1

Filed 5/9/13 W.J. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

W.J., 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Real Party in Interest. 

 E058012 

 (Super.Ct.Nos. J246776, J246777, 

 & J246778) 

 OPINION 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Gregory S. Tavill, 

Judge. Petition denied. 

 Gloria Gebbie for Petitioner. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 
2

 Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Adam E. Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Real Party in Interest. 

 Petitioner W.J. (Mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders as to her three children, and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code1

section 366.26 hearing. Mother argues that: (1) her due process rights were violated 

when the juvenile court added an additional allegation after the conclusion of evidence; 

(2) her right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated when the juvenile 

court allowed minors’ counsel to question the children in chambers; and (3) the juvenile 

court erred in denying her reunification services pursuant to section 361.5. We reject 

these contentions and affirm the judgment. 

I 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 The children came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Children and 

Family Services (CFS) on November 8, 2012, when then seven-year-old D.J. was 

complaining of pain to his hands, arms, chest, and leg at school. D.J. reported that his 

stepfather, J.W., had beat him with an electric cord the previous night for getting in 

trouble for stealing food from another student at school. The beating resulted in the child 

suffering from numerous lacerations, welts, and bruises to his arms, legs, back, buttocks, 

stomach, and chest. J.W. threatened to beat the child more severely if the child did it 

 1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise stated. 
3

again. After the beating, the child was sent to bed without dinner, and he was not given 

breakfast the following morning despite the fact that the child had been trying to get food 

at school. D.J. indicated that he often did not get food at home; school personnel noted 

that there had been times D.J. had taken food and appeared as though he had not been fed 

at home. 

 D.J. also stated that Mother was in another room when he was being beaten by 

J.W., and Mother did not come in during the beating or check on him after he was beaten. 

D.J. further disclosed that Mother had also beaten him in the past with a piece of a broken 

dresser drawer, and on another occasion with a belt, resulting in a cut to his head and 

blood gushing from his scalp. After the beating, Mother made the child clean up the 

spilled blood. D.J. also stated that he had seen Mother and J.W. beat his then five-yearold half-sister Z.W. with a belt and an electric cord.2 D.J. further reported that he had 

seen domestic violence between his mother and J.W. Z.W. confirmed that D.J. had been 

beaten by J.W. She also confirmed that her parents had hit her with a belt on the buttocks 

and back. 

 All three children were subsequently taken to an emergency room for evaluation 

and treatment. D.J. reported that J.W. beat him with an extension cord and that Mother 

hit him with a belt. He also stated that Mother had seen J.W. with the extension cord and 

had heard him crying during the beating. D.J. had multiple lacerations, bruises, and welts 

all over his body, and there were numerous older injuries on his body that were consistent 

 2 J.W. is the father of Z.W. and her 17-month-old sister. J.W. is not a party to this 

appeal. 
4

with belt or extension cord lacerations. The treating doctor reported that she had found 

severe contusions, too numerous to document, on D.J.; that D.J. had defensive wounds on 

his hands; and that the lacerations and hematomas on D.J. would leave scars. The doctor 

also noted that D.J.’s injuries were inflicted on top of older injuries and were so extensive 

that they covered up some evidence of prior injuries. The doctor concluded D.J.’s 

injuries were clearly the result of child abuse. The two younger children had no visible 

injuries. 

 When police officers contacted Mother, Mother lied to the police, claiming that 

J.W. was her brother, that she was not at home during the beating, and that she did not 

know the child was being beaten by J.W. She also stated that she did not see any injuries 

on D.J. or notice that D.J. appeared to be in pain. Z.W., however, reported that Mother 

was in the living room while J.W. was beating D.J. Mother further denied beating any of 

the children. The police searched the home and found an extension cord that was covered 

in a red substance, believed to be blood. They also found blood on a pillow on D.J.’s 

bed, on a towel in the bathroom, and smeared on the wall. The police also interviewed a 

neighbor who reported that she had seen Mother hitting the children with a belt, a tree 

twig, and grabbing them by the hair to slap them on numerous occasions. 

