Court Opinion

ID: 9380294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 20:02:20.2836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.012632
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/17/23 In re M.O. CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

 In re M.O. et al., Persons Coming                                      B318783
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                     (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No.
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                                   20CCJP06646A-B)

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 I.S.,

           Defendant and Appellant;

 B.G.,

           Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
      Jacques Alexander Love and Jack A. Love, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Michelle D. Peña, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

             ____________________________________

      The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction after giving
mother sole legal and physical custody of daughters M.O. and
J.O. and issuing an order allowing father monitored visitation.
Father appeals from the orders terminating jurisdiction and
imposing monitored visitation, arguing they amounted to an
abuse of discretion. We disagree and affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.    Events Preceding the Detention Hearing
      I.S. (Father) and B.G. (Mother) lived separately. Their
daughters M.O. (born 2019) and J.O. (born 2020) resided with
Mother and maternal grandmother. Father lived with friends.
      In August and September 2020, the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (Department)
received referrals alleging general neglect and/or abuse by one or
both parents or maternal grandmother. The referrals were
unfounded. A Department social worker determined the
allegations stemmed from the ongoing conflict between the
parents over child visitation. Both parents were repeatedly
advised to resolve their differences in family court through

                                   2
mediation and court-ordered visitation. However, they did not
follow through. Mother said she was afraid to do so because
Father stalked her in the neighborhood and would not allow her
to leave. Father said that no one could stop him from seeing his
children.
       Maternal grandmother and her relatives did not have a
good relationship with Father. In October 2020, maternal
grandmother obtained a restraining order against Father to
protect herself and her children. According to maternal
grandmother, Father had violated the restraining order on
numerous occasions and had been arrested three times.
       On November 15, 2020, the Department received a referral
after Mother contacted law enforcement to report a domestic
violence incident. M.O. was with Father for the day. When
Mother arrived to pick her up, Father refused to surrender M.O.
and walked away with her in a stroller. Mother followed, and
Father struck her arm. Mother returned home and contacted
police. Father was arrested.
       On November 18, 2020, a Department social worker went
to Mother’s home to interview her. Upon arrival, the social
worker noticed Father riding a bicycle. He was circling the dead-
end street where Mother lived. During the interview, Mother
confirmed the details of the reported domestic violence incident,
adding that Father had also pushed her. Mother showed the
social worker a bruise on her arm. Mother also said Father had
blocked an Uber car in which she was sitting so she could not be
driven away. Mother explained that Father harassed her,
loitered in her neighborhood, and would not leave the area.
       After interviewing Mother, the social worker encountered
Father on a nearby street and stopped to interview him. Father

                                   3
acknowledged the November 15, 2020 incident, but he denied
hitting Mother. Father also acknowledged his prior arrests for
violating maternal grandmother’s restraining order. During the
conversation, Father had a difficult time staying focused and
kept moving around. He denied having any mental health or
substance abuse problems.
       Later the same day, Mother obtained a temporary
restraining order to protect herself and her children from Father
that was to expire in December 2020.
       Father had a juvenile delinquency history from 2008 to
2010. As an adult, he was convicted of assault with a firearm
and sentenced to four years in prison. From 2017 through 2020,
Father had six arrests for violating his parole and two
misdemeanor convictions for violating a protective order. He was
still on parole at the time of the reported November 15, 2020
incident when he reportedly struck Mother’s arm.
       On November 25, 2020, Mother’s friend was driving her to
work, and Father jumped into the back of the truck. After
kicking the truck window, he used a car jack to break the glass
pane behind the passenger seat where Mother was sitting.
B.     Detention Hearing
       On December 17, 2020, the Department filed a petition
alleging M.O. and J.O. came within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 300,
subdivisions (a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The petition alleged Father
and Mother had a history of violent altercations and Mother

        1   Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.

                                       4
failed to protect the children because she allowed Father
unlimited and unmonitored access to them. The petition further
alleged Father’s paranoid and aggressive behavior, for which he
had failed to seek mental health services, placed his children at
risk of serious harm.
       At the December 22, 2020 detention hearing, the juvenile
court ordered that the children remain with Mother and be
detained from Father. The court ordered two-hour monitored
visits with Father at a minimum of three times a week once the
restraining orders or criminal protective orders currently in effect
would allow.
       On January 22, 2021, Father was arrested and
incarcerated for violating his parole. He was released from
custody on March 25, 2021.
C.     Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
       On March 17, 2021, the juvenile court granted Mother’s
request for a temporary restraining order protecting her from
Father.
       On April 28, 2021, the juvenile court issued a permanent
restraining order protecting Mother from Father. The order was
to expire on October 23, 2021.
       At the May 13, 2021 jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
the juvenile court sustained the petition as pleaded under section
300, subdivision (b)(1) and (b)(2). The section 300, subdivision (a)
allegations were dismissed. For disposition, the court ordered the
children removed from Father and released to Mother. The court
ordered two-hour monitored visits with Father at a minimum of
three times a week once he was out of custody. Father was
ordered to participate in a parenting program and individual
counseling sessions to address issues of domestic violence and

