Court Opinion

ID: 9840474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 18:03:43.028103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:33.429669
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/18/23 In re A.T. 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 A.T. et al., Persons Coming                              B322205
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                               (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No.
                                                               22CCJP01716A-B)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.T.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.
     Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services.
      Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Respondent M.G.

                               2
       Alejandro T. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s
dependency jurisdiction findings and disposition order regarding
his daughters A.T. and G.T. (collectively, Daughters),1 who were
living with their mother Marissa G. (Mother) when dependency
proceedings commenced. The court took jurisdiction over the
children after finding Father abused alcohol and engaged in
domestic violence with his current wife, Bobbie F. (Bobbie). The
court then terminated jurisdiction with an order giving Mother
full custody of the children and directing monitored visitation for
Father. In this appeal from the order, Father does not challenge
the court’s termination of dependency jurisdiction. Instead, he
only asks us to decide whether substantial evidence supports the
jurisdiction findings and the court’s removal of the children from
his custody before it terminated jurisdiction.

                        I. BACKGROUND
      A.    Domestic Violence Between Father and Bobbie
      In April 2022, police were called to the home where Father,
Bobbie, their four-year-old daughter H.T., and Bobbie’s
seventeen-year-old son M.C. were then living. M.C. called 911
after he heard Father and Bobbie have a loud argument and saw
Bobbie bleeding.
      When the police arrived, Bobbie had a swollen lip, had
dried blood in and/or around her nose, and was extremely
impaired by alcohol. Bobbie told one of the responding officers
that she had run into Father’s hand. Father was not present
when the police arrived, but he was later detained by police.

1
      A.T. and G.T. were fifteen and fourteen years old,
respectively, when dependency proceedings commenced.

                                 3
       Bobbie spoke to a Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) social worker the
same day the police were called. She said she had gone to a bar
with Father, where she was hit by another woman. Both Father
and Bobbie drank at the bar, but Bobbie believed Father drank
less than she did because he was driving. On their way home,
Father told Bobbie he was going to leave her because he was
embarrassed by her behavior at the bar.
       Once back at home, Bobbie begged Father not to leave and
tried to prevent him from taking his clothes out of the closet.
According to Bobbie, Father attempted to access the closet while
Bobbie was blocking his way, causing the closet door to crack.
Father left soon thereafter because he did not want to be arrested
when the police arrived. Father used to be a police officer and
thought he would be wrongfully charged with hitting Bobbie if he
remained. Bobbie claimed Father did not hit her.
       Bobbie additionally told the social worker there had been
one previous domestic violence incident between her and Father
approximately five years ago. On that occasion, the violence left
Bobbie with a bump on her head and a scratch on her side.
Bobbie also disclosed she and Father use to drink together
frequently but she claimed they stopped doing so several months
earlier because the drinking was causing arguments. Father had
moved out of the home for approximately 10 months because of
those arguments and he had only begun living back at the home
for two to three months before the police were called on this most
recent occasion.
       When Father spoke to a social worker, his account of the
April 2022 domestic violence that prompted M.C.’s 911 call
matched Bobbie’s description of what happened in all material

                                4
respects. M.C.’s account of what happened, however, was
different. He reported that when Bobbie and Father returned
home from the bar, there was no bruising or blood on Bobbie’s
face. Bobbie tersely said hello to him and went into her bedroom.
Then, after Father entered the bedroom, M.C. heard wrestling
sounds, lots of movement, and the sound of a punch. He entered
the room, saw Father trying to push the closet door open to get
his clothes, and saw Bobbie with a swollen lip and dried blood in
and around her nose.
       M.C. also told the interviewing social worker that Father
and Bobbie get drunk a lot, their drinking leads to arguments,
and they argue all the time. So far as M.C. knew, Bobbie and
Father had two prior physical altercations: M.C. observed Father
push Bobbie during an argument two years earlier and saw
Father hit Bobbie with a branch once before their daughter H.T.
was born. According to M.C., Bobbie’s daughters C.F. and S.F.
live with their father because they do not like the arguments
between Bobbie and Father.
       Bobbie’s daughters C.F. and S.F. (who do not share a father
with M.C.) provided similar statements about Bobbie and
Father’s relationship and their drinking habits. C.F., who was
thirteen years old at the time of the interview, said Bobbie and
Father drink beer and vodka heavily to the point that they get
drunk and argue. C.F. believed Bobbie and Father engaged in
two physical altercations during their relationship: an instance
when Father pushed Bobbie into a door during an argument a
few years prior and an occasion a year ago when Father pushed
Bobbie into a planter in front of their apartment building (when
the police arrived, Bobbie denied he pushed her). C.F. also
explained Bobbie and Father had broken up and gotten back

