Court Opinion

ID: 9840285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 19:05:39.826594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:01.325204
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/15/23 In re J.D. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 J.D. et al., Persons Coming                               B323583
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No.
                                                                 19CCJP01722H-J)
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 E.D.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.
     Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              2
       The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over
E.D.’s (Father’s) three children: Jan.D., Jo.D., and Jac.D.,
following an incident in which Father arrived home drunk with a
self-inflicted gunshot wound, hit the minors, and threatened to
kill them. Though the facts suggest a rather obvious answer, we
are asked to decide whether substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s order removing the children from Father’s
custody and whether the court abused its discretion when it
denied Father overnight and weekend visits and ordered him to
participate in parenting classes.

                        I. BACKGROUND
      Jan.D. was born in 2006, Jo.D. was born in 2008, and
Jac.D. was born in 2009. Father was awarded sole legal and
physical custody of the minors in 2019 after the juvenile court
sustained a dependency petition alleging they were at risk based
on V.M.’s (Mother’s) conduct.1
      The events that led to the dependency orders challenged in
this appeal occurred in June 2022, when the Los Angeles
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)
was notified of a disturbance at the family home. The

1
       In 2021, the juvenile court sustained another dependency
petition alleging Father failed to seek timely mental health
treatment for Jan.D. and Jac.D. Father was ordered to
participate in drug and alcohol services, family preservation
services, and individual counseling. The juvenile court
terminated dependency jurisdiction about six months later, and
this court dismissed as moot Father’s appeal from the juvenile
court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order. (In re G.D.
(Aug. 16, 2022, B314503) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                3
Department was informed police responded to the home late one
evening after receiving reports that Father was assaulting the
minors. The minors ran outside when officers arrived and said
Father had hit them. The officers saw Father inside the home
with blood on his hand. Father attempted to close the door on the
officers, but he was taken into custody without further incident.
Father had a gunshot wound to his left hand, and officers
discovered a bullet hole and traces of skin in his car. Officers did
not observe any obvious physical injuries to the minors.2
       Jan.D. told police that Jo.D. woke her up because Father
was outside in his car and appeared intoxicated. Jan.D.
approached Father with her younger siblings and Father “began
to yell” at her. When he “abruptly” exited the car, Jan.D. ran
inside and locked the door. She let Father inside, however,
because she feared the situation “would escalate further” as
Father “began to bang on the door.”
       Jan.D. told officers that Father hit all three minors
multiple times and said he would “kill [them] if [they] [did not]
listen” to him. Jan.D. directed Jac.D. to have a neighbor call the
police, and when the neighbor came to the family home to
intervene, he and Father “got in a verbal altercation.” Jan.D.
then directed Jo.D. to remove Father’s gun from his car (he
“always keeps a gun inside the vehicle”) because she was afraid
he “might use the gun against [the minors].” Police recovered
this gun plus several others that Father kept in his bedroom.

2
     The police report noted cockroaches and rat feces
throughout the kitchen and disturbing slogans written on the
minors’ bedroom walls.

                                 4
Jac.D. declined to provide a statement to officers because he was
“used to this type of behavior.”
       A Department social worker spoke with the minors the
following day. Jan.D. expanded on her statements to police,
explaining Father was drunk and told her he accidentally shot
himself in the hand. Jan.D. tried to help him clean the wound,
but he “refused” and “began to hit her and her siblings.” He told
them, “you are the worst thing that ever happened to me. I have
to do all this for you guys and you don’t do anything for me. I am
going to kill you.” Jan.D. knew Father kept a loaded handgun in
his car, so she and her siblings ran outside to hide it.3 Jan.D.
said Father occasionally drinks, but he was never aggressive and
had not previously abused her or her siblings. Jo.D. and Jac.D.
both said Father drinks “a lot,” but similarly agreed he had never
become aggressive before.
       A Department social worker discussed the incident with the
minors once again about three weeks later. All three of the
minors stated Father pushed them out of his way after he exited
the car, but Jan.D. and Jac.D. now denied that Father hit them.
Jan.D. also denied Father said he was going to kill them. Jo.D.
and Jac.D. now also suggested Father was not a heavy drinker.
       Father told a Department social worker he was drunk the
day of the incident. He “blacked out” and had no recollection of
“anything after arriving home,” but he “was apologetic and took
full responsibility for his actions despite not knowing exactly
what had occurred.” Father said the minors are aware he keeps
guns in safes in the home, but he maintained they “have never

3
     Jo.D. and Jac.D. corroborated Jan.D.’s account of what
happened.

                                5
had access to the guns.” Father acknowledged alcohol was “a
‘demon’ he needed to overcome” and explained he had “turn[ed] to
alcohol to cope” with stress caused by work, his mother’s health
problems, and fatherhood. More specifically, with respect to
fatherhood, Father emphasized “he had been struggling with how
to respond to his children regarding their mother’s actions and
their emotions regarding not having her in their life.”
       The juvenile court detained the minors from Father in July
2022. As of August 2022, Father was visiting the minors at his
sister’s home every weekend and speaking to them via video
every day. He was participating in a substance abuse program, a
parenting class, and individual therapy.
       At a jurisdiction and disposition hearing in September
2022, Father pled no contest to dependency petition allegations
that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious
physical harm based on Father’s physical abuse, his history of
substance abuse (including marijuana and alcohol), and his
possession of a firearm. The Department asked the juvenile court
to remove the minors from Father’s care and order monitored
visitation. Father requested that the minors be released to his
custody or that he be granted unmonitored visitation, including
weekends and vacations. Counsel for the minors joined in
Father’s requests, with the condition that the juvenile court
should order unannounced visits by Department social workers
and/or drug testing.
       The juvenile court ordered the minors removed from
Father’s custody with monitored day visits in the home of
Father’s sister. Father was also allowed unmonitored visits in a

                               6
neutral or public setting provided he did not drive the minors.4
The juvenile court ordered Father to participate in a full drug
and alcohol program, parenting classes, and individual
counseling.

