CODRINGTON, J.
Defendant and appellant J.R. (Mother) was severely physically abused by J.T. (Father) in the presence of their two daughters, seven-year-old A.T. and her three-year-old sister Al.T. As a result, the children were removed from Father's custody and placed with Mother on family maintenance services. Mother subsequently filed an application to terminate jurisdiction, which the juvenile court denied. Mother's sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order continuing jurisdiction over the children. We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding, and affirm the judgment.
The parents had been in a relationship for over a decade. In January 2016, Mother went to the police station to report acts of severe domestic violence perpetrated by Father over the span of five to six days after he discovered she had been involved in an emotional affair with another man in November 2015. The police report indicated that Father had physically abused Mother on approximately six incidents during which the children were present in the home, and at one point, used a gun and a knife to threaten her harm if she did not tell him what happened with the other man. During one incident, Father wrapped one of his arms around Mother's neck and told her he was going to choke her to death. On other days, Father repeatedly slapped and punched Mother's face and kicked her rib cage. In yet another incident, Father wrapped a belt around his hand with the buckle sticking out, and whipped Mother numerous times while accusing her of lying to him. Mother screamed throughout the abuse and she heard the children crying upstairs. The next day, Father placed a belt around Mother's neck, clasped it, and pulled on the belt several times. During this incident, Father had a black pocket knife in his other hand while he was holding onto the belt, and Mother believed he was going to kill her. Attached to the police report were pictures of Mother's injuries, which included a swollen black eye and bruises to her neck, jaw, and inner and outer part of her legs. As a result, Father was arrested for numerous felony counts, including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and spousal abuse.
According to the police report, Father deleted Mother's social media accounts to prevent her from talking to anyone. He would not allow her to use the phone when he was home. He also monitored all of her text messages, and would not allow her to respond to anyone without his permission. Father allowed Mother to contact the maternal grandmother, but he monitored the conversation.
On February 10, 2016, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) received a 10-day response referral alleging general neglect and interviewed the family. Mother reported that she and Father had been in a relationship for over 10 years, with no past aggression or incidents of domestic violence to alert her that Father would abuse her. Mother stated that after Father learned of her emotional affair, they tried to work through their problems, but that he became physically abusive in January 2016 on a total of five occasions, when he would hit her with an open hand. Mother claimed that the children were in their own room when the parents argued and never witnessed the abuse. Mother, however, also informed a detective that Father pointed a gun at her head in front of the children and that Mother would scream while Father beat her and the children could hear from their room. Mother also informed the detective that Father had put a belt around her neck and she went unconscious. Mother obtained a restraining order against Father, but declined victim services such as counseling for herself and her children. A.T. informed the social worker that she feared Father because he would hurt her mother and wanted Father to get help. Mother agreed to move in with the maternal grandparents and attend counseling, and the referral was closed on March 10, 2016.
On April 1, 2016, DPSS received another 10-day emergency referral after Father was released from custody on bail and Mother allowed Father back in the family home. It was also reported that Mother had lifted the restraining order against Father prior to him getting out of jail and that A.T. had not been in school for eight days in a row. On April 11, 2016, the social worker interviewed A.T. alone at her school. A.T. reported that the family had moved to a new home, Father was residing with them, and the parents did not fight or argue since Father moved back in the home. She missed her father when he was out of the home and was happier since he returned. A.T. had 14 unexcused and 17 excused absences from school.
When the social worker met with Mother on April 12, 2016, Mother reported that Father had been residing in the home for a few weeks and that their relationship had been good since he returned home. Mother also stated there were no new incidents of domestic violence and was hesitant about enrolling herself and A.T. in counseling. Mother did not feel that they needed services, and reported that Father's criminal attorney advised them not to participate in counseling services. DPSS was concerned Mother was not taking preventative measures to educate herself on the signs and triggers of domestic violence. Mother also stated the information in the police report was a lie and that she had exaggerated the abuse because she was upset. The social worker informed Mother that she was to make an appointment with Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) within the next week, and her failure to follow through would place the children at risk of removal. After stalling for more than two weeks, Mother eventually made an intake appointment with ADV. The social worker believed Mother was minimizing the abuse and was not being protective of the children. The social worker later learned that Mother married Father in April 2016.
