In re Gavin T. and Aiden T. CA2/6
Filed 12/1/15 In re Gavin T. and Aiden T. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re GAVIN T. and AIDEN T., Persons 2d Juv. No. B261120 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 1436246 ) (Super. Ct. No. 1436247) (Santa Barbara County)
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.W. ,
Defendant and Appellant.
C.W. appeals a jurisdictional/disposition order removing her nine-year-old son, Aiden T., from her physical custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, subd. (b); 361, subd. 1 (c)(1).) The order was entered after the trial court found that appellant's substance abuse and domestic violence posed a substantial risk of harm to Aiden. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On October 20, 2014, Santa Barbara Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a dependency petition to detain 16-year-old Gavin T. and nine-year-old Aiden T. The petition alleged that appellant failed to protect the children (§ 300, subd. (b)) who were at risk of
1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
serious harm due to appellant's domestic violence and substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (c)). Before the petition was filed, appellant was offered a two week detox program but quit the program the first day. The petition stated that Aiden's older brother, Gavin, was smoking marijuana to deal with stress, anxiety, and depression and was not attending school due to concerns about Aiden's safety. Aiden suffered from severe separation anxiety, had difficulties sleeping, and missed many days of school. The children's father, M.T., was not there to protect the children and had been deported multiple times for criminal activity Father's criminal record included driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, false personation, disorderly conduct and public intoxication, possession of a controlled substance for sale, assault with a deadly weapon likely to produce great bodily injury, felon in possession of a firearm, and driving with a suspended license. On October 22, 2014, the trial court detained the children and placed them with their maternal great uncle. At a contested jurisdictional/disposition hearing, the trial court sustained the petition, removed Aiden and Gavin from appellant's physical custody, and ordered supervised visits and reunification services. Sufficiency of the Evidence 2 Appellant contends that the evidence does not support the removal of Aiden. We review for substantial evidence, resolving all conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 84.) On appeal, we are precluded from reweighing the evidence or determining the credibility of the witnesses. (In re B.D. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 975, 986.) Where the petition alleges multiple grounds to bring a child within the dependency court's jurisdiction, the trial court's jurisdictional finding will be affirmed if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. (In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 916.) "As long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)