                                    5
substance abuse. He was also required to abide by the
restraining order and conditions of parole.
D.     Father’s Visitation
       Father’s visits were to be monitored, but the Department
social worker had difficulty finding available monitors. Father’s
relatives would not serve as monitors. Because no Human
Services Aides were available in the beginning, the Department
social worker agreed to monitor Father’s visits when she could.
       From May 13, 2021, through October 25, 2021, there were
23 scheduled visits. However only 12 visits occurred. Father
canceled two visits because he was at a detoxification facility, and
two visits because he had been arrested and incarcerated on four
outstanding warrants, including one for breaking the window of
the truck in which Mother was a passenger. Father canceled
three more visits because he was sick or had overslept. Mother
canceled two visits because she could not find anyone to drive her
to the visit site. She explained that Father had threatened the
people who would chauffeur her, so now they did not want to get
involved. Mother canceled another visit because the children
were ill. The social worker had to cancel one visit.
       The monitors reported problems with Father’s behavior
toward Mother. At six of the 12 visits that occurred, Father
yelled at Mother or attempted to challenge or intimidate her
when she was arriving or leaving with the children. On occasion,
the monitors had to demand that Father leave. They then stayed
with Mother and the children to be sure Father had gone. Once,
Father would not leave until the monitor threatened to call the
police.

                                    6
E.      Section 364 Hearing and Termination of Jurisdiction
        At the January 31, 2022 contested section 364 hearing, the
juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, granted Mother sole legal
and physical custody of the children, and ordered Father’s visits
for two-hours, three times per week to remain monitored. The
monitor was to be someone mutually agreed upon by Mother and
Father or a professional monitor paid for by Father. The court
stated, “The problem with the behavior that’s currently reported,
I don’t believe that it would be in the children’s best interest or
safe for [Father] to have unmonitored contact.” The matter was
continued for the final written orders and a progress report as to
who would monitor Father’s visits and assist with facilitating his
visits.
        In its last-minute information for the court filed on
February 16, 2022, the Department noted Mother had extended
the restraining order against Father for another three years or
until 2024. Mother informed the Department that neither her
relatives nor Father’s relatives were willing to monitor Father’s
visits because of his intimidating behavior. She believed Father’s
best option would be to have a professional monitor. The
Department sent Father four referrals to agencies that provide
professional, supervised visitation.
        On February 28, 2022, the juvenile court received and filed
the juvenile custody and visitation orders, lifted the stay and
terminated jurisdiction.
        Father timely filed a notice of appeal.
                             DISCUSSION
A.      Applicable Law and Standard of Review
        When the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction, “ ‘section
362.4 authorizes it to make custody and visitation orders that

                                    7
will be transferred to an existing family court file and remain in
effect until modified or terminated by the superior court.’ ” (In re
Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.) In determining custody
or visitation, the court’s primary consideration is the best
interests of the child. (Id. at p. 206; accord, In re T.S. (2020) 52
Cal.App.5th 503, 513.) We review these orders for an abuse of
discretion. (In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863; In re S.H.
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557–1558 [“dependency law
affords the juvenile court great discretion in deciding issues
relating to parent-child visitation, which discretion we will not
disturb on appeal unless the juvenile court has exceeded the
bounds of reason”].)
B.     Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
       After the juvenile court placed M.O. and J.O. with Mother,
it was fully authorized to terminate jurisdiction if termination
would be in the best interest of the children. Here, the record
provided every indication that the children were happy and
thriving under Mother’s care. The Department reported Mother
“ha[d] gained new insight into how to protect herself and her
children from future conflict” with Father. She also had a
current restraining order against him and had moved to a new
confidential location with M.O. and J.O. The children’s wellbeing
was no longer endangered by their exposure to Father’s abusive
relationship with Mother. As there were no outstanding safety
concerns requiring the court’s ongoing supervision of the
children’s placement with Mother, the court did not abuse its
discretion in terminating jurisdiction.
       Nonetheless, Father contends the juvenile court abused its
discretion by terminating jurisdiction without a visitation plan
that would ensure the court-ordered visitation would take place.

                                    8
Father does not offer an alternative visitation order. Instead, he
argues that simply reimposing the “generic” order of two hours of
monitored visitation three times a week is insufficient. Father
points to Mother’s restraining order against him as a likely
impediment to continued visits with his children.
       There are no reports of Father’s visitation after October 25,
2021, and nothing in the record explains the reason that no more
visits were reported. In any event, Father’s argument is hollow.
It ignores the fact he was able to comply with this same “generic”
order for monitored visitation from May 13 through October 25,
2021, when Mother had a permanent restraining order against
him. The court properly required a monitor for Father’s visits for
the safety of Mother and the children. (See § 362.1, subd.
(a)(1)(B) [“No visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the
child”].) Nonetheless, Father still attempted to intimidate
Mother in the children’s presence. As the juvenile court found,
while Father had completed his required services, “[t]he problem
is he hasn’t really taken them to heart and demonstrated through
his behavior that he understands what he needs to do in order to
be safe with [his] children.”
       The problem is not with the visitation order. It is a
problem of Father’s own making. His threatening behavior
extended to his and Mother’s relatives as well as to other
potential monitors. None were willing to supervise Father’s
visitation. In response, the Department provided him with a list
of professional monitors to help him. It was his obligation to
contact them. The court did not abuse its discretion in
terminating jurisdiction and reimposing the prior monitored
visitation. If Father wishes to have the visitation modified, he

                                    9
can seek the assistance of family court. (§§ 302, subd. (d), 362.4,
subd. (b).)
                          DISPOSITION
      The orders are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                           LUI, P. J.
We concur:

      CHAVEZ, J.

      HOFFSTADT, J.

                                    10