Filed 4/3/15 In re Juan M. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JUAN M

. , et al. , Person s Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B 256827
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK74904 ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN M

. , Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of L os Angeles County,
Carlos E. Vasquez , Judge . Affirmed.

Janette Freeman Cochran , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant

.

Mark J. Saladino
, Dawyn R. Harrison, Tracey F. Dodds
, Office of County Counsel
for P laintiff and Res pondent

.

_____________________2 INTRODUCTION
Father Juan M. appeal s from the juvenile court’s order terminating its jurisdiction and ordering Mother to have sole physical custody of the ir two children, 12

- year

- old Juan
and nine

- year

- old Juanita, and Father to have supervised visits with the children conducted by a paid professional monitor at Father’s expense . Father argues that the court abused its
discretion in making the exit order because it relied on testimony from the children, who
Father asserts had “limited ability to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation.” We affirm as substantial evidence of Father’s unresolved anger problems and
the children’s reasonable fear of Father supports the court’s discretion in making this exit
orde r pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 1 s ection 362.4

.

FACTS 2 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The c hildren were adjudicated to be abused and neglected by the juvenile court pursuant to section 300 in October 2012. The court sustained allegations that Father inappro priately physically disciplined Juan by choking him and striking Juan’s head with a fist, and threatening to harm Juan with a hammer. The court sustained allegations that
Father inappropriately disciplined Juanita by striking her with his hands an d a belt. The court also found that Mother had failed to supervise the children . This Court subsequently affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings in an unpublished opinion.

1 Subsequent sta tutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.

2 Because resolution of this appeal turns upon the existence of substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s exercise of discretion with respect to the challen ged orders, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations . ( See Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300 ( Bridget A. ); In re Stephanie M

. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 295, 319 .)3

Following the jurisdictional finding, Father began receiving weekly therapy and conjoint therapy with the c hildren and attending weekly anger management and parenting
classes

. The children entered foster care and attended regular visitation with the parents.
Father and Mother were in full compliance with the case plan.
N onetheless, Father’s aggression and anger issues continued to manifest throughout
this case. On five different occasions, t he c hildren had to be place d in new foster homes due to Father’s alienation of service providers. Twice in early 2013, Father threa tened Juanita’s caretaker. During one of these instances, using expletives, Father told Juanita that he was going to “ ‘ get ’ ” Juanita’s caregiver. On another occasion, Father made multiple threats with the implication that he would fight Juan’s caregive r, stating to Juan, “You wouldn’t want to see me and the foster father gets down [sic].” A subsequent
caretaker refused to monitor vis itation between Father and the c hildren because Father was controlling, “went off” on her, stated that “he can’t deal wit h women,” refused to speak to her, and sneakily tried to talk to the c hildren through a window of her home after the
visitation had ended. Father also became visibly angry when Juanita later hugged this caregiver in front of him

. At one visitation in Oct ober 2012, Father made many negative commen ts about the caregivers to the c hildren. When a social worker directed Father not to negatively discuss the caregivers with the children , he responded very loudly telling the s ocial work to stop interfering in hi s time with his children. Father continued to talk in a disparaging tone and manner about the caregivers. During that same visit, Father became very angry at social workers, yelling and making derogatory remarks at them when Juanita’s visitation ended

ea rly due to transportation issues

. Rather than spend the rest of the visit enjoying his time with Juan, he made phone calls to Department of Children and Family Services ( DCFS ) staff, continued to raise his voice, became increasingly agitated, and voluntar ily prematurely ended his visit with Juan

.4

During a later visit, when Juanita refused to see Father, he again became angry and aggressive toward DCFS staff

. In Ma y 2013, Father would not speak to the children throughout their two

- hour visit because the ch ildren forgot to make a birthday card for their grandfather. In August 2013, Father again made inappropriate comments about the foster parents

. T he children then defended their foster parents, and Father became upset
and refused to speak to the children

. When DCFS ended that visit early because Father
had given the children the silent treatment for 40 minutes , Father began to shout that the
visit was not over. Father also acted aggressively in posture, tone, and demeanor in one of
his final meeting s wit h DCFS in 2014 , and was required to be escorted out of the building by security. Throughout the dependency case, Father had monitored visitation with the c hildren
, with one exception

