Court Opinion

ID: 9955656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 21:02:44.764617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:10.003025
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/24 In re J.M. 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 J.M. et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           E081012

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. Nos. J295219, J295220,
                                                                          J295221, J295222)
 v.
                                                                         OPINION
 J.C.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,

Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

         Mansi Thakkar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Jessica L. Morgan, and Landon C. Villavaso,

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                              I.

                                     INTRODUCTION

       During a jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction

over J.R. (Father) and M.M.’s (Mother) four children, Ez.M. (born in 2012), E.M. (born

in 2014), S.M. (born in 2018), and J.M. (born in 2022) (the Children). The Children were

removed from Father’s custody, based on findings he committed domestic violence

against Mother in the Children’s presence. The Children were permitted to remain with

Mother.

       Father appeals the exit orders (1) terminating supervised visitation, (2) finding

visitation between the Children and Father detrimental to the Children’s physical and

emotional well-being, (3) authorizing Mother to move out of the county and state without

prior approval of the court or notice to Father, and (4) finding Father is an alleged father

of J.M. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support these orders and they

violate his due process rights. He also contends that his attorney committed ineffective

assistance (IAC) by not taking appropriate steps to establish his paternal status as to J.M.

or object to the finding that he is merely an alleged father. Father is not objecting to

termination of jurisdiction or the court awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody.

       We conclude, based on the record as a whole, that the paternity status finding as to

J.M. is unsupported by the record and was not properly addressed before the court

terminated jurisdiction. In addition, the visitation order is ambiguous and internally

inconsistent, within the context of the record as a whole. We therefore reverse and

                                              2
remand the exit orders challenged in this appeal, with directions the juvenile court

conduct a noticed hearing to reconsider, and revise to the extent necessary, the paternity

status finding, the visitation exit order, and any related exit orders regarding visitation,

including the visitation detriment finding and move-away order.

                                              II.

                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On November 18, 2022, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services

(CFS) received an immediate response referral alleging emotional abuse and general

neglect of the Children by Mother and Father (Parents).

       On November 22, 2022, CFS met with Mother and the Children. Ez.M. and E.M.

stated that Parents frequently argued, mostly regarding Mother cheating on Father.

During one incident, Parents were yelling. Father pushed Mother and threw her. She fell

on top of E.M., bruising E.M. E.M. wanted to protect S.M. from being injured during

Parents’ argument. E.M. reported that during another argument on Thanksgiving Day in

2020, Father slammed Mother’s hand in a door, breaking one of her nails. When asked if

Ez.M. and E.M. felt safe visiting with Father, E.M. said she did not feel safe with Father.

Ez.M. said he felt “‘50-50 [half safe, half unsafe].’” Ez.M. said he was concerned that

Father was “‘gonna hurt mom.’” Ez.M. and E.M. said they felt “‘100% safe’” with

Mother. They added that law enforcement had been involved in Parents’ arguments

before.

                                               3
       When CFS interviewed Mother, she admitted Parents had a history of domestic

violence, involving both verbal and physical confrontations. Mother said she and the

Children left Father in October 2021, after a domestic violence incident resulting in

Father’s arrest. Mother stated that Father had a history of anger management issues.

Parents briefly participated in counseling, which Father stopped attending. Mother

described Father as jealous and controlling, and continually accusing her of being

unfaithful to him. Father also frequently made statements he wanted to die, and

interrogated Ez.M. and E.M. when they visited him, often asking them about what

Mother was doing and whether she was “‘talking’” to other men.

       On November 29, 2022, CFS interviewed Father. He reported that he was

admitted into the Merrill Crisis Stabilization Unit for suicidal ideation. The previous

year, Parents were going through a divorce but reunited in November 2021. While still

married, in July 2022, they separated again. Father confirmed the domestic violence

incident in 2021. During the incident, Father threw Mother on the bed and Ez.M.

intervened. Father was arrested. Father told CFS that Mother instigated the argument by

accusing him of cheating and attempted to hit him. According to Father, he attempted to

stop her by grabbing her arms. Mother attempted to push Father and he pushed back,

causing Mother to fall. Ez.M. entered the Parents’ bedroom because of Parents’ yelling,

and reported the incident to the neighbors. Mother filed a request for a restraining order,

but the request was stayed while Parents attempted to repair their relationship. Father

                                             4
completed an anger management course and his criminal domestic violence case was

dismissed.

       Father reported that a few months after Parents reunited, they engaged in another

domestic violence incident. They verbally argued while the Children were in the same

room. As Father was attempting to leave the bedroom, Mother blocked him. He pushed

Mother toward the wall, causing her to hit the laundry basket, which hit E.M., and left a

mark on her. Father stated that in July 2022, Parents separated again after a verbal

argument. He denied any physical altercation in July 2022. Father said Parents argued

over Father drinking a couple of beers. Mother became upset and ended their

relationship. She requested a restraining order, which was denied.