On May 25, 2016, the social worker, accompanied by police officers, responded to the family home to place the children into protective custody. One of the officers was the original responding officer to the domestic violence incident in January. The officer stated this was a serious incident of domestic violence, and he clearly recalled the extensive bruising Mother had on her legs and face. He also recalled Mother had on heavy makeup to minimize the appearance of the bruising. The officer knocked on the door and was greeted by Father and Al.T. Father was advised the children were being placed into protective custody. Father denied that there had been new incidents of domestic violence, felt that DPSS was asking Mother to do unnecessary things, and offered to leave the home if the children could remain with Mother. Father referred to the domestic violence as only being "`alleged incidents' "because it was still an "`open case.'" Mother was advised that the children were being removed from the parents' care due to concerns involving Father being back in the home, the severity of the domestic violence, and their reluctance to participate in services to help mitigate the concerns. Mother refused to leave the home with the social worker and officers, and instead chose to remain home with Father so they could support one another as a couple. The children were placed with the maternal grandparents.
On May 25, 2016, DPSS filed a petition on behalf of the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
At the May 31, 2016 original detention hearing, the juvenile court formally detained the children with the maternal grandparents. The court issued a temporary restraining order protecting the children from Father, except for visitation as permitted by court order.
On June 1, 2016, the court allowed Mother to reside with the children in the maternal grandparents' home. The court ordered Father's contact with the children to be supervised by DPSS and, at permitted school events, supervised by the maternal grandparents.
When the social worker interviewed A.T. again, A.T. reported she heard her parents fight in "`the other room.'" She also heard them use "`loud voices and talk about the fights.'" She denied seeing any marks or bruises on Mother and denied seeing Father point a gun at anybody in the home. A.T. stated she did not fear her father anymore. The maternal grandmother reported Mother had told her about Father hitting her with a belt and Father choking her with his arm until she went unconscious. The maternal grandmother observed bruises on Mother's eye, arms, and jawline. The maternal stepgrandfather made similar statements to the social worker about Father's abuse of Mother. Mother believed Father's physical abuse of Mother was an isolated incident.
Mother moved in with the children and maternal grandparents, but visited Father at times overnight. The children had adjusted well to Mother residing with them. A.T. expressed wanting to return to live with both parents. The children were healthy and happy in Mother's care.
Mother was in compliance with her case plan and had consistently participated in the ADV program since June 7, 2016. Mother was an active participant and had made substantial progress. Mother was set to complete this program on August 25, 2016. Mother's client advocate reported Mother had "expressed concerns of arguing in front of the kids and appears motivated to promote a positive and stable environment for her children." Mother attempted to enroll in individual counseling, but her enrollment was delayed due to issues related to her health insurance. Mother was set to begin individual counseling on August 12, 2016.
Father was also in compliance with his case plan. He was actively participating in anger management classes and individual counseling since July 11 and July 25, 2016, respectively. Father still faced criminal charges stemming from the domestic violence incident. DPSS acknowledged the court had authorized the parents to participate in conjoint counseling, but had not referred the family to conjoint counseling, believing it would be better for the parents to complete their individual counseling prior to beginning conjoint counseling. Father regularly participated in supervised visits with the children, where Mother was also present, and the children appeared happy. The social worker reported the children were bonded to Mother and Father. Father was "observed to be nurturing and attentive with the children during his visitation." DPSS had approved two family members to supervise the parents' visits outside DPSS's office, given that the parents were engaged in services and A.T. was to begin school soon.
