1

Filed 11/17/20 In re M.W . CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In re M.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C089646

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. M.W., Defendant and Appellant. (Super. Ct. Nos. JD239499, JD239500)

In this appeal , M o. W. (father) challenges the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile dependency court related to his children , M i

. W. (age 10) and A.W

. (age 12) ( collectively the minors)

. Father contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction over the minors , (2) there is insufficient evidence of current risk to support the minors’ removal from the paternal grandparents , (3) the domestic violence
services ordered in father’s case plan are not supported by substantial evidence , and2

(4) the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that his visits be supervised by
someone other than the paternal grandparents

. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND On November 30, 2018, t he Sacramento County Department of Child, Family, and
Ad ult Services ( Department ) filed verified Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 1 petitions on behalf of the minors allegin g risks to the minors under subdivisions (b)(1) and (c). The petitions alleged the minors ’ mother and her boyfriend had a history of domestic violence and had engaged in domestic violence in front of her children, including the minors. Mother and her boyfriend agreed to voluntary informal services, but then refused to participate in those serv ices and violated five separate safety plans.
Mother ’s untreated psychiatric and/or emotional problems , combined with her
intellectual d isabilities , had impair ed her judgment and ability to provide care, protection , and supervision to the minors. Mother s uffered from d epression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety, but failed to follow up with counseling and medication. She also had a borderline intellectual delay for which she received services until th e services w ere terminated for nonattendance

. The petition s further alleged mother had failed to provide for the minors’ m edical, dental, mental health , and developmental needs. It was not known when the minors had
last seen a dentist

. A.W. needed a new nebulizer and to a see a doctor for her right ear. The minors’ referrals for mental health treatment were allowed to lapse. M other failed to
fill M i .W.’s psychotropic medication despite repeated reminders. She also failed to
reestablish services for the minors, who have developmental and speech delays.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3

According to the petition , father’s untreated psychiatric disorder, emotional issues, and substance abuse problems impaired his judgment and ability to provide care, supervision, and protection for minors . Father suffer ed from untreated bipolar disorder
and also abuse d alcohol, opi ates, and methamphetamine. He repeatedly refused to drug
test. M i .W. twice complained f ather physically abused him with a bat and a shoe. In addition, the petitions alleged M i .W. was suffering or ha d suffered emotional damage as evidenced by suicidal ide ation and self

- harming behaviors. Mi.W. was held

on section 5150 holds on October 10, 2018 and November 6, 2018 for holding a knife

to his neck and threatening to stab himself , as well as for cutting his arm with scissors.
M i .W. had expressed suicidal id eation and suffered escalating aggressive behaviors

. He complained that he feared physical abuse by father. Despite recommendations for counseling, mother failed to obtain those services or M i .W.’s prescription for Risperd a l.
An associated November 30, 2 018 application for a protective custody warrant provided more information regarding the circumstances and living arrangements relevant to father’s c ontentions on appeal. M i .W. reported witness ing his mother fighting with her boyfriend five times, while A .W. denied witnessing any such fighting. Father transported

t he minors to stay with their mother on weekends , and the minors lived with their father
and paternal grandparents during the week. At the end of September 2018 and again in early October, M i .W. complained he was afraid of his father, who he said called him

names, had slapped him , pulled his pants down and hit him with a sho e

. According to Mi.W., o n another occasion father hit him in the face with a shoe

. M i .W. also complained fat her had hit him in the knee with a bat. T he later filed jurisdiction/disposition report indicated that a mandated reporter observed two bruises on Mi.W.’s knee. A.W. denied that father hit M i .W. or called him names , and t he paternal grandparents denied t hat father hurt M i .W. , that M i .W. was scared of father , or that father abused drugs.4

The day after M i .W.’s October 10, 2018 threat to stab himself with a knife, he
threatened to kill himself again while at school

. The school called f ather to inform him
of Mi.W.’s statements and father said he would put M i .W.’s school in a “ flash ” if M i .W.

was not there when father arrived. As a result of father’s statement, t he school went on lockdown and father was banned from bringing the minors to the c a mpus

. On October 31, 2018 , during a social worker visit , M i .W. threatened to harm himself but police were
able to calm him. Mother was referred to Sacramento County Mental Health. She agreed to place the minors with their paternal grandparents and the grandparents agreed to supervise the minors with father. Father refused D epartment services. On November 6, 2018, M i .W. cut his wrist with scissors at school and was transported to a hospital. A ttempts to contact mother and father were unsuccessful. The
school worried A.W. wa s also acting out behaviorally and that the paternal grandparents

wer e not interested in learning why M i .W. fear ed fat her

. M i .W. was released from the hospital on November 8 with a psychiatric prescription and referral for outpatient

treatment.
D uring the November 13, 2018 preventive child family team meeting , a picture of
M i .W. with a black eye allegedly inflicted by father was disclosed

