Filed 12/16/13 In re V.N. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re V.N., et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 H039608; H039609

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. Nos. JD21518, JD21519, 

 JD 21520)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND 

CHILDREN'S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In February 2013, the juvenile court adjudged father S.N.’s three children (then

12-year-old daughter Vi.N., then 11-year-old son Va.N., and then five-year-old daughter 

T.N.) dependents of the court and made dispositional orders removing them from father’s 

physical custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, subd. (b); 361, subd. (c)(1).)1 On appeal, 

father challenges only the court’s dispositional order regarding his son Va.N. He does 

not challenge any of the court’s jurisdictional orders, nor the removal of his two 

daughters. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgments.2

 

1

 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2

 Case No. H039608 is father’s appeal of the juvenile court’s decisions related to 

Vi.N. and Va.N., while case No. H039609 is father’s appeal of the court’s decision as to 

T.N. We ordered these cases to be considered together for all purposes. 
I. JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Vi.N. and Va.N. are the children of father and S.T. T.N. is the daughter of father 

and W.S. Because father’s appeal challenges only the decision regarding Va.N., our 

factual and procedural summary is based primarily on the juvenile dependency petition 

filed on behalf of Va.N. as well as the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing that 

involved all three children.3

On November 5, 2012, a social worker and two San Jose Police Department 

officers responded to an anonymous tip that two children had been left alone at a house 

on Munro Avenue in Campbell where father lived with his three children. One officer 

interviewed Vi.N. and learned father had left the children alone at the house for at least 

two days while he played in a poker tournament. Father is a professional gambler. Vi.N. 

informed the officer that her half-sister T.N. also lived with them but that she was with 

her mother W.S., who was in town from her residence in New Jersey to visit T.N. Based 

on father’s apparent intention to leave the children unattended for a number of days, as 

well as the filthy condition of the house (described by responders as “abhorrent” and 

“consistent with that of a hoarder”, the officers placed the children in protective custody.

The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS)

filed dependency petitions regarding the minors on November 7, 2012, and an initial 

detention hearing took place on November 8. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court 

placed T.N. with her mother pending resolution of the petitions and placed Vi.N. and 

Va.N. with a paternal aunt and uncle in San Ramon, California. Before their placement

in protective custody, father had sole physical custody of all three children. 

 

3

 Our review of these appeals was hampered by both parties’ failure to cite 

Clerk’s Transcript and Reporter’s Transcript volume numbers. Counsel are reminded 

that briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the 

volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court,

rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) 
In preparation for the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, DFCS prepared a 

report and two addenda. According to the report, S.T., the mother of Vi.N. and Va.N. 

told the social worker she was presently homeless and unable to take custody of the 

children given her living situation and lack of relationships with the children. S.T. did, 

however, express interest in participating in counseling with the children to build a 

relationship with them. 

Regarding the November incident that led to the minors’ detention, the jurisdiction 

and disposition report summarized a conversation father had with a social worker where 

father claimed he had arranged for T.N.’s mother W.S. to look after the children while he 

was away. In a separate interview with the social worker, W.S. disagreed with father’s 

story, claiming she told father before he left that she was only able to take care of her 

daughter while she was in town and that she refused to stay at father’s house because of 

its cluttered condition. W.S. claimed she checked on Vi.N. and Va.N. once during the 

weekend, took them out for food, and drove them to and from school on Monday, 

November 5, 2012.

The report identified a number of concerns related to father’s parenting. Vi.N. 

indicated father “always” leaves the children alone when he plays poker, suggesting that 

the November incident was not uncommon. Additionally, throughout the interview 

process, father reportedly “minimized his action and responsibility” related to his 

children’s placement into protective custody and denied doing anything wrong. Rather 

than accept responsibility, father blamed the condition of the home on his family’s 

“hoarder disease” and Vi.N.’s messes. Also concerning to the report’s author was 

father’s statement that he told Vi.N. she needed to accept more responsibility for the care 

of her siblings so that father could focus on playing poker. 

Regarding Va.N., the report noted that he has a learning disability affecting his 

reading and writing abilities, which is being addressed through an Individualized

Education Program (IEP). The IEP, which was attached as an exhibit to the report, noted
that father did not respond to phone calls or emails from teachers regarding Va.N.’s 

progress. The IEP also indicated that Va.N. was tardy 27 times and that “[Va.N.]’s 

homework is often not done and he ends up doing it at school during recess or lunch.” 

Finally, the jurisdiction and disposition report found it “very concerning” that although 

Va.N. expressed a strong desire to see his father, “father indicated that he might not be 

able to call or visit [Va.N.] because he has several scheduled poker tournaments that he 

needs to focus on.” 