 J.W. and Mother were arrested for child endangerment. J.W. admitted at the 

police station that he had beaten D.J. with an electric cord due to the child’s ongoing 

behavioral issues. J.W. believed the child may have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder (ADHD). Mother continued to deny knowing anything about D.J.’s injuries, 

claiming they discipline the children by making them do chores. Mother also stated that 
5

they had been having problems with D.J.’s behavior issues and that the child had been 

diagnosed with ADHD. After seeing D.J.’s injuries, Mother later agreed that the injuries 

were excessive. 

 On November 13, 2012, CFS filed petitions on behalf of the children pursuant to 

section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), (c) (serious 

emotional damage), (g) ( no provision for support), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The 

children were formally detained at the detention hearing and placed in a foster home. 

The parents were provided with supervised visitation upon release from custody, and 

ordered to submit to random drug testing. The parents were also informed that they 

might not be provided with reunification services pursuant to section 361.5. 

 In a jurisdictional/dispositional report, the social worker recommended that the 

allegations in the petition be found true, that no reunification services be provided to the 

parents, and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. The social worker noted that Mother 

had minimized and lied about the discipline of D.J.; that she lied about J.W.’s identity to 

the police; and that she gave conflicting statements about her whereabouts when J.W. 

beat D.J. Mother denied any history of domestic violence; however, the social worker 

found evidence showing that Mother had been a victim in a domestic violence case 

against J.W. and that J.W. had an order to stay away from Mother. The social worker 

further pointed out that the abuse was severe and ongoing, and that although D.J. 

appeared to be the primary target, there were consistent reports that Mother had hit Z.W. 

as well. In addition, both parents were surprised about being arrested for child abuse, 

indicating to the social worker that they believed in inflicting physical abuse as a form of 
6

discipline; they appeared to be only concerned about being arrested, and did not show 

any concern about D.J. Neither parent had asked how D.J. was doing or about his 

medical condition. The social worker believed that returning the children to the parents 

care would be detrimental given the seriousness of the abuse, the parents’ attitudes, 

Mother’s attempts at deception, and the parents’ lack of empathy or remorse. The social 

worker was also concerned that the parents would not benefit from services based on the 

parents’ prior completion of a parenting class and substance abuse counseling. 

 The social worker further noted that D.J. was in need of counseling and an 

assessment for medications. Since being in foster care, the child had stated that he 

wanted to die, and he had purposely urinated on his bed and the floor and was banging 

his head against the wall. D.J. had also hit his younger sisters and other children, and he 

had stolen at school and walked out of his classroom. The social worker recommended 

moving D.J. to a home separate from his sisters; however, the foster parent, who was 

experienced with caring for children with behavioral and emotional issues, indicated that 

she would work with the child so he did not have to be moved.3

 The contested jurisdictional hearing was held on January 30, 2013. At that time, 

Mother’s counsel, before any witnesses were called, requested that the juvenile court 

speak to the two older children, then eight-year-old D.J. and then five-year-old Z.W., in 

chambers to discuss their wishes. Mother’s counsel also specifically stated, “I don’t 

really want to call them as witnesses. I don’t think they need that experience.” CFS 

 3 D.J. had to eventually be moved to another foster home due to him hitting his 

sisters. 
7

offered to stipulate as to the children’s wishes, but Mother’s counsel confirmed that she 

wanted the court to hear from the children personally. 

 The court thereafter questioned D.J. and Z.W. with their counsel present. The 

children indicated that they wanted to return to their parents’ care and that they wanted to 

visit J.W. However, they did not understand why they were taken from their parents’ 

care. Additionally, in response to minors’ counsel’s question of what he thought would 

happen to him if he got in trouble again, D.J. stated that he would have to “stand at the 

wall” and that he did not believe J.W. would use “the switch” again because J.W. had 

told him that day that they would have “lots of fun” when they got home. Z.W. stated 

that if she got in trouble again, she would “hold the wall, and they [would] whoop me 

with the metal part of the belt.” Minors’ counsel also asked whether D.J. and Z.W. had 

anything else they wanted to tell the judge, and Z.W. asked, “What judge?” Minors’ 

counsel replied, “This is the judge. Did you know that?” Z.W. responded, “Okay. [¶] 

Can I have some ice cream?” D.J. stated that he would like visits with his dad. 

