Court Opinion

ID: 9940354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 01:02:01.312135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:47.761882
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/13/24 In re A.A. CA5

                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    In re A.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
    Court Law.

    FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF                                                              F086522
    SOCIAL SERVICES,
                                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 22CEJ300055)
           Plaintiff and Respondent,

                    v.                                                                    OPINION
    M.R. et al.,

           Defendants and Appellants.

                                                   THE COURT*
          APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly
Nystrom-Geist, Judge.
          Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for M.R. Defendant
and Appellant.
          Patricia K. Saucer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Andre A.
Defendant and Appellant.

*         Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
       Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Ashley N. McGuire, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                          -ooOoo-
       M.R. (mother) and Andre A. (father) bring this appeal following a contested
Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing, at which time their parental rights
were terminated, and a permanent plan of adoption was selected for their son, A.A. The
sole issue raised by mother in this appeal is the juvenile court’s finding of detriment
resulting in the termination of her right to visitation in December 2022, arguing it was not
supported by substantial evidence and prevented her from establishing the
parental-benefit exception to adoption. Father’s appeal simply states that if mother’s
appeal is successful, the termination of his parental rights should be reversed as well. We
affirm the findings and orders entered by the juvenile court following the section 366.26
hearing.
                      PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
       This procedural and factual summary is largely taken from the opinion issued by
this court on March 6, 2023, in case No. F085390, in response to a writ petition brought
by mother challenging the findings of the juvenile court at the end of a contested
jurisdiction/disposition hearing. That contested hearing found A.A. to be a dependent of
the court, denied mother and father reunification services, and set a section 366.26
hearing to consider a permanent plan. (M.R. v. Superior Court (Mar. 6, 2023, F085390)
[nonpub. opn.] (M.R.).)
“A.    The Referral
       “On February 18, 2022, mother took then three-month-old A.A. to the emergency
room because he was crying and vomiting. A brain scan revealed bilateral subdural fluid
collections. A bone survey revealed an acute transverse fracture of the mid left humeral

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

                                             2.
diaphysis, acute metaphyseal corner fractures of the left distal tibia and fibula, a healing
subacute metaphyseal corner fracture of the right distal tibia, healing left lateral sixth and
seventh rib fractures with callous formation, even older more healed fractures of the left
lateral second rib and left lateral eighth rib and a possible nondisplaced acute right lateral
seventh rib fracture. The rib fractures were estimated to be about two weeks old. A.A.
also had slight bruising on his chest and his liver enzymes were elevated, consistent with
A.A. having experienced some kind of trauma. He also had moderate intraretinal
hemorrhaging consistent with repetitive head motion trauma, also known as shaken baby
syndrome. Neither parent had an explanation for A.A.’s injuries. A.A. was admitted to
the hospital and underwent neurosurgery to drain the fluid on his brain.
       “Dr. Jessica Daly, the child advocacy attending physician, opined A.A.’s injuries
were not consistent with a medical explanation and were very likely the result of
nonaccidental trauma.
       “G.R., the maternal grandmother, contacted the hospital staff and reported that
A.A. had marks on his body in the past and that father had been behaving strangely
recently. A.A. began daycare on February 15, 2022. Two days later, G.R. noticed
bruising on his chest. When she confronted mother about the bruising, mother denied
knowing about it. Father stated the doctors checked him and did not find anything. A.A.
was also evaluated at the hospital on December 27, 2021, for marks on his arms and legs,
which was diagnosed as a rash. On December 29, 2021, he was taken to the hospital and
diagnosed with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). G.R. did not believe A.A. had a rash
because the marks looked like bruising. G.R. is a surgical assistant and could tell it was
not a rash. She noticed bruising on A.A. early in his life and told mother to take him to
the hospital. She asked father what happened, and he would not make eye contact with
her and appeared angry. He hit his hands on the car and shook it. She said father smoked
marijuana and drank alcohol frequently and was not allowed in her house if he was under
the influence.

