Filed 4/7/22 In re E.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

R.C., mother of the minor, appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court removing the minor from mother’s custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j).[1] The challenged orders rest on a finding that the minor’s two infant half siblings had suffered physical abuse while in the care of mother and her husband, and that the minor was therefore at substantial risk of suffering serious harm in mother’s care. (§§ 300, 360, 395.) Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction and removal. She further claims the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded father sole legal and physical custody, dismissed the dependency petition as to the minor, and ordered that mother’s visitation with the minor be supervised. Finding merit in mother’s claims, we reverse the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order and remand with directions to dismiss the petition as to the minor.

BACKGROUND

The minor, eight years old at the time this action commenced, was diagnosed with high functioning autism spectrum disorder. He had a cyst on his brain that was monitored by a doctor once a year. He also had asthma and allergies. Mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had a history of anxiety.

The minor, his mother and stepfather D.B. (stepfather), and the minor’s three half siblings, E.G. and twins El.B. and Ev.B. (the twins), came to the attention of the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) when infant El.B. was brought to urgent care and X-rays revealed three rib fractures. The parents denied any accidental or nonaccidental trauma to El.B. They were directed to immediately transport El.B. to the emergency department and the matter was referred for an investigation to determine whether any physical abuse had occurred.

Subsequent skeletal surveys revealed that El.B. had additional fractures. Child abuse expert Dr. Casey Brown identified a total of six rib fractures that were all the same age and had not yet begun to heal. Dr. Brown opined that the fractures were consistent with a “ ‘classic squeeze injury,’ ” which “could not have happened as a result of a fall, being sat on, or at the hands of the older siblings due to the strength needed to inflict the injury.” She further opined that the skeletal surveys did not support the existence of a genetic imperfection. A second child abuse expert, Dr. Michelle Evans, confirmed Dr. Brown’s diagnosis and agreed with her conclusion that the fractures were consistent with a squeeze injury. It later was determined that Ev.B. also had “healing fractures,” which in Dr. Evans’s opinion were the same age as those found in El.B., were not caused by abnormal bone health or a genetic condition, and instead were caused by nonaccidental trauma.

Infant El.B. was released from the hospital and placed in the care of the paternal grandparents. However, because it was later determined that the paternal grandparents also had access to the twins and could have inflicted the injuries, the twins and the minor were placed in the care of the maternal grandmother. Half sibling E.G. was placed with her biological father.

The Department filed dependency petitions on behalf of the minor and the twins.[2] With respect to the petition as to the minor, it was alleged, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j), that the minor was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to the fact that the twins suffered numerous nonaccidental injuries while in the care of mother and the minor’s stepfather.

At the initial detention hearing, counsel for the minor’s father, N.A. (father), requested that the minor be released to the care of father, noting there were no concerns regarding father’s criminal history, he and mother had a good coparenting relationship, and the minor spent a good deal of time with, and was comfortable with, his father. The court ordered the minor detained, continued his out-of-home placement, and continued the hearing to allow the Department to assess father for placement. The court also ordered the twins detained.

At the continued detention hearing, the Department requested that the court release the minor to the care and custody of father and dismiss the petition as to the minor. Minor’s counsel joined in the request, adding that the minor had lived with his father in the past and, aside from not wanting to leave his current school, had no concerns about living with father. Mother’s counsel informed the court of mother’s concern that the minor had a cyst in his brain and was being treated by a neurosurgeon and father did not have insurance. Mother also was concerned that the minor, who was autistic and had an individual education plan (IEP), would need to transition gradually if he were to be moved to a different school. Father’s counsel confirmed that the minor had medical insurance coverage under Medi-Cal and that father would ensure the minor was covered. Counsel noted that if the court were to dismiss the petition as to the minor, father would need to immediately file for a custody order, as there was no existing order and the parents were simply acting under an informal coparenting agreement. The court ordered the minor released to the physical custody of father but declined to dismiss the petition.

According to the jurisdiction/disposition report, mother and stepfather denied any physical abuse of El.B., and further denied any knowledge as to the cause of El.B.’s injuries. Mother and stepfather provided a statement attesting that they neither purposely nor accidentally harmed the twins.

Mother disagreed with the allegation that El.B.’s injuries were consistent with physical abuse and a squeeze injury and claimed the injuries could have been the result of the twins’ difficult birth, a severe case of Marfan syndrome, or some other cause to be determined by genetic testing. She also argued the child abuse experts only reviewed El.B.’s X-rays and never actually examined her.

