Filed 8/20/20 In re W.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 W.R. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B304013, B304856

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

W.R.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. Nos. 18LJJP00452B-C)

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed.

Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Acting 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

Father W.R. has filed five appeals from orders concerning his 

dependent children, including these two consolidated appeals. (See 

In re W.R. (Aug. 6, 2019, B292121, B294990) [nonpub. opn.]; In re 

P.R. (Aug. 2, 2019, B293713) [nonpub. opn.].) In these consolidated 

appeals, father challenges the order removing his now nine- and 10-

year-old sons from his care, following the order sustaining a 

subsequent petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 342.

1

 He also challenges the dispositional orders requiring 

him to complete services he had already completed, and the order

limiting his educational rights to his two younger sons. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We draw the following facts from an earlier opinion. (See In 

re W.R., supra, B292121, B294990.)

This family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department) on 

June 22, 2018, after the Department received a referral of a 

domestic violence incident between father and his girlfriend, O.E. 

Father’s four sons and O.E.’s daughter from a previous relationship

were in the home at the time of this domestic violence incident. 

Father and O.E. engaged in numerous incidents of domestic 

violence in front of the children. Sometimes O.E. was the aggressor, 

and other times father was the aggressor. 

Father had diagnoses for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. 

He was prescribed Seroquel, but stopped taking the medication in 

2016 because it made him drowsy. Father takes Hydrocodone for 

injuries he received years earlier during a robbery. He admitted he 

self-medicates his mental health problems with his pain 

medication, and sometimes abuses his medication. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

Father has sole legal and physical custody of his three older 

sons. Their mother, S.M., has not been involved in their lives for 

years. Father and S.M. also had a history of domestic violence. 

The family has a history with the Department, with 

numerous referrals in 2010, 2013, and 2016, all related to drugs 

and domestic violence. Father also has an extensive criminal 

record, spanning from 1992 to 2016, with numerous arrests and 

convictions. Father has served time in prison. 

On July 19, 2018, the Department filed a dependency petition 

with allegations under subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 300, based 

on domestic violence between father and O.E. The petition was 

later amended to allege that father abused his prescription 

medication, and has a history of mental health problems but failed 

to take his psychotropic medication. 

The adjudication/disposition hearing was held on August 16, 

2018. The juvenile court sustained allegations under 

subdivision (b) of section 300 based on the history of domestic 

violence, father’s mental health, and prescription drug abuse. 

The children were placed with father, under the supervision 

of the Department. Father was ordered to participate in family 

maintenance services, including random and on-demand drug 

testing, a full drug program if he tested positive or missed a test (for 

drugs other than his prescription medications at the proper dosage), 

a domestic violence support group, parenting classes, an Evidence 

Code section 730 evaluation, individual counseling, and to take all 

prescribed psychotropic medications. 

The Department received reports that father and O.E. were in 

contact in violation of a criminal protective order. Therefore, on 

October 10, 2018, the Department filed a supplemental petition 

pursuant to section 387, and the children were detained in foster 

care. 
4

New concerns about the children arose. Father’s 15-year-old 

son was generally well behaved and respectful, but he was very 

nervous when answering simple questions. He also had been 

suspended for violent altercations with other students at school. 

The 10-year-old had significant behavioral problems at school, 

including violent outbursts. The school had been attempting to 

secure services for him since 2014, but father would not consent, 

and was “belligerent” during conversations with school staff. The 

nine-year-old also appeared to have anger issues. Father refused to 

have him assessed for mental health services, and was belligerent 

and uncooperative with school officials. The child was sent to the 

principal’s office daily, and was often out of control. The school 

stopped contacting father because he was so uncooperative and 

unsupportive. 

The adjudication hearing on the supplemental petition was 

held on October 31, 2018. The juvenile court sustained the petition 

and removed the children from father. The court ordered father to 

participate in the same services previously ordered. 

Father appealed the orders on the original and supplemental 

petitions, challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, 

dispositional orders, and subsequent order removing the children 

from his care, and those orders were affirmed on appeal. (See In re 

W.R., supra, B292121, B294990.) 

