Court Opinion

ID: 9954212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 20:03:23.560215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:53.315464
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/25/24 In re Ernest R. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 In re Ernest R. et al., Persons                                 B323956
 Coming Under the Juvenile
 Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP04280D–E)
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 P.R.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
      Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kwon, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               _________________________________
                        INTRODUCTION
      P.R. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order at a
12-month review hearing, terminating dependency jurisdiction
over his two minor children, granting joint legal custody to the
parents and sole physical custody to the mother, S.R. (Mother),
and ordering unmonitored visits for Father. On appeal, Father
argues the juvenile court erred by granting sole physical custody
to Mother without considering the children’s best interests, and
by conditioning modification of its order on Father’s participation
in an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program with a sponsor.
We conclude that the juvenile court properly considered the
children’s best interests in issuing its custody order, and that it
did not place any conditions on the family court’s modification of
such order in the future. We accordingly affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.    Dependency petition
      Mother and Father are the parents of two minor children:
Ernest R., born in February 2009, and Matthew R., born in May
2014. The parents also have three adult children. In 2018, both
Ernest and Matthew were declared dependents of the juvenile
court based on Father’s substance abuse and domestic violence
against Mother. The following year, in June 2019, the court
terminated jurisdiction over the children and released them to
the parents.
      The current matter came to the attention of the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) in May 2021 based on a referral alleging an incident of
domestic violence between the parents while the children were
present in the home. In an interview with DCFS, Mother stated
that Father punched her in the face with a closed fist, causing an

                                 2
injury to her lip. She also disclosed that Father had been
drinking heavily for the past six months, and he appeared to be
drunk when he hit her. In his interview with DCFS, Father
denied punching Mother. He described the altercation as a
“scuffle” during which his elbow might have “accidentally” hit
Mother’s lip. While Father admitted he drank alcohol on the day
of the incident, he denied he was intoxicated.
       Both Ernest and Matthew confirmed they were present in
the home during the altercation, but they did not witness it.
The children also indicated that Father frequently drank alcohol,
including on the day of the incident, and that he became
aggressive with Mother when he was drunk. The children’s older
brother, A.R., reported that the parents had a history of domestic
violence in which Father was physically and verbally abusive
toward Mother.
       On June 21, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition for the
children under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300,
subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). The petition alleged the children
were at substantial risk of harm based on the parents’ domestic
violence and Father’s substance abuse.
       At the June 24, 2021 detention hearing, both parents
appeared and were appointed counsel. The juvenile court
detained the children from Father and released them to Mother
pending an adjudication hearing.
II.    Jurisdictional and dispositional hearing
       For its August 10, 2021 jurisdictional and dispositional
report, DCFS interviewed the family about the allegations in the

1     Unless otherwise stated, all further undesignated statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                3
section 300 petition. As to the domestic violence allegation,
Mother recounted that Father became angry when she refused to
give him attention. After Mother pushed him away, Father
called her a “bitch,” and then punched her in the mouth with a
closed fist. While the children did not witness the altercation,
Ernest heard Mother screaming and saw that her lip was
bleeding. Father continued to deny hitting Mother, and claimed
she injured her lip when they fell onto the couch while struggling
over his cell phone. He also stated that Mother “provoked” him.
       As to substance abuse allegations, Mother reported that
Father recently began drinking daily, and that his alcohol use
caused him to be physically aggressive toward her. Mother never
left the children alone with Father when he was drinking. Both
Ernest and Matthew confirmed that Father often drank beer.
When asked about the frequency, Ernest responded “kind of
every day,” and Matthew replied “a lot.” Ernest also stated that
Father “acts different, more aggressive than usual” when he
drinks. Father denied he had a substance abuse problem.
He claimed that he drank beer about twice a week, and that on
the day of the altercation with Mother, he “had like two beers”
but “wasn’t drunk.”
       DCFS reported that Father had an extensive criminal
record that included multiple arrests for domestic violence.
Following the latest domestic violence incident, Father was
convicted of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and
placed on probation. The criminal court issued a three-year
protective order against Father prohibiting contact with Mother,
and ordered him to attend 26 AA sessions and a 52-week
domestic violence program. The criminal court later modified the
protective order to allow peaceful contact between the parents.

