In re N.D. CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/27/26 In re N.D. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re N.D. et al., Persons Coming B348563 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05618H-I) AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.M., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed. Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ V.M. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings that his daughters, N.D. (born 2010) and Z.M. (born 2012), suffered serious physical harm and were at substantial risk of suffering such harm based on him physically abusing them. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Father, R.D. (Mother), and children N.D. and Z.M. were involved in several prior dependency cases. Mother is not a party to this appeal. Jurisdiction in a 2012 case was based in part on Father’s inappropriate physical discipline of maternal, older half sibling, J.D., resulting in bruising. A 2020 case arose from Mother’s failure to protect the children; the court granted shared custody to Mother and Father. The most recent prior case in 2024, arising from Mother’s endangerment of the children, terminated with an order granting Father sole legal and physical custody of the children. In April 2025, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral indicating the children recently disclosed in therapy sessions they were scared of Father and he was physically violent toward them. N.D., then 14 years old and in eighth grade, said Father hit her with a belt when she was in sixth grade (2023), causing a bruise. N.D. also said Father had hit her and Z.M. with a belt two months earlier. Z.M., then 13 years old, said she was “whopped” by Father, who “used his hands and belt on her butt,” causing a bruise. According to Z.M., Father tells the children to lie face down on the bed and put their “butt[s] up in the air,” and then Father “pulls their pants down.” Father got angry if their rooms were not clean or they spoke to boys on the telephone.

2 DCFS’s investigation yielded evidence suggesting Father struck the children on multiple occasions, although the precise dates were not clear: both children around February 2024 and February 2025, Z.M. sometime in late 2024 or January 2025, and N.D. in 2023. The social worker interviewed Father and the children in their home in early May 2025. N.D. said Father struck her and Z.M. with a belt three months earlier for interacting with boys. She said that was the only time Father used a belt to hit her. Z.M. told the social worker Father struck her buttocks with a belt three months earlier because she had been talking to boys, and the area was red and sore for a few days. She said that was the first time Father used a belt to hit her. Z.M. said Father had previously struck her buttocks with his hand several months earlier, in late 2024, for the same reason. Father admitted he recently struck both children on the buttocks with his hand—Z.M. several months before and N.D. about three weeks earlier. He also admitted an additional spanking of N.D. about two years earlier (2023). Father denied ever using an object to strike them and maintained they were fully clothed. The social worker then interviewed the children’s recent therapist. According to the therapist, the children both disclosed that in February 2024, Father physically disciplined them after they were communicating with boys. He used a belt at some point and left marks and bruises. In February 2025, the therapist spoke with Father about appropriate discipline, and while Father seemed receptive, the children later disclosed Father had confronted them for telling their therapist that information and 3 asked if they wanted to go to foster care. Both children became “extremely emotional” and said they feared Father. Mother was also interviewed in May 2025. She said Z.M. told her that Father had hit her hard on the buttocks in January or February 2025 and Z.M. felt pain in the area. Mother also recalled N.D. “had previously been slapped and bruised by [Father],” and N.D. told her Father kept her home from school so the bruises would heal. The children were examined by a nurse practitioner and interviewed again by a social worker in late May 2025. Their reports were generally consistent with what they had previously relayed to their therapist and in earlier interviews. The children both confirmed Father’s spanking of N.D. in sixth grade (2023) with his hand, which left a bruise for a week. In one interview, Z.M. confirmed two incidents: (1) Father’s February 2025 striking her bare buttocks with his hand and a belt; and (2) another spanking incident over a year ago (e.g., early 2024) she had trouble remembering. In a later interview, Z.M. described Father striking her bare buttocks with his hand and a belt in January 2025, which caused lingering pain, stinging, and redness. In a May 2025 interview with the nurse practitioner, Father admitted to spanking both children in February 2025, but now denied other incidents and denied using a belt. In June 2025, Father called DCFS. He again acknowledged spanking the children in February 2025, but maintained that was an isolated incident. According to Father, that one incident had been reported repeatedly, erroneously suggesting it happened on multiple occasions. DCFS conducted further interviews in June and July 2025 with the children and their parents. N.D. confirmed the February 4 2025 incident and another about a year before (2024), but now said Father had used only his hand. Z.M. confirmed both children were struck by Father around February 2024 and February 2025. Z.M. said her buttocks were bare in both incidents, and Father used a belt in February 2025. According to Mother, she had seen marks and bruises on N.D. after Father hit her around March 2023. Father kept N.D. home from school at that time to hide the bruises, and Z.M. had told Mother that Father had left marks on N.D. Mother also “saw marks on [N.D.’s] arms and butt” around February 2024. Mother had seen bruising on Z.M.’s leg that resulted from Father, including a belt mark. She saw a handprint on Z.M.’s buttocks in January 2025. Z.M.’s darker skin tone made it more difficult to see bruises and marks on her. Father denied Mother’s allegations. This time, he admitted to spanking both children once in February 2024—not 2025, as he had previously admitted—with his hand, but stated they were fully clothed. Father denied spanking them in January or April 2025. He also denied leaving marks or bruises on the children. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2025, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition. It alleged the children suffered serious physical harm or were at substantial risk of suffering such harm based on Father physically abusing them and medically neglecting them, and that jurisdiction was therefore authorized under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). The specific 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

