Filed 4/6/22 In re T.S. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

D.S. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction over his three children. Father argues there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the children were suffering serious emotional damage or were at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (c). We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Father and mother[2] are the parents of 11-year-old T.S., eight-year-old C.S., and seven-year-old M.S. Because the facts relevant to father’s arguments include extensive involvement by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), incidents of disparagement by both father and mother, and statements by the children that changed over time, we summarize the record in some detail.

A. Prior court proceedings and DCFS involvement

The parents divorced in 2019. During the marriage, the parents were involved in a domestic violence altercation, during which father pushed mother to the ground and injured her. Father pleaded guilty to criminal battery and received probation. Mother obtained a restraining order that is set to expire in April 2022.

The family court awarded mother sole legal and physical custody of the children and granted father weekly visitation. The parents primarily communicated through an application that keeps a record of parents’ communications,[3] and exchanged the children at the Sheriff’s station.

After the divorce, DCFS received numerous referrals regarding the children, alleging sexual and physical abuse and general neglect by parents. In March 2020, DCFS received a referral that mother became angry at T.S. and yanked her arm, which left a thumb print bruise, and then killed T.S.’s pet lizard. It was further alleged that mother had crashed three cars due to texting and driving and that the domestic violence incident that resulted in a restraining order was the result of mother falling and hurting herself after she tried to punch father. DCFS concluded that the allegations of physical abuse and general neglect by mother were unfounded.

In June 2020, DCFS received a referral, alleging that: the children were living with mother in a recreational vehicle without a functional bathroom or refrigerator; the children were without food and water; father gave children bottled water, but mother drank it all and left none for them; T.S. and C.S. had been diagnosed with urinary tract infections; T.S. had been diagnosed with a yeast infection; mother killed T.S.’s pet lizard; the recreational vehicle was infested with flies and rats; the children were not participating in online schooling and mother does not help them with their homework because she is always on her phone and does not engage the children; the children call mother by her first name and are not bonded with her; and mother had been in six car accidents in as many months. DCFS concluded the allegations were inconclusive.

In October 2020, DCFS received a referral, alleging that mother hit T.S.’s face with her hand while wearing a ring, which left a cut above T.S.’s eyebrow; mother yanked T.S. by her arm and pulled her off the bed; T.S. tried to run away to father’s home; mother was using drugs by smoking a glass pipe; and T.S. was asking to take the children away from mother and give them to father. DCFS found the allegations inconclusive.

B. DCFS referral leading to the current action

In February 2021, DCFS received a referral with several different allegations. Although the allegations involved numerous accusations against mother, one of the allegations was “[g]eneral [n]eglect to [the children] by their parents.” The referral alleged that the children were sleeping on a mattress on the floor and that the mattress had dog urine and feces on it; mother slept naked while menstruating, leaving stains on the mattress and couch; mother would walk around the home naked; mother slept naked with T.S. and would wrap her leg around T.S. while rubbing on her; mother showed T.S. a video of a woman waxing her vagina and then mother proceeded to wax T.S.’s vagina; T.S. had told her therapist that she felt like taking a knife and killing herself; and mother told the children that, if the kids were taken away from her, she would kill herself.

DCFS concluded that these allegations against mother were unfounded or inconclusive. DCFS found, however, that allegations of general neglect by father were substantiated.

C. Section 300 petition and DCFS report

On March 15, 2021, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children, alleging that, under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm based on the parents’ ongoing custody dispute, which included father making accusations that mother was abusing and neglecting the children, father subjecting the children to unnecessary interviews with the police and DCFS, father questioning the children about mother’s conduct, and father telling the children that mother did not make good decisions (count b-1).

In connection with its filing of the petition, DCFS provided a non-detain report. For its non-detain report, DCFS interviewed the family, mother’s landlord, police officers, and social workers who handled the prior referrals. The non-detain report contained the following facts. Police officers responded to a referral containing similar allegations to the referral made to DCFS. The officers spoke with mother and T.S., who each denied that mother walked or slept naked at home. They admitted that mother had an accident on the bed, but that she cleaned it up. They said that T.S. inquired with mother about removing her pubic hair and mother recommended that T.S. wax the hair off rather than shaving it off, which they did. The officers observed the recreational vehicle to be in working and sanitary condition. Mother told officers that father’s therapist was calling DCFS on father’s behalf.

