Filed 5/16/23 In re M.B. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re M.B., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B320868

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

21CCJP04590A-C)

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Debra L. Losnick, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Arthur J. LaCilento and Arthur J. LaCilento 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel; Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel; William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳

R.B. (father) appeals from a dispositional and juvenile court 

exit order in a dependency case removing his three children, 

M.B., A.B. and S.B from his custody, awarding mother sole 

physical custody order with monitored visits to father, and 

terminating the court’s jurisdiction. Father argues that the 

juvenile court abused its discretion by removing the children from 

him and awarding custody to mother, and that the court’s 

findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We find no 

merit to father’s contentions and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The initial encounter, investigation and detention 

hearing.

In August of 2021, the Department of Children and Family 

Services (Department) received a report of a domestic violence 

incident at mother’s and stepfather’s home, involving a physical

altercation that occurred in the presence of the children. On 

September 28, 2021, following an investigation, the Department 

removed the children from mother and placed them with a foster 

parent. The Department considered placing the children with 

father, but decided such placement would be inappropriate 

because the children “displayed significant emotional reaction to 

the concept of having to be placed with father,” with whom they 
3

had not had any contact for over two years.1 The oldest child, 

M.B., objected to being placed with father, becoming “extremely 

upset and screamed . . . [that father] ‘is an evil, very evil man.’ ” 

Although he was aware of the proceeding, father did not request 

that the Department place the children with him.

On September 30, 2021, the Department filed a petition 

under Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300, alleging that 

domestic violence between mother and stepfather posed a threat 

to the children’s physical and emotional well-being.

The court held a detention hearing on October 5, 2021. 

Before the hearing, the Department filed a Last Minute 

Information with the Court stating that it was changing its 

recommendation and also seeking detention of the children from 

father. The Department stated that “the children do not have a[ ] 

relationship with their father and have express[ed] that they are 

afraid of him.” It also reported that, although father represented 

he had no mental health issues other than seasonal affective 

disorder, he had in fact been diagnosed with paranoid personality 

disorder, bipolar disorder and adjustment disorder.

At the hearing, the court adopted the Department’s

recommendation, finding good cause for detaining the children 

from both parents. As to mother, the court found a substantial 

risk to the physical or emotional health of the children. The court 

detained the children from father based on their statements that 

1 At the time of the removal, the children were subject to 

family law orders that gave mother sole legal and physical 

custody and provided for father to have professionally monitored 

visitation.

2 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references 

are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
4

they were physically abused by him and were frightened to live in 

his home. The court ordered monitored visits for both parents.

B. The first and second amended petitions.

On October 13, 2021, the Department filed a first amended 

petition adding new allegations regarding father. The amended 

petition alleged that father had an “inclination to bad-mouth the 

mother and . . . unceasing efforts to prove that mother and others 

have conspired to ruin him.” The Department further alleged 

that father had physically abused mother in the children’s 

presence, and that his conduct “is emotionally abusive to the 

children and has caused the children unreasonable suffering.” 

The amended petition also included a new count against mother, 

alleging general neglect for failure to obtain mental health 

services and treatment for the children.

On November 19, 2021, the Department filed a second 

amended petition that omitted the count against father. The 

second amended petition added a new count alleging that both 

parents were involved in an “ongoing, high-conflict custody 

dispute,” and that mother’s comments disparaging father created 

a risk of serious emotional harm to M.B., the oldest of the three 

children. The Department continued to recommend that the 

children be detained from both parents “until such time as the 

parents can receive treatment for their mental health issues, 

substance abuse, domestic violence and lack of parenting skills.” 

Following a detention hearing on the second amended petition on 

November 24, 2021, the court ordered that the children remain in 

foster care.

C. The children are returned to mother.

The court held a trial setting hearing on March 14, 2022. 

Prior to that hearing, the Department submitted a Supplemental 
5

Report updating the court “as to the services in process and 

completed by the family.” The Department stated that mother 

and stepfather had made significant progress. It noted that 

mother had completed a domestic violence class and was 

participating in individual therapy, and marriage counseling 

with stepfather. Stepfather had enrolled in a domestic violence 

program for batterers and was “fully compliant” with that 

program. In addition, stepfather was submitting clean weekly 

drug tests, and attending “several [Alcoholics Anonymous] 

meetings per week.” The Department recommended that the 

court return the children to mother’s home “with ongoing Court 

involvement and Family Maintenance Services in place.” The 

Department also recommended against placing the children with 

father “due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic, anxiety-ridden and 

volatile feelings the children demonstrate in the presence of their 

father and paternal relatives.” The Department noted that the 

visits between the children and father had “not improved, and 

are instead getting worse and worse.”

