Filed 12 / 22 / 21 In re A.S. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A

. S

. , A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court La w. 2d Juv. No. B3 1 1678 ( Juv . Ct. No. 2 1JV00073 ) (San ta Barbara County)

SAN TA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.M. et al.,

Appellant s.

M.M. (Mother) and E.C. (Father) appeal the juvenile court’s jurisd iction and disposition orders regar ding their baby , A.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd s

. (f) & (j) [Mother], (b)(1) [Father].) 1 We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and In stitutions Code

.2 This appeal involves orders by the juvenile court concerning A.S., born to Mother and Father in 2021

. Approxim ately five years earlier, Mother , then a n adolescent

, secretly gave birth to a baby at home and murdered the newborn by cutting his throat. The juvenile court later adjud ged Mother a ward of the court based upon a finding that she committed second degree murder . W e affirmed on appeal. ( In re M.S. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1177. ) Here, followi ng the filing of a dependency petition by Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (C W S) and contested hearings thereafter , the juvenile court sustained allegation s of
the petition and ordered removal of A.S. The court also ordered that Mother and Father receive family reunification services to address Mother’s mental health issues and to accept and understand the significance of the circumstances of the prior
chil d’s death. The parents now appeal these orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL HISTORY In 2021, Marian Medical Center staff contacted CWS and reported that Mother gave birth to another baby. Hospital employees knew that Mother had killed her first baby five ye ars earlier. Employees advised CWS that Mother and Father had given the baby the same first name as their deceased child.
The CWS social worker met Mother and Father at the hospital. Mother reported that she had been released from juvenile confinement after serving time in juvenile hall and 13 months in a group home. Father stated to the social worker that
Mother ’s mental health had improved and that he had no
concerns for the ir b aby. At the time, Mother and Father were living with the maternal grand parents.3 CWS then obtained a protective custody warrant for the baby to temporarily remove him from Mother’s and Father’s custody. Following a contested detention hearin g , the juvenile

court ordered that the baby be detained. In ruling, the juvenile

cou rt judge stated: “The circumstances of the prior murder are just too concerning to have no concern about th e safety of the
child.” On March 2, 2021, CWS filed a dependency petition alleging that the baby was at risk of serious physical harm,
Father could not protect the baby from Mother, and Mother
caused the d eath of the baby’s sibling. (§ 300, subd. (a), (b), (f).) On March 24, 2021, the juvenile court held a contested jurisdiction hearing. The court received into evidence the CWS detention and juris diction reports and testimony from the CWS
social worker

, Father, and Mother, among others

. The court also took judicial notice of Mother’s section 602 wardship file.
The social worker testified that she received a hotline
referral that Mother attempted suicide in 2018. Father testified that he did not believe that Mother intentionally killed their first
child but acknowledged that Mother had suffered from untreated
mental illness. He stated that it is “kind of hard to believe that
she could h ave done s omething like that.” Father also testified that he now lived separately from Mother and was prepared to
care for A.S. Mother testified that she had engaged in extensive mental health therapy during residential treatment and currently continued to partici pate in therapy. Mother stated that she had prenatal medical care and that she and Father had looked forward to their baby’s birth.4 Following argument, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of section 300, s ubdivisions (f) and (j) , regarding
Mot her

, and the allegation of section 300, subdivision (b) regarding Father. The allegation in the amended dependency petition regarding Father stated that Mother and Father had spoken only a little regarding the death of the first baby but that
Father belie ved Mother ha d changed and was “different.” In ruling, the juvenile court judge referred to Father’s “concerning lack of appreciation for risk to the child” given that Father
believed the death of the baby was “accidental.” On April 12, 2021, the juveni le court held a contested disposition hearing. The court received evidence of the CWS disposition report and the psychological evaluations performed by
Doctor s Laura Beltran (Mother and Father) and Carolyn Murphy (Mother only)

