Filed 3/5/21 In re T.K. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 T.K., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES 

AGENCY,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.K.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G059423

 (Super. Ct. No. 20DP0280)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary L. 

Moorhead, Judge. Affirmed.

Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for the Minor.

* * *
2

In March 2020, mandatory reporters observed several bruises on six-yearold T.K.’s shoulders. When asked about them, T.K. said his father had hit him. The 

incident was reported to Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), which

investigated and determined that T.K.’s father had physically abused him. SSA also 

found T.K.’s mother knew about the incident but had failed to take any action. T.K. was 

taken into protective custody and later placed with his maternal grandparents. SSA filed 

a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.

1

The 

juvenile court found the allegations in the petition to be true at a combined jurisdiction 

and disposition hearing. It also found a substantial risk of harm to T.K. if he was 

returned home, so it ordered that he remain removed from his parents’ custody while they 

engaged in reunification services.

T.K.’s father appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence to justify the 

juvenile court’s removal of T.K. from the parents’ home. We disagree. T.K. told 

numerous people that his father had inflicted the bruises at issue and that his father 

frequently hit him, sometimes using a belt, stick, or phone. T.K. also reported that his 

mother knew of the abuse but had done nothing to stop it. The court found T.K.’s story 

to be credible, and we do not question this finding on review. Further, the father 

admitted to hitting T.K. with a belt, pushing him to the ground, and making him run for 

up to four hours as punishment for misbehaving. Thus, we affirm the court’s order.

I

FACTS

A. Prior Allegations of Abuse

T.K. was born in July 2013. The child abuse report at issue was received 

by SSA on March 2, 2020. Before turning to that report, several prior reports provide 

1

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

vital context. The first was made in December 2018, when a reporter informed SSA that 

T.K. had a two-inch bruise on the left side of his face. T.K. told the reporter his father 

had pushed him at home, causing him to fall and hit his head on the carpet. T.K.’s 

parents claimed he had tripped and slid face first on the carpet while trying to avoid a 

spanking from his father. When interviewed by SSA, T.K. said he felt safe at his parent’s

home. SSA found this report to be unfounded.

Another reporter told SSA in October 2019 that T.K. had said he wanted to 

die because his father frequently hit him with a belt on his backside. During SSA’s

investigation, T.K. denied saying this. T.K. and both parents asserted the father only 

spanked T.K. on the buttocks with an open hand. SSA again found this report to be 

unfounded.

In February 2020, SSA received duplicate referrals from two separate 

reporters that T.K. had a bruise on his forehead. T.K. told both reporting parties the 

bruise “was a secret” between him and his parents. He eventually gave multiple 

explanations for the injury. He initially told both reporters he had tripped in the 

bathroom at home and hit his head on the toilet. But he later told the first reporter he had 

tripped while running and fallen onto the grass. And he later told the second reporter that 

he had hit a pole at school. Both parents claimed T.K. had told them the bruise on his 

forehead resulted from him slipping in the bathroom and hitting his head on the toilet.

SSA’s report for this incident noted, “[i]n the past, when [T.K.] would sustain injuries, he 

would say that it was caused at school; however, there has never been records of [T.K.] 

reporting the injuries at school. All students are required to report incidents, especially if 

injuries were sustained, to the school.” Still, SSA found the report to be inconclusive.

B. The Underlying Incident

On March 2, 2020, the reporting party observed bruises on T.K.’s 

shoulders. One bruise was about the size of a hand palm. T.K. did not want to discuss 
4

the injuries with the reporter because he was scared his father would go to jail. But he 

eventually explained that he had gotten in trouble with his father for misbehaving at 

school. His father made him do pushups as punishment. T.K., who was six years old at 

the time, was unable to do them, so his father hit him in the back with a closed fist about 

11 times. His father also pushed him down onto the ground, bruising T.K.’s knees. T.K. 

said he was afraid of his father. Another mandatory reporter made a duplicate referral

after seeing a hand-sized bruise on T.K’s right shoulder. T.K. told the second reporter his 

father had punched him and that he was afraid of his father.

After SSA received these reports, social worker T. Nguyen interviewed 

T.K. later that day at school.2 T.K. showed her marks and bruises on his back, shoulders, 

knees, shins, and right arm. He largely repeated the story he had told the reporters. 