Stepfather told hospital staff that he “ ‘may have been slightly rushed or rough when moving [El.B.], but no real injuries,’ ” and he and mother occasionally co-slept with the twins, and he was unsure “if something happened in their sleep.” Mother and stepfather both agreed, however, that they did not have a reasonable explanation for the child’s injuries.

Dr. David Browne, the attending physician who first evaluated the twins, confirmed that El.B.’s injuries were “a classic set of fractures in the ribs consistent with a squeezing injury” and “appeared to be from a single incident that appeared to have happened the day [El.B.] was brought into the Emergency Room or up to a week before.” X-rays and skeletal surveys completed on February 1, 2020, revealed El.B. had six acute rib fractures that were zero to seven days old, meaning the injuries could not have been caused at the time of birth. El.B.’s neurology screening and labs were normal. The twins’ genetic testing revealed nothing to suggest the injuries were genetically related and doctors ruled out all of the other potential causes suggested by mother, stepfather, and the paternal grandparents. Dr. Evans concluded that the minor could not have been the cause of the twins’ squeeze injuries because the amount of strength necessary to inflict such an injury could only have come from an adult, not an eight-year-old child.

Dr. Susan Gootnick, the physician who reviewed the twins’ medical records and imaging on behalf of the parents, concluded the twins’ injuries were “ ‘older ununited fractures’ ” most likely caused by metabolic bone disease most commonly found in neonatal rickets. Dr. Gootnick also concluded there was inadequate calcification/vitamin D in the twins and that it was possible the injuries were caused during the twins’ difficult birth.

Dr. Evans reviewed Dr. Gootnick’s assessment and disagreed, noting the twins’ vitamin D levels were normal when their labs were taken, and they had normal bone density. Dr. Evans stated that if the twins had normalized within the month following their births, the fractures would not have been shown to be acute on the skeletal surveys and would instead have shown calcification and healing. Dr. Evans stated further that the twins’ X-rays and skeletal surveys were reviewed by a pediatric radiologist, Dr. Arvind Sonik, who knew how to assess for rickets. Dr. Sonik also disagreed with Dr. Gootnick’s assessment. Regarding Dr. Gootnick’s concerns about metabolic bone disease, Dr. Evans reported the twins’ lab results showed normal bone density levels and there were no concerns about bone mineralization. In a subsequent report, after consulting again with Dr. Sonik, as well as a pediatric endocrinologist, Dr. Evans confirmed her earlier disagreement with the assessment completed by Dr. Gootnick.

The minor had been placed with father since February 18, 2020, and all of his needs reportedly were being met. He had high functioning autism spectrum disorder, hyperactivity, speech articulation issues, asthma, and a cyst on his brain that was monitored yearly. His half sibling E.G. had a language disorder, sensory issues, and a complicated medical history. Both children received early intervention services in and out of the home and continued to receive those services through the school district. The minor was not meeting grade level standards for English/language arts and was limited in meeting standards in physical education. He tended to “flip his body around and make noises” during class and put his hands on and hit other kids with his jacket, but “not in a mean way.” According to the minor’s IEP, the “primary area of need” was help with speech and language impairment, which qualified him for special education services.

The minor reported he had a good relationship with his mother and stepfather. He wanted to live with both his father and mother and wanted to have visits with mother while he lived with father. Father reported he was happy to have the minor in his care and was willing to comply with all court orders and case plan services. Father also confirmed that if the court dismissed the petition as to the minor, father would file for physical custody of the minor. Father applied for Medi-Cal and obtained medical insurance for the minor. Father requested, and the Department recommended, continued placement of the minor with father, the nonoffending, noncustodial parent. Father also requested full physical custody of the minor.

In July 2020, Dr. Christopher Fischer, mother’s psychiatrist, confirmed mother’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and a history of postpartum anxiety. Mother had a history of significant side effects from her medications and significant mood fluctuations. Dr. Fischer reported mother had a lapse of treatment in 2019 and failed to disclose her pregnancy until she was 33 weeks pregnant. During that period, mother was not taking her medication and not receiving assistance from Dr. Fischer in tapering off the medication.

In October 2020, Dr. Evans reviewed documents authored by mother’s expert, Dr. Marvin Miller, who concluded El.B.’s injuries were most likely related to metabolic bone disease of infancy due to increased fetal bone loading, maternal nutritional challenge during pregnancy, and elevated vitamin D levels. After reviewing the information, Dr. Evans reported her assessment remained unchanged, concluding Dr. Miller’s findings “were not supported by our current understanding on bone health in infants.”

A. Contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing

The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing commenced on October 19, 2020.