                                4
       On August 26, 2021, the juvenile court held a jurisdictional
and dispositional hearing. The court sustained the petition
under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), based on the parents’
domestic violence and Father’s alcohol abuse. The court declared
both Ernest and Matthew dependents of the court, removed the
children from Father, and released them to Mother under DCFS’s
supervision. The court ordered family maintenance services for
Mother, including an Al-Anon program, family preservation
services, individual counseling to address case issues, and
conjoint counseling with Father if they reconciled. The court
ordered enhancement services for Father, consisting of random
weekly drug and alcohol testing, a 12-step program with a court
card and sponsor, a 52-week domestic violence program,
individual counseling to address case issues, and conjoint
counseling with Mother if they reconciled. The court also ordered
monitored visitation for Father a minimum of three times per
week.
III. Six-month review hearing
       As of February 2022, Mother was participating in weekly
Al-Anon meetings, individual counseling, conjoint counseling
with the children, and family preservation services. The
therapist who provided conjoint counseling to Mother and the
children noted that the children appeared to be happy in
Mother’s care, and that Mother was attentive to their needs and
involved in their daily activities. The therapist did not have any
concerns about the children’s safety in Mother’s care. The
outreach counselor who provided family preservation services
likewise reported that she had no safety concerns about the
children, and that both Ernest and Matthew appeared to have a
close relationship with Mother.

                                5
      Father had made some progress with his case plan. He was
testing negative for drugs or alcohol. He was participating in a
52-week domestic violence program and had completed 25
sessions. However, he had not enrolled in individual counseling
despite receiving multiple referrals from the social worker.
Although Father stated that he previously attended in-person AA
meetings for his criminal case, he did not have a sponsor or a
court card to verify his attendance. He also reported that he
recently began attending an online 12-step program, but did not
provide any details. Father told the social worker, “I’m not
stressing over the Court’s orders. I do what I can.”
      During Father’s visits with the children, both Ernest and
Matthew appeared comfortable with Father, and there were no
reported concerns about their safety. The children expressed that
they missed Father, enjoyed spending time with him, and wanted
the visits to continue.
      On February 24, 2022, the juvenile court held the six-
month review hearing. The court found that continued
jurisdiction was necessary, and ordered an additional three
months of services for the parents.
IV. Nine-month review hearing
      As of May 2022, Ernest and Matthew remained suitably
placed in Mother’s home. The children successfully completed
individual and family counseling, and they reported that they
had a positive relationship with Mother. The children also
continued to have monitored visits with Father as his work
schedule permitted.
      Mother was complying with her case plan. She completed
individual counseling and conjoint counseling with the children,
and she continued to participate in weekly Al-Anon meetings and

                               6
family preservation services. Mother disclosed that she had
begun spending time with Father outside of the children’s
presence, and that she wanted to reconcile with him once he
completed his programs. In April 2022, Mother participated in a
child and family team (CFT) meeting in which she agreed that
the children needed a safe home free from any domestic violence
or alcohol use.
       Father continued to test negative for drugs and alcohol,
and to participate in a domestic violence program. He also began
individual counseling. While Father told DCFS that he was
attending online Al-Anon meetings, the only proof that he
provided were personal notes that he took on his cell phone.
He denied he was participating in AA meetings or had a sponsor.
Father also reported that he wished to reconcile with Mother,
and was interested in conjoint counseling with her. Father’s
therapist, however, recommended that he not begin conjoint
counseling with Mother until he completed his domestic violence
program. Although DCFS repeatedly offered Father the
opportunity to participate in a CFT meeting, he declined each
time, stating, “I don’t have time and I will not do anything extra
that is not court ordered.”
       In its May 2022 status review report, DCFS noted that
Father continued to blame others for the agency’s involvement
with the family, and that he appeared to struggle with managing
his anger when the social worker attempted to discuss services
with him. DCFS also noted that Father continued to state that
he did not physically abuse the children, and that he had not
gained insight into how his domestic violence or alcohol use
negatively affected them. DCFS recommended the court continue
its jurisdiction so that Father could complete his court-ordered

