Court Opinion

ID: 9365329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 19:02:21.379715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.774002
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/23/23 In re B.G. CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

 In re B.G. et al., Persons                                    B319831
 Coming Under the Juvenile                                     (Los Angeles County
 Court Law.                                                    Super. Ct. No.
                                                               20CCJP06180A-B)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 L.C.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Nancy A. Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed.
      Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
           __________________________________________

       In this juvenile dependency appeal, L.C. (mother) appeals
the juvenile court’s final custody order. Mother challenges the
juvenile court’s decision to terminate jurisdiction and award R.G.
(father) sole physical custody of their two children. In particular,
mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion because
the final custody order was not in the children’s best interests.
As discussed below, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
                           BACKGROUND
1.     The Family
       Mother and father have two children together, B.G.
(daughter) and A.G. (son). At the time the underlying
proceedings began, daughter was seven years old and son was six
years old. Mother and father do not live together and are no
longer in a relationship. Father has four older children with
other women. Mother’s boyfriend, A.M. (boyfriend), sometimes
stayed at mother’s home with her and the children. Mother and
her boyfriend had been dating since 2016. Mother’s boyfriend
has three children, all of whom have been removed from his care
because one of them was hospitalized after ingesting an illicit
substance while in his care. Mother, father, and mother’s
boyfriend all have histories of substance abuse, including
methamphetamine use.

                                 2
       While the underlying proceedings were pending, mother
became pregnant with and gave birth to a daughter. Mother’s
boyfriend is the father of that child.
2.     Previous Referrals and Criminal Histories
       In May 2018, prior to the instant case, a referral was made
to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services (Department), alleging father mistreated the children
and used drugs. During the Department’s investigation of the
referral, father admitted using methamphetamine for 10 years.
The Department closed the referral because mother and father
did not live together and mother was willing to protect the
children.
       In December 2018, a referral was made to the Department
alleging a paternal uncle sexually abused daughter. The referral
was closed because it appeared to stem from a conflict within
mother’s family, there were no signs of abuse, and no opportunity
for the alleged abuse to have taken place. During that
investigation, mother and father also both denied substance
abuse.
       A couple of months later, in February 2019, another
referral was made, this time alleging mother left the children
unattended at home and they had been found wandering around
their apartment building at night looking for mother. The
Department closed the referral because no evidence of neglect
was found. Mother and father appeared to coparent their
children well, and father tested negative for all substances
besides marijuana.
       In November 2019, mother and her boyfriend were arrested
for burglary. Mother admitted to, among other things, breaking
into vehicles, using a stolen credit card, and forging and cashing

                                3
stolen checks. Mother was placed on formal probation and was
considered “ ‘minimal risk.’ ” Later, in 2020, a bench warrant
was issued for mother after she failed to appear for a court
hearing regarding citations for possession of drug paraphernalia
and driving with a suspended license.
      Father had a more extensive criminal history dating back
to 2002, which included domestic violence, carrying concealed
weapons, and theft. Similarly, mother’s boyfriend had a criminal
history that included weapons and drug charges, domestic
violence, and theft. Mother’s boyfriend had served time in jail for
some of his convictions.
3.    Events Preceding Instant Petition
      In September 2020, the Department received a referral
alleging, among other things, mother left the children
unattended, yelled and cursed at the children, sold drugs at
home, and fought often with her boyfriend. Although
anonymous, the referral appeared to be made by a neighbor with
whom mother had ongoing conflicts. A social worker spoke with
mother, father, and the children. Although there were no obvious
concerns and mother and father both denied drug use other than
occasional marijuana use, a few days later mother tested positive
for methamphetamine, amphetamine, marijuana, and Xanax.
Her boyfriend also tested positive for methamphetamine,
amphetamine, and marijuana. Father tested negative. Mother
adamantly denied using methamphetamine and said she did not
know if her boyfriend did. Mother told the social worker she
broke up with her boyfriend after their positive drug tests.
Mother also denied having a criminal history. Father denied
substance abuse other than an earlier 10-year addiction to

