Court Opinion

ID: 9928673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 20:04:02.226329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:57.340282
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/31/24 In re B.B. CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 In re B.B., et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
 OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,                                              E081377

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2300072)

 v.                                                                      OPINION

 M.B.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean P. Crandell, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath Shettigar,

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       M.B. (Father) and N.B. (Mother; collectively Parents)1 are the parents of C.B.

(Male, born January 2014), T.B. (Male, born May 2016), R.B. (female, born November

2017), and B.B. (female, born December 2018; collectively, the children). Father appeals

from the juvenile court’s order removing the children from Father’s custody. For the

reasons set forth post, we affirm the trial court’s findings and orders.

                       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On March 15, 2023, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services

(the Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300 petition on behalf of

the children; the children were not detained.

       In an out-of-custody initial hearing report filed on March 15, 2023, the social

worker stated that a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued to protect Mother and

the children from Father due to domestic violence. Father was granted visitation with the

children.

       On December 30, 2022, the TRO was amended. The court ordered Father to have

no contact with Mother, except for brief and peaceful contacts to communicate about

court-ordered visits via “Talking Parents.” The hearing on the permanent restraining

order was continued to March 28, 2023.

       1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.

       2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise indicated.

                                                2
       The report also provided that on February 15, 2023, the Department received a 10-

day referral with allegations of domestic violence and general neglect by Parents. When

law enforcement arrived, Father claimed that Mother “threw a bong to the floor, slapped

him, and punched him on the back of the head.” Father reported that C.B. witnessed the

incident. C.B., however, told law enforcement that Mother did not hit Father.

       In the report, the social worker stated that on February 21, 2023, when a social

worker made an unannounced home visit, Mother was upset with Father. Mother stated

that Father had made false allegations to get back at her for the Department’s prior

investigation. Thereafter, in front of the social worker and the children, Parents

exchanged words and argued.

       Father told the social worker that the “allegations were true and that he had called

law enforcement himself . . . to protect himself from further allegations against him.”

Father stated that Parents have argued less and the children never witnessed physical

violence.

       The social worker reported that Mother “continued to be upset at the father and

told me that she never hit him. She said she was tired of the father and his behavior. She

expressed that all responsibility fell on her (household expenses, work, and care of the

children).” Mother briefly left; Father indicated she was going “for a walk to cool off.”

       Additionally, the social worker reported that “[t]he children were present as the

parents argued with one another. . . . The children were friendly and did not appear to be

scared.” When the social worker asked Father if she could talk privately with the

children, Father declined. Father claimed that the social worker “could speak to the

                                             3
children and ask them questions, but only in his presence and stated that he would not

interfere, however wanted to listen in on what the children were being asked.” The social

worker stated that the children “were friendly and appeared comfortable in the presence

of the father.” When Father asked T.B. if the parents had been arguing all day, T.B.

“nodded his head up and down to say yes. The father asked T.B. again, and then [T.B.]

nodded his head side to side to say no.”

       After Mother returned, she decided to leave the home with the children and go

with the children to her uncle’s house. Mother told the social worker that “she would

remove herself and the children from the situation as it was clear that the father was not

going to leave.”

       After Mother left, Father told the social worker that he was concerned about

Mother’s mental health. The social worker “pointed out that the current environment

between him and the mother was not healthy for the children, regardless of who was at

fault. [The social worker] stressed the importance of adhering to the orders set in the

TRO and advised [Father] to continue services.”

       The social worker further reported that on February 22, 2023, Mother informed the

social worker that Mother had received assistance to obtain hotel vouchers so she and the

children could stay in a secure location. Mother left her uncle’s home after one night

“because of the snow and inconvenience as his home was farther from the children’s

school.”

       On February 28, 2023, the Department received an immediate response referral

alleging general neglect. It was reported that Mother and the children were homeless and

                                             4
staying in a hotel, and that “the mother had stated that she would be leaving the children

alone while she went to work. There was concern that the children would be left

unattended.”

       When a social worker responded, she “found the children to be safe and in the care

of the mother. The mother was reported to be cooperative and she informed [the social

worker] that she had been calling off of work in order to care for the children. The

mother reported that the allegations were a miscommunication and that she would never

leave the children alone.”