       On November 29, 2022, CFS obtained a warrant to detain the Children from

Father, because of concerns of general neglect of the Children. The following day, CFS

contacted Father, who said he was discharged from the crisis center. He was prescribed

antidepressants and anxiety medication. CFS notified Father of the detention warrant and

detention hearing. CFS also notified Mother of the detention warrant and told her that the

Children would remain in her care, with visitation between the Children and Father

suspended.

                                             5
       A. Juvenile Dependency Petition

       On December 2, 2022, CFS filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of the
                                                                             1
Children, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The petition

alleged that Parents engaged in domestic violence with each other in the Children’s

presence. Also, Father had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues that

impacted his ability to care for the Children, and Mother should have known about it.

       B. Detention Hearing

       CFS stated in the detention report that Parents did not have a child welfare history

and Mother did not have a criminal history. Father had one arrest in October 2021, for

domestic battery. Father took an on-demand drug test which was negative. At the

detention hearing on December 5, 2022, the court ordered reunification services for

Parents, and conducted a paternity inquiry. Mother stated she believed Father was the

biological father of all of the Children. The court ordered the Children detained from

Father, and continued them in Mother’s care and custody. Father was granted supervised

visitation once a week at the CFS office.

       1
          Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                             6
       C. Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing Report

       In January 2023, CFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition hearing report recommending

dismissal of the petition allegations regarding Father’s substance abuse, and that the court

find Father the alleged father of J.M. and the presumed father of the other children. CFS

reported that Father had visited the Children and was cooperating with services. CFS

recommended Father have supervised visits once a week for two hours.

       CFS reported that Mother denied being the aggressor during the domestic violence

incidents. She first separated from Father in October 2021, and filed for divorce on

October 26, 2021. On November 11, 2021, the family was referred to Family Court

Services for mediation. Parents reunited, and then separated again in July 2022. The

court referred the family to Family Court Services in August 2022, and October 2022.

       Mother denied Father used drugs but said he occasionally consumed alcohol. She

said Father had a temper and she had heard he went to jail for throwing a vacuum at his

brother. While Parents were married, Father went to a crisis center after an incident in

which he was breaking things and hitting himself. Father recently had texted Mother

stating he wanted to “‘kill himself.’” Father frequently called or texted her, but Mother

did not respond.

       Father told CFS he did not use any drugs after he met Mother, but acknowledged

that during bad times, he had suicidal ideations. After reporting he wanted to jump off of

a cliff, in November 2022, he was admitted to a 24-hour crisis center. Father completed

23 anger management classes and went to couple’s therapy with Mother. He started

                                             7
attending individual counseling once a week, and had completed three sessions. Father

also took prescribed medication. Father reported he has anxiety attacks when not with

the Children, but feels happy when with them.

       Ez.M. reported that Parents did not get along well, and Father, not Mother, was at

fault. On one occasion, Father grabbed Mother and threw her on the bed. Ez.M. went to

a neighbor’s house for help. During another incident, Father pushed Mother, who then

landed on E.M. Ez.M. said Mother did not push back. Ez.M. told CFS his three wishes

were for Father “to stop yelling, [F]ather to be with his family, and to have more video

games to play with.” Ez.M. also said he wanted visits with Father, but felt that Father

needed classes to help him control his yelling. E.M. stated she felt comfortable with

supervised visits with Father. She wished Father would get help, for her family to be

together, and for her grandmothers to get along.

       The Children’s paternal grandfather told CFS that it was false that the Children did

not want to visit Father. When they visited Father, they would often cry when they had to

leave. The Children’s paternal aunt (PA) described Father as a good father, and said the

Children were excited to see him. She denied that the Children were worried or scared of

him. PA never thought they should not be left alone with him. PA said Father was trying

hard to reunify with the Children.

       D. Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearings

       During the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on January 10, 2023, Father requested

paternity testing as to J.M. The court found Father to be the presumed father of Ez.M.,

                                              8
E.M., and S.M., ordered paternity testing as to J.M., and continued the hearing. On

January 13, 2023, Father submitted to paternity testing and the results confirmed that he

was J.M.’s biological father.

       On March 14, 2023, CFS filed an additional information report (also known as a

6.7 report), which stated that the paternity test results confirmed that Father is J.M.’s

biological father. The report further stated that on February 7, 2023, after visiting with

the Children, Father approached Mother’s vehicle and showed her and the Children a

picture on his cell phone of his wrecked truck. Mother said she felt Father was harassing

her and did not want any contact with him. The Children said the picture made them feel

“sad” and “uncomfortable.” CFS reported that Father needed to be redirected from

Mother, who did not want him contacting her. Mother’s domestic violence counselor

reported to CFS concerns about Father’s behavior, and reported that she believed he had

not benefitted from services.