 Thereafter, with all the parties present, the court noted that the children desired 

visits with their mother and father and that they wanted to go home, but that it was clear 

that neither child understood why the case existed or whether they understood the judge’s 

role. The court offered to have the reporter read back the transcript of the interview if 

any party desired, but no one asked to have it repeated. 

 The social worker thereafter testified. In relevant part, the social worker stated 

that Mother had regularly visited with the children two times a week for two hours; that 

the visits appeared to have gone well; that the children enjoyed seeing their mother; and 
8

that Mother had began attending parenting and anger management classes. In response to 

the court’s inquiry of whether offering services to the parents would be in the children’s 

best interest, the social worker noted that he was “torn” because of the “shocking” abuse. 

The social worker explained that while the children were bonded with the parents and 

they wanted to return home, the social worker believed that it would be detrimental to the 

children to offer services to the parents given Mother’s dishonesty with CFS and the 

police, Mother’s failure to protect, Mother’s own abuse of the children, the severity of the 

abuse, the history of domestic violence, and the fact that Mother remained in a 

relationship with J.W. after the abuse. Mother then briefly took the stand but chose to 

exercise her Fifth Amendment right and refused to testify about the events that took place 

on the day D.J. was beaten due to the criminal charges against Mother and J.W. 

 Following arguments from counsel, the court found the allegations in the petitions 

to be true. In regards to D.J., the court added another section 300, subdivision (a), 

allegation indicating that J.W. had whipped D.J. with an electrical cord and that Mother 

had consented to the child being whipped with the electrical cord. The court denied 

reunification services to both parents under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). The 

children were declared dependents of the court and maintained in their foster home. The 

section 366.26 hearing was set for May 30, 2013. 
9

II 

DISCUSSION 

 A. Additional Allegation

 Mother contends that her due process rights were violated by the juvenile court’s 

addition of a second section 300, subdivision (a), allegation at the conclusion of evidence. 

We disagree. 

 “Since the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and 

management of his [or her] children is a compelling one, ranked among the most basic of 

civil rights [citations], the state, before depriving a parent of this interest, must afford [the 

parent] adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.” (In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 

679, 688-689; see also In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 306.) A parent whose 

child may be found subject to the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court has a due 

process right to be informed of the nature of the hearing, as well as the allegations upon 

which the deprivation of custody is predicated, so that the parent may make an informed 

decision whether to appear and contest the allegations. (In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 

Cal.App.4th 742, 751.) “Notice of the specific facts upon which removal of a child from 

parental custody is predicated is fundamental to due process.” (In re Jeremy C. (1980) 

109 Cal.App.3d 384, 397.) Notice at the time of the hearing on the merits is not 

sufficient; the parent is entitled to notice, in writing, “of the specific charge or factual 

allegations to be considered at the hearing” and “at the earliest practicable time, and in 

any event sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation.” (In re Gault
10

(1967) 387 U.S. 1, 33.) The juvenile court cannot consider “unalleged actions” in 

making its jurisdictional findings. (In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 139, 152, fn. 13.) 

 In dependency proceedings, as in civil law in general, “amendments to conform to 

proof are favored, and should not be denied unless the pleading as drafted prior to the 

proposed amendment would have misled the adversarial party to its prejudice.” (In re 

Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042 (Jessica C.).) The juvenile court may 

properly permit amendment of a petition to “correct or make more specific” the factual 

allegations supportive of the offense charged so long as the very nature of the charge 

remains unchanged. (In re Man J. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 475, 481; see also In re 

Andrew L. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 683, 689.) “‘If a variance between pleading and proof 

. . . is so wide that it would, in effect, violate due process to allow the amendment, the 

court should, of course, refuse any such amendment.’” (Andrew L., at p. 689.) 

 Explaining this concept, the Jessica C. court gave the following example: 

“[S]uppose a petition only alleges, under subdivision (d) of section 300, a variety of 

specific sexual acts perpetrated by a parent, but the trial judge does not find these are 

true. The county then attempts to amend the petition to allege serious emotional damage 

under subdivision (c) of section 300, based on the idea that any child who would make 

such allegations, even if false, has obviously been subject to emotional abuse. Such a 

tactic would be nothing more than a cheap way to establish dependency without giving 

the parent adequate notice of dependency jurisdiction under an emotional abuse theory.” 

