Court Opinion

ID: 9364235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 19:02:05.366433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:28.172974
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/18/23 In re Bella A. CA2/2
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re BELLA A., a Person Coming                             B315576
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                               (Los Angeles County
                                                            Super. Ct. No. 21LJJP00244)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

KARINA C.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge. Affirmed.
      Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       Karina C. (mother) appeals from a judgment of the juvenile
court asserting jurisdiction over her daughter Bella A. (born April
2021). Mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings
concerning her conduct and the dispositional order removing the
child from her custody. We find substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s findings and dispositional order and affirm the
judgment.

 COMBINED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Referral and investigation
       The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) received a referral on April 23, 2021, alleging that
Bella, who was hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit
(NICU) at Antelope Valley Hospital Women and Infant Pavilion,
was a victim of general neglect and emotional abuse by mother and
Robert A. (father).1
       In April 2021 Bella was born premature at 34 weeks.2 Bella
was in the NICU since birth and had no discharge date. She was on
a feeding tube. On April 19, 2021, father cut the feeding tube off in
two separate places and threw the pieces in the trash without
telling the hospital staff. Father stated that he cut the tubes
because they were “bothering” Bella. When medical staff gave
direction to father, he would say, “This is what I want, thanks,” and
turn around, refusing their directions.
       Hospital staff noted father was “abrasive,” and when he
visited he hovered over the bassinet and did not allow the hospital
staff to do the things they needed to do for the child. The hospital
social worker observed something wrong with father’s mental

1     Father is not a party to this appeal.
2     Mother received limited prenatal care.

                                  2
health, as he would not engage with her or the nurses. Father took
pictures of all paperwork, claiming that his attorney wanted the
medical records.
       When mother and father visited the child, father would not
allow mother to hold the child. Mother did not ask any questions
about the child in the father’s presence and told the social worker
she was not allowed to ask questions about the baby. During a
telephone call, mother informed the social worker that she was not
able to talk freely. Mother attempted to remove father from the
visitor list, but then reinstated him.
       Mother claimed to be unaware of father cutting the baby’s
feeding tubes, as she was in the bathroom when the incident
occurred. The parents were uncooperative about providing mother’s
contact information to the hospital. The telephone number given
was not in service, and father would not provide them with another
number for mother. The reporting party was concerned about the
parents’ ability to care for the child.
       On April 27, 2021, the attending physician told the parents
that Bella was ready to be discharged. However, when the parents
arrived at the hospital they were informed that the baby could not
be discharged due to a dip in her oxygen levels. Father became
upset, insisting his family was waiting at home with a cake. After
father left, the baby was found with a blanket covering her arm and
face and all the hospital cords and a stethoscope on her abdomen.
       Father continued to show abnormal behavior. When he asked
the hospital for formula for the baby, he was informed that she had
three more containers of NICU formula left until a new shipment
arrived. When the nurse returned, the baby formula was gone. The
hospital social worker reported that father stole the formula despite
being told that these were the last three containers available for the
baby.

                                  3
       The social worker also observed father feeding the baby while
she was lying on her back after having been made aware that
feeding her while she was in that position put her at risk of choking
and suffocation. Father reported that mother would be the child’s
part-time caregiver, and he would serve as her primary caregiver.
The hospital social worker expressed serious concern as to the
safety of the baby if released to the parents.
       A social worker interviewed paternal grandmother (PGM) at
the maternal grandmother’s (MGM) home, where PGM was staying
until May 10, to assist with the baby. PGM planned to visit every
two weeks after that. PGM had no concerns about the parents’
ability to care for the baby and stated that father did not have any
developmental delays or health problems. She denied any
knowledge of father using drugs.
       A social worker also spoke with MGM, who did not work and
planned to teach the parents how to support and care for the baby.
MGM did not have any concerns about the parents’ ability to care
for the child.
       The social worker visited the child at the hospital, where she
had not passed the newborn screening or reached a normal birth
weight. She had a condition called malonic acidemia that would
require further investigation. Bella’s head was smaller than
normal, and she had an anomaly on her left ear. The hospital
reported that mother was diabetic and confirmed that father’s
behavior was concerning. They reported he did not make eye
contact and often acted as though staff was not present. He was
abrasive to hospital staff and was “hell bent” on being right. Father
seemingly found everything the medical staff did to be wrong, and
he accessed the child’s medical charts without permission. Hospital
staff informed the social worker that after father’s visit on April 27,
2021, she was found with a blanket over her head and medical cords