       The additional information report stated that Father had completed 10 of 12

parenting and domestic violence classes, and seven of eight individual therapy sessions.

He was expected to complete these services by March 16, 2023. On March 9, 2023,

Mother obtained a restraining order protecting her, but not the Children, from Father.

Father agreed to the restraining order. CFS reported that it interviewed the Children

privately and they refused to have visits with Father at the CFS office. The Children

reported that they did not feel safe around Father. Ez.M. stated that Father “‘does not pay

attention to me.’” E.M. stated that Father “‘does not care about me.’” Father reportedly

                                              9
brought games and snacks to the visits. During visits, the Children appeared bored and

Father did not engage with them. The CFS social worker reported that she believed

Father was not benefiting from services.

       During the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on March 21, 2023, Father

objected to the court sustaining the petition allegations but did not present any evidence.

The court dismissed the allegations regarding Father’s substance abuse, and sustained the

remaining allegations. The court adopted CFS’s proposed findings and orders in the

jurisdiction/disposition report and additional information report, as modified. This

included terminating jurisdiction, which Father does not contest, and entering family law

exit orders, in which the court granted Mother sole legal and physical custody, entered a

finding that visitation would be detrimental to the Children’s interests, denied Father

continued visitation and authorized Mother to move out of state without notice to Father.

                                             III.

                            EXIT ORDERS AND FINDINGS

       Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when entering exit orders

and findings (1) denying Father visitation, (2) finding visitation detrimental, (3) granting

Mother authority to move away without notice to Father, and (4) finding that Father is an

alleged father of J.M. Father argues that the orders and findings are not in the Children’s

best interests and were not supported by substantial evidence.

                                             10
       A. Applicable Law

       When terminating jurisdiction over a child who has been declared a dependent

child of the court, “section 362.4 authorizes the juvenile court to issue a custody and

visitation order (commonly referred to as an ‘exit order’) that will become part of the

relevant family law file and remain in effect in the family law action ‘until modified or

terminated by a subsequent order.’[] When making a custody determination under section

362.4, ‘the court’s focus and primary consideration must always be the best interests of

the child.’ [Citations.]” (In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513, fn. omitted; see also

§ 362.4; In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 862-865.)

       We review the juvenile court’s issuance of the exit custody orders for an abuse of

discretion. (In re C.W., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 863.) We may not disturb such

rulings unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. (In re C.W., supra, at p.

863; Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300.)

       B. Facts Relevant to Visitation Exit Orders

       At the detention hearing in December 2022, the juvenile court granted Father two

hours of supervised visitation once a week, as recommended by CFS. In the January

2023, jurisdiction/disposition report, CFS stated: “Visitation between the child and the

[F]ather is to be a minimum of one time a week for 2 hours, supervised.” “Visits are to

be supervised by an appropriate delegate from both parent’s choosing and/or a

professional monitor at the [F]ather’s expense.” CFS’s recommended dispositional

findings and orders did not mention visitation.

                                             11
       In CFS’s March 14, 2023, additional information report, CFS reported the recent

incident in February 2023, in which Father harassed Mother in the Children’s presence,

and thereafter, Mother obtained a restraining order against Father. Mother’s domestic

violence therapist expressed concerns about Father’s recent behavior, and both CFS and

the therapist stated they believed he had not benefitted from services, even though he had

taken parenting, domestic violence, and anger management courses, and attended therapy.

The Children privately told CFS they refused to have visits with Father at the CFS office.

The Children reported that they did not feel safe around Father.

       During the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on March 21, 2023, the Children’s

attorney stated she had “some very serious concerns about the behavior of the [F]ather.

As outlined in the 6.7 report, it seems that Father is very obsessed or fixated on Mother.

He has not benefitted from services he has completed, and he has completed almost the

case plan that was required— would have been required of him. I don’t know if the

[c]ourt would be willing to entertain a detriment finding, but I am concerned Father will

continue to show up—” The court responded, “I am willing to entertain it.” The

Children’s attorney further requested a family law exit order allowing Mother to move

out of the county or state without further court approval, “given that the [F]ather poses a

risk and potential danger to the family.” The court responded that its tentative was “to

grant those.”

       Father’s attorney objected, arguing that there were sufficient protections for the

Children if Father’s visitation was continued, because the visits would be monitored, the

                                             12
visits could be stopped if there was any inappropriate behavior, and Mother had a

restraining order. Father’s attorney acknowledged that CFS reported in the 6.7 report that

the Children did not want to engage in visitation, adding that the Children were “always

free to refuse to see the [F]ather if they’re not interested.”

