Filed 9/15/23 In re J.D. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 J.D. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B323583

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

19CCJP01722H-J)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.

Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
3

The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over 

E.D.’s (Father’s) three children: Jan.D., Jo.D., and Jac.D., 

following an incident in which Father arrived home drunk with a 

self-inflicted gunshot wound, hit the minors, and threatened to 

kill them. Though the facts suggest a rather obvious answer, we

are asked to decide whether substantial evidence supports the 

juvenile court’s order removing the children from Father’s 

custody and whether the court abused its discretion when it 

denied Father overnight and weekend visits and ordered him to 

participate in parenting classes.

I. BACKGROUND

Jan.D. was born in 2006, Jo.D. was born in 2008, and 

Jac.D. was born in 2009. Father was awarded sole legal and 

physical custody of the minors in 2019 after the juvenile court 

sustained a dependency petition alleging they were at risk based 

on V.M.’s (Mother’s) conduct.

1

The events that led to the dependency orders challenged in 

this appeal occurred in June 2022, when the Los Angeles 

Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) 

was notified of a disturbance at the family home. The 

1

In 2021, the juvenile court sustained another dependency 

petition alleging Father failed to seek timely mental health 

treatment for Jan.D. and Jac.D. Father was ordered to 

participate in drug and alcohol services, family preservation 

services, and individual counseling. The juvenile court 

terminated dependency jurisdiction about six months later, and 

this court dismissed as moot Father’s appeal from the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order. (In re G.D. 

(Aug. 16, 2022, B314503) [nonpub. opn.].)
4

Department was informed police responded to the home late one 

evening after receiving reports that Father was assaulting the 

minors. The minors ran outside when officers arrived and said 

Father had hit them. The officers saw Father inside the home 

with blood on his hand. Father attempted to close the door on the 

officers, but he was taken into custody without further incident. 

Father had a gunshot wound to his left hand, and officers 

discovered a bullet hole and traces of skin in his car. Officers did 

not observe any obvious physical injuries to the minors.2

Jan.D. told police that Jo.D. woke her up because Father 

was outside in his car and appeared intoxicated. Jan.D. 

approached Father with her younger siblings and Father “began 

to yell” at her. When he “abruptly” exited the car, Jan.D. ran

inside and locked the door. She let Father inside, however, 

because she feared the situation “would escalate further” as 

Father “began to bang on the door.”

Jan.D. told officers that Father hit all three minors 

multiple times and said he would “kill [them] if [they] [did not] 

listen” to him. Jan.D. directed Jac.D. to have a neighbor call the 

police, and when the neighbor came to the family home to 

intervene, he and Father “got in a verbal altercation.” Jan.D. 

then directed Jo.D. to remove Father’s gun from his car (he

“always keeps a gun inside the vehicle”) because she was afraid 

he “might use the gun against [the minors].” Police recovered 

this gun plus several others that Father kept in his bedroom. 

2 The police report noted cockroaches and rat feces 

throughout the kitchen and disturbing slogans written on the 

minors’ bedroom walls.
5

Jac.D. declined to provide a statement to officers because he was 

“used to this type of behavior.”

A Department social worker spoke with the minors the 

following day. Jan.D. expanded on her statements to police, 

explaining Father was drunk and told her he accidentally shot 

himself in the hand. Jan.D. tried to help him clean the wound, 

but he “refused” and “began to hit her and her siblings.” He told 

them, “you are the worst thing that ever happened to me. I have 

to do all this for you guys and you don’t do anything for me. I am 

going to kill you.” Jan.D. knew Father kept a loaded handgun in 

his car, so she and her siblings ran outside to hide it.3 Jan.D. 

said Father occasionally drinks, but he was never aggressive and 

had not previously abused her or her siblings. Jo.D. and Jac.D. 

both said Father drinks “a lot,” but similarly agreed he had never 

become aggressive before.

A Department social worker discussed the incident with the 

minors once again about three weeks later. All three of the 

minors stated Father pushed them out of his way after he exited 

the car, but Jan.D. and Jac.D. now denied that Father hit them. 

Jan.D. also denied Father said he was going to kill them. Jo.D. 

and Jac.D. now also suggested Father was not a heavy drinker.

Father told a Department social worker he was drunk the 

day of the incident. He “blacked out” and had no recollection of 

“anything after arriving home,” but he “was apologetic and took

full responsibility for his actions despite not knowing exactly 

what had occurred.” Father said the minors are aware he keeps 

guns in safes in the home, but he maintained they “have never 

3

Jo.D. and Jac.D. corroborated Jan.D.’s account of what 

happened.
6

had access to the guns.” Father acknowledged alcohol was “a 

‘demon’ he needed to overcome” and explained he had “turn[ed] to 

alcohol to cope” with stress caused by work, his mother’s health 

problems, and fatherhood. More specifically, with respect to 

fatherhood, Father emphasized “he had been struggling with how 

to respond to his children regarding their mother’s actions and 

their emotions regarding not having her in their life.”

The juvenile court detained the minors from Father in July 

2022. As of August 2022, Father was visiting the minors at his 

sister’s home every weekend and speaking to them via video 

every day. He was participating in a substance abuse program, a 

parenting class, and individual therapy.

At a jurisdiction and disposition hearing in September 

2022, Father pled no contest to dependency petition allegations 

that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious 

physical harm based on Father’s physical abuse, his history of 

substance abuse (including marijuana and alcohol), and his 

possession of a firearm. The Department asked the juvenile court 

to remove the minors from Father’s care and order monitored 

visitation. Father requested that the minors be released to his 

custody or that he be granted unmonitored visitation, including 

weekends and vacations. Counsel for the minors joined in 

Father’s requests, with the condition that the juvenile court 

should order unannounced visits by Department social workers 

and/or drug testing.

