1 Filed 7/16/14 In re K.D. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re K.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN MATEO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. D.W. et al., Defendants and Appellants. A138122
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 72958, 82276, 82277)

The mother of three minors (two girls a nd one boy ages 1, 3, and 11 at the time this proceeding was commenced ), and the presumed father of two of the minors, appeal from the dispositional order of the juvenile court declaring the minors to be dependant children and placing them with a foster parent approved by respondent San Mateo County Children and Family Services Agency (Agency). The court sustained the following allega tions of the amende d petition filed by the Agency on Decem ber 14, 2012: “The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness . . . . [¶] as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent . . . to supervise or protect the child adequately. . . . [¶] On November 6, 2012, while the Agency was investiga ting an unexplained injury to [the younger daughter, she]2 stated that the father . . . pulls her arm and she is being ‘whooped’ with a belt on the buttocks by her parents. [The daughter] fu rther reported that the father hits [the daughter’s brother], age twenty-three months , with a green plastic bat, and that the mother ‘whoops’ their half-s ibling . . . . On November 12, 2012, the Agency filed WIC 300 (b) petitions regarding the children, and at the initial Hear ing on November 14, 2012, the court ordered the pare nts to cooperate with unannounc ed visits to the family’s home and the children’s schools. However, since that time, the Agency has made numerous efforts to visit the family and verify the children’s safety, and the parents have remained uncooperative. On December 6, 2012, the Agency learned that the family has moved out of their residence; the parents have refused to pr ovide the Agency with their current address. Further, although the court issued Protective Custody Warrants regarding all three children on December 11, 2 012, . . . [two of th e minors] were taken into protective custody on Dece mber 12, 2012 [and ] the parents have refused to discuss the whereabouts of [the third child]. The parents’ history of violent and abusive behavior, ongoing uncooperativeness with th e Agency, and disregard for the court’s orders place [the children] at risk of harm in the care of the parents. “The family has an extensive histor y of involvement with Child Protective
Services and the Juvenile Court in San Ma teo and San Francisco Counties, in that: “On or about June 7, 2004 , the mother hit [the older daughter] . . . with a belt, resulting in deep bruises to the child’s buttocks, lower back, and both legs. A WIC 300 (a) petition was filed, and on Sept ember 15, 2004, the petition was sustained and [the child] was declared a Dependent of the San Mateo County Juvenile Court in out-of-home placement. Family Reunification services were provided to th e mother and [the daughter’s] father [not the appellant he re], and on March 15, 2005, [the daughter]
was returned to the mother’s care. Family Maintenance services were provided until September, 15, 2005, when [the daughte r’s] Dependency status was terminated. “On or about November 20, 2008, [the older daughter] . . . was removed from the mother’s care and detained in the protec tive custody by San Francisco County Children & Family Services, following [the daughter’s] disclosure that her mother routinely3 disciplined her by hitting her w ith a belt, a spatula, and her hands. Further, the mother refused to cooperate with the Agency in that she would not allow the social worker to
meet with her or the children. As a resu lt, WIC 300 (a), (b), (c), (g), and (j) petitions were filed regarding [t he daughters] . . . . On Februa ry 9, 2009, the petition regarding [the older daughter] was sustained, she wa s declared a Dependent of San Francisco
Juvenile Court and she was ordered to be re turned to the mother’s care, with Family Maintenance services in place; the petition re garding [the younger daughter] who had not been removed from the mother’s care, was dism issed. Family maintenance services were provided until August 12, 2010, when Depe ndency status was terminated. “On March 27, 2012, [the younger dau ghter] . . . witnessed a domestic dispute between the parents, . . . in which the pare nts yelled at each other and engaged in a physical conflict in which they tussled and fell to the ground. The mother ultimately stabbed [the father] in back of the left shoulde r with a steak knife. Further, the front door jamb was split, and the mother alleged that [the father] had kicked in the front door when she attempted to force him to leave. Initially th e mother did not allow the Agency to assess the children’s safety or make a plan to prevent them from being harmed during any other altercations between her and [the fath er]. WIC 300 (b) and (j ) petitions were filed
on behalf of the children on May 1, 2012. The mother and [the father] remained uncooperative for much of the investigation peri od, but eventually agre ed to participate in Voluntary Services, to include anger management and domestic violence services. At the Jurisdiction Hearing on June 14 , 2012, the petitions were dismi ssed. Since that time, the mother and [the father] failed to participat e in any of the services outlined in the Voluntary Case Plan, and did not ma intain contact w ith the Agency. “The parents’ history of violent and abusive behavior, ongoing uncooperativeness with the Agency, and disregard for the court’s or ders place [the childre n] at risk of harm in the care of the parents.” The court sustained the allegations “[b] ased on the evidence presented and the [Agency] reports received, co mbined with the . . . long history of referrals to the Agency.” The court laid particular emphasis on two factors: (1) the “lack of candor on4 the part of both [parents] in terms of deali ng with the situation of the domestic violence
incident in March . . . that one strikes me as . . . being the most egregious in terms of my concerns with regard to the safety and well- being of these children. And they had the opportunity . . . to utili ze services . . . . And they didn’t do it”; and (2) “a nother thing that struck me as being extremely unsettling was . . . knowing that an investigation by the Agency is going on, . . . [mother] moves, do esn’t tell anybody wher e she is going.” The