1. Dr. Gootnick

Mother’s first witness, Dr. Gootnick, testified that the injuries suffered by the twins were likely caused during their traumatic birth, possibly due to low levels of vitamin D and calcium. Dr. Gootnick further testified that the cause of the twins’ fractures was metabolic bone disease or rickets and was present at the time of birth. The doctor testified the injuries could have been caused by any genetic condition, but she had no information that either of the twins actually had a genetic disease and neither twin had any of the symptoms one would expect to see with osteogenesis imperfecta.

2. Paternal and maternal grandmothers

The paternal grandmother and maternal grandmother both testified they spent time with mother and stepfather and the newborn twins and never observed any concerning behavior by the parents.

3. Stepfather

The stepfather testified he was present for the birth of the twins. Ev.B. had bruises on his chest, side, stomach, and head immediately after his birth. The doctors did not seem worried about the bruises, which went away with time. The stepfather also testified it appeared the doctors had trouble pulling the twins out during the cesarean section, although the doctors did not say they were having difficulty and no one called in a trauma team. Stepfather helped a lot with the twins following the birth, particularly during the two to three weeks following delivery when mother was still recovering. He admitted he might have been a little too rough with them and he felt guilty that he might have injured El.B. without realizing it. Stepfather explained that mother’s bipolar symptoms included depression, causing her energy levels to be low, and it was difficult for her to complete tasks. He testified mother’s manic behaviors caused her energy levels to be “through the roof” and made it difficult to stop her from cleaning or moving around. He claimed anger was never one of mother’s symptoms.

4. Dr. Evans

Dr. Evans testified rib fractures are not common in infants due in part to the fact that an infant’s rib cage is considered to be more pliable than an older child or an adult, so “a bit more force” is required to cause a fracture in an infant. Rib fractures in infants are generally caused by motor vehicle accidents, squeezing of the chest on the rib cage, CPR, and other types of high impact trauma. Rib fractures are generally not seen with metabolic bone diseases or any medical condition that causes increased bone fragility, but if rib fractures are seen with those conditions, it is less common to see posterior rib fractures, which are very specific to child abuse, given the mechanism. Dr. Evans noted it was not common to see bruising in conjunction with the posterior rib fractures, thus requiring a skeletal survey to investigate suspected physical abuse.

Dr. Evans reviewed several sets of X-rays for El.B. and saw six acute posterior rib fractures with no callus formation and no lateral or anterior fractures. She testified that when one sees a fracture line with no callus formation, that is an indication that the fracture is acute or new (i.e., within zero to seven days old).

Dr. Evans reviewed the twins’ medical records and ordered tests to look for other causes that would make the twins more susceptible to fractures, but saw no history of accidental trauma and neither twin had any evidence of metabolic bone disease, osteogenesis imperfecta, or any other genetic condition that would make their bones more susceptible to fracture. Nothing about El.B.’s birth records or her cesarean birth concerned Dr. Evans, including the fact that El.B. was breech for two days prior to delivery. Based on her review of all of the documents, reports, and X-rays, and her conversations with other medical experts, including the pediatric endocrinologist and the pediatric radiologist, Dr. Evans concluded the twins’ injuries were most likely caused by nonaccidental anterior posterior compression of the chest wall. After reading the assessments by Drs. Gootnick and Miller, Dr. Evans re-reviewed El.B.’s medical records and consulted again with her team of experts and did not change her opinion. Dr. Evans consulted with another child abuse pediatrician, Dr. Trisha Tayama, and explored whether Dr. Tayama felt the rationales of Drs. Gootnick and Miller were valid. Dr. Evans disagreed with both doctors on several topics and felt Dr. Miller’s theories were not widely adopted in the medical community.

Dr. Evans testified her goal was to rule out child abuse, if possible. She was unable to do so with El.B. She was able, however, to rule out vitamin D deficiency, rickets, metabolic bone disease, osteogenesis imperfecta, and genetic conditions as the cause of El.B.’s rib fractures. Dr. Evans opined that El.B.’s fractures were not likely to have occurred from co-sleeping with mother and stepfather or from one of the parents standing up too quickly while holding El.B. The fact that the parents heard popping and clicking sounds when El.B. was breathing close to the date El.B. was evaluated in the emergency department supported the conclusion that the injury was acute and was not suffered during birth but was suffered later, closer to February 1, 2020.