       CFS submitted on its reports and recommendations and also submitted on the

visitation detriment finding. CFS stated it was “concerned regarding the [F]ather’s

continued denial of his behaviors and continued not changing those behaviors, even

though he has received services.” The court ordered adoption of CFS’s proposed findings

and orders, with modification of the family law exit orders to “sole legal, sole physical to

Mom. Detriment finding for [Father] for visits. Mom may move out of the county and

state without prior approval of the [c]ourt or notice to Father.” The court did not state

anything further regarding its findings and orders. There was no mention of visitation.

       CFS submitted a proposed “Custody Order—Juvenile—Final Judgment,” Form

JV-200 (Judgment), which the juvenile court signed and filed on March 21, 2023. The

judgment states that sole legal and physical custody of the four Children was awarded to

Mother. The court crossed out the visitation paragraph, wrote “Detriment,” and checked

the box that stated: “As stated on the attached form JV-205.” The court also checked box

no. 13, which states: “Other findings and orders (including circumstances underlying any

limits on custody or visitation at the time of the order):” The following was handwritten

thereafter on the form: “Mother may move out of County and out of State without prior

approval of the court or notice to Father. Court finds Father’s visits detrimental.”

                                               13
       Attached to the judgment were forms JV-205 and 206. Form JV-205, entitled

“Visitation (Parenting Time) Order—Juvenile,” states at the top of form JV-205 that it is

attached to the Judgment (JV-200). The court crossed out the portion of the form that had

checked boxes for paragraph numbers 2, 3, and 4, entitled “Visitation (Parenting Time),”

“Supervised Visitation,” and “Transportation for Visitation and Place of Exchange.”

       Form JV-206, entitled “Reasons for no or supervised visitation-Juvenile,” which

was also attached to the Judgment, states that Father “was ordered to have” “only

supervised visitation with the child or children” because Father had not completed

“Domestic violence treatment program for offenders,” “Parenting classes,” “Individual

counseling,” and “Other.” (Italics added.) Handwritten on the JV-205 form, following

“Other,” is stated, “Dad has stalking behaviors and poses a risk to the children.”

       The March 21, 2023, minute order states: “There will be no visitation between the

[Children] and Father.” (Italics added.) The minute order also states, “Visitation between

the child and Father is detrimental to the child’s physical or emotional well-being.” In

addition, the court ordered that “Mother may move out of county and out of state without

prior approval of the court or notice to Father.”

       C. Visitation Order

       Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s exit

order denying him visitation. He argues there was little evidence regarding his visits with

the Children and no justification for denying him supervised visitation. Upon reviewing

the record, we conclude remand is necessary because it is unclear whether the juvenile

                                             14
court intended to terminate all visitation for Father or limit visitation to supervised

visitation. The oral pronouncement of the judgment and exit orders, and the written

judgment and exit orders, conflict with the minute order as to visitation. In addition, the

written judgment and exit orders appear to be internally inconsistent or, at best,

ambiguous in light of the record as a whole.

       Inconsistencies between an oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order

are presumed clerical and generally are resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement.

(People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Gonzalez (2012) 210

Cal.App.4th 724, 744; In re A.C. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 796, 799-800 [“A juvenile

court’s oral exit order indicating the terms of a parent’s visitation controls over the

written order where the written order conflicts with the reporter’s transcript, and this

court has authority to remand the matter to the dependency court with directions to

correct the written order.”].) If the clerk’s minutes diverge from the court’s oral

statements, any discrepancy is presumed to be a clerical error in the minutes. (People v.

Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324.)

       Here, the court’s oral pronouncements during the jurisdiction/disposition hearing

did not include any orders as to whether supervised visitation was continued or

completely terminated. The court did not mention anything regarding visitation during

the hearing. During the disposition portion of the hearing, the court stated it was

adopting “the findings and orders.” Although unclear, assuming the court was referring

to CFS’s recommended findings and orders in the jurisdiction/disposition report, those

                                              15
findings and orders also do not mention visitation. However, the “VISITATION” section

of the report states that Father shall have supervised visitation. During the disposition

portion of the hearing, the court made a “[d]etriment finding for [Father] for visits,” but

did not state whether there would no longer be any visitation, or there would continue to

be supervised visitation because of the detriment finding.

       The Judgment and its form attachments regarding visitation contradict the minute

order, which states that there will be no visitation. The written, signed Judgment and exit

orders normally take precedence over the juvenile court’s oral pronouncements and the

minute order. (Smith v. City of Napa (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 194, 199 [“we may not

impeach the trial court’s ultimate judgment with its remarks at the hearing on the petition

or in announcing its ruling from the bench”]; People v. Scott, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at

p. 1324; In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 756, fn. 1 [dependency court’s

written visitation order controls over potentially conflicting statements regarding

visitation made during the hearing].)