(Jessica C., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1042, fn. 14.) 
11

 Such a variance does not exist in the present case. Unlike the Jessica C.

illustration, the juvenile court found the existing allegations of the petition true and added 

an allegation that conformed to proof. The court added an allegation that J.W. had 

whipped D.J. with an electric cord and that Mother had agreed to the whipping. The 

social worker’s reports noted that D.J. had stated that Mother was in another room when 

he was being beaten by J.W.; that Mother had heard him crying; and that Mother did not 

come in during the beating or check on D.J. after the beating. Z.W. also reported that 

Mother was in the living room when the beating occurred. Additionally, the factual 

allegations in the original petition under section 300, subdivision (b), stated that Mother 

knew or should have known that D.J. was at risk of physical abuse from J.W. and that she 

failed to protect D.J. from that abuse. 

 Furthermore, Mother was aware that CFS was asserting that she not only 

consented to the abuse by J.W., but that she had also perpetuated physical abuse. CFS 

provided all parties with explicit notice of the issues being litigated, and the court 

conducted a full hearing affording each party the opportunity to be heard. Mother was 

also given the opportunity to present evidence in regards to the allegations and what role 

she played in the abuse, but she opted to assert her Fifth Amendment right rather than 

testify on her own behalf when she had the opportunity to do so. Mother was not misled 

or prejudiced by the amendment. Therefore, no error occurred. 

 B. Questioning Minors in Chamber

 Mother also argues that the juvenile court committed prejudicial error when it 

allowed minors’ counsel to question the children in chambers and outside the presence of 
12

her and her counsel in violation of her right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. 

CFS responds that Mother forfeited this contention by failing to raise it below; in the 

alternative, CFS claims Mother’s argument is unmeritorious because she was not denied 

an opportunity to call the children as witnesses during the hearing and question them in 

open court. 

 Section 350, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part: “The testimony of a minor 

may be taken in chambers and outside the presence of the minor’s . . . parents, if the 

minor’s . . . parents are represented by counsel, the counsel is present and any of the 

following circumstances exist: [¶] (1) The court determines that testimony in chambers 

is necessary to ensure truthful testimony. [¶] (2) The minor is likely to be intimidated 

by a formal courtroom setting. [¶] (3) The minor is afraid to testify in front of his or her 

. . . parents. [¶] After testimony in chambers, the . . . parents . . . may elect to have the 

court reporter read back the testimony or have the testimony summarized by counsel for 

the parent or parents.” 

 The appellate court in In re Laura H. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1689 determined that 

taking a minor’s testimony in chambers without the father’s attorney being present was a 

violation of the father’s constitutional right to confront the witness. (Id. at pp. 1694-

1696.) The court also held that a failure to object to this procedure in the juvenile court 

did not constitute a waiver. (Id. at p. 1695.) 

 In In re Jamie R. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 766, counsel stipulated that the minor 

could be interviewed in chambers without counsel being present. The minor’s mother 

was present in court when the stipulation was entered into the record and remained silent. 
13

The Second District Court of Appeal reasoned that the mother’s silence in the face of the 

stipulation constituted acquiescence to the procedure, and she was precluded from 

challenging the procedure on appeal. (Id. at pp. 771-772.) 

 The court in In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143 rejected the reasoning 

and holding of Laura H. The Meranda P. court noted that a dependency proceeding is 

civil, not criminal, in nature and a parent in a dependency proceeding is not entitled to 

full confrontation and cross-examination. Thus, a parent may waive confrontation rights 

by acquiescence. (Id. at pp. 1157-1158 & fn. 9.) 