DCFS interviewed mother’s landlord who lived on the property where the family’s recreational vehicle was parked. She said the police and DCFS responded to the home multiple times, but otherwise the children appeared happy. She was aware of the parents’ custody dispute, and she had confronted persons on her property who were sent by father to spy on mother.

DCFS interviewed mother. She acknowledged the bitter custody dispute with father and suspected him of making the child welfare referrals. She said father physically abused her during their marriage and that she had a restraining order against him. T.S. had expressed suicidal ideations as a result of a sibling conflict between T.S. and M.S. and that her statements had been reported to a therapist. Father took the children to his own therapist without mother’s consent during his visitation time. Mother believed the children needed a neutral therapist. She denied having suicidal ideations herself but said that she told maternal grandmother that father’s harassment was “killing her.”

T.S. told DCFS she was aware of her parents’ custody dispute and that it was stressful for mother. She heard mother say she would kill herself if the children were ever taken from her. Father constantly questioned the children about what was going on in mother’s home and asked T.S. about her private parts, which made her uncomfortable, but she felt compelled to answer him. T.S. got frequent urinary tract infections, which were getting better, but they were painful, and it was frustrating not knowing why she got them. Father added to this frustration by blaming mother for not taking T.S. to the doctor and failing to get medical questions answered. However, T.S. said mother is always on the phone with medical providers trying to get answers and that the family’s Medi-Cal insurance is slow with getting the appropriate referrals. When asked about her suicidal ideations, T.S. said she was upset that she was being dragged into her parents’ problems and just wants it to stop. She was also upset that her parents constantly ask about what was going on in each other’s homes. T.S. stated that she gets enough food to eat and can take warm showers whenever needed. She said she is happy living with mom and visiting her dad.

C.S. said mother is not a good parent because she does not wear pants to bed, does not make the children wear face masks, and because she helped T.S. wax her vagina. C.S. has heard father say that mother is not a good parent because she makes poor decisions. C.S. also believed that mother’s home was not a good home because father told her that the children should not live in a recreational vehicle. Further, father conveyed to C.S. that mother did not have a house because she was financially irresponsible. C.S. confirmed that father asks the children what they have done in mother’s care.

M.S. stated his parents ask the children about what occurs in each other’s homes. He appeared healthy and denied that mother walked around naked or that there were blood stains in the recreational vehicle.

DCFS interviewed father. He was concerned about what was happening to the children while they were in mother’s care based on the children’s statements. They told him that mother slept naked with T.S. and C.S., and that she wrapped her leg around and rubbed against T.S. He alleged that mother had a “history of molestation,” but did not elaborate further except his belief that mother was grinding against the children in bed. T.S. told him about mother’s statement that she would kill herself if the children were taken from her. Father believed T.S.’s suicidal ideations were related to a sibling dispute with M.S. and due to mother making T.S. “do everything” around mother’s home, including take care of M.S. He enrolled the children in family counseling with his therapist, who diagnosed the children with depression caused by their current living conditions with mother.[4]

DCFS interviewed social workers who investigated the prior referrals. They reported that the children appeared to be “coached” by father as to what to say. For example, T.S. said that father was always truthful and mother was always dishonest, and that it was mother’s fault that father went to jail because father was merely acting in self-defense. They also said that father had disparaged mother in front of the children, saying that she was unsafe and did illegal things.

At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found that DCFS had made a prima facie case that the children were described by section 300 and there were services available to prevent the children’s detention. It suspended counseling sessions with father’s therapist and required that any family counseling occur with a neutral therapist. It further ordered parents not to discuss the instant case with the children or disparage each other in the children’s presence. The juvenile court released the children to the parents and granted family maintenance services.

D. Jurisdiction and disposition report

On April 8, 2021, DCFS filed a jurisdiction and disposition report. For its jurisdiction and disposition report, DCFS interviewed mother, father, the children, maternal grandmother, father’s partner, and T.S.’s therapist.