       The problem here is that, although during the hearing the court made a detriment

finding as to visitation, the court did not make any oral pronouncement as to whether

visitation shall be completely terminated or continued with supervision. Also, even if the

court intended to continue supervised visitation, the exit order does not state the

frequency and duration of the visits. Under such circumstances, this matter must thus be

remanded to the juvenile court to clarify its findings and orders regarding visitation,

because it is unclear from the judgment and record as a whole whether the juvenile court

                                             16
intended to terminate all visitation for Father or allow supervised visitation. If the court

intended to order supervised visitation, orders are required as to the frequency and length

of time of such visits.

       D. Visitation Detriment Finding

       After terminating jurisdiction, the juvenile court made a visitation detriment

finding pursuant to section 362.4. Father notes that during the disposition hearing, the

juvenile court did not provide any reasoning as to why it made the visitation detriment

finding. Father argues that the detriment finding was an abuse of discretion because it

was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

       Evidence of visitation detriment includes information contained in CFS’s reports

showing that Father had a history of domestic violence, in which he initiated and

escalated altercations with Mother, often either when the Children were nearby or

present. On numerous occasions in 2021 and 2022, law enforcement was called and

intervened because of Father’s angry, volatile confrontations with Mother regarding

visitation or court proceedings. At times, Ez.M. either intervened or called the police or a

neighbor for help. Although Father asserts he did not intend to harm anyone physically,

evidence shows that the Children and Mother nevertheless sustained physical and

emotional harm from Father’s confrontations with Mother. These confrontations

continued throughout the dependency proceedings, despite Father having taken numerous

anger management and domestic violence classes and participating in therapy.

                                             17
       Father continued to harass Mother and initiate confrontations with her, including

the month before the March jurisdiction/disposition hearing, when Mother was picking

up the Children from supervised visitation with Father in February 2023. Mother filed a

request for a restraining order for protection from Father, which was granted on March 9,

2023. CFS reported that Father needed to be redirected from his obsession with Mother,

who did not want any contact with him.

       The form JV-206 exit order, entitled “Reasons for No or Supervised Visitation-

Juvenile,” states that supervised visitation was ordered because “[Father] has stalking

behaviors and poses a risk to the children.” There are also statements in the record that

the CFS social worker and Mother’s domestic violence therapist concluded that Father

had not benefited from his services. In November 2022, when CFS initially interviewed

the Children, E.M. said she did not feel safe with Father. Ez.M. said he felt “‘50-50 [half

safe, half unsafe].’” Ez.M. said he was concerned that Father was “‘gonna hurt mom.’”

In March 2023, CFS reported that the Children refused to have supervised visits with

Father at the CFS office, and said they did not feel safe around Father.

       Although it is unclear from the additional information report which Children were

interviewed or when the interviews occurred, it can be reasonably inferred that the two

oldest Children, Ez.M. and E.M., were interviewed, since the younger two children were

quite young (4 years old and almost 6 months old). It can also be reasonably inferred that

the interviews were relatively recent because the purpose of the report was to provide

                                            18
updated information that concerned recent events and information that had not been

previously reported.

       We recognize that the Children’s refusal to visit Father is not, alone, determinative,

but is “‘powerful demonstrative evidence’” that abiding by the Children’s stated

preference would be in the Children’s best interest. (In re C.W., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at

p. 866.) A child’s wishes may not be the sole factor in determining visitation, because

that would in effect delegate to the child the determination of whether any visitation will

occur. But the child’s wishes may be a dominant factor. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69

Cal.App.4th 41, 48-52 [“a child’s aversion to visiting an abusive parent may be a

‘dominant’ factor in administering visitation, but it could not be the sole factor”].)

       Evidence in the record, including reports from CFS and Mother’s domestic

violence therapist, supports a reasonable finding that Father continued to not be able to

control his behavior, had not sufficiently benefited from his services, and continued to

harass Mother, to such an extent she felt compelled to request, and was granted in March

2023, a one-year restraining order against Father. Father’s continuing harassment of

Mother and initiation of confrontations with her in the Children’s presence demonstrates

Father’s lack of self-control and inability to refrain from exposing the Children to

emotional and physical harm.

       Father argues there was insufficient evidence of detriment because throughout the

proceedings, CFS recommended supervised visitation for Father, and there was no

evidence that supervised visitation would be harmful to the Children. At the detention

                                             19
hearing, he was granted two hours of visitation once a week. In the January 2023,

jurisdiction/disposition report, CFS recommended continued supervised visitation for

Father. But in CFS’s March 2023, additional information report, CFS reported new

circumstances which reinforced the court’s and Children’s counsel’s concerns that

visitation would be detrimental to the Children.

