Filed 5/31/17 In re R.G.-B CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


In re R.G.-B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150086

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. Nos. JD-026913-01,
JD-026914-01, JD-026915-01)


INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from the juvenile court ruling allowing the mother, M.B. (Mother), only supervised visitation after a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was found true and the minors were declared dependents and placed out of the home. The mother appeals only the visitation order. We affirm the order.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On June 30, 2016, minors R.G.-B. (age 5), E.G.-B. (age 3) and G.P.-B. (age 1) were placed in protective custody by the Oakland Police Department. Law enforcement determined Mother was not able to provide proper care for the children after the minors witnessed the physical abuse of their half sibling L.A. (age 3) by Mother and their stepfather, G.P. Additionally, the home where the minors lived was deemed “filthy,” in that there was limited food available and much of the food was stale or too old to eat. The home had a distinctive urine smell, and garbage and dirty clothes were found throughout the residence. L.A. was the subject of physical abuse, including an intracranial injury, cerebral hemorrhage, symmetric bruising on both arms, a bruise inside the ear, acute rib fracture, substantial bruising of the hip, blood in the rectum, and trauma to the lower torso. The Agency filed its petition under section 300 on July 5, 2016.
Mother denied allegations of physical abuse towards the three minors in this case, as well as L.A. She represented that on June 29, 2016, L.A. fell down the stairs and Mother took her to the hospital. She admitted the home was messy and unkempt, but this situation was the result of a remodeling in the home. Regarding L.A.’s fall, Mother stated that on June 29, she was home with the children. She went to the bathroom and when she returned to the area where the minors were located, she noticed L.A. had pushed her toy stroller outside the front door and slipped down the stairs. The other bruises observed on L.A. were caused by prior falls and slow healing.
G.P. lived with Mother. He acknowledged the home was messy when the authorities came, but stated the condition was caused by repair work being done. He did affirm he had a substance abuse problem but had been “clean” for the past three years. He also stated he and Mother “collect” recycling, which they keep in bags, and people “come in and out” of the home for the “recycling.” Father also indicated L.A. is a concern after she fell from her bunk bed.
On June 30, 2016, R.G.-B. was questioned by the staff at Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination Center (CALICO). The minor stated he sleeps on the top bunk and that L.A. sleeps on the lower bunk. The minor did not see L.A. fall down the stairs. He also indicated L.A. occasionally sleepwalks, falls, and vomits in the home. He recalled L.A. had fallen from his mom’s bed and passed out. At the time of this fall, Mother was in the kitchen speaking with a man about getting “ice.” R.G.-B. stated his mom and “uncle” sell “ice” night and day, with the cash from the sales placed in boxes in the home. The minor described “ice” as small and white in little bags kept in the garage. On at least one instance, “robbers” came to the home looking for the white powder. He has seen physical abuse toward L.A., as well as assault between his mother and father.
On the same day, E.G.-B. was also interviewed. While she said she was 5, in fact, she was 3. She stated three separate times during the interview that Mother hit L.A. with her foot to the child’s head. She also saw Mother hit L.A. in the stomach and chest.
The Agency on this day also spoke with Dr. Crawford at Children’s Hospital in Alameda County. He stated that L.A.’s intracranial injury and cerebral hemorrhage were not consistent with a child falling. Instead, the hemorrhage was more consistent with the extreme shaking of the child. The symmetric bruises on L.A.’s arms were like fingerprints where the child had been lifted and held. The doctor said the bruise inside L.A.’s ear was uncommon and a point of concern. Her recent rib fracture was consistent with being punched, kicked, or knelt on by a heavier person. The bruising he saw on the child’s hip was also not compatible with falling. Finally, Dr. Crawford stated that additional injuries he had diagnosed, which included a broken pelvis ball socket, bleeding in the rectal area, and bleeding around the brain, were not caused by slipping down the stairs or falling off a bed.
On July 1, 2016, the Agency completed its review of the conditions at the home. While Mother claimed the conditions were the result of home remodeling, the report indicated the house was filthy, smelled, and presented hazardous conditions. There was garbage piled throughout the home. Dirty clothes were lying on the floor in various places. The door to a bathroom had a hole in it, as if it had been kicked in. Finally, there was very little food in the refrigerator; what was there was too old to eat. Flies were observed around the food in the open areas of the home.
On July 5, 2016, the Agency filed its petition under section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j).
Mother and a minor, R.G.-B., were the subjects of a previous case, which was open from January 13, 2014, to March 31, 2014. Its current status is informal family maintenance. The origin of the matter was a report that R.G.-B. was found walking the streets of Oakland at the age of two wearing no clothes, with a blanket covering his body. When the police contacted Mother after they found the child, she stated she left R.G.-B. home with his grandfather, but that caretaker had to leave to go for dialysis treatment. Hence the child was unattended. Mother indicated this had happened in the past, but viewed this as not a serious problem for the minor. The Agency closed the case when it was reported Mother went to Mexico with the children. The Agency was not aware she had returned to California.
On July 6, 2016, the court detained all the minors.
According to its statutory obligations, the Agency prepared a jurisdiction report for the hearing set for July 20, 2016. The report requested the minors be declared dependents and that the court grant a continuance of 30 days for the disposition of the matter. On July 7, 2016, Mother was arrested and charged with child corporal punishment, a felony violation of Penal Code section 273d, subdivision (a). As a result of the arrest, a protective order was issued.