When T. Nguyen asked T.K. to demonstrate what his father had done on a bag, T.K. said 

“‘he did like this’” and repeatedly punched the bag with his right fist. He also clarified 

that his father picked him up and pushed him to the ground when he was unable to do a 

push-up, which bruised T.K.’s kneecaps. His father told T.K. he had to “‘pay the price 

for what [he] did.’” T. Nguyen recorded a prominent bruise on T.K.’s right shoulder 

measuring about six by eight centimeters, and she noted some of the marks appeared to 

be “the marks of the knuckles when a person is hit with a closed fist.”

T.K. informed T. Nguyen that his mother did not use corporal punishment. 

She had seen his shoulder bruises and talked to his “father about being physical towards” 

T.K., but T.K. did not know the specifics of their conversation. He declared that he did 

“not want to see [his] father ‘because he hurt me, he made me cry.’” T.K. did not feel 

safe around his father and divulged that his father hit him nearly every day with either a 

2

 Social worker J. Nguyen later became involved in this case too. To avoid confusion

and for anonymity purposes, we use first name initials and last names for all social 

workers involved.
5

belt, stick, or his hand. His father also made him run laps in their yard for long periods of 

time as punishment.

Fullerton Police Officer Kyle Bishop also interviewed T.K. at school that 

day. T.K. repeated the story he had told T. Nguyen and specified the incident had 

occurred around February 26, at his father’s work warehouse.

3

 He again stated that his 

father sometimes hit him with a belt or wooden stick and made him run for hours. If T.K. 

told his father that he was in pain, his father said he “‘ha[d] to pay the price.’”

T.K.’s mother was telephonically interviewed that day by T. Nguyen. The 

mother confirmed she had seen the bruises on T.K.’s upper back but believed he had 

gotten them from falling during an ice skating lesson. She also claimed the father only 

spanked T.K. on the buttocks area and denied any knowledge of T.K. being hit 

elsewhere.

Officer Bishop interviewed T.K.’s father when he came to pick up T.K. at 

school that day.

4

 The father denied punching T.K. and suggested the bruises could be 

from falls T.K. had during ice skating lessons. But he also informed Bishop that when he 

had asked T.K. about the bruises, T.K. “told him that he [the father] pushed him and 

punched him on the back.” The father then told Bishop he was “‘pretty sure’” he had not 

done that. The father also confessed to recently hitting T.K. on the buttocks with a belt, 

causing three marks, and to pushing T.K. to the ground when he tried to avoid being hit 

with the belt. He further also disclosed that he made T.K. run for up to four hours if he 

misbehaved.

After the interview, officer Bishop arrested T.K.’s father for child cruelty. 

He was later released on bond and was never criminally charged. T.K. was taken into 

3

 T.K.’s father owns a business and has a warehouse in Garden Grove.

4

 At some point during this interview, T. Nguyen entered the classroom where the 

interview was occurring and conducted a joint interview with officer Bishop.
6

protective custody that day and later placed with his maternal grandparents. On March 4,

SSA filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). 

The petition alleged T.K.’s father had physically abused T.K. and his mother knew of the 

abuse. At the initial hearing the next day, the juvenile court found T.K. needed to be 

removed from his parents’ home. The court order supervised visitation for the mother 

and monitored visitation for the father. A jurisdiction hearing was initially set for April 

2020 but was continued several times.

C. SSA’s Progress Reports

Social workers’ J. Nguyen and Edwards were assigned as caseworkers. 

They filed several reports in the juvenile court, which included summaries of interviews 

with T.K., his parents, and various relatives. Their reports recommended that SSA’s 

petition be sustained and that T.K. remain with his maternal grandparents while his 

parents engaged in reunification services.

1. Interviews with T.K.

On March 4, 2020, T.K. underwent a forensic examination conducted by 

Dr. Van Nguyen Greco of the Child Abuse Services Team (CAST) Medical Unit. When

she asked T.K. about the bruises on his back, T.K. repeatedly responded, “‘I can’t tell 

you, I don’t want my dad to be in jail.’” She also asked T.K. about a bruise on his 

forehead (this appears to be the bruise from the February 2020 report). T.K. stated his 

father had hit his face with a phone. Dr. Greco recommended that T.K. have a forensic 

interview.

An in-person forensic interview of T.K. was conducted the next day. At the

beginning of the interview, T.K. stated “‘[m]y mom said if I say something about my 

shoulder and back, my dad will be in jail forever.’” When the CAST interviewer asked 

him to describe something he did not like, T.K. stated “‘that my dad hits me.’” He then, 
7

without prompting, showed the interviewer his back and shoulders and stated “‘my dad 

punched me,’” while pointing to his shoulders. He added, the punches were “‘really 

hard.’” T.K. said he showed the bruises to his mother and she confronted his father about 

them, but he did not know what they discussed.