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on August 11, 2016. The juvenile court found the allegations in the third amended petition true and declared the children dependents of the court. Physical custody of the children was removed from Father, and Father was provided with reunification services. Mother was provided with family maintenance services, provided she continued to reside with the maternal grandparents and she did not allow Father any unauthorized contact with the children. The court again authorized conjoint counseling for the parents and allowed DPSS to liberalize Father's visits when appropriate. The court did not issue a permanent restraining order.
On January 3, 2017, Mother filed an ex parte application for termination of the dependency petition and an update on Father's progress. Mother reported she had completed her case plan and Father had completed his anger management program, was engaged in counseling, and regularly visiting his children. Attached to the application were letters of progress and completion certificates. The matter was set for a hearing.
Mother continued to reside with the maternal grandparents. She was not employed and remained married to Father. She described her relationship with Father as positive with the exception of the domestic violence that led to DPSS's involvement. She denied a history of domestic violence in their relationship. She suffered from anxiety, but she did not take any prescribed medications. For her service plan, Mother was required to participate in general counseling and a domestic violence program. Mother completed the domestic violence program by September 2016. Mother's client advocate reported Mother consistently attended group sessions and actively participated in the program. The advocate noted Mother made substantial progress and brought a positive energy to the group. After completing the program, Mother spoke with the social worker about what Mother learned in the program. After explaining how she benefitted from the program, Mother reported she did not identify her situation as a domestic violence relationship. She was adamant that the incident that had occurred between herself and Father was isolated. She could not relate to the cycles of abuse because she did not experience the cycle in her relationship. However, she believed the program was informative and she learned to advocate and speak up for herself.
In September 2016, Mother reported she was participating in individual counseling. Although Mother acknowledged she was involved in a physical altercation with Father, she denied the incident occurred over a period of days or in the children's presence. In October 2016, Mother reported to the social worker that her therapist did not feel it was an appropriate time to start conjoint sessions with Father. Mother's therapist reported Mother was actively participating in therapy and was doing well. Mother had completed 18 sessions of counseling by January 2017. Mother's therapist did not believe Mother was attempting to minimize the domestic violence incident, and the incident was addressed in depth in therapy. The therapist reported that, based on her conversations with Mother, the information provided by Mother to law enforcement was misunderstood by the officer who took the report. The therapist reported the parents could benefit from conjoint counseling. However, the therapist was currently working with Mother on developing appropriate coping skills to ensure domestic violence did not occur again. By the end of November 2016, the therapist believed conjoint counseling was appropriate. Mother was discharged from therapy in January 2017, and met her treatment goals. Mother's therapist believed that Mother had "invested herself in therapy," was able to verbalize her role which led to the dependency, and applied the new strategies learned. The social worker noted Mother was able to articulate how she benefitted from the programs, she learned to manage her anxiety and the importance of self-care, and she understood domestic violence was never acceptable. However, Mother continued to insist the children were not present during the incident. The social worker believed Mother made adequate progress in her case plan.
Father completed his case plan, which included anger management, six sessions of individual counseling with one therapist and 12 sessions with another therapist. The social worker reported that in conversations with Father, Father appeared to be oblivious to the severity of the abuse. Father appeared to lack insight into the severity of the incident that placed the children's safety at risk. Father's therapist recommended conjoint counseling. By January 2017, the social worker reported Father appeared to have gained insight about his poor choices and made better choices for the benefit of his family. He acknowledged that his actions affected his children and that the incidents of abuse should never have occurred. Father appeared to benefit from the programs by becoming aware of his emotions and resolving conflicts in a positive manner. Father's therapist recommended Father continue to participate in individual and conjoint counseling. The social worker believed Father was in compliance with his case plan and made active efforts to complete it.
On January 11, 2017, Father accepted a plea bargain and pled guilty to six felony counts. He faced a maximum sentence of 18 years four months in jail. He had one prior conviction from 2007 that qualified as a strike. Father was sentenced to a total term of 16 years 4 months, but the sentence was suspended. He was granted 60 months of formal probation provided he served 268 days in county jail. Father's expected release date was June 7, 2017. He was required to enroll in a 52-week domestic violence program and provide proof of enrollment by July 10, 2017, as well as complete the program by September 10, 2018. A no negative contact restraining order was reissued as to Father with an expiration date of January 25, 2022.