. At a follow

- up interview, f

ather admitted past domestic violence with mother, but explained he always apologized after wards . M i .W. told mother that father caused the black eye, which
occurred a few months before

. Father had previously punche d mother in the face. When
asked about their failure to follow

- up on M i .W.’s latest section 5150 hold , mother did not reply and father blamed his parents for not following up. Father admitted to drinking heavily in recent days but then retracted his stat ement. When asked what a drug test would show, father admitted it would show alcohol and opiates, but then refused to test.
The social worker observed that f ather’s physical appearance w as consistent with use of methamphetamine or something stronger. Wh en the social worker mentioned this to5

mother while father was in the restroom, mother confided that father was using methamphetamine. On November 21, 2018 , a s ocial worker visited the paternal grandparents ’ home

. The grandparents reported they were caring for the minors 100 percent of the time, but
their abilities were hampered by the parents’ lack of communication and follow

- up with
the minor ’s various needs. The grandparents turned away professionals for an
assessment earlier i n the week because no one had communicated the visit to them , and they had other plans

. The grandparents were unaware of father’s drug use, but were
concerned about his untreated mental health issues. They reported that f ather d id not listen to the m or f

ollow their advice. The juvenile court granted the request for emergency detention of the minors after finding that their physical environment pose d an imminent threat to their health or safety
and there were not reasonable means by which the minors could be protected without temporary removal from the physical custody of the parents or guardians. The minors

were subsequently detained over father’s objection on December 12 , 2018. Following

an altercation in the visit ation parking lot between father and mo ther’s boyfriend, each parent was ordered to visit separately.
The January 8, 2019 combined jurisdiction / disposition report summarized the originating circumstances leading to formal Department int ervention , as previously
recounted here. Notably, father agreed with the harm statement vis

- à

- vis mother, indicating he was aware that mother and her boyfriend had a history of domestic
violence , including the boyfriend pulling a knife on her and slapping her in the face

. The violence ha d occur r ed in front of father and the minors , yet father failed to explain why he continued taking the minors to their mother on weekends

. Father disagreed he was a danger because of mental health or substanc e abuse issues and refused to answer questions concerning his mental h ealth because he did not want to incriminate himself.
Father refused to test to verify he was drug free . He admitted M i .W. r eported physical6

abuse but denied he had hurt him

. Father indicated he was willing to take parenting and
domestic violence classe s , but then refused to accept the paper referrals for services and left without providing a family background

. Mother blamed father and paternal grandparents for any lack of medical or dental
care related to the minors

. She admitted using methamphetamine for the first time two weeks before being interviewed for the report

. She had positive tests for methamphetamine on December 10 and 13. M i .W. reported he had seen mother’s boyfriend hit her on the face , but otherwise refused to be interviewed

. M i .W. continued to make statements threatening self

- harm at his placement. A.W. denied witnessing any domestic violence or physical abuse , but s he had disclosed to her caregiver that she witnessed a fight between father and mother’s boyfriend where both were bleeding and mother was hit by accident

. A.W. had not been to school in a long time and did not know why . She said she wanted to go back to living with her grandparents during the week and
her mother on weekends. Another of mother’s children, M.G., reported that her mother was depressed because of discord caused by father, who want ed to be with mother and tried to fight with mother’s boyfrien d. M.G. said f ather th ought he was still in a relationship with mother,
but th at was not correct

. The paternal grandparents were upset the minors were removed from their home and felt they were well cared for. They complained everyone wa s lying. When asked
about M i .W.’s medicine, grandmother s aid Child Protective Services (CPS) had asked the parents to fill the prescription to show responsibility. Contrary to the grandparent ’ s previous report that their son stay ed with them when the children were there , g randmother reported that father d id not live in their home but only visited when the
children were there. The g randparents wanted the minors r eturned to their home.
The F ebruary 19, 2019 addendum indicated father had missed visits with the
minors and had lied about beginning drug testing. His last drug test was from 2012.7

The March 5, 2019 addendum said paternal grandparents were in the process of obtaining approval to provide a home for the minors

. The grandparents had cared for the children
d uring the week for the past three years and were familiar with their needs. The grandparents stated the minors were removed because of domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend and repeated their previous assertion that everyone had been lying to CPS. The March 26, 2019 addendum relayed that the social worker approved of placing
the minors w ith the paternal grandparents once the resource family approval process was
finished , which required the completion of two more parenting classes

