Court Opinion

ID: 9377915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 00:02:17.108124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:17.775493
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/8/23 In re Richard G. 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      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 RICHARD G., JR., et al.,                                  B318760
 Persons Coming Under the
 Juvenile Court Law.                                             Los Angeles County
 ______________________________                                  Nos. 21CCJP04979A-C
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 R.G.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
     David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
       Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                       ____________________
       The juvenile court sustained domestic violence and
substance abuse allegations against a father, allegations he does
not challenge on appeal.
       The court also sustained amended allegations the father
does challenge, allegations he “physically abused and/or
inappropriately physically disciplined” his son and
“inappropriately physically disciplined” his elder daughter. The
court assumed dependency jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivision (a), which applies where a parent inflicts serious
physical harm nonaccidentally on a child or there is a substantial
risk of this harm. The court also assumed jurisdiction under
subdivisions (b) and (j) based on these allegations. All statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
       The father asks us to strike or reverse these jurisdictional
findings and argues his appeal is justiciable. We assume
justiciability and reach the merits. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.
5th 266, 286 [it may serve the interest of justice to review a
parent’s appeal “where a parent does not challenge all
jurisdictional findings, but only one finding involving particularly
severe conduct”].)
       The parties agree we review for substantial evidence. (See
In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).)
       The father says substantial evidence is missing because he
simply spanked his children, which is reasonable and legal
parental discipline that does not give rise to dependency
jurisdiction. (See § 300, subd. (j) [reasonable methods of parental

                                 2
discipline not prohibited] & subd. (a) [serious physical harm “does
not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the
buttocks if there is no evidence of serious physical injury”].)
       This argument is incorrect.
       We take stock of “the manner in which a less serious injury
was inflicted, a history of repeated inflictions of injuries” and
“other actions by the parent . . . that indicate the child is at risk
of serious physical harm.” (§ 300, subd. (a).)
       There is evidence the father spanked both his son and his
elder daughter with enough force to leave marks on their bottoms
and to make them cry. This happened “on multiple occasions.”
The children were young: just six and five at the time the
petition was filed.
       The son admitted his parents “sometimes” hit his sisters.
       There is evidence the father “smacked” his son in the face
on several occasions and left the boy’s face bruised once.
       In seeking a domestic violence restraining order, the
mother wrote: “[I’m] scared for [ ] mine and my children life.
[H]e is very Dangerous. [I’m] not sure if he is on Drugs, but I
want to get away for the better of me and my children. [H]e hits
me and my kids he talks to us very Disrespectfully. I just [don’t]
feel safe. My kids [don’t] feel safe.” One time, the mother wrote,
she returned home to find her son “all bruised and beat on”; the
father admitted to “spank[ing] him so bad that his face was
bruised.”
       There also is evidence the parents were violent with each
other in front of the children. (See In re Nathan E. (2021) 61
Cal.App.5th 114, 121–122 [domestic violence between parents
can be the basis for jurisdiction under section 300, subd. (a)].)
The children would grow scared, cry, and try to hide during these

                                 3
episodes. The mother said the father yelled at her, cursed her,
beat her, and once dragged her up and down the floor. The
Department noted “a nine-year history of unresolved domestic
violence” between these parents. “The mother stated that the
children have seen the father [ ] slap and punch her in the face,
throw her to [the] ground, push her and she would fight back to
defend herself.” The father admitted a domestic violence
conviction and a “history of physically fighting” in the children’s
presence. He confirmed “he and the mother have punched,
slapped and physically assaulted each other during arguments.”
Sometimes the parents would throw objects, like beer bottles and
furniture, at each other.
       The father’s substance use appeared to exacerbate the
situation. The mother caught the father using cocaine and
learned he also was using methamphetamine. She noticed his
behavior grow more aggressive and violent during this time. She
could tell he was using meth from “[t]he look on his eyes. He
looks evil. He is not himself.”
       At various points, family members including the father
denied certain violence. For example, the father denied leaving
marks on his children after spanking them and denied hitting
any of them in the face—although he did admit he “may have
tugged on their eye to get their attention.” We disregard denials
like this in a substantial evidence review. (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th
at p. 773 [contradicted evidence suffices if it is substantial]; id.
[appellate court draws all reasonable inferences from the
evidence to support the findings and does not reweigh the
evidence or exercise independent judgment].)
       Substantial evidence supports the challenged jurisdictional
findings as to the father. A reasonable fact finder could conclude

                                 4
the father’s violence would escalate and placed his children at
substantial risk of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (j).)
      The father cites cases involving either egregious incidents
or an isolated incident of physical abuse by a parent. Those cases
do not invalidate the challenged findings.
      The father also states he is challenging certain
jurisdictional findings as to the mother. The father has forfeited
this challenge by failing to develop an argument. (See Benach v.
County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.)
                          DISPOSITION
      We affirm the juvenile court’s February 23, 2022 order.

                                           WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.

             GRIMES, J.

                                 5