Court Opinion

ID: 9395082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 00:02:31.649914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.264965
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/16/23 In re M.B. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

 In re M.B., et al., Persons Coming                              B320868
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

                                                                 (Los Angeles County
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                               Super. Ct. No.
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          21CCJP04590A-C)
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 R.B.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Debra L. Losnick, Judge. Affirmed.
      Law Office of Arthur J. LaCilento and Arthur J. LaCilento
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel; Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel; William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                  ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

       R.B. (father) appeals from a dispositional and juvenile court
exit order in a dependency case removing his three children,
M.B., A.B. and S.B from his custody, awarding mother sole
physical custody order with monitored visits to father, and
terminating the court’s jurisdiction. Father argues that the
juvenile court abused its discretion by removing the children from
him and awarding custody to mother, and that the court’s
findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We find no
merit to father’s contentions and affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A. The initial encounter, investigation and detention
          hearing.
       In August of 2021, the Department of Children and Family
Services (Department) received a report of a domestic violence
incident at mother’s and stepfather’s home, involving a physical
altercation that occurred in the presence of the children. On
September 28, 2021, following an investigation, the Department
removed the children from mother and placed them with a foster
parent. The Department considered placing the children with
father, but decided such placement would be inappropriate
because the children “displayed significant emotional reaction to
the concept of having to be placed with father,” with whom they

                                 2
had not had any contact for over two years.1 The oldest child,
M.B., objected to being placed with father, becoming “extremely
upset and screamed . . . [that father] ‘is an evil, very evil man.’ ”
Although he was aware of the proceeding, father did not request
that the Department place the children with him.
       On September 30, 2021, the Department filed a petition
under Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300, alleging that
domestic violence between mother and stepfather posed a threat
to the children’s physical and emotional well-being.
       The court held a detention hearing on October 5, 2021.
Before the hearing, the Department filed a Last Minute
Information with the Court stating that it was changing its
recommendation and also seeking detention of the children from
father. The Department stated that “the children do not have a[ ]
relationship with their father and have express[ed] that they are
afraid of him.” It also reported that, although father represented
he had no mental health issues other than seasonal affective
disorder, he had in fact been diagnosed with paranoid personality
disorder, bipolar disorder and adjustment disorder.
       At the hearing, the court adopted the Department’s
recommendation, finding good cause for detaining the children
from both parents. As to mother, the court found a substantial
risk to the physical or emotional health of the children. The court
detained the children from father based on their statements that

1      At the time of the removal, the children were subject to
family law orders that gave mother sole legal and physical
custody and provided for father to have professionally monitored
visitation.
2      Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references
are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                 3
they were physically abused by him and were frightened to live in
his home. The court ordered monitored visits for both parents.
       B. The first and second amended petitions.
       On October 13, 2021, the Department filed a first amended
petition adding new allegations regarding father. The amended
petition alleged that father had an “inclination to bad-mouth the
mother and . . . unceasing efforts to prove that mother and others
have conspired to ruin him.” The Department further alleged
that father had physically abused mother in the children’s
presence, and that his conduct “is emotionally abusive to the
children and has caused the children unreasonable suffering.”
The amended petition also included a new count against mother,
alleging general neglect for failure to obtain mental health
services and treatment for the children.
       On November 19, 2021, the Department filed a second
amended petition that omitted the count against father. The
second amended petition added a new count alleging that both
parents were involved in an “ongoing, high-conflict custody
dispute,” and that mother’s comments disparaging father created
a risk of serious emotional harm to M.B., the oldest of the three
children. The Department continued to recommend that the
children be detained from both parents “until such time as the
parents can receive treatment for their mental health issues,
substance abuse, domestic violence and lack of parenting skills.”
Following a detention hearing on the second amended petition on
November 24, 2021, the court ordered that the children remain in
foster care.
       C. The children are returned to mother.
       The court held a trial setting hearing on March 14, 2022.
Prior to that hearing, the Department submitted a Supplemental

