Court Opinion

ID: 9910844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 18:02:45.223218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:41.367022
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/18/23 In re U.M. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re U.M., a Person Coming Under                             B325187;
the Juvenile Court Law.                                       B318563

                                                               (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP05786A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

              Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

VANESSA G.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed.
      Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                      ________________________

                         INTRODUCTION

       The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) filed a dependency petition
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 former section 300,
subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally),
(b)(1) (failure to protect), and (j) (abuse of sibling) in December
2021 on behalf of U.M. (born April 2010) and his siblings. The
petition was based on physical abuse of U.M. by his mother
Vanessa G. and his parents’ limited ability to meet U.M.’s mental
and behavioral health needs.
       At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in
February 2022 the juvenile court sustained the petition as to
U.M. but not his siblings, declared U.M. a dependent of the court,
released him to the custody of both parents, and ordered family
maintenance services. Vanessa G. appealed the jurisdiction
findings and disposition orders (B318563), contending there was
insufficient evidence to support a finding U.M. was at substantial
risk of serious physical harm by the time of the jurisdiction

1       Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.

                                  2
hearing and that Vanessa was unable or failed to provide
appropriate care and supervision to U.M. given his mental and
emotional issues.
      Subsequently, in July 2022 the Department filed a
section 342 petition on behalf of U.M., under former section 300,
subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), alleging new circumstances of physical
abuse of U.M. by Vanessa in May 2022.2 At the combined
jurisdiction and disposition hearing on the section 342 petition in
October 2022, the juvenile court sustained the petition, removed
U.M. from Vanessa and placed him with his father Ul.M. with
monitored visits with Vanessa, and ordered family maintenance
services and enhancement services for Vanessa. Vanessa
appealed the jurisdiction findings and disposition orders
(B325187), contending there was insufficient evidence to support
a finding U.M. suffered serious physical harm from Vanessa’s
physical discipline or that he was at substantial risk of serious
physical harm by the time of the jurisdiction hearing on the
section 342 petition.

2     Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), formerly provided, in
relevant part, that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court if “[t]he 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 the child’s parent or guardian
to adequately supervise or protect the child, . . . or by the
inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the
child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness,
developmental disability, or substance abuse.” Effective
January 1, 2023, Senate Bill No. 1085 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
(Stats. 2022, ch. 832, § 1) amended section 300 by rewriting
subdivision (b)(1) to enumerate the existing bases for dependency
jurisdiction in separate subparagraphs (b)(1)(A) through (D).

                                  3
      We address both appeals in this combined opinion and
affirm in each case.3

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.     Prior Referrals and Dependency Proceedings
       In December 2010 the juvenile court took jurisdiction of
U.M. and his older sister K.V. due to domestic violence between
Ul.M. and Vanessa and Ul.M.’s substance abuse. K.V. was placed
with her father, and the court granted Vanessa and Ul.M.
reunification services as to U.M. In July 2011 U.M. was placed
with Vanessa and in January 2012 the court terminated
jurisdiction, granting her physical custody of U.M with monitored
visits to Ul.M.
       In February 2015 a referral in Riverside County alleged
Vanessa hit K.V. and U.M. at a restaurant. K.V. said Vanessa
hit her thigh four times and then hit U.M.; U.M. dropped a cup,
and K.V. said Vanessa then threw the cup at U.M. causing a
black eye. K.V. said that while driving home, Vanessa hit her
again at a red light, and the reporting party took photos of red
marks on K.V.’s thigh. The referral was substantiated, a court
case was initiated, and the children were detained from Vanessa.
In May 2016 the children were returned to Vanessa.
       In August 2015 the juvenile court took jurisdiction of U.M.,
then five years old, and his younger sibling S.L. due to physical
abuse of U.M. by Vanessa. U.M. was placed with his paternal
grandparents, and S.L. was released to her father, Ul.M.
Vanessa completed reunification services, U.M. and S.L. were

