Court Opinion

ID: 9953287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 18:03:03.348127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:53.746248
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/21/24 In re I.B. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

In re I.B., a Person Coming Under                              B328681
the Juvenile Court Law.
__________________________________                             (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Super. Ct. No.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         22CCJP04643A)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

        v.

N.B.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed.
      Michelle D. Peña, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      N.B. (Mother) and M.B. (Father) are the parents of their
six-year old daughter I.B. (Minor).1 The juvenile court took
dependency jurisdiction over Minor on various grounds including
domestic violence between the parents, Father’s sexual abuse of
Minor, and Mother’s failure to protect Minor from that sexual
abuse. Mother challenges only the court’s finding that she did
not protect Minor from sexual abuse. We consider whether we
must discuss that finding in light of the other unchallenged
jurisdiction findings against Mother.

                         I. BACKGROUND
      A.    The Dependency Investigation and Petition
      On Sunday, August 28, 2022, Mother picked Minor up from
Father’s home after a visit. Mother noticed Minor seemed upset
and was tugging at her shorts. Minor revealed Father digitally
penetrated her vagina, and Mother took Minor to the emergency
room.
      Minor advised the treating doctor that, while napping at
Father’s home, she awoke to find Father touching her vagina.
Minor advised that this was the first time Father had touched
her inappropriately. Although the genital examination revealed
no abrasions or lacerations, the doctor repeatedly advised Mother
that the absence of such findings did not indicate an absence of
abuse—a fact that Mother appeared to have difficulty accepting.
The hospital reported the matter to the local authorities.
      In a police interview the following day, Minor related the
same facts she told the doctor. Mother told the police officer she
thought Minor was not telling the truth.

1
      This was Minor’s age when dependency proceedings began.

                                2
       Two days later, a social worker from the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services (the
Department) interviewed Mother and Minor. Although Mother
said she arranged for Minor to see a psychologist in connection
with the alleged sexual abuse, she told the social worker she
questioned the veracity of Minor’s account due to the absence of
any confirming evidence from the hospital’s medical examination.
Separately, Mother admitted she and Father had engaged in
domestic violence while they were living together and that on one
occasion she had “slapped the shit” out of Father. Mother
advised the domestic violence was the reason why she and Father
were no longer in a relationship. Mother added that Father had
a history of “alcohol intoxication.”
       When speaking to the social worker, Minor revealed she
had also been sexually abused by Father on a prior occasion at a
hotel. She provided a description of what happened in detail and
said she had been too scared to tell anyone about the prior
incident of sexual abuse. When asked about other forms of
abuse, Minor advised Mother would “sometimes” spank her with
a brush and demonstrated Mother’s technique by striking a
stuffed animal ten times.
       The Department also interviewed Father, who denied the
sexual abuse allegations. He did admit, however, that his
relationship with Mother had involved domestic violence and led
him to obtain a restraining order against Mother in October 2021
following a physical assault against him at a restaurant that
Minor witnessed (and for which Mother was arrested). Father
said he believed Mother physically abused Minor because the
child would appear for visits with bruises on her upper legs and

                                3
would complain that Mother “beat her up.” Father denied
drinking alcohol or suffering from alcoholism.
       In September 2022, Minor, accompanied by Mother,
underwent a forensic medical exam. Mother told the examiner
she was “not concerned” that Father sexually abused Minor and
opined Minor’s allegations of sexual abuse were “retaliation”
against Father for not being with her more.2 To the examiner,
Minor related the same facts about the most recent incident of
sexual abuse as she had to the emergency room doctor, the police,
and the Department’s social worker—adding that the digital
penetration was “uncomfortable.” Although the forensic
examiner found “no acute healing injuries,” she advised this
“[did] not rule out sexual abuse” and opined such abuse is “highly
suspected.” The examiner concluded, “Given that patient has
disclosed clearly and consistently to her mother, physicians at the
hospital, and [the Department], there is high concern for sexual
abuse.”
       In a follow-up interview with a Department social worker
and under questioning by a forensic interviewer, Minor affirmed
she was sexually abused by Father at the hotel but she claimed
she lied about the more recent abuse that occurred while visiting
Father’s home. Minor advised she did not feel safe with Father
and only sometimes felt safe with Mother.
       In November 2022, the Department filed a filed a multi-
count petition asking the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction
over Minor under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,

2
     During an interview following the forensic examination,
Mother reaffirmed she did not believe Minor’s allegations against
Father.

