Court Opinion

ID: 9387712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 19:03:03.587194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.111048
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/18/23 In re R.R. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.R., a Person Coming                                   B318461
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct.
                                                              No. 20CCJP00018B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

ANTONIO R.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Steff R. Padilla, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
     Allen Korenstein, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly G. Emling for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
               ______________________________

       Defendant and appellant Antonio R. (father) appeals from
the final custody order (exit order) issued by the juvenile court on
December 13, 2021, upon the termination of dependency
jurisdiction over his daughter, R.R. (minor, born May 2014).
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.)1 Father contends that, because he
had substantially complied with his court-ordered case plan, it
was an abuse of discretion for the court to require that his
visitation with minor remain monitored. He also purports to
challenge “the associated requirements [that] he complete a full
drug program and individual counseling” (bolding omitted).
       We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
I. Minor Becomes a Dependent of the Juvenile Court
       On January 2, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency
petition seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction over

1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

                                 2
minor and minor’s half-sibling, Ra.R. (born Apr. 2009),2 pursuant
to section 300, subdivisions (a) (nonaccidental serious physical
harm) and (b)(1) (failure to protect).
       Counts a-1 and b-1 alleged that father and the mother of
minor and Ra.R., M.R. (mother),3 engaged in a violent altercation
in minor’s presence on December 20, 2019, during which father
repeatedly struck mother in the face and neck area with his fist,
grabbed her by her hair, and dragged her to the ground. Mother
sustained facial trauma and a broken nose. Father also pushed
minor twice, causing her to fall to the ground. Father then fled
with minor in the family vehicle.
       Count b-2 alleged that father drove a vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol, with minor as a passenger. Mother knew
that father was under the influence yet allowed him to drive.
       On September 29, 2020, the juvenile court sustained counts
b-1 and b-2 and declared minor a dependent of the court under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1).4 The court ordered minor removed
from father and mother, who were granted reunification services
and monitored visitation. Father’s case plan consisted of random,
on-demand drug testing with any missed or positive test
resulting in a full drug and alcohol rehabilitation program, a 52-
week domestic violence program, a parenting class, and
individual counseling to address case issues.

2     Ra.R. is not father’s child and is not the subject of this
appeal. Accordingly, we do not discuss the proceedings as they
relate to him further.
3     Mother is not a party to this appeal.
4     The juvenile court dismissed the a-1 count brought under
section 300, subdivision (a)(1).

                                 3
II. Family Reunification Period
       According to a DCFS report from March 2021, minor had
been placed with her maternal aunt, I.P. (maternal aunt). Both
father and mother confirmed that they were no longer in a
relationship. Father reported that he was homeless and wanted
minor to be released to mother’s care. Father was participating
in court-ordered services and submitting to random drug testing.
Father reported that he visited minor about once a week due to
his work schedule. Maternal aunt, who monitored father’s visits,
reported that father had a good relationship with minor, who
enjoyed riding her skateboard and bike with him.
       In early June 2021, DCFS reported that father had
completed 42 of 52 sessions of his domestic violence program, five
of 20 parenting sessions, and 20 of 20 individual counseling
sessions. From November 2020 to May 2021, father had
submitted to 12 random drug tests, which returned negative. He
had missed one test. According to maternal aunt, father’s visits
with minor had been sporadic. In March and April 2021, father
visited minor four times. According to DCFS, minor reported
being afraid that father would be present when she visited her
mother’s home.
III. Minor Is Returned to Mother’s Custody
       At a hearing on July 8, 2021, the juvenile court found that
mother was in compliance and her progress was substantial. The
court found that father was beginning to be in compliance.
Concluding that it would not create a substantial risk of
detriment to minor, the court terminated the suitable placement
order and returned minor to mother’s custody. Minor remained a
dependent of the court.

                                4
       The juvenile court ordered family maintenance services for
minor and her parents. Father’s visits were to remain monitored,
with DCFS having discretion to liberalize. The court ordered
enhancement services for father and that father continue drug
testing.
IV. Status Review Report
       According to a status review report filed by DCFS on
November 24, 2021, father had completed his domestic violence
program, parenting classes, and individual counseling sessions.
Between November 2020 and November 2021, father had
18 negative random drug tests and two failures to appear.
Father’s visits with minor were sporadic due to his work
schedule. He visited once in July 2021, once in August 2021,
twice in September and October 2021, and three times in
November 2021. Maternal aunt and minor reported that the
visits were good, and minor denied being afraid to be alone with
father. Father remained homeless.
V. Termination of Jurisdiction and Exit Order
       On December 13, 2021, the juvenile court terminated
jurisdiction and issued an exit order granting mother physical
custody of minor with father and mother sharing legal custody.
The court ordered that father was entitled to at least one, four-
hour monitored visit with minor per week.
       As to why the juvenile court ordered only supervised
visitation for father, the order indicated that father had not
completed individual counseling and a drug abuse treatment
program with random testing. The order also stated: “Father
has inconsistent compliance with court-ordered random drug
testing (if any test is missed or positive, then he is to participate
in a full drug treatment program with random testing). Father