3     U.M.’s father Ul.M did not appeal after either hearing.

                                4
returned to Vanessa’s custody, and the juvenile court terminated
jurisdiction in August 2016.
       In 2019 after a referral accusing Vanessa of physical abuse
was initially deemed “inconclusive,” a case was opened for
voluntary family maintenance services with siblings U.M., S.L.,
and A.L. U.M., then nine years old, stated Vanessa hit him and
yelled at him, pulled him by his hoodie, choked him, and slapped
him in the face. The reporter stated Vanessa banged U.M.’s head
on the wall. U.M. had a scratch on his left eye and redness to the
right side of his face. The physical abuse was ongoing on a
weekly basis, and U.M. stated he was fearful of Vanessa and of
going into foster care if he reported her abuse. U.M. reported he
felt he deserved mistreatment from Vanessa because he talked
back and visited his father on Sundays. The family was
ultimately deemed stabilized with services and the case was
closed.
       Later in 2019 another referral for physical abuse was
deemed inconclusive after U.M. reported Vanessa “cussed” at
him, gave him the middle finger, threw him to the ground, and
punched him. Vanessa denied the allegations. Other individuals
noted U.M.’s behavior could quickly escalate and become
aggressive and explosive, and that Vanessa triggered U.M.’s
behavior and caused him to escalate. The social worker was
informed U.M. attempted to “‘choke’” Vanessa while she was
driving. When Vanessa attempted to video record his behavior,
U.M. reportedly attempted to run away and then hit her with a
stick. Individuals reported U.M. alleged abuse by Vanessa in the
hopes he would be placed with his father.

                                5
      In November 2020 a referral alleged that U.M. disclosed
during a Zoom learning day that Vanessa hit S.L. hard, then S.L.
hit U.M. for no reason. U.M. then reportedly said that Vanessa
threw a water bottle, kicked U.M., and threw him on the floor.
U.M. said Vanessa screamed at him and “smacked” him for
hitting S.L. and threw his phone on the floor. During the
Department’s investigation U.M. said Vanessa did not actually
hit him or his siblings, and he just wanted to get Vanessa’s
attention because he was upset with her. He had no visible
marks or bruises; Vanessa denied the allegations. No evidence
indicated U.M. was abused.

B.    The February 2022 Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition
      In October 2021 the Department received two referrals
concerning U.M. One reported U.M. was watching pornography
and said his father had shown him pornography; the second was
made after U.M. reported to school staff that Vanessa hit him
with objects including a belt.
      U.M. stated that Vanessa hit him with a belt all over his
body. U.M. also reported getting hit on the shoulder when
Vanessa threw a phone at him because he used up all of the hot
water during his shower, the floor was wet, and Vanessa blamed
him for causing extra work. U.M. reported having a bruise on his
leg. No bruise was observable, but U.M. had a drawing on his
thigh he stated he drew on himself so the bruise could not be
seen. U.M. appeared well-groomed, healthy, and dressed
appropriately, with no visible marks or bruises. U.M.’s school
counselor stated U.M. told her about the abuse at home and said
he drew on his leg to hide a bruise. U.M. stated Vanessa threw
her shoe and other objects at him, like water bottles and a brush,

                                6
almost every day. He reported Vanessa also called him vulgar
sexualized names. Vanessa told the Department she understood
the need to refrain from using physical discipline and agreed to
services.
       In early November 2021 the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department, Norwalk station, informed the Department that
U.M. had reported abuse by Vanessa. On November 3, in an
interview at his school with a sheriff’s deputy, U.M. reported
Vanessa disciplined him by hitting him with different objects and
called him names. He reported that two to three weeks prior,
Vanessa became mad at him when his sister fell off the couch
while playing and hit him with a belt on his back four to five
times. Vanessa also hit him with a belt approximately three to
four times on his back because his sister fell and hurt her knees
while running. A day or two before the previous incident,
Vanessa hit him on the back of his head with the back of her
hand and pushed him to his room when he noticed an unknown
substance on the floor. He stated Vanessa constantly called him
vulgar names. The deputy found U.M.’s statements
“inconsistent” and noted U.M. could not provide “dates or details
of the abovementioned incidents.” The deputy observed a two-
inch bruise on U.M.’s back above his waistline; U.M. was unsure
if it was from the belt. The deputy also observed a two-inch
scratch; U.M. was unsure where he got that but stated two
scratches on his neck were from playing with his sisters.
       Later the same month, Vanessa informed the Department
she had called the police because U.M. was violent with her and
U.M.’s sisters. A social worker went to the home and saw U.M. in
the back of a sheriff’s car. The deputy stated U.M. was being
assessed for a psychiatric hold due to a threat to harm himself.

