Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. B.T. (In re A.T.)

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

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.T. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

F079529

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

March 24, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Stanislaus Super. Ct. Nos. 518128 & 518129)

OPINION

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, B.T.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Y.C.

Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

Y.C., mother, appeals the juvenile court's summary denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388¹ petition and termination of her parental rights over her children, A.T, and A.D.T. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by not holding a hearing on her section 388 petition and by declining to apply the beneficial-parent child relationship exception to terminating parental rights. B.T., father, joins in mother's arguments. We find no error and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2017, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (Agency) received a referral stating that mother had taken then-10-month-old A.D.T. to a clinic for an injury to his upper right arm. Mother said A.D.T. received the injury by "falling on his crib" on October 19, 2017. The x-rays revealed that A.D.T. had multiple fractures all over his body, including to his arm, leg, and rib cage. The injuries were in various stages of healing, and the fracture to his arm actually occurred about a week before when mother said it had occurred. A.D.T. also had a possible brain injury. Abuse was suspected.

Mother told a social worker investigating the referral that she is the primary caretaker of the children and does not leave the children with anyone else. Mother initially reported father had minimal contact with the children and no contact outside her presence. Mother then retracted her statement and said that when A.D.T. is crying or tired, father takes him into the bedroom while mother stays in the living room. Mother hears crying from the bedroom, but the crying stops. Mother said that father has never hit the children and then retracted her statement and said father bit A.D.T. for no apparent reason. Mother said this was an accident due to a bad dream father had. Mother also reported that father had bit her on the shoulder in the past due to a nightmare. Motherdenied that she or father used drugs.

Mother denied domestic violence, but the social worker reported that father was previously arrested on a domestic violence warrant where mother was the victim. The social worker noted mother appeared to have bruises on her body. Mother told the social worker father had to complete anger management courses for another domestic violence incident but repeatedly denied domestic violence, stating that all couples fight, and that father did not intend to hurt her.

When the social worker spoke with father, father initially reported he was at work when A.D.T. got injured and does not know how it happened. Father denied hitting the children. When father was shown x-rays of A.D.T.'s injuries, he stated, " 'I can't believe it got this bad.' " Father then admitted to ongoing abuse of A.D.T., and that the injury to A.D.T.'s right arm was caused by father "yanking him off his crib" while A.D.T. cried. Father said A.D.T.'s ribs were broken because father squeezed him forcibly. Father denied domestic violence. Father admitted to using alcohol and methamphetamines when he got frustrated with the children and that after the death of his grandmother his usage increased.

A.T. and A.D.T. were taken into protective custody.

A.D.T. had to have "percutaneous pinning surgery" to pin his right arm and back together. A.D.T. had rib fractures in the front and the back of his body, which was typical of forcible squeezing of the chest. While conducting surgery on A.D.T., the doctors found an abrasion to his right thigh that mother said was caused by father biting A.D.T. A.D.T. had what appeared to be old bite marks on his leg. A full body x-ray revealed that A.D.T. had a previous injury to the shoulder that would likely require another surgery. The social worker concluded, "It appears that [A.D.T.] has been getting hurt for a long period of time."

The agency filed a petition on behalf of A.T. and A.D.T. alleging the children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

At the detention hearing on October 27, 2017, the trial court ordered that the children be detained from the parents. The children were placed together in a foster home.

On December 4, 2017, a first amended petition was filed, alleging the children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b)(1) (failure to protect), and (e) (severe physical abuse of a child under five years of age).

In the jurisdiction/disposition report, filed on December 5, 2017, the social worker recommended that family reunification services be denied to mother and father pursuant to the bypass provisions of section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(6).²

On December 18, 2017, the social worker met with mother. Mother explained to the social worker that father had been controlling throughout their relationship and she was not allowed to work. Mother admitted that father hit her during one incident. Mother reported father was a good father to A.T. but did not have much of a bond to A.D.T. Mother said she never saw bruises on A.D.T. and did not think father would hurt him.

Mother began engaging in voluntary services. As of January 10, 2018, she had completed six out of 10 parenting classes at Sierra Vista. Mother also got a driver's license and a car, which she said she would not have been able to do while in a relationship with father. Mother reported she had learned from the parenting classes anddoes not want to get back into a relationship with father.

Father also engaged with services, including classes on topics such as relapse prevention, job skills, anger management, parenting groups, thinking change, as well as 12-step support groups. Father graduated from substance abuse classes and transitioned into sober living.

On February 2, 2018, the agency filed an addendum report changing its recommendation as to mother. The agency now recommended mother be granted reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (c)(2) and (c)(3).³ The agency opined it was in the children's best interest to offer the mother reunification services as the children are closely and positively attached to her and that services were likely to prevent re-abuse and continued neglect.

The social worker noted that mother had actively taken initiative to participate in services to address the issues that brought the children to the attention of the agency. The social worker thought it possible that mother did not know father was abusing A.D.T. The social worker also noted that mother has reported she will no longer be in a relationship with father and had benefitted from services. The social worker also noted the children had a strong bond with mother.

At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on February 8, 2018, the juvenile court stated it "ha[d] concerns about the change in the recommendation, but the court will reluctantly agree to adopt the recommendation by the agency to now provide services to the mother." The juvenile court found the first amended petition, which was furtheramended on the date of the hearing to be true. The juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were persons described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (e) and adjudged the children dependents of the court. The juvenile court found the provisions of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) and (6) applied to both parents. The juvenile court, however, "very reluctantly offere[ed] reunification services to the mother," finding it would be in the best interests of the children to provide services to mother and that such services would likely prevent reabuse or neglect pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (c)(2) and (c)(3). Mother was ordered to participate in individual counseling focused on acknowledging the abuse A.D.T. had endured, identifying signs of abuse, and learning how not to engage in abusive relationships. Mother was also ordered to complete a parenting program. Among mother's case plan objectives were: "You will not allow any contact between the abuser and your children" and "[t]ake appropriate action to avoid being a victim of further domestic violence." The court denied father reunification services but ordered him to have a minimum of one visit per month in light of the possibility that mother was able to successfully reunify. The court ordered that the visits be "closely supervised," meaning that the supervisor was to be in the same room where the visit was taking place.

Mother continued to engage in services and visit with the children. Mother began opening up with her counselor about the details of the domestic violence she experienced in her relationship with father but still had doubts about whether he hurt A.D.T. Mother visited approximately once per week from December 2017 through May 2018 and twice a week from May 2018 through the six-month review period. It was noted that the children appeared to enjoy spending time with mother. Mother was noted to be "present and...