The two addenda reports filed by DFCS highlighted additional concerns regarding 

father. The first addendum discussed frustration by the temporary custodians of Vi.N. 

and Va.N. about father’s inconsistent visitation and his failure to provide adequate notice 

before visits. The custodians also expressed concern that father kept Va.N. out after 

midnight on one of his visits. On another afternoon visit with Va.N. at the custodians’ 

residence, father reportedly accused his son of cheating at a card game and left without 

informing the custodians.

In the second addendum, the social worker discussed previously undisclosed 

allegations of domestic violence perpetrated by father against his children. In the past, 

when he was upset father reportedly punched Vi.N. and Va.N. on the arms and spanked 

T.N. on her bottom. It was unclear, however, how recently these incidents occurred. 

While she was not afraid father would hit her again if she returned to his care, Vi.N. 

continued to refuse visitation with him, stating that she did not believe he was a good 

parent.

In February 2013, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdictional and 

dispositional hearing regarding all three children. Several witnesses testified at the 

hearing, including father, Vi.N., and multiple social workers. While the testimony was 

generally consistent with the written reports, certain details merit discussion. 

Father admitted he left the children alone for extended periods of time while 

playing poker “approximately five times” in the past. Father also admitted leaving the 
children unattended in a hotel room in Reno, Nevada, for up to six hours while he worked 

playing poker downstairs. He stated that he now realized he should not have left the 

children alone. When an attorney for DFCS asked father whether there were any guns in 

the home, father initially stated that he found a gun owned by his brother while cleaning a 

room in September 2012 but that he called his brother and told him to pick it up and did 

not believe there were guns in the house anymore. A few minutes later, however, father 

stated “I believe there are many guns in the house, but I don’t know where they are. 

They are not my guns.” Finally, when asked what issues related to father’s parenting 

DFCS had concerns about, father responded, “I’m not really sure what their ultimate 

concern is.”

The court also heard testimony from Vi.N., who told the court her father was 

regularly not home during various parts of the day, including when she woke up in the 

morning, when she arrived home from school, and when she went to bed at night. Vi.N. 

estimated she cooked dinner for herself and her siblings approximately 70 percent of the 

time and was often responsible for cooking, cleaning, laundry, and locking up the house. 

Although father left a phone number where he could be reached, Vi.N. told the court she 

sometimes had to call him two or three times before he responded.

Va.N. chose not to testify but asked his attorney to express his desire to be 

returned to his father’s custody.

Steve Goeteze, a licensed clinical social worker with Legal Advocates for 

Children and Youth, testified as an expert in risk assessment. Goeteze explained that 

leaving pre-teen children alone without adult supervision presents a risk because they are 

“not equipped to deal with an emergency situation” should one develop. On the subject 

of the cluttered home, Goeteze stated that the risk associated with the clutter was not 

alleviated even after father moved to a different residence because “[i]f he does suffer 

from hoarding or other issues that led to the condition of the home, simply moving out of 

that environment would not change the intrinsic nature of himself and the situation would 
be likely to recur . . . .” Goeteze also discussed specific concerns related to each child. 

For Va.N., Goeteze noted that he had a “flat affect” during interviews with social workers

that made Goeteze worry about Va.N.’s emotional well-being. Additionally, due to the 

child’s “extreme loyalty to his father,” Goeteze believed Va.N. was unwilling “to really 

face what the issues were in the home” without psychological help.

The court found true the allegations of each petition (after conforming them to the 

evidence adduced at the hearing), admitted the social worker reports as evidence, and 

determined by a preponderance of the evidence that all three children came within the 

jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court also 

determined that DFCS presented clear and convincing evidence that the welfare of the 

children required the court to remove them from father’s physical custody. Relying on 

section 361, subdivision (c)(1), the court found “there is or would be substantial danger to 

their physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being . . . if the 

children were returned home. And there are no reasonable means by which the children’s 

physical health can be protected without removing the children from the parent’s physical 

custody.”

The juvenile court then detailed the evidence supporting its jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders. The court found credible the testimony of the social workers, Vi.N., 

and W.S. As for father, the court found “overall that much of Father’s testimony was not 

credible.” Despite expressing a desire to engage in services when his children were 

detained in November 2012, the court found father needlessly delayed engaging in 

services until January 2013. The court also indicated father’s answers to questions at the 

hearing were “frequently evasive” and contradictory. 

Of particular concern to the court was father’s tendency to blame other people, 

including his mother and Vi.N., for the “horrific” and “filthy” condition of the home 

rather than taking responsibility for its condition and understanding that “it was not up to 

his children to correct those issues.” Although the court acknowledged father had moved 
prior to the hearing to a different residence deemed adequate by DFCS, the court also 

found father had not shown a sufficient willingness or ability to keep the new residence 

clean.

Even setting aside the condition of the home, the court found “the other significant 

issue of neglect in this case continues to pose a substantial risk of harm to the children.” 

