Court Opinion

ID: 9409094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:04:24.318746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.662463
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/14/23 In re L.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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 L.D. et al., Persons Coming                               B314566, B314569
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
___________________________________                             (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              Super. Ct. Nos.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          21CCJP02382A-B &
AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            21CCJP02392C-D)

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

        v.

L.D.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Thomas E. Grodin, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
      Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

               __________________________________

      L.D. (Father) is the father of four children: L.D., Jr., D.D.,
Ad.D., and Au.D. (collectively, Minors).1 The juvenile court took
dependency jurisdiction over Minors based, among other things,
on domestic violence between Father and S.R. (Mother), the
mother of two of the children. The court ordered Minors removed
from Father’s custody, and in this consolidated appeal, we
consider whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s finding that removal was warranted under the
circumstances.

                         I. BACKGROUND
      A.     The Dependency Investigation and Petition
      In March 2021, Father and Mother had a series of violent
altercations while Minors and two of Mother’s other children
were present in the family home.2 In these fights, Father struck
Mother in the leg with a hammer, struck the back of her head
with his fist, and bit her arm. Preceding these acts of violence,
there had been other incidents: Father pushing Mother, Father
closing a door on her foot, Father putting alcohol in Mother’s

1
      At the time the dependency petition was filed, L.D., Jr. was
10 years old, D.D. was eight years old, Ad.D. was three years old,
and Au.D. was two years old.
2
      The other two children are not at issue in this appeal.

                                 2
contact lens case causing her eyes to burn, and Father kicking a
hole in a bathroom door.
       After one of these fights, Mother called 911 and Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Father for inflicting
corporal injury on a spouse. The deputies took photographs to
document a bruise and a bite mark on Mother’s upper left arm,
which she said had been inflicted by Father three days earlier.
The injuries on her arm, Mother explained, occurred after Father
punched her in the back of the head and she moved to prevent
him from continuing to hit her. Mother advised the deputies that
over the course of their relationship there had been
approximately 10 unreported incidents of domestic violence.
Father denied all of Mother’s allegations when questioned by the
deputies.
       Following Father’s arrest, a social worker for the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(the Department) interviewed Mother, Father, and the four
eldest children (none of those children showed any signs of
physical abuse).
       Mother explained that, over the course of the last nine
months, her relationship with Father had deteriorated to the
point that she had moved out of the family’s home shortly before
Father’s arrest. On the day of Father’s arrest, she came to the
apartment to collect some personal items and Father became
physically “aggressive,” prompting her to call 911 for assistance.
Mother told the social worker that she loved Father but she did
not like “what he’s doing to these kids”; for her children’s mental
health, she could no longer accept her relationship with Father

                                 3
and planned to divorce him and seek a protective order.3 In view
of Minors’ exposure to the domestic violence, Mother welcomed
the Department’s involvement and support.
      In Father’s interview, he dismissed and downplayed the
violent incidents with Mother. For example, Father maintained
it was Mother, not him, who contaminated her contact lens case.
With regard to the bite mark observed by deputies on Mother’s
upper arm, Father explained that during an argument his mouth
happened to be open when Mother went to “aggressive[ly]” hug
him; as a result, his mouth accidentally “made contact with her
arm.” Father stated Mother went “overboard” when she had him
arrested and pointed to her decision to bail him out of jail as
evidence that the matter had been overblown. Father also
claimed Mother had mental health issues (but said she was “not
dangerous”).4

3
      One month after Father’s arrest, Mother obtained a three-
year criminal protective order against Father. With the
exception of arranging visitation and the safe exchange of
children, the order prohibited any communications or contact
between Father and Mother and ordered him to stay 100 yards
away from her.
4
      Four days after stating Mother was not dangerous, Father
sought a temporary restraining order protecting him, Ad.D., and
Au.D. from Mother based on the contention that Mother was a
danger to herself and others. The court denied the order pending
a hearing because Father’s proof of violence by Mother was either
nonexistent or “vague.” The record does not reveal how Father’s
request for a restraining order was ultimately resolved, but it
appears Father may have decided to forego further pursuit of a
protective order.

