Court Opinion

ID: 9942742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 20:04:18.86079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:23.781309
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/24 In re O.B. CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re O.B., a Person Coming                                   2d Juv. No. B325600
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                    (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                22JD-00260-001)
                                                            (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES,

     Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.M. et al.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      L.M. (Father) appeals an order of the juvenile court finding
jurisdiction over his child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code1 section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and depriving Father of
custody under section 361.2, subdivision (a). We affirm.
                                 FACTS
                             Background
       E.C. (Mother) and Father had a brief relationship in 2020.
O.B. was born in August 2021. Father is not on O.B.’s birth
certificate. Father and Mother were not residing together at the
time of O.B.’s birth or thereafter.
       In August 2021, Mother obtained a domestic violence
restraining order against Father from family law court. The
order required Father to stay at least 100 yards from Mother.
Mother’s declaration in support of the order stated that while she
was seven months pregnant with O.B., Father punched in a
window of the trailer she was living in and tried to pull her out of
the window, causing bruising to her arms.
       Thereafter Father filed an action in family law court for
custody of O.B. The court made no finding of paternity, but
ordered Father pay child support to Mother. The court awarded
Father supervised visitation with O.B.
       In August 2022, Mother filed for temporary restraining
order (TRO) against Father. The hearing was pending when the
San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS)
filed the petition in this case.
                              Altercation
       On September 11, 2022, DSS received a report that in the
early morning hours on that date, Mother, and her then boyfriend
engaged in a physical altercation in front of O.B. Mother bit her
boyfriend numerous times and wrestled him to the ground. Her

      1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

                                 2
boyfriend reported that there had been at least three other
altercations between them in recent months.
       Shortly after the altercation Mother called Father and
asked him to meet her at a gas station. When Father arrived,
Mother told him about the altercation. She had O.B. with her in
the car. Mother drove away because Father became erratic.
Father followed her and repeatedly swerved in front of her car to
get her to stop. Father called the police who arrested Mother.
Father falsely told the police that he had joint legal custody of
O.B. The police let him take O.B.
       On the day Mother was released from custody, she went to
Father’s home to pick up O.B. Father called the police. Mother
told the police that she had sole legal custody of O.B. and Father
had only supervised visitation. The police let Mother take O.B.
and Mother returned to her home with her boyfriend.
                            Investigation
       On September 13, 2022, a DSS social worker met with
Mother and O.B. at Mother’s home. O.B. appeared underweight
and small with thin legs but did not appear emaciated. Mother
reported that Father drives around the neighborhood screaming
and crying and follows her home. She also informed the social
worker that Father sends messages to her in violation of the
restraining order. When Mother filed a subsequent request for a
TRO, she attached as exhibits multiple pages of numerous emails
and texts Father sent to her over a period of a few months.
       DSS told Mother of its intent to remove O.B. from her care
due to alleged domestic violence. O.B. could not be placed with
Father because he had only supervised visits. DSS said it was
seeking a warrant to remove O.B. and place her under DSS
protection.

                                3
       Father called a social worker and informed her that he had
custody of O.B. He did not want O.B. returned to Mother because
he believed that she is not a fit parent. Father said he was
taking O.B. to a hotel because “law enforcement had been called
numerous times to his current living arrangement and they did
not want him there anymore.” The social worker could hear O.B.
crying in the background. When the social worker pointed out
that Father had only supervised visitation, he hung up.
       The next day a DSS social worker called Father about his
repeated contacts with DSS. Father’s speech was manic and
rambling. He attempted to explain something about his contact
with law enforcement. The social worker could not understand
him. Father was argumentative and would not allow the social
worker to speak.
       After DSS obtained the protective warrant for O.B., Father
met with a social worker at a DSS office to surrender O.B. O.B.
was crying and appeared only minimally comfortable in Father’s
care. When O.B. was held by a social worker, she calmed down,
but began crying again when returned to Father. Father was
unable to understand, soothe, or meet her other needs. Father
was primarily focused on his phone and computer.
       During the meeting, DSS called law enforcement for
standby assistance due to Father’s agitation and irritability. A
social worker asked Father about his mental health. Father said
he was working with a therapist and a psychiatrist and taking
medication. The social worker observed that Father “presented
as emotionally dysregulated throughout the contact” with DSS.
Father insisted that he had full custody of O.B., even though he
had only supervised visitation. DSS took custody of O.B. and
placed her in foster care.

                               4
       After the meeting, DSS sent Father an email stating that
any further contact with DSS must be by email. During that day
and night, Father sent almost 50 emails and messages to DSS
and the social worker’s phone, the last one sent after 2:00 a.m.
                              Procedure
       DSS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision
(b)(1), alleging O.B.’s parents’ failure to supervise or protect her
and to provide her with adequate food, shelter, clothing, or
medical treatment.
       At the conclusion of the initial hearing the juvenile court
found that O.B. is a person described in section 300, subdivision
(b)(1). The court expressed particular concern that at 13 months
old O.B.’s weight was consistent with that of a four- or five-
month-old child, and a DSS physician’s concern that O.B.
exhibited a “potential for failure to thrive.”
       At the detention hearing both Mother and Father
submitted on the issue of detention, and the juvenile court stated
that it would be treating Father as an alleged father until it
received more information on paternity.
                                 TRO
       Also during the detention hearing, the juvenile court
announced that it had taken jurisdiction over Mother’s
application for a TRO against Father from the family law court.
The evidence before the juvenile court included that Father had
violated the previous restraining order by sending an excessive
number of texts and emails to Mother; that Father had failed to
fill out the required form certifying that any weapons he might
possess had been turned in; and that Father previously had a
restraining order prohibiting contact with a different woman.
The juvenile court granted Mother the TRO.

