Court Opinion

ID: 9371267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:02:17.512837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.453010
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/15/23 In re B.S. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B.S., a Person Coming                                     B313454
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            No. 20CCJP02362A)

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 BRIAN S.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
     Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                        ——————————
      Father appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating
jurisdiction and issuing custody orders under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 362.4.1 Father contends the court
abused its discretion when it granted mother sole legal custody
of minor. Respondent Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) contends the
court’s order was within its discretion. We affirm.

     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

Initial investigation and petition

      Minor, who was nine years old in March 2020, lived
primarily with mother, but spent weekends with father.
Mother and father did not have a family court order, but had a
verbal agreement minor would spend weekends with father.
After being referred to therapy based on behavioral problems at
school, minor told a therapist that his father was “always
drunk, super drunk” on weekends while minor was alone with
him. Father had once urinated in the bed, and on another
occasion, minor was only able to rouse father after screaming in

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
      2Portions of the factual and procedural background are
based on the appellate record in a prior appeal (B310182).

                                 2
his ear and throwing water on his face. Mother denied knowing
that father had a drinking problem, although she had seen him
drinking at least three cans of beer in one sitting when they
were still in a relationship. Her interactions with father were
limited, and minor had not disclosed any concerns to her.
Speaking with the social worker by phone, father made
incoherent statements that led the social worker to believe
father was inebriated. Father reported consuming about six
cans of beer every day or every other day. He spoke with the
social worker at 3:00 p.m., and had already consumed three
cans of beer that day. Based on father’s current alcohol use, the
social worker was concerned for minor’s safety. After hearing
the social worker’s safety concerns, father agreed to allow
mother to pick minor up. Mother agreed to pick minor up and
to not allow father to have unmonitored contact with minor.
After the initial contact, father did not communicate with the
Department, even though the social worker left several
messages requesting a call back.
       On May 1, 2020, the court ordered minor detained from
father’s custody, based on a petition alleging that minor was a
dependent child under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), due to
father’s inability to care for minor because of father’s daily
alcohol abuse.

October 2020 status review report

     Father enrolled in parenting classes in September 2020.
He had not enrolled in individual counseling or a substance
abuse program due to his work schedule and procrastination.
He was not willing to submit to drug and alcohol testing unless

                                3
it was ordered by the court. Maternal grandmother monitored
father’s visits with minor at her home. Maternal grandmother
had no concerns with father’s visits, and minor enjoyed the
visits with father. The social worker had no safety concerns
about minor residing in mother’s home.

Adjudication and disposition

       The Department’s jurisdiction and disposition report, filed
in mid-November 2020, noted that father denied having
substance abuse problems, including marijuana, but
acknowledged he smokes tobacco cigarettes and still drinks
occasionally. Father stated he was willing to cooperate with the
Department and participate in programs, but he was not willing
to submit to drug and alcohol testing without a court order.
Father reported he enrolled in a substance abuse program, but
the Department had not received an enrollment letter
confirming his participation.
       The adjudication hearing in December 2020 was
conducted through Webex. Father’s counsel expected that
father would call in, but after being unable to reach father,
counsel asked the court to dismiss the petition because there
was no nexus between father’s drinking and any harm to minor.
If the court was going to sustain the petition, father requested
testing on suspicion only, and submitted on the Department’s
recommendation for parenting and individual counseling.
Mother was nonoffending. The court sustained the petition
allegation under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) against father,
and proceeded to disposition, ordering minor removed from
father’s physical custody, with monitored visits and family

                                 4
reunification services, including ordering father to participate
in a six-month drug and alcohol program with random weekly
drug and alcohol testing. Father appealed the jurisdictional
findings and dispositional order, but the appeal was dismissed
after his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to In re
Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.

May 2021 review report

       In a May 2021 review report submitted in advance of a
review hearing under section 364, the Department reported
that by January 2021 father had been terminated from his
previous services and became more difficult to contact. The
social worker was able to speak with father during two
unannounced home visits, but on both occasions, father did not
allow the social worker to enter the home. Father told the
social worker he had lost his job due to the COVID-19 pandemic
and was waiting for unemployment money to enroll in services.
The social worker provided father with referrals to agencies
providing free courses, but father did not make any effort to
enroll. The social worker opined that father was not ready to
enroll in services in order to reunify with minor. “After
multiple efforts, the father has demonstrated to not . . . have a
clear understanding as to his involvement with the Department
and the impact his alcohol use has been to [minor.] The father
has not taken any responsibility with his consumption of alcohol
and has refused to test for alcohol and drugs.” The social
worker did not begin referring father for drug testing until
March 2021, because before that time, father was in Northern
California. Father missed six consecutive drug tests in March

                                 5
and April 2021. The Department noted that father did not
appear to be focused on completing his court-ordered serves or
in addressing his alcohol use. Father was consistent in his
weekly monitored visits with minor and never appeared under
the influence of alcohol or other substances during visits.
       Minor, who was previously diagnosed with mild-to-
moderate autism, has an individualized education plan dated
December 2020. Minor has struggled in school, and he acted
angry and defiant at times. Mother was patient, receptive, and
effective in meeting minor’s needs and ensuring he received
necessary academic, developmental, and emotional support.
Mother was also fully compliant with family maintenance
services and consistent in her communications with the
Department.
       The Department recommended that the court terminate
jurisdiction with an order granting mother sole custody of minor
and monitored visits for father.