                                  4
and a stethoscope on her abdomen. They also confirmed that father
had cut the baby’s feeding tube on April 19, 2021, which was
extremely dangerous to the baby. When confronted about his
conduct, father replied the tubes looked like they were bothering
the baby. He showed no remorse and did not acknowledge having
done anything wrong.
       Hospital staff found father controlling of mother. Mother had
disclosed that father did not allow her to hold the baby or ask
questions about her. When staff informed mother of the baby’s
progress, mother was initially happy and expressive. However,
when mother learned that father was in the NICU, mother’s
demeanor changed completely. After a long pause, mother asked
the staff whether father was alone in the hospital and asked the
nurse not to tell father that she was on the phone. During another
conversation, when staff asked mother for her telephone number,
mother responded that they should ask father, who required mother
to ask father’s permission to provide her telephone number.
       Hospital staff were concerned that mother and father would
not obtain the necessary care to meet the child’s special needs.
Based on the parents’ behavior, there was concern that the child
would suffocate or choke if released to the parents.
       In a telephone conversation between the social worker and
mother, mother repeated that she had been in the restroom when
father cut Bella’s feeding tube. Mother reported having learned of
the incident from a nurse. Mother said father told her he cut the
tube because it was slipping out and the child was struggling to
breathe. Mother denied that she or father left tubing or a
stethoscope on the baby’s abdomen. Mother also denied telling a
nurse that she was not allowed to hold the baby or ask questions
when father was present. She denied taking father’s name off the
visitation list. Mother maintained that father was joking when he

                                 5
said that he would be the child’s primary caregiver. Mother stated
she and father worked so MGM and PGM would be the primary
caregivers.
       Father admitted to the social worker that he had pulled and
cut the feeding tube. He said part of the tube was detached and
that he saw formula coming out of the baby’s nose and mouth, her
face turning red, and her eyes turning back. Father knew the baby
was choking and removed the tube from her nose in a moment of
panic. He said Bella then regained her normal color. Father did
not intend to harm the child. When asked why he did not alert
hospital staff when he believed Bella was choking, father said he
knew Bella was choking and did what he felt was appropriate.
Initially father stated that he called for a nurse but got no response.
After he pulled out the tube, he did not want to bother medical
staff. Contrary to mother, father reported that mother was present
during the incident.
       Father denied feeding the baby while she was lying down flat
and that he left hospital wires or a stethoscope on the baby’s
abdomen. Father admitted to hovering over the baby but stated
that this was a normal thing for a father to do. Father explained
the tension with the hospital staff was because he requested all of
Bella’s official paperwork, as he did not agree with the manner in
which the hospital was caring for Bella, and he would be getting a
lawyer involved.
Protective custody warrant and petition
       On April 23, 2021, the social worker’s request for a protective
custody warrant to detain the child from mother and father was
granted.
       On May 3, 2021, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of the child
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision

                                   6
(b),3 which alleged that mother and father placed the child in a
detrimental and endangering situation when father cut the child’s
feeding tube in the hospital. Further, after father’s visit the child
was found with a blanket over her head and cords and a stethoscope
on her abdomen. The petition also alleged that father fed the child
while she was lying on her back, which could cause the child to
choke, and would not allow mother to hold the baby. Mother failed
to protect the child from father’s behavior and allowed the father
unlimited access to the child. The petition alleged that father’s and
mother’s behavior endangered the child’s physical health and safety
and placed her at risk of serious physical harm.
       On May 6, 2021, DCFS filed a last minute information for the
court reporting that on May 3, 2021, the social worker had
telephone contact with a family member who did not wish to be
identified. The family member advised that father is gang
affiliated, and he had concerns, based on observations, that father
smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol.
Detention hearing
       The detention hearing was held on May 6, 2021. The parents
appeared via Webex. The child remained hospitalized. Father was
found to be the child’s presumed father.
       Mother’s counsel argued for release of the child or
unmonitored visitation. Minor’s counsel joined with DCFS to
request detention, arguing that mother had not been honest with
DCFS and had denied father’s actions. Over mother’s objection, the
juvenile court made detention findings. The court ordered that the
parents’ visits with the child be monitored and that they not visit
her together.

