In re B.S. CA2/5 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/22/21 In re B.S. CA2/5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
    not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FIVE
    In re B.S., a Person Coming                                  B309539
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No.
    20CCJP02763A)
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY
    DEPARTMENT OF
    CHILDREN AND FAMILY
    SERVICES,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    T.S.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of the County of
    Los Angeles, Martha A. Matthews, Judge.
    Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
    Assistant County Counsel, Stephen Watson, Deputy County
    Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    _____________________________
    I.    INTRODUCTION
    T.S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction
    and disposition orders, arguing there was insufficient evidence to
    support the finding that he failed to protect his son, B.S. (the
    child), from the potential risks posed by A.P.’s (mother) alcohol
    abuse. Father also contends that the court abused its discretion
    by ordering him to participate in an Al-Anon support group. We
    affirm.
    II.      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    A.         The Dependency Petition
    On May 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of
    Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a Welfare
    and Institutions Code section 3001 petition, which alleged, as
    relevant to this appeal and as later amended:
    “b-3: [Mother] has a history of alcohol abuse and is a
    current abuser of alcohol, which renders [her] incapable of
    1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
    Institutions Code.
    2
    providing regular care and supervision of the child. On prior
    occasions, . . . mother used, possessed, and was under the
    influence of alcohol while the child was in . . . mother’s care and
    supervision. [Father] knew, or reasonably should have known, of
    . . . mother’s alcohol abuse and failed to protect the child by
    allowing . . . mother to reside in the child’s home and have
    unlimited access to the child. [M]other’s substance abuse and . . .
    father’s failure to protect the child, endangers the child’s physical
    health and safety and places the child at risk of serious physical
    harm, damage, danger, and failure to protect.”
    B.    Family’s Prior History
    The family initially came to the attention of the
    Department in an August 2019 referral alleging that mother had
    “recently tried to hang herself,” and that her boyfriend, D.G., also
    had attempted to hang himself twice in mother’s garage.
    According to the referral, mother had an alcohol use disorder and
    had relapsed on July 27, 2019. D.G. also had a problem with
    alcohol. Father was “concerned about these events” and had
    taken custody of the child since mother went to the emergency
    room.
    The Department’s report on the incident explained that
    mother had ended a “toxic relationship” with D.G., who had
    attempted to hang himself in her bathroom and garage. The
    incident caused mother to relapse to alcohol abuse. Mother
    described herself as a “blackout drinker” and could not remember
    the events that resulted in her admission to the emergency room.
    Mother denied attempting suicide, explaining that she only told
    hospital personnel that she was suicidal so she could be seen
    3
    earlier. She was held for several hours because her blood alcohol
    content was “approximately 3.8.”
    Mother made arrangements for the child to stay with
    father after she relapsed in August 2019, but there was no
    present agreement as to when the child would be returned to her
    care. Father knew that mother had a “toxic relationship” with
    D.G., that she had sought a restraining order against D.G, that
    he had attempted suicide in her home, and that mother had
    relapsed as a result. Father was glad to have the child in his care
    because he did not want D.G. around his son. Father was also
    aware that D.G. was a recovering alcoholic who was “never
    sober.” Father believed mother had purchased a rifle to protect
    herself from D.G. Father planned to locate and discard the rifle.
    Because mother had been sober for over 10 years prior to her
    recent relapse and she appeared to be doing well, father was
    hopeful that she would “get herself together,” but until then he
    would care for the child.
    Following its investigation of the August 2019 referral, the
    Department determined that the allegations of general neglect
    were “unfounded” and closed the case.
    C.    Current Referral
    On April 26, 2020, the Department received another
    referral alleging emotional abuse of then seven-year-old child by
    D.G. According to the caller, an intoxicated D.G. and mother
    engaged in an argument during which D.G. became irate, pulled
    mother’s hair, and “strangled her for about [five] second[s].”
    Mother pushed him away and asked him to leave. D.G. left and
    mother locked the door, but he soon returned and broke down the
    4
    door when mother would not let him in. Mother locked herself in
    the bedroom with the child and called 911, causing D.G. to leave.
    The police arrived, located D.G., and arrested him.
    On May 6, 2020, a social worker interviewed mother, who
    provided the following: D.G. began drinking two days before the
    incident, telling mother that his back hurt. On the day of the
    incident, the child told mother he was scared and wanted to go to
    father’s house because D.G. was drinking. Mother called father,
    but he refused to pick up the child because he was “on a date.”
    At around 3:00 a.m., D.G. became irritated by mother and
    said he would sleep on the couch, but instead continued drinking.
    Mother subsequently told D.G. to leave because the child was
    upset. D.G. then became angry, which prompted mother to tell
    him she intended to pack his belongings so that he could leave.
    Instead, D.G. followed mother to her room where the child was
    sleeping and began yelling. In response, mother pushed D.G.,
    who reacted by choking her, pushing her to the ground, picking
    her up by her hair, and throwing her against the washing
    machine.