                                4
Report updating the court “as to the services in process and
completed by the family.” The Department stated that mother
and stepfather had made significant progress. It noted that
mother had completed a domestic violence class and was
participating in individual therapy, and marriage counseling
with stepfather. Stepfather had enrolled in a domestic violence
program for batterers and was “fully compliant” with that
program. In addition, stepfather was submitting clean weekly
drug tests, and attending “several [Alcoholics Anonymous]
meetings per week.” The Department recommended that the
court return the children to mother’s home “with ongoing Court
involvement and Family Maintenance Services in place.” The
Department also recommended against placing the children with
father “due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic, anxiety-ridden and
volatile feelings the children demonstrate in the presence of their
father and paternal relatives.” The Department noted that the
visits between the children and father had “not improved, and
are instead getting worse and worse.”
       Mother pleaded no contest to the petition and the court
sustained a single count against mother.3 The court ordered the
children released to mother under the supervision of the
Department subject to mother continuing with her court-ordered
programs. The court also ordered the Department to provide to
the children, mother and father referrals to a high conflict family
reunification therapist, and scheduled a disposition hearing on
May 10-11, 2022.

3     The sustained count alleged that the August 2021 domestic
violence incident that caused the children to be detained from
mother endangered the children’s physical health and safety.

                                 5
       D. The disposition hearing and order.
       The Department continued to monitor both parents’
progress. It submitted a Supplemental Report that stated that
mother and stepfather continued to participate in their
counseling and that mother had sufficiently progressed in her
individual therapy such that it was no longer needed. The
children’s social worker (CSW) had conducted a home visit and
met with the children and mother and stepfather. The CSW
found that the family was doing well, and that the children
happily showed her their “room, toys/games, computers setup,
schoolwork.” The CSW noted that “[t]he children and parents
appear to have a healthy relationship, and have a good bond.”
       The Supplemental Report stated that father had retained
Dr. Lynn Steinberg as a reunification specialist. Father stated
that he was not participating in the court ordered monitored
visits because they “[were] not helping the children at this time”
and were “ ‘detrimental . . . and I don’t want to see them hurt, so
I had to make a moral and ethical decision by stopping the
monitored visits and sticking with reunification therapy.’ ” He
stated that he wanted to see the children only during therapeutic
visits with Dr. Steinberg.
       The CSW spoke to father after he and the children
attended a two-hour session with Dr. Steinberg on April 1, 2022.
Father told her that the session “ ‘was a disaster.’ ” M.B. “ ‘was
screaming and crying during the meeting’ ” while A.B. “held his
head and cried.” According to father, Dr. Steinberg stated that
further sessions would be useless unless the children were
removed from mother’s custody. After the April 1 session with
Dr. Steinberg, father had no further visits with the children, and
no further sessions with Dr. Steinberg. The Department

                                 6
expressed “concern to the Court that as a result of the ongoing
issues between the adults in their lives, the children present as
having a hatred of their father that goes beyond what may or
may not have occurred in the home when the children were
younger.” The Department stated that it had “facilitated visits
for the father and the paternal relatives that are dysfunctional in
the extreme.”
      The Department concluded that the children could safely
remain in mother’s custody based on her compliance with
counseling and other services. Although father was “non-
offending,” the Department found that release to father posed “a
threat to the children due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic,
anxiety-ridden and volatile feelings” toward father and paternal
relatives. It further stated that it would be a detriment to the
children to release them to father based on their threats of “self-
harm, running away or acting out” if put in father’s custody.
      Dr. Steinberg also prepared a written report for the
disposition hearing. She opined that the children were alienated
from father and recommended they be placed with father for 90
days, during which time they have no contact with mother, and a
four-day “family reunification intensive” therapy session. She
further opined that the children were in “mortal danger” if they
remained with mother and stepfather, but she saw no evidence of
abuse by father. Dr. Steinberg described the oldest child as
demonstrating “a pattern of communication that is sociopathic in
nature, and if not checked . . . he could become sociopathic.”
      The court held a disposition hearing on May 10 and 11,
2022. The court admitted in evidence the Department’s reports
detailing the social workers’ interactions with mother, father,
stepfather, and the children, as well as the foster mother and