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

                                 7
Jurisdiction/disposition report
       DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on June 16, 2021,
reporting that Bella had been placed with MGM.
       Bella, born prematurely at 34 weeks, had experienced
respiratory distress during the second week of her life, requiring
supplemental oxygen. Bella also had an ear abnormality and a
feeding intolerance. Her left ear was very small, malformed, and
did not have an ear canal. She failed the hearing screening on her
left side and was to be referred to an audiologist upon discharge.
Mother’s history showed a pregnancy that was complicated by her
diabetes and poor insulin control. Also, she had been hospitalized
two months prior to the child’s birth but “went AGAINST
MEDICAL ADVICE.”
       During an interview, when asked about the incident with the
feeding tube, father insisted that Bella was choking and stated: “I
reacted to it way fast. . . . I reacted fast without calling for help. I
have 2 kids so I did the best of my knowledge.” Father stated he
used a nose suction tool to suction the milk out of her nose. He then
trimmed the feeding tube and put new clothes on Bella. Father
continued to deny knowing anything about the incident in which
Bella was found with a blanket covering her head and tubes and a
stethoscope on her abdomen. He also denied feeding her while she
was lying on her back, insisting that she was tilted up. Father
denied not allowing mother to carry the child, domestic violence,
and being in a gang. He denied using drugs and admitted he drank
one beer a day. He denied any mental health diagnoses or issues.
Father claimed two children from a prior relationship that he saw
“every now and then.”
       During an interview with mother, she reported that when
Bella’s eyes rolled back, she could not breathe and had milk coming
out of her nose, father “freaked out.” Mother stated that she was in

                                   8
shock when she saw father cut the feeding tube because the child
was not breathing normally. Mother thought the child was having
a seizure. They did not call a nurse because it happened so fast.
Mother admitted she was present in the room and saw father cut
the feeding tube. Mother denied that father left a stethoscope or
tubes on the child’s abdomen or a blanket over her face. Mother
denied that father did not allow her to carry the child.
       Mother admitted that when she and father had an argument,
she told the hospital not to let father into the facility, which she
later retracted. She insisted that he was a good father.
       Father had an extensive criminal history showing charges,
including threats with intent to terrorize, hit and run, and reckless
driving, among others. Mother had no criminal history.
       Mother and father used to live with MGM, who had never
seen father be possessive or rude and had never seen the parents
fight. MGM knew that father used marijuana once in awhile, but
she had never seen him use it. MGM was worried about mother
who had lost a lot of weight. MGM thought mother might have
postpartum depression. MGM felt that the parents should
participate in psychological evaluations. MGM reported father
could be grumpy and had been told that father was verbally
aggressive. MGM felt that father needed anger management
classes.
       Mother’s brother, Jose, reported that he had not seen any
physical incidents between mother and father, but the mobile home
managers warned MGM about father and his friends sitting in the
front yard drinking alcohol and smoking weed. Jose reported that
he had never seen mother as thin as she was, and she was in and
out of the hospital during her pregnancy due to her diabetes. He
said MGM had to push mother to get her insulin. Jose believed
mother needed mental health assistance.

                                  9
       The parents submitted to drug testing on May 19, 2021. They
both tested negative for all substances.
       In a last minute information for the court filed on
September 27, 2021, the social worker reported that MGM had
concerns about the parents’ lack of interest in the child’s well-being,
having missed visits without notice. When father visited, he would
not hold Bella. Instead, he would put her down and turn on
cartoons for her to watch. To feed Bella, father would not pick her
up but instead would place the baby on her back and prop her up
with a blanket.
       MGM reported that mother’s health had deteriorated, and
mother refused to address her health needs. MGM was concerned
that mother could not take care of the child if she could not take
care of herself.
       MGM and mother did not have a good relationship. Mother
did not listen to MGM’s advice, and the parents lied and made
inconsistent statements, including whether or not mother was
present when father cut the feeding tubes. Father insisted that he
was permitted unmonitored visits with Bella. When MGM told
father she could not permit him to have unmonitored visits with the
child until the social worker informed her it was permitted, father
told her in Spanish using vulgar language that he did not care
about the court’s orders.
       MGM knew that father smoked marijuana, but she learned he
also smoked something in a glass pipe with a bulb. Father had
been up all night smoking in a car outside MGM’s home the night
before he cut the baby’s feeding tube. MGM was concerned father
would continue to use substances if the child were in his custody.
       MGM reported that mother refused to attend any of the
child’s medical appointments, despite previously agreeing to attend.

