Filed 8/16/22 In re Samantha P. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

In re SAMANTHA P., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE P.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G061260

 (Super. Ct. No. 21DP1153)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vibhav 

Mittal, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for the Minor.
2

INTRODUCTION

Jose P., the father of the minor Samantha P., appeals from the order vesting

jurisdiction over Samantha in the juvenile court and the disposition order removing her

from his custody. Samantha came to the attention of Orange County Social Services 

Agency (SSA) when her school reported bruises on her arm. Samantha claimed that 

Maria B., Jose’s wife or live-in girlfriend, had caused the bruising.1 Jose did not believe 

Samantha and proffered several alternative theories for how she acquired the bruises.

We affirm the jurisdiction order. We do not reweigh evidence or reassess 

credibility, and Jose’s appeal of this order is, in essence, an attack on both. The bottom 

line is that the juvenile court believed Samantha when she asserted that Maria had hit her 

hard enough to cause significant bruising. Consequently, Jose’s persistent denials and 

refusal to believe Samantha meant, in the court’s view, that he was not going to protect 

her from future assaults. There was therefore “a substantial risk that [Samantha] will 

suffer[] serious physical harm” in Jose’s custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. 

(b)(1).)2 

As for the disposition order, we affirm that as well. Even with the higher 

standard of proof for removal (§ 361, subd. (c)(1)), the court’s order rested on substantial 

evidence, including Jose’s refusal to believe Maria had injured Samantha and the 

evidence of Samantha’s fear of her father. Once again, factual determinations and 

credibility assessments are for the juvenile court. 

1

Maria’s status was variously indicated in the record as “wife,” “girlfriend,” “domestic partner,” or 

“stepmother.” For his part, Jose asserted he was not married to anyone. 

2

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

FACTS

Jose and Samantha’s mother, Claudia A., have been engaged in a longrunning custody battle over Samantha.3

 At the time of detention, when Samantha was 

nine years old, each parent had equal custody. The record contains reports of numerous 

referrals to SSA by one parent against the other, beginning when Samantha was under 

two years old, all of which were determined to be unfounded or inconclusive. 

Jose and Claudia live separately and were apparently never married to each 

other. Jose and Maria live together with Maria’s son. Claudia and her now-husband 

have two children together. The four children living with Claudia, including Samantha

and another daughter, were in a voluntary family services program with SSA as of 

October 2020. Jose participated in this program as well, for six months. SSA expected 

to close the program in November 2021. 

On September 24, 2021, a Friday, Samantha’s school reported to SSA that 

she had multiple bruises on her left arm. Samantha said Maria had grabbed her and hit 

her with a belt the night before because she wore dirty shoes in the house. She said she 

did not want to go back to Jose and Maria’s home. She also said she did not tell Jose that 

Maria had hit her. She waited until the next day and told a friend at school and then her 

teachers. The record includes photographs of Samantha’s bruises, apparently taken at the 

school. 

The school’s resource officer initiated the report to SSA as a “law 

enforcement requested immediate response.” He said he had considered filing his own 

juvenile court petition had SSA not appeared at the school. 

3

The dispute appears to have begun when Claudia filed for child support. Jose retaliated by filing 

for custody, and, according to SSA, “they have been accusing each other [of abusing Samantha] ever since.” 

When first informed of the allegations of abuse, Jose stated that he would prefer to have Samantha 

“go home with” the social worker rather than reside with Claudia. He reiterated this sentiment – better foster care 

than live with her mother – two weeks later. 
4

Photos of Samantha’s injuries were sent to a child abuse physician, who 

said that the bruising was consistent with Samantha’s report and looked like defensive 

injuries. It was not consistent with accidental bruising while playing. 

Samantha was detained on October 12, 2021, and was released to Claudia 

under protective orders. Jose was to have a minimum of six hours of monitored visitation 

per week, not monitored by Maria. 

From the very first time he was informed of Samantha’s injuries, Jose 

maintained that she was lying about Maria’s causing them. Nothing – even the child 

abuse physician’s conclusions – could convince him that the accusations were anything 

other than an effort to disparage Maria or a plot by Claudia to get child support. He 

offered several theories to account for the bruising. One was that Samantha had been 

injured at Claudia’s house and that Claudia had coached Samantha to say Maria had hit 

her and to wait several days to report the injury.4 Another theory was that Samantha had 

injured herself on purpose. Another was that she and Claudia had mutually agreed to 

injure Samantha themselves and then blame Maria. 

