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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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



In re A.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067156

(Super.Ct.Nos. J266513 &
J266514)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.
Monica Vogelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court found A.T. and C.T., who are the daughters of M.T. (Father), came within the court’s jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (c).) Father contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Father also asserts the juvenile court erred by finding reasonable efforts were made to prevent A.T.’s and C.T.’s removal. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
A.T. and C.T. are twins. They are female and were born in February 2005. S.T. (Mother) and Father were married. In December 2014, Father grabbed Mother by the neck and threatened to beat her. Father eventually let go of Mother and she called 911. Mother filed for divorce in April 2015. Mother was granted a five-year restraining order against Father in October 2015. Mother had sole legal and physical custody of A.T. and C.T. (collectively, the children) due to the domestic violence.
Father was permitted to visit the children twice per week for 90 minutes and alternating Saturdays for eight hours. Initially, Father’s visits with the children were sporadic. When Father learned Mother’s boyfriend (Boyfriend) moved into Mother’s home, Father visited the children regularly.
B. DETENTION
On June 1, 2016, Father spoke to a San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) social worker. Father expressed concern about Mother’s care of the children, such as Mother’s house being dirty; however, Father admitted he had not seen the house since he and Mother separated. Father also alleged Boyfriend was a drug addict. Father said he knew Boyfriend was a drug addict because “he was in a band.”
The Department social worker spoke with Mother and the children. C.T. said she did not want to see Father, but attended visits with him because A.T. wanted to see him. The children had no concerns about how Mother cared for them. Mother’s and Father’s divorce was finalized in June 2016.
On July 13, Father again spoke to the Department social worker. Father alleged Mother was physically abusing the children and Boyfriend was showing the children child pornography. Mother denied the allegations. Mother stated “[F]ather has mental health issues but other than OCD she does not know what his diagnosis is. She state[d] she knows that [F]ather has a history of being on medication but she doesn’t know when or for what.” Mother said Father is “delusional and paranoid.”
According to Mother, (1) Father tried to have Mother and Boyfriend fired from their jobs; (2) Father told the children “that in a couple of years [B]oyfriend is going to rape them”; (3) Father instructed the children to call Boyfriend a child molester; (4) Father’s Facebook page reflected he viewed sexual videos and websites, one of which included photographs of twins; and (5) Father showed the children an online video “of people having their pants pulled down and water thrown on them.” Mother felt that Father was emotionally abusing the children.
Mother explained that C.T. no longer wanted to visit Father; A.T. did want to visit Father, but Father only wanted to see her if she answered questions about her home life with Mother. A.T. felt that if she did not tell Father “what he wants to know” about Mother, then Father would stop visiting her. Father has four adult children with whom he has no relationship “due to his mental health and erratic behavior.” C.T. enjoys visiting her adult siblings, who only “came around after [Father] left.”
The social worker again spoke to C.T., who denied being abused in Mother’s home. C.T. said she enjoyed living in Mother’s home. C.T. did not like visiting Father because Father “says bad things” about Mother and Boyfriend. Father told C.T. more than once that Boyfriend was going to rape C.T. Father also said “[M]other is bad and calls her fat and ugly. He also tells her that [Boyfriend] is a child molester. [C.T.] state[d] that [Father] did the same things to his grown children. . . . She state[d] that [Father] lies about things and tries to get [M]other in trouble.”
The social worker also spoke to A.T. A.T. denied being abused in Mother’s home. A.T. said Father told her several times “to be careful of [Boyfriend] because [Boyfriend] could rape her.” A.T. said Father “says ‘rude things about everyone,’ such as Mother being “fat and ugly” and Boyfriend being “a child molester.” A.T. said Father “force[d] me to tell him what was going on at my mom’s house.” A.T. predicted Father would likely “lie about everything” when he spoke with the social worker.
The Department concluded Father had “significant untreated mental health issues that are escalating.” The Department decided to detain the children from Father. When the Department social worker spoke to Father to inform him of the detention, he admitted telling the children that Boyfriend would rape them. Father explained “that [Father] is no ordinary man as he has 6 college degrees.”
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from Father, but granted one hour supervised visits twice per week. The children continued to live in Mother’s home.
C. JURISDICTION
Mother took the children to individual and group counseling. The children appeared more relaxed and not as easily angered after the detention hearing. Father sent a text message to the children on August 5, but otherwise did not communicate with them. The children stated “they do want to have time with [F]ather but not if he is going to say mean things.” Mother wanted the children to have a healthy relationship with Father. The Department recommended a family law custody order be issued granting custody to Mother, with two-hour supervised visits for Father on the second and fourth Saturdays of the month, and that the dependency be dismissed.
The juvenile court ordered Mother and Father to participate in mediation. An agreement was not reached in mediation. In the Department’s petition, it alleged (1) Father suffered from untreated mental health issues, which affected his ability to adequately parent the children (§ 300, subd. (b)); and (2) Father suffered from untreated mental health issues, which caused Father to harass the children by telling them they would be raped and forcing them to divulge information about Mother, which in turn caused the children anxiety. (§ 300, subd. (c).)
A jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on October 3. Father’s attorney conceded Father’s behavior was “erratic, inappropriate, and lack[ed] boundaries,” but asserted his behavior did “not rise to the level of untreated mental health issues.” Father’s attorney argued there was no evidence of a mental health diagnosis. Father’s attorney asserted the failure to protect allegation (§ 300, subd. (b)) should be amended to include the domestic violence allegations because “there’s no denying that conduct,” while the evidence of the mental health diagnosis was minimal.
The childrens’ attorney asserted Mother’s statements that Father suffered from OCD, had taken medication in the past, and acted paranoid and delusional were evidence of untreated mental health issues. The children’s counsel asserted Father was emotionally abusive, because he repeatedly told the children they would be raped and that Boyfriend was a child molester. The children’s counsel noted the children were more relaxed after the court became involved.