                                5
together many times. Twelve-year-old S.F. echoed C.F.’s report
that Father pushed Bobbie into a planter, though she believed
the incident occurred two years prior to the interview. C.F. and
S.F. moved into their father’s home in August 2021 because they
could no longer take the arguing between Bobbie and Father.
They usually visit Bobbie outside of her home, and when they
occasionally go inside her home, they do not stay long.2

       B.   The Department Investigates Daughters’ Welfare
       Daughters were living with Mother when the Department
began investigating the domestic violence and alcohol abuse
involving Father and Bobbie.
       During her interview with a Department social worker,
Mother reported she was married to Father for 12 years and had
a family law order in place from 2018 or 2019. Mother and
Father shared legal custody of G.T. and A.T. equally, but Mother
had 70% physical custody and Father had 30%. Father was
supposed to have visits with the children every Thursday and
every other Sunday, but Father was not consistent with his
visits. There was one incident during their marriage where
Father attempted to hit Mother, but he did not make contact.
       According to Mother, Father became a heavy drinker after
they broke up. He stopped drinking for five or six years at some
point, but he thereafter started drinking again. Mother informed
the social worker she was aware Father had hit Bobbie in the

2
       Other extended family members also reported Father and
Bobbie broke up and got back together several times, and that
the fighting between the two had been going on for years.

                                6
presence of Daughters before. According to Mother, Bobbie and
Father were both heavy drinkers.
       A.T. told the Department that Father and Bobbie argue a
lot. When A.T. was 11, she heard something falling downstairs
and later saw police placing handcuffs on Father. She did not
witness the incident, but she thinks Father pushed Bobbie down
the stairs. A.T. said Father and Bobbie drink, but she had not
observed them looking or acting differently after doing so.
       G.T. similarly reported Father and Bobbie argue a lot.
During an incident a few years earlier, the police were called to
the home when Father and Bobbie were arguing. Father
appeared to be drunk at the time, and he told G.T. to get in the
car. A police officer asked him if he was okay to drive children,
Father said no, and they went back into the house. G.T. reported
Father and Bobbie drink, but she had not observed them to act
differently.

     C.      The Dependency Petition and Initial Court
             Proceedings
       In early May 2022, the Department filed a six-count
dependency petition alleging A.T. and G.T. were at substantial
risk of serious physical harm from, among other things, Father’s
domestic violence with Bobbie, Father’s alcohol abuse, and
Bobbie’s unlimited access to Daughters despite her alcohol abuse.
The court held a detention hearing and found a prima facie case
existed that A.T. and G.T. were persons described by Welfare and

                                7
Institutions Code, section 300.3 The court detained A.T. and G.T.
from Father and ordered them released to Mother’s custody.
      During another interview with the Department, A.T.
reported she and G.T. stopped sleeping at Father’s house because
Father and Bobbie were always arguing, and it scared her and
G.T. A.T. said she had never seen Father hit Bobbie, but she
mentioned she saw him push Bobbie down the stairs once. A.T.
said she had seen Father drink, but she was not scared of him
when he drank and she did not think he had ever been
intoxicated while driving with her in the car. A.T. was not sure if
Father was currently drinking.
      G.T. said she had seen Father hit Bobbie once “a long time
ago.” They were driving, both were drunk, they started to fight,
and Father hit Bobbie on the arm. She also said she was scared
because Father and Bobbie were yelling at each other and Father
was driving really fast. G.T. said this happened “a long time
ago.” G.T. additionally said Father and Bobbie “were always
arguing[ ] and yelling at each other” and they would “always
come home drunk.”4 According to both A.T. and G.T., Bobbie was
a mean drunk who would yell at them.
      Mother stated Daughters had told her about Father and
Bobbie fighting. As a result, Mother attempted to obtain full
custody of Daughters and attempted to minimize their visits with
Father and Bobbie. Mother once called the police and said she

3
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
4
      At another point during the same interview, which took
place in June 2022, G.T. said she had not seen Father drunk in “a
long time.”