                               7
U.M. had expressed he had no reason to live due to his home
circumstances. Vanessa stated U.M. went into “a fit of rage”
after she forbade him from playing in the front yard then closed
himself in a room with his sisters with a baseball bat, and she
called the police because she did not know what to do. S.L. later
described U.M. hitting the couch and wall with a bat, then
threatening his sisters in a room with the bat and stating he
wanted to kill himself. U.M. later confirmed locking himself in a
room with his sisters with a bat after Vanessa made him angry.
       U.M. was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility from
November 23 to 30, 2021. After his release, U.M. stated he said
“all those things about his mom hitting him” because he wanted
to live with his dad, and that he knew he had to live with his
mom until age 18 and wanted to stop lying.
       On December 21, 2021 the Department filed a petition
alleging U.M., S.L., and A.L. came within section 300. The
Department alleged in counts a-1, b-1, and j-1 that Vanessa
physically abused U.M. by striking him with a belt on his
buttocks and back; on a prior occasion, she threw a phone at his
shoulder; and on prior occasions, she pulled his hair, struck him
with an open hand on his head, pushed him, and hit him with
objects including belts, shoes and hangers; and that U.M. and
S.L. were prior dependents of the court due to inappropriate
physical discipline of U.M. such that the siblings S.L. and A.L.
were at risk of harm. The Department further alleged in counts
b-2 and j-2 that Vanessa and Ul.M. had limited ability to provide
U.M. with appropriate care due to his mental and emotional
problems and aggressive behavior toward others; that U.M. was
involuntarily hospitalized from November 23 to 30, 2021 due to
being a danger to himself and others; and his parents’ actions put

                                8
U.M. and his two younger sisters, eight-year-old S.L. and four-
year-old A.L., at risk of physical harm. At the detention hearing
on December 23, 2021 the juvenile court released U.M. to both
parents. In January 2022 U.M. told the dependency investigator
he did not want to live with Vanessa and instead wanted to live
with his father in Arizona. Regarding physical discipline, he
stated Vanessa previously would “smack me in the butt with her
open hand[, b]ut when [Vanessa and his stepfather] started
putting cameras around the house, they only yell at me.” He said
Vanessa used to hit him with her open hand “wherever she gets
me because I would be running from her,” and also used to hit
him with shoes, a water bottle, and the phone. He further
reported Vanessa “smacked” him on the back and on his head.
       U.M.’s sister A.L. reported Vanessa “[‘]smacked [U.M.] on
his butt and back. She also takes away his phone and tablet.
[U.M.] gets hit with a ‘cinto’ (belt) by mom.’” She reported the
belt was “brownish and blackish” and belonged to “‘my dad.’”
       Vanessa denied abusing U.M. and said U.M. knew what to
say to retaliate against her. Vanessa stated U.M.’s abuse
allegations were “‘all a lie. He is very manipulative’” and that
U.M. “‘has a tendency of exaggerating things and choosing words
that make it seem like he’s being abused.’” Vanessa expressed
not knowing what to do or how to cope with her son’s meltdowns
and challenging behavior. She reported U.M. threatened to file
reports and hit himself to inflict bruises. Vanessa did not know
how to handle U.M.’s behaviors but felt the Department’s
involvement gave U.M. a sense of entitlement and stripped her
from being able to parent her son. Vanessa believed U.M.’s
behavior had gotten worse since the Department came back into
their lives. She felt prior case services helped but U.M. also knew