                                 5
                         Jurisdiction Report
       At the time of the jurisdiction report O.B. was still in foster
care. Father’s behavior had improved in his interactions with
DSS and he signed a release of information form (ROI) so that
DSS could communicate with his therapist.
       The therapist reported to DSS that he was treating Father
for “Adjustment Disorder and Mixed Mood.” He had been
working with Father for six to eight weeks, focusing on Father’s
anxiety and how to manage it by thinking before acting. The
therapist acknowledged that Father’s excessive communications
caused concern regarding his stability.
       Father volunteered to DSS that he had been going to
Alcoholics Anonymous for several months. Drug and alcohol
testing showed Father was positive for amphetamine and THC,
but the results were consistent with prescription medications he
was taking. Mother reported that Father used cocaine and
ketamine.
       DSS concluded that juvenile court oversite was necessary
to ensure O.B.’s physical and emotional safety. At the time DSS
became involved, only one month prior, Mother and Father’s
relationship posed a threat to O.B.’s safety.
                         Disposition Report
       DSS obtained information on Father’s criminal history. In
2006 Father was convicted of second-degree robbery and served
11 years of a 13-year sentence.
       Mother reported that during her brief relationship with
Father he was emotionally abusive. He used drugs including
cocaine and ketamine. Mother raised concerns about Father’s
emotional stability, mental health, and the effect on O.B. should
Father get custody.

                                  6
      A DSS social worker spoke with Father’s treating
psychiatrist. The psychiatrist stated that Father suffers from
severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
anxiety. He prescribed medications and recommended that they
be taken on a regular basis, particularly before meeting with
DSS, but Father did not do so. The psychiatrist acknowledged
that Father’s behaviors in interacting with DSS has been self-
sabotaging.
      A DSS social worker attempted to complete a social
study/family assessment with Father. Father was uncooperative
and made disparaging comments throughout the interview.
When the social worker informed Father that the
recommendation would be that O.B. remain in foster care, Father
stated he would not work with the social worker anymore and
hung up. Thereafter Father sent the social worker 20 emails
expressing his frustration with the dependency. Father also
revoked his ROI.
      DSS recommended that O.B. be declared a dependent of the
juvenile court and remain in foster care; that reunification
services be provided to Mother; and that reunification services be
provided to Father if he is found to be a presumed or biological
father.
          Combined Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
      On November 21, 2022, the juvenile court held a combined
jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Mother submitted the
matter, but Father contested.
      A DSS social worker testified that Father’s conduct showed
an inability to follow the guidance of his service providers. DSS
could no longer evaluate the services and treatment Father was
getting because he revoked his ROI. Father lacks understanding

                                7
of the circumstances that brought O.B. into the dependency
proceedings. He blames DSS for getting involved. The social
worker further testified that Father’s psychiatrist recommended
that he take medication prior to a DSS meeting, but Father
refused to do so. Father is required to take medication four times
a day, but he admitted that he does not like taking pills.
       DSS recommended that Father not be given custody of O.B.
Father’s inability to control his emotions and impulses would put
O.B. at substantial risk if Father were given custody.
       During the hearing the juvenile court noticed Father was
talking into a recording device. The court asked Father if that
was what he was doing. Father denied it. The court told Father
that his emotionally dysregulated behavior has increased in
every hearing that Father has participated in. Father’s behavior
increased the court’s concern for his ability to provide calm and
effective care for O.B.
                               Ruling
       At the end of the combined jurisdiction and disposition
hearing the juvenile court took jurisdiction, finding that the
allegations of the petition were true.
       The juvenile court stated that its primary concern was with
Mother— her emotional stability and her ability to set
boundaries. The court also expressed grave concern about O.B.’s
nutritional health, noting the improvement that O.B. has shown
since being placed in foster care.
       The juvenile court was also concerned, to a lesser extent,
with Father’s behavior. Father is unable to regulate his
emotions. Given O.B.’s young age at the time of the hearing (18
months old) and Father’s dysregulated behavior, the court found
that Father should not be given custody of O.B.

