Court Opinion

ID: 9406791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 18:04:10.309582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:46.018544
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/3/23 In re D.W. 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 D.W. et al., Persons Coming                              B317405
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                               (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Super. Ct. No.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         21LJJP00070A-C)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.W.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Tara L. Newman, Judge. Affirmed.
      Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Davion W. (Father) appeals a juvenile court disposition
order declining to place his son, D.W., with him after the court
removed D.W. from the custody of his mother Antaleen S.
(Mother). Father, who was a non-offending parent in the
dependency petition but who had just been released from prison
on a robbery conviction, argues the juvenile court erred by finding
it would be detrimental to place D.W. with him. We consider
whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
detriment finding.

                         I. BACKGROUND
       A.    The Investigation and Initial Proceedings
       In January 2021, the Los Angeles Department of Children
and Family Services (the Department) received a referral
alleging then 11-year-old D.W. and his four younger siblings1
(who were ten, eight, five, and two at the time) were being
neglected. The Department began investigating and filed a
dependency petition alleging D.W. and his siblings were at risk of
harm from, among other things, the unsanitary and hazardous
home where they lived with Mother and her fiancé Jovan M.,
from Jovan’s abuse of the children, and from Jovan’s substance
abuse and mental and emotional problems. In a later amended
petition, the Department added additional dependency
allegations, including an allegation that Mother failed to protect
D.W. from sexual abuse by a maternal uncle.
       At an initial detention hearing, the juvenile court removed
the children from Mother’s custody and D.W. was placed with a

1
      D.W. and some of his siblings have different biological
fathers.

                                2
non-related extended family member. Father was incarcerated at
the time of that detention hearing, serving a six-year sentence for
robbery (including a sentencing enhancement for great bodily
injury). Father did not make his first appearance in the
dependency proceedings until later, in June 2021. At that time,
Father requested, and was granted, presumed father status as to
D.W.2 The court also granted Father monitored visitation.
       A Department social worker interviewed Father in
November 2021. By then, he had been released on parole and
said he was participating in anger management classes. Father
told the social worker that “as long as no one triggers [him] or
upsets [him],” he would be off parole in a year.
       Through a parentage statement submitted by counsel,
Father stated he lived with D.W. from approximately 2009 to
2015. Father told a social worker that he wanted custody of all of
his biological children. The social worker informed Father that
D.W.’s two siblings recognized other men as their fathers and
expressed concern that revealing their parentage might cause
them additional trauma. Father said he did not care. When the
social worker discussed visitation with Father, Father repeatedly
stated he did not need to be babysat when seeing his children.
       Mother and D.W. were questioned by the Department
about life with Father prior to his incarceration. D.W. told a
social worker that Father had been “very mean” and would hit

2
      A paternity test later confirmed Father was the biological
father of D.W. and two of D.W.’s siblings. Father also requested
presumed father status as the other two siblings, both of whom
believed other men were their respective fathers.

                                3
him. Mother similarly said Father was physically abusive and
controlling during the time they were together.
      By December 2021, Father was having sporadic phone calls
with D.W. but the two had not had any in-person visits.

      B.     The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
      The juvenile court held the jurisdiction and disposition
hearing that same month (December 2021). The court sustained
the dependency petition with amendments by interlineation,
finding dependency jurisdiction over the children was proper
because: (1) the home the children had been living in with
Mother and Jovan was in an unsanitary and hazardous state; (2)
Jovan took D.W. and one of his siblings with him to commit a
burglary; (3) Jovan physically abused one of D.W.’s siblings; (4)
Jovan had a diagnosis of bipolar depression and failed to take his
medication as prescribed; (5) a maternal uncle sexually abused
D.W. and one of his siblings; and (6) Mother failed to protect the
children from these dangers.
      In arguing disposition, D.W.’s attorney opposed giving
Father custody of the child. D.W.’s attorney represented that
Father’s contact with D.W. had been sporadic at best even after
being released from custody and D.W. was “not necessarily
interested in reunifying with . . . Father.” The Department
likewise opposed placing D.W. with Father. Father’s attorney
objected to any order removing D.W. from his custody and
requested reunification services. The Department construed the
objection as a request to place D.W. in Father’s custody and
asked the court to find placement would be detrimental to D.W.’s
safety, protection, and well-being. The Department noted it had

                                4
not been able to assess where Father was living and expressed
concerns regarding substance use.
       The juvenile court removed D.W. from both Mother and
Father and ordered him suitably placed. The court found there
was a substantial risk of detriment to D.W. in being placed with
Father (though, without objection, it did not specify its reasons
for so finding). The court ordered family reunification services for
Father—as to D.W. only.

