Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. K.L. (In re K.L.), E070302

In re K.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent; v. K.L., Defendant and Appellant.

E070302

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

March 21, 2019

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super.Ct.No. RIJ1800027)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed.

Brent D. Riggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The juvenile court declared Ka. L. (child) a dependent and removed custody from K.L. (mother). The intervention occurred after instances where mother treated the child roughly, left the child unattended in a car seat on the living room floor of her mother's (maternal grandmother) house for approximately an hour. Mother seemed to have no idea how or when to feed or change or comfort the child, violently assaulted the maternal grandmother, and mother snatched the child away from her sister (maternal aunt) so roughly that the child's head snapped backwards. At the jurisdiction hearing, mother's counsel voiced mother's objection to jurisdiction, but did not object to the social worker's reports, on which the parties submitted and submitted on recommendations for the disposition.

On appeal, mother challenges the judgment because (a) the juvenile court failed to admonish the mother of her trial rights or elicit a waiver of those rights prior to mother's submission on the social worker's reports at the jurisdiction hearing; (b) there is insufficient evidence to support the alleged grounds for jurisdiction against mother; and (c) there was insufficient evidence that there was a substantial risk of harm to the child in mother's custody to warrant removal at the disposition hearing.¹ We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On January 9, 2018, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) received a referral after the maternal grandmother of the child, less than one month old, who was assaulted by mother, after grandmother attempted to correct mother's rough manner of suctioning the child's nostrils. When maternal aunt picked up the child, who was crying after the rough placement by mother, to comfort the child, mother grabbed the child away from maternal aunt with sufficient force to cause the child's head to snap backwards. Mother then left the home.

The maternal grandmother reported there had been multiple incidents involving mother. The previous day, mother had taken the child with her as she ran errands in the rain. Upon returning to the grandmother's home, mother left the child unattended covered in wet blankets on the living room floor, and went outside to talk for an extended period of time with a man in his car.

A social worker responded to the referral, spoke with mother on January 10, 2018, and suggested the child be examined by a doctor. Mother admitted that she struck the maternal grandmother but denied throwing the child on the couch, although she did not recall that moment. Mother also admitted she abruptly grabbed the child out of maternal aunt's arms, causing the child's head to jerk back, and mother also acknowledged her irresponsible behavior on the previous day, leaving the child covered in wet blankets while she conversed with a friend in his car for approximately 40 minutes.

The medical examination of the child was unremarkable except that a CT scan showed evidence of calcified cephalohematoma, a calcified blood clot occurring as a birth injury (https://radiopaedia.org/articles/cephalohaematoma, as of Mar. 19, 2019), and irritation from a band-aid placed over the spot where the child was administered a vitamin K shot shortly after birth. The social worker observed that mother did not pay attention to the child, ignoring the cries and had to be prompted to feed the child. When mother breast fed the baby in the waiting area of the hospital she disrobed from the waist up making no attempt to cover herself causing discomfort for the social worker and other patients in the waiting area.

In talking with the social worker, mother was unable to state what kind of feeding, diaper changing, or sleeping schedule she followed with the child and demonstrated she did not know how to burp the child. Mother also acknowledged she had not bathed the child since birth, or even given the child a sponge bath, indicating she had been instructed not to bathe the child for two weeks by the hospital when the child was born. Mother also revealed she only wiped down spit up or cleaned the child's genitals during a diaper change. When asked why she had not bathed the child after he reached two weeks of age, mother indicated she did not have money for supplies. Mother stayed with the child, who was kept in the hospital overnight for tests, but she exhibited a lack of bonding with the child and seemed unconcerned for the child's discomfort as multiple attempts were required to draw blood; she did not attempt to soothe the child. The child was taken into protective custody on January 11, 2018.

Additional investigation revealed mother did not know who the father of the child was, although she suspected it was one of two men. Mother had a history of methamphetamine use, which she stopped using when she learned she was pregnant, but she had experimented with other drugs and alcohol, as well. Mother had a criminal history for prostitution for which she needed to "book and release" at jail due to a violation of probation relating to a conviction for prostitution and she had worked as a stripper at a topless nightclub prior to giving birth. She was currently unemployed and had no other source of income. She also had a history of mental illness, including two hospitalizations when she was a teenager.

DPSS filed a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code,² section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). As amended, the allegations against mother related to her failure to supervise, protect, or provide necessaries for the child, her mental health issues, transient lifestyle, criminal history, and the incident of domestic violence involving the maternal grandmother. The allegations under section 300, subdivision (g), related to the inability to identify or locate the father of the baby.³

On March 9, 2018, the court conducted the adjudicatory hearing to establish jurisdiction. Mother's counsel did not object to the admission into evidence of the socialworker's reports and offered no affirmative evidence on mother's behalf, although counsel requested that mother's denials continue. Regarding disposition, mother's counsel informed the court that mother submitted on DPSS's recommendation. The court made true findings as to all the allegations and sustained the petition, finding the child comes within section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g).⁴ The court removed physical custody of the child from mother and ordered reunification services. Mother timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

1. The Trial Court's Failure to Obtain a Written or Verbal Waiver of Mother's Trial Rights Was Not Reversible Error.

Mother argues that her due process rights were violated at the jurisdiction hearing because trial counsel informed the court there was no objection to the admission of the social worker's reports in evidence and no affirmative evidence to present on behalf of mother. Mother also argues that the juvenile court erred in failing to advise her of her hearing rights and failed to elicit a waiver of rights before making its jurisdictional findings. While we agree the court should have admonished mother of her rights and obtained a written waiver thereof from mother, the social worker's reports wereadmissible whether or not counsel objected and they supported the court's findings so the omissions did not result in prejudice.

California Rules of Court, rule 5.534(g),⁵ provides that the court must advise the child, parent, and guardian in section 300 cases of the following rights: (A) The right against self-incrimination; (B) the right to confront and cross-examine the persons who prepared reports or documents submitted to the court; (C) the right to use the process of the court to bring in witnesses; and (D) the right to present evidence to the court.

"If a parent denies the allegations in a section 300 petition, the juvenile court must hold a contested hearing on them." (In re S.N. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 665, 671; rule 5.684(a).) To this end, at the commencement of the jurisdiction hearing, rule 5.682(a), provides that after giving the advisement required by rule 5.534, the court must advise the parent or guardian of the right to a hearing by the court on the issues raised by the petition, and the right to have the child returned to the parent or guardian within two working days if the court finds the child does not come within the court's jurisdiction.

In addition, the court is required to "inquire whether the parent or guardian intends to admit or deny the allegations of the petition. If the parent or guardian neither admits nor denies the allegations, the court must state on the record that the parent or guardian does not admit the allegations. If the parent or guardian wishes to admit the allegations, the court must first find and state on the record that it is satisfied that the parent orguardian understands the nature of the allegations and the direct consequences of the admission, and understands and waives the rights in (a) and (e)(3)." (Rule 5.682(b).)

Rule 5.682(d), provides that a parent...