 The record reflects that at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing Mother’s counsel 

urged that the juvenile court interview D.J. and Z.W. in chambers to discuss their wishes, 

despite CFS’s offer to stipulate as to the children’s wishes. Mother’s counsel also 

specifically stated, “I don’t really want to call them as witnesses. I don’t think they need 

that experience.” The court thereafter questioned D.J. and Z.W. with their counsel 

present. The children indicated that they wanted to return to their parents’ care, but failed 

to understand the proceedings due to their young ages. Minors’ counsel questioned the 

children about what they thought would happen if they got in trouble again. Both 

children stated that they would have to “hold the wall,” with Z.W. also stating that her 

parents would “whoop” her with a belt. D.J. stated that he did not believe J.W. would use 

“the switch” again because J.W. had told him that day that they would have “lots of fun” 

when they got home. Thereafter, with all the parties present, the court noted that the 

children desired visits with their mother and father and that they wanted to go home, but 

that it was clear that neither child understood why the case existed. The court offered to 
14

have the reporter read back the transcript of the interview if any party desired but no one 

asked to have it read back. 

 Mother’s counsel acknowledges that no one asked for a read back, asserting 

presumably because the court’s summary was favorable. She however claims that the 

“contents of what transpired was unknown until the formal preparation of the record,” at 

which time she discovered minors’ counsel had questioned the children outside the 

presence of other counsel and without giving Mother an opportunity to clarify the 

children’s responses and cross-examine them. She therefore argues that “[a]ny extension 

beyond” the issue of whether the children wanted to return to their parents “should have 

at the least been brought to the attention of counsel before, if not at the least after, it was 

allowed.” 

 There is nothing in the record to indicate that Mother, or any other party, was 

denied the opportunity to question the children or cross-examine them. In fact, Mother’s 

counsel specifically stated that she did not want to call the children as witnesses. Further, 

the in chambers questioning of the children was conducted at the behest of Mother’s 

counsel, despite an offer of stipulation as to the children’s wishes. Mother also was 

aware that minors’ counsel was in chambers with the children and there is no indication 

on the record that she did not know that minors’ counsel would ask the children 

questions. Moreover, because Mother failed to ask for a read back following the in 

chambers interview of the children, despite the court’s offer to do so, Mother cannot now 

complain that her right to question and cross-examine the children was violated merely 

because she was unaware of what had transpired at that time. Mother had the opportunity 
15

to discover the contents of the in chambers interview with the children following the in 

chambers proceeding, but failed to do so. 

 Although the better practice is for a parent’s attorney to be present during an in 

chambers interview, and section 350 mandates the attorney’s presence, that right can be 

waived. (In re Meranda P., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1155-1158.) Under the facts of 

this case, we find Mother acquiesced to the procedure followed by the juvenile court and, 

therefore, has waived any right to challenge this procedure on appeal. (Ibid.) 

 C. Denial of Reunification Services

 Mother also argues that the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification 

services and in finding that it was not in the children’s best interests to offer her services. 

 “We affirm an order denying reunification services if the order is supported by 

substantial evidence.” (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 839 [Fourth Dist., 

Div. Two].) “‘In juvenile cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate 

court asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination 

as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which 

will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. All conflicts must be resolved in favor of 

the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if 

possible.’” (Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 600 (Francisco 

G.).) 

 Although reunification is a high priority in the dependency system, the Legislature 

has recognized that, under certain circumstances, it would be fruitless to provide a parent 

with reunification services. (Francisco G., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 597; Raymond C. 
16

v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 159, 163.) Section 361.5 lists the circumstances 

where reunification services need not be provided. “Once it is determined one of the 

situations outlined in subdivision (b) applies, the general rule favoring reunification is 

replaced by a legislative assumption that offering services would be an unwise use of 

governmental resources. [Citation.]” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 

478.) As relevant here, the circumstances include where there is a substantiated 

allegation of severe physical abuse. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6).) 

 Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), allows the court to deny services if it finds, by 

clear and convincing evidence, “[t]hat the child has been adjudicated a dependent 

pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of . . . the infliction of severe 

physical harm to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent . . . and the court makes 

a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with 

the offending parent . . . .” 