                                7
programs and the parents could participate in conjoint counseling
given their plans to reconcile.
       At a review hearing held on May 26, 2022, the juvenile
court ordered an additional three months of services for the
parents, including referrals for conjoint counseling. The court
ordered DCFS to assess Father for limited unmonitored visits,
and granted DCFS the discretion to liberalize the visits. The
court stated to Father, “[Y]ou are making progress, but I need
you to complete the programs. And it is not just so we can check
the box. I need you to show a real change in how you view why
this case came here.”
V.     12-month review hearing
       As of September 2022, the children continued to do well in
Mother’s care. Mother was complying with her case plan, and
she and the children had successfully completed their family
preservation services. Mother also participated in another CFT
meeting in which she reiterated that she would not allow Father
to return to the family’s home until he fully addressed his case
issues.
       During this review period, Father completed the domestic
violence program and individual counseling. The facilitator for
the domestic violence program described Father’s participation as
“Excellent.” Father’s therapist reported that he was “invested in
his therapy and demonstrated healthier problem-solving skills.”
However, Father was still not participating in AA meetings, had
stopped attending Al-Anon meetings, and never obtained an AA
or Al-Anon sponsor. Father told DCFS that he was busy with
work, and that it was difficult to find a sponsor when the
meetings were online. While Father continued to test negative

                               8
for drugs and alcohol, he missed an on-demand test in July 2022
and again in August 2022.
       Mother and Father began participating in weekly conjoint
counseling in July 2022. However, Father failed to attend one of
the scheduled sessions in August 2022. The therapist noted
Mother was emotional during that session and asked how she
could stop conjoint counseling. Both parents later told DCFS
that they wanted to continue with the counseling to learn better
communication. The therapist reported that Mother and Father
had been “open and cooperative” during the sessions, but they
“struggled markedly with maintaining effective communication
with one another to effectively resolve conflicts and co-parent.”
The therapist recommended the parents remain in conjoint
counseling for at least two months to address these issues.
       During the review period, Father continued to have regular
visitation with the children. Two paternal aunts who served as
the monitors reported that Father was appropriate and attentive
during the visits, and that he calmly redirected the children
when needed. During one visit, the social worker also observed
that Father was patient with the children, and that the children
appeared comfortable with Father and enjoyed engaging with
him. The children noted that Father was visiting them more
frequently, and they wanted the visits to continue. In early
August 2022, DCFS liberalized Father’s visits to unmonitored.
       On September 1, 2022, the juvenile court held the 12-
month review hearing. Counsel for DCFS and counsel for the
children joined in requesting that the court terminate its
jurisdiction with a custody order granting joint legal custody to
the parents, sole physical custody to Mother, and unmonitored
visitation to Father. The children’s counsel noted that Father

                                9
had not attended AA meetings or obtained a sponsor, and that
the parents were still working on their issues in conjoint
counseling. Counsel also noted that, while the children recently
began having unmonitored visits with Father, they had remained
in Mother’s care throughout the case and were comfortable with
her.
       Father’s counsel asked the court to grant the parents joint
legal and physical custody. His counsel argued that Father
consistently tested negative for drugs and alcohol, and completed
a domestic violence program and individual counseling where he
addressed case issues, including alcohol use. His counsel
asserted that Father had not attended AA meetings or obtained a
sponsor due to his work schedule.
       The juvenile court stated that it shared the concerns of the
children’s counsel about Father’s alcohol use. The court
explained: “Father had been in denial that alcohol was the
problem and that he is an alcoholic. He has obtained treatment,
but what the AA offers is more time for somebody to face the fact
that they are an alcoholic, and to meet other alcoholics and gain
support and to also work with a sponsor. Father says it has been
difficult because of his job and things being online, but plenty of
other families have been able to access these services during the
pandemic and while holding jobs. I’m concerned there will be a
relapse if he doesn’t seek support.”
       The court ordered the termination of jurisdiction over the
children pending the receipt of a custody order that granted joint
legal custody to the parents, sole physical custody to Mother, and
unmonitored visitation to Father. At the hearing, the court also
stated that “[c]ustody to indicate that Father needs to complete a
period with consistent participation in AA and use of a sponsor.”