Mother pleaded no contest to the petition and the court 

sustained a single count against mother.

3 The court ordered the 

children released to mother under the supervision of the 

Department subject to mother continuing with her court-ordered 

programs. The court also ordered the Department to provide to

the children, mother and father referrals to a high conflict family 

reunification therapist, and scheduled a disposition hearing on 

May 10-11, 2022.

3 The sustained count alleged that the August 2021 domestic 

violence incident that caused the children to be detained from 

mother endangered the children’s physical health and safety.
6

D. The disposition hearing and order.

The Department continued to monitor both parents’ 

progress. It submitted a Supplemental Report that stated that 

mother and stepfather continued to participate in their 

counseling and that mother had sufficiently progressed in her 

individual therapy such that it was no longer needed. The 

children’s social worker (CSW) had conducted a home visit and 

met with the children and mother and stepfather. The CSW 

found that the family was doing well, and that the children 

happily showed her their “room, toys/games, computers setup, 

schoolwork.” The CSW noted that “[t]he children and parents 

appear to have a healthy relationship, and have a good bond.”

The Supplemental Report stated that father had retained 

Dr. Lynn Steinberg as a reunification specialist. Father stated 

that he was not participating in the court ordered monitored 

visits because they “[were] not helping the children at this time” 

and were “ ‘detrimental . . . and I don’t want to see them hurt, so 

I had to make a moral and ethical decision by stopping the 

monitored visits and sticking with reunification therapy.’ ” He 

stated that he wanted to see the children only during therapeutic 

visits with Dr. Steinberg.

The CSW spoke to father after he and the children 

attended a two-hour session with Dr. Steinberg on April 1, 2022. 

Father told her that the session “ ‘was a disaster.’ ” M.B. “ ‘was 

screaming and crying during the meeting’ ” while A.B. “held his 

head and cried.” According to father, Dr. Steinberg stated that 

further sessions would be useless unless the children were 

removed from mother’s custody. After the April 1 session with 

Dr. Steinberg, father had no further visits with the children, and 

no further sessions with Dr. Steinberg. The Department 
7

expressed “concern to the Court that as a result of the ongoing 

issues between the adults in their lives, the children present as 

having a hatred of their father that goes beyond what may or 

may not have occurred in the home when the children were 

younger.” The Department stated that it had “facilitated visits 

for the father and the paternal relatives that are dysfunctional in 

the extreme.”

The Department concluded that the children could safely 

remain in mother’s custody based on her compliance with 

counseling and other services. Although father was “nonoffending,” the Department found that release to father posed “a 

threat to the children due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic, 

anxiety-ridden and volatile feelings” toward father and paternal 

relatives. It further stated that it would be a detriment to the 

children to release them to father based on their threats of “selfharm, running away or acting out” if put in father’s custody.

Dr. Steinberg also prepared a written report for the 

disposition hearing. She opined that the children were alienated 

from father and recommended they be placed with father for 90 

days, during which time they have no contact with mother, and a 

four-day “family reunification intensive” therapy session. She 

further opined that the children were in “mortal danger” if they 

remained with mother and stepfather, but she saw no evidence of 

abuse by father. Dr. Steinberg described the oldest child as 

demonstrating “a pattern of communication that is sociopathic in 

nature, and if not checked . . . he could become sociopathic.”

The court held a disposition hearing on May 10 and 11, 

2022. The court admitted in evidence the Department’s reports 

detailing the social workers’ interactions with mother, father, 

stepfather, and the children, as well as the foster mother and 
8

therapists. The court also heard testimony from social workers, 

father, and Dr. Steinberg. Dr. Steinberg’s testimony was 

consistent with her written report: she recommended a 90-day 

transfer of custody to father, no contact with mother or stepfather 

during that time, and a four-day reunification therapy session. 

