In re V.H. CA2/8

Filed 10/28/13 In re V.H. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re V.H. et al., Persons Coming Under the B247848 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 97318)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROSARIO M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Donna Levin, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Grace Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Rosario M. Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Marco H. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Rosario M. (mother) and Marco H. (father) appeal the juvenile court‟s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to show that they failed to protect their two children, V.H. and R.M., from harm. Father additionally contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering father to participate in a family maintenance program. We reject both challenges, and affirm the orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Petition On January 15, 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on behalf of appellants‟ two children, 17-year-old V.H. and five-year-old R.M. The petition, as later sustained, alleged that each child came within the juvenile court‟s jurisdiction because the child has suffered, or was at a substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness “as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent . . . to supervise or protect the child adequately.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)1 The petition alleged that: “In January of 2013 and on prior occasions in 2012, the children[‟s] . . . mother . . . and father . . . placed the children in a detrimental and endangering situation in that the parents allowed the children‟s adult [half] sibling, Sergio H[.], who the parents knew, is frequently under the influence of marijuana in the children‟s home, in the presence of the children, and has a history of violent and assaultive behavior to reside in the children‟s home and have unlimited access to the children. On 12/28/2012, the adult sibling swung a knife at the children‟s mother, in the presence of the child [V.H.] . . . The parents failed to protect the children. Such a detrimental and endangering situation established for the children by the parents and the parents‟ failure to protect the children endangers the children‟s physical health and safety and creates a detrimental home environment, and places the children at risk of physical harm, damage, danger and failure to protect.”