Filed 1/4/22 In re A.F. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A. F

. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B 3 09 579

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C. F

. ,
Defendant and Appellant. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP0 1125 A )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Cour t of Los Angeles County

, Steff R. Padilla

, Juvenile Court Referee

. Affirmed.
Cristina Gabriel idis , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro

- Silva , County Counsel, Kim Nemoy

, Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kw o n , Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *2 Father C. F

. appeals the dispositional order removing his
then one

- year

- old daughter, A.F

. from his custody , arguing it was not supported by substantial evidence , and that there were reasonable means to protect her other than removal, including
unannounced home visits

. We affirm

. FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) in January 2020 , after the Department received a
referral that mother I.T. was incarcerated , and that maternal family members were caring fo r A.F., but were interfering with
father’s visitation , an d were n ot properly caring for A.F

. According to the reporting party, A.F. was sick, dirty, and had a diaper rash , and there were concerns about domestic violence in maternal grandparents’ home , and allegations that maternal
uncle had molested mother

. The Department social worker visited maternal grandparents’ home and found it to be clean and organized. Maternal grandmother denied any domestic violence or sexual abuse by maternal uncle

. Ma ternal grandparents were seeking a legal guardianship over A.F. during mother ’ s incarceration for robbery. A.F. was clean and did not have any marks

, bruises, or rashes. There was a pending custody and paternity case between
mother and father. Father wa s allowed three days of unmonitored visitation per week. According to maternal grandmother, father was impatient
and antisocial

, and he had no parenting experience or education.
M aternal grand father reported that when mother and father

argue d , he saw father “roll up his sleeves” and act aggressive ly

. Father would also give maternal grandparents’ “intimidating”3

looks during custody exchanges, and he refused to discuss anything about A.F.’s care with them.
Mother reported there was domestic violence in her relationship with father. She obtained a restraining order against him which protected mother, A.F., and maternal grandparents. The restraining order was subsequently modified
so that father could have visitation with A.F

. Mother had ended her relationship with father in November 2019. Father was controlling , and abused her physically and emotionally , even strangling her while she was pregnant with A.F

. Father had anger issues and “shook [infant A.F.] in anger due to child not

r esponding to father holding her based on his expectations.” Father also took A.F. from maternal grandparents and did not
return her for a month in violation of the court’s visitation order

. Mother denied any sexual abuse history, or any domestic violence between maternal grandparents. According to mother,
f ather was always in a bad mood an d ab used his prescription pain medication. Mother wanted her parents to obtain custody of
A.F. because she did not think A.F. would be safe with father. Mother cried when discussing father’s domestic violence

. On January 2 2

, 2020, father had a visit with A.F., and went to the police station to r eport that her “ p

---- was red ” and
that he was concerned because maternal uncle had access to the
child and had molested mother. Police immediately examined
A.F. and observed no redness or marks or bruises.
A Department social worker visited father’s home on January 24, 2020. Father shared an apartment with paternal grandparents and paternal uncle. He refused to be interviewed
alone. Father is a R egional C enter client . He received 15 hours per month assist ance. He admitted to domestic violence in his4

relationship with mother, but claimed mother was the aggressor
and that he never struck her

. He denied shaking his daughter. Father was loud and aggressive during the interview. Father denied many a spects of his history, which had been thoroughly documented, such as prior child welfare involvement with his family when he was a child for abuse by paternal grandfather

, mental health issues , including multiple psychiatric hospitalizations when he was a minor and suicidal ideation

, and
his violent criminal history for which he was sentenced to four years in prison

. On January 25, 2020, father took A.F. to the hospital
because her “ p

---- wa s red” even though the social worker had explained that diaper rashes are common and normal. Doctors at the hospital did not notice any redness and advised father to follow up with primary care. Paternal grandmother told the Department she cared for A.F. “everyday” and that father is a good parent and is very affectionate and attentive. She described maternal family
members as “bad ” and that mother once punched father’s face. Paternal grandfathe r also reported that mother would hit father. Other paternal relatives claimed that A.F. would arrive for visits dirty and unbathed.
Father’s Regional Center independent living skills worker
had no concerns about father or his ability to care for A.F

. A.F.’s babysitter reported that A.F. was always well

- cared for by maternal grandparents. However, she would return from
visits with father “ more serious, clingy” and would cry more. On February 5 , 2020, father texted the social worker that
A.F. had a “burn” on her private parts, a mark on her neck, and a
rash on her face. On February 8, 2020, father texted the social5

worker, reporting A.F. had a bruise on her spine and a rash on her “private area,” and that he was taking her to the emergency

ro om. The Department obtained a removal order on February 24, 2020. When the social worker informed father of the order, he became upset and said he “refuses to comply with any type of therapeutic services” even if ordered by the court. The Department al so filed a petition, with allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) based on domestic violence between mother and father, and father shaking A.F

. (

A ll further statutory re ferences are to this code.)
A.F. was detained from mother and father on February 27, 2020

, and placed with maternal grandparents

. Father’s visitation was
ordered to be monitored. Soon after A.F.’s detention, the Department filed a first amended petition adding allegations based on father’ s mental health history and his inability to independently parent A.F.

