Court Opinion

ID: 9403368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 22:03:28.22762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.466797
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/20/23 In re Z.E. CA2/4
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                       DIVISION FOUR

In re Z.E., a Person Coming                                   B320946
Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                            Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                        Super. Ct. No.
AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                          19LJJP00142

       Plaintiff and Respondent,

       v.

A.M.,

       Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Donald A. Buddle Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
      Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Stephen Watson, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                       INTRODUCTION

       The juvenile court issued an order restricting A.M.’s
(mother’s) custody and visitation of her child Z.E. On appeal,
mother contends the court’s order was an abuse of discretion. The
Department of Children and Family Services (Department)
disagrees, arguing the order was reasonable and in furtherance of
Z.E.’s best interests given mother’s history of abusing drugs, lack
of progress in her parenting skills, and other inappropriate
behavior, including sending Z.E.’s father threatening messages.
As discussed in greater detail below, we agree with the
Department and affirm.

                        BACKGROUND

      On March 15, 2021, the juvenile court sustained a Welfare
and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition filed on behalf of
newborn Z.E. In sustaining the petition, the court found mother
posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to Z.E. due to
her history of abusing substances including methamphetamine,
amphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, as well as using drugs
while pregnant.
      At the disposition hearing on March 23, 2021, the juvenile
court declared Z.E. a dependent, removed him from parental
custody, ordered him suitably placed, granted each parent three
monitored three-hour visits per week, ordered reunification
services for the child’s presumed father (father), and bypassed
reunification services for mother.
      In March 2021, mother enrolled in a three-month inpatient
treatment program. While in treatment, mother’s three weekly

1     All undesignated statutory references are to this code.

                                2
visits with Z.E. were scheduled as virtual visits. The foster
parents noted mother’s virtual calls were initially inconsistent,
then stopped altogether when mother was discharged from the
treatment program in June 2021.
       The Department later reported mother had been
participating, and making progress, in services. Because of
mother’s progress, the Department liberalized her visits with
Z.E., allowing two to four-hour unmonitored visits at the
maternal grandmother’s home.
       In September 2021, the juvenile court terminated the
suitable placement order, released Z.E. to the custody of father,
ordered father to participate in family maintenance services, and
granted mother monitored visits.
       In February 2022, the Department reported father had
completed all his court-ordered services and was caring for the
child, attending to all his medical needs, and providing him a safe
home. Z.E. had made remarkable medical and developmental
improvements, and the social worker observed a strong bond
between the child and father.
       Mother was having weekly monitored visitation with Z.E.
but had not been consistent in confirming visits beforehand,
resulting in many canceled visits. The problem continued despite
the social worker advising mother to confirm visits 24 hours in
advance. The social worker observed a visit and noted mother
engaged and played well with Z.E., keeping the child’s attention.
On one occasion, mother had to be admonished not to bring her
oldest child to visits with Z.E. because the oldest child had not
been approved for visits.
       The Department recommended the juvenile court terminate
jurisdiction and grant father sole legal and sole physical custody

                                3
of Z.E., with mother having monitored visits. The Department
noted father had shown the skills, knowledge, and motivation to
properly care for Z.E., whereas mother had a history of abusing
drugs, leading to the child testing positive for marijuana at birth.
      In March 2022, the Department reported father had
disclosed that the maternal grandmother had been contacting
him for a long time telling him he was not a fit parent and Z.E.
should be given to the maternal side of the family. He said that
around September 2021, the maternal grandmother started
having mother text him stating that she “knows an
administrator” at the Department and “can find out anything”
about him. Father added that the maternal grandmother said she
would make sure he did not keep Z.E. The Department noted
father appeared to be taking excellent care of Z.E.
      In a report filed April 1, 2022, the Department provided a
summary of the case with respect to mother. In addition to
reiterating the details described above, the summary noted
mother went several months after her treatment program
without contacting Z.E. or the Department. The summary also
noted that during a visit in December 2021, a social worker noted
mother mostly behaved appropriately with Z.E., but did not seem
to know how to properly clean Z.E. when changing his diaper.
      The report also noted that sometime around September
2021, the maternal grandmother, who had been threatening
father and telling him he was not a fit parent, started having
mother text him with threats as well. Later, in December 2021,
mother told the Department the court had terminated her
reunification services without her knowledge, and she was ready
to take Z.E. back. Mother then blamed the social worker for
having lost custody of one of mother’s other children, and

