Court Opinion

ID: 9401596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 17:05:49.572236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.817387
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/13/23 In re F.S. CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

 In re F.S. et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
 OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,                                               E080084

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super.Ct.No. SWJ2100211)

 v.                                                                       OPINION

 N.S.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Edward Forstenzer,

Judge. (Retired judge of the Mono Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

         Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beechman, and Larisa R-McKenna,

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                              1
       N.S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and orders

concerning his infant daughter, Willa S. The court bypassed reunification services for

father under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) (unlabeled

statutory references are to this code). Father does not challenge the court’s decision to

bypass reunification services but instead contends that the court erred by failing to

consider ordering enhancement services. We disagree and affirm.

                                     BACKGROUND

       Father and J.C. (mother) (collectively, parents) have three daughters together—

F.S. (born 2017), N.S. (born 2020), and Willa (born 2022). When Willa was born,

parents were involved in dependency proceedings concerning Willa’s older sisters.

Mother and Willa’s older sisters are not parties to this appeal.

       In May 2021, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the

Department) filed a petition under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, alleging that F.S.

and N.S. were at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because of (1)

domestic violence between father, father’s girlfriend, and mother, (2) father’s criminal

history and history of domestic violence, (3) father’s mental health issues, and (4)

mother’s failure to remove the girls from father’s home to protect them from the domestic

violence. When the most recent domestic violence incident occurred between father and

his girlfriend, both of them were living with mother, parents’ children, and several

paternal relatives.

                                              2
       The juvenile court detained F.S. and N.S. At the jurisdiction and disposition

hearing, the court sustained most of the allegations in an amended petition, including a

new allegation concerning father’s drug abuse, because he had tested positive for

methamphetamine. The court removed F.S. and N.S. from parents’ custody and ordered

reunification services for both parents. The court ordered continued reunification

services for both parents at a contested six-month status review hearing in April 2022.

       In the 12-month status review report filed in June 2022, the social worker reported

that mother was living in a shelter and had a job. Mother had disclosed that she was no

longer in a relationship with father. Mother was pregnant with father’s child. The

Department recommended that both parents continue to receive reunification services.

       Willa was born in early August 2022. About two weeks later, the juvenile court

issued a protective custody warrant to remove Willa from father’s care and custody. The

Department filed a petition under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, alleging that Willa

was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because of father’s mental

illness and substance abuse, as well as his criminal history and both parents’ involvement

in the ongoing dependency case with F.S. and N.S. based on domestic violence. In a

detention report filed the same day, the Department recommended that the court detain

Willa from father but allow Willa to remain in mother’s custody. The court adopted the

Department’s recommendations, detained Willa from father, and allowed Willa to remain

in mother’s care and custody. The court ordered in-person supervised visits for father at

least twice per week.

                                             3
       In late August 2022, the Department filed an addendum report for the 12-month

status review hearing for F.S. and N.S. As to mother, the Department recommended that

F.S. and N.S. be returned to her care and custody with family maintenance services. As

to father, the Department recommended that the court terminate reunification services.

The Department reported that father had completed several of his case plan services,

including counseling and classes in parenting, anger management, and domestic violence.

Father denied using methamphetamine despite his positive test, which he claimed was

caused by Sudafed. Father avoided submitting to drug tests (both urine and hair follicle)

and refused to be evaluated for a substance abuse program. Father reported that he was

taking medication that had been prescribed by a doctor at a psychiatric hospital, but the

hospital informed the social worker that there was no record of father’s having been

treated there. Father also missed several visits with F.S. and N.S. between June and

August 2022.

       At the contested 12-month review hearing for F.S. and N.S. on September 1, 2022,

the juvenile court found that father had made “minimal efforts toward alleviating or

mitigating causes which necessitated placement” and had “failed to participate regularly

and to make substantive progress in his court-ordered treatment plan.” The court further

found that there was “no substantial probability of return [to father] if given another six

months of services,” and the court accordingly terminated father’s reunification services.

But the court found that mother had made substantial progress toward alleviating or

                                              4
mitigating the causes that necessitated placement, and the court placed F.S. and N.S. in

mother’s custody with family maintenance services.

       About one week later, the Department filed its jurisdiction and disposition report

as to Willa. The Department recommended that Willa remain in mother’s care and

custody, mother receive family maintenance services, and father receive reunification

services.

       The Department filed an amended petition as to Willa, alleging that the domestic

violence found in the proceeding involving F.S. and N.S. had been between father and his

girlfriend, not between father and mother. In October 2022, the Department filed an

addendum report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing as to Willa. The

Department’s recommendation as to mother and Willa’s placement remained the same.

