Filed 11/7/13 In re Thomas L. CA5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re THOMAS L., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY 

SERVICES AGENCY, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

FERNANDO L., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

F067163 

(Super. Ct. No. 516562) 

OPINION

THE COURT* 

 APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. 

Ameral, Judge. 

 Caitlin U. Christian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

-ooOoo- 

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Poochigian, J. 
2 

 Fernando L. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order 

removing his nine-year-old son, Thomas, from his custody under Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 361.1 Father contends the order must be reversed because there was no 

evidence Thomas was at risk in his care and there were less restrictive alternatives to 

removal. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY 

 Father has two sons, nine-year-old Thomas, the subject of this appeal, and 14-

year-old Alexander. Dora, father’s ex-girlfriend, is Alexander’s mother. Vanessa, 

father’s wife, is Thomas’s mother. Because Thomas’s detention and removal stems from 

father and Vanessa’s mistreatment of Alexander, we incorporate Alexander’s history into 

our summary of the case.2

 Father has a history of domestic violence referrals beginning in 2000, in Santa 

Clara County. In March 2000, Dora reported multiple incidents of domestic violence in 

which father assaulted her; striking her head, stomach, chest, back and legs with his fists. 

At the time, Alexander was 11 months old and father and Dora shared custody of him. 

There were two additional reports of domestic violence in 2000, stemming from 

arguments father and Dora had while exchanging custody of Alexander. 

 When Alexander was five years old, he was removed from Dora’s custody 

because of her drug use and neglect and was placed with father, who was granted full 

custody of him. By that time, father was involved with Vanessa, and Thomas was an 

infant. 

In November 2005, eight months after Alexander was placed with father, the 

Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) received a report that Vanessa 

 

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

otherwise indicated. 

2 We took judicial notice of the appellate record in Alexander’s case (F067160) at 

appellant’s request. 
3 

hit Alexander in the face because he “got his numbers wrong.” Alexander had facial 

bruising, a cut lip, and a bloody nose. Alexander stated he knew Vanessa did not like 

him because she was mean to him, but said he loved her. Father begged the agency not to 

place Alexander in foster care and said he would keep Alexander out of the home until 

the next day. Vanessa denied hitting Alexander and she and father agreed to participate 

in family maintenance services. 

By late February 2006, father and Vanessa had made an appointment for parenting 

classes, and the agency reported Vanessa and father were following their case plan. At 

the same time, however, the agency received a report that then six-year-old Alexander 

was found wandering in the street. Over the ensuing five months, the social worker had 

monthly contact with the family except for March and May when the social worker 

attempted home visits but no one answered the door. In May of that year, Alexander 

stated in class that he was angry and wanted to kill himself. When the social worker saw 

Alexander and Thomas, they appeared happy and clean. In July 2006, the social worker 

asked Vanessa if she wanted to continue receiving family maintenance services and 

Vanessa said she did not. The social worker closed their case because the children 

appeared safe and the parents were not willing to cooperate. 

In January 2008, the agency received a report that Vanessa made Alexander stand 

outside naked because he got in trouble. Vanessa denied the allegation, and Alexander 

recanted his story. Alexander said he defecated in his pants and Vanessa had made him 

strip off his clothes in the entry way of the home. The tile in the entry way was cold and 

that made him angry at her. The agency could not substantiate the report since the family 

denied it, but the family was receptive to Alexander receiving counseling. 

In July 2009, while staying with Dora, Alexander reported that Vanessa slapped 

him on the right side of his face causing bruises, and pinched him on the legs causing 

them to bleed. He said he was afraid of Vanessa and did not want to return to his father’s 

house. He did, however, return and was interviewed by a social worker from the agency. 
4 

He denied that Vanessa and father hit him. According to the social worker, Alexander 

and Thomas presented as healthy, intelligent boys. The social worker believed that 

Alexander may have been encouraged to change his story, but the agency was unable to 

substantiate the physical abuse allegation. 

In December 2009, Alexander reported at school that he wished he were dead, that 

father did not give him dinner the night before or breakfast that morning, and that father 

punched him in the arm and stomach. Alexander, however, did not have any bruises and 

did not appear afraid of father. 