                                 4
alcohol, current recreational use of marijuana, and past use of
methamphetamine two years earlier.
4.     Petition and Detention
       In November 2020, after having already received a court
order for removal of the children from mother’s care, the
Department filed a two-count Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300 petition on behalf of the children (petition).1 The
petition alleged mother both abused drugs which affected her
ability to care for her children and created a dangerous home
environment by allowing her boyfriend unlimited access to the
children. The petition also alleged father failed to protect the
children from mother. At the detention hearing held a few days
later, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from
mother’s custody and care and released to father under
Department supervision. The court also issued a “no contact
order” between the children and mother’s boyfriend.
5.     Continued Investigation and Amended Petition
       While in the care of father, the children appeared to be
doing well. They visited with mother often. The children
indicated they preferred to live with both mother and father.
       Following the detention hearing, mother continued to deny
ever using methamphetamine. She said she had a prescription
for Xanax, which she took as needed for panic attacks. Mother
did not believe her family had “any issues.”
       Also after the detention hearing, father tested positive for
methamphetamine and marijuana. Father told a Department
social worker he had “been sober for the last 2-3 weeks” but was
“not gonna deny I’m using meth.” He said he used to use

      1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                 5
methamphetamine with mother but did not know if she currently
was using the drug. Father noted mother had a prescription for
Xanax. Father did not believe the children were in danger while
in mother’s care. At one point he said mother’s boyfriend was “a
good guy” who loved the children but, on a different occasion,
father stated he believed mother should no longer be involved
with boyfriend because he was part of the reason the children
were removed from mother. Father was willing to comply with
any court orders, including random testing and a drug program.
      In early December 2020, father consented to the children’s
detention from him based on general neglect due to his
methamphetamine use. The children were placed with paternal
grandmother. The juvenile court subsequently ordered the
children detained from father. Within one week of the court’s
detention order, father enrolled in a drug and alcohol program.
      Later that same month, mother was arrested and spent 23
days in jail. Mother told a Department social worker she was
arrested because “she violated her parole and had a warrant out
for her arrest because she had outstanding tickets.”
      On December 24, 2020, the Department filed a first
amended petition (amended petition). In addition to the original
counts, the amended petition also alleged father was a current
abuser of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana,
which rendered him incapable of providing care for the children.
After the amended petition was filed, the juvenile court dismissed
the original petition.
      Following the filing of the amended petition and prior to
the adjudication hearing, mother had four random drug tests
scheduled. She tested positive for marijuana metabolites once
and missed the other three tests. Within the same time frame,

                                6
father tested positive for marijuana twice, tested negative five
times, and missed one test. Father also continued in his drug
treatment program, participating in educational groups,
attending individual counseling, and eventually enrolling in the
outpatient program.
6.     Adjudication and Disposition
       The juvenile court held a combined adjudication and
disposition hearing on February 22, 2021. At the hearing, other
than deleting reference to mother’s prescription medication, the
juvenile court sustained the amended petition as pleaded. The
court declared the children dependents of the court under section
300, subdivision (b), and removed them from their parents’
custody and care
       The juvenile court ordered mother to enroll in a full alcohol
and drug program with aftercare, submit to weekly drug testing,
attend parenting classes, and participate in individual
counseling, mental health counseling, and monitoring of her
medication. The court ordered father to enroll in a full alcohol
and drug program with aftercare, submit to weekly drug testing,
attend parenting classes, and participate in individual
counseling. The court granted both parents monitored visits with
their children. Father also was allowed unmonitored visits
within his treatment program facility.
7.     Reunification Period
       During the reunification period, the children remained
placed with their paternal grandmother. The children’s therapist
told a Department social worker she initially had concerns about
mother. The therapist explained that the first time she met the
children, “mother was asleep on the front steps, had her head
hung low, and was not moving.” Mother was also “slobbering”