Mother was concerned that father was subjecting the children to unnecessary interviews with DCFS, law enforcement and improper counseling with father’s therapist. Mother believed T.S.’s behavioral issues and suicidal ideations were partially related to the parents’ custody dispute and frequent contacts with law enforcement. Mother reported that T.S. became upset when mother disciplined her, calling her “stupid” and telling her that father and the other children would call her “horse face” and laugh together while at father’s home. Mother admitted that she had felt hopeless about the situation with father in the family court and had been using marijuana to cope with her stress. However, she was relieved that the juvenile court intervened.

Father denied any history of domestic violence and denied questioning the children about their time spent in mother’s care. He also denied that he made disparaging remarks about mother in the children’s presence or that he made welfare referrals to police or DCFS. Father said the children volunteered information about what was going on in mother’s home, and he responded out of concern for their wellbeing. He was concerned T.S. ran away from mother’s home and threatened to stab herself; he put T.S. in therapy to address the root of the problem. Father said he could “care less about [mother]” but was concerned about the “wellbeing of the children overall.”

T.S. said parents had a “terrible” relationship and are always fighting. She contradicted prior statements to DCFS. For example, T.S. stated she wanted to live with father because mother’s home did not have hot water. She also said they did not have enough food and that the children were responsible for their own meals while with mother. Further, she denied that father questioned her about time spent in mother’s care. She added that mother tells the children what to tell DCFS and that mother passes out after using a vape pen. She said that father does not say mean things about mother, but everyone calls mother “horse face” while at father’s home. She also said that father tells the children to tell the truth to DCFS.

C.S. said her parents’ relationship is “torture” because the children do not see their dad enough. Father asks the children, “how is your mom being? What’s she doing?” Contrary to her prior statements, C.S. stated that father does not say anything negative about mother. When asked whether father accused mother of doing bad things, she stated, “I don’t really know. I don’t know who is telling the truth or not because everyone has . . . different stories.” Like T.S., C.S. stated that mother tells the children what to say to DCFS while father says to tell the truth. Regarding the domestic violence incident, C.S. said that father was a “good guy” and that mother “tried to hit [father] and he didn’t want to get hit so he blocked himself and because he is so strong, it accidentally pushed her and she fell [to] the ground” so she “sent [father] to jail.” C.S. wanted to live with father because mother made the children clean the recreational vehicle.

Like C.S., M.S. said that he wanted to live with father because mother made the children clean the recreational vehicle. He also denied that father excessively questioned his time with mother. Father did not yell at the children while mother would yell at them when the children told her what they did with father. M.S. said that father refers to mother as “horse face” and this makes M.S. sad “because [he] love[s] [his] mom.” However, M.S. said he loves his dad more because he and the other children get to be kids while with father whereas mother makes them clean. M.S. believed that mother told T.S. what to say to DCFS, but father says to tell the truth.

Maternal grandmother believed the parents’ conflict caused T.S. to run away and also led to frequent tantrums and defiant behavior with mother. T.S. told maternal grandmother that father would ask the children about what they did in mother’s care. She also told maternal grandmother that father said that the children do not need to listen to mother and that they should not call her “mommy” when they are at his house. She also believed that father made child welfare referrals to gain custody of the children by showing that mother was an unfit parent.

Father’s partner said that the children preferred to live with father. She denied that father excessively questioned the children about their time in mother’s care or that he made disparaging remarks about mother in their presence. She agreed with DCFS that the children might “be playing sides between the parents” due to the parents’ inability to effectively communicate. She also reported the children had been acting aggressively towards one another recently.

T.S.’s therapist reported that mother enrolled T.S. in therapy after she attempted to run away. She said that T.S. had not discussed custody issues but that the parents’ separation and living situation had negatively affected her. She was treating T.S. for defiance and depression as well as angry outbursts that were related to being punished for fighting with her siblings. She believed T.S.’s issues were age appropriate and consistent with where she is developmentally.

DCFS found that the parents are unable to co-parent effectively, and the children are beginning to use that to their advantage. Due to the parents’ lack of communication regarding the children’s disclosures, DCFS is continuously called to investigate allegations that were unfounded or inconclusive. While the parents have reported they are willing to cooperate with DCFS and want to co-parent, they have been unable to put aside their strained feelings for one another in order to do so. DCFS concluded that the current risk for future emotional abuse by the parents was moderate and that the juvenile court’s intervention was necessary as the family court had been unable to mediate the parents’ issues.