On October 11, 2018, father underwent an Evidence Code 

section 730 evaluation. Dr. Sheila Morris opined that father 

suffered from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. She was 

concerned about his ability to care for his children, as he was not 

taking medications. She recommended that he receive counseling, 

comply with prescribed medications, take anger management and 

parenting classes, and submit to a follow-up evaluation in six 

months. 
5

Between November 5, 2018, and January 16, 2019, father had 

four negative drug tests, and two positive tests for morphine. By 

January 2019, father had completed domestic violence, parenting,

and individual counseling programs with Tarzana Treatment 

Center. He was not taking any psychotropic medications.

On April 3, 2019, father had his six-month psychological reevaluation. Dr. Morris opined that father’s diagnosis remained the 

same, but that father had improved. She recommended that father 

continue to receive services and treatment, but she had minimal 

concerns about father’s ability to care for the children.

On May 1, 2019, the children were returned to father under 

the supervision of the Department. The court conditioned its order 

on father making the children available for visits with the 

Department, that he submit to random and on-demand drug 

testing, that he participate in family preservation services, and that 

he cooperate in getting IEP’s for the children. 

After father regained custody of the children, he stopped 

returning the Department’s phone calls, and failed to submit to 

drug testing. He came to Department offices in June and 

July 2019, but he refused to provide the address where he was 

staying so the Department could visit him there. When the 

Department visited his last known address in August 2019, the 

social worker discovered that father had moved out six months 

earlier. 

On September 5, 2019, the children’s school contacted the 

Department to report that the nine- and 10-year-old boys were “in 

great need of support services such as mental health and tutoring.” 

They were performing poorly both academically and behaviorally. 

Father refused to cooperate with the school to get services for the 

boys. The nine-year-old was having the most problems; walking out 

of class, throwing chairs, and threatening other students. Father 
6

was not responding to the school’s calls. Father told the school that 

he would counsel the children himself. 

The social worker met with the school principal on 

September 11, 2019. The children had attended the school for the 

last five years. For the last four years, father did not support his 

children’s academic needs. He refused to consent to the children 

receiving mental health and tutoring services offered by the school, 

was disrespectful with school personnel in front of the children, and 

told the children not to listen to anyone but him. 

The social worker met with the nine- and 10-year-old at 

school, and they reported they were doing well in father’s care. She 

also met with father as he came to pick up the children. Father was 

upset the social worker “violated his rights” by meeting with the 

children. He interrogated the children, asking what they told the 

social worker, and told them they should not speak to anyone 

outside his presence. Father walked away with the children as the 

social worker tried to talk to him. 

Father called the social worker the next day from a blocked 

phone number. He refused to provide his phone number, and when 

the social worker asked to schedule a visit, he said he would call 

back. However, he never did. Therefore, the Department was 

concerned about the children, and recommended that they be 

detained. All three children were detained on October 18, 2019. 

A behavioral detail report from the school reflected that 

between 2014 and 2019, the 10-year-old child had at least 

48 disciplinary incidents, including hitting other students, refusing 

to comply with directions and complete assignments, throwing 

rocks, disrupting class, vandalizing school property, using 

profanity, fighting with other students, and exposing himself to 

other students. Once, when the school discussed the problems with 

father, father recommended that they “flick” him when he 
7

misbehaved. Father also accused the school of “pick[ing] on” his 

kids, and threatened school staff in May 2018. 

The youngest child’s behavioral report detailed at least 

45 disciplinary incidents between 2017 and 2019, including failing 

to follow directions, fighting with other students, being disruptive, 

throwing chairs and other objects, urinating on the floor and 

outside in the lunch line, damaging school property, punching other 

students, choking another student, screaming, running out of 

classrooms, and sexually harassing a female student. Father 

refused the school’s recommendation that he receive psychological 

services at school. Father also refused to consent to IEP services. 

On October 22, 2019, the Department filed a supplemental 

petition under section 387, alleging that father failed to make the 

children available for visits by the Department, and failed to 

participate in drug testing and family preservation services. That 

same day, the Department filed a subsequent petition pursuant to 

section 342, alleging that father refused to cooperate with the school 

to obtain mental health services for his two younger boys, and that

this neglect put all three sons at risk. 

On October 23, 2019, the two younger boys were detained 

from father. His oldest son was allowed to remain in his care. 

In late October and early November, the Department made 

multiple attempts to contact father. Father refused to speak with 

the Department or allow the social worker to see his 15-year-old 

son, who was in his care, complaining that the social worker was 

not the one assigned to his case. Father explained that he did not 

sign off on the IEP for his younger son because he did not agree the 

boy needed all of the recommended services, such as speech 

therapy. However, father claimed he had “signed papers” for the 

nine-year-old to receive counseling and mentoring services at 

school.
8

The foster mother for the younger boys reported that when 

they were previously in her custody, she worked tirelessly to obtain 

an IEP for the younger child, attending numerous meetings, but 

that father refused to sign the IEP. 

