Filed 2/17/22 In re D.O. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

S.U. (mother) appeals a juvenile court’s jurisdiction order with regard to her children, D.O., J.U., P.U., M.U., and O.E. (the children). She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional finding that the children came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (c). We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2021, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children. At the time, D.O. was 12 years old, J.U. was 10 years old, P.U. was eight years old, M.U. was five years old, and O.E. was three years old. The petition alleged that the children came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), and (i) (cruelty). It specifically alleged that while in mother’s custody, the children were subjected to acts of cruelty, including locking them in a dark room for hours, calling them derogatory names, keeping them isolated, and threatening to abandon them. It alleged that the children were suffering emotionally and mentally due to mother’s treatment of them, that D.O. and M.U. experienced nightmares, P.U. wet the bed, and O.E. played with his feces. The petition also alleged mother had a history of substance abuse and unresolved mental health issues. The petition contained allegations with regard to fathers E.O., E.M., and Jai.U., as well. E.O. was D.O.’s father; E.M. was O.E.’s father; and Jai.U. was the father of J.U., P.U., and M.U.[2]

The social worker filed a detention report stating that DPSS received a referral alleging that mother had untreated bipolar disorder, used opiates, and used to smoke black tar heroin. Mother would leave the children at home alone for hours at a time, while she was buying drugs and earning money to buy drugs. The social worker went to mother’s residence on January 7, 2021. Mother initially refused to speak to her and would only allow her to see the children through the window. Mother appeared to be under the influence, as her speech was rapid, her eyes were wide open, and her demeanor was confrontational and agitated.

The social worker met with child D.O. (age 12) and his father E.O., who shared custody with mother. D.O. said he did not like living with mother since she made him cook for his siblings. He reported that mother slept all day and was awake all night. She would lock herself in the closet and later her room would smell funny. D.O. further reported that when he and his brothers did not listen, mother would lock them in a dark room for hours at a time until they either cried themselves to sleep or she would allow them out. He said it used to be worse when she would not even allow them to leave the room to go to the bathroom. D.O. also reported mother had three “dirty [drug] addict friends” living in the home.

D.O. further stated that on numerous occasions mother would be nice one minute, then yell and curse at him and his brothers, tell them they were “pathetic,” and say she never wanted to see them again. She would also call them “retarded” and say she did not want to be around them. Mother said several times she was going to abandon them and go to Iceland. D.O. expressed that when mother acted weird, he and his brother P.U. wanted to run away and not come back. He added that P.U. wet his bed, and that O.E. “like[d] to play with his poop.” He also said he and M.U. had nightmares when mother locked them in the room.

The social worker spoke with the maternal grandmother (MGM). She said mother “has always been really stressed,” and has “never been affectionate” with the children. She also reported that there were strange individuals living in the home.

The social worker spoke with father E.M., who was currently living in his home country of Iceland. He reportedly talked to mother and O.E. on the phone almost daily. He was concerned about her untreated mental health issues and substance abuse. E.M. said he previously lived with mother and observed her having “manic episodes” when she would become paranoid. She would often become angry and yell at him and the children. E.M. confirmed that mother would discipline the children by placing them in a locked, dark room and kept them isolated.

Based on safety concerns, the social worker requested, and the court granted, protective custody warrants. DPSS placed the children in the care of the MGM.

Once in protective custody, the social worker spoke with M.U. (age 5), who reported that mother yelled at him and his brothers all the time. He said that after she yelled at him, she would take him to a dark room, lock the door, and leave him there for a long time. He was scared of the dark. He said it made him “sad in his heart” when mother locked him in a room. He said she left them at home to take care of themselves.

The social worker also talked to J.U. (age 10), who confirmed that mother left the children at home alone “for hours” and recalled one time when she left them alone “in the middle of the night.” He added that mother called them “annoying” or “stupid” on multiple occasions. J.U. also said that mother locked the children in a dark room when they did not listen and that he “gets scared” because they hear noises around the house. He said he had nightmares.

The court held a detention hearing on January 27, 2021, and detained the children in foster care.

Jurisdiction/Disposition

The social worker filed a jurisdiction report on February 11, 2021, recommending that the court sustain the petition, order mother to participate in psychological evaluations to determine if she would benefit from reunification services, and then set a disposition hearing in at least 45 days. The social worker reported that D.O. remained in the care of his father, E.O., while the four other children were placed with the MGM on January 22, 2021.

Father E.O. reported that D.O. was severely emotionally impacted by mother’s actions. He said D.O. missed a significant amount of virtual school while in her care since she would take the children with her to deliver food for PostMates.