                                 5
has inconsistent participation in court-ordered monitored
visitation.”
VI. Appeal
       Father filed a timely notice of appeal from the
December 13, 2021, exit order.
                            DISCUSSION
I. Relevant Law
       Section 362.4 “empowers the juvenile court, if it terminates
its jurisdiction over a dependent minor, to issue ‘an order
determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.’ (§ 362.4,
subd. (a).)” (In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 862–863.)
“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.’ [Citations.]” (In re T.S. (2020)
52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513.)
        “If there is a pending marital or paternity proceeding
relating to the child, the custody order will be transferred to the
existing family court file. (See [§ 362.4], subd. (b).) Otherwise,
the order may be used to open a new file in the superior court of
the county in which the parent who has been given custody
resides. (See [§ 362.4], subd. (c).) The order shall continue ‘until
modified or terminated by a subsequent order of the superior
court.’ ([§ 362.4], subd. (b).)” (In re C.W., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th
at p. 863.)
       “[T]he juvenile court’s section 362.4 custody orders . . .
(commonly referred to as ‘exit orders’) may not be modified by the
family court ‘unless the court finds 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

                                 6
interests of the child.’” (In re Anna T. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 870,
871–872 (Anna T.).)
II. Standard of Review
       We review an exit order for abuse of discretion. (In re C.W.,
supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 863.) Under that standard, we may
not disturb the order “unless the court made an ‘“‘“arbitrary,
capricious or patently absurd determination.”’”’ [Citation.]”
(Ibid.)
III. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Requiring
Monitored Visitation for Father
       In finding jurisdiction, the juvenile court had previously
sustained allegations—unchallenged on appeal—that on
December 20, 2019, father repeatedly struck mother, grabbed her
by her hair, and dragged her to the ground, causing her to
sustain facial trauma and a broken nose. Father also pushed
minor twice, causing her to fall to the ground. Father then fled
with minor in the family vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol.
       During the family reunification and maintenance periods,
father commendably completed his court-ordered domestic
violence program, parenting classes, and individual counseling
sessions.5 Between November 2020 and November 2021, father
submitted to 18 random drug tests, which returned negative.
But he failed to appear for two tests. These missed tests could
“properly [be] considered the equivalent of a positive test
result[.]” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210,
1217.) And, the case plan for father dictated that any missed test
would result in father being required to participate in a full drug

5     As DCFS concedes, the exit order erroneously indicates
that father had not completed individual counseling.

                                 7
and alcohol rehabilitation program, which he did not do. While
father’s monitored visits with minor reportedly went well, they
were inconsistent and father never progressed to unmonitored
visitation despite DCFS having discretion to liberalize.
       Under the totality of these circumstances, we cannot say
that ordering that father’s visitation with minor remain
monitored was an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd
determination. The juvenile court could reasonably remain
concerned about minor’s safety and well-being if she were to be
alone with father, particularly given the violence father had
perpetuated upon both mother and minor less than two years
earlier. Although no concerns arose when father visited minor in
a monitored setting, father’s conduct during an unmonitored visit
was untested. Maintaining the monitor restriction on visitation
was thus well within the juvenile court’s discretion.
       Urging reversal, father argues that he had “substantially
complied with the requirements of his case plan and made
substantive progress.” He contends that “substantial compliance
with [the] drug testing component of [a] reunification plan is
compliance” and that he was “not required to demonstrate perfect
compliance.” The cases father cites for these propositions—
Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322 and
Dawnel D. v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 393,
disapproved of by Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th
836—are inapposite, as both dealt with challenges from the
termination of reunification services and not, as here, whether
monitored visitation was an abuse of discretion. Father points us
to no authority—nor are we aware of any—dictating that upon
substantial compliance with a case plan a parent must be
granted unmonitored visitation. To the contrary, “[w]hen the

                                8
juvenile court makes custody or visitation orders as it terminates
dependency jurisdiction, it does so as a court with ‘a special
responsibility to the child as parens patriae and [it] must look to
the totality of a child’s circumstances when making decisions
regarding the child.’ [Citation.]” (In re J.T. (2014)
228 Cal.App.4th 953, 963.)
IV. Father’s Challenge to the “Associated Requirements” of the
Exit Order Is Not Cognizable
      In addition to seeking reversal of the exit order’s “monitor
restriction on [his] visitation,” father also challenges “the
associated requirements [that] he complete a full drug program
and individual counseling” (bolding omitted). But the order
appealed from—the December 13, 2021, exit order—does not
contain such requirements. Rather, the references to a drug
treatment program and individual counseling appear in the
portion of the exit order explaining why the court ordered only
supervised visitation; it is not an independent order that he
complete such programs.
      The court-ordered case plan from September 29, 2020, was
no longer in effect when the juvenile court terminated its
jurisdiction on December 13, 2021. (See Anna T., supra,
55 Cal.App.5th at p. 879 [“orders of the juvenile court regarding
custody and visitation are effective only while that court
exercises its jurisdiction over the child”].) To the extent father is
attempting to challenge orders from that case plan, such an
appeal is moot. (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488
[“As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court
jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the
dependency proceedings moot”].)

                                  9
                      DISPOSITION
     The December 13, 2021, exit order is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                               _____________________, Acting P. J.
                               ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

________________________, J.
HOFFSTADT

                                10