                                 7
and “slurring her words.” She appeared to be under the
influence. Mother told the therapist she had taken a Xanax.
Nonetheless, by mid June 2021, the therapist believed everyone
was making progress and she did not have the same concerns.
       Mother and father visited the children separately and their
visits generally went well, although it was reported mother
appeared to pay more attention to daughter and sometimes yelled
at son. In September and October 2021, mother missed a couple
of visits with the children. Mother told a Department social
worker she did not want to visit with the children if paternal
grandmother was the monitor. In September 2021, father began
having unmonitored visits with the children.
       a.    Mother
       In February 2021, a few days after the adjudication
hearing, mother was arrested “for conspiracy to commit crime.”2
       In March 2021, mother enrolled in an outpatient drug
program. However, mother was inconsistent with her required
drug testing. Between March 12 and August 3, 2021, mother
should have tested 17 times for the Department. However, she
missed nine of those tests (including the five most recent tests in
July and August 2021) and three times she tested positive for
methamphetamines and amphetamines. Her most recent
positive test was in May 2021. The remaining five tests were
negative. Mother also was required to submit to separate drug
testing for her outpatient program. Between April 9 and August
11, 2021, mother missed three out of eight tests (including two in
August 2021), tested positive once for methamphetamine,

      2   The record does not reveal details of this arrest.

                                   8
amphetamine, and THC, and other than her Xanax prescription,
tested negative four times.
       In April 2021, mother began individual counseling sessions.
In late September 2021, mother’s therapist reported mother was
“ ‘very cooperative, compliant, and speaks highly of her
children.’ ”
       In late July 2021, mother revealed she was four months
pregnant with her third child. Boyfriend was the father.
Although mother stated she had not taken drugs while pregnant,
her test results indicated otherwise. Mother said her pregnancy
was “a blessing for her case, because she does not use drugs
during her pregnancies.” Although mother had completed her
court-ordered parenting courses, the Department did not consider
her to be in full compliance with that portion of her case plan
because she had used drugs while pregnant.
       In late August 2021, due to excessive absences and no
shows, mother’s drug treatment program put her on a “behavior
contract,” which meant mother “would be discharged from the
program if she continued to miss group sessions or if she was
late.” After signing the behavior contract, mother had no further
problems. From August 18 thru September 23, 2021, mother
tested six times, all of which were negative.
       b.     Father
       In April 2021, father “stepped down” to an outpatient drug
program, through which he participated in individual counseling
and treatment sessions. In mid August 2021, father completed
his outpatient program and transitioned to an aftercare program.
Father also consistently attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings
three times each week. Father’s counselor, case managers, and
therapist all reported he was doing very well.

                                9
       Between February 24 and September 20, 2021, the
Department scheduled 28 drug tests for father, all of which were
negative. Father also tested for his drug treatment program.
Between February 23 and July 2, 2021, father had 19 drug tests
there. He missed one test and the remaining 18 tests were
negative.
       In an August 2021 report, the Department reported father
was “in full compliance with Court orders,” had stayed sober, and
had completed “parenting education, anger management, and
relapse prevention courses.”
       c.    Children placed with father under court
             supervision.
       On October 6, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the children
released back to father’s custody and care while continuing court
supervision. The court also granted mother unmonitored visits in
addition to her monitored visits.
       The children remained in father’s care until the close of
this case in April 2022. During that time, the children felt happy
and safe in father’s care. Father consistently brought them to
and from school and to their counseling sessions. The children’s
therapist had no concerns. Paternal grandmother continued to
support father and helped care for the children. Mother’s visits
with the children went well. The children enjoyed their time
with mother, and father had no concerns. Daughter stated she
missed mother.
       By March 2022, father had been sober for 12 months. His
therapist reported father was continuing with individual
counseling and was “ ‘doing fabulous.’ ” On one occasion, father’s
therapist saw him interact with his children, which the therapist
described as “ ‘very very beautiful’ ” and the children were “happy