                                              3.
       “Mother said she had no known medical conditions that would account for A.A.’s
injuries. He had markings on his body on December 27, 2021, which was determined to
be a rash from RSV. He was diagnosed with RSV two days later. She said the rash
looked like purple and red dots, which the doctor attributed to him being sick and to a
lotion she was putting on him. When she stopped applying the lotion, the rash
disappeared. She took A.A. to the doctor on February 16, 2022, because he had a
temperature of 103 degrees. The parents were instructed to administer a suppository
laxative for constipation and probiotics. Mother gave A.A. a different medication and his
condition did not improve. The following day, they were at G.R.’s house and she helped
father administer the suppository which appeared to provide A.A. relief. A.A. was no
longer fussy but was spitting up. G.R. noticed that A.A. had bruising on his chest when
changing him. The bruise was yellow and ran under his left nipple. Mother did not know
what caused the bruising.
       “Mother could not remember any incident which could have caused A.A.’s
injuries. She denied harming him and did not suspect anyone of harming him. She was
always with him unless she was at work. She resumed work on February 15, 2022, and
A.A. was placed in an in-home daycare with a woman who also provided daycare for
mother’s nephew. She left A.A. with G.R. overnight on three to four occasions. After
mother returned to work, father cared for A.A. until mother returned from work on those
days when A.A. was not in daycare.
       “Mother reported she and father were married in August 2021. They had a healthy
relationship and there was no domestic violence. They argued but it was never physical,
and they did not shout at each other. A.A. was a good child and never cried until he
became sick with RSV. Father loved A.A. and did not appear to get frustrated with him.
Mother denied any substance abuse, mental health problems or criminal history.
       “Father reported mother was A.A.’s primary caregiver and A.A. went to daycare
on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. He did not know how A.A. was injured and did

                                            4.
not witness anyone harm him. A.A. did not fall and was not harmed by the family dogs.
Mother did not have postpartum depression and was not overwhelmed by A.A. Father
denied having any mental health problems or using any controlled substances or alcohol.
The last time he used marijuana was when he was a teenager. He and mother did not
engage in domestic violence. He worked full time Monday through Friday and
sometimes on the weekend.
      “On February 20, 2022, the [Fresno County Department of Social Services
(department)] served a protective warrant and detained A.A. at the hospital. The
following day, a social worker and police officer met with father. He said he believed the
family dog knocked A.A. out of his swing. He was home alone with A.A. and mother
was at work. A.A. was not properly restrained in the swing and the dogs were running
around the house. One of the dogs knocked the swing as it ran by. Father did not witness
the swing fall but heard a loud thud and saw A.A. lying face down on his left arm and
crying. He then saw the dog run past A.A. He picked A.A. up to console him and put the
dogs away. He did not tell mother because he was afraid she would make him get rid of
the dog. A.A. did not cry throughout the day so he thought he was okay. He did not
think to share the incident about the swing when he was questioned by the social worker
and the police and apologized for lying about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol.
He said he drank alcohol on occasion and smoked marijuana but not daily. He denied
being under the influence while caring for A.A. and when A.A. fell from the swing. He
then stated he wondered if A.A. was injured because he swaddled him too tightly or if the
nurses were too rough with him.
      “Social worker Gayane Petrosyan notified the parents about a team decision
making meeting (TDM) scheduled for February 23, 2022. Mother asked for advice on
how she should handle herself and how she could ‘back herself up’ and how she could
back father up since she was not at home when A.A. fell. Petrosyan encouraged them to
be honest. She visited the family home and found it clean with no safety hazards. She

                                            5.
observed A.A.’s swing and estimated it was approximately a foot and a half above the
ground when fully operating.
       “On February 22, 2022, Dr. Daly stated that she ordered extra X-rays of A.A.
because the original bone scan did not include his hands or feet. The new X-rays
revealed a fracture of the left foot between the fourth and fifth metatarsals. Dr. Daly also
noticed a subtle bruise on A.A.’s left hip that had not been documented by the other
doctors. The accumulation of fluid and blood in A.A.’s head was indicative of chronic
trauma and was so significant that it caused his head to appear larger than normal.
Mother claimed A.A.’s head had always been large and showed Dr. Daly a picture taken
some time before. Dr. Daly perceived A.A.’s head as looking normal in the picture.
Because of the fluid accumulation in A.A.’s brain, his brain matter was only
approximately 60 percent of what it should be and could portend possible developmental
delay. A.A.’s brain was able to expand within his skull because his fontanelles were not
fused. Had they been fused; he could have died from the brain swelling. Even though
A.A. did not die, he could have.
       “Neither parent presented any new information or explanation for A.A.’s injuries
at the TDM on February 23, 2022. However, later that day father asked to speak to
Petrosyan and a detective. He said he may be the reason A.A. sustained rib fractures and
wanted to ‘get it off [of] his chest.’ He admitted getting frustrated with A.A., grabbing
him by both sides of his ribs and shaking him. It happened two or three times while
changing A.A. Father grabbed him by the ankles too hard and pulled him aggressively
toward him. He did not always change A.A.’s diaper in this aggressive manner but did
approximately 10 times. When he did, it startled A.A., and he cried. When A.A. cried,
father put him on his chest to comfort him and put pressure on his ribs by squeezing too
hard. If A.A. did not stop crying, he shook him. He denied shaking him back and forth,
causing his head to wobble. Instead, he demonstrated using a doll how he held A.A.
upright around the rib area and shook him by placing pressure on his ribs as if the baby

