Filed 11/9/15 In re J uan M. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re JUAN M., et al
., Person s Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B262333
(Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
JUAN M.,
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. DK07711)

APPEAL from a judgment of t he Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Mar guerite Downing , Judge. Affirmed

. Christopher R. Booth , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Cou nsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________ ______2

Juan M. , Jr. appeals the dispositional order of the juvenile court granting him monitored visitation with his four dependent children. We affirm.

FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Juan M. III, Brandy M., Hazel M., and D.M. came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services in June 2014, after their mother Nancy M

. reported to the police that their father Juan M., Jr. had been violen t on multiple occasions.
O n June 17, 2014, Nancy M . reported to the police that on June 15 , an angry Juan M. , Jr. had confronted her over her instructions to their children. He pushed a glass
of water out of her hand. She told him she wanted a divorce

. Juan M., Jr. followed Nancy M. as she walked away and pushed her i nto the bedroom , then down to the floor

. He placed a pillow over her head and upper back, then punched her through it to avoid
visible bruises

. After Juan M. , Jr. let Nancy M . go, she soug ht her mother

- in

- law ’s help
, but he grabbed her again. Her mother

- in

- law and the children heard the altercation and attempted to prevent J uan M., Jr. from hitting Nancy M ., but he pushed them away and
locked the bedroom door. Juan M., Jr. then pushed Nan cy M . down on the bed and placed a pillow over her face. Nancy M . struggled but could not free herself. Juan M., Jr. asked her, “Do you want to live, bitch?” Nancy M . said yes, and he replied, “Then shut the fuck up!” A fter the attack ended , Nancy M . h id a knife in the bedroom so that she could protect herself if necessary. Nancy M. told the police that Juan M., Jr. had threatened to kill her and her family before. He had also hit her, pushed her, and thrown things at her in the past. The police took photographs of Nancy M.’s injuries, which included a bruise on her right shoulder blade, an abrasion on her left shoulder blade, scratches on her back, red marks on her face, and a scratch and swelling on the right side
of her head. Nancy M . obtained a temporary restraining o rder against Juan M., Jr. In her declaration in support of the restraining order request , Nancy M. related the incident on June 15 and also stated that on June 16, she had fled the family home. Juan M., Jr.3

telephoned Nancy M. mult iple times telling her to come home. When she refused,
Juan M. , Jr. threatened to kill her and her family. Nancy M. stated that throughout their relationship Juan M. , Jr. had slapped her, pushed her, and thrown things at her. I ncidents had occurred in front of the children. He had kicked her out of the house twice, telling her, “You want to be a whore, so go outside and be a whore.” When she was pregnant with their second child, Juan M., Jr. threw Nancy M. on the floor and attempted to kick her. Nanc y M. curled into a fetal position to protect her unborn child, and Juan M., Jr. struck the bed instead, breaking it. Nancy M. also declared that Juan M., Jr. had threatened that he could have her brother killed just by making a single phone call, and that he would kill her whole family before killing her. She stated that she feared that Juan M., Jr., would hurt or kill her and her family. Juan M., Jr. was arrested on June 28 , 2014

. He admitted to the police that he had violated the restraining order. He denied committing domestic violence but admitted that
he had kno cked a glass out of Nancy M .’s hand. Shortly after Juan M., Jr.’ s arrest, Nancy M

. recanted her allegations

. Other family members and t he children who were old enough to give a statement d enied abuse. The police concluded that the couple had reunited and advised DCFS that victims of
domestic violence commonly recant ed their allegations. Despite Nancy M .’ s recantation, a criminal case was filed against Juan M., Jr., and a criminal protect ive order was issued requiring him to stay away from the family. DCFS filed a petition alleging that the four children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) [serious physical
h arm] and (b) [failure to protect]

. I n October 2014 the court detained the children from
their father and released them to their mother. DCFS interviewed Nancy M. before the jurisdictional hearing. She admitted that Juan M., Jr. had knocked a glass out of her hand but otherwise denied all her prior allegations of abuse. She stated that she made her allegations to facilitate obtain ing custody of the children in a divorce and that she had since attempted to have the criminal4

protective order lifted

. She offered alternative explanations for a number of the injuries that were observed and photographed by the police

