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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 B309579

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01125A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Steff R. Padilla, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kwon, 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. 

FACTUAL 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 for A.F., but were interfering with 

father’s visitation, and were not 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. Maternal 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 was 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. 

Maternal grandfather reported that when mother and father 

argued, he saw father “roll up his sleeves” and act aggressively. 

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 

responding 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, 

father was always in a bad mood and abused 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 22, 2020, father had a visit with A.F., and 

went to the police station to report 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 Regional Center client. He received 15 hours 

per month assistance. He admitted to domestic violence in his 
4

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 aspects 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---- was 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 grandfather 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 social 
5

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 

room. 

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 also 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. (All further statutory references 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 worker 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 wellcared 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 alone, 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 minimized 

father’s violent behaviors and asserted he did not have a mental 

health history. 

Father had difficulty retaining information about basic

infant care that the Department repeatedly told him. Father

frequently raised 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 belief that A.F. was being sexually abused, 

even though there 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 weeks.” 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 believed “it would be 

incredibly challenging for him 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 domestic 
7

violence between mother and 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, domestic 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 behavior. 

A December 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 prescribed 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, father 

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. The 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 not 
8

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 

well-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; see 

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

appropriate.” (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 facie 
9

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.”].) 

Father 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 allow 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.