       When Mother called her social worker the following day, Mother told the social

worker that “she was concerned and worried because . . . someone called [the

Department] on her stating that she had left the children alone in the hotel room while she

went to work. She reiterated that those allegations were absolutely not true and that she

would never leave the children alone.” Mother also informed her social worker that prior

to the Department’s arrival, “law enforcement was there and told her that they were

responding to a 911 call. The officers told the mother that someone had called 911 from

her location and hung up.” Mother stated that no one dialed 911 from the room. “The

police left and then shortly after the father sent her a message telling her that he was

going to call the police on her.” After these events, Mother felt unsafe at the hotel

“because she was worried the father knew where she was staying at.” The next day, after

Mother took the children to school, she made arrangements to stay in Hemet with the

maternal great-grandmother.

                                              5
       When the social worker contacted Father, he denied calling law enforcement on

Mother or knowing Mother’s location.

       The report also provided that in the evening of March 1, 2023, the social worker

visited the children at maternal great-grandmother’s home. The children were observed

to be clean and well-groomed. The children denied being left alone. During this visit,

Mother told the social worker that she could not find a sitter to watch the children while

she worked. Mother was working to change the TRO to allow Father visitation from

Friday to Sunday. Although Mother had concerns about Father’s behavior toward her,

she denied having concerns about his ability to care for the children.

       On March 7, 2023, Mother filed an amended request for a domestic violence

restraining order. Mother alleged that Father (1) had been in constant violation of the

TRO by making unwanted contact via phone and text messages; (2) had harassed her and

called her place of employment; (3) had logged into Mother’s work account without her

consent to check her work schedule; (4) had threatened Mother and told her that he was

going to put something in her car, and that Mother better find it before she got pulled

over; and (5) had threatened to kill himself if Mother was not in his life.

       On March 8, 2023, Father called the social worker stating that he was concerned

about a 24-year-old man Mother was dating. Father believed Mother was pregnant with

the man’s child. Moreover, Father was concerned about the supervision of the children

while Mother worked. The social worker told Father to go to family law court to address

custody matters and to refrain from negative interactions with Mother.

                                              6
       The next day, Mother called the social worker to report that she was hospitalized

because she was sexually assaulted the previous night. The children were staying with

Father and had not been present. After determining that the family needed more support,

the Department decided to file an out-of-custody petition.

       After the sexual assault, Mother and the children moved back in with Father.

Father stated that he would stay in a trailer next to the home.

       On March 11, 2023, the Department received a third referral alleging general

neglect by Parents. “It was reported that the family had starting attending church and that

the children were observed to be unkempt. The referral stated that the children looked

like they hadn’t taken a shower in days and their clothes were dirty.” Moreover, the

report alleged that Parents were using drugs. In addition, Mother “was looking for shelter

due to domestic violence.” After receiving shelter from a church member, Mother “was

observed to be drugged up. The mother had informed this individual that she had been

drugged, raped, and left outside a hotel.”

       On March 13, 2023, the social worker visited the family. Parents denied using

controlled substances. Parents told the social worker that although they occasionally

smoked marijuana, they never did “in the presence of the children and not at the same

time.” Parents agreed to random drug tests. As to the hygiene of the children, Parents

stated the children showered at the paternal grandmother’s home, which is separate from

the parent’s trailer home, but located on the same properly and it is [within] walking

distance.”

                                              7
      The three older children, C.B., T.B., and R.B., each stated that verbal domestic

disputes between Mother and Father continued. C.B. stated that police have been to their

home many times.

      In the report, the social worker stated that a review of the Department’s database

uncovered a prior child welfare history for Parents. In that case, on November 14, 2022,

the Department received a referral alleging general neglect and emotional and physical

abuse of the children. Mother contacted law enforcement to report domestic violence by

Father in the presence of the children. Neither Mother nor the children had any visible

marks or bruises.

      According to the referral on the prior case, Mother stated that Father “had raped

her a month ago, but she did not report the incident. The mother said father was verbally

and physically abusive to the children.” Moreover, Mother claimed that Father “had

smacked [T.B.].” When law enforcement responded, Father “was arrested and EPO

served.” Father, however, denied the allegations and stated “that he and the mother were

involved in a scuffle over the phone.”

      In the prior case, the Department summarized that “it is evident that the parents

engaged in a domestic dispute that was not handled properly. Per the police report, the

children reported witnessing verbal arguments between the parents, however there were

no indications that they had witnessed domestic violence and no disclosures were made.