                          II. DISCUSSION
       Under the governing substantial evidence standard of
review, there is adequate support for the juvenile court’s
detriment finding. As we will explain, Father’s recent release
from custody, the statements by D.W. and Mother concerning
Father’s prior physical abuse, Father’s statements concerning his
ability to successfully complete parole, D.W.’s reluctance to
reunify with Father, and the lack of information regarding the
suitability of Father’s home, justify the juvenile court’s decision
to decline to award custody of D.W. to Father.
       When the juvenile court removes a child from a custodial
parent at disposition, it must determine “whether there is a
parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the
time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child
within the provisions of [Welfare and Institutions Code] Section
300, who desires to assume custody of the child.” (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 361.2, subd. (a).) If the noncustodial parent requests
custody, the court must place the child with that parent “unless it
finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to
the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the
child.” (Ibid.)

                                 5
       “A detriment evaluation requires that the court weigh all
relevant factors to determine if the child will suffer net harm.”
(In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425 (Luke M.).)
These factors may include the dependent child’s own wishes and
the child’s relationship (or lack thereof) with the non-custodial
parent seeking custody—though those considerations alone
cannot be determinative. (See, e.g., id. at 1426; see also In re
A.C. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 38, 43; In re C.M. (2014) 232
Cal.App.4th 1394, 1402.)
       On appeal, “[w]e review the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s order to determine whether there is
substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could
find clear and convincing evidence that the children would suffer
such detriment. [Citations.]” (Luke M., supra, at 1426; see also
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011-1012.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s detriment
finding here.
       At the time of the juvenile court’s determination, Father
had only recently been released on parole after serving a sentence
for a violent criminal conviction. Father was attending an anger
management class, but the record does not reflect his progress in
the course and he rather ominously told a social worker that he
would complete parole only if “no one triggers [him] or upsets
[him].” Such a statement is cause for concern when Father would
be subject to the stresses of parenthood if given custody of D.W.—
who he had physically abused and been mean to in the past
(statements that we credit under the governing standard of
review).
       Additionally, Father’s communication with the Department
following his release from custody had been minimal. During the

                                6
sole interview he had with a Department social worker following
his release, he expressed that he wanted unmonitored visitation
(contrary to the court’s order for monitored visitation) and did not
care about potentially adding to the trauma experienced by his
younger two children. Further, by the time of the disposition
hearing, the Department had not been able to assess Father’s
living situation to ensure it was safe for D.W.
       The record also reflects Father did not have a significant
relationship with D.W. predating the dependency case and only
sporadically spoke to D.W. on the phone after his release from
custody. So far as the record indicates, Father did not attend any
in-person visits with D.W. prior to the disposition hearing, nor do
we see any evidence that he attempted to have any such visits.
Additionally, D.W., through counsel, expressed some resistance to
reunifying with Father.
       Considering the record as a whole, there is adequate
evidence for the juvenile court’s finding of detriment that
precluded awarding custody of D.W. to Father.3

3
      Father argues the lack of an established relationship with a
noncustodial parent, a child’s desire to reside elsewhere, and
sibling bonds are each insufficient to support a detriment finding.
While precedent supports a view that any one of those factors
would not automatically suffice to support a detriment finding,
we do not rely on one factor alone in reaching our decision.
Relying on In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1828
(Marquis D.), Father also argues the evidence was insufficient to
support a detriment finding under section 361.2 because he had
not committed any act “incompatible with parenthood.” Marquis
D., however, does not establish that such an act is required for a
court to find placement with a noncustodial parent would be
detrimental under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2.

                                 7
                         DISPOSITION
     The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           BAKER, J.

We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     KIM, J.

                                8