                                4
      L.D., Jr. told the social worker that Father and Mother
“always fight” but Father had “never laid a hand” on Mother.
D.D. also described witnessing arguments between Father and
Mother, which made him “sad”; he too denied seeing any physical
altercations between them, however. C.G. said he heard “a lot” of
arguing between Father and Mother and revealed he had heard
sounds indicative of physical violence. As he put it, “I heard a
bump. That’s how I know [Father pushed Mother into a closet].”
A.G. related he heard arguments between Father and Mother in
the middle of the night that made him feel “afraid” and kept him
awake. A.G. also said he saw Father push Mother and overheard
her tell another family member that Father hit her in the leg
with a hammer.
      In May 2021, after determining the risk of abuse to Minors
was “high”, the Department filed two substantively identical
dependency petitions (one on behalf of L.D., Jr. and D.D., the
other on behalf of Ad.D., and Au.D.). The petitions alleged,
among other things, that Father’s history of domestic violence
with Mother put Minors at substantial risk of serious physical
harm.
      At an initial detention hearing, the juvenile court detained
Minors from Father due to a “whole host of potential dangers
that are based on the history of this case.” The court granted
Father unmonitored visitation with L.D., Jr. and D.D. in the
home of the paternal grandmother, with whom the two boys had
been placed, and monitored visitation with Ad.D., and Au.D., who
had been released into Mother’s custody and care.

                                5
       B.    Jurisdiction and Disposition
       In advance of the jurisdiction hearings on the dependency
petitions, a Department investigator re-interviewed Mother,
Father, and the four eldest children.
       During her interview, Mother recanted a number of her
previous allegations and minimized others. For example, she
denied Father had contaminated her contact lens case. Although
she agreed Father may have pushed her “twice” when he wanted
her to leave a room, she denied that he ever struck her with his
fist on the back of the head or bit her on the arm. Mother also
stated that on the day police were called and arrested Father,
Father had actually only “nudg[ed]” her to the ground. Mother
admitted she and Father were in regular communication with
each other in violation of the criminal protective order but she
described it as a positive development: “Before the criminal
protective order, we didn’t talk.”
       In his interview with the Department, Father suggested
there was no proof of any allegations of physical violence by him
against Mother. When questioned about specific violent episodes
in the past, Father denied culpability and identified Mother as
the offending party: he said she contaminated her own contact
lens case, he was defending himself from her when he kicked a
hole in the bathroom door, and the bite mark on Mother’s arm
was her fault (“she grabbed me in a head lock to keep me quiet
and I was saying help and she got me with my mouth open when
I was asking for help”). Like Mother, Father conceded he was
regularly communicating with Mother on issues unrelated to
visitation, which was prohibited by the terms of the criminal
protective order.

                                6
      L.D., Jr. and D.D. re-affirmed that when Father and
Mother were living together they often argued, but each child
continued to deny witnessing any physical violence. C.G. and
A.G. told the investigator that they heard “[l]ots of screaming and
fighting.” Although C.G. once again denied seeing any physical
violence, A.G. reiterated that he saw Father push Mother.
      In August 2021, the juvenile court held separate
adjudication hearings on each petition. Reports and notices
provided by the Department were admitted in evidence, and
Father offered no evidence at either hearing.
      The juvenile court sustained petition allegations that
Father struck Mother’s leg with a hammer, shoved her with his
knees causing her to fall to the ground, bit her, pushed her,
closed a door on her foot, and put alcohol in her contact lens case
causing her eyes to burn. The court also found Mother put
Father into a chokehold.5 The court struck an allegation that
Father pointed a gun at Mother as unsupported by the evidence.
The court declared Minors dependent children and ruled it was
premature to return Minors to Father because he currently posed
a substantial danger to their well-being. As part of his case plan,
the court ordered Father to undergo a 26-week domestic violence
program.

