Filed 6/4/15 In re A.S. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B259156 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK04732)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
A.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven Klaif, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deput y County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *2 Mother A.S. challenges the juvenile c ourt’s order taking jurisdiction over her 17-year-old son Alexander. The court sustai ned allegations that mother physically
abused Alexander and that she suffered fro m emotional problems including excessive anger and aggression. Alexander’s father was unable to care for him, and mother did not want to reunify with hi m. We conclude jurisdicti on was warranted and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1. Sustained Allegations The juvenile court found that father, w ho resides in Germany, could not care for Alexander, and that finding is not challenged on appeal. With respect to mother, the court sustained the follo wing allegations: Mother physically abused Alexander, which was ex cessive and caused unreasonable pain and suffering. Alexander did not want to resi de with mother. Mo ther has emotional problems making her unable to provide regula r care and supervision. She suffered from mental and emotional problems, e xhibiting frequent mood swings and would become angry and aggressive.
2. Alexander’s Version
Alexander came to the attention of th e Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) after mother was arre sted for child abuse. The criminal court issued a restraining order, preventing mother from having contact with Alexander. Alexander reported that mother stabbed him with a screw driver, a box cutter, and a carpet knife. Alexander also reported mother pushed him causing him to fall into a drum set and scratch his ey e. A social worker observed scars on
Alexander’s arms.
Alexander described mother as a memb er of a cult and claimed she believed aliens were taking over the government. (Father reported that he believed mother suffered from a mental disorder, but the only rationale he ga ve was mother’s failure to inform him of her pregnancy with Alexande r.) Alexander believed that mother was overly controlling.3 Alexander reported that he did not want any contact with mother. Alexander wanted to live in foster care, and the DCFS concluded that mother was not able to provide a safe home.
3. Mother’s Version Mother vigorously mainta ined that Alexander, who wa s larger than her, always was the aggressor, and that her conduc t was in self-defense. But mother acknowledged she “picked up thi ngs to defend herself.” For example, mother said that Alexander once lunged toward a screwdriver she was holding. Mother’s parents and several friends submitted letters in her suppor t, emphasizing her efforts to care for her
son and to love and cherish him. One wr iter indicated that Alexander told him he intended to use the dependency system as a bargaining chip with mother. None of mother’s friends or family observed mother verbally or physically abuse Alexander.
When Alexander was detain ed, mother said that she did not want custody of
him. Mother did not feel safe with Alexander in the home. At the jurisdictional hearing, mother’s counsel argued mother was the victim not the abuser. She argued that Alexander ha d been detained in four placements since he was removed from mother’s custody. Couns el argued that his first foster parent was upset because Alexander did not follow th e rules. “And he has been replaced a few times, not just once or twice.” 4. Court Findings The court concluded that although Al exander was rebellious, mother had an obligation to refrain from using violence agai nst him. It sustained the allegations as
described above and conclude d jurisdiction was warranted.
5. Alexander’s Postdetention Placements Prior to the jurisdictional hearing, a DCFS report detailed Alexander’s inappropriate conduct during his first foster placement. Specifically, Alexander acted inappropriately with his girlfriend by grab bing her breasts in public. Alexander rebelled when his foster parents prevented him from being alone with his girlfriend.4 Alexander refused to return to his foster home unless his foster parents allowed him to see his girlfriend whenever he wanted. Subsequent to the jurisd ictional hearing, DCFS filed a report indicating that Alexander had difficulty in other foster care placements . He accused one foster mother of physical abuse, but the accu sation was unfounded. When placed in an emergency shelter he was “rough-housing” a nd “belittling” other child ren in the home. Alexander also filed a compla int against his group home, which was unsubstantiated. In his next placement, Alexan der was “defiant, argumentative, verbally and physically aggressive towards others.” Alexander sh oved a staff person, who was attempting to implement house rules.
At the same time it detailed Alexande r’s postdetention placements, DCFS reported that mother reiterated that she did not want to reunify with Alexander.
DISCUSSION Mother argues that the jurisdictional order should be reversed because DCFS failed to timely provide information re garding Alexander’s difficulty in his postdetention placements and su ch information was relevant to her argument that he was the aggressor. Mother al so argues the finding that she suffered from mental and emotional problems is not supported by substa ntial evidence. Mother seeks reversal of the jurisdictional order and remand for a new jurisdictional hearing. We conclude that jurisdiction was ne cessary even if, as mother argues, Alexander was the aggressor. We therefore need not co nsider mother’s specific challenges, but nevertheless e xplain why they lack merit. “[T]he juvenile court takes jurisdic tion over children, not parents.” ( In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 14 91.) “The court asserts juri sdiction with respect to a
child when one of the statutor y prerequisites listed in [W elfare and Institutions Code] section 300 has been demonstrated.” ( Ibid .) When a single finding is supported by the evidence the court may decline to cons ider other jurisdictional findings. ( Id . at p. 1492.)5 Mother does not dispute that jurisdic tion was warranted if she physically abused Alexander. Her argument is that if th e court had considered all of the evidence including the postjurisdicti onal evidence it would have concluded Alexander was the

aggressor. However, even assuming that Alexande r was the aggressor, jurisdiction was necessary in this case. The dependency system does not re quire a parent’s conduct be blameworthy. ( In re R.T. (2015) 235 Cal.App. 4th 795, 797.) “When a child thereby faces a substantial risk of serious physical harm, a parent’s inability to supervise or protect a child is enough by itself to invoke the juvenile court’s dependency jurisdiction.” ( Ibid .) Here mother admitted that sh e could not supervise or protect Alexander. She was afraid to live with him, did not want custody of him, and did not want to reunify with him. Crediting moth er’s version of events indicated that Alexander was an incorrigible teen and requ ired support beyond what mother could provide. Under that scenario , jurisdiction was warranted. ( Ibid .) Moreover, mother’s specific arguments la ck merit. Even if DCFS should have presented information regard ing Alexander’s difficulty in his placements sooner, mother was privy to this information and c ould have called witnesse s to testify at the jurisdictional hearing. Her counsel argued that Alexander was in four placements
since his detention. Counsel further ar gued that he had to move because of inappropriate conduct with his girlfriend and the failure to follow hou se rules. Mother fails to show that a new jurisdictional hear ing is required for the court to consider
evidence mother could have but did not devel op at the jurisdictional hearing. In any event, the court recognized that Alexande r was rebellious but concluded that mother— as the parent—was required to refrain from responding to his conduct with violence. Nothing in the postjuri sdictional report undermines that conclusion. Finally, ample evidence supported the allegation that mother suffered from emotional problems causing her to ange r easily and become aggressive. ( In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452 [reviewing juvenile cour t’s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence].) The evidence that mother repeatedly and regularly6 responded to Alexander with physical vi olence supported the allegation that she angered quickly and was aggressi ve. There was evidence this placed Alexander at risk of harm as he reported and a social worker observed scars from moth er’s conduct. As respondent argues, a mother who “physically abuses her child by repeatedly stabbing him with a box cutter, stabbing the child with a screw driver, and violently pushing the child, suffers from a mental and emotiona l problem” and may benefit from therapy.
DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s jurisd ictional order is affirmed.

FLIER, J.
WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

RUBIN, J.