Dr. Evans testified that with respect to Ev.B., there were no radiographic reappearing fractures on February 1, 2020, but “healing fractures” were present on February 27, 2020, meaning those fractures were likely suffered between approximately one week before February 1, 2020, and one week before February 27, 2020. Ev.B underwent the same tests as El.B. and the results were the same: Dr. Evans was able to rule out vitamin D deficiency, rickets, metabolic bone disease, osteogenesis imperfecta, and genetic conditions as the cause but was unable to rule out nonaccidental child abuse. Dr. Evans also confirmed that El.B.’s fractures could not have been caused by a child but could have been caused by an adult, nor could they have been caused by doctors pulling the baby out of the mother’s womb.

5. Mother

Mother testified she stopped taking her medications during pregnancy because her obstetrician informed her those medications were “incompatible with pregnancy” and also because she was so nauseous she could not keep anything down. She admitted she did not immediately inform her psychiatrist about stopping her medication and did not taper down. She had the “baby blues” and cried several times. She began taking her medication again two weeks after the twins were born. Following her cesarean section, and because she had a “very bad cold,” mother needed help from stepfather and the paternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother and the maternal aunt also helped.

Mother further testified she and stepfather were always together and stepfather was never alone with the twins during the first month. She testified that stepfather tended to be “quick” with the twins; “he would pick them up out of, like, the swing, it started their Moro reflex.” Mother told stepfather, “[H]ey, you got to slow it down. You’re waking them up.” She stated, however, that stepfather was “still quick.” Mother was not concerned that stepfather was hurting the twins. Mother noted there was never a significant issue with or change in the demeanor of either of the twins and they did not cry a lot.

6. Social worker Nicole Pierre

Social worker Nicole Pierre testified that as a result of her psychosocial investigation to determine whether the allegations of child abuse were true, she had concerns about possible child abuse due to mother’s diagnoses of bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and postpartum anxiety, and an admitted lapse in mother’s mental health treatment. She also had concerns regarding stepfather’s significant life changes in a short period of time and the fact that he was mother’s caregiver following the birth of the twins. Pierre recommended the court sustain the petition based on evidence from the medical experts as well as the psychosocial factors.

7. Court findings and orders

After hearing argument from counsel, the court found Dr. Evans’s testimony and opinions to be “more credible than the other medical evidence that [she had] received” and gave it greater weight. Finding the allegations were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court sustained the petitions and found the minor was a child described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j). Father’s counsel requested that the court dismiss the petition as to the minor and give father sole legal and physical custody. When the court inquired as to whether mother and stepfather were amenable to the proposed resolution, mother’s counsel stated mother was “not ready to make decisions right at this moment.” The court continued the matter to further discuss father’s request, as well as visitation and case plan services.

The Department filed an addendum report recommending the court order the minor to be placed under father’s sole legal and physical custody, terminate dependency jurisdiction over the minor, and order limited supervised visitation for mother.

In a subsequent addendum report, the Department made a new recommendation that the court bypass services to mother and stepfather based on the parents’ continued inability to provide a reasonable explanation for the twins’ injuries and their continued denial of any awareness as to how the minors could have sustained the injuries while in their care. The Department noted that while the parents had completed multiple parenting education classes, they had not engaged in individual counseling to specifically address physical abuse, family stressors, mother’s history of mental health issues, or any other specific details of the dependency case. The Department reported that despite the minor and the twins having been detained since February 2020, and the court having sustained the petitions, the parents “appear to lack insight into familial stressors, the seriousness of the mother’s mental health, and have not provided the Department with the names or releases of information for the Department to verify any counseling or therapy directly addressing the mother’s mental health symptoms and medication management, how to protect children from physical abuse and what factors/circumstances led to the children’s injuries.” The Department recommended the court set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

B. Continued disposition hearing

At the continued disposition hearing on February 16, 2021, the minor’s counsel informed the court that the minor enjoyed living with his father in his current home, but also enjoyed visiting with his mother and his siblings. The court ordered the minor removed from mother and placed in father’s sole legal and physical custody and terminated reunification services as to mother. The court further terminated the dependency as to the minor and ordered monthly supervised visits for mother.

Mother timely appealed the court’s December 8, 2020 jurisdictional order and its February 16, 2021 dispositional order.

DISCUSSION

I

Jurisdiction

Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional findings as to the minor on any of the alleged grounds. We agree.

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 170.) “ ‘If there is any substantial evidence to support the [jurisdictional] findings of the juvenile court, a reviewing court must uphold the trial court’s findings. All reasonable inferences must be in support of the findings and the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 168.) “ssues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” ([i]In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.]” (In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.) If supported by substantial evidence, the judgment or finding must be upheld, even though substantial evidence also may exist that would support a contrary judgment and the juvenile court might have reached a different conclusion had it determined the facts and weighed credibility differently. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)

The Department has the burden to prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a); In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1318.) We review the jurisdictional finding for substantial evidence, reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court. (In re I.J., supra, at p. 773.) Mother has the burden of proving the evidence was insufficient to sustain the juvenile court’s findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)

A reviewing court may affirm a jurisdictional ruling if the evidence supports any of the grounds concerning the child. (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875; In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) Thus, dependency jurisdiction is appropriate where substantial evidence supports at least one jurisdictional finding, even if there are other findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. (In re Ashley B. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979.)