There was no willful harming or injuring of the children by the parents. There was no

indication that the children had been impacted by the parent’s [sic] actions. The children

                                            8
were observed to be attached to both parents and overall appeared happy.” A no-

negative-contact order was established.

       In the out-of-custody report, the Department provided that Father had two

convictions for possession of controlled substances in 2005 and 2006. Moreover, on

November 14, 2023, law enforcement reported that “[F]ather was arrested due to

domestic violence and an EPO was issued.”

       The social worker reported that “[t]here is a substantial danger to the physical

health of the children or the children are suffering severe emotional damage, and there

are no reasonable means by which the children’s physical or emotional health may be

protected without Court intervention.”

       Furthermore, the social worker expressed concern for Parents’ history of domestic

violence, the escalation of Parents’ arguments, and the children witnessing the ongoing

domestic dispute between Parents. “The children appear un-phased by the altercations

and it appears the domestic disputes between the parents is a very normal occurrence.”

The social worker noted that “[d]espite a TRO in place, the parents are in constant

violation of it and minimize the allegations after the fact through their actions. They have

poor communication, continue to cohabitate in a negative environment, and call law

enforcement frequently.” Thereafter, the social worker expressed its concern “that the

mother and the father will continue to engage in domestic violence, whether verbally or

physically, in the presence of the children, which will undoubtedly result in the children

suffering from further emotional and possibly physical harm.”

                                             9
       The Department filed an addendum report on March 27, 2023. In the report, the

social worker stated that Father called her on March 17, 2023. Father reported that B.B.

told Father that Mother’s friend, D., kissed B.B. on the lips and smoked marijuana while

caring for B.B. Mother denied the allegations. Mother “said that [D.] did not provide

care for [B.B.] and that he had never kissed her on the lips. The mother stated that the

father was just making up false allegations because she did not want to be with him. She

expressed concerns that the father was going to continue to make false allegations and

was not going to stop until she returned back home with him.”

       On March 20, 2023, Mother reported that Father failed to adhere to the TRO

visitation schedule. Father did not allow Mother to pick up C.B. after a March 19, 2023,

visit with Father. Moreover, Father continued to question the children about how Mother

spent her time and what Mother did. Mother told the social worker that she quit her job

to care for the children. Mother also stated that D. had not cared for the children since

Father’s accusations. Additionally, Mother denied being in a relationship with D. or

being pregnant.

       The social worker reported that on March 23, 2023, Father left a message. Father

stated that when B.B., who was with Mother and D., answered Father’s call, Father saw

D. smoking marijuana in the presence of B.B. When the social worker spoke with

Mother, she stated that she and B.B. were at D.’s house while waiting for the older three

children to get out of school. Mother denied Father’s accusation that D. was smoking

marijuana. Mother stated Father was making up allegations because he was angry that

                                             10
Mother was at D.’s house. Mother told the social worker that Mother often stayed at D.’s

house, which was near the children’s school, to save money on gas and time.

       At the out-of-custody hearing on March 30, 2023, Parents and the children were

present and counsel were appointed to represent them. The children’s counsel argued

that the children appeared to need services and expressed concerns about Father’s

continued violation of the restraining order. The children’s counsel requested that the

court detain the children from Father’s custody.

       Mother’s counsel submitted on the children’s counsel’s request and the

Department’s recommendations. Father’s counsel argued against detention from Father;

he argued that the TRO was a no-negative-contact order.

       After reviewing the TRO, the juvenile court found it to be a no-contact order, not a

no-negative-contact order. To avoid confusion regarding the TRO, the court stated that it

would issue a new TRO and continued the hearing. The court stated that “a lot of the

craziness that’s going on, including for some reason a 911 call coming from the hotel

room, the social workers coming to the hotel room, it has the appearance that father is

using the government to stalk the mother.” Father’s counsel argued that Father had not

“willfully” violated the TRO. Instead, Father misunderstood the terms.

       The Department’s counsel then stated that “the Department is in agreement with

detaining from the father. There is in the report—even if it was a no-negative contact,

that was already violated even if it was just a no-negative contact.”

       The children’s counsel then indicated that “in speaking with the [children], they

were concerned about the violence in the home. They indicated that there is hitting, and I

                                             11
would also indicate that father was arrested for domestic violence in November, and then

there is harassment going on. Father has been calling law enforcement on the mother

reporting concerns about the children’s welfare. So I am concerned about father’s

behaviors. [¶] I know dad is blaming the domestic violence on the mother’s mental

health. It seems as if mother is addressing that right now. But father does have an arrest

history for domestic violence in November.”