The court noted father himself admitted his practice of leaving the children at home alone 

at night after they fell asleep to attend card games and also left them alone in hotel rooms 

while he gambled. Finding not credible father’s claim that he left the children home 

alone only a few times, the court believed Vi.N.’s testimony that father left the children 

alone for “significantly more time” than father admitted to the court. The court also 

believed Vi.N.’s testimony that father’s absence forced her to provide substantial 

amounts of care for her siblings before school, after school, and in the evenings. 

Regarding the November 2012 incident that led to the children’s removal, the court found 

father intended to leave them without adult supervision for up to a week. 

Turning to father’s ability to provide for his children, the court found that his

income was unstable because gambling is “one of the few occupations where earnings are 

not a certainty and losses are a definite possibility.” This instability was substantiated 

both by father’s brother, who told one of the experts about father owing money for 

gambling losses, and by father himself, who testified to a recent “disastrous setback” 

related to his gambling. Regarding father’s plan of gambling only locally and only 

during the day while the children were at school, the court found the plan “not credible or 

even feasible.” The court continued that if the children were returned to father’s custody 

immediately, the significant pressure placed on father to support his family would likely 

compel him to follow his previous pattern of leaving the children unattended, especially 

at night, while he gambled. 

Further future risk to the children came from the domestic violence allegations 

against father, which the court found true. Based on these previous acts of violence, the 
court determined it was likely father might use coercion or threats against the children if 

they were returned to his care. The court found additional support for its decision in 

father’s willingness to violate court orders, as seen in his decision to take Va.N. for an 

overnight visit without the approval of the DFCS social worker. 

Despite father’s acknowledgement at the hearing that his behavior was wrong, the 

court found he had not shown that his behavior will change. Father did not appear to 

understand the seriousness of violating court orders. And, perhaps most importantly, the 

court found father “lacks insight into the extent of the issue and his own ability to correct 

those issues.” 

Based on the foregoing evidence and reasoning, the court placed Vi.N. and Va.N. 

in the custody of their aunt and uncle and ordered family reunification services for the 

children, father, and S.T. The court awarded sole physical custody of T.N. to W.S. This 

timely appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

Father challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional order only as it relates to his 

son Va.N. He claims the order was not supported by the requisite clear and convincing 

evidence of substantial danger to Va.N.’s “physical health, safety, protection, or physical 

or emotional well-being . . . .” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) We review dispositional orders for 

an abuse of discretion. (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.) When applying 

this standard, “ ‘the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its 

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is 

reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’ [Citations.]” (In re C.B. (2010) 190

Cal.App.4th 102, 123.) Because father’s appeal attacks the juvenile court’s findings of 

fact, we review the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported the 

court’s findings. (In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022.) “ ‘Substantial 

evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
After reviewing the entire record, we conclude that substantial evidence supported 

the juvenile court’s decision to remove Va.N. from father’s custody. We therefore find 

no abuse of discretion. As summarized above, the juvenile court explained its decision to 

remove custody in detail, relying on the following issues: (1) the condition of the house 

where the family was living in November 2012 (described by various individuals as 

“abhorrent,” “horrific,” and “filthy”); (2) father’s failure to show that he addressed the 

possible underlying mental health issues that led to the condition of the house ; (3)

father’s neglect in repeatedly leaving his children alone without parental supervision, 

which occurred more frequently than father admitted; (4) father’s delay in engaging in 

DFCS services; (5) father’s unstable income and infeasible future gambling schedule; (6)

future risk of domestic violence based on past incidents of violence perpetrated by father 

against S.T., W.S., and all three children; and (7) father’s overall failure to understand or 

accept responsibility for the issues that led to his children’s removal. Each of these 

findings was supported by substantial evidence before the court, either in reports 

admitted into evidence or via live testimony at the hearing. 

Father claims the juvenile court should have awarded him custody of Va.N. 

because father admitted his past conduct was wrong and Va.N. expressed a desire to live 

with father. While true, this evidence does not negate the overwhelming evidence 

supporting the juvenile court’s decision. As for other evidence relied on by father to 

support his argument, we find that much of it actually provides further support for the 

dispositional order. For example, father claims he hired tutors to assist with Va.N.’s 

learning disability and that he participated in his son’s IEP. However, the IEP rebuts this 

assertion of active participation with its statements that father failed to respond to emails 

or phone calls from Va.N.’s teachers, did not sign paperwork that required a parental 

signature, allowed Va.N. to be tardy 27 times, and apparently failed to ensure that Va.N. 

finished his homework. Regarding father’s claim that he obtained child care for the 

children in the form of two babysitters, the social worker who interviewed the potential 
caregivers expressed concern about both of them, noting that one initially denied even 

knowing father. 

Because substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s factual findings, we 

find no abuse of discretion in the dispositional order.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

____________________________________

Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________

Elia, Acting P.J. 

____________________________

Mihara, J.