Section 300 provides that a child is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged a dependent child of the court when the child “has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm” inflicted nonaccidentally by the parent. (§ 300, subd. (a).) Subdivision (b) provides for jurisdiction when the child “has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness” due to the parent’s failure to supervise or protect the child, provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or provide regular care for the child “due to the parent’s . . . mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.” (§ 300, subd. (b).) A juvenile court also may assert jurisdiction when “the 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).)

Here, the petition alleged, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j), that the minor was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to the fact that the one-month-old El.B. suffered numerous nonaccidental injuries while in the care of mother and the minor’s stepfather. The juvenile court found true the allegations of physical abuse of the twins and asserted dependency jurisdiction over the minor based on those findings. However, the Department presented no evidence to support the claim that the minor would be at risk of harm if he remained in the care of mother and stepfather.

As a preliminary matter, the ages of the children are relevant to the analysis. The twins were just one to two months old when they suffered fractured ribs due to squeeze injuries inflicted by mother and stepfather. The minor, on the other hand, was eight years old and no evidence was presented that he was at risk of that same type of injury. As for other types of injury, “ ‘[c]ertainly, it is possible to identify many possible harms that could come to pass. But without more evidence than was presented in this case, such harms are merely speculative.’ ” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 769, italics omitted.)

Repeating the same argument for all three of the allegations, the Department argues the minor was fragile due to his diagnoses of autism, connective tissue disorder, articulation issues, hyperactivity, duplicate 15q syndrome, a cyst on his brain, and asthma. Due to these fragilities, the Department argues, the minor needed special education services, monitoring of the brain cyst by a doctor once a year, and medication to control the allergies, making him “particularly vulnerable” compared to a similarly situated child without such diagnoses. While those needs were certainly not trivial, the Department failed to provide evidence they made the minor particularly vulnerable or placed the minor at any undue risk of harm or illness.

The Department also argues, without any citation to the record, that the minor required a “high” amount of attention, care, supervision, and patience. Even assuming the minor’s diagnoses necessitated a higher degree of attention and care, the record makes plain that the minor, who was eight years older than the newborn twins, was high functioning. He enjoyed school and was participating in an IEP to address his behavioral issues in school and help him perform at grade level. He was able to, and did communicate, what he wanted and needed and whether he was subject to any malfeasance. He felt safe and protected while at mother’s home and he was now under the watchful eye of his father, who had already been sharing custody with mother pursuant to an informal coparenting agreement and was interested in full custody. The minor had not exhibited any signs of, nor had he complained about, any misconduct by the parents that would support a finding of risk.

Finally, the Department argues that the finding of substantial risk was supported by the parents’ lack of remorse or a plausible explanation for how the twins’ injuries occurred and mother’s inconsistent mental health treatment. While a parent’s unwillingness to take responsibility for actions causing harm to a child can be relevant to the issue of whether that child or a sibling might be at risk of future harm by the parent, it was not sufficient here to support the allegation that the minor was at substantial risk of serious physical harm for the reasons set forth above. The argument that mother’s mental health issues provided support for a finding of risk is similarly unavailing, particularly in light of the fact that mother was participating in services, again taking her medication, and receiving mental health counseling. Regular oversight by a therapist and a psychiatrist provided safeguards against concerns related to mother’s mental health before detention, such as stopping her medication without tapering down, failing to inform her therapist about the change, and mood swings.

Given the lack of evidence to support jurisdiction as to the minor, we must reverse the jurisdictional findings and vacate all subsequent findings and orders based on the petition at issue here as to the minor. In light of our reversal of the jurisdictional order, we need not address mother’s other claims regarding removal, custody, and visitation.

DISPOSITION

The December 8, 2020 order of the juvenile court asserting jurisdiction over the minor based on the February 10, 2020 section 300 petition is reversed. The juvenile court is directed to dismiss the February 10, 2020 section 300 petition filed on behalf of the minor and vacate all subsequent orders stemming therefrom.

KRAUSE , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

RENNER , J.

[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[2] Because mother’s claims relate solely to the minor, the twins will only be mentioned when relevant to the issues on appeal.