                        II. DISCUSSION
     The juvenile court’s decision to remove Minors from
Father’s custody is supported by the requisite substantial

5
      The court also sustained allegations that Minors were at
substantial risk of serious physical harm from Mother and
Father’s marijuana abuse.

                                7
evidence. As we shall explain, the juvenile court’s finding of a
danger to Minors’ physical and emotional well-being if placed
with Father is well justified in light of the domestic turmoil and
violence to which Minors had been exposed, Mother’s conduct in
response to the violent incidents, Father’s denial of any
responsibility for the conditions giving rise to dependency
jurisdiction, and the parents’ knowing violation of the criminal
protective order.
       A juvenile court may not remove a child from a parent’s
custody unless it “finds 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 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,6 § 361, subd.
(c)(1).) Our review of a removal order is for substantial evidence.
(In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 520; see also
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011-1012 [“[A]n
appellate court must account for the clear and convincing
standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does
not support a finding made under this standard”].)
       Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s jurisdiction
findings that establish multiple episodes of domestic violence
between the parents occurred. One child (A.G.) witnessed Father
pushing Mother, another (C.G.) heard sounds strongly suggestive
of violence, and all four of the older children consistently affirmed

6
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                 8
they were regularly subjected to verbal disputes between Father
and Mother that often devolved into screaming matches, which
left them feeling sad or, in case of at least one of the children,
afraid and unable to sleep.
       In Father’s statements to Department personnel, he either
disclaimed all responsibility for the violence or dismissed the
incidents as trivial. Father’s unwillingness to admit the extent of
his role in the domestic violence that led to dependency
jurisdiction supports a reasonable inference that similar
misconduct by him is to be expected in the future. (In re V.L.
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 156 [“Father denied a history of
domestic violence and accused mother of fabricating the 2017
incidents, indicating that he is unwilling to admit his role in the
domestic violence. The inference from his denial is that he is less
likely to change his behavior in the future”]; see also In re Gabriel
K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a
problem one fails to acknowledge”].) In addition, after Father’s
arrest, Mother and Father continued to have contact, including
contact in violation of the criminal protective order that was
meant to prevent further violent confrontations.
       “‘“Both common sense and expert opinion indicate spousal
abuse is detrimental to children.”’ [Citation.] Domestic violence
impacts children even if they are not the ones being physically
abused, ‘because they see and hear the violence and the
screaming.’ [Citations.]” (In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126,
134.) The detrimental effect of this domestic violence, which
there is good reason to believe will recur, is an appropriate
predicate for the juvenile court’s removal order under section 361,
subdivision (c). The danger of future domestic violence that
would endanger the children is exacerbated by the parents’

                                 9
demonstrated disregard for the protective order issued by the
criminal court, and that knowing disregard of a court order also
provides a sound foundation to believe no reasonable means short
of removal from Father’s custody would be effective in
safeguarding Minors’ physical health.
       The case on which Father principally relies to argue the
contrary, In re Jasmine G. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (Jasmine
G.), involved materially different facts and does not support
reversal here. In contrast to the parents involved in Jasmine G.
(id. at 288), Father never accepted responsibility for any of his
actions which led to the filing of the petition; he instead
steadfastly denied or downplayed the violence that occurred
when speaking to the police, to the Department, and to the
juvenile court. Moreover, unlike the parents in Jasmine G. (id. at
288-289), Father did not take any meaningful steps (e.g.,
enrolling in counseling or other services) during the three-month
period between the filing of the petitions and the disposition
hearings to address the domestic violence.
       Finally, the fact that none of the children had yet suffered
actual physical harm as a result of the violence between Father
and Mother does not undermine the evidence supporting removal.
“‘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.]” (In re
N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-170.)

                                10
                         DISPOSITION
     The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      BAKER, Acting P. J.
We concur:

     MOOR, J.

     KIM, J.

                               11