                                  10
MGM said mother reported being depressed but refused any
assistance.
      MGM reported that the parents did not attend visits on
September 24 or September 27, 2021.
      Based on their recent behavior, MGM was unwilling to permit
mother or father to reside in her home.
Jurisdiction/disposition hearing
      The juvenile court conducted the combined
jurisdiction/disposition hearing on August 17, 2021, and
September 28, 2021, admitting into evidence DCFS’s reports.
Mother and father testified.
      Father testified that he and mother were living together and
attending a parenting class together. Father was on a waiting list
for counseling and anger management. Regarding the feeding tube
incident, father acknowledged that he took the feeding tube out but
stated that he did not hurt his daughter. Father also denied
leaving the child with a blanket over her head and stethoscope and
tubes on her abdomen. Father heard what the nurses were telling
him about caring for a baby but testified that he “already knew all
that stuff” because he had two older kids. He testified that he
propped the baby up with blankets when he fed her.
      Father did not tell the nurses about his concern for the child
before he cut her feeding tube. The tube had been removed from
the baby’s nose for an hour and a half before the nurses discovered
what he had done. Father testified that mother was present when
he cut the tube and took it out of the baby’s nose and that she did
not try to stop him. Father denied stealing baby formula from the
hospital.
      Mother testified that she was present when father cut the
baby’s feeding tube. Other than that incident, mother believed
father never interfered with Bella’s health. Mother stated that

                                11
father would never jeopardize the child’s health. When she
observed father cutting the feeding tube, mother had no reason to
believe he was interfering with her care. However, later in her
testimony mother admitted that father’s act of cutting the feeding
tube was harmful to Bella. She did not immediately react because
it happened so fast. Once she realized what had happened, mother
“sided with” father, because the baby wasn’t breathing right and he
responded in the moment. Mother admitted she did not contact the
nurse after father cut the feeding tube. Mother denied that the
baby was ever left with a blanket over her head. Mother observed
father feeding Bella while she was lying on her back, but denied
that she was lying down flat.
       Mother denied that father would not allow her to pick up
Bella. Instead mother stated that she did not pick up Bella because
she did not want to disconnect the cords.
       Mother denied postpartum depression. She testified that she
was managing her diabetes and saw her doctors regularly. Mother
denied ever having removed father from the visiting list at the
hospital. Mother had not yet enrolled in counseling, but she was
enrolled in a parenting class. She denied telling MGM that she felt
depressed.
       Mother missed two recent visits due to a lack of
transportation. While she admitted the social worker gave her the
opportunity to attend Bella’s medical visits, mother had not
attended any of the appointments.
       Father’s counsel argued that the petition should be dismissed
in its entirety. Mother’s counsel argued that the petition should be
dismissed in its entirety or, in the alternative, that mother should
be nonoffending. Bella’s counsel asked the juvenile court to sustain
the section 300 petition as pled, pointing out that the hospital staff
did not have a motive to lie and that mother had an answer for

                                  12
everything father did. County counsel also argued in support of
sustaining the section 300 petition, observing that father’s conduct
was very concerning and that mother had lied and failed to express
any concerns about father’s actions.
       The juvenile court found the parents’ statements
contradictory and found neither parent credible. The court found
father ignored medical advice to the detriment of the child and that
father did not understand that his behavior was harmful to the
child. The court found father was controlling mother’s behavior,
and mother was failing to protect the child by allowing father’s
control. The court found both parents relied on their own decisions
and ignored medical advice to the detriment of the child. The
juvenile court sustained the petition and proceeded to disposition.4
       The court heard additional argument from counsel in the
dispositional phase. Father’s counsel argued that the child be
released to one or both parents. Mother’s counsel joined father’s
counsel’s argument and asked that the child be released to mother
if it was not inclined to release her to father. In the alternative, she
requested unmonitored visitation. The child’s counsel and DCFS
asked that the court remove the child from the parents’ custody and
require that their visits be monitored.
       The juvenile court declared the child a dependent of the court
and removed the child from the parents’ custody. Father placed his
own judgment above that of medical professionals, and the court
had no reason to believe that father would follow the advice of
medical professionals. Father’s behavior and actions established
that he was not receptive to services, and there were no safety
measures that could be put in place.