       Mother’s counsel joined in the comments made by the children’s counsel, and

stated, “Mother did indicate to me she doesn’t feel that the father is necessarily a danger

to the children. She feels that his problems are with the mother, but I do think that carries

over and that there are concerns with regard to father’s ability to separate that.”

       Thereafter, the juvenile court allowed Mother to leave the courtroom to care for

the children and took “some time to review the entirety of the DVHE-2206554 case.”

The court proceeded to state, “at this time I am removing the children from their father

and placing the children in the care and custody of the mother.” The court also issued a

“no-contact, 100-yard, stay away restraining order. . . . Dad’s only contact with the

children will be in supervised visitation, supervised by the Department, two times a week,

one hour per visit. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . I’m going to make an order that the children are to

have no contact nor stay at the homes of parties not approved by the Department, nor are

those parties to be in the mother’s home.”

       After allowing comments by the attorneys, the court noted: “Okay. So, folks, you

know, dad is crying in the back of the room. I have no idea whether that’s real or

crocodile tears. Frankly, dad comes off in all of these reports as manipulative, seeking to

                                               12
make the mother look like she is crazy, pushing the boundaries on what the restraining

order allows, trying to use the government, including the police and the Department, to

harass mother. It doesn’t seem that any of his allegations have been borne out, that

people are smoking pot around the children, that [D.] has done any of the things that he

said. Of course, I’m concerned about these allegations and thus the reason I’m making

the orders.”

       The juvenile court stated, “[i]t seems to me extremely unusual that the police and

CPS would show up back-to-back at the motel when mother was there, and I accept

mother’s representation that dad just keeps contacting her for no reason related to the—

unrelated to the purposes which would be permitted by the restraining order. . . . I mean,

just to the Court[,] it’s a classic coercive control domestic violence situation. . . . [¶]

Frankly, because of dad’s manipulative nature and his inability to abide by court orders,

I’m not comfortable allowing him to have unsupervised contact with the children. I don’t

see why his situation merits anything other that what would be a standard visitation

order.”

       On April 19, 2023, the Department filed its jurisdiction/disposition report. In the

report, the Department asked the juvenile court to find the allegations in its petition true,

order family maintenance to Mother, and family reunification services to Father.

       The social worker stated that the Department attempted to interview the children

on April 14, 2023. However, C.B., T.B., and R.B. refused to be interviewed. They all

reported that they felt safe at home. Moreover, the Department was unable to interview

                                               13
B.B. because of her inability to pay attention. Furthermore, the Department was unable

to interview Parents “as the Department was denied permission to interview” them.

       During the reporting period, Father had two visits with the children. The first visit

became chaotic after 35 minutes when the children ran the halls, jumped on furniture, and

disregarded Father’s directives. The second visit lasted two hours; Father was able to

keep the children occupied.

       At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 22, 2023, Parents were

present with their counsel. Mother’s counsel requested that the TRO be made permanent

and the children’s counsel submitted on the Department’s recommendations. Father’s

counsel presented Father’s stipulated testimony wherein he disputed the allegation that he

abused marijuana. Father stated he occasionally used marijuana but did not abuse it or

use it while with the children.

       The Department’s counsel argued that the report contained information regarding

Father’s issue with marijuana, and that his behavior was concerning. Counsel argued that

“there’s information in the report that would suggest that father does have an issue with

marijuana use. In particular, . . ., father’s behavior in this case is very concerning, . . .

that it’s quite possible that his use of controlled substances, including marijuana, is part

of the reason his behavior is so concerning at this point in time. His behavior is akin to

almost stalking of the mother.” The children’s and Mother’s counsels joined with the

Department’s counsel’s argument.

       The juvenile court recognized that “there has been ongoing history of domestic

violence in this relationship” and that both parents admitted to ongoing use of marijuana.

                                               14
       When the court asked for further comments, Father’s counsel argued against

removing the children from his care. Counsel for the Department argued that according

to C.B., Father lied about Mother hitting Father, and instead, Father yelled at Mother

because she was talking to someone else. Mother’s counsel joined with the Department’s

counsel, and the children’s counsel joined with counsel for Mother and the Department.

