Filed 2/25/13 In re Justin V. CA

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FIVE

In re JUSTIN V., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B242145

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK86485)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LINDA L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Philip 

Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, 

Stephen D. Watson, Senior Associate County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

L.L. (mother), the mother of minor J.V. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile 

court‟s disposition orders removing custody of minor from mother and requiring 

monitored visitation with the minor to take place in a therapeutic setting. According to 

mother, there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal and the order requiring a 

therapeutic setting for visitation was an abuse of discretion.

We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court‟s removal 

order and that the order requiring a therapeutic setting for visitation was not an abuse of 

discretion. We therefore affirm the disposition orders from which mother appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2011, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) 

filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001alleging, inter alia, that 

father and mother had subjected the minor to emotional abuse due to an ongoing custody 

dispute between the two. That same day, the juvenile court found a prima facie case, 

detained the minor, and released him to mother. The juvenile court ordered no visitation 

for father, but gave DCFS the discretion to liberalize that order to monitored visitation in

a therapeutic setting. The juvenile court also ordered an Evidence Code section 730 

evaluation of father, mother, and the minor. 

On April 5, 2011, the juvenile court sustained the allegation in paragraph c-1 of 

the petition alleging that father and mother had emotionally abused the minor. The 

juvenile court declared the minor a dependent of the court, removed him from father‟s 

custody, released him to mother, ordered family maintenance services, individual 

counseling, and conjoint counseling with the minor for mother. The juvenile court also 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.
3

ordered individual counseling for the minor and reunification services and monitored 

visits for father. 

On or about October 3, 2011, Dr. Sandra Hah, a psychiatrist, submitted to the 

juvenile court her Evidence Code section 730 evaluations of father, mother, and the 

minor. Dr. Hah provided the following diagnoses and recommended treatments: “1. As 

to the minor, the data is consistent with a diagnosis of Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified 

and Mood Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. He clearly suffers from anxiety and mood 

dysregulation related to parental conflict and the uncertainty of custody arrangements. 

Additionally, a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a possibility. [¶] 2. As to 

the mother, the data is consistent with a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, although allegations of domestic violence have not been 

verified. [Mother] minimized some of the symptoms so she did not meet full criteria for 

a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder but it is a possibility. [¶] 3. As to the father, 

his history is consistent with a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse although Alcohol Dependence 

cannot be ruled out. In addition, [father] has issues with anger and hostility which are 

significant, although there is no formal diagnosis of such. [¶] 4. The minor, [J.V.], 

would benefit from either individual psychotherapy, play therapy, cognitive behavioral 

therapy, or a combination of all three. If his anxiety or mood symptoms worsen, he may 

benefit from antidepressant medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors 

(SSRI‟s). Additionally, the minor should continue to have regular social activities with 

peers and access to positive role models and mentors, both male and female. Finally, it 

would be helpful for the minor to be in family counseling with his mother and/or father to 

facilitate working through situations of intense conflict and to help establish healthy 

boundaries between mother and minor, and father and minor. [¶] 5. The mother, [L.L.], 

would benefit from individual psychotherapy and more regular attendance at her current 

domestic violence support group. Additionally, it may help her feel more empowered as 

a single parent to take parenting classes, particularly ones that are more focused toward 

setting personal boundaries with children and decreasing enmeshment. [Mother] should 

continue to seek peer friendship and support (as she has found in church groups), and 
4

minimize isolation of herself and her son. Finally, it is recommended that [mother] 

attend co-parenting therapy with the father, [J.V.], to address issues of extreme hostility 

and conflict, so they can positively and cooperatively rear their child, [J.V.]. [¶] The 

father, [J.V.], would benefit from an outpatient alcohol treatment program or a group, 

such as Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as individual psychotherapy. If his drinking 

behavior worsens, as intensive inpatient treatment facility would likely be the most 

appropriate form of alcohol treatment. It is also recommended that he enroll in anger 

management classes, in particular ones with special attention to domestic violence issues. 