                         II. DISCUSSION
       Father challenges three elements of the disposition order:
the removal of the minors from his custody, the denial of
unmonitored overnight and weekend visits, and the requirement
that he attend parenting classes. All of the challenges lack merit.
       Although the incident triggering the dependency petition
might have been out of character for Father (Jac.D. did tell the
police the children were used to that sort of behavior, however),
substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination
that the minors needed to be removed from his custody until his
issues with stress and alcohol had been addressed. Similar
reasoning supports the juvenile court’s visitation order; the safety
of the minors alone in his care could not be reasonably assured
until Father demonstrated he is in control of the issues that
precipitated the violent incident in which he hit his children,
threatened to kill them, shot himself, and was so out of control
that his children felt compelled to handle a loaded firearm to
move it out of his reach. Finally, Father forfeited his challenge to
the order that he attend parenting classes by failing to object in
the juvenile court and, in any case, the order is justified by

4
      Although the juvenile court denied Father’s blanket
request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits, it
indicated it would assess any requests to accompany the children
on extended trips “on a case-by-case basis . . . depending on
where the trip is and who else will be there.”

                                 7
Father’s acknowledgment that his difficulty addressing the
minors’ emotional needs is among the stressors that caused him
to drink.

      A.     Removal
      A juvenile court may not remove a child from a parent’s
custody unless the court finds “[t]here 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.” (Welf. &
Inst. Code,5 § 361, subd. (c)(1).) “‘The parent need not be
dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed
before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on
averting harm to the child.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a
parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.
[Citation.]” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-170.)
We review the juvenile court’s order removing the minors from
Father’s custody for substantial evidence. (In re V.L. (2020) 54
Cal.App.5th 147, 154-155; see also Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.)
      Father contends there were means short of removal by
which the juvenile court could have protected the minors, such as
“preservation services, family therapy, or wraparound services.”
Although Father characterizes beating and threatening to kill the
minors in June 2022 as an isolated occurrence attributable to

5
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

                               8
stress and alcohol, nothing in the appellate record indicates the
stressors he discussed with a Department social worker had
abated by the time of the disposition hearing. Father’s
acknowledgement that alcohol was a “demon” he needed to
overcome and statements by two of the minors that he drank “a
lot” indicate his issues with alcohol required longer than the
couple of months between the June 2022 incident and the
September 2022 disposition hearing to address. Father does not
explain how the services he proposes would have accelerated this
process or otherwise ensured the minors’ safety. Under these
circumstances, the juvenile court properly determined the
services Father proposes were not a reasonable alternative to
removal.

      B.      Visitation
      A disposition order granting reunification services must
provide for visitation “[i]n order to maintain ties between the
parent . . . and the child, and to provide information relevant to
deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of his or
her parent . . . .” (§ 362.1, subd. (a); In re T.M. (2016) 4
Cal.App.5th 1214, 1218.) Although “[v]isitation shall be as
frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child”
(§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A)), “[n]o visitation order shall jeopardize
the safety of the child” (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B)). “The power to
regulate visits between dependent children and their parents
rests with the juvenile court and its visitation orders will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” (In re D.P.
(2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1070.)
      Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in
denying him unmonitored overnight and weekend visits because

                                 9
the June 2022 incident was an isolated occurrence and he “had
positive visits with the minors and was protective of them.” But
the juvenile court’s concerns about visitation had nothing to do
with Father’s conduct toward the children when he is sober. The
relatively unobtrusive limitations placed on Father’s visits with
the minors represent the minimum necessary to ensure Father is
not intoxicated during visits. Because Father had only a couple
of months to demonstrate that he was addressing his issues with
stress and alcohol at the time of the disposition hearing, the
juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in denying his
blanket request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits.

       C.    Parenting Classes
       As a general rule, the failure to object in the juvenile court
forfeits a parent’s right to pursue an issue on appeal. (In re S.B.
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; accord In re N.O. (2019) 31
Cal.App.5th 899, 935 [“‘A party forfeits the right to claim error as
grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the
objection in the trial court. [Citations.] Forfeiture . . . applies in
juvenile dependency litigation and is intended to prevent a party
from standing by silently until the conclusion of the
proceedings’”].) Although an appellate court has the discretion to
excuse such forfeiture, it should do so “rarely and only in cases
presenting an important legal issue.” (S.B., supra, at 1293.)
       Here, Father did not object to the juvenile court’s order that
he attend parenting classes. Indeed, his attorney emphasized
that he was already participating in parenting classes—and
implied they were helping—at the disposition hearing. As a
result, Father forfeited his challenge to this order on appeal.

                                 10
       Even if the argument had not been forfeited, Father’s
contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
ordering him to participate in parenting classes because “[h]e had
successfully cared for the children as a single parent for many
years” and the June 2022 incident was due to a “temporary
period of acute stress” lacks merit. “‘The juvenile court has broad
discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the
child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance
with this discretion. [Citations.]’” (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45
Cal.4th 522, 532.) Based on Father’s acknowledgment that he
struggled to provide the minors with emotional support—and
that the stress associated with this contributed to the June 2022
incident—the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
ordering him to participate in developmentally appropriate
parenting classes.

                                11
                         DISPOSITION
     The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           BAKER, J.

We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     KIM, J.

                               12