E. Amended petition

On April 15, 2021, DCFS filed an amended section 300 petition. In addition to the prior allegation under section (b) that the parents’ conduct endangered the children’s physical health, the petition added two counts under subdivision (c) concerning emotional health. The petition asserted that the parents’ conduct endangered the children by putting them at “substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, and aggressive behavior toward self.”

In general, the two new counts alleged that various aspects of the parents’ contentious relationship caused the children severe emotional damage or threatened them with severe emotional damage. The juvenile court ultimately sustained these two counts. As they are the subject of appeal, we quote them below in connection with the juvenile court’s ruling.

F. Jurisdiction and disposition hearing

The juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. A DCFS social worker, father, and T.S. testified.

The social worker testified that the moderate risk assessment set forth in the report was due to the parents’ domestic violence history and their co-parenting issues. She said that the parents were providing the children with appropriate mental health services, but DCFS remained concerned about parents’ inability to communicate and co-parent.

Father testified that he was concerned about the children’s living conditions with mother. He denied making disparaging remarks about mother to the children and tried to redirect the children if they spoke negatively about her. He denied making referrals to DCFS. He acknowledged that his relationship with mother was having a detrimental effect on the children.

T.S. testified that her parents’ dispute was pulling her in different directions. She admitted that she felt like hurting herself when her parents fought and when she fought with M.S. She fights with M.S., and they hurt each other. Mother told T.S. what to say to social workers while father says to tell the truth. Father, his partner, and the children had once made fun of mother by calling her “horse face” but had stopped doing so. Mother called father inappropriate names. Father complains to the children about their living conditions at mother’s home and tells them what he thinks mother should do. T.S. wished her parents would get along better and that her life would improve if mother lived in a house and she could see father more regularly.

G. The juvenile court’s ruling

The juvenile court dismissed count b-1, which alleged physical harm to the children. The juvenile court sustained counts c-1 and c-2.

Both of the counts sustained by the juvenile court asserted that the parents’ conduct endangered the children by putting them at “substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, and aggressive behavior toward self.” Count c-1 stated that mother and father “have engaged in an ongoing custody dispute, which includes the father making ongoing accusations that the mother is abusing and neglecting the children. The father subjected the children to unnecessary interviews with social workers and law enforcement officers, as a result of the father’s allegations of abuse to the children by the mother. The father questions the children during his visits with the children about mother’s conduct and tells the children that mother does not make good decisions. The father has told the children that mother’s home is not a good home for the children.”

Count c-2, the second count sustained by the juvenile court, states that the parents “emotionally abused the children due to the parents’ ongoing custody disputes. The parents make disparaging remarks about each other, inappropriately expose [the children to] legal/court/custody information with the children, are unable to effectively communicate with each other regarding the children, have a lack of consistent parenting, and involve the children in domestic violence. Due to the parents’ inability to co-parent, the children have developed symptoms of [a]djustment [d]isorder with [d]epression, [a]nxiety, and [d]efiance.”

In making its ruling, the juvenile court noted that it was concerned with the children’s mental health and the fighting within the home. “They are fighting because their parents fight.” It found that both parents are disparaging each other in front of the children and that the children were “playing both parents off each other. I think [T.S.] thinks her dad wants to hear bad things about mom. And I think [T.S.] believes that mom wants the same in regards to dad, being pulled from both sides.” The juvenile court found that father is feeding the children information about why they should live with him instead of mother and he has failed to recognize how he has contributed to the children’s behavior. The juvenile court also found that the children had been subjected to unnecessary interviews with police and DCFS due to father’s child welfare referrals.

At disposition, the juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court, maintained the prior custody orders, granted mother family maintenance services, and granted father enhancement services.

Father appealed.

DISCUSSION

Father challenges the jurisdictional findings. He argues that there was insufficient evidence that the children suffered serious emotional damage or the risk of serious emotional damage and that the case should proceed only in family court, not in the juvenile court.

I. Standard of review

We review jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.) Under this standard, we view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support its findings and orders. (Ibid.) We neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. (Ibid.)

II. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional finding that the parents’ conduct caused serious emotional harm and the risk of such harm.

Section 300, subdivision (c) authorizes dependency jurisdiction if the “child is suffering serious emotional damage, 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.” The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300 must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a).) DCFS must establish “(1) serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior or a substantial risk of severe emotional harm if jurisdiction is not assumed; (2) offending parental conduct; and (3) causation.” (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379.)

