witnessed father hitting Eduardo, who was then two years old. However, mother still denied th at father hit the children, a nd now claimed that she never knew that father had choked Dinah. The “[f]amily preservation team” stated that,7 “based on statements from th e children, father has been ph ysical[ly] abusing the[m] for the duration of their lives.” The Depart ment also reported that mother was not compliant with family preserva tion services, and that Elizabet h said father still visited the home and had hit her and her brother in the past two days. Based on this evidence, the Department recommended removing the children from both parents’ care and placing them with maternal grandmother. However, at the review hearings on January 24 and 31, 2013, the co urt ordered that the three younger children remain in mother’s care. In April 2013, the Department report ed to the court that mother was still uncooperative with the Department: she had no t allowed the social worker to visit the children in the home, had mi ssed appointments with the social worker, and had not returned “countless phone calls.” On these grounds, the social worker said that she was unable to make “accurate assessment of the child ren . . . [or] assess whether the father [] is in the home [-] this places the children at great risk fo r further abuse or neglect.” The Department also submitted a letter from the children’s school principal stating that Elizabeth had told a staff memb er that father is “around” but that mother told Elizabeth to say that “father did not live with them, th at he did not hit them and she has not seen her father in a long time.” On April 4, 2013, the cour t sustained the supplemental petition regarding father’s physical abuse and mother’s failure to protect. 5 Children’s counsel requested that Dinah

5 All rulings prior to April 4, 2013, were made by Referee Terry Truong. At that point, Judge Carlos Vasquez was assigned to the case.8 be permitted to return to moth er’s custody as the other siblings were there and there “doesn’t seem to be any risks at this point in time . . . . ” The Department objected on the grounds that mother had failed to protect the children. The court ordered that the children remain in mother’s custody. Fa ther was still allowed visits monitored by a Department-approved monitor. 5. The Children Are Finally Removed From Parental Custody On May 16, 2013, the Department re ported receiving a referral from a school staff member stating that Jacob complained th at his shoulder was hu rting because father had hit him on the shoulder the night before . The caller said she did not observe any “marks on [Jacob’s] shoulder.” The caller furt her stated that, two months prior, school staff had seen father in the car with mother when mother came to pick Jacob up from school. At that time, Jacob said to a sta ff member that father was in the home, and mother immediately denied it. The Department interviewed the children. Elizabeth said that father “sometimes comes over and spend[s] the night.” Jacob s howed the social work er a “reddish color mark” on his shoulder, and, when asked what ha ppened, said that “ ‘my dad hit me with a belt.’ ” On May 20, 2013, the Department r eceived another referral from a mandated reporter stating that Jacob had disclosed that father had h it him with a belt and mother had hit him “with her hand on his mouth. ” The caller observed a “mark/scab” under Jacob’s right eye and “numerous little ‘dots’ ar ound the mouth.” Jacob further said that mother used a belt to hit him and “had ev en hit him on his genital area.” The court9 authorized the detention of the children, and they were plac ed with maternal grandmother. On June 3, 2013, a supplemental pe tition (the Second Supplemental Petition) was filed alleging that father physically a bused Jacob by striki ng the child’s shoulder with a belt, and that mother had failed to comp ly with court orders by allowing father to visit the children without a court-approved m onitor present. In the Detention Report, the social worker stat ed that mother continued to be uncooperative: mother had only allowed the social worker to visit the home once in the past six months, and had not allowed the social worker to view the two bedrooms in the home. At the detention hearing, the court continued the children’ s placement with maternal grandmother. In the Jurisdiction/ Disposition Report, the Department reported that mother continued to deny that fath er had had access to the children. The Department recommended that the children not be reunified with mother. On September 10, 2013, the court sustained the Seco nd Supplemental Petition’s allega tions regarding father’s physical abuse of Jacob and mother’s failure to protect, removed the children from mother’s custody, and ordered reunification services for both parents. Mother and father timely appealed. CONTENTIONS Mother and father argue there was no substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings that father physical ly abused Jacob and mother failed to protect him.10 DISCUSSION 1. Standard of Review Review of the sufficiency of the evid ence to uphold juvenile dependency jurisdiction is limited to a de termination of whether there is any substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings. ( In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) Under this standard of review, the whole record is examined in a light most favorable to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court, and under deference to the lower court on issues of the credibility of the evidence and witnesses. ( In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses or reso lve evidentiary conflicts. Th e appellant has the burden to demonstrate there is no evidence of a suffi ciently substantial na ture to support the findings or orders. ( In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) “If there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or unco ntradicted, which will support the judgment, we must affirm.” ( In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.) 2. Mother’s Appeal Mother contends that th e record contained contradictory evidence regarding Jacob’s shoulder injury: one school staff member said, on May 13, 2013, that Jacob “had no marks on his shoulder,” and thr ee days later, a soci al worker observed a “reddish-color mark” on Jacob’s shoulder. However, upon reviewing a record for substantial evidence, we do no t resolve evidentiary conflicts , but defer to the juvenile court’s credibility assessments of witnesses. Here, the juve nile court had the authority11 to find the social worker’s account of J acob’s injury credible, and to discount observations by the school staff member. Mother also contends there was insuffi cient evidence that father had caused Jacob’s shoulder injury or that mother knew about it. This argument is without merit. First, two mandated reporters and a social wo rker reported that Jacob had told them father hit him on his shoulder. Second, these statements were corroborated by a “reddish” mark on Jacob’s shoulder observed by the social worker. Third, when Elizabeth was interviewed regarding these alle gations, she said that father “sometimes comes over and spends the night.” Fourth, it was reasonable for the court to infer from evidence father was at mother’s home, that mother knew he was there. Mother had also obstructed the social worker’s access to the apartment, from which the court could have reasonably inferred that she was hiding ev idence father was living there. Such a conclusion was also suggeste d by mother’s repeated stat ements defending father and denying the abuse, despite ha ving previously acknowledged that father had abused both her and the children. All of this constitutes substantial evidence in support of the court’s finding that father struck Jacob on the shou lder and mother allowed fath er access to the children in violation of the court’s order that all his vi sits be monitored by a Department-approved individual. In addition, when this evidence is considered w ithin the context of the entire record

 which contains overwhelming evidence that father was regularly beating the12 children and that mother defended him at the cost of her children’s safety

 there is abundant evidence in support of the juvenile court’ s latest jurisdictional finding. 6 3. Father’s Appeal Father contends there was no evidence (1) he had visited the children in the family home, or (2) had struck Jacob on the shoulder. As explained above, substantial evidence supports these findings.

6 A really disturbing question raised by th is distressing record is why the juvenile court repeatedly returned the children to mo ther and father’s custody for over two and one half years when it was clear father wa s physically abusing the children and mother was not protecting them.13 DISPOSITION The jurisdictional order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CROSKEY, J. WE CONCUR:

KLEIN, P. J.

ALDRICH, J.