                                9
“‘what to say to get [her] in trouble.’” U.M.’s stepfather reported
U.M. always threatened to tell social workers Vanessa abused
him when things did not go his way.
      At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on
February 15, 2022 the juvenile court dismissed the petition as it
related to U.M.’s two younger sisters and sustained the petition
as to U.M.4 The juvenile court declared U.M. a dependent of the

4     The sustained counts, with amendments, were as follows:
“[Counts a-1 and b-1]: On prior occasions, the child[] [U.M.]’s
mother[]inappropriately physically disciplined the child U.M. by
striking the child with a belt on the child’s buttocks and back.
On a prior occasion, the mother threw a phone at the child’s
shoulder. On prior occasions, the mother pulled the child’s hair,
struck the child with an open hand to the back of the child’s head
and pushed the child. On prior occasions, the mother struck the
child with objects including belts, shoes and hangers. Such
physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable
pain and suffering. The child[] [U.M.] is a prior dependent of the
Juvenile Court due to the mother’s inappropriate physical
discipline of the child [U.M.]. Such inappropriate discipline of the
child by the mother endangers the child’s physical health and
safety and places the child at risk of serious physical harm,
damage, danger, and physical abuse.
“[Count b-2]: The . . . mother[] and . . . father of the child, [U.M.],
have a limited ability to provide the child, [U.M.] with
appropriate ongoing care and supervision due to the child’s
mental and emotional problems and aggressive behaviors
towards others. The child was involuntarily hospitalized from
11/23/2021 to 11/30/21 due to the child being a danger to self and
others. Such a limited ability to provide appropriate parental
care and supervision for the child on the part of the parents,

                                  10
court, released him to the custody of both parents, and ordered
family maintenance services.
      Vanessa timely appealed the jurisdiction findings and
disposition orders (B318563).

C.     The Section 342 Petition, and the October 2022 Jurisdiction
       Findings and Disposition
       In May 2022 the Department received a referral alleging
Vanessa physically abused U.M. In July 2022 the Department
filed a subsequent petition pursuant to section 342 on behalf of
U.M., under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The petition
alleged for both counts: “On or about 05/24/2022, the child’s
mother physically abused the child by repeatedly striking the
child. The mother grabbed the child by the child’s hair and
dragged the child, causing the child’s hair to fall out. The child
sustained a scratch and bruising to the child’s legs. Such
physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable
pain and suffering. Such physical abuse of the child by the
mother endangers the child’s physical health and safety and
places the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger,
and physical abuse.”
       Vanessa initially refused to allow a social worker to enter
or to cooperate with the Department investigators who arrived to
investigate the referral. The following day she agreed to
questioning and stated U.M. hit her in the face during an
argument over his homework and music, then he went to the
neighbors. She denied pulling his hair. The social worker took

endangers the child’s physical health, safety, and well-being and
places the child [sic].”

                                11
photos of Vanessa’s face when Vanessa stated U.M. punched her,
but the worker did not see any marks or bruises. Vanessa stated
U.M. had a tendency to call for help after verbal altercations so
the neighbors believed she was hitting him. Vanessa stated she
was unable to discipline U.M. and was afraid for the safety of
herself and her daughters. Vanessa attributed U.M.’s behavior to
his father’s influence, saying that Ul.M. told U.M. she did not
love him and he should not have to listen to his stepfather. At
subsequent interview attempts, Vanessa declined to allow
interviews with her daughters and stated U.M.’s stepfather was
not available. Vanessa blamed the allegations on the
Department blaming her and for “‘trying to open a case and get
kids removed.’”
        The neighbor, A.G., reported U.M. came to his house crying
and saying that “‘his mom dragged him by his hair and sent him
to do his homework at my house.’” A.G. stated he believed U.M.
because U.M. “‘ran his fingers through his hair and he was
shedding a lot of hair.’” The neighbor reported this was not the
first time U.M. ran to his house complaining about being hit by
Vanessa. He stated he had heard U.M. yelling from across the
street and he was concerned for U.M.’s safety in Vanessa’s care.
        U.M. told his social worker Vanessa told him to go to his
desk while he was working on a school assignment on the floor.
They argued and Vanessa got close to his face telling him “‘is this
the life you want to live,’” he pushed her away and they had a
scuffle. Vanessa cursed at him, grabbed him by his hair and told
him to leave. The social worker observed U.M. had red spots on
his head.