The adjudication of the section 342 and 387 petitions took 

place on November 14, 22, and December 5, 2019. The juvenile 

court dismissed the section 387 petition without prejudice, and 

found the section 342 petition true as alleged. 

At the December 5, 2019 disposition hearing, the court 

allowed the oldest child to remain in father’s care, over the 

Department’s objection.2 The court removed the nine- and 10-yearold boys from father. The court ordered father to participate in a 

new Evidence Code section 730 evaluation, on-demand drug testing, 

parenting classes, and individual counseling. Father filed a timely 

notice of appeal, which we assigned case No. B304013. 

On February 4, 2020, the attorney for the younger children

filed a “walk on request” asking the court to limit father’s 

educational rights, arguing that father was still refusing to consent 

to the children receiving necessary services at school. Father 

argued he would obtain services for his children, but only if they 

were returned to him, and alternatively asked that if his 

educational rights were limited, the Department be ordered to allow 

father to participate in the IEP meetings. 

The court expressed concern that father was not cooperating 

with the Department or caregivers to provide the children with 

necessary services, and entered an order limiting father’s 

educational rights, vesting them in the children’s foster mother. 

2 The Department appealed this order, but dismissed its 

appeal. 
9

The court’s order did not specify that father would be allowed to 

participate in meetings. 

This timely appeal followed, and was assigned case 

No. B304856. We ordered the two appeals consolidated. 

DISCUSSION

1. Removal Order

Father contends there were reasonable means to protect the 

children without removing them from his care, such as changing 

schools and ordering father to enroll the children in counseling. We

are not persuaded. 

A child may not be removed from a parent or guardian unless 

there is clear and convincing evidence of “substantial danger to the 

physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing 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 [or]

guardian’s . . . physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) A juvenile

court’s removal order is reviewed under the substantial evidence 

standard of review. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 

193; see also Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011-

1012.)

The academic and behavioral problems leading to the 

two boys’ removal had persisted for many years, unabated. Father’s 

two younger sons were completely out of control, and in need of 

services that father would not authorize. Father repeatedly refused 

offers of support from the school, and would not authorize an IEP 

for the younger child. There were no less drastic means to protect 

the children. Father had not complied with prior orders to 

authorize IEP’s, would not make his children available to the 

Department, and was often hostile and uncooperative. We find 

substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order. 
10

2. Educational Rights

For these same reasons, we find the court was well within its 

discretion to limit father’s educational rights.

Section 361, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “[i]n all cases in 

which a minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court . . . , the 

court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child 

by any parent . . . . Any limitation on the right of the parent . . . to 

make educational or developmental services decisions for the child 

shall be specifically addressed in the court order. The limitations 

may not exceed those necessary to protect the child.” An order 

limiting a parent’s educational rights is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. (In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 58.)

Father contends the order limiting his educational rights did 

not “clearly and specifically” set forth all the limitations on his 

educational rights, as it did not address his request to participate in 

school meetings for the children. We are not persuaded that there 

was any deficiency in the court’s order, which was made on a

mandatory judicial council form. The court likely concluded that 

father’s participation would be disruptive. 

Father also contends the order exceeded the limitations 

necessary to protect his children, reasoning that the children could 

have been returned to him with orders that he receive necessary 

services for them, or that the court should have ordered that he be 

allowed to participate in meetings. Clearly, his defiance of previous 

orders, and failure to make the children available to the 

Department belie this claim. 

3. Dispositional Orders

Father challenges the court’s dispositional orders, arguing the 

case plan requiring him to repeat programs he has already 

completed is not reasonable or necessary. 
11

The juvenile court’s broad discretion to fashion dispositional 

orders includes discretion to address any known deficiencies 

harmful to the well-being of a child. (In re Christopher H. (1996)

50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.) We will not reverse a juvenile court’s

determination of an appropriate disposition absent a clear abuse of

discretion. (Ibid.; In re Sergio C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 957, 960.)

Although father had already participated in two Evidence

Code section 730 evaluations, a parenting class, and individual

counseling, it was clear that he had a lot more to learn from these

programs. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion. 

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed. 

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. 

WILEY, J.