Father E.M. confirmed the mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He said that during the three years he lived with her, she was constantly yelling at him. He said she was constantly angry and yelling, partly due to her volatile mood swings. E.M. said O.E. did not play with his feces during the time he and mother were together, but mother recently told his mother she caught him smearing his feces in the bathroom.

The social worker reported that mother said she was diagnosed with Non-specified Mood Disorder and anxiety when she was 22 years old, and she was placed on involuntary psychiatric holds in 2008 and 2012. Mother denied locking the children in the bedroom or threatening to abandon them. She confirmed the children had excessive absences from school because she had a hard time getting them to log on to their virtual classes. She said D.O. had Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. She said P.U. also had ODD, and he wet the bed. Mother acknowledged that O.E. had smeared his feces a couple of times while trying to wipe himself. She did not believe it was due to any emotional damage. Mother said D.O. had “unruly behaviors” including banging the walls with his hands and feet when frustrated.

The social worker reported that D.O. said he “despises” going to mother’s home because she made him babysit his brothers. He said mother did not do anything and was always sleeping. He and his brother, J.U., were the ones who “handle[d] things in the house.” D.O. reported that O.E. had played with his feces while on the toilet. Instead of wiping O.E., mother would go to sleep and leave him unattended in the restroom. O.E. would get bored waiting for mother, so he would try to wipe himself and end up smearing the feces. When that happened, mother would get angry and spank O.E. as punishment. D.O. reported that mother locked him and his brothers in a dark room with no door handle to get out. He also shared that mother had chased him in the past with dead bugs, in order to scare him. D.O. said mother’s actions used to hurt him “like a bunch of needles stabbing [his] heart” when he was younger; however, he had learned not to feel pain anymore. D.O. steadfastly refused to return to mother’s house. He said the thought of returning to her care would make him bang his head against the wall and pick his skin. He felt very angry with her and hated her. D.O. said he was so angry he would take his anger out at school by attempting to hit and scratch his teachers.

The social worker was gravely concerned for the children. She said they appeared frightened (except for D.O.), overly protective of mother, and reluctant to engage with DPSS, citing that mother advised them to remain quiet. She was further concerned with the three fathers, who had continuously failed to protect the children from mother’s mental health issues, continuous use of drugs, and cruel and emotionally abusive treatment of the children.

On March 17, 2021, the social worker filed an addendum report and recommended dispositions for the children. As to O.E., she recommended that he be declared a dependent of the court and removed from mother. She recommended that his father, E.M., be granted sole physical and legal custody. E.M.’s home in Iceland had been assessed and approved. As to the four other boys, the social worker recommended that mother be ordered to participate in two psychological evaluations, and that the court calendar a disposition hearing in at least 45 days to give DPSS time to obtain the results. The social worker added that DPSS had filed section 300 petitions in 2009 and 2012, as well as one section 342 petition in 2013, to protect the children from issues concerning mother’s mental health, substance abuse, physical abuse, and domestic violence.

The court held a contested jurisdiction hearing on March 22, 2021. The court ordered O.E. to go on a special visit with his father to Iceland.

On April 12, 2021, the social worker filed a disposition report and recommended that the court sustain an amended section 300 petition, which struck allegations against E.M., terminate jurisdiction over O.E., and grant E.M. sole custody of O.E. She also recommended the court declare the other children dependents and remove them from their parents’ custody. She further recommended that mother be denied reunification services, and father Jai.U. be granted services. She recommended that D.O. remain in father E.O.’s care and that E.O. be granted family maintenance services. The amended petition was filed on April 13, 2021.

The social worker reported that D.O. shared with her that neither he nor his brother J.U. liked to talk about their home circumstances because mother threatened them to not speak to anyone or they would be taken away. He shared that mother would block the door of the dark room she locked them in by placing a chest or other heavy objects on the other side of the door. D.O. said he was disclosing this information out of fear he would be returned to mother’s care. He then said he did not like to speak about this subject because it gave him nightmares afterward. He said the last time he spoke about the trauma he had a nightmare in which mother tried to suffocate him.

The social worker further reported that on January 20, 2021, D.O., J.U., and P.U., had their mental health needs assessed, and they met the criteria to receive mental health services. D.O. and J.U. were now receiving weekly therapy services, and P.U.’s services were pending.

The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 13, 2021. Mother denied the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the petition, or “at least review all of the allegations independently.” She testified on her own behalf. The court also heard testimony from the doctor who conducted mother’s psychological evaluation. The court continued the hearing.

The continued hearing was held on May 19, 2021. The court went through mother’s extensive dependency history, noting that she had “decades of assistance” through services provided, yet “none of it sunk in.” The court stated it was not going to find the cruelty allegations true, since it did not think her conduct met the legal standard. However, it noted her “decades of treatment of her children did cause serious emotional damage under (c)(1).” The court sustained the amended petition, finding true the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), and it struck the allegations under subdivision (i). The court declared the children dependents, removed them from mother’s custody, and denied her services. It also removed custody of J.U., P.U., and M.U. from Jai.U. and ordered services for him. The court granted sole custody of O.E. to his father E.M., and sole custody of D.O. to his father E.O.; thus, the court terminated their dependencies.