       Thereafter, the juvenile court found that on February 15, 2023, C.B. contradicted

Father’s statement that Mother was the aggressor. Moreover, the court stated that “the

children are being used by the parents, in this case the father, to say things to law

enforcement that are not true. And so we have children being dragged into their parents

allegations and being psychologically coerced into taking sides and becoming pawns in

this action, which to me, that is traumatizing to a little person to have to begin taking

sides between mom and dad's dispute. It would cause, in my opinion, a substantial risk of

emotional distress to any children who are put in that situation.”

       Furthermore, the juvenile court expressed concern about Father following or

tracking Mother, and noted Mother’s concern for her safety. The court remarked that

Father is “wrapped up in mom’s personal conduct. I think it shows where his focus is”

which is consistent with someone who has “control issues and would be concerned about

losing their significant other.” The juvenile court then noted that Father made statements

that he would harm himself if both parties were not going to be together.

       Based on the evidence, the juvenile court found that returning the children to

Father would place the children at serious harm, or risk of physical harm, or serious harm

of emotional or psychological trauma.

                                             15
       At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the

petition true, that the children came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and declared

the children dependents of the court. The court then ordered family maintenance services

for Mother; removed physical custody of the children from Father; ordered family

reunification services for Father; and approved the Department’s case plan. The court

also ordered Mother not to allow any unauthorized adults to care for the children; ordered

prior visitation orders to remain in full force and effect; authorized a third party to

supervise Father’s visitation; and authorized the Department to liberalize Father’s

visitation and to terminate the dependency via ex parte application. Moreover, the

juvenile court made the TRO permanent with an expiration date of May 22, 2026,

ordered Father not to contact Mother and to stay at least 100 yards away from Mother’s

home and workplace. (CT 229, 232-233, 243.)

       On May 22, 2023, Father filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court’s orders

at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

                                       DISCUSSION

       A.     THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER REMOVING THE CHILDREN FROM

              FATHER IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

       Father contends that “substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s

dispositional order removing the children from Father’s home and there were reasonable

means of protecting their welfare without removal.”

                                              16
       “A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her

parents . . . with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the

juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence . . . [:] [¶] (1) [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 . . . custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c).)

       We review a juvenile court’s dispositional order removing a child from parental

custody for substantial evidence, “ ‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.’ ”

(In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146.) “Clear and convincing evidence

requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial

doubt.” (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 (Isayah C.).) Still, the

appellant bears the burden of showing “ ‘there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial

nature’ ” to support the dispositional removal order. (In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th

41, 55, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re A.M. (2020) 47

Cal.App.5th 303, 322.)

       With the facts mentioned above in mind, we disagree with Father and find that

substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that removing the children from

Father’s custody was necessary to protect the children’s physical, developmental, and

emotional well-being, and there were no other reasonable means by which the children’s

well-being could be protected without removing them from Father’s custody. (§ 361,

subd. (c)(2).)

                                              17
               1.     SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM

       Father contends that “no evidence was presented of a substantial risk of harm to

the children if returned home.” We disagree.

       At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, before the juvenile court pronounced its

decision, the court found that Father used the children to further his interests. The court

expressed concerns because not only did the children witness domestic violence between

Parents, the children were “being used by the parents, in this case the father, to say things

to law enforcement that are not true. And so we have children being dragged into their

parents allegations and being psychologically coerced into taking sides and becoming

pawns in this action, which to me, that is traumatizing to a little person to have to begin

taking sides between mom and dad’s dispute.” The court then stated such behavior

“would cause, in my opinion, a substantial risk of emotional distress to any children who

are put in that situation.”

       The juvenile court went on to state that Father followed and tracked Mother,

which caused Mother to be concerned about her safety. The court stated that Father’s

behavior showed that he is “wrapped up in mom’s personal conduct. I think it shows

where his focus is,” on the mom and not the children. Furthermore, the court noted

Father’s previous statements that he would harm himself if Mother did not return to

Father.

       Based on the court’s observation of the parties in the case, including Parents, the

children, and social workers; and the reports filed and evidence presented, the court

found that “it would not be in the [children’s] best interests to be returned to dad at this

                                              18
point.” We agree with the juvenile court and find that substantial evidence supports the

court’s finding.

       In this case, as provided in detail ante, on February 15, 2023, Father reported that

Mother hit Father, and C.B. witnessed the incident. C.B., however, denied that Mother

hit Father. Instead, C.B. stated that it was Father who actually hurt Mother. C.B. told

law enforcement that Father yelled at Mother because she was talking to someone else.