5 allegations of physical abuse were that Father physically abused N.D.: around April 2025 with repeated striking; around January 2025 by repeated striking with a belt; on a prior occasion by repeated strikes to N.D. buttocks that resulted in pain and a visible mark; and around February 2024 which resulted in marks and bruises. Father allegedly physically abused Z.M.: around January 2025 with repeated strikes to her bare buttocks with his hand and belt, causing pain and skin redness; on prior occasions by striking her with a belt; and around February 2024 with physical abuse resulting in marks and bruises. The juvenile court made a prima facie finding the children were described by section 300 and ordered them released to Father. DCFS filed an amended section 300 petition in August 2025 to add allegations that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm based on Mother’s failure to protect them from Father. The report DCFS filed in advance of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing summarized its investigation, in part, as follows: “[Father] maintains the spanking of both [children] happened one time over a year ago with an open hand and with clothes on, while both [children] reported at least two occasions that the spanking occurred. [Z.M.] reported her clothes were off, that [Father] used a belt and his hand and that there was redness as a result of the spanking. [Z.M.’s] forensic medical examination also notes use of a belt by [Father] in the past. Furthermore, [DCFS] remains concern[ed] [about Father’s] temperament, how easily he can become angry, his use of profanity when mad, and based on the [children’s] and therapist’s statements, the negative emotional effect it has on both 6 [children]. [Father] continues to minimize and defend his actions as right and believes he is justified in his use of physical punishment.” At the hearing, children’s counsel asked the juvenile court to sustain the physical abuse allegations and noted multiple inconsistencies between Father’s and children’s versions of events. Both children stated Father: (1) hit them with a belt and hands; (2) hit them on numerous occasions; and (3) caused them to cry from being hit. N.D. stated she once had a bruise that lasted a week, while Z.M. said her skin was red and stinging and she felt lingering pain after being hit by Father earlier in 2025. Mother claimed she knew Father hit the children and saw the marks. Father “has a previous sustained allegation for inappropriate discipline [for] striking [J.D.] and causing a bruise,” and there was “a pattern of turning to physical discipline” to respond to “normal teenage behavior.” While Father “[was] starting to gain insight as to why this is wrong,” his progress “[was] recent and there still remains a risk.” DCFS asked the juvenile court to sustain the amended petition in its entirety and joined the arguments of children’s counsel. DCFS also noted it was “clear here that there has also been coaching” of the children, because Z.M. stated she was instructed not to disclose the incident with the belt. Father’s counsel asked the juvenile court to dismiss the amended petition as unsupported by the evidence. He argued there was insufficient evidence of past physical abuse or current risk to the children. While Father admitted “us[ing] corporal punishment,” he said he was contrite, was enrolled in parenting classes, and was taking corrective action. Father pointed out N.D.