The parents began conjoint counseling on January 11, 2017. However, they only attended two sessions prior to Father being incarcerated. The parents expressed their desire to maintain their relationship and reunify with the children. The parents also expressed a need to spend more time together as a family. Due to the severity of the domestic violence, the parents' therapist recommended the parents continue to participate in conjoint therapy to address the marital issues that contributed to the domestic violence. Because Father had recently been sentenced and would likely not be permitted to participate in services, DPSS planned to schedule a "Team Decision Making" meeting with the family to review ongoing safety concerns. The social worker believed it would be beneficial for Father to participate in conjoint counseling to address the issues in the marriage before the children were returned to his care and custody. The social worker noted there was a moderate risk of detriment if the children were returned to Father's care at that time.
During the social worker's conversations with Mother, the social worker believed it appeared at times Mother continued to minimize the severity of the domestic violence incidents. Mother denied that the sequence of events occurred over a period of days even though it was documented in the police report. Mother claimed the officer's report was not truthful, but she could not articulate why the officer would write a false report. She also denied her daughter witnessed the domestic violence even though it was documented in the police report. As such, it was difficult for DPSS to assess if the family could safely reunify without acknowledging the severity of the domestic violence and the risk it posed to the children. Additionally, there was a concern as to whether Mother truly benefitted from her services.
A "Team Decision Meeting" was held on February 7, 2017. In preparing for the meeting, Mother indicated she had no friends to invite as she stated they were busy and this was her personal matter. DPSS suggested she invite her parents and brother. The maternal grandmother was unable to attend, and the brother did not attend. The paternal great aunt and Father's previous employer attended. Mother's personal/familial support system was limited, and the support in attendance appeared to be much more favorable to Father. The paternal great aunt made statements that the incident would not have occurred without Mother's infidelity. Community partners from the Family Justice Center, ADV, and the Department of Mental Health raised concerns regarding the severity of the incident and the importance of a safety network for Mother. The team recommended continued family maintenance with Mother and reunification services for Father, with Father receiving overnight and weekend visits upon his release from jail. As part of the action plan, it was also determined that conjoint counseling between the parents would be beneficial prior to Father returning to the home. Another meeting was planned for May 2017 to include the current and additional individuals included in the safety network to ensure adequate support would be provided upon Father's release from custody and beyond the closure of the case.
The social worker reported that although Mother completed her case plan, some concerns remained. The social worker noted that throughout the case Mother minimized the severity of the domestic violence and that this was a concern because minimizing the severity could result in future harm to Mother, as well as endanger the safety and well-being of the children. Given that the parents planned to reconcile and reunite their family, DPSS's goal was to ensure all appropriate steps were taken to ensure the safety of Mother and the children.
On February 22, 2017, the juvenile court held a hearing pursuant to sections 364 and 366.21, subdivision (e). At that time, the court heard testimony from the social worker and Mother. The social worker testified that both parents completed their case plan, received favorable reports from their service providers, and that the children were thriving in Mother's care. The social worker wanted the case to remain open until Father was released from jail so that the parents could participate in conjoint counseling, as she felt Mother minimized the domestic violence that occurred. The social worker explained that the case would be closed "prematurely" if closed at that time because there were additional services recommended by both of the parents' therapists. The social worker believed the delay in conjoint counseling appeared to be because of the parents'"own logistics of things" and that Mother had developed a safety plan through ADV. The social worker was concerned whether Mother had a support system. The social worker was aware Father was incarcerated and had allowed Mother to bring the children to jail to visit Father. The social worker believed the parents needed to make further progress in benefitting from services prior to the case being closed. The social worker stated that some of Mother's statements had caused her concern, noting Mother had stated the events documented in the police report were false and that she was not abused over a period of days. The social worker testified that Mother claimed it was a "brief four-minute period" in which she and Father were engaged in acts of domestic violence. Mother did not believe she was a victim of domestic violence and Father made "pretty much identical statements" as to what Mother stated. Father stated in January that he did not feel that domestic violence was an issue for the parents and both parents' therapists recommended conjoint counseling. The social worker further testified that she believed conjoint counseling was necessary to resolve the risk of reoccurrence of domestic violence in this case. The social worker acknowledged that none of Mother's service providers had stated Mother had minimized the domestic violence.