T.K. also told the CAST interviewer that when he gets into trouble, his 

father made him run “‘around the course, all day, all day, all day,’” and that he was not 

given anything to eat or drink while running. If T.K. did not run, his father would 

“‘chas[e] [him] with a stick and hit[] [him].” His father usually hit him on the buttocks 

with a belt, stick, or phone. T.K. described the stick as blue and being part of a 

“sweeper.” When asked about the belt, T.K. without prompting demonstrated the 

whipping motion with his hand while saying “‘[w]hip it, [w]hip it.’” He also added that 

this father hit him in the stomach and on the face with a phone at times and that his 

mother sometimes saw the abuse.

Edwards interviewed T.K. on March 26 via video call due to COVID-19 

health precautions. During the interview, Edwards asked T.K. if there was anything he 

did not like about his family. T.K. responded, “‘my dad hitting me when I am in 

trouble.’” Similar to prior interviews, T.K. stated that when he got into trouble, his father 

would hit him “‘with his phone, belt, [or] stick.’” He described the stick to be like a 

broom handle. T.K. also clarified that he had hit his head while ice skating, but when 

asked whether he had also hurt his back while ice skating, T.K. responded, “‘no, that’s 

my dad.’” During the interview, he again reiterated that his mother knew about the abuse

but did not stop it. Still, T.K. said he missed his mother and wanted to go home with his 

parents.

Later that day, T.K. placed an unprompted video call to Edwards (her 

number was logged in T.K.’s iPad). He said he did not remember anything about his 

father hitting him. When Edwards asked T.K. whether anyone had told him to say that, 

T.K. said “‘well, I was talking to my grandma and she said to just tell [Edwards] I don’t 
8

remember.’” J. Nguyen later spoke to the maternal grandmother in a separate call, and 

she denied telling T.K. to say this.

Edwards contacted T.K. by video call on April 16, 2020. He stated that he 

was no longer “‘scared of my dad . . . because I have grown up,’” and that he missed his 

parents. During contacts in May and July of 2020, T.K. said he wanted to return to his 

parents’ home. But during the July contact, he also expressed that his father “‘freaked 

[him] out sometimes.’” In August 2020, T.K. again told J. Nguyen that he wanted to go 

home and commented, “‘[t]he truth is the police told [sic] to tell that.’”

2. Interviews with T.K.’s parents and relatives

Dr. Greco spoke with T.K.’s parents on March 4. The father admitted to 

striking T.K. on the buttocks with a belt over four layers of clothing (two pairs of pants 

and two shirts). Dr. Greco noted the father would have had to hit T.K. extremely hard to 

leave a mark with that much clothing on. The parents also admitted the father made T.K. 

run for up to two hours as punishment but said he was given breaks and drinks. The 

father also maintained T.K. had told him the bruises on his shoulders and back were 

caused by kids at school hitting him. Dr. Greco concluded these bruises “appear[ed] 

patterned and [were] not the result of accidental trauma or normal play. They [were] the 

result of inflicted trauma/physical abuse and can occur from being hit with a fist multiple 

times.” She also noted “it was possible that a much older child could have caused the 

bruising to [T.K.’s] back.” When asked about the bruise on T.K.’s forehead (the bruise 

reported in February 2020), the father stated T.K. had accidentally hit his head on the 

toilet. Dr. Greco concluded the forehead bruise could have been accidental but could also 

be “consistent with being hit with a cell phone.”

Edwards conducted an in-person interview of the mother on March 12, 

2020. The mother denied the abuse allegations and claimed T.K. had told her the bruises 

on his shoulders and knees were from ice skating. She also denied that T.K. was hit 
9

nearly every day and denied that he was ever hit with a stick or belt. While she 

confirmed the father made T.K. run, she insisted it only lasted for up to 45 minutes. The 

father was not interviewed, as he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right, and the 

juvenile court ordered that he could only be interviewed as to services and visitation.

In June 2020, J. Nguyen received a call from T.K.’s paternal grandmother. 

She reported witnessing T.K. being physically abused by his father on multiple 

occasions. She also expressed concern that T.K.’s father had anger management issues

and that he abused T.K. when he was upset with T.K.’s mother. She also alleged T.K.’s 

mother knew about the abuse but had done nothing to stop it.

3. Services

J. Nguyen sent anger management resources to the father and parenting 

education resources to both parents. The father completed his parenting course, and the 

mother appears to have at least partially completed it by the time of the jurisdiction 

hearing. The father had not started the anger management course by the time of the 

hearing.