The record includes many instances of Jose’s focus on himself rather than 

on Samantha. When a social worker spoke to him about two weeks after the abuse 

report, he said that the “situation” was harder for him than for anyone else, including 

Samantha. He told SSA that he wanted Claudia to bring the clothes Samantha had been 

wearing when she was picked up from school to the detention hearing because he had 

paid a lot of money for them. He was informed that the clothes belonged to Samantha, 

not to him.5 

4

As it happened, a social worker was present in Claudia’s home on that day, a Tuesday, because of 

the voluntary family services program, and she did not see any bruises on Samantha. The social worker also denied 

any safety concerns about Claudia. 

5 When Samantha asked to have her shoes returned, Jose brought up the school clothes again as a 

reason to deny the request. 
5

Between detention and the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Samantha was 

ambivalent about visiting Jose. At times she would agree to visit by video (at first she 

refused to visit in person), and the visits were, for the most part, without incident. At one

later point, she asked why she had not had an in-person visit, when she wanted to have 

one. When, however, the social worker offered to set one up, Samantha changed her 

mind and said she did not want to visit and would not say why. 

At other times, however, Samantha would adamantly refuse to visit, even 

by video, and no persuasion by SSA or Claudia would change her mind. The more 

people pressured her to visit on these occasions, the deeper she dug in her heels. And 

most of the time she offered no explanation for her refusal to visit or simply said she was 

not ready. 

Jose’s response to Samantha’s refusal to visit was usually to insist on his 

rights and to assert that she had no say in the matter. When visitation began, Samantha 

asked to start with virtual visits, with just the two of them, and suggested that Jose use 

her room. His response was that no one was going to tell him what to do in his house. 

His response to Samantha’s refusal to have a video visit was to suggest that a social 

worker pick her up after school for a forced in-person visit. He made this same 

suggestion when Samantha declined to have an in-person visit with him in November. A 

request by Samantha to change the visitation days because of her homework was met 

with his statement that she was “not of age to be making decisions” and that he preferred 

to keep the days as they were. When Samantha asked to have an in-person visit in the 

park one weekend, Jose refused because he would have to drive from Riverside to the 

visit. Weekday visits were more convenient for him, he said, and he again insisted that 

Samantha had no right to decide whether to visit him. He also threatened to use his 

educational rights to keep Samantha from participating in an after-school program, 

apparently just to exercise these rights. He gave no reason for objecting to her 

participation other than that he had the right to do so. 
6

The jurisdiction/disposition hearing took place over four days in February 

and March 2022. Both Jose and Samantha testified. Maria also testified and denied 

hitting Samantha. On March 10, the court sustained the petition under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect, and dismissed the allegations of serious emotional 

damage (§ 300, subd. (c).) It also removed Samantha from Jose’s custody under section 

361, subdivision (c)(1). 

DISCUSSION

The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the amended petition under

section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect]. It determined disposition under section 

361, subdivision (c)(1), which requires clear and convincing evidence of a threat to a 

child’s safety and no reasonable means of protecting the child other than removal. Jose 

asserts the court had insufficient evidence upon which to base both orders. 

“The standard of review in juvenile dependency cases is the same as in 

other appeals on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence. We review the record to 

determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or not, which supports 

the court’s conclusions.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649.)

“‘The term “substantial evidence” means such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is 

reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘In making this 

determination, all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues 

of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. [Citation.] In dependency 

proceedings, a trial court’s determination will not be disturbed unless it exceeds the 

bounds of reason. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 574-

575, overruled on other grounds in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989; see 

also In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) 

Because we cannot see or hear the witnesses, the law puts limits on our 

review. As a reviewing court we are not allowed to evaluate credibility. That is the 
7

function of the juvenile court, and we are bound by the lower court’s findings. (See In re 

T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161-1162; In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 

183, 193 [issue of credibility for the trial court].)

I. Jurisdiction

Jose makes two arguments with respect to jurisdiction. First, he points to 

past instances when Samantha lied or made an accusation about Maria after being 

coached by Claudia. Second, he argues the child abuse physician could not state 

definitively that the bruises occurred on the night Samantha was in Jose’s custody, that is,

the night before Samantha reported them to her teachers. In other words, he argues 

Samantha might have been injured at Claudia’s house.

The court took this evidence into account and decided to believe Samantha. 

As the court pointed out, when Samantha had lied in the past or had been coached to 

make an accusation about Maria, she always immediately admitted that she had done so. 