court also noted to mother’s counsel: “Ms. Williams, we have heard virtually nothing from your client.” The court announced its dispositional order as follows: “I agree with Ms. Williams [counsel for mother] as to the responsibilities of the court in connection with the children. I agree that I have to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is subs tantial danger to the child ren’s physical or emotional well-being and there is no reasonable means to protect the children w ithout such removal. “That is a direct quote from your trial br ief, Ms. Williams. In fact, I highlighted it
when I read it. And I’m ma king just such a finding here. “There is a long history . . . of physical abuse.
“There is domestic violence in the hom e. Domestic violence of stabbing. Domestic violence is an argument. Domestic violence is a threat. And if that doesn’t create an emotionally abusive situ ation, I don’t know what does. “You have to deal with this before you can be good parents to your children. You are very, very fortunate to have such a larg e and supportive family to be willing to take on the responsibility that, apparently, both of you are unwilling to deal with after having done nothing about it last year. That is extremely disturbing to the court. “The history of working with the Agency was abysmal, abysmal last year. And even after you made an agreement, there were two other . . . incidents reported . . . that would qualify as domestic violence. “I’m finding, by clear and convincing evid ence, it is in the best interests of the children to be removed from the care and custody of their parents. Th at being said, . . . I still hold out hope for both of you. Because it is . . . equally clear to me that you both5 care about your children and lo ve your children deeply. Bu t is time to step up and do something about it so that yo u are not going back and forth and involved with the system on such a regular basis and having to count on your extended family to care for your children because of your unaddressed issues. “You are going to be given the opportun ity to address these issues and put these things behind you. Th at should be the goal. This shoul d be viewed as an opportunity. The two younger children, . . . probably at their age, would not even remember being exposed to the domestic violence. “[The older daughter] seems like a ve ry good kid and loves you [addressing the mother]. It is clear. It is very clear. A nd I’m giving you what I perceive the opportunity
to become an even better moth er to her. I mean, it is clear to me that you are concerned about her education. When you are involved, she thrives with her education. She loves you dearly. You have a situation . . . now wh ere, if you utilize the services, the remainder of her school career and hopefully the remain der of her and your life will be even better. “. . . [A]lso, we spent, here in San Mateo County, signifi cant time, effort and energy on this case. . . . Th e sooner the services begin, th e better as far as the court is
concerned.”
Mother contends: “Reversal of the Or ders on Jurisdiction and All Subsequent
Orders is Called for Because There is Insuffi cient Evidence to Support the Finding that
the Children Come within Subd ivision (b) of Section 300” of the Welfare and Institutions
Code. The contention is without merit. At the start of the jurisdictional hearing, and without objection from either parent, the court received in evidence four reports from the Agency. Those reports are legally admissible evidence, no twithstanding that a report is itself hearsay and may contain multiple levels of hearsay. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 281; In re Cindy L . (1997) 17 Cal.4th 15, 21-31.) At a jurisdictional hearing, the report is, by itself, sufficient for a jurisdictional finding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 355, subds. (b), (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.684, subds. (c)-(d).) Those reports have been reviewed, and th ey fully support the quoted allegations. Moreover, any one of the findings concerning the father would6 suffice for the assertion of jurisdiction, beca use “a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both.” ( In re Alysha S . (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) Next, both parents attack the decision to remove they children as lacking proof that removal was necessary. “Before the c ourt may order a child physically removed from his or her parent, it must find, by clea r and convincing eviden ce, that the child
would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home an d that there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protecte d without removal. [Citations.] The jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence that the child cannot safe ly remain in the home. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been actually harmed for removal to be appropria te. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child. [Citations.] In this regard, the court ma y consider the parent’s past conduct as well as present circ umstances. [Citation.]” ( In re Cole C . (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.) Here, there was proof of actual harm, and the pare nts’ history gave ample ground for reasonable apprehension of substantial risk if the children were returned to the setting
where the mother had so recen tly stabbed the father after having failed to benefit from the services proffered in previous dependencies. The case worker put it plainly: “The history of the family, and their behavior du ring the current case makes it extremely clear that the only way in which the childr en will be safe while the parents7 have an opportunity to enga ge in services to work on their anger management and parenting skills is through out -of-home care an intensive in tervention and supervision by the Agency.” The dispositional order is affirmed.

_ ____________ ____________ Richman, J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Kline, P.J.

_____________ ____________ Brick, J. *

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.