It is also recommended that [father] attend parenting classes that have a focus towards reestablishing trust and connection with a child. Finally, [father] is recommended to 

engage in co-parenting therapy with the minor‟s mother, [L.L.]. As stated above, the 

objective of this therapy is to work through high conflict and hostility in order to learn 

how to co-parent the minor, [J.V.], in a healthy and positive manner.” 

On March 29, 2012, DCFS filed a section 3872petition alleging that the “previous 

disposition had not been effective in the protection or rehabilitation of the [minor].” 

Specifically, DCFS stated the following in paragraphs s-1 and s-2 of the petition: “s-1. 

The child‟s mother [L.L.] created a detrimental home environment for the child [J.V.] by 

emotionally abusing the child. Such emotional abuse consisted of, but is not limited to, 

the continued custody issues, visitations for the father [J.V.] and the continuing 

disparagement of the father and other maternal relatives to the minor, to the extent that 

the child has been emotionally isolated from the father and other relatives. Such conduct 

 

2

Section 387, subdivisions (a) and (b) provides: “(a) An order changing or 

modifying a previous order by removing a child from the physical custody of a parent, 

guardian, relative, or friend and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a 

private or county institution, shall be made only after noticed hearing upon a 

supplemental petition. [¶] (b) The supplemental petition shall be filed by the social 

worker in the original matter and shall contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to 

support the conclusion that the previous disposition has not been effective in the 

rehabilitation or protection of the child or, in the case of a placement with a relative, 

sufficient to show that the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 

361.3.”
5

on the part of the child‟s mother [L.L.] places the child at substantial risk of suffering 

serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression and withdrawal 

that the child displays. [¶] s-2. On numerous occasions, the child‟s mother [L.L.] has 

displayed mental and emotional problems including, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

Further, on prior occasions the child‟s mother [L.L.] has not provided continuous Mental 

Health services for herself or her son. Due to the mother‟s limitations, the mother is 

unable to provide regular mental health care for her son. Such mental and emotional 

condition on the part of the mother endangers the child‟s physical and emotional health 

and safety and places the child/children at risk of future physical and emotional harm and 

damage.” 

In the accompanying March 29, 2012, detention report, a childrens‟social worker 

(CSW) explained the reasons for the section 387 petition as follows: “This family came 

to the attention of DCFS on 11/17/2010 when a day referral alleged the [minor] was 

placed on a [section 5585] hold. [The minor] was hospitalized on a [section 5585] hold 

on 11/17/2010, for reporting not wanting to visit father and would kill himself or father 

and was diagnosed with major depression. Prior to discharge, [the minor] was taken from 

the hospital/Alhambra BHC by mother against medical advice on 11/21/2010. The 

family has had 17 prior investigations with the department and a Voluntary Family 

Maintenance Case with the department. All of the family‟s prior referrals with DCFS . . . 

relate [to] the parents conflict with one another. Mother and father have been divorced 

for the past 10 years. During this time the parents have been in battle with one another 

utilizing the Family Law Court System which has been detrimental to the [minor‟s] well 

being. [¶] Mother has continued to be resistant to mental health services both for herself 

and her son. [The minor] has met with Department of Mental Health [(DMH)] staff Ms. 

Keyondria Bunch PhD., yet only in the presence of . . . mother. [The minor] continues to 

report that he is scared of . . . father and that father will hurt him. Numerous attempts 

have been made to link [the minor] and mother with services. Previously, mother has 

stated that she does not wish to receive services through DMH, instead she previously 

wanted to take [the minor] for treatment at Glen Roberts Child Study Center where she 
6

reported to have been denied in November due to insufficient medical coverage. CSW 

and DMH have also tried to refer mother to full Service Partnership yet mother refuses in 

home services. Department of Mental Health continues to express concern for [the 

minor] with strong recommendation that mother and [the minor] follow through with 

mental health assessment and treatment. Measures are to be taken to ensure this follow 

through with continued Department of Children and Family Services to ensure that the 

[minor] is in a stable, consistent, and supportive environment that will support and 

facilitate continued mental health treatment, attendance in school, and appropriate choice 

in [the minor‟s] daily functioning. Family law court appointed [the minor‟s] attorney 