. Father had visited the minors, but was “no call no show” on two occasions. The social worker hoped that placement of the minors with the paternal grandparents would make it easier for
father to visit the minors. At the March 26, 2019 hearing, M i .W.’s attorney e xpressed concern that the paternal grandparents failed to recognize when father wa s under the
influence and were not interested in learning why M i .W. had told the school he was
afraid of father. The April 23, 2019 addendum reported that the paternal grandp arents were defensive concerning father’s alcohol and/or drug use, but attested that they would not condone his using any substances while visiting their home and would do what was necessary to keep the minors safe

. Paternal grandparents denied being awar e that either
minor was ever afraid of father and stated they had never seen any signs of physical
abuse. M i .W. had reported being bullied at school, but paternal grandparents’ attempts to contact the school were unsuccessful because grandparents did not have legal authority
over the minors. The resource family approval social worker recommended the minors for placement with paternal grandparents.
T he combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing took place on April 23, 2019 , at which the parties submitted th e matter on the social study report s

. Father objected that the allegations concerning his substance abuse and physical abuse were unsupported by8

the evidence. He further objected to out of home placement and argued that domestic
violence services were no t required because the incidents occurred over 10 years before , and he had already had services related to them.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations, finding it had jurisdiction over the
minors. The juvenile court reviewed and considered the written record and found by clear and convincing evidence that the minors were dependents. It determined that placement with the paternal grandparents would be ap propriate once their approval
process wa s complete and once services were in place to help the grandparents recognize
issues related to father’s substance abuse. Consistent with M i .W.’s attorney’s request , the juvenile court ordered that f ather’s visits would be supervised by someone other than
the paternal grand parents. The recommended findings and orders were adopted by the juvenile court and incorporated in the order. Father was ordered to participate in domestic violence and substance abuse programs.
S TANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a challenge to the suffici ency of the evidence supporting jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence supports
them. ( In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders; we review the record in the light most
favorable to the juvenile court ’ s determinations; and issues of fact and credibility remain the province of the juvenile court. ( Ibid .) We do not reweigh the evidence but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the juvenile court’s findings. ( Ibid .)
DISCUSSION
I
Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction over the minors. He claims there is not enough evidence supporting the allegations concerning
mother , but even if there were , we should separately consider whether there is sufficient evidence supporting the allegations pertaining to him

. Although the Department asserts9

forfeiture , 2 we address the merits and conclude there is sufficient evidence to support jurisdiction. Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) provides i n relevant part that a child may fall within the jurisdiction of the dependency court if “ [t] he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect
the chil d, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to p rovide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse

. ” Section 300, subdivision (c) provides for jurisdiction where “[t] he child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressiv e behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care. ”
T he evidence indicates the minors were exposed to do mestic violence. F ather
admitted to domestic violence with mother , he engaged in physical fights with mother’s boyfriend in front of the minors , and he was aware of domestic violence between mother
and her boyfriend yet continued to bring the minors to stay with mother on weekend s

.

2 A parent in a contested dependency proceeding “is not required to object to the agency ’s failure to carry its burden of proof.” ( In re Javier G . (2006) 137 Cal. App.4th 453, 4 64.) Rather, a “ ‘ “contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence

. . . is an obvious exception to the [forfeiture] rule.” ’ ” ( In re Gregory A. (2005) 126 Cal. App.4th 1554, 1560; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal. App.4th 837, 848 [parent ’ s challenge to removal order “on the ground of insufficient evidence

. . . is not forfeited even if not raised in the juvenile court”].)10

Father m ade a comment that led M i .W.’s school to lock down and to forbid him from bringing the minors to campus. In addition, Mi.W. had escalating mental health problems resulting in two
section 5150 holds for threats and acts of self

- harm. But none of his caregi vers obtained his psychotropic medication or followed up to provide him with mental health counseling
and other services. A.W. was repeatedly absent from school and needed a new nebulizer. The minors were not receiving regular dental or medical care.
Mor eover, both mother and father had untreated mental health and substance
abuse problems affecting their ability to provide appropriate care for the minors. Mother suffered from untreated depression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety

. She also used methampheta mine. Father had an untreated bipolar disorder , he admitt ed to us e of opiates and to excessive alcohol consumption , and he repeatedly refused to test. The
social worker observed that father’s appearance was consistent with methamphetamine

use , and m other disclosed that father was using methamphetamine.
Sufficient evidence support s the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
I I
Father next contends there is insufficient evidence of current risk to support the minors’ removal from the paternal grand parents. He claims the order must be reversed
because reasonable efforts were not made to avoid removal