DISCUSSION

The Court Properly Took Jurisdiction of the Children

Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional finding that the children came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (c). We conclude that the court properly took jurisdiction of the children.

A. Mother Has Not Challenged the Jurisdictional Findings Under Section 300, Subdivision (b)

We initially note that “[w]hen a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds 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.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 (Alexis E.).) In other words, “ ‘the juvenile court’s jurisdiction may rest on a single ground.’ ” (In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 83 (Christopher C.).)

Mother concedes she is not challenging the court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b). Thus, it is undisputed that the court properly took jurisdiction of the children on the ground that they came within section 300, subdivision (b). (Christopher C., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 83.) Respondent asserts that even if we concluded the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding under section 300, subdivision (c), the court would still retain jurisdiction on the basis of the unchallenged findings; as such, we cannot grant mother any effective relief. However, mother contends we should exercise our discretion to consider her appeal because the section 300, subdivision (c) finding “could be prejudicial to [her] or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings . . . [or] ‘could have other consequences for [her], beyond jurisdiction.’ ” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) We note that she does not identify or suggest any specific potential impact or consequence. (See In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1494-1495.) Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we affirm the court’s jurisdictional findings based upon the court’s true finding as to the allegations against mother under section 300, subdivision (b). Nonetheless, assuming the finding could potentially impact future proceedings, we will address the merits of mother’s claim.

B. Standard of Review

“In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jurisdictional finding, the issue is whether there is [substantial] evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the finding.” (Alexis E., supra¸ 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 450.) “ ‘In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.’ ” (In re A.J. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103 (A.J.).)

C. There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support the Court’s Finding

Section 300, subdivision (c), provides the juvenile court may adjudge a child a dependent when the child is suffering, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious emotional damage “evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care.” (§ 300, subd. (c).)

Mother argues there was no evidence the children displayed severe emotional health damage. We disagree. D.O. did experience emotional damage, as demonstrated by his feelings toward mother and his resulting actions. He adamantly refused to return to her house and stated that he was very angry and hated her. He said he was so angry with her that he would take his anger out at school by attempting to hit and scratch his teachers. He also said he would bang his head against the wall and pick his skin at the thought of having to return to mother’s care. D.O.’s serious emotional damage was further evidenced by the nightmares he experienced after talking about how mother treated him. He told the social worker the last time he spoke about the trauma, he had a nightmare in which mother tried to suffocate him. D.O. also said that he and M.U. had nightmares when mother would lock them in the room. (See A.J., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104 [anxiety and emotional damages demonstrated by child’s nightmares].) J.U. similarly reported that when mother locked the children in a dark room, he would get scared because they heard noises around the house, and he also had nightmares.

Furthermore, “[s]ection 300[, subdivision] (c) extends both to a child who is suffering serious emotional damage, and a child who is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage.” (A.J., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104.) The evidence firmly established the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage from mother’s abusive conduct. She disciplined them by locking them in a dark room and leaving them there for hours at a time, until they cried themselves to sleep, or she allowed them out of the room. She constantly yelled at the children, cursed at them, and told them they were pathetic, retarded, annoying, and stupid. Mother would leave them alone to take care of themselves and would have D.O., at age 12, be in charge of cooking for the other children, supervise them, and discipline them. She would tell them that she did not want to be around them, that she never wanted to see them again, and she threatened to abandon them several times.

We note that D.O., J.U., and P.U., had their mental health needs assessed, and they met the criteria to receive mental health services. D.O. and J.U. were receiving weekly therapy services, and P.U.’s services were pending.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude the evidence supported the court’s finding that the children came within section 300, subdivision (c).[3] Mother’s conduct of constantly yelling at them, isolating them in a locked, dark room, calling them derogatory names, making disparaging remarks about not wanting to be around them, and threatening to abandon them, caused D.O., J.U., and M.U. to suffer emotional damage. It also placed all the children at substantial risk of further, serious emotional damage.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER

J.

[1] All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

[2] The three fathers are not parties to this appeal.

[3] We acknowledge mother’s assertion that the court based its decision to find the section 300, subdivision (c) allegation true, in part on her “decades” of treatment of her children. She claims the court made the section 300, subdivision (c) finding in order to “punish” her. The court did note that her “decades of treatment of her children did cause serious emotional damage under (c)(1).” However, nothing in the record supports the claim that the court was trying to punish mother by its true finding.