In March 2011, the agency received a referral that Thomas, then six years old, 

returned to school after three days of absence with a swollen and bruised ear. Thomas 

said he and father were playing when father got mad and kicked him in the face. The 

agency investigated but determined father did not physically abuse Thomas, and the 

family agreed to modify their wrestling activities. 

In January 2012, father and Vanessa reported to a mandated reporter that they 

threatened to beat Alexander until he was “black and blue.” They did not allow him to 

sleep on a mattress because he urinated on it and they did not permit him to eat in the 

school cafeteria. He was not allowed to eat breakfast or lunch in the school as 

punishment for misbehavior. The agency did not intervene because Alexander did not 

report he was hungry and because he, Vanessa and father were in counseling. 

In March 2012, the agency received reports that Vanessa had removed 

Alexander’s bed and carpet, and he slept naked on the floor with two sheets. The carpet 

was removed because Alexander defecated and urinated on the floor deliberately. 

Alexander disclosed that he was not fed at home for several days in a row and not 

permitted to eat at school. He was made to wear soiled clothes for several weeks and not 

allowed to change his soiled underwear. In addition, Alexander had to run back and forth 

to school, and he was hit and pushed at home. He was allowed six minutes to arrive 

home after school. Once he arrived, he was locked in his room and had to call for 
5 

bathroom breaks and for dinner. Alexander was told daily that he was going to be sent to 

a foster home and feared for his safety. He appeared underweight and had been 

diagnosed with attachment disorder. He was participating in counseling but father and 

Vanessa were not. 

In March 2012, the social worker helped the family develop a verbal contract with 

Alexander, and he responded well for several days, but then resumed urinating in his 

clothing. In April, father told Alexander to pack his belongings and not return to the 

home after school. Alexander reported at school that he had nowhere to go and was 

scared and sad. By May, father and Vanessa were no longer giving Alexander sheets. 

He was not allowed to sit on the furniture or wear clothes. 

In May 2012, Alexander was evaluated by psychologist James A. Wakefield, Jr. 

Dr. Wakefield reported that Alexander was exposed prenatally to drugs and to maternal 

drug use until the age of five. Thereafter, he was exposed to inappropriate punishment in 

father’s home, resulting in his admitted use of enuresis, encopresis and feces smearing in 

retaliation. Dr. Wakefield further reported that Alexander was of average intelligence 

and was not having behavioral or academic problems at school. However, he opined that 

Alexander was emotionally disturbed and had been so for a long time. He said Alexander 

was engaged in a power struggle with his parents and he was not controlled by 

punishment. Dr. Wakefield diagnosed Alexander with schizoaffective disorder and 

reactive attachment disorder, recommended continuing counseling and suggested father 

takeover as the primary disciplinarian. 

In July 2012, a social worker reported that father and Vanessa refused to let 

Alexander participate in treatment. She further reported that after Alexander fulfilled a 

goal, Vanessa increased her expectations and consequences, and that father used 

punishment to humiliate Alexander. She further stated father and Vanessa “shut down 

every avenue the family’s counselor suggested to decrease Alexander’s target behaviors,” 

and when father was asked to participate in treatment, he declined to do so. 
6 

In September 2012, Vanessa and father agreed to participate in family 

maintenance services. However, they refused to sign a case plan that included Thomas. 

Consequently, in November 2012, the agency closed their case. 

In January 2013, the agency received a report that Vanessa burned Alexander’s 

hand. Alexander said she held his hand over a hot pan and burned his wrist. The day 

before, she hit him on the hand with a baseball bat for taking a pen. 

The agency took then 13-year-old Alexander into protective custody, placed him 

in foster care and filed a dependency petition amended to allege he was a minor described 

under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage) 

and (i) (cruelty). Approximately a week later, the agency took then eight-year-old 

Thomas into protective custody out of concern that he was exposed to the emotional 

abuse inflicted upon Alexander. The agency filed a dependency petition alleging that 

Thomas was described under section 300, subdivision (b) and (j) (abuse of sibling). 

Thomas was also placed in foster care. 

Thomas described how he and Alexander were treated differently in the home. 