. In March 2013, DCFS permitted the parents to begin having
unmonitored o vernig ht weekend visitation with the c hildren. Father berated the children for selecting to spend their first unmonitored weekend visit with Mother r ather than Father.
Followi ng the ir first weekend visit with Father, Juanita reported to DCFS that the vis it did not go well. Juanita sta t ed that Father made them do things that she did not think were fun.
Juanita was forced to share a bed with Juan a nd Father despite there being a second
availabl e bed and pull

- out couch

. Father also fed the c hildren stale cereal for breakfast

. Juanita spent most of her time with Father feeling hungry as he did not feed them often.
When she told Father that she was hungry, Father acknowledged that the c hildren were hungry but did not provide them food. Father required the c hildren to take baths in a dirty tub each day they were with him. Throughout the weekend, Father persistently made fun of Juan. For example, Juanita reported that Father became angry at Juan for closing his eyes while they were sitting outside in publi c, telling Juan that it made Father look bad. Father also picked at Juan’s hair roughly and caused him to cry in pain. In addition
, Father
cursed at the c hildren, and told Juan that “ ‘ you’re lucky you are in foster care cause I would tear your [expletiv e] up. ’ ” Following this unmonitored weekend visit, Father
resumed monitored visitation with the c h ildren.5

In general, DCFS observed that Father’s visits were not healthy for the children’s well being and were not strengthening their relationship with him . A social worker observed that the children were being emotionally and psychologically harmed by the visits. Juan, in particular, repeatedly stated that he did not want to continue visitation with Father. In August 2013, both children asserted that the y did not want to be returned to Father’s custody because of his negative behaviors. Both children expressly wanted the ir
visits with Father to remain monitored. Juanita told DCFS: “ ‘ [Father] gets mad sometimes and yells at the social worker. I don’t like when he gets mad. It’s scary. So I don’t want to go the next time. ’ ” When asked if she was interested in unmonitored visitation with Father, Juanita stated: “ ‘ Oh no. We’re not ready for that yet. ’ ” Juanita
indicated that she would not be read y for unmonitored visitation for a very long time. In addition, Juan told DCFS that he only attended visitation with Father because Juanita bribed him to go to visits with Father in exchange for Juanita’s TV privileges. Juan
asserted that he did not like spending time with Father and did not want overnight or unmonitored visitation. Juan explained: “ ‘ I’m uncomfortable with him by myself. He could do anything to me if no one is around. I do not want to be alone with him. ’ ”
At the section 364 review h earing, the children testified in chambers stating more of the same. Juan testified that Father “will yell, and then he will

. . . choke me and throw me around the house.” Juan stated that Father had done th ose things to him a long time ago,
but he still felt afraid of Father. Juan explained that Father had verbally threatened him three weeks ago
, and that Father had recently physically threatened him, by motion ing like Father was going to “sock” him. Asserting that he did not want to have unmonitored

v isitation, Juan reiterated that “anything can happen” without the monitor there.
Juanita also testifi ed that she did not want unmonitored visitation because, “ you never know what [Father] could do.” Juanita explained that seeing harm come to her
brother w ho m she loves dearly was very upsetting to her. She stated: “when I see [Father] hurt my brother, it is just sad to watch.” Juanita recounted one incident that occurred a long time ago where Father “got a hammer and put it up to [Juan’s] face, and choke d [Juan] just because ... [ J uan] wasn’t doing his hair right.” Juanita said that at a recent visit
,6

Father moved toward Juan and motioned like he was going to hit Juan, and on another

recent occasion, Father verbally threatened Juan. Juanita mentioned th at although Father had not recently tried to hurt her, he did so about two years ago , referencing the events that led the court to sustain the section 300 petition . She stated that without a monitor at visits, she was concerned that Father would “whoop” h er if she said something improper to her
brother. Although the children did not reunite with Father, they reunited with Mother and resumed living with her

