Filed 4/18/17 In re C.M. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE


In re C.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
S.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.




A148772

(Mendocino County Super. Ct.
Nos. SCUKJVSQ1617462,
SCUKJVSQ1617463)


MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 1, 2015, Mendocino County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of then-three-year-old C.T., alleging that medical professionals had determined she had vaginal injuries and herpes as a result of molestation by her father, R.T. (Father), and her paternal grandmother. The petition further alleged that C.T.’s mother, S.M. (Mother), and Father had an extensive child welfare history. The following month, another petition was filed alleging that C.T.’s half-brother, then-eight-year-old C.M., was at substantial risk of harm as a sibling, and that his biological father was in prison and unable to provide or arrange for his care.
The detention report set forth the parents’ extensive child welfare history consisting of 41 entries for allegations including physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, general neglect, and domestic violence. Mother had four other children, one of whom was placed with his father, and three of whom were placed in permanent homes after Mother’s parental rights to the children were terminated. Her criminal history included arrests for drug related offenses, child cruelty, and Vehicle Code violations. Father’s criminal history included arrests for drug related offenses, domestic violence charges, burglary, forgery, battery with serious bodily injury, attempted murder, vandalism, criminal threats, and Vehicle Code violations. The juvenile court placed the children with Mother and ordered the parents not to remove the children from the county.
Shortly thereafter, Mother ceased communication with the Department and left the county with the children, resulting in the issuance of a protective custody warrant. C.T. recanted her allegations regarding sexual abuse, and medical tests were inconclusive for herpes. An amended petition was filed reflecting the new developments. The Department located the children in Illinois and had them escorted back to Del Norte County, where they were detained from their parents.
At a contested jurisdictional hearing, A.B., who is Mother’s cousin, testified that she had regular visits with the children because she used to be their legal guardian. When the children arrived for a weekend visit in September 2015, A.B. noticed a “really bad odor” coming from C.T.’s vaginal area. She gave C.T. a bath and discovered she had a “really bad rash.” She also found C.T. “fingering herself.” A.B. immediately notified Mother of her concerns and asked if she could take C.T. to the doctor. Mother told A.B. “no. And she said she knew about it, that she . . . thought [C.T.] was getting a [urinary tract infection]. But she was waiting to take her to the doctor.” Mother also told A.B. not to tell anyone about the issue. A.B. reminded Mother of her concerns when she returned the children to Mother on Sunday night.
Mother testified that she called the doctor the next day, Monday, but was not able to get an appointment until Thursday of that week. She did not take C.T. to urgent care because she thought Medi-Cal would not cover the cost. On the Wednesday before the appointment, C.T. was urinating herself, which was unusual. Mother asked C.T. what was wrong, and C.T. said, “Mommy, don’t tell. . . . Grandma cut my pee-pee with a knife.” Mother called Child Protective Services (CPS) right away. The treating doctor who saw C.T. told Mother that there was some tearing, and possible sexual abuse. A licensed vocational nurse testified that based on C.T.’s condition, she would likely have advised that C.T. seek urgent medical attention.
The investigating social worker testified that she interviewed C.T. over the course of two days and received what he believed were consistent and credible statements as to sexual abuse. C.T. said she had an “owie on her pee-pee” and that Grandma had “cut her with a knife.” C.T. said that Father was also in the room and that “Daddy picked her up and saved her and then killed grandma.” The doctor who saw C.T. told the social worker that C.T. has herpes and that the injury to the perineal area was not likely to have been caused by self-scratching because of its position. Later, C.T. said she “did a lie before” when she said “Grandma cut my peep.” C.T. gave no further details or disclosures of sexual abuse.
The juvenile court appointed a registered nurse to review the medical report. The nurse’s report stated, “We cannot determine that this erythema is from [C.T.] scratching the area, tightly fitting undergarments, or tightly fitting pants and neither can we eliminate any of those possibilities.” “Are the injuries and/or conditions described in the medical records such that they would ordinarily be caused by unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions? Based on the limited information contained within the report, no. There are plausible reasons for each of the statements made by the examining provider. There are also conditions present that note that, although the child is not in the best of health (nutritionally, self care teaching, and hygiene), these could be from lack of parenting skills rather than any abuse or neglect.”