The Department indicated that father’s reunification services as to F.S. and N.S. had

recently been terminated, and the Department recommended bypassing reunification

services for father under subdivision (b)(10) of section 361.5.

       In October 2022, the court held a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing as

to Willa. The court read, considered, and admitted the jurisdiction and disposition report

filed in September 2022 and the addendum report filed in October 2022. The Department

argued that the court should deny reunification services to father because reunification

services had recently been terminated as to F.S. and N.S. The Department also noted that

father had a long criminal history for domestic violence and substance abuse, had not

                                             5
taken ordered drug tests, and had checked himself out of a drug treatment facility after

two days.

       Father’s counsel had “no objection to the Department’s evidence” and did not

present any “affirmative evidence.” Father’s counsel asked the court to grant father

reunification services, noting that father had recently been admitted into an inpatient

program but “left that due to some mental health concerns.” Father’s counsel indicated

that father had “immediately enrolled in an outpatient program” that father would be

reporting to soon. In the event that the court denied reunification services, father’s

counsel asked the court to allow father to have twice weekly supervised visits with Willa

to allow father to “continue to bond with Willa.” Counsel indicated that father intended

to file a section 388 petition “in the future once he has completed the balance of the

services that he needs to do for his case plan.”

       The court adopted the recommended findings and orders contained in the October

2022 addendum report, sustained the allegations in the amended petition, adjudged Willa

a dependent of the court, placed Willa in mother’s custody with family maintenance

services, and bypassed reunification services for father under subdivision (b)(10) of

section 361.5, finding by clear and convincing evidence that it was not in Willa’s best

interest to provide father with such services.

                                       DISCUSSION

       Father sole argument is that the trial court erred by failing to consider offering him

enhancement services, because the court “did not discuss this possibility at disposition.”

                                                 6
He contends that we should reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing because the

court “appeared to be unaware of its authority to grant father enhancement services.”

The argument lacks merit.1

       When the juvenile court’s dispositional order leaves a child in the custody of one

parent, the court may in its discretion order enhancement services for the noncustodial

parent. (In re C.S. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 631, 637.) Enhancement services are “‘child

welfare services offered to the parent not retaining custody, designed to enhance the

child’s relationship with that parent.’” (In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 212;

§ 362, subd. (a) [“If a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that

the child is a person described by Section 300, the court may make any and all reasonable

orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the

child”].)

       The Department argues that father forfeited his argument concerning enhancement

services by failing to request them in the juvenile court. We agree. “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.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221.) At the

jurisdiction and disposition hearing, father did not ask the juvenile court to consider

1       We agree with the parties that father was ineligible for reunification services,
because Willa was not placed in out-of-home care or with a previously noncustodial
parent. (§ 16507, subd. (b).) It was therefore unnecessary and arguably erroneous for the
court to bypass father under subdivision (b)(10) of section 361.5. But the order denying
reunification services to father was correct, and we review the juvenile court’s ruling, not
its reasoning. (In re Daniel B. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 663, 675, fn. 4.)

                                              7
offering him any enhancement services. We consequently consider the argument

forfeited. (Ibid.)

       In any event, father has failed to carry his burden on appeal of demonstrating

error. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 [“juvenile court’s judgment is

presumed to be correct, and it is [the] appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error”].)

Father cites no authority for the proposition that the juvenile court was required to

consider ordering discretionary enhancement services. (See Kaufman v. Goldman (2011)

195 Cal.App.4th 734, 743 [“Every argument presented by an appellant must be supported

by both coherent argument and pertinent legal authority”].) We are aware of none.

Father therefore has failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court erred.

       Moreover, father has not shown a reasonable probability that the juvenile court

would have ordered enhancement services if the court had considered the issue. (In re

Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 60 [error warrants “reversal only if the reviewing court

finds it reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the appealing

party but for the error”].) Given the findings that the court made in terminating father’s

reunification services as to F.S. and N.S., and given the additional findings that the court

made in (superfluously) bypassing father for reunification services as to Willa—including

the finding by clear and convincing evidence that it was not in Willa’s best interest to

provide father with reunification services—we see no reasonable probability that the

court would have ordered enhancement services if it had considered them. Consequently,

any error in failing to consider enhancement services was harmless.

                                              8
                                    DISPOSITION

      The October 27, 2022, dispositional order is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
                                                               MENETREZ
                                                                          J.

We concur:

MILLER
          Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
                    J.

                                           9