Thomas said sometimes Alexander only ate a cheese sandwich while the rest of the 

family ate chicken, vegetables and potatoes. He said Alexander was locked in his room 

while the rest of the family went on outings and for Christmas Thomas received games 

and toys while Alexander received an empty box with a note from Santa Claus telling 

him he was too bad to receive presents. Thomas said he also wet the bed but did not get 

into trouble. Thomas also explained that he let Alexander out of his room at night so 

Alexander could go to the bathroom and took him back to his bedroom. 

Thomas reported his parents disciplined him by making him stand next to a wall 

without his hands touching the wall. Sometimes his parents yelled at him, sent him to his 

room, spanked his bottom with a spoon, punched him in the stomach or took things away 

from him. 
7 

The juvenile court ordered Alexander and Thomas detained and set their 

jurisdictional/dispositional hearings (combined hearings) in February 2013. 

After a month in foster care, Alexander was no longer smearing feces and 

defecating and urinating in his clothes and bedding. He said he felt safe and loved and 

was doing well in school. The foster parent reported that he tried to please others but was 

unsure of social expectations and became frustrated as a result. 

In its report for the combined hearing as to Alexander, the agency recommended 

the juvenile court use caution in considering Dr. Wakefield’s psychological evaluation of 

Alexander since much of the background information was provided by father and 

Vanessa. The agency recommended the juvenile court offer Dora reunification services 

but deny them to father. 

In its report for the combined hearing as to Thomas, the agency recommended the 

juvenile court adjudge Thomas a dependent child, remove him from father and Vanessa’s 

custody and order reunification services for them. The agency reported that father 

completed a drug and alcohol assessment but did not require substance abuse treatment. 

In addition, he and Vanessa completed a clinical assessment with clinician Amy 

Coleman, who recommended they participate in individual counseling. In addition, they 

participated in parenting classes and individual parenting sessions but it was too soon to 

assess their progress. They regularly visited Thomas and were sad and cried at the end of 

visits. 

The agency advised the juvenile court that despite father and Vanessa’s progress, 

they did not recognize they subjected Alexander to emotional cruelty and exposed 

Thomas to it. Consequently, the agency could not recommend family maintenance 

services. 

In April 2013, the juvenile court conducted a contested combined hearing as to 

Alexander and Thomas. Ms. Coleman testified father and Vanessa were participating in 

the parenting program, which consisted of 10 weeks of classes, followed by 10 individual 
8 

parenting sessions and a minimum of three parent/child labs. She said Vanessa and 

father had been participating in individual parenting sessions with her for approximately 

a month and a half. Vanessa participated in five individual counseling sessions and 

father participated in two. Coleman also co-facilitated two of the eight group parenting 

classes they attended. During the group sessions, they covered stress, anger management, 

and safety. 

Ms. Coleman further testified that during father’s two sessions, they discussed the 

reason for his referral for counseling and how his upbringing influenced his parenting 

style. She said father and Vanessa believed Thomas was removed from their custody in 

order to protect him from Alexander. They both acknowledged treating Alexander 

differently but only father provided an explanation; Alexander and Thomas had different 

needs. 

Ms. Coleman testified it was too early to determine if father and Vanessa made 

progress in their parenting services. There were additional topics she planned to discuss 

with them such as their prior child welfare history and their method of disciplining 

Alexander. Ms. Coleman declined to give an opinion as to whether it was safe to return 

Thomas to father and Vanessa’s custody, explaining that it was beyond the scope of her 

professional duty. 

Social worker Sarah Hernandez testified concerning a risk assessment tool, 

structured decision-making (SDM), used by the agency to determine a parent’s risk level 

with respect to a child. She testified that, according to the results of Vanessa’s SDM 

assessment, Thomas was at high risk for abuse. 

During argument, county counsel asked the juvenile court to sustain the petitions, 

deny father reunification services as to Alexander, and provide father and Vanessa 

reunification services as to Thomas. 

The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petitions and ordered Alexander 

and Thomas removed from parental custody. The juvenile court ordered reunification 
9 

services for Dora and father as to Alexander despite the agency’s recommendation to 

deny father services. The court explained that denying father reunification services 

would send Alexander the message that he was going to be treated differently again and 

that it may be in his best interest to attempt reunification with father. The juvenile court 

ordered reunification services for father and Vanessa as to Thomas. This appeal ensued. 

DISCUSSION

Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s 

removal order. We disagree. 