4     The juvenile court amended the count in the petition to find
that the risk of harm to the child was “substantial.”

                                  13
       With respect to mother, the court expressed concern that
mother was under the control of father and thus would not follow
any court orders or recommendations from medical or other
professionals regarding treatment. The court found by clear and
convincing evidence that there existed a substantial danger to the
child’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being if returned home to the parents, and there were no
reasonable means to protect the child without removing the child
from the parents’ custody.
       The court ordered the parents to participate in services and
that their visits with the child be monitored.
       On October 4, 2021, mother filed her notice of appeal from the
court’s orders.

                             DISCUSSION
I.     Jurisdictional findings
       Mother first challenges the court’s jurisdictional findings,
asserting that the court lacked substantial evidence to sustain the
failure to protect allegation involving mother.
       A.    Applicable law and standard of review
       Section 300, subdivision (b) permits a juvenile court to assert
jurisdiction over a child where the 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 parent or
guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child. There are
three elements to jurisdiction under section 300: “‘(1) neglectful
conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation;
and (3) “serious physical harm or illness” to the minor, or a
“substantial risk” of such harm or illness.’” (In re Travis C. (2017)
13 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1225.)

                                  14
       A juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are reviewed for
substantial evidence. (In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428,
438.) Substantial evidence consists of evidence that is “‘reasonable,
credible and of solid value,’” which would allow a reasonable trier of
fact to reach the conclusion that the trial court reached. (In re
Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1080.) Under this
standard, we must review the entire record in the light most
favorable to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile court. (In
re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1427.) We do not reassess
the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. (In re S.C.
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 415.) If substantial evidence exists,
controverted or not, we must affirm the juvenile court’s findings.
(James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1020-
1021.) The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of
fact to make the ruling in light of the whole record. (In re
Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393-1394.)
       B.     Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
              jurisdictional findings
       The single count sustained in the section 300 petition in this
matter contains the following allegations:
              “The child, [Bella A.’s] mother . . . and father . . .
       placed the child in a detrimental and endangering
       situation in that the father cut the child’s feeding tubes
       with scissors while the child was in the hospital.
       Further, on 04/27/2021, following father’s visit with the
       child, the child was found with a blanket over the
       child’s head, and cords and a stethoscope were found on
       the child’s abdomen. Further, the father fed the child
       while it was lying on its back and the child could have
       choked. The father would not allow the mother to hold
       the child in the hospital. The mother knew or
       reasonably should have known of the father’s actions
       and failed to protect the child in that the mother

                                  15
      allowed the father to have unlimited access to the child.
      Such a detrimental and endangering situation
      established for the child by the mother and father and
      the mother’s failure to protect the child endangers the
      child’s physical health and safety and places the child
      at substantial risk of serious physical harm, damage
      and danger and failure to protect.”
       Substantial evidence supports these jurisdictional findings.
Both mother and father acknowledged that father cut the child’s
feeding tube and removed it without medical authorization. Both
parents also admitted that the child appeared to be in medical
distress, with her eyes rolling back and her breathing compromised,
yet neither of them summoned medical assistance before father cut
the feeding tube. Although mother thought that the baby was
having a seizure, she never summoned medical assistance, before or
after father cut the tube.
       While mother initially lied and stated that she did not
witness father’s act of cutting the feeding tube, she later admitted
that she was present and did nothing to intervene. Mother’s failure
to act when her child was in medical distress and her failure to
intervene in father’s harmful act of removing the child’s feeding
tube, shows a failure to protect the child. Mother’s continued
insistence that father would do nothing to harm the baby, in the
face of credible evidence that father has put the child at risk by
leaving objects on her body and failing to feed her properly, also
shows a failure to protect the child. Mother’s failure to protect the
child from father’s dangerous acts put the child at substantial risk
of physical harm. Further, mother continues to insist that father’s
act of cutting the child’s feeding tube was not problematic or
detrimental. At the hearing, she testified that she “sided with
[father]” when she realized what he had done, rather than seek help
from medical professionals. Given that mother continues to take