                                10
       On September 8, 2022, the court signed the custody order
and terminated its jurisdiction over Ernest and Matthew.
The written custody order provided that “Father is to have
unmonitored visits as arranged by the parents as he has not
completed Alcoholics Anonymous nor obtained a sponsor.”
Father filed a timely appeal.
                             DISCUSSION
       Father challenges the portion of the juvenile court’s order
that granted sole physical custody of the children to Mother and
unmonitored visitation to Father. He contends the court erred in
awarding Mother sole physical custody without considering the
children’s best interests. He also claims the court overstepped its
authority to the extent it conditioned modification of its order on
Father’s participation in AA and use of a sponsor. We conclude
the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the
custody order.
I.     Governing law
       Once a child has been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile
court under section 300, “any issues regarding custodial rights
between his or her parents shall be determined solely by the
juvenile court . . . so long as the child remains a dependent of the
juvenile court.” (§ 302, subd. (c).) Section 364 requires the court
to conduct a review hearing every six months for a dependent
child who remains in the physical custody of his or her parent.
(Id., subd. (a); see In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 512.)
At the section 364 review hearing, the court “shall determine
whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall
terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her
department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the
conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of

                                11
jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely
to exist if supervision is withdrawn.” (§ 364, subd. (c).)
       When terminating jurisdiction over a dependent child,
section 362.4 authorizes the juvenile court to issue “an order
determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.” (Id.,
subd. (a).) Section 362.4 further provides that the order “shall
continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent order of
the superior court,” and directs that the order be filed in a
pending family court proceeding (id., subd. (b)) or, if there is
none, as part of a new family court file (id., subd. (c)). When the
juvenile court issues a custody or visitation order under section
362.4, “[t]he order shall not be modified” in a family court
proceeding “unless the court finds that there has been a
significant change of circumstances since the juvenile court
issued the order and modification of the order is in the best
interests of the child.” (§ 302, subd. (d).)
       In making a custody or visitation order under section 362.4
(commonly referred to as an “exit order”), the court’s “ ‘focus and
primary consideration must always be the best interests of the
child.’ ” (In re T.S., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 513.) A juvenile
court is not restrained by any preferences or presumptions that
are ordinarily applicable in family court. (In re C.M. (2019)
38 Cal.App.5th 101, 110; In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 251, 268.) We review a juvenile court’s exit order for
abuse of discretion. (In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.)
We “ ‘may not disturb the order unless the court “ ‘ “exceeded the
limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd determination.” ’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.)

                                12
II.    The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
       issuing the custody order
       Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to its
ruling, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing
an exit order that granted sole physical custody of the children to
Mother and unmonitored visitation to Father. This case was the
second time that the court assumed jurisdiction over the children
based on Father’s domestic violence and alcohol abuse. Less than
two years after the court terminated its jurisdiction and returned
the children to both parents, Father committed another act of
domestic violence against Mother while under the influence of
alcohol. Although Father denied that he had a substance abuse
problem, Mother and the children confirmed that he drank
alcohol on a daily basis and became physically aggressive when
he was drunk. Accordingly, when the court again exercised
jurisdiction over the children in August 2021, it ordered Father to
participate in enhancement services, including random drug and
alcohol testing, a 12-step program with a court card and sponsor,
a domestic violence program, individual counseling, and conjoint
counseling with Mother if they intended to reconcile.
       By the time the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction
and issued the custody order in September 2022, Father was in
partial compliance with his case plan. He completed individual
counseling and a domestic violence program, and was
participating in conjoint counseling with Mother. He continued
to test negative for drugs and alcohol, though he failed to appear
for two on-demand tests between July and August 2022. While
Father reported that he previously attended AA meetings as part
of his criminal case, he declined to participate in AA for the
dependency case. In May 2022, he told DCFS that he was