Mother testified regarding her abusive relationship with Father and said she continued to be fearful of him even though their relationship ended in 2012. She said she consented to A.B.’s legal guardianship from 2012 to 2014 because of Father’s violence, the harm it caused the children, and CPS’s domestic violence investigation that was pending at the time. Mother said she fled for Illinois in order to protect herself and her children from Father’s violence. She testified she was in a new relationship; she had not asked her new boyfriend whether he had a criminal record, and had never asked any of her past significant others that question.
The juvenile court dismissed the sexual abuse allegations but found the remaining allegations to be true. The court found that the medical concerns with respect to C.T.’s vaginal area were the product of neglect, stating it was significant that someone else had to bring the issue to Mother’s attention. The court also noted the history of domestic violence between the parents, their criminal history, and Mother’s extensive drug history. The court declared the children to remain dependents and ordered them returned to Mother’s custody with family maintenance services. The court ordered Mother not to remove the children from the county without permission.
In or around March 2016, the Department authorized Mother to travel to Mendocino County; she eventually moved into her mother’s home and the case was transferred to Mendocino County Superior Court. Mother filed a notice of appeal in Mendocino County Superior Court challenging the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of Del Norte County Superior Court.
Mother contends there was no substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile court proceeding, we must “indulge in all legitimate and to uphold the verdict.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, we do not substitute our deductions for those of the trial court. (Ibid.) The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate that there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial character to support the findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), describes a child who has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child, or to provide the child with regular care, due to the parent’s substance abuse. Mother asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that C.T.’s vaginal injuries were the result neglect. We disagree. When A.B. took C.T. into her care for a weekend visit, she immediately noticed a “really bad odor” coming from C.T.’s vaginal area, and discovered she had a “really bad rash.” Mother told A.B. she “knew about it” but had not taken C.T. to see the doctor. Mother then refused to allow A.B. to take C.T. to the doctor, told A.B. not to tell anyone about the issue, and failed to take C.T. to urgent care even after was C.T. was returned to her. A licensed vocational nurse testified she would have likely recommended that C.T. seek urgent medical attention. The juvenile court found it significant that A.B. had to bring the issue to Mother’s attention for Mother to take action. Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably find the injuries were the product of neglect.
Mother asserts there was insufficient evidence of a “current risk” to the children. As the juvenile court noted, however, Mother’s child welfare history was extensive, as was her criminal history. The Department’s reports documented a long and recent history supporting jurisdiction, including 22 referrals between 2012 and 2014 with allegations of physical abuse and general neglect of the children as well as domestic violence. A.B. had legal guardianship of the children between 2012 and 2014, in part due to parents’ domestic violence, and Mother’s parental rights to three of her children had been terminated. Mother also testified regarding her abusive relationship with Father and her fear of him, which continued after their relationship ended, and caused her to flee the county during the current proceedings. Mother also admitted she had not asked her new boyfriend whether he had a criminal history.
Although the juvenile court must find the circumstances existing at the time of the hearing subject the child to a statutorily defined risk of harm, evidence of past conduct is probative of current conditions and the risk of future harm. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823; In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133 [“A parent’s past conduct is a good predictor of future behavior”].) Further, a court “need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child.” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216). In light of Mother’s ignorance of C.T.’s vaginal injury, the negligent manner in which she handled the issue, the recent domestic violence between the parents, her fear of Father and its impact on her decision to flee the county against court orders, and her chronic criminal and child welfare history, there was substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding of a current risk of harm.
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
 

_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Siggins, J.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.














A148772