In this instance, however, Samantha’s story about who hit her never changed, even while 

she was testifying in court under the judge’s eye. 

As for the physician’s opinion, he originally stated he could not rule out 

that the injury occurred while Samantha was last at Claudia’s, that is, on the Tuesday 

before the Friday when she reported the abuse. Then he looked at the photos again and 

opined it was “‘a little too far’ back” for the bruising to have occurred on that day. 

As stated above, we do not make findings about credibility. 

Notwithstanding the juvenile court’s clear ruling on Samantha’s credibility (“The court 

found Samantha to be credible in court, . . . and she was largely consistent on the material 

points that matter. . . . [¶] . . . And observing her testimony and her demeanor, the court 

found Samantha credible.”). Jose argues that we should disbelieve Samantha and believe 

him and Maria instead. Put another way, we should disregard what the juvenile court 

said about Samantha’s credibility and rule instead that she was not credible. We simply 

do not have that power.
8

As for the physician’s opinion, to which the court gave “substantial 

weight,” a reexamination of the photos caused him to revise it to state the bruises 

appeared fresher than they would have been if they had been inflicted on the Tuesday 

before the Friday when Samantha reported them. The physician did not “waver on the 

timeline,” as Jose represents. He revised it after taking a second look. Jose is, in effect, 

still arguing Samantha was injured, or injured herself, at Claudia’s home and waited 

several days to report the injuries in order to blame Maria.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction 

over Samantha, and we cannot make contrary findings about credibility.

II. Disposition

Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), precludes removal of child from a parent’s 

physical custody unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is 

or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no 

reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without 

removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.”

The juvenile court found that, given Jose’s persistent denials that Samantha 

had been harmed at his house, and given Maria’s continued presence in the home, there 

was a substantial danger to Samantha’s physical health, safety, and emotional well-being 

in Jose’s custody and that she could not be protected by any means short of removal. 

This finding necessarily rests on the juvenile court’s believing Samantha’s version of 

events and disbelieving Maria’s. To some extent, it also rests on the court’s disbelieving 

Jose as well. The court also took into account the fact that Samantha did not tell her 

father what had happened because she feared retaliation from Maria. This fear would 

naturally be heightened if Jose retained custody, given that Samantha is “certainly now 

aware of . . . what her telling her teacher about this incident has led to.” 
9

Samantha’s consistent testimony from the first day provides the clear and 

convincing evidence to support removal. The court was justified in finding it more 

credible than Jose’s theory that Samantha deliberately injured herself, with or without 

Claudia’s connivance, in order to disoblige Maria.6 That, coupled with the evidence of 

the child abuse physician, who opined the bruises were consistent with defensive injuries 

and not consistent with accidental or play injuries, gave the court the necessary evidence 

to conclude removal from Jose’s custody was the only reasonable way to keep Samantha 

safe from further abuse. As the court reasoned, if Jose did not believe the abuse 

happened, he would take no steps to ensure it did not happen again. 

In his reply brief, Jose asserted that he had, since the case began, “stated 

that he would abide by any juvenile court order preventing Maria from caring for 

Samantha.” The record does not reflect any such statement or any such sentiment. The 

pages of the clerk’s transcript cited to support this assertion refer to the record of 

visitation and to Jose’s insistence that Samantha had to visit him, like it or not. Nowhere

in these pages does he state he would abide by an order preventing Maria from caring for 

Samantha, and, indeed, since he and Maria live together, it is difficult to see how he 

could arrange this. 

In finding for removal of custody, the court also focused on Samantha’s 

emotional well-being, particularly on her fear of reporting abuse to Jose. The evidence in 

the record supports this aspect of the order as well. For most of the period between 

detention and jurisdiction, Jose was focused, not on Samantha but on his own feelings of 

resentment at being hard done by or disobeyed. He repeatedly told SSA that she had no 

right to decide whether to visit; his rights were paramount. When she expressed fear of 

having a video visit, he suggested that SSA basically kidnap Samantha from school and 

6

On the one hand, Jose testified that Samantha and Maria had a close and affectionate relationship. 

On the other hand, he testified that Samantha conspired with Claudia, at considerable inconvenience to herself, to 

blame Maria for child abuse. 
10

take her to a forced in-person visit. He exhibited no empathy for her, instead publicly 

branding her as a liar and refusing to believe her while championing Maria. The court’s 

decision Samantha should not be living in such an atmosphere is not one we can disturb. 

Substantial, clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s 

decision to remove custody from Jose. 

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

GOETHALS, J.