                                 16
father’s side on his troubling behaviors with the baby, there is no
reason to believe that if father again disregarded medical
instructions, mother would protect her medically fragile baby.
      Mother argues that insufficient evidence exists that there was
a current risk of harm to Bella due to mother’s failure to protect
her. Mother argues that jurisdiction may not be based on a single
incident of neglectful conduct, even when that incident results in
harm to the child, absent evidence of a current risk of harm.
(Citing In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1023 (J.N.).) First,
mother’s argument is based on the faulty premise that the juvenile
court was required to accept the parents’ position that the cutting of
the feeding tube was the only incident of endangering conduct. On
the contrary, the juvenile court was not required to accept the
parents’ denials of subsequent acts of harm to the child. The
hospital staff and MGM provided competent evidence that father
engaged in additional acts harmful to the child, including leaving
her with objects on her body that could have harmed her, feeding
her lying down despite warnings that this could be extremely
dangerous to her, and showing disregard for court orders intended
to protect the child.
      Further, J.N. is distinguishable. In J.N., the parents were
involved in one incident of driving under the influence with their
minor children in the car. In contrast to the matter before us, the
parents expressed remorse and showed a willingness to learn from
their mistake. (J.N., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1026
[“Significantly, both parents were remorseful, loving, and indicated
that they were willing to learn from their mistakes.”].) Here, both
parents continue to defend father’s act of cutting the feeding tube,
without any remorse or understanding that disregard of medical
treatments and protocols is dangerous to the child.

                                 17
       Mother next argues that there is insufficient evidence that
any similar incidents would occur in the future and that speculation
cannot support a finding of dependency. (Citing In re Steve W.
(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 22.) However, the juvenile court did not
rely on speculation in this case. Father’s disregard of instructions
from medical professionals and the court continued to pose a danger
to the child throughout the proceedings. MGM provided evidence
that father continued to feed the child while lying on her back and
expressed disdain for the court orders in place to protect the baby.
Mother continued to support father and defend his actions in spite
of the potential harm to Bella. Mother testified at the hearing that
other than the one incident of cutting the feeding tube, father never
interfered with the baby’s health. She insisted that father would
never jeopardize the child’s health. Mother continued to deny that
the baby was ever left with a blanket over her head or that father
fed the child in a way that could cause her harm. Given the baby’s
very young age and vulnerable state, mother’s failure to stand up
for the child’s safety was particularly dangerous to the child.
       Under the circumstances, sufficient evidence supported the
juvenile court’s decision that the conduct of mother in continuing to
defend father posed a substantial risk to the child’s health.5

5     Mother dedicates a substantial portion of her opening brief to
her argument that the juvenile court’s finding that there was
domestic violence between mother and father was not supported by
the record. The single count sustained in this matter made no
reference to domestic violence. As the court did not sustain a
finding of domestic violence, we decline to address this point. We
note that the court orally observed that mother appeared to be
“under the control” of father. The court used these words to
describe mother’s failure to assert herself to protect the child’s
health and well-being, which supported the court’s decision to

                                 18
II.    Dispositional order of removal
       Mother challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional order
removing Bella from her custody.
       A.    Applicable law and standard of review
       Section 361, subdivision (c), states that “[a] dependent child
shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents
[or] guardian or guardians . . . with whom the child resides at the
time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear
and convincing evidence” of “a substantial danger to the physical
health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the
minor” and “no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical
health can be protected without removing the minor from the
minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.” Clear and convincing
evidence “requires a finding of high probability.” (In re David C.
(1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1189, 1208.) “A removal order is proper if it
is based on proof of (1) parental inability to provide proper care for
the minor and (2) potential detriment to the minor if he or she
remains with the parent.” (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154,
1163.)
       Before ordering removal, the juvenile court must determine
“whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate
the need for removal of the minor from his or her home [and] shall
state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based.”
(§ 361, subd. (e); see In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1065.)
Such facts may include “the parent’s past conduct and current
circumstances, and the parent’s response to the conditions that
gave rise to juvenile court intervention.” (In re D.B. (2018) 26
Cal.App.5th 320, 332.)

sustain the allegations concerning mother’s failure to protect the
child.