Sandra Etue reported ongoing child alienation issues on behalf of mother and [the minor] 

reporting to her on many occasions to be fine with visiting with father and reporting 

understanding that mother does not want [the minor] to visit with father or any other 

member of her own family. Mother has alienated herself and the [minor] from all 

maternal family members for perceived slights and alienation with the father. Mother‟s 

alienation of these family members has eliminated valuable family support to [the minor], 

who previously ha[d] good existing relationships with [his] [maternal grandfather] and

uncle. Mother‟s continued anxiety and paranoia has caused the [minor] undue stress, 

confusion and symptoms of depression. This has caused vicarious traumatization to the 

[minor] and places him at risk for several mental health distortions and cognitions

requiring intensive mental health intervention. As to the Family Law Court minute order 

dated 02/01/2011, Family Law Court found that it is not in the [minor‟s] best interest to 

exclude father from [the minor‟s] life.” 

At the March 29, 2012, detention hearing, the juvenile court found that DCFS had 

made a prima facie case for detaining the minor and showing that a substantial danger 

existed to the physical and emotional health of the minor. The juvenile court further 

found that there were no reasonable means to protect the minor without removal from 

mother‟s home, that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need 

for such removal, and that continuance in mother‟s home was contrary to the minor‟s 

welfare. The juvenile court detained the minor, removed him from mother‟s custody, and 
7

ordered him placed with any suitable relative. The juvenile court also ordered monitored 

visitation for mother and father with a DCFS approved monitor. 

In the May 18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition report, a CSW reported that she 

interviewed mother who told her the following: “Mother stated that she does not isolate 

the minor. Mother stated that she refuses to allow father to have contact with the minor 

due to his past actions and behaviors. Mother stated that she believes that her relatives 

are on father‟s side and therefore has refused to allow them to have contact. Mother 

stated that she had only allowed her brother [J.L.] minimal contact. [¶] Mother stated 

that she did acquire mental health services for the minor, but had difficulties due to 

confusion about insurance and her inability to continue to pay for services on her own. 

Mother states that she does not have any mental health issues that she needs to address.” 

The CSW also interviewed father and provided the following: “Father stated that 

mother has progressively increased the minor‟s isolation from father and the entire family 

since the minor‟s birth. Father states that he believes that mother has increased the 

isolation because the minor is getting older and is starting to ask more questions about 

why he cannot see his family. Father reported that the activities that mother allows the 

minor to participate in involve mother‟s constant presence. Father shared that he is 

concerned about the mental state of the minor and hopes that the minor can get the help 

that he needs. [¶] Father stated that mother has had mental health issues for nearly a 

decade. Father reported the several judges in Family Law court ordered mother to 

participate in mental health services. Father stated that he believes that mother is 

refusing to allow the minor to receive mental health services because then mother would 

begin to lose her control over the minor.” 

According to the CSW: “Mother and father continue to have a caustic relationship 

despite the apparent anxiety and depression the minor is experiencing. Despite the 

detention and placement of the minor, mother continues to deny any mental health issues 

that she may have or that the minor may have. This fact is concerning with regard to the 

history that mother presents in only superficially acquiring mental health services for the 

minor. Additionally, during monitored visitation mother disparages father, the current 
8

caregiver, maternal uncle [J.L.] and the maternal grandfather. Mother also—despite 

repeated attempts at redirection from the CSW and DCFS monitors—continued to tell the 

minor that at this court hearing the minor will return to her care. This combination of 

remarks makes the minor visibly upset and causes the mother and minor to argue and 

become frustrated with one another during the visits. [¶] Father continues to exhibit 

inappropriate anger towards the mother, [the] minor and this CSW. Mother reports that 

father is leaving threatening voicemail on . . . mother‟s home phone. Mother has yet to 

supply the voicemail and therefore DCFS cannot confirm. Father had stated that he „will 

go to the Jim‟s (caregiver) business and demand to see the [minor] if visits are not setup.‟ These acts continue to frighten the minor and cause the minor to grow only more 

distant from the father.” 

In a May 18, 2012, last minute information for the juvenile court, a CSW reported 

that mother initiated individual counseling in April 2012 and had attended four sessions. 