Dr. Steinberg also testified that, in her opinion, the children were 

in danger of abuse, or of growing up to become abusers 

themselves, if they remained with mother. Finally, Dr. Steinberg 

testified that she believed mother was coaching the children to 

resist contact with father. In response to questions from the 

court, Dr. Steinberg stated that her opinion would “not 

necessarily” change if she knew that mother and stepfather had 

completed domestic violence counseling. When asked if her 

recommendation would change if she knew “that the mother was 

actively trying to get the children to see their father,” Dr. 

Steinberg replied, “My best answer is, I don’t believe she is based 

on what I saw.” Father’s testimony mirrored Dr. Steinberg’s; 

namely, that the children were in danger if left with mother and 

stepfather, and that they were at risk of physical and emotional 

harm which, according to father, “needs to be reversed by a 

period of placement with me, so I can work on these issues.”

After all parties rested, the court heard argument. Father’s 

counsel urged the court to adopt Dr. Steinberg’s 

recommendations and to place the children with father. Counsel 

for mother argued that the children should remain in mother’s 

home. The Department argued that mother and stepfather had 

taken responsibility for their conduct and had completed their

court-ordered programs, and that the children were doing well at 

home and in school. The Department also argued that mother 

had been cooperative with facilitating the children’s visits with 
9

father and there was no evidence of parental alienation by 

mother. The Department argued that placement with father 

would cause the children emotional harm, noting that father 

himself elected to terminate his monitored visits on the ground 

that they were detrimental to the children.

In issuing its order, the court stated that it was “very 

concerned about Dr. Steinberg’s testimony” and could not “give it 

much weight at all.” The court expressed concern that Dr. 

Steinberg had spent only one two-hour session with the children 

and “she’s able to make a determination that the oldest child is 

going to turn into [a] sociopath.” The court noted that Dr. 

Steinberg “gave no evaluations, no diagnosis whatsoever,” and 

made “a really draconian recommendation” that “really doesn’t 

make any sense to me” – to take the children “from their mom 

where they’re doing very well” and place them with father.

The court found the children to be dependents of the court 

and ordered them placed in the home of mother. The court 

further ordered the children removed from father, finding there 

was clear and convincing evidence that placing them with father 

would pose an emotional risk to the children. The court ordered 

monitored visits for father, joint legal custody, and that the 

parents continue reunification therapy but that “Dr. Steinberg 

not be a therapist in this case to the children or as a family 

reunification therapist” because her ideas were “out of norm and 

not appropriate.”

The court ordered mother’s counsel to prepare an exit order 

reflecting the court’s orders, which was entered on May 13, 2022. 

Father filed a timely notice of appeal on May 20, 2022. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section
10

395, subdivision (a)(1), and Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, 

subdivision (a)(1).

DISCUSSION

Father argues that the court abused its discretion when it 

removed the children from him and placed them in the custody of 

mother, and that substantial evidence does not support the 

court’s findings.

Section 361, subdivision (d) permits removal from a parent 

with whom the child did not reside when the petition was filed 

only upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence of a current 

“ ‘substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or 

physical or emotional well-being of the child,’ were the parent ‘to 

live with the child or otherwise exercise the . . . right to physical 

custody.’ ” (In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 777.) We 

review a juvenile court’s dispositional order removing a child for 

substantial evidence, “ ‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of 

proof.’ ” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 245.) A juvenile 

court’s decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue 

a custody order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and we may 

not disturb the trial court’s order unless it “ ‘ “exceeded the limits 

of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently 

absurd determination [citations].” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 

7 Cal.4th 295, 318; Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 

Cal.App.4th 285, 300.) The court’s focus in determining exit 

orders is the best interests of the child. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 

13 Cal.4th 196, 206.)

The parties appear to dispute whether the court removed 

the children from father or instead made custody and visitation 

orders, awarding mother sole physical custody, as part of its 

decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction. The record makes 
11

clear that the court did both. The record further demonstrates 

that the court’s orders were not an abuse of discretion and are 

supported by substantial evidence.