                                 8
did not want her daughters to go over for the weekend, but the
police told her she could not prevent them from doing so because
there was a custody order in place. In 2019, Father agreed
Daughters would benefit from not sleeping over at his home and
not having contact with Bobbie. Since then, they have not had
contact with Bobbie. Visits with Father have been minimal,
about once or twice per month, because Father would often
cancel. Father’s drinking was unpredictable. Mother would ask
him not to drink with Daughters present, but he would always
ask her to stay out of his personal life.
      When interviewed, Father claimed there was never any
physical fighting between him and Bobbie. He admitted to
arguing with Bobbie in front of Daughters, but he maintained it
was never physical. He also said Daughters had not been around
Father and Bobbie together for over a year and a half. When
asked specifically about the confrontation in the car described by
G.T., Father said he hit the car’s arm rest, not Bobbie, and denied
he had been drinking before driving.5 Father also denied abusing
alcohol, stating he would drink on the weekends but he was never
intoxicated and had never been intoxicated in front of Daughters.
Father reported he was currently separated from Bobbie and did
not want to continue a relationship with her.

      D.     The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
      The court held a jurisdiction and disposition hearing in
July 2022. The court amended the petition by interlineation to
strike allegations against Mother, dismissed the count alleging

5
      Father did have a prior conviction for driving under the
influence as a result of an arrest in January 2000.

                                9
was a substantial risk Daughters would suffer serious physical
harm inflicted non-accidentally (count a-1), and sustained the
remaining counts (b-1, b-2, b-3, j-1, and j-2) with amendments as
to Father.
       As amended and sustained by the juvenile court, count b-1
of the petition states Father and Bobbie have a history of
engaging in violent altercations in the presence of Daughters and
their half-sibling, H.T., which places Daughters at substantial
risk of serious physical harm. Count b-2 states Father is a
current abuser of alcohol, which renders him unable to provide
Daughters with regular care and places them at substantial risk
of serious physical harm. Count b-3 states Father created a
detrimental and endangering situation for Daughters by allowing
Bobbie to have unlimited access to them when he knew Bobbie
was an abuser of alcohol. Counts j-1 and j-2 state Daughters are
at risk as a result of neglect or abuse of H.T., Daughters’ half-
sibling.
       After sustaining the aforementioned counts of the
dependency petition, the juvenile court maintained the order
removing Daughters from Father’s custody and placing them
with Mother. The court then found the conditions that would
justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed,
and were not likely to exist if supervision was withdrawn. The
court terminated jurisdiction with a juvenile custody order
awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody, with monitored
visitation for Father.6

6
     Prior to issuance of the court’s order, the juvenile court
asked Father for his position on the issue of disposition. Father
agreed with terminating jurisdiction but asked the court to order
shared custody and grant him unmonitored visitation.

                               10
                         II. DISCUSSION
      Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s jurisdiction
and disposition findings. Father has a long-standing alcohol
abuse problem that he has refused to acknowledge or address.
The record reflects the problem is ongoing, he has driven
intoxicated with Daughters in the car, and he previously declined
Mother’s requests to curtail his drinking when Daughters are in
his care. This suffices to demonstrate there is a risk of harm to
Daughters based on Father’s alcohol abuse and there were no
means short of removal available to protect them.

      A.      Father’s Alcohol Abuse Justified Dependency
              Jurisdiction
      For a child to be found a dependent of the juvenile court
under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the court must find the
child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will
suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure
or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately
supervise or protect the child. “‘In reviewing the jurisdictional
findings . . . , we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted
or uncontradicted, supports them.’” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th
622, 633.)
      The requisite substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s decision to sustain the alcohol abuse dependency
jurisdiction count of the petition. Father had been drinking
heavily for many years (albeit with one reported period of
extended sobriety), and his alcohol abuse led to a conviction for
driving under the influence for an incident in January 2000. The
record additionally reflects Father’s alcohol abuse had also
previously endangered Daughters. Father drove drunk with

