Court Opinion

ID: 9376494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 20:02:18.182117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.205165
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/1/23; Certified for Publication 3/2/23 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                 DIVISION ONE

 In re N.M. et al., Persons Coming                          B315559
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                            (Los Angeles County
                                                            Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP07303)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

 THOMAS M.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed in part and
reversed in part.
      Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Melania Vartanian, Deputy County
Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
                __________________________________
      In these dependency proceedings Thomas M. (father)
appeals from a juvenile court exit order awarding sole physical
custody of minors N.M. and S.M. to E.S. (mother), contending no
substantial evidence supported the order. We agree, and
therefore reverse the order insofar as it grants sole physical
custody to mother.
                         BACKGROUND
      The facts are undisputed. Father and mother, although
married, did not live together. Mother resided with the maternal
grandmother, along with six-year-old N.M., four-year-old S.M.,
and two of mother’s other children by different fathers. Father
resided with the paternal grandmother but during these
proceedings relocated to his own apartment. Father worked full
time five to six days a week and was unable to care for the
children on a full time basis. Through an informal arrangement,
he visited the children during the week and had custody of them
every other weekend.
      On November 6, 2019, mother was arrested for child
endangerment after driving while under the influence of alcohol
with her youngest child in the car.
      On February 2, 2020, the juvenile court sustained a
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging

                               2
                                                 1
mother’s alcohol abuse endangered the children. The court
detained the children from mother, released them to father (still
to reside in the maternal grandmother’s home), and ordered
mother to complete several programs.
       The court ordered father, who had a prior arrest for
possession of a “Narc Controlled Substance” and admitted to
current marijuana use, to complete a parenting program and
submit to five drug tests, and to complete a drug rehabilitation
program if any test was positive or missed.
       Mother completed her case plan.
       Father failed to complete his case plan. Although he
submitted to two drug tests, he missed 22 other tests and refused
to enroll in any drug rehabilitation program. Further, although
he reported he had completed a parenting class, he failed to
provide proof of completion. As father’s workload increased
beginning in May 2021, his visitation with the children became
inconsistent.
       The juvenile court held periodic review hearings, at the last
of which father requested joint physical custody upon termination
of jurisdiction. The court denied the request, stating father
“hasn’t done a thing. Mother is doing all the work, being
protective, and father walks in at the end of the case, saying, ‘I
want the same.’ ” “Did he do his case plan? No, so I’m sorry. It’s
not appropriate to reward a parent who does nothing in this
court, so I’m not going to make it joint legal. I’ll make it sole
legal, sole physical to mom. Unmonitored visits to father.”

      1
       Undesignated statutory references will be to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.

                                 3
       The court found “that those conditions which would justify
the initial assumption of jurisdiction under WIC section 300 no
longer exist and are not likely to exist if supervision is
withdrawn.” The court terminated jurisdiction, awarded the
parents joint legal custody and mother sole physical custody, and
granted unmonitored visitation to father as to be agreed upon by
the parents in mediation.
       On August 17, 2021, the parents participated in mediation
and agreed that the children would live primarily with mother,
and father would have parenting time every Tuesday and
Thursday from 4:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. and every other Friday
from 4:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, and additional days or
times when agreed to by both parents. Each parent could take a
vacation of up to two weeks, and the parents worked out a plan
for holidays, vacations and special days. The mediation
agreement was attached and incorporated into the custody order
filed on August 26, 2021, which grants physical custody solely to
mother.
       Father appeals.
       Only father is party to this appeal, which pertains only to
N.M. and S.M.
                           DISCUSSION
       Father contends no substantial evidence supports the order
granting mother sole physical custody. We agree.
       After a juvenile court orders that a dependent child may
remain in the custody of a parent, the court holds periodic review
hearings pursuant to section 364. At such a hearing, “the court
shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The
court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless [DCFS] establishes
by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist

                                4
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).)
        When “the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a
minor who has been adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile
court . . . the juvenile court on its own motion, may issue . . . an
order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.”
(§ 362.4.) “When making a custody determination in any
dependency case, the court’s focus and primary consideration
must always be the best interests of the child.” (In re Nicholas H.
(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 268; see also In re Chantal S. (1996)
13 Cal.4th 196, 206 [in making a custody determination the
juvenile court focuses on the best interests of the child].)
       “[T]he juvenile court has broad discretion to make custody
orders when it terminates jurisdiction in a dependency case.” (In
re Nicholas H., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 265, fn. 4.) We
review a custody (or “exit”) order pursuant to section 362.4 for
abuse of discretion, and will not disturb the order “unless the
court ‘ “ ‘exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an
arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.’ ” ’ ”
(Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300.)
“The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial
court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two 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.)
       Here, the juvenile court made no express finding that
granting sole physical custody to mother would be in the
children’s best interests. Instead, the court stated, “It’s not

                                 5
appropriate to reward a parent who does nothing in this court, so
I’m not going to make it joint legal.” (Italics added.) The court
thus granted mother sole custody to avoid rewarding father, who
had refused to participate meaningfully in the case plan. This
was an abuse of discretion because an exit order must serve the
best interests of the children, not reward or punish one parent or
another for failing to comply with the case plan.
       Respondent argues the exit order was in the children’s best
interests because father had a prior arrest for drug possession,
missed 22 drug tests, admitted to current marijuana use, failed to
complete a parenting program, and visited the children only
inconsistently. Although we do not condone ignoring the court’s
orders, there has been no express finding that these factors
impacted the children’s interests, and no grounds appear for an
implied finding. Father has never been deemed an offending
parent, and no evidence suggested that his drug use, lack of a
parenting class, or visitation practices impacted the children in
any way.
       We will therefore reverse the order granting mother sole
physical custody. We need not reach father’s alternative grounds
for reversing the order.
       DCFS argues that if we reverse any part of the order we
should remand the matter to the family law court for a hearing
on custody issues. We see no necessity for such a remand.

                                6
                          DISPOSITION
      The order is reversed insofar as it grants mother sole
physical custody. In all other respects, including the time share,
the order is affirmed.

                                          CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             BENDIX, J.

                                 7
Filed 3/2/23
                CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                          DIVISION ONE

 In re N.M. et al., Persons Coming            B315559
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                              (Los Angeles County
                                              Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP07303)
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                       ORDER CERTIFYING
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                         OPINION FOR
                                              PUBLICATION
         Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                             [NO CHANGE IN
         v.                                  JUDGMENT]

 THOMAS M.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on February
1, 2023, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports.
For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be
published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered.
      There is no change in judgment.

____________________________________________________________
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.        CHANEY, J.        BENDIX, J.