                                4
subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (d).3 The petition alleged in the
subdivision (a) counts that Minor was at substantial risk of
suffering nonaccidental physical harm as a result of Mother’s
physical abuse and the parents’ history of engaging in violent
altercations in Minor’s presence. The subdivision (b) counts
alleged Minor was at substantial risk of serious physical harm
from Father’s sexual abuse and Mother’s failure to protect Minor
from that abuse, from Mother’s physical abuse of Minor and
Father’s failure to protect from that abuse, from the parents’
history of domestic violence, and from Father’s history of alcohol
and substance abuse. The subdivision (d) count alleged Father
sexually abused Minor and Mother knew or reasonably should
have known of the abuse and failed to take action to protect
Minor.4
      At the initial dependency hearing, the court detained Minor
from Father, released her into Mother’s care under the
supervision of the Department, and ordered monitored visitation
for Father.

3
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
4
      The Department subsequently filed an amended petition
that added to the subdivision (b) counts an allegation that Minor
was at risk of physical harm as a result of Mother’s history of
emotional and mental problems. Mother denied the new
allegation. At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
the juvenile court struck the mental health allegation against
Mother.

                                5
       B.    Jurisdiction and Disposition
       In advance of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
Minor was re-interviewed by a Department investigator. Minor
repeated what she recently said: Father sexually abused her at
the hotel, she lied about being sexually abused by Father at his
home, and Mother spanked her with a brush. Minor also
described witnessing two separate incidents of domestic violence
between her parents, one when Father punched Mother while
drunk and another when Mother struck Father at a restaurant.
       In Mother’s interview with the Department investigator,
she denied any knowledge about Father sexually abusing Minor.
Mother did admit, however, that there were multiple incidents of
domestic violence when Father was intoxicated, including one in
2019 when Father broke her nose. As before, Mother denied
using a brush to spank Minor.
       Father continued to deny sexually abusing Minor.
Regarding domestic violence, he asserted Mother physically
assaulted him on many occasions and he denied ever battering
Mother. Father also described an incident in 2020 in which
Mother physically attacked Minor’s paternal grandmother after
she intervened to stop fighting between him and Mother; Father
explained the paternal grandmother filed a police report but she
ultimately declined to press charges so Mother would not go to
jail. Father additionally reiterated his belief that Mother
physically abused Minor by pinching her, hitting her with a
“heavy hand,” and hitting her head with a brush.
       The Department investigator interviewed the paternal
grandmother N.B. (paternal grandmother) and she confirmed
Mother physically attacked her in 2020. She also recounted

                               6
observing bruises on Minor’s arms and recalled Minor said
Mother had caused the bruises.
      Based on its investigation, the Department urged the
juvenile court to sustain the allegations against Mother and
Father. The Department acknowledged Minor had vacillated to
some degree when affirming and denying sexual abuse by Father,
but the Department believed her detailed descriptions of the
sexual abuse indicated she had been a victim of recent and past
sexual assaults. The Department also opined Minor’s description
of physical abuse by Mother was credible and police reports
revealed the “violent assaults between [M]other and [F]ather
have been mutual.”
      The juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and
disposition hearing in April 2023 and heard testimony from
Father, the paternal grandmother, and the Department’s
investigator. Father denied sexually abusing Minor or physically
abusing Mother. Father testified that Mother, on the other hand,
had physically abused him “hundreds of times” and Minor
repeatedly told him that Mother physically abused her. Father
denied currently consuming alcohol and admitted to only
drinking a “little bit” during his relationship with Mother. The
paternal grandmother testified she witnessed Mother physically
attack Father, she had been physically attacked by Mother, but
she was unaware of any sexual abuse of Minor by Father. Based
on her experience interviewing hundreds of children similar in
age to Minor in cases involving child sexual abuse, the
Department investigator testified she found Minor’s sexual abuse
allegations credible.
      After hearing argument, the juvenile court dismissed the
section 300, subdivision (a) counts against Mother and Father.

