Court Opinion

ID: 9804729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:07:28.54549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:36:41.142418
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/31/23 In re S.B. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.B., a Person Coming                                        B320433 c/w B323506
 Under Juvenile Court Law.
 _______________________________                                    (Los Angeles County Super.
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                  Ct. No. 21CCJP03835A)
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 C.B.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
      Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    ______________________
                         INTRODUCTION
      Father appeals from a dispositional order on the sole
ground that the juvenile court erred in requiring his visits with
his daughter to be monitored. Because the court acted within its
discretion in ordering monitored visitation, we affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1.    Father’s Alcohol Abuse, Resulting Divorce, and Joint
      Custody of S.B.
      Mother and C.B. (father) married in 2007 and had one
daughter (S.B.) born in 2009. They divorced in 2014 due to
father’s anger, alcohol abuse, and verbal abuse of mother, which
twice escalated to physical abuse. Evidence was that when father
consumes alcohol, his anger becomes a “blind rage”; he turns into
“a completely different person”; and he exhibits strange, erratic,
and aggressive behavior. S.B. first noticed father’s drunken
behavior when she was about five years old and saw him
“stumbling a lot” and acting “weird.”
      Mother and father’s divorce resulted in a family court
custody order granting joint physical and legal custody, and
requiring that neither parent “make disparaging remarks about
the other . . . around the child [or] . . . be under the influence of
alcohol.” Despite the custody order, according to S.B., father
continued to drink two to three bottles of wine per night when he
had custody of S.B. He also continued to speak negatively about
mother to S.B.
      Father generally remained sober during the day and began
drinking alcohol after dinner. When he drank, father was
controlling of S.B. and made degrading comments towards her.
Mother documented numerous instances of father’s misbehavior
between 2015 and 2021 on the Family Wizard application. Some

                                 2
examples include: “physically holding” S.B. in place “until she
apologized ‘for nothing’ ” twisting S.B.’s arm; calling her a “robot
daughter”; telling her that her artwork was no good; and keeping
her on the phone while she was at the beach with mother to ask
her the same question repeatedly. Father sometimes drunk
dialed S.B. while she was in mother’s care, sounding “strange or
weird,” making “non-sensical comments,” and causing S.B. to
become sad or bewildered. One time, when father was driving
while drunk and S.B. was a passenger, she witnessed him drive
over the curb. On another occasion, father got into S.B.’s bed and
refused to leave, stating that “the President told [him] to stay
until it’s cleared out.”
       As S.B. got older, she became increasingly anxious before
leaving mother to stay with father, and she was “triggered just
walking into his house” because she already knew what was in
store. S.B. attended therapy starting around 2018, and father’s
alcohol abuse, degrading comments to S.B., and negative
statements about mother were recurring themes in her therapy
sessions. S.B.’s therapist diagnosed her with anxiety disorder,
which was “situational/environmental, rather than organic.”
Father ardently opposed S.B.’s therapy and insisted that he did
not believe in therapy generally.
       Father’s drunken misbehavior around S.B. came to a head
on August 4, 2021, when he mocked S.B. for reading a book,
demanded that she read aloud, and ridiculed her for attending
therapy. He also told her she was “fucked up,” “full of shit,” “a
pussy,” and “weak.” When S.B. told father she wanted to live
with mother full time, father responded that he would cut her out
of his life and leave her. S.B. retreated to her room and sobbed
all night. The next day, father sent S.B. an email “trying to

                                 3
apologize,” in which he explained why he had “acted out” and
expressed his frustration with mother for “infring[ing] on” father
and S.B.’s time together.
2.     Dependency Proceedings
       On August 13, 2021, mother filed a request for an expedited
removal order, and S.B. was removed from father and placed with
mother that day.
       On August 17, 2021, the Department of Children and
Family Services (the Department) filed a petition under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 300, alleging under subdivision
(b)(1) that father’s history and current abuse of alcohol rendered
him incapable of providing regular care for S.B. and placed her
“at risk of serious physical harm and damage,” and under
subdivision (c), father had “created a detrimental home
environment” for S.B. “by emotionally abusing” her, “verbally
berat[ing] and degrad[ing]” her, and by calling her “derogatory
and demeaning names, resulting in [S.B.] feeling stressed,
depressed and . . . anx[ious].”1
       At the detention hearing on August 20, 2021, S.B. was
ordered removed from father and placed with mother. The
juvenile court ordered monitored visitation for father for a
minimum of three, three-hour visits per week.
       In the months that ensued, father continued to exhibit
controlling behavior during his visits with S.B. For example, he
refused to buy S.B. a snack or a drink even though he did not
bring any snacks or drinks to the visits. Another time, S.B.
requested that father buy her a bag of apple chips, and father
refused, instead offering to buy her fruit. He eventually bought