 Section 361, subdivision (c), the removal statute, prohibits the juvenile court from 

removing a minor child from the physical custody of the parent(s) with whom the child 

resided at the time the petition was initiated unless the juvenile court finds 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.” (§ 361, subd. (c).) 

“The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been actually 

harmed for removal to be appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the 

child.” (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.) 

 “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to 

the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to 

support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass judgment on the 

credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or 

determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we draw all 

reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light 

most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order even if 

there is other evidence that would support a contrary finding. [Citation.] 

When the [juvenile court] makes findings by the elevated standard of clear 

and convincing evidence, the substantial evidence test remains the standard 

of review on appeal. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden of showing 

that there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the 

order. [Citations.]” (In re Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 915-916.) 
10 

In our view, father failed to meet his burden. 

 Father contends there was insufficient evidence that returning Thomas to his 

custody would pose a substantial danger of emotional harm to Thomas because 

Alexander was the cause of the inappropriate discipline and Alexander was no longer in 

the home and unlikely to return. Further, father contends there was no evidence Thomas 

was inappropriately disciplined or would be because, unlike Alexander, Thomas did not 

have behavioral problems. Finally, father contends Thomas’s sadness and difficulty 

adjusting to foster care demonstrated that removing him from father’s custody was more 

harmful than returning him. 

In effect, father cites evidence to support an order returning Thomas to his custody 

rather than to support the removal order issued by the juvenile court. Our role, however, 

is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the order actually made. In our 

opinion, it does. 

 For eight years, father and Vanessa cruelly abused Alexander physically and 

emotionally. When their punishments did not work, they intensified them. By the time 

Alexander was finally removed, he was being denied food and virtually all the comforts 

of a home. To make matters worse, Thomas had become an unwitting participant in his 

brother’s abuse. 

 In our view, substantial evidence supported a finding that Thomas would be at a 

substantial risk of harm if returned to father’s custody. Father has a history of violence, 

as evidenced by his interactions with Dora. In addition, he either passively stood by 

while Vanessa abused Alexander or actively participated in the abuse. His claim that 

Alexander’s behavior is the genesis of the abuse is not supported by the record. Vanessa 

was abusing Alexander within eight months of his placement with father, not because he 

was misbehaving but because he “did not get his numbers right.” Eventually, Alexander 

acted out in response to the abuse and the abuse escalated in intensity. Once Alexander 

was taken out of the home, his behavior improved. Under the circumstances, there is no 
11 

reason to believe that Thomas would not be targeted in a similar fashion if he were the 

only child in the home. 

 Father cites this court to In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139 for the 

proposition that the abuse of one child does not justify the removal of the child’s sibling. 

(Id. at pp. 147-148.) Hailey T., however, is easily distinguishable. In that case, a fourmonth-old sustained bruising on and underneath his eye. He and his three-year-old sister 

Hailey were removed from parental custody. The parents could not explain the injury 

and a child abuse expert testified the injuries were nonaccidental and unlikely inflicted by 

Hailey. The expert could not tell if the injuries were sustained during a single or multiple 

episodes. Another expert testified that it was impossible to determine if the injuries were 

caused intentionally and that they could have been caused by Hailey. (Id. at pp. 142-

144.) 

 The appellate court in Hailey T. reversed the juvenile court’s removal order, 

concluding there was insufficient evidence to order Hailey removed from the home 

because there was no evidence of any abuse and the evidence of abuse was disputed. 

(Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 148-149.) 

In this case, there was ongoing child abuse. 

 Father also contends there were alternatives to removal such as frequent 

unannounced home visits and in-home services to address safety, stress management and 

appropriate discipline. Father also points out that Thomas was under the continuing 

supervision of the juvenile court, the social worker and family counselor, and therapists 

who could detect if Thomas was at risk. 

 The evidence strongly suggests, however, that the alternatives father suggests 

would not suffice. There is more than one instance of father and Vanessa persuading 

Alexander to recant his allegation of abuse. No amount of supervision can protect a child 

in an abusive home if parents prevent the child from disclosing the abuse to authorities. 
12 

 In light of the foregoing, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile 

court’s removal order. 

DISPOSITION

The dispositional orders entered on April 19, 2013, are affirmed.