                                12
       U.M. later elaborated Vanessa became upset and started
hitting him when he did not follow her instructions about
listening to music during his test. Vanessa grabbed and pulled
him by the hair and dragged him to the floor and out of the home
while cursing at him, and she hit his arm with her hand.
Vanessa told him to go take his test and listen to music at the
neighbor’s house, and he walked over to the neighbor’s house.
When he got to the neighbor’s house, he touched his head and he
was shedding hair from Vanessa pulling his hair. He reported he
also had a scratch and some bruising on his legs. U.M. reported
he also hit Vanessa in their altercation, possibly on her face. He
reported that this was not the first time Vanessa used physical
contact on him. The interviewing social worker asked why he did
not share past abuse with his usual social worker. He responded,
“‘[B]ecause I was scared that they would take me to foster care.’”
U.M. reported feeling unsafe returning to Vanessa’s care and
said, “‘[N]o, I am scared that she does the same thing again and I
feel down at my mom’s house.’”
       U.M. called his father Ul.M. in Arizona asking him to pick
him up from the neighbor’s house. Ul.M. conferred with the
social worker and drove from Arizona the next day to pick up
U.M. U.M. told his father Vanessa kicked him out of her house
and hit him. Ul.M. reported he asked U.M. why Vanessa did that
and U.M. said Vanessa was upset he was playing music while
taking an exam and started hitting him. U.M. had faded
bruising on his back and thigh.

                               13
       The Department sought and obtained a removal order and
detained U.M. from Vanessa while releasing him to Ul.M.
       At the detention hearing in August 2022 the juvenile court
detained U.M. from Vanessa’s care and released him to Ul.M.,
with monitored visits for Vanessa.
       Additional evidence at the time of the combined jurisdiction
and disposition hearing on October 26, 2022 included that U.M.
reported this was not the first time Vanessa dragged him by the
hair; she hit him and pulled his hair many times and screamed
and cursed at him all the time. He stated that he was six or
seven years old when conflicts began with Vanessa. His social
worker reported that in the past, U.M. told her Vanessa pulled
his hair then recanted and said he made it up because he was
upset. When asked why he recanted in the past by making
physical abuse allegations against Vanessa and then saying he
lied, U.M. replied he was afraid to go to foster care. U.M.
reported being afraid of Vanessa and did not want to come back
to Vanessa’s home “‘because she will do it again.’”
       The social worker who investigated and substantiated the
family’s referral in October 2021 was interviewed and gave her
opinion that U.M.’s acting out behaviors were escalating due to
the home situation between him and Vanessa. She was
concerned for U.M.’s safety in Vanessa’s care and stated that it
was due time to detain U.M. from Vanessa, “‘There is only so
many times a kid can say he is being hit and we are not
listening.’” The social worker who investigated the family’s prior
referral from March 2022 also stated there were red flags to
suspect physical abuse on U.M. by Vanessa but U.M. recanted
about being pulled by the hair by Vanessa. U.M.’s residential
treatment therapist shared that U.M. informed her a few times