. We disagree. First, the record does not establish that paternal grandparents had been designated

as the minors’ legal guardians or custodians at the time these proceedings were commenced. Instead, it appears the minors were staying with father in the grandparents’ home during the week and with mother on the weekends. As such, the minors were not removed from the paternal grandparents , they were remov ed from the custody of father
and mother

. A juvenile court may remove a child from the parent with whom he or she resides if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a11

substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well

- being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor
from the minor ’ s parent’s

. . . physical custod y.” ( § 361, subd. (c)(1).) Here, t he record shows reasonable efforts by the Department. It instructed mother

to attend parenting, domestic violence and counseling programs and to drug test

. It also referred the minors for counseling and directed mother to reestablish Alta California Regional Center services for both herself and the minors , as well as to refill Mi.W.’s psychiatric medication and establish outpatient psychiatric services

. Mother agreed she would coordinate with paternal grandparents regarding school and regional center
services. Both parents were directed to coordinate with paternal grandparents to assure the minors’ medical, dental, mental health, and school needs were taken car e of. This included Mi.W.’s mental health and medication needs following his second release from 5150 hospitalization. In addition, t he D epartment directed father to drug test

. However, both mother and father repeatedly failed to comply with D epartment instructions intended to keep the minors’ safe and prevent the need for remov al. Father refus ed D epartment services. Even if the minors had been in paternal grandparents custody prior to removal , the same facts supporting the removal of the minors from fa ther would support removal from grandparents. Paternal grandparents claimed not to know about father’s substance abuse even though father admitted using opiates and consuming an entire bottle of alcohol in one evening while he was staying with them

. Paternal grandparents were also dismissive
of repeated reports that father physically abu sed Mi.W. and that M i .W. fear ed f ather.
But p aternal grandparents were concerned about father’s untreated mental health problems and complained that father would not listen to them. Further, w hile staying with grandparents, M i .W. was subject to two section 5150 holds within a 30

- day period , and grandparents failed to obtain M i .W.’s required psychiatric medicine or get him in to12

therapy

. Moreover, grandparents permitted father to take the minors to their mother,
who suffered from known substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence issues. They did not obtain a nebulizer for A.W. or ensure that she attend ed school. Su fficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and that removal was required . ( In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 1206, 1214

. )
I II
Father further argues that the domestic violence servi ces ordered in his case plan are not supported by substantial evidence

.

“ ‘The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal,
this deter mination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.’ [Citation.] In reviewing an order for abuse of discretion, we ‘ “must consider all the evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favor able to
the trial court ’ s ruling. [Citation.] The precise test is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude that the trial court order advanced the best interests of the child.” ’ [Citation.] ‘The trial court is accorded wide discretion and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent “a manifest showing of abuse.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” ( In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal. App.4th 178, 186

- 187 [reviewing court order requiring father to participate in drug services and testing desp ite father’s denial of drug abuse problem].)
R equiring father to participate in d omestic violence services w as reasonably related to the family ’s reunification needs. Both mother and father conceded their relationship had a history of domestic violence. Moreover, father had e ngaged in physical fights with mother’s boyfriend in front of the minors , and father was aware of
domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend yet brought the minors to stay with13

mother on weekends. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in requiring father to participate in and complete a domestic violence program.
IV
Father further claims the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that his visits be supervised by someone other than the paternal grandparents. Section 362.1 provides in part: “(a) In order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, a nd to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of his or her parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, s hall provide as follows: [¶] (1)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well

- being of the child. [¶] (B) No visitation order shall j eopardize the safety of the child. ” ( § 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A) (B) ; see In re Daniel C. H . (1990) 220 Cal. App.3d 814, 838

- 839 [visitation may be limited if the juvenile court finds it is not in the child ’ s best interest].)
In visitation matters , the juvenil e court is accorded broad discretion. We review
visitation orders for abuse of that discretion. ( In re R.R . (2010) 187 Cal. App.4th 1264, 1284; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal. App.3d 942, 953.) “ ‘ “ The appropriate test for
abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the tr ial court. ” ’ ” ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 295, 318

- 319.)
There is evidence that paternal grandparents were not adequate supervisors for father’s visits. They claimed no knowledge of father’s substance abuse and did not
pursue M i .W.’s allegatio ns of physical abuse by father . The minors were appropriately removed from father’s custody while the family was staying in the paternal grandparents ’
home . Thus, the juvenile court was well within its discretion in determining that14

someone other than gr andparents would be required to supervise visits with father until paternal grandparents had com p leted suitable services aimed at bolstering their ability

to safely supervise father ’s visits with the minors

. DISPOSITION The ju venile court orders are affirm ed.

/S/ MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/ BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/S/ HULL, J.