C.B. also stated that Mother was trying to sleep and Father hurt her. C.B. stated that law

enforcement had been to their home many times. The first time law enforcement came,

Father went to the police station “to tell things on mom which she did not do.” T.B. also

witnessed Parents arguing and yelling at each other, even when Father left the house.

The older three children also reported ongoing verbal domestic disputes between Parents.

R.B. stated it made her sad.

       When Father visited the children, he interrogated the children about Mother’s

personal life instead of interacting and showing interest in the children.

       On February 28, 2023, the Department received an immediate response referral

regarding Mother leaving the children in a hotel while she went to work. Both the

Department and law enforcement found the allegation to be untrue. Mother believed

Father made the report because he told her he was going to call the police on Mother.

       In March of 2023, Father told the social worker he was concerned about Mother’s

relationship with D.; that D. smoked marijuana in front of B.B. and kissed her. Father’s

accusations were never substantiated.

                                             19
       Notwithstanding the substantial evidence that supports the court’s removal order,

Father argues that the removal was inappropriate in the absence of a risk of physical

harm. In support of his argument, Father relies on Isayah C., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at

698, and contends: “[S]section 361, subdivision (c)(1) requires that there be a ‘threat to

physical safety, not merely emotional well-being, in order to justify removal.’ ” Father’s

contention is without merit.

       In Isayah C., the court noted that “case law, while not discussing the issue

explicitly, appears to interpret paragraph (1) of section 361(c) to require a threat to

physical safety, not merely emotional well-being, in order to justify removal. (See In re

Jasmine G. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 282, 288-290 . . . )” (In re Isayah C., supra, 118 ca4th

at p. 698.) The court then agreed with the interpretation that a threat of physical harm was

required for removal. (Ibid.)

       However, four years later, in In re H.E. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 710 (H.E.), the

same court, First District, Division Two, revisited its opinion in Isayah C. and limited its

holding.

       In H.E., the mother contended that “after Isayah C., it is never enough to justify

removal unless there is also a risk of physical harm.” (H.E., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p.

719.) After analyzing the Isayah C. opinion at length, the court stated: “A close look at

Isayah C. reveals that, notwithstanding its broad pronouncement, the case presented

neither proof, allegations, nor contentions about emotional harm. We therefore limit the

holding to an unremarkable deduction that, where the subdivision requires risk of

emotional or physical harm and there is no risk of emotional harm, there must be risk of

                                              20
physical harm. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, . . . [‘language of

an opinion must be construed with reference to the facts presented by the case; the

positive authority of a decision is coextensive only with such facts’].)” (H.E., supra, 169

Cal.App.4th at pp. 721-722.)

       Although H.E. limited Isayah C. and allows a threat of emotional harm to justify

removing a child from their parent, Father fails to address H.E. in his briefs. Instead,

Father cites In re Jasmine G. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (Jasmine G.) to further bolster

his contention that “[t]he statutory language of section 361[, subdivision ](c)(1) requires a

threat to physical safety, not merely emotional well-being, in order to justify removal.”

Jasmine G. does not support Father’s argument.

       Jasmine G., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 282, was decided on July 17, 2000—four years

prior to Isayah C. and eight years prior to H.E. In Isayah C., the court cited to Jasmine

G. when stating that section 361, subdivision (c), “require[s] a threat to physical safety,

not merely emotional well-being, in order to justify removal.” (Isayah C., supra, 118

Cal.App.4th at p. 698.) However, as provided above, H.E. limited the holding in Isayah

C.

       Although H.E. has expanded the holding in Isayah C. to allow the risk of

emotional harm for removal, Father has failed to analyze the impact of H.E. on either

Isayah C. or Jasmine G. We find Father’s reliance on Isayah C. and Jasmine G. to be

unavailing.

       In sum, we find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that

it was in the children’s best interest to be removed from Father’s custody.

                                             21
              2.      ALTERNATIVES TO REMOVAL

       On appeal, Father also contends that “the juvenile court failed to consider

alternatives to removal.”

       “The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and

protect the child’s interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal,

this determination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re Baby

Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.) In reviewing an order for abuse of discretion,

we “ ‘must consider all the evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all

evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. [Citation.] The

precise test is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude that the trial court order

advanced the best interests of the child.’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057,

1067.) “The trial court is accorded wide discretion and its determination will not be

disturbed on appeal absent ‘a manifest of showing of abuse.’ ” (Ibid.)