                                 7
therapists. The court also heard testimony from social workers,
father, and Dr. Steinberg. Dr. Steinberg’s testimony was
consistent with her written report: she recommended a 90-day
transfer of custody to father, no contact with mother or stepfather
during that time, and a four-day reunification therapy session.
Dr. Steinberg also testified that, in her opinion, the children were
in danger of abuse, or of growing up to become abusers
themselves, if they remained with mother. Finally, Dr. Steinberg
testified that she believed mother was coaching the children to
resist contact with father. In response to questions from the
court, Dr. Steinberg stated that her opinion would “not
necessarily” change if she knew that mother and stepfather had
completed domestic violence counseling. When asked if her
recommendation would change if she knew “that the mother was
actively trying to get the children to see their father,” Dr.
Steinberg replied, “My best answer is, I don’t believe she is based
on what I saw.” Father’s testimony mirrored Dr. Steinberg’s;
namely, that the children were in danger if left with mother and
stepfather, and that they were at risk of physical and emotional
harm which, according to father, “needs to be reversed by a
period of placement with me, so I can work on these issues.”
       After all parties rested, the court heard argument. Father’s
counsel urged the court to adopt Dr. Steinberg’s
recommendations and to place the children with father. Counsel
for mother argued that the children should remain in mother’s
home. The Department argued that mother and stepfather had
taken responsibility for their conduct and had completed their
court-ordered programs, and that the children were doing well at
home and in school. The Department also argued that mother
had been cooperative with facilitating the children’s visits with

                                 8
father and there was no evidence of parental alienation by
mother. The Department argued that placement with father
would cause the children emotional harm, noting that father
himself elected to terminate his monitored visits on the ground
that they were detrimental to the children.
       In issuing its order, the court stated that it was “very
concerned about Dr. Steinberg’s testimony” and could not “give it
much weight at all.” The court expressed concern that Dr.
Steinberg had spent only one two-hour session with the children
and “she’s able to make a determination that the oldest child is
going to turn into [a] sociopath.” The court noted that Dr.
Steinberg “gave no evaluations, no diagnosis whatsoever,” and
made “a really draconian recommendation” that “really doesn’t
make any sense to me” – to take the children “from their mom
where they’re doing very well” and place them with father.
       The court found the children to be dependents of the court
and ordered them placed in the home of mother. The court
further ordered the children removed from father, finding there
was clear and convincing evidence that placing them with father
would pose an emotional risk to the children. The court ordered
monitored visits for father, joint legal custody, and that the
parents continue reunification therapy but that “Dr. Steinberg
not be a therapist in this case to the children or as a family
reunification therapist” because her ideas were “out of norm and
not appropriate.”
       The court ordered mother’s counsel to prepare an exit order
reflecting the court’s orders, which was entered on May 13, 2022.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal on May 20, 2022. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section

                                9
395, subdivision (a)(1), and Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(1).
                           DISCUSSION
       Father argues that the court abused its discretion when it
removed the children from him and placed them in the custody of
mother, and that substantial evidence does not support the
court’s findings.
       Section 361, subdivision (d) permits removal from a parent
with whom the child did not reside when the petition was filed
only upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence of a current
“ ‘substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being of the child,’ were the parent ‘to
live with the child or otherwise exercise the . . . right to physical
custody.’ ” (In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 777.) We
review a juvenile court’s dispositional order removing a child for
substantial evidence, “ ‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of
proof.’ ” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 245.) A juvenile
court’s decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue
a custody order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and we may
not disturb the trial court’s order unless it “ ‘ “exceeded the limits
of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently
absurd determination [citations].” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994)
7 Cal.4th 295, 318; Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 285, 300.) The court’s focus in determining exit
orders is the best interests of the child. (In re Chantal S. (1996)
13 Cal.4th 196, 206.)
       The parties appear to dispute whether the court removed
the children from father or instead made custody and visitation
orders, awarding mother sole physical custody, as part of its
decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction. The record makes