The juvenile court ordered the minors removed from 

Father’s custody with monitored day visits in the home of 

Father’s sister. Father was also allowed unmonitored visits in a 
7

neutral or public setting provided he did not drive the minors.

4

 

The juvenile court ordered Father to participate in a full drug 

and alcohol program, parenting classes, and individual 

counseling.

II. DISCUSSION

Father challenges three elements of the disposition order: 

the removal of the minors from his custody, the denial of 

unmonitored overnight and weekend visits, and the requirement 

that he attend parenting classes. All of the challenges lack merit.

Although the incident triggering the dependency petition 

might have been out of character for Father (Jac.D. did tell the 

police the children were used to that sort of behavior, however), 

substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination 

that the minors needed to be removed from his custody until his 

issues with stress and alcohol had been addressed. Similar 

reasoning supports the juvenile court’s visitation order; the safety 

of the minors alone in his care could not be reasonably assured 

until Father demonstrated he is in control of the issues that 

precipitated the violent incident in which he hit his children, 

threatened to kill them, shot himself, and was so out of control 

that his children felt compelled to handle a loaded firearm to 

move it out of his reach. Finally, Father forfeited his challenge to 

the order that he attend parenting classes by failing to object in 

the juvenile court and, in any case, the order is justified by 

4 Although the juvenile court denied Father’s blanket 

request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits, it 

indicated it would assess any requests to accompany the children 

on extended trips “on a case-by-case basis . . . depending on 

where the trip is and who else will be there.”
8

Father’s acknowledgment that his difficulty addressing the 

minors’ emotional needs is among the stressors that caused him 

to drink.

A. Removal

A juvenile court may not remove a child from a parent’s 

custody unless the court finds “[t]here 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 . . . physical custody.” (Welf. & 

Inst. Code,5§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) “‘The parent need not be 

dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed 

before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on 

averting harm to the child.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a 

parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances. 

[Citation.]” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-170.) 

We review the juvenile court’s order removing the minors from 

Father’s custody for substantial evidence. (In re V.L. (2020) 54 

Cal.App.5th 147, 154-155; see also Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 

9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.)

Father contends there were means short of removal by 

which the juvenile court could have protected the minors, such as 

“preservation services, family therapy, or wraparound services.” 

Although Father characterizes beating and threatening to kill the 

minors in June 2022 as an isolated occurrence attributable to 

5 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
9

stress and alcohol, nothing in the appellate record indicates the 

stressors he discussed with a Department social worker had 

abated by the time of the disposition hearing. Father’s 

acknowledgement that alcohol was a “demon” he needed to 

overcome and statements by two of the minors that he drank “a 

lot” indicate his issues with alcohol required longer than the 

couple of months between the June 2022 incident and the 

September 2022 disposition hearing to address. Father does not 

explain how the services he proposes would have accelerated this 

process or otherwise ensured the minors’ safety. Under these 

circumstances, the juvenile court properly determined the 

services Father proposes were not a reasonable alternative to 

removal.

B. Visitation

A disposition order granting reunification services must 

provide for visitation “[i]n order to maintain ties between the 

parent . . . and the child, and to provide information relevant to 

deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of his or 

her parent . . . .” (§ 362.1, subd. (a); In re T.M. (2016) 4 

Cal.App.5th 1214, 1218.) Although “[v]isitation shall be as 

frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child” 

(§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A)), “[n]o visitation order shall jeopardize 

the safety of the child” (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B)). “The power to 

regulate visits between dependent children and their parents 

rests with the juvenile court and its visitation orders will not be 

disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” (In re D.P. 

(2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1070.)

Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

denying him unmonitored overnight and weekend visits because 
10

the June 2022 incident was an isolated occurrence and he “had 

positive visits with the minors and was protective of them.” But 

the juvenile court’s concerns about visitation had nothing to do 

with Father’s conduct toward the children when he is sober. The 

relatively unobtrusive limitations placed on Father’s visits with 

the minors represent the minimum necessary to ensure Father is

not intoxicated during visits. Because Father had only a couple 

of months to demonstrate that he was addressing his issues with 

stress and alcohol at the time of the disposition hearing, the 

juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in denying his 

blanket request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits.

C. Parenting Classes

As a general rule, the failure to object in the juvenile court 

forfeits a parent’s right to pursue an issue on appeal. (In re S.B.

(2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; accord In re N.O. (2019) 31 

Cal.App.5th 899, 935 [“‘A party forfeits the right to claim error as 

grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the 

objection in the trial court. [Citations.] Forfeiture . . . applies in 

juvenile dependency litigation and is intended to prevent a party 

from standing by silently until the conclusion of the 

proceedings’”].) Although an appellate court has the discretion to 

excuse such forfeiture, it should do so “rarely and only in cases 

presenting an important legal issue.” (S.B., supra, at 1293.)

Here, Father did not object to the juvenile court’s order that 

he attend parenting classes. Indeed, his attorney emphasized 

that he was already participating in parenting classes—and 

implied they were helping—at the disposition hearing. As a 

result, Father forfeited his challenge to this order on appeal.
11

Even if the argument had not been forfeited, Father’s 

contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

ordering him to participate in parenting classes because “[h]e had 

successfully cared for the children as a single parent for many 

years” and the June 2022 incident was due to a “temporary 

period of acute stress” lacks merit. “‘The juvenile court has broad 

discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the 

child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance 

with this discretion. [Citations.]’” (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 

Cal.4th 522, 532.) Based on Father’s acknowledgment that he 

struggled to provide the minors with emotional support—and 

that the stress associated with this contributed to the June 2022 

incident—the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

ordering him to participate in developmentally appropriate 

parenting classes.
12

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.