                                14
Vanessa hit him, then would recant and say it was a long time
ago or say he lied about the allegations.
       U.M.’s stepfather stated U.M. was disrespectful,
manipulative, and physically abusive towards Vanessa and made
false allegations of physical abuse against Vanessa in the past
and had a history of lying. He would lash out when things did
not go his way and had broken doors and made holes in the walls
while upset. The stepfather reported that U.M. had learned to
manipulate everyone and it worked because now he was residing
with his father. U.M.’s maternal grandmother stated U.M. had a
history of being verbally and physically aggressive towards
Vanessa. U.M. was aggressive towards maternal grandmother
on an occasion when she was watching him and asked him to give
her cell phone back. He became upset and began to scream and
curse at her, use curse words, scratched her new car with a stick,
and grabbed a pair of scissors and threatened to kill her. She
believed U.M. suffered from significant mental health issues.
       As a result of its investigation, the Department concluded
U.M. was at high risk of continued physical violence in Vanessa’s
home.
       Before the disposition hearing, U.M. was interviewed and
reconfirmed Vanessa dragged him by the hair on the day of the
incident and used physical discipline in the past. In her
interview, Vanessa initially said she would only answer “yes” or
“no” questions, denied hitting U.M., reiterated that U.M. punched
her, and stated that the paternal family was hindering U.M.’s
therapeutic services. Vanessa repeated her previous sentiment
about the Department not supporting her, stating, “‘I feel that no
matter what I say you guys already know and say what you guys
want.’” Vanessa was unable to explain if she had learned

                               15
anything from her parenting class that she had since
implemented with U.M. The social worker reported Vanessa was
compliant with her court-ordered case plan yet she had not put
anything she should have learned into practice.
      At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing the juvenile
court sustained the section 384 petition, removed U.M. from
Vanessa and placed him with Ul.M. with monitored visits with
Vanessa, and ordered family maintenance services for both
parents and enhancement services for Vanessa.
      Vanessa timely appealed the jurisdiction findings and
disposition orders (B325187).

                          DISCUSSION

A.     Governing Law and Standard of Review
       The purpose of section 300 “is to provide maximum safety
and protection for children who are currently being physically,
sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being
exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and
emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.”
(§ 300.2; see In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289; see also
In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.)
       “Section 300, subdivision (a), provides that jurisdiction may
be assumed if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk
the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted
nonaccidentally by the child’s parent or guardian.” (In re Cole L.
(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601.) “‘Nonaccidental’ generally
means a parent or guardian ‘acted intentionally or willfully.’”
(Ibid.; accord, In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 629.)

                                16
       Former section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorized the
juvenile court to assume jurisdiction when “[t]he 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 the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise
or protect the child” or by the “willful or negligent failure of the
parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food,
clothing, shelter, or medical treatment” or by the “inability of the
parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the
parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or
substance abuse.” “A jurisdiction finding under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three
elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct or
failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and
(3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of
serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Cole L., supra,
70 Cal.App.5th at p. 601; accord, In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th
840, 848; In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561; see
In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 624 [“section 300(b)(1)
authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a
parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inability to
supervise or protect her child”].)
       At the jurisdiction hearing the juvenile court determines
whether the allegations that the child comes within section 300
(and thus within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction) are true, based
on a preponderance of the evidence. (See § 355.) If the court
finds jurisdiction under section 300, it proceeds to disposition.

                                17
       “Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to
the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing
[citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously
abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary
to protect the child.” (In re Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 601-602; accord, In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238
[“‘Although there must be a present risk of harm to the minor,
the juvenile court may consider past events to determine whether
the child is presently in need of juvenile court protection.’”].) “A
parent’s “‘[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions”
if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.’”
(In re Cole L., at p. 602; accord, In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th
1036, 1048.)
       After the juvenile court has assumed jurisdiction, “[]in any
case in which a minor has been found to be a person described by
Section 300 and the petitioner alleges new facts or
circumstances . . . sufficient to state that the minor is a person
described in Section 300, the petitioner shall file a subsequent
petition.” (§ 342, subd. (a); see In re Barbara P. (1994)
30 Cal.App.4th 926, 933 [“When a minor has been declared a
dependent child and the department alleges new facts or
circumstances sufficient to find that the minor should be found to
be a dependent child, the department files a subsequent petition,
alleging the new information.”].) “[A]ll procedures and hearings
required for an original petition are applicable to a subsequent
petition filed under this section.” (§ 342, subd. (b).)
       We review the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings for
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (In re I.C.
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892 [“the evidence supporting the
jurisdictional finding must be considered “‘in the light of the