                                  19
       A juvenile court’s dispositional order removing a child from a
parent’s custody is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Hailey
T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146-147.) In doing so, we must bear
in mind the heightened burden of proof. (In re A.E. (2014) 228
Cal.App.4th 820, 826.)
       B.    Substantial evidence supported the juvenile
             court’s removal order
       The juvenile court’s order removing Bella from mother’s care
was based on the court’s finding that mother failed to protect her
child from father’s harmful actions. The court noted that mother
appeared to be under the control of father, thus declined to take
action to protect her child even when the child appeared to be in
medical distress. Mother failed to stop father from intervening with
the child’s feeding tube, failed to summon medical assistance, and
failed to acknowledge that father’s actions were detrimental to the
child. Mother denied subsequent acts of father that endangered the
child or went against medical advice. There was evidence that
father was controlling of mother and did not allow mother to involve
herself in the child’s care without his permission. Mother remained
in a relationship with father and continued to live with him. She
continued to provide him with unrestricted access to the child.
Neither parent had participated in services to show that they had
gained an understanding of the danger of father’s actions towards
the child. On the contrary, mother continued to defend his actions.
       Mother argues the juvenile court’s order was based on the
court’s assumption that mother would not follow court orders, and
substantial evidence did not support this assumption. Mother
points out that she had extensive family support, had commenced a
parenting class, and was on a wait list to enroll in counseling.
Mother argues she never harmed her child, as the petition only
involved father’s behaviors. Under the circumstances, mother

                                 20
argues the juvenile court should have considered whether
reasonable means were available to protect the child from the
father’s actions without removal from mother. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
Mother argues such reasonable means could have included
requiring mother to live with MGM or PGM, removing father from
mother’s home, unannounced visits, or family preservation
services.6 Mother argues the court must consider removal of one
parent from the home as a lesser alternative to removal of the child
from a nonoffending parent. (Citing In re M.V. (2022) 78
Cal.App.5th 944 (M.V.); In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803,
810.)
       The juvenile court acknowledged that it was required to
“consider safety plans and whether there are reasonable services
that could be provided to eliminate the need for the child’s
removal.” However, the court articulated its position that “[i]n this
particular case, the court does not believe that any . . . services
would allow for the return of the child to either parent.” In support
of this statement, the court referenced the present attitude of the
parents that father had done nothing wrong in placing his own
judgment and decision-making above that of medical professionals.
Father was not receptive to court orders or services, and mother
remained “under the control of the father.” It is apparent that the
juvenile court did not find mother or father trustworthy or credible,
therefore did not believe court orders would be sufficient to protect

6     In making this argument, mother ignores MGM’s statement
that she would not allow either parent to live with her given their
present behaviors.

                                 21
the child. The evidence described above supports this
determination.7
        Mother further argues that her initial lie about not
witnessing the feeding tube incident is not sufficient, in and of
itself, to justify removal from mother’s custody. In support of this
argument, mother cites M.V., supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at page 962
(holding that parents’ “‘lack of transparency’ or subsequent denial of
the events that led to dependency is not sufficient, by itself, to
justify removal of the [c]hildren from either parent’s custody”),
quoting In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 525 (“The law
requires that a child remain in parental custody pending the
resolution of dependency proceedings, despite the problems that led
the court to take jurisdiction over the child, unless the court is
clearly convinced that such a disposition would harm the child.”
[Italics added.]).
        Mother’s initial denial of witnessing father cutting the feeding
tube is not the only action of mother that led to the juvenile court’s
decision. In this case, it was mother’s inaction—her failure to notify
medical staff when her child was in medical distress and her failure
to acknowledge other harmful acts on the part of father—that put
the child at risk. Unlike mother, the father in M.V. had
demonstrated “‘protective capacities’” towards his children. (M.V.,
supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 961.) The evidence showed that he
called 911 to report an incident of domestic violence against him
and later called a social worker to disclose additional incidents.

7      We reject mother’s argument that the juvenile court failed to
state specific facts supporting its decision that there was no
reasonable alternative to removal, as required by section 361,
subdivision (e). The record shows that the court articulated
sufficiently specific facts supporting its decision.

                                  22
(Ibid.) Mother, in contrast, failed to notify medical professionals of
father’s endangering actions and continued to defend him. Mother’s
failure to protect her child from father’s actions put the child at
substantial risk of harm. The record supports the trial court’s
decision that this very young child could not be safely maintained in
mother’s custody.

                           DISPOSITION
      The jurisdictional findings and dispositional order are
affirmed.

                                      ________________________
                                      CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

________________________
LUI, P. J.

________________________
BENKE, J.*

*     Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth
Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article
VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                 23