Opinion
B299413
04-15-2020
In re ALIYAS M., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. BRIANNA A., Defendant and Appellant.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP03228A-B) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rashida A. Adams, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Brianna A. (mother) appeals from orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over her children, Aliyas and Knowledge (ages 11 and 10, respectively, at the time of the adjudication hearing), and releasing them to her custody under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department). Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), that her failure to protect the children from their father's substance abuse places them at substantial risk of serious physical harm. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings. We therefore affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The children's father, Adam M. (father), is not a party to this appeal.
BACKGROUND
Father has four other children by other women -- Adam (age 17), Nathaniel (age 16), Chance (age 12), and infant Jacsun (deceased). Jacsun's death prompted the filing of this case.
Child welfare history
Adam and Nathaniel (parents: father and Darena J.)
In February 2002, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over then infant Adam after he suffered injuries consistent with inflicted trauma while in the custody of his parents, father and Darena J. Adam's injuries included skull fractures, rib fractures, multiple leg fractures, and head and facial bruising. Adam was removed from parental custody and placed in a legal guardianship with his grandparents. He was subsequently returned to Darena's custody.
Later born Nathaniel was also declared a dependent child based on Adam's abuse. Nathaniel remained in Darena's custody. Father was denied reunification services.
Aliyas, Knowledge (parents: father and mother), and Tylen
Tylen, mother's son from a previous relationship, is now an adult.
In 2008, the Department received a referral that newborn Knowledge had a positive toxicology screen for marijuana. Mother denied any drug use and claimed that father's marijuana use in the home exposed her to second-hand smoke during the pregnancy. The Department opened a voluntary case under which the children remained in parental custody if the parents participated in drug counseling and other services. The case closed a year later and the children remained with the parents.
The Department received another referral in 2014 when Aliyas appeared at school with a black eye. Aliyas said his brother hit him in the eye and father slapped him when he cried. The Department determined that allegations of general neglect against father were unfounded. During the investigation, the Department discovered that mother and father were both using marijuana but kept it away from the children and did not use it while supervising them.
Jacsun (parents: father and Kiana W.)
The Department received a referral in November 2018 alleging general neglect of infant Jacsun by father and Kiana W. Jacsun was not with the parents, and father and Kiana were evasive and gave false information concerning Jacsun's whereabouts. Marijuana, rock cocaine, and drug paraphernalia were found in the home. The Department filed a petition on Jacsun's behalf, and the juvenile court ordered him detained at large. Kiana subsequently admitted that she and father had slept with six-month-old Jacsun in the same bed while they were under the influence of drugs and found the infant dead when they awoke. Kiana and father disposed of Jacsun's body in a suitcase they deposited in a dumpster. Father and Kiana were arrested, charged with the crime of child abuse resulting in death, and held without bail.
Detention and section 300 petition
The Department filed a petition on behalf of Aliyas and Knowledge on May 21, 2019, alleging risk of harm to the children under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) based on Jacsun's death, father's and Kiana's substance abuse, and mother's failure to protect the children.
In a March 2019 interview, mother told the social worker that Aliyas and Knowledge lived with father for a time but that the children had lived with her for the past two years. Aliyas and Knowledge had overnight visits with father, although mother said at times she suspended the visits because of father's drug use. According to mother, father's drug use was one of the reasons she ended her 10-year relationship with him. She said father, "even on drugs," had never harmed the children or threatened them with harm. Mother said she believed methamphetamine was father's drug of choice and that he had been using it for two years. She said the children had never reported seeing father use drugs, although Aliyas reported seeing both father and Kiana with pipes. Aliyas also told mother that he saw Kiana hit Jacsun when the infant cried.
The social worker met separately with Aliyas and Knowledge. Aliyas said he lived with mother, Knowledge, and adult sibling Tylen at a shelter facility. Aliyas told the social worker that he had seen father smoke marijuana but that father would go outside when he did so. He said that Kiana also used "crystal meth," and explained that he once saw Kiana with a long tube containing a white substance and asked her what it was. Kiana responded that it was methamphetamine and told Aliyas to never use it. Aliyas said that Kiana would often go into the bathroom and that when she emerged, the bathroom would be "smoky." Knowledge denied seeing father or Kiana use marijuana, alcohol, or other substances.