D. The Hearing

A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing commenced on August 27, 

2020. T.K.’s father, mother, and ice skating coach testified.

During his testimony, T.K.’s father described his disciplinary system. 

Initially, he would explain to T.K. what he did wrong. Next, for recurrent issues, he 

would employ time-outs, early bedtimes, and “sometimes running [the family’s] 

driveway.”5The running ranged from 10 minutes to two hours, but he testified that T.K. 

was given drinks and snacks. The father denied telling police that T.K. ran for up to four 

5

 The family’s house sits on roughly one acre of land. The father estimated their 

driveway was about the size of four classrooms.
10

hours and alleged that officer Bishop had lied in his report. Finally, if T.K. put himself in 

danger or caused “bodily harm,” the father would spank T.K.’s buttocks with his hand. 

The father invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked if he had ever struck T.K. 

with a belt or stick or had ever punched him.

T.K.’s father swore he had never physically harmed T.K. And he denied 

knowing what had caused the bruises on T.K.’s shoulders and back. He claimed to have 

become aware of them on March 1, when the mother raised the issue. He testified that he 

then asked T.K. about the bruises, and T.K. did not say anything. T.K.’s father also 

denied pushing T.K. to the ground. He acknowledged telling the police about hitting 

T.K.’s buttocks with a belt, but he asserted “there were no marks” and blamed the police 

for making that up. Regardless, in his opinion, hitting a child on the buttocks and causing 

marks was not abuse. He further clarified that he generally only used the belt as a scare 

tactic.

According to the father, the paternal grandmother lied about seeing him 

physically abuse T.K. T.K.’s teacher lied when reporting in October 2019 that T.K. had 

said he wanted to die because his father regularly hit him with a belt. Similarly, the

school lied in the February 2020 report. He also insisted the Fullerton Police Department 

and the school district had fabricated the stories of physical abuse. When asked about Dr. 

Greco’s summary of their conversation on March 4, he denied speaking to her.

The mother testified that the father had not physically abused T.K. and 

loved him very much. She had never seen the father hit T.K. with a belt or stick, nor had 

T.K. ever told her anything to that effect. She had only seen the father threaten T.K. with 

a belt. The mother also denied that T.K. ran for up to four hours. She believed even 

running for two hours would be excessive punishment and maintained that T.K. only ran 

for 10 to 15 minutes.

The mother also denied T.K.’s account that his father hit him daily,

claiming “my son lies all the time.” Similarly, she doubted T.K.’s report that the father 
11

had thrown him to the ground and punched him, asserting she “believe[d] that he testified 

untruthfully.” Instead, she testified T.K. had told her the bruises on his knees, back, and 

shoulder were from ice skating lessons. But she also stated that she believed T.K. had 

gotten the bruises after getting beat up by several kids at school.

T.K.’s ice skating coach testified that T.K. began skating with her on 

February 22, 2020. She never observed the father yell at T.K., and she never saw any 

bruises on T.K. beyond normal bruises he would get from falling during lessons. She 

characterized T.K. as a frequent faller, who initially fell 30 to 60 times per lesson. He did 

not wear any pads or protection, other than a helmet.

E. The Juvenile Court’s Ruling

The juvenile court found the allegations in SSA’s petition to be true and 

declared T.K. a dependent of the court. It found T.K.’s reports of physical abuse were 

credible, and his parents’ testimony lacked credibility. The court concluded that while 

both parents “clearly love [T.K] and want the best for him, . . . the father has crossed the 

line of socially acceptable discipline, and the mother . . . failed to protect her son from the 

father’s excessive discipline.” As such, it determined both parents would greatly benefit 

from engaging in counseling and other services offered by SSA.

The juvenile court also found by clear and convincing evidence that 

returning T.K. to the custody of his parents would be harmful to him under section 361, 

subdivision (c)(1). Thus, it ordered that custody of T.K. would remain vested in the 

director of the SSA while his parents engaged in reunification services. The father 

appeals this aspect of the court’s ruling, arguing there was not clear and convincing 

evidence to support removing T.K. from his custody.
12

II

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

“Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her 

parent’s custody, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at 

substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the 

child can be protected without removal. [Citations.] The jurisdictional findings are 

prima facie evidence the minor cannot safely remain in the home. [Citations.] The 

parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before 

removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re 

T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135-136.) “‘Reasonable apprehension stands as an 

accepted basis for the exercise of state power.’” (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 

154.)