. On May 30, 2014, t he court determined that there was no current risk to the children , and terminate d jurisdiction. The court awarded joint legal custody to the parents, and sole physical custody to Mother. The court explained that providing sole physical custody to Mother was appropriate because “[t]he children did express some fear
about Father’s beh avior. Both children testified to a recent incident this year where the father acted as if he might take a s w ing [at] or punch Juan, Jr.” The court ordered that Father have monitored visitation twice per week, and that Father was to pay for the professio nal monitor.
DISCUSSION
Father asserts that the court a bused its discretion in making an exit order pursuant to section 362.4 that granted Mother sole physical custody and limited Father to supervised visits with professional monitors to be paid by Father. We review the juvenile court’s exit
order for an abuse of discretion ; we will only reverse if the court made an arbitrary, capri ci ous, or patently absurd decision. ( Bridget A. , supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 300 .) The juvenile court issues the exit order based on the best interests of the child. ( In re
John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961 , 974 ; In re Chantal S

. (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 196, 206 .) Here, there is substantial evidence t hat Father’s anger and aggression issues remained unresolved and that without supe rvision, he would repeat the abusive behavior underlying the court’s basis for jurisdiction in this case. Throughout DCFS’s involvement in the case, Father threatened the children’s caregivers, acted aggressively toward DCFS staff, and spoke in a demeanin g manner toward and about those involved in helping the
children and th e family. Not only did Father jeopardize the children’s stability by forcing7

their frequent removal from foster homes, but Father emotionally and psychologically harmed them through hi s poor behavior. He repeatedly required intervention from DCFS social workers regarding his temperament and speech toward the children during visits. The children relayed how Father’s behavior upset them to DCFS and how they ofte n did
not want to visit w ith him

. Moreover, Father’s behavior indicated that he was unlikely to change his abusive ways. Father’s history of physical abuse toward the children was established at the
section 300 jurisdiction hearing. Thereafter , Father continued to threaten the c hildren with abuse despite the counseling Father was receiving. Father even commented to Juan that Juan was lucky to have the protection of his foster home because Father would otherwise hurt Juan. Both children testified that Father recently threatened Juan on two occasions. The children’s testimony makes it evident that Father’s physical abuse was only prevented by DCFS’s supervision of Father’s time with the children. Without a professional monitor to supervise Father’s future visitation, the childre n would likely be at risk of harm. Father asserts that the children’s testimony should not have been given credence as the children’s “testimony suggested limited ability to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation.” Based on our review of the record, the children appeared competent to testify regarding their relationship and experience with Fath er. Nine

- year

- old Juanita
and 12

- year

- old Juan recognized Father’s abusive and aggressive behavior not only toward
them but also toward DCFS wor kers and their caregivers. Both children disliked his poor behavior and said they were fearful of him as a result of his threats. This fear evidences the children’s legitimate reason to want to limit their interaction with Father to supervised
visitation . Furthermore, the children’s fear was corroborated by DCFS’s reports from caregivers, providers, and their own staff regarding Father’s host ile and aggressive
tendencies.8

To the extent Father suggests that the children’s wishes were the sole factor
consi dered by the court making the exit order, we disagree. It appears that the court took into account reports from the children and DCFS regarding Father’s abusive behavior in addition to the children’s wishes. The juvenile court’s central focus was, approp riately, the best interests of the children. In the interest of their safety, due in part to Father’s recent threats toward the children, the court ordered visitation to be monitored.
In In re Chantal S. , supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 202, the juvenile court si milarly ordered pursuant to section 362.4, that the father have monitored visitation with his child at a therapist’s office and additionally required that the father attend counseling as a condition of his visitation. The Supreme Court affirmed the juveni le court’s exit order, stating t hat

“ there are situations in which a juvenile court may reasonably determine that continued supervision of the minor as a dependent child is not neces sary for the child’ s protection,
and at the same time conclude that condit ions on visitation are necessary to minimize, if not eliminate, the danger that visits might subject the minor to the same risk of physical abuse or emotional harm that previously led to the dependency adjudication. ” ( In re Chantal S., at p. 204.)
The c ase at bar presents such circumstances that require supervised visitation in
order to minimize risk of harm to Juan and Juanita. As the court’s order is supported by substantial evidence that the supervised visitation is in the children’s best interest, w e conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Mother to have sole physical custody and Father to have monitored visitation at his expense. We thus affirm.9 DISPOSITION
The exit order terminating the juvenile court’s jurisdicti on , providing Mother sole physical custody, and requiring Father to have monitored visitation at his expense is
affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

EDMON , P. J.

ALDRICH , J.