                                             6.
was vibrating all over. He did admit rocking A.A.’s car seat aggressively and in a fast
manner while in the car if A.A. cried. He rocked the car seat to the point that A.A.’s head
flopped back and forth and from side to side. He did not know how A.A. sustained the
bruising and never noticed his head looked different. He was last aggressive with A.A.
during the week of February 14, 2022. He was alone with A.A. on Tuesday and
Wednesday. He shook A.A. the way he demonstrated.
“B.    The Initial Proceedings
       “On February 23, 2022, the department filed a first amended dependency petition,
alleging A.A. came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b)(1) (failure to protect), (e) (severe physical
abuse) and (i) (cruelty) based on the nonaccidental nature of the injuries he sustained,
which it detailed, while in the care of his parents.
       “The juvenile court made temporary orders removing A.A. from his parents at the
initial detention hearing on February 24, 2022, and continued the hearing to February 28,
2022. On February 28, the court ordered A.A. detained, offered the parents random drug
testing, ordered reasonable supervised visitation, and set the jurisdiction and disposition
hearing for April 6, 2022. The department placed A.A. with his maternal grandparents.
       “The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was continued to April 13, 2022. In its
report for the hearing prepared in April 2022, the department recommended the juvenile
court sustain the allegations and deny the parents reunification services under section
361.5, subdivision (b)(5) and (6). Mother [reported she] observed father shake A.A. in
his car seat but denied that he did it aggressively. She removed A.A. from father if she
saw he was mad, frustrated, or aggressive with A.A. She and father were still married but
no longer living together. They spoke over the phone about A.A. and visited him
together.
       “On April 13, 2022, the juvenile court set the matter as a contested hearing, which
was continued and [finally] conducted as a contested hearing on December 6, 2022.

                                              7.
Meanwhile, the department filed an addendum report, reiterating its recommendation to
deny services and informing the juvenile court the parents completed classes in parenting
and anger management. They enrolled in random drug testing in March 2022. Father
tested positive twice for THC and mother for creatinine.
“C.    The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing: December 6, 2022
       “Social worker Ashley Holmes testified she interviewed G.R. about her time spent
with A.A. but did not investigate any other people who mother identified as having
contact with A.A. She did not speak with A.A.’s pediatrician. Mother asked her what
services she recommended and Holmes recommended parenting, domestic violence,
mental health, substance abuse and testing. The parenting class was free, but the others
required payment and some like the child abuse class required a referral from the
department. Mother attempted to enroll in a child abuse class but was unable because she
did not have a referral. Holmes believed the department was paying for mother to
participate in random drug testing. Sometime around May 2022, mother told her she was
living with her maternal grandmother. However, the department was concerned she and
father had ongoing contact. The department received several reports they were living
together, and they were seen together in public. Holmes did not take any steps to
determine whether they were living together. In addition, they arrived together for visits
with A.A.
       “Mother testified she was home taking care of A.A. from his birth in
November 2021 until she returned to work on February 15, 2022. Father returned to
work in December 2021. Her mother (G.R.) and sister came to their home after father
returned to work. Starting in December 2021, she allowed A.A. to stay overnight with
G.R. Her father, 22-year-old sister, 20- to 21-year-old brother-in-law, 16-year-old
brother, and one-year-old nephew also lived in the home. She continued to allow G.R. to
care for A.A. overnight in January 2022. She took A.A. to the hospital on February 18,
2022, because he was not drinking his milk and was spitting it up. A week later, father