The juvenile court’s findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re 

T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 135-136.) “[W]hen reviewing a finding that a fact 

has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court 

is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable 

factfinder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. [I]n making this 

assessment the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated 

the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable 

inferences from the evidence.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995-996; 

In re V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 155 [applying standard in a dependency case].)

B. Analysis

T.K.’s father argues there were no safety concerns at the time of the 

hearing. Rather, T.K. had told the social workers that he felt safe and wanted to return 
13

home. Further, to the extent there was any danger, he contends SSA could have 

increased its visits to the home rather than removing T.K. from his parents’ custody. We 

disagree. There was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to conclude by clear and 

convincing evidence that it was highly probable T.K. would be at a substantial risk of 

harm if returned to his parents’ custody. Thus, T.K. needed to be removed for his 

protection.

There is substantial evidence T.K.’s father physically abused him on 

multiple occasions. On March 2, T.K. told two reporting parties, social worker 

T. Nguyen, and officer Bishop that his father had inflicted the bruises on his knees, back, 

and shoulders. He also told T. Nguyen and Bishop that his father frequently hit him with 

a belt, stick, or his hand and made him run for long periods of time. On March 5, he told 

the CAST interviewer that his father had punched him in his back and shoulders. And he 

repeated that his father hit him with a belt, stick, or phone and made him run the course 

“‘all day.’” Then, on the March 26, he specified to Edwards that the bruises on his back 

were not from ice skating but from his father, and he repeated that his father had 

previously hit him with a phone, belt, and stick. Likewise, T.K.’s paternal grandmother 

professed to have seen the father physically abuse T.K. and was concerned for T.K.’s 

safety.

Though T.K.’s father accused the police, reporters, social workers, and the 

paternal grandmother of lying, the court appeared to find their reports credible. In 

contrast, it found the parents’ testimony lacked credibility. We do not question these 

findings on review. (Williamson v. Brooks (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1294, 1299-1300.) 

Besides, the parents’ claims that the bruises on T.K.’s shoulders and back were caused by 

ice skating or T.K.’s classmates are unsupported by the weight of the record. T.K. 

repeatedly said his father caused these bruises. Dr. Greco concluded the bruises were not 

the result of accidental trauma and only “a much older child could have caused the 
14

bruising.” Likewise, T. Nguyen noted on March 2 that some of the bruises appeared to 

be “the marks of the knuckles when a person is hit with a closed fist.”

Similarly, the father’s contention that he has never physically abused T.K. 

is controverted by his own statements. He initially admitted to officer Bishop that he 

pushed T.K. to the ground and that he used a belt to discipline T.K. He also told Bishop 

that he was only “‘pretty sure’” he had not punched T.K. in the back. And during the 

hearing, he testified that hitting a child’s buttocks with such force as to cause marks was 

not abuse, that using the belt as a scare tactic was appropriate, and that forcing a six-yearold child to run for two hours was proper discipline.

Moreover, while there is consistency to the accounts of the various 

reporters of abuse, social workers, and officer Bishop, the statements made by T.K.’s 

parents contain several inconsistencies. For example, the father initially admitted to 

Bishop that he hit T.K. with a belt, leaving three marks on his buttocks, and that he 

pushed T.K. to the ground because he was trying to avoid the belt. Then, at the hearing, 

he claimed he had not caused any marks and denied pushing T.K. to the ground. The 

father also initially told Bishop that when he asked T.K. about the bruises, T.K. “told [his 

father] that he pushed him and punched him on the back.” At the hearing, the father 

testified that T.K. was silent when asked about the bruises. The father also initially 

confessed to Bishop that he made T.K. run for up to four hours as punishment. He then 

contended at the hearing that T.K. only ran for up to two hours. His testimony also 

conflicts with the mother’s account. She first claimed during an interview that T.K. only 

ran for up to 45 minutes. Then at the hearing, she testified he only ran for up to 15 

minutes.

Finally, it is concerning that T.K.’s father has failed to take any 

responsibility for his actions. Despite the considerable evidence against him, which 

include his own prior statements, at the hearing he refused to acknowledge any 

wrongdoing and accused everyone else of lying. It is equally troubling that T.K.’s 
15

family, including his mother and maternal grandmother, appear to be pressuring T.K. to 

cover up his father’s abuse. T.K. cannot be returned home safely until his father is able 

to demonstrate an understanding of the line between discipline and abuse and the other 

family members are willing to hold him accountable for crossing that line. Since T.K.’s 

parents cannot yet recognize that line, there exists a substantial risk that T.K. will be 

harmed if he is returned to their custody. Increased visits from SSA will not materially 

reduce this risk.

III

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IKOLA, J.

THOMPSON, J.