Father does not challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence of the second of these factors, the “offending parental conduct.” (In re Brison C., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1379.) There is ample evidence that the parents, including father, continuously disparaged the other parent to the children and that, in front of the children, father called mother names, made fun of her, and questioned her ability to parent. Father would consistently interrogate the children about mother, leading to repeated referrals to DCFS and the police about unfounded allegations.

Father argues, however, that there is no substantial evidence that this conduct caused serious emotional damage or a substantial risk of serious emotional damage. We do not agree.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the children suffered serious emotional harm. T.S. had expressed suicidal ideations connected to her parents’ constant fighting. T.S. stated that she felt like stabbing herself because she was being put in the middle of her parents’ problems. At the time of the jurisdiction hearing, T.S. was being treated for symptoms of depression and defiance while C.S. and M.S. had been referred to mental health services.[5] Moreover, several months before the jurisdiction hearing, father’s therapist stated she was treating the children for adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety. The children also exhibited aggressive behavior and fighting with each other as they imitated their parents. (See § 300, subd. (c) [including “untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others” by the children as ground for jurisdiction].) The children appear to seek attention from their parents by telling them negative things about the other parent’s home. Some of these statements, which resulted in serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse as well as neglect, resulted in repeated contact with DCFS and law enforcement. None of these symptoms or behaviors were improving at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.

These facts support the juvenile court’s finding of serious emotional harm. Moreover, the “juvenile court need not wait until a child is seriously injured to assume jurisdiction if there is evidence that the child is at risk of future harm from the parent’s negligent conduct.” (In re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 993.) This same evidence supports the finding that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage.

Father concedes that the custody issues negatively impacted the children but argues that nothing rose to the level of serious emotional damage to support a section 300, subdivision (c) finding. He asserts that T.S.’s statement of self-harm was isolated to a single instance, the thoughts stemmed from a sibling dispute, they were being addressed in therapy, and the therapist was not concerned. Father argues that the suicidal ideations were not connected to any conduct by the parents but because the children “had to live in a tiny trailer.” He also relies on the fact that the children did not receive a formal diagnosis for clinical depression.

We disagree with father’s self-serving interpretation of the facts. Father’s contention that T.S.’s depression was solely related to conflicts with her brother ignores the evidence where T.S. made statements that conflicted with this hypothesis. T.S. stated early in the investigation to the DCFS investigator that it was her parents’ constant conflicts that brought on her suicidal ideations. Only later did she contradict herself by saying that her suicidal ideations were related to a conflict with her brother. Similarly, in her live testimony at the hearing, T.S. first agreed that when she was in the middle of her parents fighting, she felt like hurting herself. She then testified that she wanted to hurt herself “mostly” because of her brother. The record supports the inference that the parents coached the children, as the children changed their stories throughout DCFS’s investigation. The juvenile court was able to weigh T.S.’s conflicting statements and appears to have credited those that affirmed that her suicidal ideations related to her parents’ conflict.

While father is correct that the record does not reflect a formal diagnosis for clinical depression, T.S.’s therapist stated that she was treating T.S. for symptoms of depression and defiance while father’s own therapist treated the children for adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety. Father’s assertion that T.S.’s suicidal thoughts were being addressed in therapy is also not persuasive because it was only after DCFS’s involvement that T.S. began to receive appropriate mental health treatment.

Father relies on In re Brison C., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, but that case is inapposite. Brison C. reversed a section 300, subdivision (c) finding that the child was suffering serious emotional damage caused by his parents’ ongoing and vicious custody battle between the parents. The appellate court found, although the minor was “caught in the crossfire of his parents’ frustration and anger with each other,” he was a “reasonably well-adjusted child who performed well at school and displayed no serious behavioral problems.” (Id. at p. 1376.) The minor merely sought to avoid visiting his father and had suicidal ideations if forced to visit or live with him. (Id. at p. 1377.) The court held that “[s]tanding alone, this circumstance is insufficient to support a finding that [the minor] is seriously emotionally damaged.” (Id. at p. 1376.) The court further concluded that the record did not support a finding that the minor was at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage because, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, both parents had “recognized the inappropriateness of their behavior and made good faith efforts to alleviate the problem.” (Ibid.)

