Filed 4/28/22 In re Angelina V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Angelina V., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B311979

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP05584A

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Debra Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Father Carlos V. appeals jurisdictional findings and 

dispositional orders removing his teenage daughter from his 

custody and granting him monitored visits. We affirm. Statutory 

references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I

We summarize the factual and procedural background.

A

Fifteen-year-old Angelina and her younger half sister were 

living with their mother and the half sister’s father—Angelina’s 

stepfather. In June 2020, Angelina told her mother the 

stepfather had touched her inappropriately several times 

between the ages of 10 and 14. The mother sent Angelina to live 

with her father. In October 2020, Angelina told her father about 

the abuse. He took Angelina to a police station to make a report. 

On October 20, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department 

of Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition on 

behalf of Angelina and her younger half sister alleging the 

stepfather sexually abused Angelina, the mother knew, and the 

mother did not allow Angelina to report. The juvenile court 

detained Angelina from the mother and released her to the 

father. Police arrested the stepfather, and the mother and 

daughters received a restraining order against him. 

But by December 2020, the Department was concerned 

about the father’s “unresolved propensity to commit violent 

criminal acts.” The father’s criminal record included convictions 

for disorderly conduct under the influence, spousal battery, 
3

battery, and driving with a suspended license. His record 

contained other arrests. 

Angelina’s adult half sister Ruby told police, “It’s just weird 

hearing that her dad cares about [the stepfather’s abuse], when 

he was 10 times worse in my eyes.” She said the father had hit 

the mother during their relationship and, in or around 2009, he 

raped the mother while Ruby and Angelina were in the room. 

Ruby was concerned with the father’s history of violence and said 

she did not want Angelina staying with the father because of his 

drinking. In 2019, Angelina witnessed the father threaten to kill 

the paternal grandmother. 

The father had a history of domestic violence against 

Angelina’s mother and against the mother of another child. In 

2014, the Department filed a petition on this child’s behalf 

alleging the father slapped the child’s mother while she held the 

child and, in another incident, stabbed and cut the mother with a 

knife. The father lost custody of the child after failing to comply 

with his case plan. 

Despite this other case, the father reported to the 

Department he had no previous involvement with the juvenile 

court. He refused to submit to a live scan background check or to 

drug and alcohol testing. 

In January 2021, the mother reported concerns about 

Angelina’s safety in the father’s care. Angelina had called her 

scared and crying, asked the mother to pick her up, and said the 

father was yelling at her, saying he did not trust the government 

and her school was brainwashing her. Later that month, a social 

worker reported Angelina seemed afraid to talk to her. Angelina 

moved close to the social worker and spoke softly, saying the 
4

walls were thin and the father could overhear. Angelina told the 

social worker she wanted to live with the mother. 

In February 2021, the Department tried to schedule an 

interview with Angelina, but the father said Angelina did not 

want to talk to the Department alone and that he and Angelina’s 

attorney had to be present for the interview. Angelina, however, 

told a social worker she wanted to speak in private but the father 

would not let her. The father delayed scheduling appropriate 

therapy for Angelina after agreeing to participate. He and 

Angelina constantly argued, and he threatened to send her to 

foster care. 

On February 22, 2021, Angelina again called her mother 

crying about the father, then abruptly ended the call, which the 

mother said meant the father was nearby. The mother asked the 

Department to remove Angelina from the father and place 

Angelina with her. 

On February 24, 2021, a social worker spoke with Angelina 

on the phone. Angelina said it was “safe” to talk to social workers 

when she was away from the father, but she was not comfortable 

speaking to them around him. She said living with the father 

was “stressful” and “draining” and she was having a difficult time 

completing her schoolwork because of the constant arguing. 

On February 25, 2021, the court ordered the father not to 

interfere with the Department’s attempts to interview Angelina 

in private. On the next day, however, the father tried to video 

record the social worker who came to interview Angelina and 

refused to stop, causing her to end the visit early. The social 

worker “rushed out of the residence” as the father questioned her 

and followed her to her car. The social worker reported fearing

for her safety. 
5

On March 5, 2021, the juvenile court held a jurisdiction and 

disposition hearing. The Department argued the father’s violent 

tendencies and refusal to cooperate placed Angelina at risk of 

serious harm. Counsel for the Department, for Angelina, and for 

the mother each requested the court return Angelina to the 

mother with visitation for the father. 

The juvenile court sustained an amended petition. We 

grant the Department’s motion to augment the record with this 

petition. The court found by clear and convincing evidence 

Angelina must be removed from her father’s custody. It placed 

Angelina with the mother and ordered services and monitored 

visits for the father. The father appeals these March 5, 2021 

findings and orders. 

B

On September 2, 2021, during the pendency of this appeal, 

the court terminated jurisdiction, granted the mother physical 

and legal custody, and ordered monitored visits for the father. 

We grant the Department’s request for judicial notice of the 

September 2, 2021 minute orders. The father did not appeal 

these orders, which have become final. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.406; see In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 164–167; 

but see In re S.G. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 654, 664–668.) 

The Department filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as 

moot in light of the termination. The father opposed the motion, 

asking us to exercise our discretion to review his appeal as the 

findings and orders may prejudice him in future dependency or 

family law proceedings. 

Out of an abundance of caution, we deny the motion to 

dismiss and exercise our discretion to reach the merits in this 

case. (See In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 716.)
6

II

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order 

removing Angelina from the father’s custody. 

The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence 

Angelina must be removed from her father’s care. (See § 361, 

subd. (c)(1).) On appeal, the question before us is whether a 

reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable the fact 

was true. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011–

1012.) 

The father argues his lack of cooperation with the 

Department is insufficient evidence to support removal, citing In 

re Jasmine G. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 282, 290 and In re Ma.V. 

(2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11, 24. But neither case involved current, 

ongoing conflict in the home and a parent with a history of 

perpetrating serious violence. 

Here, Angelina was calling her mother scared and in tears, 

and her schoolwork was suffering. The father previously lost 

custody of another child due to domestic violence and more 

recently intimidated and distressed Angelina, failed to secure 

appropriate counseling for her, disobeyed a court order, and 

frightened a social worker. 

The father’s controlling and disruptive behavior made it 

impossible for the court to ensure Angelina’s safety and wellbeing in his custody. A reasonable fact finder could find, as this 

court did, it was very likely Angelina would continue to suffer 

harm while living with him. The father relies on In re Ashly F.

(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803, 809–811, in which a court failed to 

state the factual basis for its removal order and ample evidence 

showed there were reasonable means to protect the children in 

the home. But this court explained why it ordered Angelina 
7

removed, and evidence showed there were not reasonable means 

to protect her while she remained in the father’s custody. The 

removal order was proper.

III

In light of the father’s controlling and disruptive conduct 

during the Department’s investigation, the court was within its 

discretion to order the father’s visits with Angelina be monitored. 

(See In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1070.)

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed. 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

GRIMES, Acting P. J. 

HARUTUNIAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.