Mother testified that she had benefitted from the services provided and that she had participated in a course on how to prevent domestic violence from reoccurring. Mother denied minimizing the domestic violence and felt that the family had appropriately addressed the incident. However, referring to the police report, Mother noted that she had recanted her statement to the police and to the district attorney. Mother wanted the case closed because her children were very bonded to their father and they needed to be a family again. Mother stated that she had supportive friends and family, as well as private medical insurance to cover their continued conjoint counseling.
At the close of evidence, DPSS, joined by minor's counsel, argued that the court should retain jurisdiction over the children, because supervision was required for the parents to continue in conjoint counseling when Father reunified with the family, due to the severity of the domestic violence. Mother and Father argued for the court to terminate jurisdiction over the children because there was no current risk of harm to the children and the parents had both the support and resources to attend conjoint counseling.
Following argument, the juvenile court found that Mother made satisfactory progress in her case plan, but that the conditions justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction still existed. The court continued its jurisdiction over the children to enable the parents to participate in conjoint counseling due to the severity of the domestic violence. The court explained that it believed it was "very important that the mother and father participate together in conjoint counseling." The court wanted to make sure the parents had the tools to be successful and noted that this was an "extremely serious" case. The court also noted that there were "very serious felonies over a period of days involving allegations of weapons used, great bodily injury, all plead guilty to in court pursuant to a plea bargain." The court stated it was glad that Mother was no longer "at least not to any strong extent, minimizing the severity of the domestic violence." Accordingly, the court denied Mother's application to terminate the dependency. The children remained in the care of Mother on family maintenance services and Father was ordered to receive family reunification services. This appeal followed.
Mother asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order continuing jurisdiction over the children. She argues the evidence in the record shows that continued jurisdiction was not necessary because the court found Mother made satisfactory progress in her case plan and the children remained safe in her care during the dependency. She also claims that any risk of harm to the children from the family's plan to reunify after Father was released from incarceration was speculative. She further argues that the court erred in ordering continuing jurisdiction over the children because the statutory presumption in favor of terminating jurisdiction was not rebutted in this case.
"After the juvenile court finds a child is a person described in section 300, it must `hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the child.'" (In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1154, citing § 358, subd. (a).) "In appropriate circumstances, the court may declare the child a dependent, and `without removing the child from his or her home, order family maintenance services to ameliorate the conditions that made the child subject to the court's jurisdiction.' [Citation.] Once a child has been declared a dependent, the juvenile court must review the status of the child every six months. [Citations.] `The applicable standards at the six-month review hearing differ depending on the child's placement.' [Citation.] Section 364 provides the standard when `a child under the supervision of the juvenile court . . . is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.'" (In re Aurora P., at p. 1154, fns. omitted.)
Section 364, subdivision (c), provides: "After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn."
"At the section 364 review hearing, the juvenile court is not concerned with reunification, but in determining whether the dependency should be terminated or supervision is necessary. [Citations.] The juvenile court makes this determination based on the totality of the evidence before it, including reports of the social worker who is required to make a recommendation concerning the necessity of continued supervision." (In re Armando L., supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 615.) "[W]hen the social services agency opposes termination of dependency jurisdiction, it clearly bears the burden of proof to show the existence of the conditions section 364[, subdivision ](c) specifies must be proven to support retention of dependency jurisdiction." (In re Aurora P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1146.)
"Findings under section 364 are reviewed for substantial evidence." (In re D.B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 1086.) "Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or draw inferences contrary to the findings of the trial court." (In re J.F., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 209.) "For evidence to be sufficient to support a trial court's finding, it must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value." (Ibid.)