Termination of jurisdiction and custody order

       At the section 364 review hearing in June 2021, the court
noted the Department’s recommendation to close the case with
sole physical and legal custody to mother. Father requested
joint legal custody, pointing out his consistent visits and
contending that he was available and entitled to be a part of
any decisionmaking about minor’s educational and
developmental needs. Father also noted he had not impeded
mother’s ability to obtain necessary services for minor. The
court responded that it was not inclined to grant father’s
request because father’s participation in programs was close to

                                6
nonexistent, and he was not testing. Counsel for the
Department and for minor agreed with the court that sole legal
and physical custody to mother was the appropriate order for
minor. The court then outlined an intended order to terminate
jurisdiction, award sole legal and physical custody of minor to
mother, and to provide monitored visitation under specified
conditions to father. In explaining the basis for the
contemplated order to the parties, the court drew a contrast
between mother and father, highlighting mother’s “great
progress in programs and her demonstrated capacity for
protection” of minor with father’s failure to complete not only
programs to address his substance abuse, but his failure to
complete an ordered “parenting class” and “individual
counseling to address case issues.” The court concluded by
complimenting mother on demonstrating that she had proven
she could manage the issues families face in life, and wishing
father success in completing programs that would lead to the
possibility of a changed custody arrangement.
       The court’s order terminating jurisdiction was stayed
until mother’s counsel submitted a custody order giving mother
sole legal and physical custody, with father’s visits monitored by
maternal grandmother, a mutually agreed monitor, or a
professional monitor paid by father. The custody order was
filed, and jurisdiction was terminated on June 15, 2021. Father
filed a timely appeal.

                           DISCUSSION

      “Once a child has been adjudged a dependent of the
juvenile court pursuant to . . . section 300, . . . ‘any issues

                                   7
regarding custodial rights between his or her parents shall be
determined solely by the juvenile court . . . so long as the child
remains a dependent of the juvenile court.’ ” (In re Anna T.
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 870, 876; § 302, subd. (c).) Section 364,
subdivision (a) requires the court to conduct a review hearing
every six months for a dependent child who has been placed in
the physical custody of a parent. (See In re T.S. (2020)
52 Cal.App.5th 503, 512.) At a hearing held pursuant to section
364, the court must terminate jurisdiction over the dependent
child unless the conditions that initially justified jurisdiction
still exist or are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn.
(§ 364, subd. (c).)
       In making a custody or visitation order pursuant to
section 362.4,3 commonly referred to as an “ ‘exit order,’ ” the
juvenile 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.) “When the 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.] This remains true in the juvenile court’s final

      3 When terminating jurisdiction over a dependent child,
section 362.4, subdivision (a) authorizes the juvenile court to
issue “an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the
child.” Section 362.4, subdivision (b) specifies that the order
“shall continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent
order of the superior court,” and directs that the order be filed in
a pending family court proceeding (ibid.) or if there is none, as
part of a new family court file (id., subd. (c)).

                                  8
orders issued before the court terminates jurisdiction.” (In re
J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 963.) “ ‘The presumption of
parental fitness that underlies custody law in the family
court . . . does not apply to dependency cases. Rather the
juvenile court, which has been intimately involved in the
protection of the child, is best situated to make custody
determinations based on the best interests of the child without
any preferences or presumptions.’ ” (In re C.M. (2019)
38 Cal.App.5th 101, 110; see In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th
196, 201.)
       We review the custody orders for abuse of discretion. (In
re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863.) “ ‘ “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.)
       Father contends there was no substantial evidence to
support the court’s order granting mother sole legal custody of
minor. Father argues that by focusing solely on his poor
compliance with services, the court improperly failed to consider
minor’s best interests. Father focuses instead on his consistent
and positive visitation with minor and that the two had a warm,
loving relationship, to argue that it was in minor’s best
interests for father to have joint legal custody.
       The evidence does not support father’s argument that the
juvenile court failed to consider minor’s best interests when it
awarded mother sole custody of minor. (See People v. Gutierrez
(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 515, 527 [absent evidence the trial court
misunderstood scope of discretion, reviewing court presumes

                                9
trial court is aware of governing law].) The court’s comments
from the bench emphasized the importance of ways in which
mother had demonstrated—through program participation—her
capacity to protect minor and her ability to address the case
issues that led to the initial assertion of jurisdiction. The court
drew a contrast with father, who had not done so, noting among
other failures the father’s lack of completion of parenting
classes and individual therapy. While not using the words best
interests, the court’s explanations conveyed the minor’s best
interests were a focus of its consideration. Further, there is
ample evidence to support the conclusion that the court’s order
served minor’s best interests. Father not only failed to
participate in court ordered programs, but he also avoided
communicating with the social worker for significant periods in
2020, and was again difficult to contact over the course of
several months in 2021. Even when the social worker was able
to talk to father during two unannounced home visits, father
would not allow the social worker to enter the home. Moreover,
mother was consistently engaged, participating in minor’s
individualized education plan, keeping up with his medical
appointments, and working with the social worker and
participating in services to ensure minor’s needs were met. In
contrast to the evidence of mother’s responsiveness and the
actions she took to support minor, there is no evidence in the
record that father took any proactive steps to access support for
minor, or to even communicate with mother or the social worker
about minor’s needs. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm
the court’s order granting mother sole legal and physical
custody of minor.

                                 10
                         DISPOSITION

     The juvenile court’s custody orders are affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    MOOR, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             BAKER, J.

                               11