The CSW further reported that mother had also enrolled at a counseling center and 

attended eight sessions of parenting classes. 

At the May 18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued 

the hearing to June 5, 2012. In a June 5, 2012, last minute information for the juvenile 

court, a CSW reported that the minor had been referred to the Department of Mental 

Health for an assessment and referral to a service provider. An assessment was 

scheduled for June 7, 2012. As for mother, the CSW reported that mother continued to 

be enrolled in individual counseling and had completed her parenting course. The CSW 

also reported that mother visited the minor regularly but at times continued “to respond 

inappropriately to the minor‟s verbal and non-verbal signals as evidenced by mother‟s 

refusal to accommodate the minor‟s schedule in planning visitation. During visitation 

mother . . . continued to discuss case issues and continue[d] to disparage the current 

caregivers.” Moreover, based on statements made by mother, the CSW believed that 

mother might leave the state with the minor. 

At the June 5, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court admitted 

Dr. Hah‟s Evidence Code section 730 evaluations, the March 29, 2012, detention report, 
9

the May 18, 2012, jurisdiction/disposition report, the May 18, 2012, last minute 

information, and the June 5, 2012, last minute information. The juvenile court also heard 

testimony from the minor and mother, as well as the arguments of counsel. The juvenile 

court then found the allegations in paragraphs s-1 and s-2 of the section 387 petition true 

and sustained the petition. As to disposition, the trial court found and ruled as follows: 

“Having found the petition true, I will again declare the minor a dependent under section 

300 and find by clear and convincing evidence under WIC [section] 361[, subsection] (C) 

there‟s a substantial danger if the child were returned home to the physical health, safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child, and there‟s no reasonable 

means by which the child‟s physical health can be protected without removing the child 

from the parents‟ physical custody. [¶] Order that the minor be removed from the 

parents with whom the child resided at the time the petition was filed. Reasonable efforts 

were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal from the home of the custodial 

parent. [¶] Suitable placement orders are to continue in full force and effect. Placement 

with the maternal uncle is approved of at this time. [S]o we‟ll go ahead and agree to have 

[the minor] placed there. The Department will have discretion to place with any 

appropriate relative. [¶] Case plans will be implemented for both mother and father as 

provided by County Counsel. Mother is advised that services need to be completed 

within the 12-month period, or if not, we could terminate reunification services and go to 

a permanency plan where a plan of adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care 

could be implemented. [¶] If visits go out of the therapeutic placement and move into a 

monitored or unmonitored placement, mother is advised and warned that these visits are 

not to take place outside of the seven counties or southern California, and she‟s not to 

remove the child from the State of California or the United States without prior court 

approval. Doing so could lead to a custody warrant for the minor and possibly even an 

arrest warrant for the mother.” 
10

DISCUSSION

A. Standards of Review

Mother‟s challenge to the juvenile court‟s order removing custody of the minor 

from her is governed by a substantial evidence standard of review. (In re Kristin H.

(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) Under this standard of review, we examine the 

whole record in a light most favorable to the findings and conclusions of the juvenile 

court and defer to the lower court on issues of credibility of the evidence and witnesses. 

(In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733-734.) We determine only whether there is 

any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the trial court‟s 

order, resolving all conflicts in support of the determination and indulging all legitimate 

inferences to uphold the court‟s order. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) 

And we may not substitute our deductions for those of the trier of fact. (In re Katrina C.

(1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 540, 547.) When the standard of proof at the trial court is “clear 

and convincing evidence,” the court‟s finding is upheld if there is substantial evidence to 

support the court‟s finding. (Crail v. Blakely (1973) 8 Cal.3d 744, 750 [standard of clear 

and convincing evidence for trial court and “was not intended as a standard for appellate 

review”].)