    Mother took the child from the home and went to a
    convenience store, waiting for D.G. to leave. While they waited,
    the child asked mother if D.G. “was going to kill them.” After
    approximately 20 minutes, mother and the child returned home,
    but D.G. appeared outside and began yelling for mother to let
    him in. Mother told him to leave and that she was going to call
    the police.
    At that point, D.G. “kicked the door in,” and mother locked
    herself in her room with the child. She called 911 and, during the
    call, D.G. could be heard yelling and the child could be heard
    5
    saying, “‘He’s going to kill us[.]’” The police arrived and arrested
    D.G.
    During the interview, mother admitted that she was a
    recovering alcoholic and was drinking again. But she denied
    needing help, claiming she could stop drinking whenever she
    wanted.
    During the social worker’s interview with father, he
    provided the following details about the incident: At around
    8:00 p.m. that night, mother called father and asked him to pick
    up the child who was scared because D.G. threatened to stab him
    with a knife. Father then spoke to the child who told him D.G.
    was mad, but did not provide further details, other than stating
    that he wanted to be picked up. Father did not “feel anything
    had escalated or that his son was in any harm.” He again spoke
    to mother who assured him that everything was alright. But at
    around 11:00 p.m., mother texted father that “‘LAPD is here it’s
    going down.’” Because D.G. had been arrested and was no longer
    in the home, father believed it was appropriate to wait until the
    next morning to pick up the child. Father picked up the child the
    next morning; and mother was already drinking by the time he
    and the child left.
    In his interview, child told the social worker that he
    witnessed D.G. assault mother and that he later saw the broken
    door to the home. The child knew D.G. was drunk during the
    incident, believed D.G. was going to kill them, and was scared.
    He also told the social worker that mother was “‘crazy,’” that she
    had lied to father, telling him “everything was okay,” and that, as
    a result, father did not pick him up that night.
    6
    On May 15, 2020, the Department sought and obtained a
    removal order from the juvenile court and took the child into
    protective custody.
    At the May 22, 2020, detention hearing, the juvenile court
    found that the Department had made a prima facie showing
    under section 300, detained the child, and temporarily placed him
    under the supervision of the Department. The court released the
    child to the custody of his parents and placed him in mother’s
    home on the condition that the maternal uncle move in with
    mother. The court further ordered the Department to provide
    family maintenance services to the child and his parents.
    C.    Department’s Section 385 Application
    On June 23, 2020, the Department applied ex parte for a
    change in court order under section 385 that sought to detain the
    child from mother and place him with father. According to the
    Department, during a visit with a social worker, the child advised
    that, the prior weekend, he found mother “‘[p]assed out [o]n the
    restroom floor . . . .’” The child became scared when mother
    would not wake up. He had previously seen mother vomiting and
    observed blood in the toilet.
    In a detention report filed the same day, the Department
    explained that on Saturday, May 30, 2020, the child was
    watching a movie with mother when she told him she was going
    to the restroom. After mother did not return, the child looked for
    mother in the house. Hearing running water in the restroom, the
    child opened the door and saw mother “‘passed out’” on the floor.
    When the child could not wake mother, he called father using
    FaceTime to show her on the floor.
    7
    A social worker interviewed father about the incident and
    obtained the following: On the night of the incident, the child
    contacted him at about 10:00 p.m. “via the [iPad] crying
    hysterically.” Father was able to view mother on the restroom
    floor and “‘thought she was dead . . . .’” He immediately called
    911 and drove to mother’s home to pick up the child. When he
    arrived, he was relieved to see that mother “was up and awake.”
    He asked her what happened, but she did not respond, stating
    only that she was feeling overwhelmed. Father gathered the
    child’s belongings and took him to father’s home.
    When the social worker asked father if it appeared mother
    had been drinking, he responded that she “‘didn’t seem like she
    had been drinking [to] crazy excess.’” The social worker then
    asked if father had smelled alcohol and he replied that he
    “‘smelled a little.’”
    At the June 28, 2020, hearing on the section 385
    application, the juvenile court detained the child from mother
    and placed him in father’s care. The court granted mother
    weekly monitored visitation and gave the Department discretion
    to liberalize.
    D.    Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
    In an August 28, 2020, jurisdiction/disposition report, the
    Department advised that, according to father, he “‘was not aware
    that [mother] was drinking to an excessive level when she had
    [custody of the child; he] just thought she was doing it in a
    control[led] manner or not drinking at all. [P]eople are allowed to
    drink and [it is] not illegal. [He] never thought [the child] was in
    danger. [He did not] think [mother] ha[d] any bad intentions.’”
    8
    In response to the violent incident involving D.G. that
    resulted in the filing of the petition, father claimed that when
    mother called and asked him to pick up the child, “[s]he didn’t
    tell [him] the whole story. If [he] had known the full story [he]
    would have gone to get [the child].” He also claimed that he did
    not pick up the child later, after he knew the “full story,” because
    the police had arrested D.G., which caused father to believe that
    the child was no longer in any danger.