. DCFS concluded that “despite the mother’s denial of abuse by father, she did in fact disclose she was physically assaulted by the father on m ore than one occasion to probate court and law enforcement, that she feared the father would kill her and her family[,] and that she sustained injuries as a result of the alleged abuse by father. In addition, law enforcement observed, photographed and doc umented injuries on the mother at the time the restraining order was issued as well, which leads DCFS to believe domestic violence does exist between the parents.” DCFS did not recommend visitation for Juan M., Jr. , who had voluntarily begun a domestic vi olence program and had taken a parenting course without being ordered to do so by the court. In November 2014, the juvenile court acknowledged the criminal protective order but nonetheless permitted Juan M., Jr. visitation with the children in a neutral setting monitored by a DCFS

- approved monitor. Also in November 2014, the criminal protective order was modified to allow Juan M., Jr. to have peaceful contact with Nancy M. for the purpose of exchanging the children. In January 2015, the juvenile court he ld the contested jurisdictional hearing, sustained the allegations of the petition, and found the children to be dependent children of the court. The court explained that it sustained the allegations of the petition because
there had been multiple inciden ts of domestic violence. Nancy M.’s injuries, the court observed, were documented, and the “photos

. . . have not been properly explained.” The court characterized Nancy M.’s recantation as “ tex [t]book ” domestic violence. The court
found the violence in the home, although it might not have been witnessed by the children, nonetheless placed the children at risk. The court left the children i n the physical custody of Nancy M., concluded that Juan M., Jr. posed a safety risk to the children, and ordered va rious services for the parents. The court ordered monitored visitation for Juan M., Jr., at a neutral location, monito red by someone other than Nancy M. , but gave DCFS discretion to liberalize visitation or to permit him to return to the family home. Jua n M., Jr. appeals.5 DISCUSSION
Juan M., Jr., does not challenge the jurisdictional findings of the juvenile court, only the court’s dispositional order that his visitation be monitored. Through its briefing
and additional motion s , DCFS has advised this cou rt that after the filing of the appeal DCFS liberalized Juan M., Jr.’s visitation and now permits him unmonitored day visits
with the children. DCFS argues that the visitation order challenged by Juan M., Jr., has been mooted by these subsequent events , a nd has filed both a motion to dismiss the appeal and a motion requesting this court to take post

- judgment evidence concerning
visitation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.252 and Code of Civil Procedure
section 909

. Juan M., Jr., argues that the liberalization of visitation by DCFS does not moot his appeal because he is entitled to a judicial order extending him unmonitored visitation. He acknowledges that it appears that his visitation has been liberalized to unmonitored daytime visitation
, but correctly notes that t his may be revoked by DCFS . He argues that
the only true relief from the court’s erroneous order denying him unmonitored visitation
is a reversal of th e underlying order. We agree that DCFS’s discretionary relaxation of
the moni toring requirement does not moot the appeal

. This is not an instance in which

“ no effective relief can be granted” due to subsequent events. ( In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315

- 1316 .) We deny DCFS’s motion s to dismiss and to take post

jud gment evidence, and we consider the appeal on its merits. We review the court’s visitation order under an abuse of discretion standard ( In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356) and f ind no abuse of discretion. The juvenile court received evi dence that Juan M., Jr. had slapped Nancy M., pushed her, punched her, and thrown things at her. He had threatened to kill her and her family.
After one incident Nancy M.’s sustained visible injuries that were documented by the police. Juan M., Jr., mor eover, had knowingly violated the restraining order on one occasion

. Although there was evidence of recantation
, subsequent compliance with the restraining order, and voluntary participation in services, the court’s conclusion on the6

totality of the evide nce that Juan M. , Jr. posed a safety risk to his children was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. ( See In re Raymundo B. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1447, 1456 [court exceeds the limits of its discretion if it makes an arbitrary, capricious, or paten tly absurd determination ]. ) T he juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering monitored visitation

. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, Acting P. J.
We concur:

SEGAL, J.

BECKLOFF, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Su perior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.