The social worker met with father at the Men's Central Jail, where he admitted using marijuana but said he did not do so in the presence of the children. He also admitted being a frequent user of methamphetamine but denied being an addict. Father also denied any allegation of child abuse and said he hoped to clear his name and prove his innocence.
At the detention hearing held on May 22, 2019, the juvenile court ordered Aliyas and Knowledge detained from father and released to mother under the Department's supervision.
Jurisdiction and disposition
The social worker reinterviewed both children on June 26, 2019. Aliyas said that his overnight visits with father were in motel rooms. He told mother that father and Kiana smoked "white stuff" in a pipe in the bathroom. After that disclosure, mother did not allow the children to visit with father for a time. She relented when Aliyas pleaded with her to allow the visits to resume. Aliyas saw a glass pipe containing "white stuff" many times in the bathroom during his visits with father. He never touched the pipe because mother forbade him from doing so. Aliyas once asked Kiana what was in the pipe, and she responded that it was "meth" and that father smoked "meth" as well. Aliyas said he had never seen father or Kiana smoke from the pipe, but that he saw them smoke marijuana "all the time." Aliyas also witnessed a violent altercation between Kiana and father in which Kiana attempted to stab father with a screwdriver. He told mother about the incident.
Knowledge told the social worker that he informed mother about drugs and drug paraphernalia in father's home, and that "she cared a lot, but cared less" and told Knowledge and Aliyas not to go near the pipes. He and Aliyas both told mother about marijuana "blunts" in father's home, and mother "just said not to touch them." Knowledge said he saw father and Kiana smoke marijuana outside "about five times." Father and Kiana also smoked in the bathroom, generating a lot of white, odorless smoke, and Knowledge often saw long glass pipes on lying on the bathroom floor. He did not witness the incident of domestic violence during which Kiana attempted to stab father with a screwdriver but said that Aliyas told him and mother about the incident.
In a July 2019 interview, father told the social worker that he smoked marijuana daily and began using methamphetamine when he separated from mother. He discounted the seriousness of the altercation with Kiana. Father said Kiana had tried to stab him with a screwdriver during an argument, and he held Kiana in a "bear hug" until she dropped the screwdriver. When he released her, they both slipped and fell and Kiana hurt her head. Father said he believed Jacsun and Aliyas were present during that incident. Father admitted using drugs with Kiana the night Jacsun died. He did not recall whose decision it was to dispose of Jacsun's body.
Mother told the social worker in a June 27, 2019 interview that the children never told her about father's drug use. Mother said she suspected father and Kiana were using drugs because of their appearance and behavior when she occasionally saw them. She sometimes suspended the children's visits with father because of his drug use. Although mother did not believe father would harm the children, she did not want them to be exposed to such behavior. Mother admitted that Aliyas had reported seeing father and Kiana with pipes and had witnessed an incident of domestic violence in which Kiana attempted to stab father with a screwdriver.
At the July 17, 2019 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court received into evidence the Department's reports and took judicial notice of documents from related cases with the children's siblings. After hearing argument from the parties, the court sustained an amended petition under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) based on father's drug abuse, mother's failure to protect, and the domestic violence incident between father and Kiana. The juvenile court found that the evidence "more than amply supports" the allegations that mother failed to protect the children by allowing father to care for them when she knew of father's unresolved drug abuse issues and the children had disclosed to her that father and Kiana used drugs in their presence. The court found mother's denial of any knowledge concerning father's pervasive drug abuse, lacked credibility.