       Even though supervised visitation and the restraining order would hopefully

provide Mother and the Children with protection from Father, the court reasonably found

visitation detrimental because there remained a risk of harm. The restraining order was

only for one year and, as the Children’s attorney and CFS stated during the

jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Father’s recent actions demonstrated that he continued to

be obsessed with Mother, continued to harass her and engage in disturbing, inappropriate

confrontations with her in the Children’s presence, and seemed to have little, if any,

control over his angry, volatile behavior when in Mother’s presence, even when the

Children were present.

       Under such circumstances, the court reasonably found visitation was detrimental

to the Children, including the two youngest children, because it posed a risk of the

Children suffering physical and emotional harm as a result of Father’s visitation.

       E. Move-Away Exit Order

       Father contends the juvenile court’s exit order authorizing Mother to move away

without providing notice to Father constitutes an abuse of discretion and violation of his

due process rights. We disagree.

                                             20
       Family Code section 3024 provides that, “[i]n making an order for custody, if the

court does not consider it inappropriate, the court may specify that a parent shall notify

the other parent if the parent plans to change the residence of the child for more than 30

days, unless there is prior written agreement to the removal.” This statute does not

require the court to order a move-away notice. It is discretionary, and in the instant case,

there was good reason to order that such notice was not required because there was

substantial evidence Father posed a risk of emotional and physical harm to the Children

and Mother.

       Such evidence supporting the move-away order includes evidence of Father’s

history of instigating altercations with Mother in the presence of the Children; Father

stalking and harassing Mother by persistently attempting to contact her, up until shortly

before the jurisdiction/disposition hearing; the family law court granting Mother a one-

year restraining order against Father; and Father’s recent behavior reflecting he had not

benefitted from services, as concluded by Mother’s domestic violence therapist and CFS.

Father continued to exhibit adverse behaviors, placing the Children and Mother at risk of

harm, even though he had participated in numerous parent and domestic violence classes

(10 each) and seven therapy sessions during the instant case, and prior to the dependency

case, 23 anger management classes and individual and couples therapy. Father continued

to demonstrate an inability to control his angry, volatile behavior when in Mother’s

presence, even when the Children were present. Father also had a history of mental

                                             21
health issues, which tended to worsen during emotionally turbulent times and were

triggered by adversity.

       Even though the restraining order was intended to provide Mother with protection,

the court reasonably found it was in the Children’s best interests to allow Mother to move

out of the county or state without notifying Father, because there remained the risk that

Father would continue to pursue her wherever she moved, which would place her and the

Children at risk of harm. In addition, the restraining order was for only one year, which

would leave Mother and the Children unprotected and at greater risk of harm thereafter,

when it expired in March 2024.

       The juvenile court’s move-away exit order is consistent with the public policy

stated in Family Code section 3020, which states that “the health, safety, and welfare of

children shall be the court’s primary concern in determining the best interests of children

when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children.

The Legislature further finds and declares that children have the right to be safe and free

from abuse, and that the perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household

where a child resides is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” (Fam.

Code, § 3020, subd. (a).)

       Family Code section 3020 further states that it is this state’s public policy to

ensure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the

parents have ended their relationship, “except when the contact would not be in the best

interests of the child.” (Fam. Code, § 3020, subd. (b).) When there is a conflict between

                                             22
these two policies, “a court’s order regarding physical or legal custody or visitation shall

be made in a manner that ensures the health, safety, and welfare of the child and the

safety of all family members.” (Fam. Code, § 3020, subd. (c).)

        Here, where the Children were repeatedly exposed to domestic violence in their

home, leading to the instant juvenile dependency proceedings, and Father continued to

harass Mother, stalk her, and initiate altercations with her in the Children’s presence, the

trial court’s move-away order was not an abuse of discretion, because it was in the

Children’s best interests. It furthered the public policy of ensuring the Children’s “health,

safety, and welfare . . . and the safety of all family members.” (Fam. Code, § 3020, subd.

(c).)

        F. Paternity as to J.M.

        Father contends the juvenile court prejudicially erred in entering an erroneous

paternity finding that he is an alleged father of J.M., whereas Father’s paternity test

established that he is J.M.’s biological father, and there is evidence supporting a finding

he is a presumed father.