                                10
and playful” with him. The therapist believed the children were
“thriving” in father’s care. Although father had completed his
aftercare treatment requirements, father voluntarily continued to
attend an aftercare program “because it is an additional support
group for him.”
       During that same time period, mother completed her
parenting education and outpatient drug treatment program,
including an aftercare program. She continued with her
individual counseling sessions and met with her psychiatrist
monthly. Her therapist reported mother was cooperative,
making progress toward her goals, and motivated to reunify with
her children.
       Between September 30, 2021, and March 2, 2022, mother
submitted to 20 drug tests. All but one of those tests were
negative. Her November 12, 2021 test was positive for ethanol.
Mother missed a more recent test on January 11, 2022, but she
was sick with COVID-19 at the time. Mother also continued to
test for her drug treatment program. All of those tests between
August and November 2021, including one taken a few days after
she had tested positive for ethanol, were negative for all
substances.
       A Department social worker spoke with a representative of
the laboratory that conducted mother’s November 12 drug test.
The representative explained ethanol is alcohol and stated the
amount in mother’s system was “an average amount.” The
representative also told the social worker she could not “reflect
too much on this drug test because there are a lot of factors when
it comes to ethanol.” Nonetheless, she “confirmed mother was
consuming alcohol.” Mother denied using alcohol (which she
noted had never been her drug of choice) and did not know why

                               11
she had tested positive for ethanol. On her own, mother
“googled” ethanol and discovered it is present in oranges, which
mother explained she had craved and often ate with Tajin during
her pregnancy. Mother also learned ethanol is present in other
fruits like grapes. At mother’s request, the social worker
researched oranges and ethanol and found “orange, apple, and
grape juice contain substantial amounts of ethanol.” The social
worker also learned “oranges, apples, and grapes can be marked
as ethanol in a drug test.”
       In January 2022, mother gave birth to her second
daughter. Although the Department acknowledged mother had
made progress and there “were no concerns prior to mother’s
positive ethanol drug test result dated [November 12, 2021],” the
Department recommended opening a family maintenance case as
to her newborn daughter. The Department expressed concern
based on mother’s May 2021 drug test which was positive for
methamphetamines and amphetamines as well as her November
2021 test which was positive for ethanol.
8.     Custody Order and Termination of Jurisdiction
       The juvenile court held a section 364 review hearing on
April 6, 2022. At the hearing, the Department asked the juvenile
court to terminate its jurisdiction with a final custody order
awarding joint legal custody of the children to mother and father
and sole physical custody of the children to father. The
Department was concerned not only with mother’s two positive
methamphetamine tests the year before, but also with mother’s
“recent relapse” when she tested positive for ethanol while five
months pregnant. Counsel for the Department argued,
“[W]aiting for a parent to be in full compliance with her case plan
or gain the necessary insight or to recuperate from the relapse is

                                12
not a legal basis to continue the 364 [review hearing].” Father
agreed with the Department’s recommendation to terminate
jurisdiction with a custody order granting joint legal custody and
sole physical custody to father, stating there was no legal basis to
keep the case open.
       On the other hand, counsel for mother argued mother was
in full compliance with her case plan and asked the court to issue
a “home of parents” order. Counsel emphasized mother was
“successfully caring for her newborn baby,” who the Department
recommended, and the court ordered, remain with mother. As to
mother’s drug use and testing, counsel explained it had been 10
months since mother had “tested positive for any illicit or
inherently dangerous substance.” Counsel noted mother’s
positive test for ethanol was four months earlier and she had no
further positive or missed tests since then. Alternatively, if the
juvenile court declined to issue a “home of parents” order and
instead terminated its jurisdiction, mother’s counsel asked the
court to grant mother “fully unmonitored visits and overnights to
be included in the custody order.”
       Counsel for the children joined in mother’s request that the
juvenile court make a “home of parents” order and asked that the
case remain open for “an additional two to three months.”
Children’s counsel noted, “[M]other has been having consistent,
positive visits with these children and no concerns have been
reported. . . . In fact, the children have reported the visits are not
just appropriate, but that they enjoy the time with mother and
enjoy seeing her on weekends and wanting to spend more time
with her.” Although counsel for the children believed “it is safe
and appropriate to return the children to mother at this time,”
counsel asked the court “to keep the case open for an additional