In this case, the children were placed in Mother's care, and Mother was provided with family maintenance services. "Family maintenance services are designed to provide in-home protective services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse, or exploitation in order to prevent separation of children from their families. Services may be extended in six-month increments if it can be shown that the objective of the service plan can be achieved within the extended time periods. Unlike family reunification services, nothing in the Welfare and Institutions Code or the California Rules of Court limits the time period for court supervision and services for dependent minors who remain at home. Family maintenance services may be provided until the dependent minor reaches the age of majority." (In re Armando L., supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 615-616, citing In re Aurora P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154, fn. 8, and In re Joel T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 263, 267-268.)
At the sections 364 and 366.21, subdivision (e) hearing, the juvenile court ordered family maintenance services continued for Mother. Additionally, the court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that "conditions that would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist, likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn," based on the severity of the incident, the level of abuse Mother endured, and the fact that the children were present during the incident. The court explained that there was a need for the parents to be "fully capable of managing conflict in their relationship and mitigating the issues that necessitated involvement by the Court." The court stated that it was "very important" that the parents participate together in conjoint counseling and that it wanted to make sure the parents had the "tools to be successful." Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination not to terminate jurisdiction.
Although the evidence shows Mother had completed her case plan and made adequate progress in her case plan services, due to the severity of the domestic violence that occurred, it was recommended by the parents' therapists that the parents participate in conjoint counseling to address the marital issues that contributed to the domestic violence. Treatment services were incomplete due to the parents only having attended two conjoint counseling sessions prior to Father's incarceration. The severity of the incident, the level of abuse Mother endured, and the fact that the children were present during the incidents necessitated the need to ensure the parents were fully capable of managing conflict in their relationship and mitigating the issues that necessitated DPSS involvement, especially since Mother indicated she wanted to reunify with Father and return to the family home with the children.
At the Team Decision Meeting held in February 2017, prior to the section 364 hearing, the community partners from the Family Justice Center, ADV, and the Department of Mental Health all raised concerns regarding the severity of the incident and the importance of a safety network for Mother. At that meeting, no support system on behalf of Mother was present. It was recommended Mother identify a support system that could be added to the safety network. Following the meeting, it was determined that conjoint counseling between the parents would be beneficial prior to Father returning home to ensure issues within the relationship were appropriately addressed and managed and for greater stability of the family, as well as for the safety and wellbeing of the children upon Father's return to the home.
Mother argues the social worker's belief Mother minimized the abuse was not reasonable to meet DPSS's burden of proof. However, the juvenile court did not find that Mother minimized the abuse. Rather, the court stated that it was glad to see Mother was no longer, "at least not to any strong extent, minimizing the severity of the domestic violence." The social worker's opinion that Mother minimized the abuse was not a significant factor in the juvenile court's findings and orders. In any event, there is substantial evidence to support the social worker's belief Mother did, and continued to, minimize the abuse, albeit less later while she continued to receive services.
Mother also asserts that it was unnecessary to maintain jurisdiction over the children so that the parents could participate in conjoint counseling because the focus of the dependency was to reunify the children with at least one parent and it was enough that the children were reunified with her. Mother further argues that any risk of harm to the children when the family reunifies after Father's release from jail was speculative. Mother notes the parents had maintained contact as a married couple throughout the dependency without further domestic violence incidents. However, according to the evidence in the record, Mother made it clear that she planned to reunify with Father. The juvenile court recognized that this case was "extremely serious," and wanted to make sure the parents had the tools to be successful. Both of the parents' therapists recommended that the parents participate in conjoint therapy, which had not yet been completed. Given the severity of the domestic violence and that the incidents of the abuse occurred while the children were in the home, the court reasonably concluded that the parents needed to attend conjoint therapy prior to closing the case. Substantial evidence supports the court's findings and orders continuing jurisdiction.
The juvenile court's order continuing jurisdiction is affirmed.