Mother‟s challenge to the juvenile court‟s order requiring her monitored visits to 

take place in a therapeutic setting is governed by an abuse of discretion standard of 

review. (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356.) “In an area analogous to 

the relative placement issue—custody and visitation orders—the appropriate standard is 

abuse of discretion. (Foster v. Foster (1937) 8 Cal.2d 719, 730 [68 P.2d 719]; In re 

Marriage of Carlson (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1330, 1337-1338 [280 Cal.Rptr. 840].) „The 

reviewing court must consider all the evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and 

resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable 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.] We are required to 

uphold the ruling if it is correct on any basis, regardless of whether it is the ground relied 
11

upon by the trial judge. [Citation.]‟ (In re Marriage of Carlson, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 

at p. 1337.) The trial court is accorded wide discretion and its determination will not be 

disturbed on appeal absent „a manifest showing of abuse.‟ (Gudelj v. Gudelj (1953) 41 

Cal.2d 202, 208 [259 P.2d 656].)” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.)

B. Removal from Mother’s Custody

Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile 

court‟s order removing custody of the minor from her. According to mother, the 

evidence showed that nothing had changed since the juvenile court‟s original disposition 

order that gave custody of the minor to mother and therefore removal was not warranted.

The juvenile court removed custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c) which 

provides in pertinent part: “(c) A dependent child may not be taken from the physical 

custody of his or her parents or guardian or guardians with whom the child resides at the 

time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing 

evidence of any of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, 

and, in an Indian child custody proceeding, paragraph (6): [¶] (1) There is or would be a 

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 or guardian‟s physical custody. . . . The court shall consider, 

as a reasonable means to protect the minor, the option of removing an offending parent or 

guardian from the home. The court shall also consider, as a reasonable means to protect 

the minor, allowing a nonoffending parent or guardian to retain physical custody as long 

as that parent or guardian presents a plan acceptable to the court demonstrating that he or 

she will be able to protect the child from future harm.”

There was evidence that circumstances had changed since the time of the original 

disposition order, which change warranted the removal order. That evidence included 

Dr. Hah‟s evaluations, which provided that mother suffered from general anxiety and 

posttraumatic stress disorders and the minor suffered from anxiety and mood disorders. 
12

According to Dr. Hah, mother and the minor both needed individual and conjoint 

counseling, but mother continually failed to attend counseling and failed to arrange it for 

the minor. There also was evidence that mother isolated the minor from father and her 

own relatives, conduct which was detrimental to the minor‟s anxiety and mood disorders. 

And, a CSW reported concerns that mother might take the minor out of state in order to 

avoid compliance with the case plan put in place at the original disposition hearing.

That evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that continuing in 

mother‟s custody would be detrimental to the minor‟s emotional well being. There was 

evidence that despite having been afforded almost a year to comply with the case plan 

and obtain needed counseling for herself and the minor, mother refused to comply and 

denied needing any sort of counseling. There was evidence supporting the removal order 

as necessary to ensure that the minor received the recommended and court-ordered 

counseling and, given mother‟s refusal to comply with the case plan, there were no other 

reasonable means to protect the minor‟s mental health.

C. Monitored Visits in Therapeutic Setting

Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that her 

visitation with the minor take place in a therapeutic setting. According to mother, there 

was no evidence demonstrating that a therapeutic setting was necessary for visitation.

As discussed above, the juvenile court‟s visitation order is reviewed under an 

abuse of discretion standard. Under that standard, we conclude that a rational trier of fact 

could have concluded from the evidence that visitation in a therapeutic setting was in the 

minor‟s best interests. The evidence showed that, despite being afforded almost a year to 

obtain counseling for herself and the minor, mother continually refused to comply with 

that requirement in the original disposition order. Thus, the therapeutic setting 

requirement was rationally related to ensuring that the needed counseling would take 

place. There was also evidence, based on the CSW‟s concern, that mother might leave 

the state with the minor, and therefore the therapeutic setting was a rational means for 

preventing mother from absconding with the minor. And, the juvenile court granted 
13

DCFS discretion to liberalize the conditions on visitation if mother demonstrated that she 

was willingly complying with the case plan. There was sufficient evidence to support the 

conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering visitation in a 

therapeutic setting. 

DISPOSITION

The disposition orders of the juvenile court from which mother appeals are 

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MOSK, J.

We concur:

ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.

KRIEGLER, J.