                                 13
two to three months to supervise the family and ensure there are
no further issues or incidents prior to closing the case.” The
children’s counsel stated, “If the court is not inclined to keep the
case open for an additional two to three months, that would be
over my objection.”
       The juvenile court noted father “has completed his case
plan. He has been sober for 12 months. He completed parenting,
anger management, relapse prevention. He has been testing
consistently. All of the service providers who are working with
[father] have wonderful things to say about him and the progress
that he’s made.” The court also found mother was “making
progress in her case plan. She completed a full drug program
with aftercare.” The court noted mother had “mixed results with
testing. She did test positive for alcohol or ethanol in November
of last year while pregnant with a new child [and] she is
considered in partial compliance with parenting due to using
methamphetamine while she was pregnant with [her youngest].
She is in partial compliance with the psychiatric monitoring of
her medication. And she is continuing to participate in
individual counseling.” The court also referenced a letter from
one of mother’s service providers, stating mother had “made
tremendous progress and has three consecutive months of
negative drug tests.”
       The juvenile court noted, “This is a difficult decision for the
court given that mother has made a lot of progress and the report
does show three consecutive months of negative drug tests.”
Nonetheless, because of mother’s history of substance abuse, the
court found those “three consecutive months of negative tests is
not sufficient to order a home of parent mother and father.” The
court found support in the request by children’s counsel for

                                 14
continued court supervision if the children were returned to both
mother and father. The court noted, “[T]hat is signaling to the
court that mother is not quite ready to be unsupervised.” Thus,
while recognizing “the tremendous progress that mother has
made,” the court declined to order the children released to both
parents.
       The court found the conditions that justified its assumption
of jurisdiction no longer existed and were not likely to exist if
supervision was withdrawn. Thus, the following day, on April 7,
2022, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and filed a
final custody order granting joint legal custody of the children
and sole physical custody of the children to father. The court also
granted mother monitored and unmonitored visitation.
9.     Appeal
       Mother appealed the juvenile court’s final custody order.
                           DISCUSSION
1.     Applicable Law
       At a section 364 review hearing, the juvenile court must
terminate dependency jurisdiction unless the conditions that
created the need for supervision still exist or are likely to exist if
supervision is discontinued. “After hearing any evidence
presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the
child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is
necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the
social worker or his or her department establishes by a
preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which
would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300,
or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is
withdrawn.” (§ 364, subd. (c); see In re T.S. (2020) 52
Cal.App.5th 503, 512–513.) “The juvenile court makes this

                                 15
determination based on the totality of the evidence before it.” (In
re Armando L. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 606, 615.)
       When a juvenile court decides to terminate its jurisdiction
over a dependent child, the juvenile court may do what the court
did here and enter a final custody order determining custody of
and visitation with the minor children. (§ 362.4, subd. (a).) The
final custody order—sometimes called an “exit order”—may
either be filed in a preexisting family law case involving the
family or be the basis for opening such a case. (§ 362.4, subds. (b)
& (c); In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455.) The
juvenile court’s final custody order “shall be a final judgment and
shall remain in effect after that jurisdiction is terminated.”
(§ 302, subd. (d).) The family court may modify the final custody
order only upon a finding “that there has been a significant
change of circumstances since the juvenile court issued the order
and modification of the order is in the best interests of the child.”
(§ 302, subd. (d).)
       “When making a custody determination under section
362.4, ‘the court’s focus and primary consideration must always
be the best interests of the child.’ ” (In re T.S., supra, 52
Cal.App.5th at p. 513.)
2.     Standard of Review
       We review the juvenile court’s decision to terminate
jurisdiction and its final custody order for an abuse of discretion.
(In re C.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 101, 104; Bridget A. v. Superior
Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300.) We will not disturb such
a ruling unless the juvenile court made an “ ‘ “ ‘arbitrary,
capricious, or patently absurd determination.’ ” ’ ” (Bridget A., at
p. 300.) “ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is
whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two