                                18
whole record’” ‘to determine whether it discloses substantial
evidence’”]; In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633 [“‘In reviewing
the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if
substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports
them.’”].) Substantial evidence is “‘evidence which is reasonable,
credible, and of solid value.’” (In re I.C., at p. 892; accord, In re
Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.) “‘[W]e draw all
reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings
and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the
light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note
that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial
court.’” (In re R.T., at p. 633; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th
766, 773; In re Cole L., at p. 602 [“while substantial evidence may
consist of inferences, any inferences must rest on the evidence;
inferences based on speculation or conjecture cannot support a
finding”].) “The appellant has the burden of showing there is no
evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the
findings or orders.” (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206;
accord, In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328-329.)

B.    Substantial Evidence Supports the February 2022
      Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition Orders
      Vanessa concedes that she used physical discipline on
U.M., but contends there was not substantial evidence to support
the jurisdiction findings under section 300, subdivision (a), that
U.M. was at substantial risk of physical harm as a result of
Vanessa’s physical abuse of him or, under subsection (b)(1), that
at the time of the jurisdiction hearing he had suffered or had a
substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a
result of her physical discipline of him.

                                 19
       We conclude substantial evidence supports the jurisdiction
findings based on Vanessa’s physical abuse of U.M. As outlined
above in greater detail, U.M. reported that Vanessa hit him with
shoes, a water bottle, a phone, and a belt, as well as an open
hand. A sheriff’s deputy observed a bruise on U.M.’s back above
his waistline, consistent with where he stated he was hit with the
belt. U.M.’s younger sister A.L. also stated Vanessa hit U.M.
with a belt. The juvenile court credited A.L.’s corroboration of
the allegation Vanessa hit U.M. with a belt. A.L. reported
Vanessa “[‘]smacked [U.M.] on his butt and back. . . . [U.M.] gets
hit with a ‘cinto’ (belt) by mom.’” She reported the belt was
“brownish and blackish[,]” and belonged to “‘my dad.’” U.M.’s
stepfather subsequently wore the belt matching A.L.’s description
during his interview with the dependency investigator. He
commented “‘there is only one belt and that’s the one I use.’”
       Moreover, Vanessa’s failure to acknowledge her physically
abusive conduct further supports the juvenile court’s finding her
physical abuse created a substantial risk of harm to U.M. (See
In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“In light of mother’s
failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing the
minor, there was no reason to believe the conditions would not
persist should the minor remain in her home.”]; accord, In re
Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a
problem one fails to acknowledge.”]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992)
11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 [“[D]enial is a factor often relevant to
determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior
in the future without court supervision.”].)
       The record also supports jurisdiction under former
section 300, subdivision (b)(1), because U.M. “faced an ongoing
risk of harm based on h[is] increasingly self-destructive behavior,

                                20
behavior that mother simply could not control.” (In re R.T.,
supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 634 [jurisdiction upheld under subd. (b)(1)
where mother admitted inability to discipline or control minor’s
“rebellious” and “incorrigible” behavior of “acting out” and
running away].) The record reflects U.M. and Vanessa had a
longstanding pattern of conflict that exacerbated U.M.’s
behavioral problems, including suicidal ideation, threatening
family members, and self-harm. Vanessa blamed his refusal to
submit to her parental authority for their problems and admitted
she could not control him. “Whether it was [U.M.]’s misbehavior
and disobedience, or mother’s inability to supervise or protect
[U.M.], that initiated this cyclical pattern of conflict, does not
matter here. The basis for jurisdiction under section 300(b)(1) is
whether the child is at ‘substantial risk’ of ‘serious physical harm
or illness.’ . . . [G]iven the substantial risk of harm that [U.M.]
faced, there is little question that mother was unable to
‘adequately’ supervise or protect [U.M.] as required under
section 300(b)(1).” (Id. at pp. 634-635.)
       Because substantial evidence supports dependency
jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), based
on Vanessa’s physical abuse of U.M., we need not consider the
other basis for jurisdiction—the parents’ failure or inability to
provide appropriate care and supervision to U.M. given his
mental and emotional issues, under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1).5 (See In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773

5     The Department contends Vanessa’s jurisdictional
contentions should be dismissed as nonjusticiable because she
does not challenge the jurisdiction findings regarding Ul.M.’s
limited ability to provide ongoing care and supervision to U.M.