                                 11
Daughters in the car at least once while engaged in a fight with
Bobbie. He attempted to do so again at least one other time when
Father told Daughters to get into his car while he was drunk—
only aborting the effort to drive away with them when a police
officer asked if he was okay to drive children. Daughters also
confirmed they had seen Father drinking or drunk in the past.
       Statements made by other children involved in Father’s life
established he was still abusing alcohol in the days leading up to
the dependency proceedings. C.F., who lived with Bobbie and
Father until August 2021, stated Bobbie and Father drank beer
and vodka heavily to the point of getting drunk and arguing.
And M.C., who lived with Father and Bobbie at the time of the
incident that led to the initiation of these proceedings, reported
Father and Bobbie got drunk a lot and their drinking led to
arguments.
       Importantly, when asked about his drinking, Father denied
that he had an alcohol abuse problem and denied that his use of
alcohol placed Daughters at risk of harm. Additionally, when
Mother asked Father not to drink when Daughters were present,
Father told her to stay out of his personal life.
       These facts were sufficient to support jurisdiction. In
particular, Father’s attempts to drive with Daughters while
intoxicated put them at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
(See In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 [court need not
wait until child has been seriously injured to assume
jurisdiction].) That Father refused to acknowledge his alcohol
abuse or curtail his consumption while around Daughters at

                               12
Mother’s request demonstrates the risk of harm was ongoing.7
(E.g., In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“[o]ne
cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”].)
       Because substantial evidence supports the dependency
jurisdiction finding based on a risk of harm from Father’s abuse
of alcohol, we need not discuss the evidence that supports the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings on other counts of the
dependency petition. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)

      B.     Substantial Evidence Supports the Removal Order
      “At the disposition[ ] hearing, a dependent child may not be
taken from the physical custody of the parent under section 361
unless the court finds there is clear and convincing evidence
there is or would be a substantial danger to the child’s physical
health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if

7
       Father’s argument that there was no risk of harm to
Daughters at the time of the jurisdiction hearing focuses on
whether they continued to see Bobbie at that time such that they
may have been at risk of harm from Father and Bobbie’s
domestic violence. As to the risk of harm to Daughters from his
alcohol abuse, on the other hand, Father chiefly asserts the
concerns about his consumption of alcohol were interrelated with
his relationship with Bobbie. While it is true that the incidents
of alcohol abuse often appeared to coincide with issues related to
Father’s relationship with Bobbie, there is no evidence cessation
of the one would ameliorate the risk of the other. Even assuming
Mother and Father’s voluntary arrangements sufficiently
addressed concerns involving Bobbie, the record does not reflect
they resolved concerns regarding Father’s alcohol abuse. The
juvenile court reasonably found Daughters were at risk of harm
from Father’s alcohol abuse at the time of its jurisdiction finding.

                                 13
returned home, and that there are no reasonable means to
protect the child’s physical health without removing the
child . . . .” (In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328; see also
§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
       “A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of (1)
parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and (2)
potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the
parent.” (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) “‘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.) In addition, the court may consider “the parent’s
response to the conditions that gave rise to juvenile court
intervention.” (D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at 332.) We review a
removal order for substantial evidence. (In re V.L. (2020) 54
Cal.App.5th 147, 154; see also Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9
Cal.5th 989, 1005, 1011.)
       Though the juvenile court did not directly address removal
at the disposition hearing, the minute order from the hearing
states the court removed Daughters from Father prior to
terminating jurisdiction. Father contends the removal order
must be reversed because no substantial evidence supports a
conclusion that there was a substantial danger to Daughters’

                                14
well-being and no reasonable means short of removal existed to
protect them.8
      Substantial evidence, including M.C.’s statements
regarding Father’s drinking habits, shows removal was proper.
The record reflects one incident during which Father drove drunk
with Daughters, which he denies occurred, and another incident
in which the only reason he did not drive with Daughters while
under the influence was the presence of a police officer. “The
inference from his denial is that he is less likely to change his
behavior in the future.” (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at 156.)
While Father argues the juvenile court failed to consider less
drastic measures than removal, the only such measure he
hypothesizes is an order that Bobbie not be present during his
custody time. While that suggestion might ameliorate other
concerns raised in the dependency proceedings, it would not have
removed risk of harm due to Father’s unacknowledged alcohol
abuse problem. Father’s unwillingness to address that problem
is underscored by his negative response to Mother’s request that
he not drink when Daughters were in his care. Further, Mother
explained Father’s drinking is unpredictable, a fact that would
make it difficult to rely on means short of removal to protect
Daughters from Father’s alcohol abuse.

8
      As stated earlier, Father does not challenge the order
giving Mother full custody and terminating dependency
jurisdiction.

                                15
                          DISPOSITION
      The jurisdiction findings and disposition order are
affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           BAKER, J.

We concur:

      RUBIN, P. J.

      KIM, J.

                                16