                               7
The court sustained the section 300, subdivision (b) counts
alleging sexual abuse by Father and failure to protect by Mother,
physical abuse of Minor by Mother and failure to protect by
Father, domestic violence between Mother and Father, and
alcohol abuse by Father. The court also sustained the
subdivision (d) count alleging sexual abuse by Father and failure
to protect by Mother. In making its ruling, the court expressly
found Father’s testimony lacked credibility and Minor credibly
claimed sexual abuse by Father, physical abuse by Mother, and
violence between her parents.
      The juvenile court ordered Minor removed from Father’s
care and placed in Mother’s home under Department supervision.
As part of their respective case plans, the court ordered Minor’s
parents to undergo individual counseling to address, among other
things, anger management.5

                         II. DISCUSSION
      Mother challenges only the dependency findings that Minor
was at risk of harm from her failure to protect from abuse by
Father; she does not challenge the domestic violence and physical
abuse findings that were directly adverse to her. In this
situation, we need not consider the findings she challenges so
long as any one of the jurisdiction findings adverse to her is
supported by sufficient evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th
766, 773 [“‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds

5
      In October 2023, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction
over Minor. The Department argues the appeal is accordingly
moot, but for reasons of judicial economy, we resolve the appeal
on other grounds.

                                8
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 of the other
alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the
evidence.’ [Citation]”]; In re Ca.M. (Mar. 18, 2024, B326320)
___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2024 WL 1153550].) As we shall briefly
explain, the domestic-violence-based section 300, subdivision
(b)(1) finding is so supported. So we do not consider the rest.
       Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) authorizes a juvenile court to
assume dependency jurisdiction over a child 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 . . . [¶] (A) [t]he
failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately
supervise or protect the child . . . .” We review the juvenile
court’s jurisdiction findings for substantial evidence, drawing “‘all
reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the
findings . . . [and] review[ing] the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determinations . . . .’ [Citations.]” (In re
R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)
       Exposing children to domestic violence can support
jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (In re T.V.
(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 134-135 [“[T]he evidence showed the
parents had a lengthy history of domestic violence, often
requiring police intervention. . . . Even though T.V. had not been
physically harmed, the cycle of violence between the parents
constituted a failure to protect her ‘from the substantial risk of
encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or

                                 9
illness from it’”]; In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193-
194 [evidence of violence between father and stepmother, where
at least one incident occurred in presence of minors, was
sufficient for jurisdictional finding]; see also In re Sylvia R. (1997)
55 Cal.App.4th 559, 562 [children suffer secondary abuse from
witnessing violent confrontations].)
       On this record, there is substantial evidence Minor was at
substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm from the
violence between Mother and Father. It was undisputed the
parents had a history of domestic violence—including at least two
episodes of violence that took place in Minor’s presence. It was
also undisputed that Mother was at least sometimes the
aggressor in the violent confrontations (including her assault of
the paternal grandmother) and some of the violence required
police intervention. Although the parents were no longer in a
relationship, the risks to Minor from this violence had not
dissipated. Mother and Father still saw and interacted with one
another on a regular basis in connection with their joint
parenting of Minor, and there was no evidence that, prior to the
jurisdiction hearing, either parent had tried to prevent future
domestic violence through counseling or other means such as
anger management classes.

                                  10
                         DISPOSITION
     The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      BAKER, Acting P. J.
We concur:

     MOOR, J.

     KIM, J.

                               11