After declaring Aliyas and Knowledge to be dependent children, the juvenile court ordered them to remain placed with mother under the Department's supervision. The court ordered the Department to provide mother with family preservation services, including parent education, housing assistance, and drug awareness counseling. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Jurisdiction
A. Applicable law and standard of review
Section 300, subdivision (b) authorizes the dependency court to assume jurisdiction over a child if "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child . . . . The child shall continue to be a dependent child pursuant to this subdivision only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness." (§ 300, subd. (b).) Subdivision (j) similarly authorizes dependency jurisdiction when "[t]he child's sibling has been abused or neglected . . . and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected . . . ." (§ 300, subd. (j).)
Mother contends the juvenile court's orders must be reversed because there was no evidence the children were at substantial risk of harm at the time of the adjudication hearing. She argues that father was then incarcerated and that she would not allow him to have further contact with the children.
We review mother's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450 [jurisdiction]; In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 145-146 [disposition].) Under that standard, "the issue is whether there is evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the finding. In making that determination, the reviewing court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the challenged order, resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor of that order, and giving the evidence reasonable inferences. Weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving conflicts in evidence and in the inferences to be drawn from evidence are the domain of the trial court, not the reviewing court. Evidence from a single witness, even a party, can be sufficient to support the trial court's findings. [Citations.]" (Alexis E., at pp. 450-451.)
B. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. The evidence shows that mother knew about father's extreme and pervasive drug abuse but nevertheless allowed the children to frequently visit with him, including overnight visits. The children told mother about father's and Kiana's marijuana and methamphetamine use, the drugs and drug paraphernalia within their reach, and the incident in which Kiana tried to stab father with a screwdriver. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, mother insisted throughout the case that the children never told her about father's drug use.
Father's arrest and incarceration at the time of the adjudication hearing did not negate the risk of harm to the children. (See In re Carlos T. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 795, 806 [offending father's incarceration at time of jurisdiction hearing did not negate risk of harm; given the mother's repeated failure to protect the children, the court could conclude she would not protect children if father were released].) While father had no access to the children during his incarceration, he had not been convicted or sentenced at the time of the adjudication hearing. Mother's repeated failure to protect the children, despite knowledge of father's severe and pervasive drug abuse, was evidence that she might not protect them from father if he were released. (Ibid.)
In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, on which mother relies as support for her position, is distinguishable. That case involved a single incident of injury to a child in an auto accident that occurred while both parents were intoxicated. The family had no prior criminal or child welfare history, and there was no evidence that either parent had a substance abuse problem. (Id. at pp. 1015-1017, 1020-1021, 1026.) While acknowledging that evidence of past abuse or neglect can be an indicator of risk of future harm, the court in J.N. concluded that "[d]espite the profound seriousness of the parents' endangering conduct on the one occasion in this case, there was no evidence from which to infer there is a substantial risk such behavior would recur." (Id. at p. 1026.)
Here, in contrast, mother's failure to protect the children was not an isolated incident but continued for years. Although mother ended her 10-year relationship with father because of his drug use, she allowed the children to live with him for a time thereafter. After she resumed physical custody of the children, mother allowed frequent overnight and weekend visits with father, despite the children's disclosures that father and Kiana regularly used methamphetamine and marijuana and that Aliyas witnessed an incident in which Kiana tried to stab father with a screwdriver. Substantial evidence supports the finding that the children were at substantial risk of future harm.
Mother seeks to distinguish cases in which courts have assumed dependency jurisdiction based on a parent's continuing pattern of neglectful or abusive behavior or multiple acts of endangerment. (See, e.g., In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 [mother's repeated failure to protect child from multiple incidents of sexual and physical abuse by the father]; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626 [three separate incidents in which mother hit child with an electric cord]; In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 944 [two separate acts of domestic violence, one that occurred in a child's presence, and repeated threats to kill the mother].) This case is not dissimilar. Here, there were multiple acts of endangerment and mother's repeated failure to protect the children from father's and Kiana's substance abuse and domestic violence. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional orders.
II. Disposition
Mother's sole basis for challenging the dispositional orders releasing the children to her custody under the Department's supervision is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support juvenile court jurisdiction. Because substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings and order, the juvenile court's dispositional orders need not be disturbed.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ We concur: /s/_________, P. J.
LUI /s/_________, J.
HOFFSTADT