, including his lack of parenting insight, such as mistaking diaper
rash for sexual abuse. When the Department interviewed father about the new allegations, father accused the social w orker of trying to “provoke ” him and told her not to call him if the Department did not have anything good to say about him , and to “ keep your
mouth shut.” When the social worker explained that the Department was there to support him and provide services to address any concerns, father told her to “ [ t ] ake that bull

---- somewhere else.” According to the July 2020 jurisdiction/disposition report, A.F. was thriving with maternal grandparents; she was well

cared for and happy and did not have any marks or bruises.6

Their home was appropriate, and they were cooperative and communicative with the Department.
Father still refused to be interviewed al one, without the assistance of paternal family members and his Regional Center caseworker, who often responded for father. Paternal family
members appeared to be in denial about father’s history, and the
risks to A.F. For example, paternal grandmother mi nimized
father’s violent behaviors and asserted he did not have a mental health history.
F ather had difficulty retaining information about basi c infant care that the Department repeatedly told him

. Father frequently raise d his voice at social workers

, made threats, and could not understand why the Department was involved with the family, even though it was explained to him repeatedly. He was
also fixated with the be lief that A.F. was being sexually abused, even though ther e was no evidence of sexual abuse. Father was hypervigilant, constantly inspecting A.F.’s body for marks and
bruises . He made vulgar comments about A.F.’s “ p

---- ” and her smelling like “shit

, ” accusing maternal grandparents of not washing “ her ass in wee ks.” He also would not agree to have his
visitation monitored , so he was unable to visit A.F

. for a period

. His visitation resumed after his Regional Center worker was approved as a visitation monitor. The MAT assessor noted that father appeared “angry” and
“defensive” and was focused on his own needs rather than the needs of his daughter. The assessor believ ed “ it would be incredibly challenging for hi m to participate in services needed
for his child to thrive.”
On July 9, 2020, the juvenile court sustained allegations in the first amended petition, based on the history of domestic7

violence between mother a nd father, and father’s limited ability to independently care for A.F. Father does not challenge these findings on appeal. According to the Department’s August 2020 supplemental
report , father had enrolled in parenting classes, individual counseling, do mestic violence classes, and anger management
classes. During a July 2020 visit to father’s home, father and the paternal grandparents videotaped the social worker without her consent, and refused to stop when she asked them to. The social
worker felt unsafe and left. The Department suspended in person visits with father due to safety concerns because of his
hostile beh avior.
A Decemb er 2020 last minute information for the court reported that father refused to discuss his progress in his programs with the Department

. His Regional Center worker reported that father had completed an eight

- hour parenting

course , an eight

- hour domestic violence course , and an eight

- hour

anger management course . He was seeing a psychiatrist monthly, but was not pres cribed any medications, and was not diagnosed with any mental health disorders

. She also reported that visits were going well, and that father was independently caring for A.F. without his mother’s help. However, f ather refused to allow the Department to observe his visits with A.F.
At the December 8, 2020 disposition hearing, A.F.’s counsel
and father asked for A.F. to be placed with father. T he court
removed A.F. from father and ordered father to participate in
reunification services

. The court acknowledged that “contempt” for the Department alone was an insufficient basis to remove a child from a parent. But the court found that if father could not8

cooperate with the Department, it was impossible for the court to assess A.F.’s safety in his care , and impossible to deliver services to ensure her safety

. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Section 361, subdivision (d) provides that “[ a] dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her
parents

. . . with whom the child did not reside at the time the petition was initiated , unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional

we ll

- being of the child for the parent

. . . to live with the child or otherwise exercise the parent’s

. . . right to physical custody, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical and emotional health can be protected without removing the child from the child’s parent’s

. . . physical custody. ” ( Italics added; s ee In re S.S. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 355, 373.)
A removal order is proper if it is based on proof that the
child will be at substantial risk of harm if he or she remains in
the parent’s custody. “ The parent need not be dangerous and the
child need not have been actually harmed before removal is

approp riate. ” (

In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.) The
focus is on averting harm to the child. We review the dispositional order for substantial evidence, keeping in mind the trial court had to find clear and convincing evidence supporting removal. ( In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 155.) We must
decide “ ‘whether the record as a whole contains substantial
evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.’ ” ( Ibid. )
We find such evidence here. Father does not challenge the jurisdictional findings, and the sustained findings are prima facie9

evidence A.F. was unsafe with father . (See In re T.V. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135 [“The jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence the minor cannot safely remain in the home.”].)
F ather was angry, hostile, and denied that he ever perpetrated domestic violence against mother, suffered from any mental health problems, or had a violent criminal history. He persisted in making unfounded allegations that A.F. was sexually abused, thereby subjecting her to invasive examinations. His hostility toward the Department, his unwillingness to discuss his services,
and his refusal to allo w the Department to assess his visitation, provide additional substantial evidence to support the removal
order.
DISPOSITION
The removal order is affirmed.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

STRATTON

, J.

WILEY , J.