                                 21
[“‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its
assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s
jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s
finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory
bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is
supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing
court need not consider whether any or all the other alleged
statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the
evidence.’”]; accord, In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 774;
In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 328-329.)

C.    Substantial Evidence Also Supports the October 2022
      Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition Orders
      We conclude substantial evidence also supports the
jurisdiction findings based on Vanessa’s subsequent physical
abuse of U.M. alleged in the section 364 petition.
      Here, Vanessa claimed and U.M. did not dispute they had a
physical altercation in which 12-year-old U.M. apparently hit
Vanessa in the face. As outlined above in greater detail, U.M.

“[W]here jurisdictional findings have been made as to both
parents but only one parent brings a challenge, the appeal may
be rendered moot.” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.)
However, where, as here, “a case is moot because one parent
appealed and not the other, but the findings against the parent
who has appealed are based on more serious conduct, it may
serve the interest of justice to review the parent’s appeal.” (Id. at
p. 286; see id. at p. 282 [reviewing court has “‘inherent
discretion’” to reach the merits of an appeal even where case is
moot].) Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to consider
Vanessa’s jurisdictional contentions on the merits.

                                 22
stated that Vanessa grabbed his hair and pulled it as she made
him leave the home, while she cursed at him. Vanessa denied
pulling his hair, but the reporting party spoke with U.M.’s
sibling, who confirmed Vanessa pulled U.M.’s hair. The
neighbor, A.G., stated that when U.M. arrived at his home, U.M.
ran his hand through his hair and it was “shedding.” This was
not the first time U.M. had complained to A.G. about Vanessa
hitting him. A Department social worker saw red spots on U.M.’s
head the following day and that he was still shedding hair. U.M.
and Ul.M. reported that U.M. had bruises on his legs, back and
thigh area, after the May 25, 2022 incident.
       Under these circumstances, Vanessa’s response was not
appropriate discipline. Pulling a 12-year-old child out of the
house by his hair until it is falling out, leaving red spots on the
child’s scalp still visible the next day, is not reasonable
disciplinary conduct. Such a response from a parent is
unwarranted, even if the child struck the adult in the face during
an argument, and is excessive punishment under the
circumstances. Use of physical force to this extent against U.M.
is also indicative of Vanessa’s reluctance or inability to put into
practice her court-ordered skills programs ordered at the
section 300 disposition, despite the juvenile court having already
made findings about the risk of harm to U.M. from Vanessa’s
physical abuse. Vanessa’s denial about the effects of her actions
on U.M. is also relevant. (See In re Gabriel K., supra,
203 Cal.App.4th at p. 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one
fails to acknowledge.”]; see also In re Esmeralda B., supra,
11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044 [a parent’s denial of a problem may be
probative to the determination of whether he or she is likely to
modify the behavior in the future].) Rather than implementing

                                23
appropriate skills or disciplinary strategies, Vanessa blamed
U.M.’s father’s family for the current allegations, accused the
Department of a scheme designed to “‘try[] to open a case and get
kids removed,’” and refused access to investigators.
      Accordingly, substantial evidence exists supporting the
juvenile court’s findings that Vanessa physically harmed U.M.
and that he remained at risk of harm, warranting jurisdiction
under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).

                        DISPOSITION

     The jurisdiction findings and disposition orders entered on
February 15, 2022 and October 26, 2022 are both affirmed.

                                     MARTINEZ, J.

We concur:

     SEGAL, Acting P. J.

     FEUER, J.

                               24