The Department suggested the court could strike the mental health language in the emotional abuse allegation. (§ 300, subd. (c).) The Department agreed with Father’s counsel that there was sufficient evidence for a domestic violence allegation in the failure to protect accusation. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The Department suggested the juvenile court amend the petition according to proof. The juvenile court took a recess to discuss modifying the language in the petition. The court and counsel discussed the modifications off the record, in chambers.
The court found true the amended allegations: (1) “[T]he father has engaged in inappropriate interaction and erratic behavior with the family which places the children at substantial risk of harm” (§ 300, subd. (b)); (2) “There is domestic violence between the parents which has resulted in a restraining order, which places the children at substantial risk of harm” (§ 300, subd. (b)); and (3) “The father . . . has engaged in inappropriate interaction and erratic behavior with the family which places the children at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage” (§ 300, subd. (c)).
The juvenile court entered a family law order giving Mother legal and physical custody of the children, and giving Father supervised visitation for four hours on the second and fourth Saturdays of the month. The supervised visitation was based upon the emotional abuse finding (§ 300, subd. (c)). The juvenile court dismissed the petition and terminated its jurisdiction over the case.
DISCUSSION
A. JURISDICTION
1. CONTENTION
Father contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings.
2. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In applying the substantial evidence standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment. We do not resolve issues of credibility and we do not reweigh the evidence. We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment in determining whether there is sufficient evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the juvenile court’s findings. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
3. EMOTIONAL DAMAGE
In regard to the emotional abuse finding, Father contends there is not substantial evidence that the children were at risk of suffering serious emotional damage.
A child comes within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction when the child “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.” (§ 300, subd. (c).)
On June 27, the children argued with one another about visiting Father—C.T. was upset that A.T. gave Father information about Mother. After the detention hearing, at which Father’s visits were switched to supervised visits, the children were “more relaxed and not as quick to anger.” The children said they were “relieved that things have calmed down.” The foregoing is substantial evidence that the children were experiencing anxiety and aggression as a result of Father’s behavior because the children were arguing, quick to anger, and found things to be stressful prior to the detention hearing.
Additionally, Father has four adult children with whom he has no relationship due to his erratic behavior. C.T. did not like visiting Father. The children did “not like talking about the situation” involving Father. The foregoing evidence reflects withdrawal on the part of the children—not wanting to talk about the issues and not wanting to visit. When combined with the evidence of Father’s adult children not having a relationship with him, there is substantial evidence reflecting withdrawal is the manner in which Father’s children cope with Father’s behavior.
Given the evidence of withdrawal, aggression, and anxiety there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as a result of Father’s conduct.
4. PHYSICAL HARM OR ILLNESS
Father contends the juvenile court’s findings that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness (§ 300, subd. (b)) is not supported by substantial evidence.
“When 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.)
We have concluded, ante, that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdiction due to the children being at risk of suffering serious emotional damage. (§ 300, subd. (c).) As a result, we do not address Father’s contention concerning the juvenile court’s other jurisdictional findings because we can offer Father no effective relief by addressing those issues. (See In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60 [issue is moot when no effective relief can be offered].)
B. DISPOSITION
Father contends the juvenile court erred by finding reasonable efforts were made to prevent the children’s removal from his custody.
Section 361, subdivision (c), provides, “A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents or guardian or guardians with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances . . .: (1) There is or would be a substantial danger to the . . . emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home . . . .” Next, section 361, subdivision (d), provides, “The court shall make a determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the need for removal of the minor from his or her home.”
In 2015, the family law court granted sole legal and physical custody of the children to Mother. Father was permitted to visit the children twice per week for 90 minutes and on alternating Saturdays for eight hours. Section 361, subdivision (c) applies to the parent “with whom the child resides.” The children did not reside with Father, so the subdivision does not apply.
Similarly, section 361, subdivision (d) applies when the child is removed from his/her home. The children were not removed from their home—they continued to reside solely with Mother, as they had prior to the juvenile court’s ruling. Thus, section 361, subdivision (d) does not apply because the children were not removed from their home.
Section 361, subdivisions (c) and (d) are not applicable in this case because Father did not have legal or physical custody of the children. Therefore, we do not examine whether the juvenile court erred by finding reasonable efforts were made to prevent the children’s removal from Father. An examination of whether the finding is supported by substantial evidence could not provide Father with effective relief due to the subdivisions being inapplicable. (See In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 60 [issue is moot when no effective relief can be offered].)
C. DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE
In the Department’s Respondent’s Brief, it asserts: (1) Father’s notice of appeal failed to identify the findings and orders he intended to appeal and therefore Father’s appeal should be dismissed; (2) Father waived his right to appeal the jurisdictional findings because his juvenile court counsel agreed to the wording of the modified allegations and made no objections to the modified allegations; and (3) Father cannot argue the case is better suited to family court than juvenile court because Father has unclean hands due to Father initiating the juvenile court case by contacting the Department.
We have addressed the jurisdictional and dispositional issues raised by Father and will affirm the judgment. Because the judgment will be affirmed, we do not address the issues raised in the Department’s Respondent’s Brief. (See In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 60 [issue is moot when no effective relief can be offered].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


FIELDS
J.