7 later denied Father hit her with a belt, denied he struck her bare buttocks, and denied suffering marks or bruises. The juvenile court adopted the arguments made by children’s counsel, sustained the amended section 300 petition in its entirety, and assumed jurisdiction over the children pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). It noted this was “no longer inappropriate [sic] discipline” because it was not “the first time” this happened. The court declared the children dependents of the court, ordered them to remain in Father’s custody, granted family maintenance services to Father, and granted enhancement services to Mother. Father timely appealed. (See § 395, subd. (a)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1).) While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the children and granted Father sole physical and legal custody. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Law and Standard of Review The juvenile court may assume dependency jurisdiction over a child in certain circumstances, including when “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the child’s parent.” (§ 300, subd. (a).) “ ‘[S]erious physical harm’ does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks if there is no evidence of serious physical injury.” (Ibid.) In this case, Father challenges the juvenile court’s findings he physically abused the children in the past and there was a substantial risk the children would suffer future serious physical harm. Even though the juvenile court has now terminated 8 jurisdiction and returned the children to him, Father argues his appeal is not moot because the court’s finding he committed physical abuse may result in his inclusion in California’s Child Abuse Central Index. DCFS does not argue otherwise. We agree the appeal is not moot as to the physical abuse finding, and we limit our review to that issue. (See In re S.R. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1042, 1142–1144 [a parent may challenge a sustained allegation of child abuse].) We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.).) “Substantial evidence is evidence that is ‘of ponderable legal significance,’ ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.’ ” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1006.) In conducting our review, “ ‘we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the [juvenile] court,’ ” view “ ‘the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations,’ ” and remember that “ ‘issues of fact and credibility are the province of the [juvenile] court.’ ” (R.T., at p. 633.) Father, as the appellant, bears the burden of showing a lack of substantial evidence. (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206.) II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Physical Abuse Finding When viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, this record contains substantial evidence Father physically abused the children, resulting in serious physical harm. As to N.D., the evidence shows Father struck her on at least three occasions: around February 2025, February 2024, and spring 2023. In each case, Father was angry about her 9 interactions with boys. Father used a belt on her bare buttocks, leaving marks, in at least the February 2025 incident. N.D. also sustained marks in the February 2024 incident. As to the spring 2023 incident, Father’s actions caused N.D. to cry and suffer bruising, and she missed school for a week as a result. As to Z.M., the evidence shows she was also struck by Father on at least three occasions: around February 2025, late 2024 or January 2025, and February 2024. Father was angry because Z.M. was communicating with boys and/or using a vape pen. Father struck Z.M.’s bare buttocks with his hand and a belt as she lay on her bed in February 2025. She cried, and Father’s actions caused soreness, pain, and redness for several days. Around late 2024 or January 2025, Father struck Z.M.’s buttocks with his hand, leaving a handprint. Around February 2024, Father made Z.M. remove her pants, and he struck her bare buttocks with his hand. Thus, substantial evidence supports the finding Father physically abused each child by striking her on multiple occasions in an unreasonable and excessive manner. (See In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 433–434, 438 [three-year-old suffered serious physical harm when the mother hit him three times with a belt on his forearms and stomach, leaving bruises]; see also In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 906, 916 [excessive discipline where the stepfather sprayed nude six and four year olds with a hose, locked them in a garage, placed ice packs on their backs and stomachs, and pulled their hair].) Father’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, Father argues there was no verification he left bruises and marks on the children, and the children had reason to lie. But the juvenile court was entitled to credit the children’s 10 accounts, and we do not revisit its credibility determinations. (See R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633; see also In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [“[e]vidence from a single witness, even a party, can be sufficient to support the . . . findings”].) Here, the children both said they suffered marks and/or bruises from Father’s actions. And while corroboration is not required, Mother did corroborate several of their statements. Second, Father argues even if the record supports the conclusion he inflicted marks and bruising on the children, that does not necessarily amount to physical abuse. (See Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 94 (Gonzalez) [“that a spanking resulted in bruises” is not alone enough to “amount[] to reportable child abuse”].) But we view the record as a whole, and it contains substantial evidence supporting the physical abuse findings. There was evidence of multiple incidents of Father striking each child—and Father’s opening brief admits the February 2024 and February 2025 incidents occurred. Also, Father was found in a prior dependency case to have excessively disciplined J.D. by striking him on the back and buttocks, inflicting a bruise. Thus, Father’s reliance on In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, is misplaced because his treatment of N.D. and Z.M. was not an isolated incident. (Cf. id. at pp. 131–132, 139 [physical struggle resulting in fingernail scratches on child was an isolated incident].) Finally, Father argues his conduct was less severe than abuse committed in other cases and the spankings were genuine attempts at discipline. (See, e.g., In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433 [it was undisputed striking a child with such force to dislocate her shoulder was serious physical harm];

11 In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1645 [it was undisputed striking a child on three occasions with an electrical cord and belt, leaving bruises, red marks, and broken skin amounted to serious physical harm].) But neither of those cases establishes a minimum standard of physical abuse, and even a disciplinary incident may be excessive in certain circumstances. (See Gonzalez, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 91 [discipline must be “reasonable in kind and degree”]; In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 641 [dependency jurisdiction appropriate when parental discipline is excessive].) The juvenile court could determine these multiple striking incidents were neither reasonable nor age-appropriate when they were administered for typical teenage behavior; N.D. and Z.M. were female teenagers, not young children; they were struck on their bare buttocks on at least one occasion, and at least once with a belt; Father’s actions caused both children to cry; and N.D. suffered bruising that lasted a week and Z.M. suffered stinging and marks. Moreover, in Gonzalez, the court determined the mother’s discipline could have been reasonable in part because she admitted to striking the child with a wooden spoon and provided detailed testimony why she felt that was necessary because other forms of discipline had failed. (Gonzalez, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 76–77, 90–91.) But Father consistently denied using a belt and striking the children’s bare buttocks. He has never asserted that conduct amounted to reasonable discipline.

12 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

RICHARDSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

LUI, P. J.

CHAVEZ, J.