Court Opinion

ID: 9398742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 00:03:44.200942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.009863
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/31/23 In re T.M. CA1/4
              NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                             DIVISION FOUR

 In re T.M., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 HUMBOLDT COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
 HEALTH AND SERVICES,
                                                                       A165709
              Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                                    (Humboldt County
                                                                       Super. Ct. No. JV170099)
 D.M.,
              Defendant and Appellant.

          Damian M. (father) appeals from a dispositional order on a
Welfare & Institutions Code1 section 387 petition removing his child, 9-
year-old Tamarin M., from his custody, and then terminating the
court’s jurisdiction with a grant of sole physical and legal custody to
Tamarin M.’s mother and bi-monthly visitation for father. (§§ 387, 361,
362.4.) Father argues that substantial evidence does not support the
removal order, and the court abused its discretion in making the
custody and visitation order. We affirm.

       All further references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code
          1

unless otherwise specified.

                                                           1
      The parties are familiar with the facts and lengthy procedural
history of this case, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for
publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore resolve
this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Standard 8.1 of the
Standards of Judicial Administration and consistent with
constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [“Decisions of the
Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in
writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th
1232, 1263 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies
constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to
counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the reasons, grounds,
or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need
not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the
parties’ positions”]).
                              DISCUSSION
The Removal Findings
      Father first challenges the dispositional order removing Tamarin
M., arguing there was insufficient evidence supporting the court’s
findings of substantial danger to the minor if she were returned home
and no reasonable means to protect her without removal. Where
removal from a parent is at issue, the court must make removal
findings under section 361, subdivision (c)—that is, the court must find,
by clear and convincing evidence, that “[t]here is or would be a
substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical
or emotional well-being of the [child] if the [child] were returned home,”
that there are no reasonable means short of removal to protect the
minor, and that the Department made reasonable efforts to avoid

                                     2
removal.2 (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) We review the court’s removal findings
for substantial evidence. (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 520.)
      The court’s findings were properly supported. This dependency
commenced in 2017 because of father’s arrest for public intoxication
and child endangerment. The minor was removed from his custody
again in 2020 after he drove with her while intoxicated and without a
driver’s license. Father has a history of arrests related to intoxication,
and the Department filed the most recent section 387 petition because,
despite a court order to abstain from alcohol, father twice tested
positive for alcohol and failed to pick up Tamarin M. at a custody
exchange. The section 387 disposition report revealed that father’s
attendance at his substance abuse use disorder program was sporadic.
Although he eventually completed the program on June 1, 2022, only
six days later, father was again arrested for drunk driving. This
evidence was more than sufficient for the juvenile court to find, by clear
and convincing evidence, that father’s continued abuse of alcohol placed
Tamarin M. at substantial risk of harm, and there were no reasonable
means short of removal to protect her.
The Custody and Visitation Determinations
      Father also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion
when it awarded sole physical and legal custody to mother, with bi-
monthly visitation for father. “When the juvenile court terminates its
jurisdiction over a dependent child, section 362.4 authorizes it to make
custody and visitation orders that will be transferred to an existing

      2 Over the course of this dependency, father received family
reunification services and family maintenance services. He does not
claim in his opening brief that he was not offered reasonable services.

                                     3
family court file and remain in effect until modified or terminated by
the superior court.” (In re Roger S. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 25, 30,
fn. omitted.) We review the juvenile court’s section 362.4 exit order for
abuse of discretion. (In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.)
      Father argues mother’s history is very turbulent and presents
significant risk to Tamarin M., particularly without third-party
supervision or accountability to father, but he fails to show an abuse of
discretion. Mother’s conduct led to the court sustaining a section 342
petition in 2017, and, in 2019, Tamarin M. was removed from mother’s
custody after she was arrested for driving drunk with Tamarin M. in
the car. However, in 2020, the court ordered the resumption of shared
custody, and mother retained custody from that time forward. The
section 387 disposition report stated that mother was compliant with
her case plan, and the Department did not observe any signs of drug or
alcohol usage. The Department also opined that mother was willing
and able to protect her child and meet her basic needs for safety and
stability. Father also did not raise concerns about Tamarin M.’s safety
with mother at the final dispositional hearing.
      Father, on the other hand, engaged in significant alcohol abuse
as described above, and he acknowledges his numerous relapses. He
points out that the visitation supervisor did not observe him to be
under the influence in his March and April 2022 visits, but mother
reported that Tamarin M. smelled alcohol on father’s breath at one
visit. Notably, father was arrested for drunk driving again on June 7,
2022. From August 2021 to January 2022, while in father’s care,
Tamarin M. was also absent or tardy on 16 days from school. After her
most recent detention, supervised visitation was set for father at twice

                                    4
a week for two hours, but he missed two of ten visits. Tamarin M. told
the social worker in March 2022 that she “ ‘like[d how things are right
now,’ being home with her mother and having visits with her father,”
and she preferred things stay like that for a while. Finally, the
Department was concerned about the parents’ contentious relationship
and their ability to coparent, despite the rendition of services, and
father was not engaging in coparenting counseling.
       The foregoing evidence supports the juvenile court’s
determination that father’s retention of physical custody and
participation in making important decisions about Tamarin M.’s
welfare would not be in her best interests. It is also sufficient to
support the court’s visitation order for eight hours of supervised
visitation every other Sunday. Father fails to establish that the
juvenile court “ ‘ “exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an
arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ” (In re
Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
                             DISPOSITION
       The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

                                            BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOLDMAN, J.
FINEMAN, J.
In re T.M. (A165709)

       
       Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                     5