Court Opinion

ID: 9898652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 21:05:18.018637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:38.144979
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/14/23 In re P.R. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re P.R. et al., Persons                                   B318404
Coming Under the Juvenile                                    (Los Angeles County
Court Law.                                                   Super. Ct. No.
                                                             21CCJP05358A–C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

JOSE R.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Peter R. Navarro, Temporary Judge. Affirmed
in part, dismissed in part.
      Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

           _________________________________________

                      I. INTRODUCTION

       Jose R., father of P.R. (born 2004), B.R. (born 2006), and
J.R. (born 2008) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and
disposition orders. We will dismiss the appeal as moot regarding
P.R., and otherwise affirm.

                      II. BACKGROUND

A.    Dependency Petition

     On November 23, 2021, the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed
a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition that
alleged, as later sustained under subdivision (b), father had a
history of violent and assaultive behavior and had broken four
televisions and a fireplace glass in the children’s presence; and
father had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser
of alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol in the presence
of the children.

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

                                 2
      On October 28, 2021, mother told a social worker that
father had previously engaged in emotional, but not physical,
abuse. Father had a history of alcohol abuse. He would leave
home for days to weeks at a time and return home drunk. Upon
his return, father would insist that he be served dinner and curse
and yell at mother and the children. Mother would respond by
asking the children to remain in their rooms. Father had always
abused alcohol, but he had become more aggressive in the past
year.
      Mother explained that on October 18, 2021, father left
home for about two days and returned inebriated. Father yelled
at mother and the children before falling asleep. He left home
again a few days later and when he returned on October 27, 2021,
at around 3:00 p.m., rather than use his house key, he banged on
the front door and insisted that he be allowed in. One of the
children opened the door. Father yelled and demanded dinner.
When father broke one television, mother and the children left
the home and mother called the police. Father ultimately broke
four televisions and glass on a fireplace. He made “a lot of
ruckus.” The children did not observe father breaking the
televisions. By the time the police arrived, father had left the
home. The police informed mother they could not arrest father
for breaking his own property. Mother obtained an emergency
protective order protecting her and the children from father.
      The children confirmed mother’s description of father’s
conduct. B.R. and J.R. stated they were afraid of father when he
was drunk. P.R. did not feel safe when father was under the
influence of alcohol.

                                3
      Mother reported a prior incident of domestic violence that
occurred one year prior.2 The family had completed services to
address the incident.
      On December 21, 2021, a dependency investigator
interviewed mother. Mother explained that the incident on
October 27, 2021, was the first in which father had broken items.
Mother attempted to get a restraining order against father, but
law enforcement was unable to locate him.
      The children also reiterated their prior statements
regarding father. P.R. reported that father was more verbally
aggressive when he drank alcohol. On October 27, 2021, P.R.
heard, but did not see, father breaking items. According to B.R.,
father became a different person when he was under the
influence of alcohol. B.R. was comfortable with father unless he
was under the influence of alcohol. Finally, J.R. was afraid of
father when he was under the influence of alcohol.
      On January 26, 2022, father told a social worker that when
he broke the televisions, he was acting in a “‘moment of anger.’”
Father was “triggered” by mother’s friend, who had asked father
to keep his voice down. Father was angry that a stranger told
what to do in his own home. Father became even more upset
when mother told him to leave because the friend was watching
television in their home. Father admitted to drinking in the past
but denied reacting violently or aggressively in front of the
children. Father was aware that he needed help and agreed to
participate in Alcoholics Anonymous classes and drug testing.
      Father admitted that for the past three or four years, he
had been consuming too much alcohol. He consumed the alcohol

2    The Department had received a referral on
October 10, 2020, concerning allegations of physical abuse.

                                4
because he was in pain from having had two surgeries on his
shoulder and pain in his hip. Based on the recent incident, father
was aware that he needed help.

B.    Adjudication/Disposition Hearing

       On February 3, 2022, the juvenile court sustained the
section 300 petition as set forth above, declared the children
dependents of the court, removed them from father’s custody, and
placed them with mother. The court also ordered that father
complete a domestic violence program, individual counseling to
address domestic violence, a parenting program, and a substance
abuse program.
       Father timely appealed.
       While father’s appeal was pending, on August 4, 2022, the
juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over P.R., who had reached
the age of majority. On August 11, 2022, the court terminated
jurisdiction over B.R. and J.R. That same date, the court issued
final judgment and custody orders that granted mother physical
custody of B.R. and J.R. and father supervised visitation. In
explaining the reasons for the supervised visitation order, the
court noted that father had not made substantial progress in
domestic violence counseling, substance abuse treatment, and
individual counseling.3

3      There is no record of father having appealed from the
August 11, 2022, order. Generally, once a juvenile court
terminates jurisdiction, an appeal from an earlier order is moot.
(In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 163.) Here, the
appeal is moot as to the orders regarding P.R. as she has aged out
of dependency jurisdiction. Regarding B.R. and J.R., even if the