       In this case, Father argues that “there is no indication the court considered less

drastic measures before making the necessary statutory determination that there are no

reasonable means by which the children’s physical health could be protected short of

removal.” In support of his argument, Father relies on In re Henry V. (2004) 119

Cal.App.4th 522 (Henry V.). Henry V., however, is distinguishable.

       Henry V. involved a child who was removed from his parents because he had three

burns likely caused by a curling iron. (Henry V., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at pp. 525,

527.) The juvenile court removed the child from the home, and the appellate court

reversed the removal order. The appellate court held that the juvenile court erred because

                                              22
there were reasonable means to protect the child without depriving his parents of custody.

(Id. at pp. 528-530.) The appellate court found the physical abuse to be a single

occurrence, and neither the child protective services agency nor the juvenile court

considered the incident to be an obstacle to the mother reunifying with the child in the

near future. (Id. at p. 529.) The appellate court found that appropriate services could be

provided to the mother and the child in the family home, including in-home bonding

services, public health nursing services, and unannounced visits. (Ibid.) Moreover, the

court of appeal reversed because it was unclear whether the juvenile court applied the

clear and convincing standard in making its dispositional findings. (Id. at pp. 529-530.)

       In this case, unlike Henry V., the juvenile court considered reasonable alternatives

to removal. At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the following facts were presented to

the court again: The Department initially placed the children with Mother and Father,

and filed an out-of-custody petition. Father, however, continued to harass Mother and

interrogated the children about Mother’s whereabouts and with whom Mother spent her

time. Because Mother did not want to be with Father, Father became upset, made false

allegations about Mother, and stalked Mother. Father also obtained Mother’s

confidential address from the children and made an unfounded welfare check referral.

Moreover, Father expressed that he would harm himself if his relationship with Mother

ended. The juvenile court noted Father’s behavior and found his actions, which included

violating the TRO, harmful to the children.

       Notwithstanding these facts, Father’s counsel requested that Father be given

family maintenance for weekends, instead of removing the children from his custody.

                                              23
       “Both parents are in an equal position as far as the restraining order. They’re

separate from their children. They do not live together. They do not live in the same

city. So I think that it’s wholly appropriate at this time for [Father] to be given family

maintenance. And I understand that there’s a domestic violence restraining order in this

case that existed prior. Thus, the family maintenance would cap at the visits in line with

that order which is my request, Your Honor, he be given family maintenance for

weekends in line with the previous restraining order in this case.”

       After Father’s counsel presented further argument and other counsel gave follow-

up arguments, the juvenile court summarized the facts presented to the court. The

juvenile court stated: “When you take into consideration my thought that I find it’s a

reasonable inference that dad did make comments he would harm himself in combination

with what I’m hearing today that both parties are not going to be together, I think the

Court, at least at this point, has serious concerns that dad could do something that would

harm himself. Those are further reasons why returning the children back to the father at

this point, unsupervised, as [Father’s counsel] is suggesting, would place the children at

serious harm, or risk of physical harm, or serious harm of emotional or psychological

trauma. It would not be in the [children’s] best interests to be returned to dad at this

point. [¶] I want to just juxtapose those comments. I’m not here making these

comments. I’m here to make a finding if it is the right thing to do as to whether or not

I’m going to grant family maintenance or I’m going to remove and grant family

reunification. One of the things I stated is why I’m going to find that it would not be in

the children’s best interests to go back to dad at this point.”

                                              24
       After further discussion from counsels representing the parties, the court stated

“So the Court is going to find that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate

the need from removal of the children.” Therefore, we find Father’s argument that “there

is no indication the court considered less drastic measures before making the necessary

statutory determination that there are no reasonable means by which the children’s

physical health could be protected short or removal” to be unavailing.

       Additionally, unlike Henry V., the juvenile court made its removal order after

finding clear and convincing evidence: “The Court does find clear and convincing

evidence of the circumstances of 361.5[, subdivision ](c) as to father, and the physical

custody of the children is removed from the father.”

       Based on the above, we find that substantial evidence supports the court’s order

removing the children from Father.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional order are affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                        MILLER
                                                                                Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                                 J.

FIELDS
                                 J.

                                            25