                                  10
clear that the court did both. The record further demonstrates
that the court’s orders were not an abuse of discretion and are
supported by substantial evidence.4
       The court found “that it would be detrimental to the safety,
protection, or physical or emotional well-being” of the children “to
be returned or placed in the home or the care, custody, and
control” of father, and accordingly found it “reasonable and
necessary to remove the child[ren] from the father.” Substantial
evidence supports this finding. When the Department opened the
case, the children had not seen father in over two years. After
the children were placed in foster care father refused monitored
visits with the children because he believed them “ ‘detrimental
to [the children].’ ” Father participated in one two hour session of
reunification therapy, which he himself deemed “ ‘a disaster,’ ”
with the oldest child “ ‘screaming and crying’ ” while the middle
child “held his head and cried.” The Department concluded that
“release to the father at disposition pose[d] a threat to the
children due to the children’s ongoing vitriolic, anxiety-ridden

4      The Department urges us to dismiss father’s appeal,
arguing that his opening brief only addresses evidence favorable
to his contentions, while ignoring evidence that supports the
court’s findings and order. The Department further argues that
father “fails to make any attempt to show, with legal argument
and citations to authorities, how the evidence does not sustain
the challenged order.” We agree with the Department that father
has not addressed all of the evidence, both favorable and
unfavorable, that was presented to the trial court. Nonetheless,
we will exercise our discretion to consider father’s appeal. “We do
not find [father’s] failure to summarize all of the evidence so
egregious that we should deem [his] arguments forfeited.”
(Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 375, 391.)

                                11
and volatile feelings in the presence of their father and paternal
relatives.” As the court observed at the hearing, “[t]he problem
with this case is that what happens during those visits, the
children are what I call voting with their feet. They’re not
comfortable being in the presence of the father, and it may be
because of the absence of him in . . . their life earlier before the
case came here. But their reactions are detrimental to continue
what we’re doing here. It’s not working.”
      Substantial evidence also supports the court’s order to
place the children in mother’s home. The evidence demonstrated
that the children were doing well in mother’s care, that mother
and stepfather had made progress in their therapies, and that
mother supported father’s efforts to have a relationship with the
children. The children “stated they are happy to be [at] home
with their mother and stepfather,” and “continue[d] to insist they
do not want to have contact with their father.” The court noted
that mother and stepfather “certainly took responsibility for what
their actions were and stepped up much more quickly than many
parents that we see here in dependency court. And as counsel
indicated, [mother and stepfather] have practically finished the
case plan, if not already done so in the time that the case has
been here.” The court properly found that awarding sole physical
custody of the children to mother was in their best interests.
      Father ignores this evidence and urges the court to
consider evidence that mother may have engaged in parental
alienation and that it was detrimental to place the children in
mother’s home given the history of domestic violence between
mother and stepfather. Father also argues that he “had a plan”
based on the recommendations of Dr. Steinberg. As to the latter,
the court made clear that it considered Dr. Steinberg’s testimony

                                12
and “cannot give it much weight at all.” We do not reweigh the
evidence or make findings of fact that differ from those made by
the trial court. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212,
228.) Our review is limited to determining, as we have, that
substantial evidence supports the court’s findings. Thus, the
trial court’s decision not to give credence to Dr. Steinberg’s
recommendation is one that we will not second-guess. Nor will
we revisit the trial court’s finding, based on its weighing of the
evidence, that mother was not attempting to alienate the children
from their father and that the children were safe in mother’s
home.
       Father also argues that the trial court abused its discretion
by “removing” the children from his custody, pointing to the
Department’s finding that father was “non-offending.” The fact
that father was non-offending is hardly dispositive. As noted, the
evidence before the court was that the children were estranged
from father when the Department opened the case, and that
attempts at monitored visits and reunification had been
unsuccessful. Father also ignores the preexisting family court
order that gave father only monitored visitation, and the
conclusion of the Department following its own investigation of
father in September of 2021, that father’s psychological problems
affected his relationship with the children and his suitability as a
custodial parent. We have already determined that substantial
evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the children were
properly returned to mother’s custody, and that the children
would be threatened with serious emotional injury in the event
they were put in father’s custody. Given these findings, the trial
court’s exit order was neither arbitrary, capricious nor absurd,
and therefore was not an abuse of the court’s discretion.

                                13
                            DISPOSITION
      The court’s May 11, 2022 dispositional order and May 13,
2022 juvenile custody order are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                           HEIDEL, J.*

We concur:

             EDMON, P. J.

             EGERTON, J.

*     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

                                14