                                            8.
told her that A.A. fell out of his swing on February 16, 2022. Mother did not observe any
bruises on A.A. on that day. Asked whether she had any reason to believe that father
caused A.A.’s injuries, she stated, ‘They did tell me that there was evidence to support
his injuries.’ She had never personally observed father injure A.A. and she did not know
how he was injured.
       “Mother completed a 12-week parenting class and 12 weeks of anger management
and continued to attend anger management classes. She paid for the classes as well as the
drug testing. She also attended two sessions of individual mental health therapy. She
attempted to enroll in a child neglect and domestic violence class but did not have the
required referrals. Mother moved in with her grandparents in early May 2022 and was
committed to remaining separate from father.
       “On cross-examination, mother denied ever witnessing father exhibit any behavior
while caring for A.A., including frustration, that concerned her or caused her to take A.A.
from him. Despite knowing that father explained ways in which he may have harmed
A.A., mother still denied knowing how A.A. received his injuries.
       “During argument, mother’s attorney argued mother did not injure A.A. or know
that he had been injured and asked the juvenile court to dismiss the section 300,
subdivisions (e) and (i) counts and provide her reunification services. She also pointed
out that mother separated from father and engaged in services on her own. Father’s
attorney objected to the department’s recommendations and asked the court to provide
him reunification services.
“D.    The Juvenile Court’s Ruling
       “The juvenile court found true the allegations in the dependency petition and
adjudged A.A. a child described under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (e) and (i).
The court also ordered A.A. removed from parental custody, denied the parents
reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) and (6), found visitation
would be detrimental, and set a section 366.26 hearing.

                                             9.
       “In ruling, the juvenile court enumerated A.A.’s many injuries, noting they were
‘consistent with ongoing physical abuse,’ and were ‘in various stages of healing, each of
which would be painful to the child.’ The court also noted that A.A. had persistent
developmental delays. ‘Any reference to [daycare was] simply a red herring on the
parents’ part in an attempt to draw attention away from the reality that the parents were
the ones who had the exclusive care of [A.A.].’ The court found that father admitted
causing the injuries, yet mother maintained she did not know ‘of anyone who would have
harmed her child.’ The court found her testimony ‘completely unbelievable on every
issue that was relevant to jurisdiction.’ The court stated, ‘I did not believe that the
mother had no knowledge of how [A.A.’s] injuries were sustained. I did not believe that
the mother had any belief that [A.A.] fell from a swing. That appeared by her entire
demeanor to be completely fabricated.’
       “Regarding the denial of reunification services, the juvenile court noted that while
father was perhaps the more likely perpetrator of A.A.’s injuries, ‘there is no evidence
that exonerates the mother.’ Rather, ‘[t]here is evidence that she must have known that
[A.A.] … was having his bones broken over a period of time, that his brain was bleeding’
and took no action to protect him even if she had no part in it. The court continued,
‘[Mother] was aware that [father] was frustrated and she had to take [A.A.] from [him].
The parents do not have credibility. It is unclear whether they are or are not continuing a
relationship. … Whether that is permanent, temporary or true, the [c]ourt cannot know.’
The court also found there was no evidence that A.A. was closely and positively attached
to his parents.”

                                             10.
E.     The Writ Petition Filed by Mother2
       In her petition filed with this court, mother listed the following issues to be
addressed:

       “1. Was there clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that
       Petitioner deliberately harmed or consented to deliberate harm of Minor?

       “2. Did the juvenile court err in finding that the court was not permitted to
       offer reunification services pursuant to WIC § 361.5?

       “3. Did the juvenile court err in denying any reunification services to
       Petitioner?

       “4. Did the juvenile court err in finding it was not in the Minor’s best
       interest to reunify with Petitioner?” (M.R., supra, F085390, fn. omitted.)
After a responsive brief was filed on behalf of the department, this court issued its
opinion on March 6, 2023, finding no error by the juvenile court and denying the petition
requesting an extraordinary writ and a stay of proceedings. This court specifically
concluded the evidence supported each of the findings challenged by mother in her
petition.
F.     Proceedings Following the Writ Petition
       After the entry of the order setting the section 366.26 hearing, mother filed at least
two section 388 petitions with the juvenile court seeking a change in the custody order
for A.A. In these petitions, mother alleged her parents were not appropriate caretakers
for A.A., and that A.A. should be provided a new placement. Both petitions were denied
by the court without a hearing.
       Also during this time, additional information was provided to the department
suggesting A.A. might qualify as a Native American child under ICWA. After most of
the ICWA notices sent out received negative responses, and while the court was awaiting