    Concerning the subsequent incident when mother passed
    out in the restroom, father reported that mother appeared to be
    under the influence of alcohol and possibly pills. He admitted he
    was aware of mother’s alcohol consumption because she reported
    during family therapy to having sips of alcohol, but father did not
    “‘see anything that raised an eyebrow.’” He denied knowing that
    mother had been drinking heavily until the day of the incident
    involving D.G.’s assault of mother. But father also admitted that
    he was aware that mother began drinking again in August 2019
    after approximately 10 years of sobriety and that she “started
    getting high about March 2020.”
    At the December 2, 2020, jurisdiction/disposition hearing,
    the juvenile court sustained, among other counts, b-3. As to
    disposition, the court ordered, among other things, that father
    participate in individual counseling and attend an Al-Anon
    support group over father’s objection.
    9
    III.   DISCUSSION
    A.    Legal Principles and Standard of Review
    “‘In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the
    disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or
    uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In making this
    determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the
    evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency
    court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the
    court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and
    credibility are the province of the trial court.’” (In re R.T. (2017)
    
    3 Cal.5th 622
    , 633.)
    Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) provides for juvenile court
    jurisdiction where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a
    substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm
    or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent
    or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child . . . .”
    At disposition, “‘[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to
    determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interests
    and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly. . . .’ [Citation.]
    [¶] The . . . court may make ‘all reasonable orders for the care,
    supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the
    child.’ [Citations.] . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [T]he . . . court is not limited
    to the content of the sustained petition when it considers what
    dispositional orders would be in the best interests of the children.
    [Citations.] Instead, the court may consider the evidence as a
    whole.” (In re Briana V. (2015) 
    236 Cal.App.4th 297
    , 311.)
    10
    B.    Analysis
    Father contends there was insufficient evidence that he
    failed to protect the child from mother’s alcohol abuse or that
    there was a substantial risk that he would fail to do so in the
    future. We disagree. There was ample evidence showing father
    failed to appreciate the harmful effects of mother’s relapse into
    alcohol abuse and did not adequately protect the child from it,
    conduct that supported an inference that he would continue to
    fail to protect in the future.
    Based on the August 2019 incident during which mother
    became so intoxicated that she blacked out and was taken to the
    emergency room, father was aware she had relapsed after over 10
    years of sobriety due to problems in her relationship with D.G.
    and that her renewed alcohol use had rendered her incapable of
    caring for the child. He also knew that D.G. abused alcohol, was
    aware of D.G.’s “toxic” relationship with mother, knew that
    mother had a restraining order against him, and believed she had
    purchased a rifle for protection. As a result, father did not want
    the child to be around D.G. In addition, father knew or should
    have known that mother’s alcohol issues had not been resolved
    months after the August 2019 incident because she admitted in
    therapy that she continued sipping alcohol and he admitted she
    was “getting high” as of March 2020.
    Notwithstanding father’s knowledge of mother’s ongoing
    alcohol issues and her dangerous relationship with D.G., father
    allowed the child to live with her as of April 2020, where he
    would be exposed to her ongoing and unresolved alcohol issues
    and D.G. would have unlimited access to him. On April 26, 2020,
    the child told mother he was afraid of D.G. because he was
    11
    drinking. In an effort to protect her son, mother called father to
    pick him up. According to father, even though mother explained
    that the child claimed D.G. threatened to stab him, because the
    child did not give father any details and mother later advised
    that everything was “okay,” father decided not to remove the
    child from the home. Later that night, D.G. violently assaulted
    mother in the presence of the child and mother was forced to flee
    the home with the child, but returned, at which point D.G. kicked
    in the door causing the child to believe D.G. was going to kill
    them both.
    Although mother texted father following the incident to
    alert him that the police were at her home, he decided to wait
    until the next morning to pick up the child. And, by the time
    father and the child left her home that morning, father knew
    mother was already drinking.
    Approximately a month later, on May 30, 2020, the child
    contacted father by FaceTime and showed him that mother had
    passed out on the restroom floor. Father admitted that it was
    apparent that mother was under the influence of either alcohol or
    pills, but claimed that he did not see anything “that raised an
    eyebrow.” This was sufficient evidence to support an inference
    that father downplayed or ignored the adverse effects of mother’s
    alcohol abuse on a seven-year-old child, thereby exposing him to
    emotional trauma.
    In addition, father’s willingness, after the fact, to
    rationalize mother’s troubling behavior and his own inadequate
    response to it also supported an inference that he would continue
    to minimize the danger to the child and expose him to future
    harm.
    12
    The evidence that supported the juvenile court’s
    jurisdiction findings also supported the disposition order as to
    father. Contrary to his assertion, the order requiring him to
    participate in an Al-Anon support group was reasonably related
    to his demonstrated lack of insight into mother’s serious alcohol
    abuse issues and his willingness to downplay both the extent of
    mother’s problem and his own inadequate responses to the
    consequences of it on the child. The court did not abuse its
    discretion in ordering father to participate in an Al-Anon support
    group.
    13
    IV.   DISPOSITION
    The jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    KIM, J.
    We concur:
    BAKER, Acting P. J.
    MOOR, J.
    14
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B309539

Filed Date: 9/22/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2021