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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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., Person s Coming Under the J uvenile 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 order s 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) appea ls 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 removin g the children from
him and awarding custody to m other, and that the court’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We find no
merit to father’s contentions and affir m. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The initial encounter , investigation an d detention hearing

. In August of 2021, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a report of a domestic violence
incident at m other’s and s tepfather’s home, involving a physical
altercation that occurred in the presence of the children

. On September 28, 2021, following an investigation, t he Department
removed the children from m other and placed them with a foster parent

. The Department considered placing the children with
f ather , but decided such placement would be inappro priate
because the children “displayed significant emotional reaction to the concept of having to be placed with father,” with whom they3

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 petiti on under Welfare and Institutions Code 2 section 300, alleging that
domestic violence between m other and s tepfather 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
f ather. 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 repor ted that, although f ather 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, f

inding good cause for det aining the children from both parents

. As to m other, the court found a substantial risk to the physical or emotional health of the children. T he court
detained the children from f ather 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 f irst a mended

p etition adding new allegations regarding f ather. The amended petition alleged that f ather had an “inclination to bad

- mouth the
mother an d

. . . unceasing efforts to prove that mother and others have conspired to ruin him.” The Department further alleged
that f at her had physically abused m other 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 m other, alleging general neglect for failure to obtain mental health
services and treatment for the children. On November 19, 2021, the Department filed a s econd

a mended p etition that omitted the count against f ather. T he second amended petition added a new count alleging that bo th parents were involved in an “ongoing, high

- conflict custody dispute,” and that m other’s comments disparaging f ather created a risk of serious emotional harm to M.B., the oldest of the three
children. The D epartment continued to recommend that the
child ren 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
Novem ber 24, 2021 , t he court ordered that the children remain in
foster care.
C. The children are returned to m other.
The court held a trial setting hearing on M arch 14 , 2022. Prior to that hearing, the Department submitted a Supplemental5

Report updating the court “as to the services in process and completed by the family.” The Department stated that m other
and s tepfather had made significant progress. It noted that

m other had completed a domestic violence class and was participating in individual therapy, and marriage counseling
with s tepfather. S tepfather had enrolled in a domestic violence program for batterers and was “fully compliant ” with that program. In addit ion, s tepfather was submitting clean weekly drug tests, and attending “several [Alcoholics Anonymous] meetings per week.” T he Department recommended that the
court return the children to m other’s home “with ongoing Court involvement and Family Maintenance Services in place.” The Department also recommended against placing the children with
f ather “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.”
M other ple ade d no contest to the petition and the court sustained a single count against m other

. 3 The court ordered the
children released to m other under the supervision of the Department subject to m other conti nuing with her court

- ordered programs. The court also ordered the Department to provide to the children, m other and f ather 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 do mestic violence incident that caused the children to be detained from

m other 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

m other and s tepfather continued to participate in their counseling and that m other had sufficiently progressed in her individual therapy such that it was no longer needed. The children’s social work er (CSW) had conducted a home visit and
met with the children and m other and s tepfather. The CSW found that the family was doing well, and that the children happily sh owed her their “room, toys/games, computer s 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 f ather had retained Dr. Lynn Steinberg as a re unification specialist

. Father stated that he was not participating in the court ordered monitored
visits because the y “ [ 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 f

ather after he and the children

atten ded 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 f ather, Dr. Steinberg stated that
further sessions would be useless unless the children were
removed from m other’s custody. After the April 1 session with Dr. Steinberg, f

ather had no further visits with the children, and
no further sessions with Dr. Stein berg. The Department7

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 wha t 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 c ustody based on her compliance with counseling and other services. A lthough father was “non

offending

, ” the Department found that release to f ather posed “a threat to the children due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic, anxiety

- ridden and volatile feelings” toward f ather a nd paternal
relatives. It further stated that it would be a detriment to the
children to release them to f ather based on their threats of “self

harm, running away or acting out” if put in father’s c ustody

. Dr. Steinberg also prepared a written report for the disposition hearing. She opined that the children were alienated
from f ather and recommended they be placed with f ather for 90 days, during which time they have no contact with m other, and a
four

- day “family reunification intensive” therapy session

. She
further opined that the children were in “mortal danger” i f they
remained with m other and s tepfather

, but she saw no evidence of abuse by f

ather. 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 m other, f ath er,

s tepfather, and the children, as well as the foster mother and8

the r apists. The c ourt also heard testimony from social workers,
f ather, and Dr. Steinberg. Dr

. Steinberg’s testimony was consistent with her written report : she recommended a 90

- day

tran sfer of custody to f ather, no contact with m other or s tepfather 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 m other. Finally, Dr. Steinberg
testified that she believed mother was coaching the children to resist contact w ith f

ather. In response to questions from the court, Dr. Steinberg stated that her opinion would “not necessarily” change if she knew that m other and s tepfather 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 m other and

s tepfather, and that they were at risk of physical and emotional
harm which, according to f ather, “needs to be reversed by a period of placement with me, so I can work on these issues.” After all parties rested, the court hea rd argument

. Father’s

c ounsel urged the court to adopt Dr. Steinberg’s
recommendations and to place the children with f ather. Counsel
for m other argued that the children should remain in m other’s
home. The Department argued that m other and s tepfather ha d taken responsibility for the ir conduct and had completed their

court

- ordered programs , and that t he children were doing well at
home and in school. The Department also argued that m other had been cooperative with facilitating the children’s visits with9

f ather and there was no evidence of parental alienation by

m other. T he Department argued that placement with f ather would cause the children emotional harm, noting that f ather 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 ha d spent only one two

- hour se ssion 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” tha t “really doesn’t make any sense to me”

– to take the children “from their m om where they’re doing very well” and place them with f ather.
The court found the children to be dependents of the court
and ordered them placed in the home of mother. The court
further order ed 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 m other’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 Inst itutions Code section10

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

, subd ivision (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 th at sub stantial 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 cour t ’ 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 terminat e 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 determina tion [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 Chanta l 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 makes11

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
T he 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 re move the child[ren] from the father.” Substantial
evidence supports this finding

. When the D epartment opened the

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

. A fter
the children w ere placed in foster care f ather refused monitored
visits with the children because he believed them “ ‘ detriment al to [the children]

. ’ ” F ather participated in one two hour session of reunification therapy, which he himself deemed “ ‘ a disaster

, ’ ” with the oldest child “ ‘ screaming and crying ’ ” while t he middle
child “ held his head and cr ied

. ” T he Department concluded that “release to the f

ather 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 f ather’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 f ather “fails to make any attempt to show, with legal argument and citations to authorities, how the evidence does not sustain the chall enged order.” We agree with the Department that f ather 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 fin d [ f

ather’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 t he 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 c ourt’s order to place the children in mother’s home. The evidence demonstrated
that the children were doing well in m other’s care, that mother and stepfather had made progress in their therapies, and that mother supported father’s efforts to have a relati onship with the
children. T he 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 do ne 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 testimony13

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

- g uess. 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 c hildren 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 t he 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 sub stantial 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 finding s, 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.