           1. Facts and Procedural History Regarding Paternity of J.M.

        During the detention hearing in December 2022, Mother told the court that Father

was J.M.’s father. She said Father was going to get a paternity DNA test because he did

not believe he was J.M.’s father. Mother told the court that Father was present for the

births of their first three children and named as the father on their birth certificates, but

Father was not present at J.M.’s birth and is not named on J.M.’s birth certificate. The

                                              23
court ordered Parents to complete the paternity inquiry form (JV-505) and submit it to

CFS before the jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

       CFS recommended in the jurisdiction/disposition hearing report filed in January

2023, that father be found the alleged father of J.M., and the presumed father of the other

three children. CFS reported that Father “has recognized the children as his and has

supported them financially.” But, according to Mother, when she discovered she was

pregnant with J.M., Father did not believe J.M. was his child because he found out

Mother had been seeing another man. Mother and Father separated in July 2022. Mother

did not want Father to know when J.M. was born. Mother told CFS she also doubted

Father was J.M.’s biological father. She said Father did not recognize J.M. as his child.

       CFS further reported that Father told CFS he doubted he was J.M.’s father and did

not recognize J.M. as his child. He said he did not visit J.M. and preferred visits only

with the other three children. Parents requested a paternity test. Because of these

circumstances, CFS recommended the court find that Father was an alleged father of J.M.

and a presumed father of the other three children.

       During the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on January 10, 2023, Father requested a

paternity test as to J.M., and agreed he is the presumed father of the other three children.

The court made the requested order and finding, and continued the

jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

       In March, CFS reported in its additional information report that on January 25,

2023, CFS received Father’s paternity results for J.M. They confirmed that Father is

                                             24
J.M.’s biological father. A copy of the paternity test results was attached to the additional

information report.

       During the continued jurisdiction/disposition hearing on March 21, 2023, there

was no discussion regarding Father’s status as a father and the court made no findings

during the hearing on whether Father was found to be an alleged, biological, or presumed

father of J.M. or the other children. The March 21, 2023, minute order, however, states

that Father is the alleged father of J.M. and presumed father of the other children. But the

exit orders and final judgment entered on March 21, 2023, state that Father was declared

by court order on January 10, 2023, to be the presumed father of all four children,

including J.M.

          2. Applicable Law

       “‘The extent to which a father may participate in dependency proceedings and his

rights in those proceedings are dependent on his paternal status.’ (In re Paul H. (2003)

111 Cal.App.4th 753, 760, italics omitted.)” (In re Christopher M. (2003) 113

Cal.App.4th 155, 159.) “‘Dependency law recognizes three types of fathers: presumed,

alleged and biological.’ (In re T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1208.) A biological

father is one whose paternity of the child has been established, but who has not

established that he qualifies as the child’s presumed father under Family Code section

7611. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 449, fn. 15.) ‘A man who may be the

father of a child, but whose biological paternity has not been established, or, in the

                                             25
alternative, has not achieved presumed father status, is an “alleged” father.’ (Ibid.)” (In

re Kobe A. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1120.)

       “‘Alleged fathers have less rights in dependency proceedings than biological and

presumed fathers. [Citation.] An alleged father does not have a current interest in a child

because his paternity has not yet been established. [Citation.]’ (In re O.S. (2002) 102

Cal.App.4th 1402, 1406.) . . . Due process for an alleged father requires only that he ‘be

given notice and “an opportunity to appear and assert a position and attempt to change his

paternity status. [Citations.]”’ (Ibid.)” (In re Christopher M., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at

pp. 159-160.) “Section 316.2, subdivision (a) requires the court to inquire as to the

identity of all presumed or alleged fathers, at the detention hearing or as soon after as

practicable.” (In re Kobe A., supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1120.)

           3. Discussion

       The March 21, 2023, minute order for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing is

inconsistent with the exit order included with the judgment. The minute order states that

Father is an alleged father of J.M. The exit order (form JV-200) attached to the judgment

states that Father is the presumed father of all of the Children, including J.M. The exit

order states that the presumed father finding was made on January 10, 2023, but the

transcript of the hearing states, to the contrary, that the court ordered paternity testing for

Father as to J.M. on January 10, 2023, and found only as to the other children that he was

their presumed father.

                                              26
       Because the paternity test results show that Father is J.M.’s biological father, and

those test results were submitted to the court before the March 21, 2023,

jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court erred in not conducting a hearing and making

findings on Father’s paternity during the final jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

Furthermore, the minute order erroneously states Father remained an alleged father when

the DNA results established he is, at a minimum, a biological father. There is evidence in

the record that, had the court addressed the issue, it likely would have found that he was

either a biological father or a presumed father. Although the exit order states he is a

presumed father of all of the Children, the exit order appears to have been erroneous,

based on the inconsistencies in the minute order, the reporter’s transcript of the hearing,

and the exit order.