                                 16
or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the
reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for
that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th
295, 318–319.)
3.     No Abuse of Discretion
       Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion
because it failed to consider the children’s best interests when
making its custody order. According to mother, the children’s
best interests would have been served by placing the children
with both parents.
       As an initial matter, we note mother does not argue the
juvenile court erred in granting physical custody to father. She
states the juvenile court “properly placed” the children with him.
Thus, it is undisputed father was able to care for the children
without court supervision. In addition, although mother relies
heavily on the fact counsel for the children below argued for their
release to mother, children’s counsel clearly objected to releasing
the children to mother absent court supervision. It appears even
mother’s counsel at the April 2022 hearing believed court
supervision was necessary if the children were returned to
mother’s care. The issue for the juvenile court was whether to
terminate jurisdiction and grant sole physical custody to father or
to continue its jurisdiction with a home of parents order so that
the court could supervise mother while the children were in her
care.
       As the juvenile court recognized, this was “a difficult
decision.” By the close of the underlying proceedings, it was
undisputed mother had made much progress. She had completed
most of her case plan (although there was some disagreement as
to whether she had fully completed or almost completed certain

                                17
aspects of her case plan) and had remained sober for close to five
months. In addition, it was undisputed the children enjoyed
their time with mother and had expressed their desire to live
with both her and father. Moreover, at the April 2022 review
hearing, counsel for the children advocated for keeping the case
open a few more months so that mother could continue to try to
reunify with the children.
       Despite these facts supporting mother’s position, we
conclude the court’s final custody order was not an abuse of
discretion. Mother suffered from a methamphetamine addiction.
Although at the time of the April 2022 hearing it had been
approximately 11 months since she last tested positive for
methamphetamine, mother was pregnant for most of those 11
months. This is significant because mother stated she did not
use drugs during her pregnancies (although it appears she did
early on in her third pregnancy here). Moreover, during July and
August 2021 (approximately eight to nine months before the
April 2022 hearing) mother missed seven scheduled drug tests.
Thus, mother simply failed to demonstrate a meaningful track
record of sobriety by April 2022.
       In addition, mother tested positive for ethanol in November
2021, close to five months before the April 2022 hearing. On the
one hand, mother argued strenuously that test result likely was
due to her craving and eating many oranges while pregnant. On
the other hand, the representative at the drug testing laboratory
stated the test showed alcohol use. Mother did not explain why
none of her other drug tests during her pregnancy—when she
was craving and eating oranges—was positive for ethanol. When
two or more reasonable inferences can be made, we cannot

                               18
substitute one inference for that made by the trial court. (In re
Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318–319.)
       Finally, the record is unclear as to mother’s relationship
with her boyfriend. Mother’s boyfriend was named in the
sustained amended petition because his access to the children,
which mother allowed, was considered a risk to them. Although
early in the underlying proceedings mother stated she was no
longer in a relationship with her boyfriend, he fathered her
newborn daughter while the proceedings were pending. With no
evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe mother’s
boyfriend would be involved to some extent in their newborn
child’s life. Mother does not address how she would minimize his
contact with the children if they were also in her care.
       In light of the above, we conclude the juvenile court’s final
custody order was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
Indeed, the order was in the children’s best interest because it
both ended court supervision of the family and gave physical
custody to father, who indisputably was able to care for the
children and with whom the children were happy and thriving.
We find no abuse of discretion.

                                 19
                        DISPOSITION
     The final custody order is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                            LUI, P. J.
We concur:

     CHAVEZ, J.

     HOFFSTADT, J.

                               20