                                5
                        III. DISCUSSION

A.    Jurisdiction Order

        Father contends that insufficient evidence supports the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction order. “‘In reviewing the
jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if
substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports
them. [Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all
reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings
and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the
light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note
that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial
court.’” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)
        As relevant here, for a child to be found a dependent of the
juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), the court must
find: “(1) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk
that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a
result of any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (D) The inability of the
parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s
. . . substance abuse.”
        Substance abuse alone is insufficient to show that a child is
at a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. (In re
J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046; In re Drake M. (2012) 211
Cal.App.4th 754, 764, disapproved on other grounds in In re D.P.
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283; In re Destiny S. (2012) 210
Cal.App.4th 999, 1003; In re Alexis E., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at

appeal were otherwise moot, for father’s benefit, we describe why
his appeal is without merit. (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171
Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)

                                  6
p. 453.) A parent’s substance abuse may support a finding of
jurisdiction if such use satisfies the statutory standard of a
substantial risk of serious physical harm. (In re J.A., supra, 47
Cal.App.5th at p. 1046.)
       Father, citing In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at
page 766 in support, argues that the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional finding was not supported by substantial evidence
because father has not been diagnosed with a substance abuse
problem and does not meet the definition for the disorder as set
forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders. We disagree.
       The record amply demonstrates that father had a problem
with substance abuse. Father’s use of alcohol caused him to be
absent from home days to weeks at a time. And, when he
returned home drunk, he verbally abused mother and the
children. (See In re Rebecca C. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 720, 726
[substance abuse shown by “evidence of life-impacting effects of
drug use”].) Moreover, there was a nexus between father’s
alcohol abuse and his violence as demonstrated by his conduct of
destroying four televisions and a fireplace glass. Indeed, the
children were afraid of father when he drank alcohol. Although
there is no evidence that father had physically harmed the
children while under the influence of alcohol, “[t]he juvenile court
‘need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to
assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the
child.’” (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 849.)
       Having concluded that substantial evidence supported the
juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction based on the petition’s
allegation of substance abuse, we need not consider whether

                                 7
substantial evidence supported the allegation of violence. (In re
I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)

B.    Disposition Order

      Father next contends that even if the facts supported an
assertion of jurisdiction over the children, there was insufficient
evidence to support the juvenile court’s disposition orders
removing the children from father’s physical custody or the
orders that father participate in domestic violence counseling.

      1.    Removal

       “The applicable statute, section 361, subdivision (c), ‘“is
clear and specific: Even though children may be dependents of
the juvenile court, they shall not be removed . . . unless there is
clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the
child’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being and there are no ‘reasonable means’ by
which the child can be protected without removal.”’ [Citations.]
[¶] . . . [¶]
       “‘On appeal from a dispositional order removing a child
from a parent we apply the substantial evidence standard of
review, keeping in mind that the trial court was required to make
its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing
evidence.’ ([In re] Ashly F. [(2014)] 225 Cal.App.4th [803,] 809;
see Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005 [‘when
presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence,
the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole,

                                 8
contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of
fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by
this standard of proof’].)” (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510,
520.)
       The Legislature has found that a home free from substance
abuse “is a necessary condition for the safety, protection and
physical and emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 300.2, subd.
(a).) Here, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
order removing the children from father’s physical custody.
Father had not addressed his substance abuse issues by the time
of the disposition order. Further, although the children were able
to quickly leave the house in advance of father’s destruction of
four televisions and a fireplace glass, they were present when
father began his abusive and violent conduct on October 27, 2021.
On this record, we conclude the court could find it highly
probable that father’s alcohol abuse would pose a substantial
danger to the children’s physical safety and the only reasonable
means of protecting the children was removal from father’s
physical custody.

      2.    Domestic Violence Counseling

      “‘The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what
would best serve and protect the child’s interests and to fashion a
dispositional order accordingly. On appeal, this determination
cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.’
[Citation.]” (In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 186.)
      According to father, the juvenile court abused its discretion
by ordering domestic violence counseling, as there was no finding
that father had committed domestic violence. We reject father’s

                                 9
contention for multiple reasons. First, “[t]he problem that the
juvenile court seeks to address need not be described in the
sustained section 300 petition. [Citation.] In fact, there need not
be a jurisdictional finding as to the particular parent upon whom
the court imposes a dispositional order.” (In re Briana V. (2015)
236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311.) Second, contrary to father’s denial of
prior domestic violence, mother reported that father had
previously engaged in a domestic violence incident. Third, father
destroyed the family’s property and but for mother’s quick
response in removing the children from the house, he would have
engaged in such destruction in front of the children. Accordingly,
we find the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering father to
complete domestic violence counseling as part of his case plan.

                                10
                      IV. DISPOSITION

      The appeal regarding P.R. is dismissed as moot. The
jurisdiction and disposition orders regarding B.R. and J.R. are
affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          KIM, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             BAKER, J.

                                11