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

                                4
her a very small package of apple chips, after which he asked her
for some. When she refused, he asked again, “but in a more
aggressive manner.” He then told her that she should pay for her
own snacks, prompting the monitor to intervene. On another
occasion, S.B. brought $10 with her to a visit at Starbucks
because of father’s ongoing refusal to provide snacks or drinks
during visits. When S.B. sat down with father after buying
herself a drink, father asked the 12-year-old if she had purchased
him a drink, again prompting the monitor to intervene to tell
father to buy his own drink. Father “argue[d] about purchasing
snacks or drinks for no apparent reason.” Father’s behavior
irritated S.B., but she “[didn’t] show it because she [didn’t] want
confrontation.”
        Father also violated the visitation rules by slipping two
letters into a birthday gift he brought for S.B.—one for S.B., and
one for mother. He once yelled at a social worker, and on another
occasion sent “abrasive” text messages to the owner of the
professional monitor service when she declined to monitor his
visits.
        When the Department interviewed father about the
August 4, 2021 incident, father estimated that he had three to
four glasses of wine and stated that he did not know whether he
was drunk. He attributed his lashing out to “ongoing issues”
“with mother,” S.B.’s therapy, and S.B.’s use of electronic devices.
        Father submitted to drug and alcohol tests, all of which
were negative.
        The adjudication hearing was held on February 24 and
March 8, 2022. Father testified that when he drinks alcohol, he
“may have a glass or two of wine, maybe a beer or two.” When
asked about “a particular disagreement” at father’s house that

                                 5
S.B. had complained about—apparently referring to the
August 4, 2021, incident that preceded S.B.’s removal and the
filing of the section 300 petition—father responded, “I’m thinking
it might have been about her [iPad] use, which I’ve always been
concerned about . . . .” When asked whether he had ever called
S.B. any name aside from her given name, father listed a series of
affectionate nicknames, such as “honey bear” and “baby doll.”
Father only admitted he “said a lot of terrible things” after his
counsel specifically asked him about the August 4th incident,
which father followed with the statement that he “always owned
up to what [he] said.” Father denied making various negative
statements about mother to S.B., insisted that he “never”
consumed alcohol while S.B. was with him (aside from the
August 4 incident), and denied ever driving over a curb on the
sidewalk. When asked how recently he had been intoxicated
outside of S.B.’s presence, he responded “when [he] was in college
. . . pledging for a fraternity.” Father submitted evidence from
three witnesses who stated that father was “a great Dad” who
had “great moral character.” One reported that he had been at
parties with father and S.B. and that father had not seemed
intoxicated around her.
        S.B. testified that between the ages four and eleven (her
age when she was removed from father), she saw father drinking
alcohol “pretty much” every time she saw him, which was three to
four days a week. She also testified that father called her “a
robot daughter quite a few times before,” which “didn’t make
[her] feel good”, and that he called mother “a loser” and said that
mother “is not a good person.” S.B. stated that she did not feel
comfortable seeing father without a monitor because “he could
easily talk about the case or anything like that.” And when

                                6
asked whether she would feel comfortable seeing him without a
monitor after the case was over, she responded “I don’t know.”
She also testified that she loved her father and that she knew he
loved her.
        The court made minor modifications to the allegations in
the section 300 petition and sustained both counts as modified.2
        The disposition hearing occurred on April 13, 2022. Father
testified that he had “a counselor that’s lined up . . . for conjoint
therapy.” When asked about the quality of his visits with S.B.
since the adjudication hearing, he testified that he “would prefer
. . . unsupervised visits,” which he thought he had “more than
earned.” Father requested “50/50 custody that [he had] always
had up until these proceedings.” Father then proceeded to list
“ramifications” for S.B. if father’s full rights were not restored,
and then proceeded to go into “all kinds of ways that this is going
to impact [him] negatively,” at which point the court cut him off
because there was no question pending. When asked how he
would describe his relationship with S.B., he responded, “it’s
outstanding, and it’s always been outstanding.” Counsel for
mother, S.B., and the Department all urged the juvenile court to
terminate jurisdiction and award mother sole custody, with
monitored visitation, if any, for father. Father requested joint
custody, legal if not physical, and requested unsupervised
visitation if granted visitation rights. The juvenile court
observed that father “has not made any kind of acknowledgment
of his own role in the daughter being upset at the alcohol abuse,”
and that “appellate courts have recognized that one cannot

2    These modifications include changing “history of substance
abuse” to “history of substance use,” and replacing “current
abuser of alcohol” with “recent excessive user of alcohol.”