                                 4
subsequently sent the social worker rude text messages. On
January 3, 2022, mother did not confirm a visit until the morning
of the visit, which resulted in the visit being canceled; mother
then missed two more visits. In February 2022, father informed
the Department he had received a “rude call” from mother
threatening to report him. At a later visit, while the social worker
was holding Z.E. waiting for mother to arrive, a person who
identified herself as mother’s sister approached the social worker,
asked to see the child, and referenced how the child would return
to mother. The social worker advised the person that she was not
authorized to attend the visit.
       The Department assessed that mother continued to
struggle with following visitation rules, taking accountability for
her actions, and progressing in her parenting skills. The
Department was also concerned about the maternal
grandmother’s intervention in the case and verbal threats to
father. The Department continued to recommend that
jurisdiction be terminated, with father receiving sole legal and
physical custody of Z.E., and mother having monitored visitation.
       At a section 364 hearing on April 13, 2022, the Department
entered its reports into evidence, and mother entered into
evidence letters indicating she had completed a substance abuse
program and a parenting course on June 14, 2021. Counsel for
the Department and counsel for Z.E. objected to mother’s
evidence, arguing the letters were not authenticated, timely, or
consistent with one another. The juvenile court noted the letters
were seemingly inconsistent and stated it would admit mother’s
evidence, giving it the weight it deserved.
       Mother objected to the Department’s custody
recommendation, noted she had completed some services, and

                                 5
asked for joint legal and joint physical custody or unmonitored
visits.
        The juvenile court awarded father sole legal and sole
physical custody of Z.E., granted mother monitored visitation,
specified that the maternal grandmother was not to monitor
mother’s visits, and terminated jurisdiction pending receipt of a
juvenile custody order.
        The juvenile court received the custody order on April 15,
2022 and terminated jurisdiction.

                          DISCUSSION

        When a juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a minor,
it is statutorily permitted to issue custody and visitation orders.
(§ 362.4, subd. (a).)2 Such orders are commonly referred to as
“exit orders.” (In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455.)
In issuing exit orders, juvenile courts look to the totality of the
circumstances to assess what outcome is in the child’s best
interests. (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 963-964.)

2     Section 362.4, subdivision (a) provides: “If the juvenile
court terminates its jurisdiction over a minor who has been
adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court prior to the
minor’s attainment of the age of 18 years, and proceedings for
dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal
separation, of the minor’s parents, or proceedings to establish the
paternity of the minor child brought under the Uniform
Parentage Act, Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of
Division 12 of the Family Code, are pending in the superior court
of any county, or an order has been entered with regard to the
custody of that minor, the juvenile court on its own motion, may
issue a protective order as provided for in Section 213.5 or as
defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, and an order
determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.”

                                 6
Juvenile courts have broad discretion in making such
assessments. A reviewing court will not overturn an exit order
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or absurd. (In re Stephanie M.
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
       Applying these principles, we conclude the juvenile court’s
custody and visitation order was not an abuse of discretion. As
discussed above, the record reflects that mother has long
struggled with abusing drugs, used drugs while pregnant with
Z.E., did not progress with her parenting skills, did not assume
responsibility for her actions that interfered with her parenting,
and sent Z.E.’s father threatening messages. Given these
circumstances, the juvenile court’s custody and visitation order
was not arbitrary, absurd, or unreasonable.

                                 7
                         DISPOSITION

      The custody and supervision order is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                             CURREY, Acting P. J.
We concur:

MORI, J.

ZUKIN, J.*

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

                                 8