. Beltran opined that Father minimized Mother’s mental health issues and her past violent act. She also opined that Mother minimized her mental health problems and that she may be superficially engaging in psychological treatment. Murphy opi ned that Mother presented a low to low

- mo derate risk for future violence and that she did not minimize killing her baby.
The CWS investigating social worker testified that Mother and Father were now living together and that they tended to minimize the risks posed by Mother to A.S. For this re ason, CWS was recommending parent education classes and psychological therapy for the parents.
The juvenile court then found by clear and convincing
evidence that A.S. would be at substantial risk of harm if
returned to his parents and there were no re asonable means to protect him without removal. The court removed A.S. from5

Mother ’s and Father ’s custody and placed him with the maternal grandparents. 2 The court also orde red supervised visits and family reunification services for Mo ther and Father

. On appeal, Father challenges the jurisdiction findings
made pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and further asserts that insufficient evidence supports removal of the child from his custody. Mother joins Father’s brief pursuant to California Rules of Court

, rule 8

. 200(a)(5)

. DISCUSSION
I. Father argues that the jurisdiction finding of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) does not rest upon sufficient evidence. He points out that he has never had an opportunity to supervise or protect A.S. and thus ther e is no evidence of risk of harm to the
child

. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a jurisdiction or disposition order, we review the entire record to
determine if the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom support the orders. ( In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591,
602 .) We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. ( Ibid. ) Although substantial evidence is a deferential standard, it is not “toothless.” ( In re I .C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892 [evide nce supporting jurisdiction finding must be considered in light of the whole record].) Sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding
pursuant t o sec tion 300, subdivision (b)(1). Section 300,

s ubdivision (b)(1 ) requires the court to find that there is “a
substantial risk that the child will suffer [] serious physical harm

2 Mo ther and Father no longer live with the maternal grandparents

.6

or illness ” as a result of the failure or inability of the parent to supervise or protect the child. Here Father lacked insight into
Mother’s mental illness and the circumstan ces of the murder of the first baby. Father stated that the baby’s death was an accident and that Mother did not intentionally kill him

. Father
also stated that he had no concerns about Mother’s mental
health. Doctor Beltran opined that Father was “unfi t to care for and protect the child at this time” due to Father’s lack of understanding of the murder of the baby as well as his lack of knowledge rega rding Mother’s mental illness. I n ruling, the juvenile court judge state d that the evidence “doesn’t fil l us with assurance . . . [that Father] would be adequately protective of the
child w hen [Mother] wishes to visit.” This evidence and
reasonab le inferences therefrom support the jurisdiction finding.
II.
Father contends that insufficient clear and conv incing evidence supports the disposition order. He asserts that he is a

non offending parent and that the juvenile court speculated that he might violate the court’s order regarding Mother’s supervised
visits. Section 361, subdivision (c)(1) permits a ch ild to be removed from a parent’s home if there exists clear and convincing evidence of 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 rea sonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor” from a parent’s physical custody. Removal may be appropriate even if the parent is not dangerous and the child has not yet been harmed. ( In re Francisco D. (2 014) 2307

Cal.App.4th 73, 83.) The focus of the dependency proceeding is to prevent harm to the child, not punish the parent. ( Ibid. ) Father’s arguments are unavailing because he is not a non

offending parent and his belief that the prior baby’s murder w as an accident presents credible evidence of current risk of harm.
Father found it “hard to believe” that Mother could have
in tentionally killed their baby. Doctor Beltran opined that Father was unfit to care for and protect A.S. because he
minimized Mot her’s mental health problems and prior violent

act. The court properly found that Father’s lack of appreciation for the circumstances of the baby’s murder and Mother’s mental health problems posed a substantial risk of harm to A.S.
DISPOSITION
The order s are affirmed.

GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

YEGAN , J.

TANGEMAN , J.8 Jed Beebe, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appe al, for Defendant and Appe llant M.M. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.C. Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, Deputy Counsel , for Plaintiff and Respondent.