4

The court found “that it would be detrimental to the safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being” of the children “to 

be returned or placed in the home or the care, custody, and 

control” of father, and accordingly found it “reasonable and 

necessary to remove the child[ren] from the father.” Substantial 

evidence supports this finding. When the Department opened the

case, the children had not seen father in over two years. After 

the children were placed in foster care father refused monitored 

visits with the children because he believed them “ ‘detrimental 

to [the children].’ ” Father participated in one two hour session of 

reunification therapy, which he himself deemed “ ‘a disaster,’ ”

with the oldest child “ ‘screaming and crying’ ” while the middle 

child “held his head and cried.” The Department concluded that 

“release to the father at disposition pose[d] a threat to the 

children due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic, anxiety-ridden 

4 The Department urges us to dismiss father’s appeal, 

arguing that his opening brief only addresses evidence favorable 

to his contentions, while ignoring evidence that supports the 

court’s findings and order. The Department further argues that 

father “fails to make any attempt to show, with legal argument 

and citations to authorities, how the evidence does not sustain 

the challenged order.” We agree with the Department that father 

has not addressed all of the evidence, both favorable and 

unfavorable, that was presented to the trial court. Nonetheless, 

we will exercise our discretion to consider father’s appeal. “We do 

not find [father’s] failure to summarize all of the evidence so 

egregious that we should deem [his] arguments forfeited.” 

(Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 375, 391.)
12

and volatile feelings in the presence of their father and paternal 

relatives.” As the court observed at the hearing, “[t]he problem 

with this case is that what happens during those visits, the 

children are what I call voting with their feet. They’re not 

comfortable being in the presence of the father, and it may be 

because of the absence of him in . . . their life earlier before the 

case came here. But their reactions are detrimental to continue 

what we’re doing here. It’s not working.”

Substantial evidence also supports the court’s order to 

place the children in mother’s home. The evidence demonstrated 

that the children were doing well in mother’s care, that mother 

and stepfather had made progress in their therapies, and that 

mother supported father’s efforts to have a relationship with the 

children. The children “stated they are happy to be [at] home 

with their mother and stepfather,” and “continue[d] to insist they 

do not want to have contact with their father.” The court noted 

that mother and stepfather “certainly took responsibility for what 

their actions were and stepped up much more quickly than many 

parents that we see here in dependency court. And as counsel 

indicated, [mother and stepfather] have practically finished the 

case plan, if not already done so in the time that the case has 

been here.” The court properly found that awarding sole physical 

custody of the children to mother was in their best interests.

Father ignores this evidence and urges the court to 

consider evidence that mother may have engaged in parental 

alienation and that it was detrimental to place the children in 

mother’s home given the history of domestic violence between 

mother and stepfather. Father also argues that he “had a plan” 

based on the recommendations of Dr. Steinberg. As to the latter, 

the court made clear that it considered Dr. Steinberg’s testimony 
13

and “cannot give it much weight at all.” We do not reweigh the 

evidence or make findings of fact that differ from those made by 

the trial court. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 

228.) Our review is limited to determining, as we have, that 

substantial evidence supports the court’s findings. Thus, the 

trial court’s decision not to give credence to Dr. Steinberg’s 

recommendation is one that we will not second-guess. Nor will 

we revisit the trial court’s finding, based on its weighing of the 

evidence, that mother was not attempting to alienate the children 

from their father and that the children were safe in mother’s 

home.

Father also argues that the trial court abused its discretion 

by “removing” the children from his custody, pointing to the 

Department’s finding that father was “non-offending.” The fact 

that father was non-offending is hardly dispositive. As noted, the 

evidence before the court was that the children were estranged 

from father when the Department opened the case, and that 

attempts at monitored visits and reunification had been 

unsuccessful. Father also ignores the preexisting family court 

order that gave father only monitored visitation, and the 

conclusion of the Department following its own investigation of 

father in September of 2021, that father’s psychological problems 

affected his relationship with the children and his suitability as a 

custodial parent. We have already determined that substantial 

evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the children were 

properly returned to mother’s custody, and that the children 

would be threatened with serious emotional injury in the event 

they were put in father’s custody. Given these findings, the trial 

court’s exit order was neither arbitrary, capricious nor absurd, 

and therefore was not an abuse of the court’s discretion.
14

DISPOSITION

The court’s May 11, 2022 dispositional order and May 13, 

2022 juvenile custody order are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL 

REPORTS

HEIDEL, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.