We note that two courts have called into question Brison C.’s conclusion that the minor displayed no signs of serious emotional damage. (See, e.g., In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613, 624; In re A.J. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1105–1106.) Even apart from this question, Brison C. is distinguishable in two respects. First, minor had shown signs that his emotional health improved over time. (In re Brison C., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1377–1378.) Here, there was no evidence of improvement and T.S. continued to be treated for defiance and depression. Second, Brison C.’s conclusion that the minor was not at substantial risk of suffering emotional damage was supported by the fact that both parents recognized the inappropriateness of their past behavior, were motivated to change their behavior, and were willing to attend counseling and parenting classes. (Ibid.) That is not the case here. Although the parents reported to DCFS that they are willing to cooperate and expressed their desire to co-parent, they have been unable to do so as evidenced by the constant referrals, involvement with family court, and continued conflicts.

Father also relies on In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, in which the appellate court held that evidence that father had called mother “ ‘bitch,’ ” “ ‘[whore],’ ” and “ ‘prostitute’ ” was insufficient to sustain a section 300, subdivision (c) finding that the children were at risk of suffering severe emotional damage. (Id. at p. 717.) The court did not elaborate on its conclusion, merely agreeing with the juvenile court’s finding that such behavior was insufficient to sustain a section 300, subdivision (c) finding. Moreover, the evidence in the current case went beyond mere name calling. Father’s disparaging remarks about mother in the children’s presence directly undermined her ability to parent. The father told the children that mother was irresponsible, made poor choices, was a bad parent, and that the children should not live with her in a recreational vehicle. Each of these statements were repeated by the children to DCFS and eroded the children’s relationship with their mother.

Father cites several cases upholding a jurisdictional finding to show what types of emotional symptoms are indicative of serious emotional harm and to argue that the emotional damage here was insufficient. Father’s authority is not persuasive. As an initial matter, the mere existence of cases with more extreme facts do not demonstrate a lack of substantial evidence here. Moreover, these cases illustrate that a failure to co-parent and acrimony in a custody dispute can be proper grounds for the juvenile court to exercise jurisdiction when this conduct causes severe emotional harm.

For example, in In re A.J., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s finding that mother’s behaviors of falsely accusing father of child abuse, making disparaging remarks about father, and attempting to remove the minor from father’s custody in violation of court orders by lying to police were sufficient to sustain a section 300, subdivision (c) finding. The appellate court affirmed the subdivision (c) finding even though the minor never received a formal diagnosis of severe anxiety or depression. The appellate court found jurisdiction was supported by the parent’s unwillingness and inability to change her behavior. (Id. at p. 1106.)

In In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, the appellate court affirmed a subdivision (c) finding when parents coached their children to say that the other parent was sexually and physically abusing the children. The family had been referred to DCFS over 30 times and the children were accustomed to “blithely accusing family member of serious abuse without regard for the truth.” (Id. at p. 84.) The court found that the children were being “utilized as weapons in an ongoing familial fight” that the parents had “turned a blind eye” to the substantial risk of emotional damage to the children as a result of their conduct. (Id. at p. 85.) While the evidence of emotional damage in In re Christopher C. was particularly strong, the case demonstrates that repeated unfounded allegations of abuse can lead to serious emotional damage.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding of serious emotional harm here.

III. The juvenile court was not required to decline jurisdiction in favor of the family court

Father also argues that we should reverse because this case is fundamentally a custody battle and belongs in family court, not juvenile court. We reject father’s contention. We recognize that there is a public interest in leaving family law disputes in family courts and ensuring that the “juvenile courts must not become a battleground by which family law war is waged by other means.” (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 975.) However, in this case, the animosity, disparagement and misbehavior of the parents led to serious emotional damage to the children. Family court proceedings were unable to safeguard the children’s safety. In these circumstances, the juvenile court did not err by exercising its jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c).

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LIPNER, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

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

[2] Mother is not a party to this appeal

[3] The record contains over 200 pages of transcript from the application.

[4] Father’s therapist wrote a letter in conjunction with the family law proceeding that indicated she was treating the children for adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety.

[5] The record shows that C.S.’s and M.S.’s referrals were still at the intake stage.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.