2      The docket in case No. F085390 does not include any petition filed on behalf of
father challenging any part of the order entered by the juvenile court following the
December 6, 2022, jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

                                             11.
one final response, father admitted during the section 366.26 hearing that he was
mistaken and that A.A. did not have Native American ancestry.
       On June 27, 2023, the section 366.26 contested hearing was held. Although
mother initially asked for a contested hearing on the potential termination of her parental
rights, and submitted a list of contested issues, no testimony was provided by any party
during the hearing. At the end of the hearing, an order was entered stating A.A. would
remain a dependent of the court, the parental rights of mother and father were terminated,
and that A.A. would be placed for adoption.
                                       DISCUSSION
       While separate notices of appeal were filed on behalf of mother and father
following the termination of their parental rights, the only issue raised by mother involves
a prior court ruling terminating both parent’s ability to participate in visits with A.A.
Father simply states in his opening brief that if the ruling terminating mother’s parental
rights is reversed, it should be reversed for him as well.
I.     Mother Forfeited the Issues Surrounding the Termination of Her Right to
Visitation
       Pursuant to section 395, subdivision (a)(1), “[a] judgment in a proceeding under
Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any
subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.” The exception to this rule
involves orders entered following a hearing at which time the court has determined there
is a need to set a section 366.26 hearing. Therefore, an order following a dispositional
hearing setting a future hearing under section 366.26 is not appealable unless:

       “(A) A petition for extraordinary writ review was filed in a timely manner.

       “(B) The petition substantively addressed the specific issues to be
       challenged and supported that challenge by an adequate record.

       “(C) The petition for extraordinary writ review was summarily denied or
       otherwise not decided on the merits.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1).)

                                             12.
Furthermore, the failure “to file a petition for extraordinary writ review within the period
specified by rule, to substantively address the specific issues challenged, or to support
that challenge by an adequate record shall preclude subsequent review by appeal of the
findings and orders made pursuant to this section.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(2).) If a proper
writ petition is then filed by an appellant, any subsequent review on appeal will be
limited to the issues raised in that petition. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.695(f)(8).)
       A petition for an extraordinary writ asking this court to review the decision of the
juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing was filed on behalf of mother on
January 17, 2023.3 (M.R., supra, F085390.) However, the petition only challenged
(1) the sufficiency of evidence supporting the finding that clear and convincing evidence
showed mother either deliberately harmed or consented to the deliberate harm of A.A.,
(2) the court’s conclusion it would not provide reunification services under section 361.5,
(3) the court’s denial of any reunification services to mother, or (4) the court’s
determination that it was not in A.A.’s best interest to reunify with mother.4 (M.R.,
supra, F085390.) The writ petition never argued the court’s order terminating visitation
with A.A. constituted error as a matter of law or was not supported by the record.
       Mother attempts to avoid the question of forfeiture by arguing the denial of
visitation before the section 366.26 hearing resulted in a due process violation of her right
to contest the termination of her parental rights. In fact, mother did not challenge the
issue of visitation before this appeal. The record shows no such challenge raised in either
the writ petition filed with this court, or through a section 388 petition for modification of

3      The petition was submitted for filing on January 13, 2023, but was filed by this
court on January 17, 2023.
4      This court summarized mother’s argument as, “the juvenile court erred in denying
her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) and (6) because there
was insufficient evidence to support a finding A.A. suffered severe physical abuse under
section 300, subdivision (e) either because she inflicted it upon him or knew or
reasonably should have known that father did.” (M.R., supra, F085390.)

                                              13.
a court order between the December 6, 2022 contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing
and the June 27, 2023 section 366.26 hearing on the proposed permanent plan.
       Other than relying on the statutory language suggesting the possibility of
establishing a beneficial parental relationship, mother provides no authority to support
her position. Mother has failed to address why she is now entitled to regular visits with
her child after it was already determined a continuation of such visits after December 6,
2022, would be detrimental to A.A. If mother felt that ruling was incorrect, she was
required to raise a challenge as early as possible, specifically through the writ. (§ 366.26,
subd. (l)(1)(2).)
       The rule stating a party forfeits an issue that is not properly preserved also applies
in dependency cases. (In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754.) As a result,
the finding that visits between A.A. and mother and father would be detrimental to his
best interest was not preserved for purposes of this appeal and is now considered
forfeited.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The orders entered on June 27, 2023 are affirmed.

                                             14.