L.A. was interviewed by the staff at CALICO on July 7, 2016. The child indicated she got her injuries from a fall, but then indicated she had injuries from Mother kicking her. Mother eventually admitted hitting the minors in this case, as well as L.A., but only on the bottom with her hand. She denied she caused the bruising observed by the staff at Children’s Hospital. She also denied she and G.P. engaged in domestic violence. Any injuries to L.A. were possibly caused by the maternal grandparents when L.A. visited them.
G.P. advised representatives of the Agency he had seen Mother discipline R.G. B. and E.G.-B., but not L.A. When L.A. first came to live with him and Mother, she was timid and “malnourished.” Since he works Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., G.P. leaves the children with Mother. He acknowledged that L.A. had fallen from the top bunk in the home a few weeks earlier, but she seemed okay at the time and went back to bed. She did have a bruise on her left leg and shoulder. G.P. indicated that the day Mother took L.A. to the hospital, she called him around 11:00 a.m., asking him to come to the hospital. Mother told him L.A. had fallen outside the home and hit her head on the concrete.
The biological father of R.G.-B. and E.G.-B., R.G., spoke with staff of the Agency on July 15, 2016. R.G. lived in Michoacán, Mexico, in July 2016 when the dependency court became involved in this matter. He indicated these two minors go between Mexico and the United States regularly. They had been in Mexico as recently as May 2016. The children were afraid to return to Mother in the United States because she “hits them . . . all the time.” This parent noticed the bruising on the two minors’ bodies and asked Mother about his concerns; she advised it was “none of his business.” Mother also told R.G. the children are hers and “she can do what she wants.”
The minors are performing well in detention and the Mother has had regular supervised visits with the minors.
On September 14, 2016, the Agency asked for visits between Mother and minors on a supervised basis. Minors’ attorney preferred therapeutic visits. Minors’ attorney was concerned about Mother’s telephone remarks during her contacts with the minors. After the hearing, the court granted supervised visits for two hours a week. The first visit was to be supervised by the Agency; subsequent visits were to be supervised by the foster parents. In a report filed for the December 13, 2016 hearing, the Agency reported Mother had 12 visits with the minors, all supervised. The minors enjoyed being with Mother during the encounters.
On December 13, 2016, the dependency court admitted the Agency’s reports. The matter was submitted. The court found the amended petition true and declared the minors dependents of the court. The court further found that reasonable services had been offered, and placed the minors out of the home. Minors’ counsel asked the court to continue visitation on a supervised basis with either an Agency or a Gathering Place representative present. The court approved supervised visitation. When the attorney for Mother objected to supervised visitation, the court told counsel Mother could seek modification of the visitation order at a later time.
DISCUSSION
The sole issue raised by this appeal is Mother’s challenge of the supervised visitation order. She contends supervised visitation will hinder the reunification efforts. Unfortunately for Mother, we have limited review of the order by the trial court. Our standard is whether the court below, apparently fully aware of the important issues of the case, abused its discretion. (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356.) If the order does not appear arbitrary or capricious, we will appropriately sustain it, despite Mother’s partisan challenge. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) As appellate counsel well knows, we do not reweigh the evidence in the record and will sustain the trial court unless the order exceeds the bounds of reason. (Id. at pp. 318–319.)
Any visitation order must focus on the interests of the minors before the court. In this regard, the court has the discretion to determine not only the right of visitation but also the frequency, along with any conditions on visitation based on the particular facts of the case. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) The interests of the parent, here Mother, do not trump the focus of visitation—the interest of the children. Indeed, “the power to decide whether any visitation occurs belongs to the court alone.” (In re S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 317 (italics in original). “The juvenile court has the sole power to determine whether visitation will occur and may not delegate its power to grant or deny visitation to [the Agency].” (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008–1009.)
In challenging the visitation order here, Mother contends the visits since the initiation of dependency jurisdiction have gone very well. However, the behavior of Mother and the minors under the watchful eye of third party supervisors is not the only feature of this case. Instead, the record reflects a most sordid treatment of the minors when they were under the lone supervision of Mother and the Agency was not involved in the parenting process. The minors reported Mother had engaged in physical abuse of their half sibling L.A. They also reported observing domestic abuse between Mother and stepfather in the home. When the minors’ biological father asked Mother about trauma he observed when the children were with him, she told him to “mind his own business.” The report by Dr. Crawford flatly contradicts Mother on the origin of L.A.’s injuries when she was in Mother’s unsupervised care; the injuries also suggest this was not a one-time incident of abuse. Also, the physical environment in which the minors lived before the court was involved was most offensive. A trial court would be derelict if it directed unsupervised visitation based on this record because the minors and Mother got along during supervised visits.
Additionally, the court indicated it would consider modification of the visitation order at a later time. Such willingness by the court is an acknowledgment the visitation order could be modified if Mother shows progress in her parenting skills. Simply stated, the visitation order challenged in this appeal reflects the best interests of the minors before the court. What Mother prefers is not, on this record, in the minors’ best interests.
DISPOSITION
Since we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the order granting supervised visitation.


_________________________
Dondero, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P. J.


_________________________
Banke, J.




























A150086 In re R.G.-B. et al.