                                  7
change a problem one does not [ac]knowledge.” The court
ordered that mother have sole physical custody, mother and
father have joint legal custody, with the exception that mother
have the sole legal right to make decisions about S.B.’s
counseling, and that father have visits monitored by a
professional or mutually agreed-upon monitor. The court
terminated jurisdiction, but stayed the order pending issuance of
the juvenile custody order.
       Father filed a notice of appeal on May 11, 2022. After
several amendments to the juvenile custody order, the final
version was filed on August 29, 2022, and the juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction. Father filed another notice of appeal on
September 7, 2022. Upon father’s motion, we consolidated his
appeals.
                           DISCUSSION
       Father contends the trial court erred in requiring his visits
with S.B. to be monitored. A juvenile court has broad discretion
to make visitation orders when it terminates jurisdiction.
(§ 362.4; In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112-113.) These
orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re J.P. (2019)
37 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1119; In re Alexandria M. (2007)
156 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1095 (Alexandria M.).) In other words, we
must determine whether the juvenile court’s order “ ‘exceeded the
bounds of reason.’ ” (Alexandria M., at pp. 1095-1096; In re
Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
       The juvenile court acted well within its discretion in
ordering monitored visits for father. Despite the family court’s
2014 joint custody order prohibiting father from drinking in
S.B.’s presence, father consumed alcohol each time she stayed
with him. He also continued to speak negatively about mother to

                                 8
S.B. in violation of the 2014 order. When father drank, he acted
in a controlling, aggressive, and erratic manner that scared S.B.,
and that caused her more and more anxiety as she got older.
Father also called S.B. hurtful names during his alcohol episodes.
Mother documented numerous instances of father’s strange,
inappropriate, and “scary” behavior around S.B. Maternal uncle
also reported seeing father go “into a rage” after “he consumed at
least a full bottle of wine.” Yet as the juvenile court observed,
throughout the proceedings, father failed to acknowledge his
excessive drinking, let alone the serious emotional harm it was
causing S.B. He denied ever getting drunk in S.B.’s presence
aside from August 4, 2021. S.B. consistently reported that she
did not feel comfortable visiting father without a professional
monitor because she was afraid that father would speak with her
about the case or about other matters he should not discuss with
S.B. Even with a professional monitor present, father sometimes
behaved in a controlling and aggressive manner with S.B., which
on at least two occasions caused the monitor to intervene.
       S.B. was asked whether she would be comfortable seeing
her father without a monitor, S.B. responded, directly: “No.”
When asked why he thought S.B did not want to visit father
without a neutral monitor, he responded that he “believe[s] that
her mother is negatively influencing and coaching.”
       Father points out that “[t]here was no question that [S.B.]
and [f]ather were bonded and loved each other very much.”
Indeed, S.B. testified to her “great relationship” with her father.
Father also testified to good times with S.B., including the
birthday card from S.B. in November of 2021 that father offered
into evidence. It said, “You have been the best dad forever and
always will be.” The juvenile court, though, was not required to

                                9
credit father’s testimony and, birthday pleasantries aside, the
court was entitled to rely on the significant evidence of the harm
father caused S.B. Father also asserts that he always tested
negative on alcohol and drug tests. But this merely means that
he was not abusing alcohol when he submitted to the tests; the
negative results are consistent with S.B.’s report that father is
sober during the day and usually “starts drinking at dinner
time.” Father highlights his “gainful[] employ[ment]” and lack of
“substance-related arrests o[r] convictions.” But his employment
or arrests were not at issue in this case—rather, it was his
nightly drinking in S.B.’s presence and his resulting aggressive
and erratic behavior, which caused S.B. psychological turmoil.
Father also urges that “the juvenile court could have conditioned
unmonitored visits on a number of circumstances,” such as father
and S.B. participating in “conjoint therapy.” This argument
ignores the applicable standard of review, under which we have
concluded that the juvenile court did not err. “ ‘ “ ‘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.’ ” ’ ”
(Alexandria M., supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1095.)
      In view of father’s problematic behavior, his repeated
refusal to abide by the 2014 joint custody order, the impact of his
misbehavior on his daughter, S.B.’s express desire to avoid
unmonitored visits with father, and father’s complete failure to
recognize or address his drinking problem, we cannot conclude
that the juvenile court’s decision to require monitored visits
“exceeded the bounds of reason.” (Alexandria M., supra,
156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1096.)

                                  10
                       DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.

                                     RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                   MOOR, J.

                   KIM, J.

                             11