       We conclude the error as to Father’s paternity as to J.M. is prejudicial because it is

unclear from the record whether the juvenile court intended to make a finding that Father

is an alleged, biological, or presumed father of J.M. Had the court properly heard and

made a finding on the record on the issue during the March 21, 2023,

jurisdiction/disposition hearing, there is a reasonable probability the court would have

either found Father is a biological or a presumed father of J.M. Father’s paternity status

significantly impacts his rights to visitation of J.M., not only during the juvenile

dependency proceedings but also thereafter in the family law court. Therefore the finding

regarding Father’s status as to J.M. must be vacated and the case remanded to allow the

juvenile court to properly make a finding regarding Father’s paternity status as to J.M.

                                             27
       Because the matter is being remanded for a determination and finding on Father’s

paternity status as to J.M., Father’s IAC objection that his attorney failed to request the

court to find that Father is a presumed father, is moot.

       G. Due Process Objection

       As to the visitation exit order and the paternity status finding, Father’s due process

challenges are moot because the exit orders are reversed and the matter is remanded for

reconsideration of the orders. As to the visitation detriment finding and move-away exit

order, we further conclude there was no violation of Father’s due process rights.

       “Since the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and

management of his children is a compelling one, ranked among the most basic of civil

rights [citations], the state, before depriving a parent of this interest, must afford him

adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. [Citations.]” (In re B.G. (1974) 11

Cal.3d 679, 688-689.) “Hence, the parenting right may not be interfered with in the

absence of a ‘compelling state interest.’” (In re David B. (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 184,

192.) “Only in extreme cases may the parenting right be disturbed and then only when

there is no reasonable alternative. . . . Our Supreme Court has emphasized the extreme

gravity of the parenting right by focusing attention ‘not on the unfitness of the parent but

the detriment to the child.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) A parent’s civil right to parent a child is

not absolute because the welfare of the child “is a compelling state interest that a state has

not only a right, but a duty, to protect.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.)

                                              28
       Father argues he was denied his substantive due process rights because the exit

orders effectively terminated his parental rights, were not narrowly tailored, and did not

provide him with a meaningful opportunity to modify the exit orders in family law court

in the future. Father maintains that the exit orders deprive him of any chance of seeing

his Children again and reunifying with them, and modification of the orders is “nearly

impossible” because he has no access to the Children and therefore cannot demonstrate

changed circumstances or that changing the order was in the Children’s best interests. He

thus maintains that the orders, in effect, sever his parental relationship with the Children

and preclude him from seeing his Children again, particularly if they move away without

providing him with any notice of when or where they move. We disagree that the exit

orders violate his due process rights.

       First, it is unclear from the visitation exit orders whether the court intended to

order termination of all visitation or continuation of supervised visitation. Therefore, this

matter is being remanded as to the visitation order.

       Second, regardless of the visitation order, the exit orders do not violate Father’s

substantive due process rights because the court did not terminate his parental rights to

the Children. The exit orders are not final because they can be modified by the family

law court upon a showing of changed circumstances and that modifying the orders is in

the Children’s best interests. (§§ 302, subd. (d), 366.26.)

       Third, the exit orders do not preclude Father from demonstrating in the future, in

family law court, changed circumstances, and that visitation is in the Children’s best

                                             29
interests. Contrary to Father’s contention that there is no realistic path for him to reunify

with the Children, there is a realistic path available for Father. He may show changed

circumstances demonstrating he has adhered to the restraining order and has completely

ceased contacting Mother for inappropriate reasons and harassing her. Other possible

avenues to visitation might include participating in additional therapy and other

beneficial programs and courses assisting Father in changing his destructive, harmful

behaviors. Providing the court with reports, declarations, or testimony by mental health

experts might also be helpful in establishing that Father is no longer obsessed with

Mother, has ceased stalking and harassing her, and does not pose a risk of physical or

emotional harm to Mother and the Children.

       While it might be difficult for Father to demonstrate changed circumstances and

that visitation is in the Children’s best interests, succeeding in doing so is not “nearly

impossible,” as Father argues. In addition, as discussed above, there was substantial

evidence that the court’s visitation detriment finding and move-away order were in the

Children’s best interests because Father continued to be obsessed with Mother, stalking

and harassing her, and inappropriately confronting her in the presence of the Children.

This resulted in the family law court granting Mother a one-year restraining order,

demonstrating that Father was a risk to Mother and, in turn, the Children.

       The Children’s well-being and safety take precedence over Father’s parenting

rights. (In re T.S., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 513 [“‘[T]he court’s focus and primary

consideration must always be the best interests of the child.’”].) Therefore, under the

                                              30
circumstances in this case, we reject Father’s due process objections to the exit orders and

findings.

                                             IV.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The exit orders challenged in this appeal are reversed and the juvenile dependency

court, upon remand, is directed to reconsider and revise, to the extent necessary, the exit

orders in accordance with this opinion.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                CODRINGTON
                                                                                              J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

MILLER
                          J.

                                             31