 There is clearly substantial evidence to support the conclusion that section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(6), mandated the denial of reunification services to both parents. (In re 

S.G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1260-1261.) The juvenile court found that both 

parents were offending parents. The court explained, “The abuse is so substantial and 

ongoing for such a long period of time, it’s clear to the Court that the mother was a 

participant in the abuse.” The court also stated, “[M]other knew about the pattern of 

abuse. It was ongoing for so long. The mother was a co-participant in the abuse. And so 

it’s the finding of the Court that the whipping with the electric cord was perpetrated by 

the mother as if she did it herself. She certainly consented to it, authorized it, facilitated 
17

it.” The beatings resulted in D.J. suffering from numerous lacerations, welts and bruises 

to his arms, legs, back, buttocks, stomach, and chest. The child also had numerous older 

injuries on his body that were consistent with belt or extension cord lacerations. He also 

had numerous severe contusions and defensive wounds on his hands. The treating doctor 

noted that the lacerations and hematomas on D.J. would leave scars, and that D.J.’s 

injuries were inflicted on top of older injuries, covering up some evidence of prior 

injuries. Additionally, Mother and J.W. had beat Z.W. with a belt and an electric cord as 

well. 

 Second, granting Mother reunification services would not benefit the children. 

(§ 361.5, subds.(b)(6), (h).) Subdivision (h) of section 361.5 provides: “In determining 

whether reunification services will benefit the child pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) of 

subdivision (b), the court shall consider any information it deems relevant, including the 

following factors:” These six factors include: “(1) The specific act or omission 

comprising the severe sexual abuse or the severe physical harm inflicted on the child or 

the child’s sibling or half sibling. [¶] (2) The circumstances under which the abuse or 

harm was inflicted on the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. [¶] (3) The severity 

of the emotional trauma suffered by the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. [¶] (4) 

Any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent or guardian. [¶] (5) The 

likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent or 

guardian within 12 months with no continuing supervision. [¶] (6) Whether or not the 

child desires to be reunified with the offending parent or guardian.” (§ 361.5, subd. (h).) 
18

 Mother here cruelly and deliberately harmed D.J. She silently stood by while J.W. 

severely whipped D.J. with an electric cord, despite his crying, suffering, and pain. And 

after the beating, she failed to check on D.J.’s emotional or physical well-being. 

Moreover, she had also physically abused D.J. and Z.W. D.J. reported that Mother had 

previously beaten him with a piece of broken dresser drawer and that she had once beaten 

him so severely on his head that his scalp was bleeding. D.J. also noted that Mother 

thereafter made him clean up his spilled blood. The physical evidence found in the 

parents’ home corroborated the children’s statements. Police found an electric cord 

encrusted with a child’s blood, a blood-stained pillow in D.J.’s room, and a wall smeared 

with blood. Additionally, the record revealed that Z.W. was also beaten with a belt and 

an electric cord; that the parents had engaged in domestic violence in front of the 

children; that D.J. was often denied food; and that D.J. suffered from emotional issues. 

Moreover, the record shows that Mother had demonstrated her lack of concern for the 

children through her dishonesty, denial, and the fact that she remained in a relationship 

with J.W. after the abuse. Although Mother regularly visited the children, the visits 

appeared to go well, the children desired to be with the parents, and Mother had engaged 

in services, considering the severity of the ongoing abuse, Mother’s dishonesty, denials, 

history of domestic violence, and Mother’s continued relationship with J.W., granting 

Mother services would not be in the children’s best interests. 

 When the prerequisites of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), are met, the juvenile 

court “shall not” order reunification services for the offending parent unless it finds, “by 

clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” 
19

(§ 361.5, subd. (c).) “‘“[O]nce it is determined one of the situations outlined in 

subdivision (b) applies, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced by a legislative 

assumption that offering services would be an unwise use of governmental resources. 

[Citation.]”’ [Citation.] The burden is on the parent to change that assumption and show 

that reunification would serve the best interests of the child.” (In re William B. (2008) 

163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227.) As explained previously, Mother here cannot meet that 

burden. 

 Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support the court’s denial of 

reunification services. (Tyrone W. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 839, 852-

853.) 

III 

DISPOSITION 

 The petition is denied. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

HOLLENHORST 

 Acting P. J. 

We concur: 

McKINSTER 

 J. 

CODRINGTON 

 J.