                                8
      Mother’s and O.B.’s counsel objected to Father being
declared a presumed father. The paternity test results had not
yet been obtained. The juvenile court set a special hearing in
three months to determine paternity. The court declined to
declare Father the presumed father. Nevertheless, the court
ordered that Father be provided with services.
      When the paternity test results became available, the
juvenile court declared Father to be the presumed father. The
court granted Father unsupervised daytime visits with O.B., but
refused his request to grant him custody.
                            DISCUSSION
                                   I.
               Substantial Evidence as to Jurisdiction
      Father contends that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
findings are not supported by substantial evidence as to him.
      Father acknowledges that dependency jurisdiction attaches
to the child if either parent’s actions bring the child within the
statutory definition of a dependent. (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51
Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) Here Mother did not contest jurisdiction.
      Father requests, however, that we exercise our discretion to
consider the merits of his claim. We may exercise our discretion
where the jurisdictional findings: 1) serve as a basis for
dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal; 2) could
be prejudicial to appellant in current or future dependency
proceedings; or 3) could have other consequences beyond
jurisdiction. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762.)
Assuming that at least one of the factors applies, we will discuss
the merits of Father’s challenge.
      Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), provides: A child comes
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court when the child has

                                9
suffered or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer serious
physical harm or illness as a result of the failure of the child’s
parent to adequately supervise or protect the child; the failure of
the parent to provide the child with adequate food, clothing,
shelter or medical treatment; or the inability of the parent to
provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s mental
illness, developmental disability or substance abuse.
       DSS has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the child comes within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court. (In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128,
137.) We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence.
(Ibid. at p. 137.)
       Jurisdiction may be based on a prior incident of harm or a
future risk of harm. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426,
1435, fn. 5.) The juvenile court need not wait until the child is
seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction. (In re I.J.
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
       Here at 13 months old O.B.’s weight was consistent with a
four- or five-month-old child and a physician expressed concern
that O.B. had a “potential for failure to thrive.” O.B.’s health was
obviously at risk. Although Father did not have custody of O.B.,
he had visitation. Yet he did nothing to protect O.B. In fact,
after a social worker observed Father’s interactions with O.B.,
the social worker reported that Father was unable to understand
or meet O.B.’s needs. Father lacks understanding as to why O.B.
is in the dependency proceedings. He blames DSS for getting
involved.
       Father suffers from significant mental illness that impairs
his ability to meet O.B.’s needs. His psychiatrist reported that
Father suffers from anxiety and severe ADHD. DSS observed

                                 10
that he is unable to control his emotions and impulses. Father
does not follow his psychiatrist’s instructions on taking
medication and stated that he does not like taking pills. The
juvenile court directly observed Father’s dysregulated behavior.
       Finally, Father’s relationship with Mother places O.B.’s
emotional well being at risk. Father violated the first restraining
order by contacting Mother numerous times. Mother presented
evidence of numerous texts and emails from Father. Mother had
to get a second restraining order. Mother reported that during
her brief relationship with Father he was emotionally abusive.
She raised concerns about Father’s emotional stability and
mental health. Those concerns were confirmed by DSS and the
juvenile court’s own observations.
       There is more than ample evidence to support the juvenile
court’s finding of jurisdiction.
                                  II.
       Sufficient Evidence to Support Juvenile Court’s Order
       Father contends that the juvenile court’s order removing
O.B. from his custody is not supported by sufficient evidence.
       Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides, in part: “A
dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of
his or her parents . . . with whom the child resides at the time the
petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and
convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances listed
in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive . . . [¶] (1) There is or would be
a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were
returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the
minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the
minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.”

                                 11
       “The term ‘resides’ . . . mean[s] “‘“to dwell permanently or
for a considerable time.”’” (In re Dakota J. (2015) 242
Cal.App.4th 619, 628.) Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), does not
apply because O.B. was not residing with Father. Mother had
sole legal custody of O.B. O.B. resided with Mother since her
birth. Father had custody of O.B. for a short period only because
he lied about having joint custody.
       Section 361.2, subdivision (a), provides, in part: “If a court
orders removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall
first 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
Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child. If that
parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the
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.”
       The finding of a detriment necessary to deprive Father of
custody under section 361.2, subdivision (a), requires proof by
clear and convincing evidence. (In re Marquis D. (1995) 38
Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.) The party opposing placement with
Father has the burden of proof. (In re C.M. (2014) 232
Cal.App.4th 1394, 1402.)
       The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the
party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it
is “highly probable” the facts which he asserts are true.
(Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998.) We review
the record in a light most favorable to the prevailing party giving
“deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the
credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and

                                 12
drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1011-
1012.) We uphold the finding if any reasonable finder of fact
could have found it highly probable the fact was true. (Id. at p.
1011.)
       Here, although the juvenile court did not make an express
finding of detriment, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude
otherwise. At the time of the hearing Father had unresolved
mental illness that made it impossible for him to care for O.B. In
addition, he had unresolved conflicts with Mother. Father also
refused to cooperate with DSS. A DSS social worker could not
complete a social study/family assessment because Father would
not cooperate. Thereafter Father sent DSS 20 emails expressing
his frustration. Father revoked his ROI, making it impossible for
DSS to keep track of his progress with his service providers.
Father also did not understand why DSS is involved. There is
simply no doubt it would have been detrimental to O.B. to give
Father custody.
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment (order) is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

             BALTODANO, J.          CODY, J.

                               13
                   Linda D. Hurst, Judge

          Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

               ______________________________

     Jesse Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, Ann Duggan, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.