                                13
attending Al-Anon meetings online, but he did not provide a court
card to verify his attendance. He also failed to obtain a sponsor,
and by September 2022, he stopped participating in Al-Anon
because he claimed he was too busy with work.
      During this same period, Mother fully complied with her
court-ordered services. In addition to attending weekly Al-Anon
meetings, Mother successfully completed individual counseling,
conjoint counseling with the children, and family preservation
services. She also participated in CFT meetings where she
expressed her commitment to providing the children with a safe
and healthy home environment. The record further reflects that
the children were consistently well-cared for by Mother and
closely bonded to her. The service providers who worked with
Mother and the children noted that they had a strong bond, that
Mother was attentive to their needs, and that the children
appeared to be happy in her care. The children likewise reported
that they had a positive relationship with Mother.
      The record does show that the children were bonded with
Father. Both Ernest and Matthew expressed to DCFS that they
missed Father, and that they enjoyed spending time with him
during their visits. However, as their counsel noted at the
September 2022 hearing, the children only recently began having
unmonitored visits with Father, whereas they had been in
Mother’s custody throughout the proceedings and were doing well
in her care. Additionally, Father’s failure to participate in AA
meetings or obtain an AA sponsor supported the inference that
he had not gained sufficient insight into how his alcohol use
affected his children. Considering the totality of this record, the
juvenile court reasonably could conclude that the children’s

                                14
interests were best served by granting sole physical custody to
Mother and unmonitored visitation to Father.
       Citing In re N.M. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1090 (N.M.),
Father argues the juvenile court erroneously based its exit order
on his failure to comply with his case plan rather than on the
children’s best interests. This argument lacks merit. In N.M.,
the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition due to the
mother’s alcohol abuse, and ordered services for both parents.
(Id. at pp. 1092–1093.) When the court later terminated its
jurisdiction, it denied the father’s request for joint physical
custody, stating that “ ‘[i]t’s not appropriate to reward a parent
who does nothing in this court.’ ” (Id. at p. 1093.) In reversing
the order granting the mother sole physical custody, the Court of
Appeal explained that “an exit order must serve the best
interests of the children, not reward or punish one parent or
another for failing to comply with the case plan.” (Id. at p. 1095.)
The court also noted that the father had “never been deemed an
offending parent,” and there was no evidence that his lack of
compliance with his case plan “impacted the children in any
way.” (Ibid.)
       In this case, however, Father was the offending parent
based on his alcohol abuse and domestic violence against Mother.
Moreover, the juvenile court never suggested that it was granting
sole physical custody to Mother to avoid rewarding Father for his
failure to comply with his case plan. Rather, the court stated it
was concerned that Father was still in denial about his alcohol
abuse, and that he was at risk of relapsing if he did not seek
support through AA and a sponsor. Given the evidence, the court
did not err when it considered Father’s unresolved issues with
alcohol in deciding custody and visitation.

                                15
       Citing In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444 (Cole Y.),
Father also asserts the juvenile court improperly conditioned the
family court’s modification of the exit order on his participation
in AA and use of a sponsor. We disagree. In Cole Y., the juvenile
court issued an exit order that granted joint legal custody to the
parents and sole physical custody to the mother. (Id. at p. 1451.)
The court stated that “ ‘in order to modify the court’s orders, . . .
Father will have to complete . . . a full drug program with weekly
testing, a parenting program and individual counseling.’ ” (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal held that, under section 302, subdivision (d),
the juvenile court did not have the authority to condition the
family court’s modification of an exit order upon a parent’s
completion of certain programs. (Id. at p. 1456.)
       Here, the juvenile court orally stated that “[c]ustody to
indicate that Father needs to complete a period with consistent
participation in AA and use of a sponsor.” Then, in its written
custody order, the court specified that “Father is to have
unmonitored visits as arranged by the parents as he has not
completed Alcoholics Anonymous nor obtained a sponsor.” In
contrast to Cole Y., the court in this case did not place any
express conditions on the family court’s authority to modify the
exit order. The written order makes clear that, in referencing
Father’s failure to participate in AA or obtain a sponsor, the court
was not imposing any such conditions, but rather was explaining
the basis for its decision on custody and visitation. The written
order, which will be placed in a family court file, does not purport
to limit the family court’s power to modify custody or visitation in
the future if warranted by the circumstances. On this record, the
juvenile court’s custody order was not an abuse of discretion.

                                 16
                   DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s custody order is affirmed.

                                    VIRAMONTES, J.

WE CONCUR:

            GRIMES, Acting P. J.

            WILEY, J.

                          17