filed: ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed: 8/15/22 In re Aniya E. CA2/7
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
    In re ANIYA E., a Person                                  B312779
    Coming Under the Juvenile
    Court Law.                                                (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. DK17248A)
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
    AND FAMILY SERVICES,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    AQUENDOLYN C.,
    Defendant and Appellant,
    TALMADGE K.,
    Respondent.
    APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior
    Court, Kristen Byrdsong, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
    Pamela Rae Tripp for Defendant and Appellant.
    Shep Zebberman for Respondent.
    No appearance for Plaintiff.
    Aquendolyn C., the maternal grandmother of seven-year-
    old Aniya E., appeals the permanent restraining order issued by
    the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
    section 213.5 (section 213.5) prohibiting her from contacting or
    approaching Aniya or Talmadge K., Aniya’s maternal
    grandfather and now-adoptive parent. Aquendolyn contends the
    order was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    1. The Dependency Proceedings
    The juvenile court in 2017 sustained a dependency petition
    pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
    subdivisions (a) and (b), and declared Aniya a dependent child of
    the court because of her father Jordan E.’s history of violent
    behavior toward Aniya’s mother, Ambirre K. At the disposition
    hearing Aniya was released to Ambirre under the supervision of
    the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
    Services. Approximately eight months later, following Ambirre’s
    death in January 2018, Aniya was placed with Aquendolyn. In
    March 2018, after being removed from Aquendolyn, Aniya was
    placed with Talmadge. (In re A.E. (June 16, 2020, B302982)
    [nonpub. opn.]; Jordan E. v. Superior Court (Nov. 19, 2019,
    B299395) [nonpub. opn.] (Jordan E.).)
    On April 27, 2018 the court granted Talmadge’s de facto
    parent request and denied Aquendolyn’s request. (In re A.E.,
    supra, B302982.) In December 2019 the court terminated
    Jordan’s parental rights, ordered adoption as the permanent plan
    for Aniya and identified Talmadge as Aniya’s prospective
    adoptive parent. (Ibid.)
    2
    2. The Application for Restraining Orders, the Temporary
    Restraining Orders and Aquendolyn’s Declaration
    On March 8, 2021 Talmadge applied for restraining orders
    against Jordan and Aquendolyn seeking protection for Aniya and
    himself. Talmadge’s supporting declaration stated the request
    was “due to intimidation and threats by both parties;
    Aquendolyn’s harassment and history of fraud, deceit, and
    violation of Court Orders to gain unauthorized access to Aniya;
    and Jordan’s history of violence and aggression.” In particular,
    as it related to Aquendolyn, Talmadge declared that for
    eight months Aquendolyn had been leaving weekly voicemail
    messages from a private telephone number after Talmadge had
    blocked her number and despite his repeated requests not to call.
    Talmadge explained that Aquendolyn in her messages, which she
    claimed were for Aniya but which he believed were intended for
    him, “unloads about how much she is grieving Aniya’s [m]other
    (and [their] child)” and “repeatedly states that Aniya is meant to
    be with [Aquendolyn], and only her.” He further explained the
    messages, at two or three minutes each, were long and in them
    Aquendolyn also “goes on about how Aniya is suffering by being
    in [Talmadge’s] care, and this is not what Ambirre wanted.” The
    messages were “very upsetting” to Talmadge and made him “very
    worried for the emotional harm” Aquendolyn would “inflict on
    Aniya if given the opportunity.”
    Talmadge also described an incident in which the adoption
    worker had come to his home for a visit and Aquendolyn had
    emailed the worker immediately afterward to object to the
    adoption. The adoption worker, who had not contacted
    Aquendolyn, did not know how Aquendolyn had discovered the
    worker had been assigned to the case. Talmadge was disturbed
    that Aquendolyn somehow knew confidential information about
    3
    the adoption worker even though neither the worker nor he had
    provided it to her.
    Talmadge asserted Aquendolyn “has shown that she is
    willing to go to great lengths to get what she wants,” including
    the use of deception “to benefit financially from Aniya surviving
    Ambirre’s death.” He stated Aquendolyn hid Ambirre’s illness
    and falsified a health care directive for Ambirre after her death;
    falsified documents to receive Social Security benefits due Aniya;
    and, claiming to be Aniya’s guardian, filed a wrongful death
    lawsuit on Aniya’s behalf with the assistance of attorney William
    Newkirk, whom she had deceived into believing she was Aniya’s
    guardian.1 Talmadge expressed fear Aquendolyn would continue
    to impersonate Aniya’s guardian and to try to manipulate others
    into helping her cause harm to Aniya and him.
    Noting Aquendolyn had deceived the Department, violated
    court orders and manipulated her monitors to gain unauthorized
    access to Aniya in the past, Talmadge stated he believed she had
    done so because, as her behavior had shown, she was obsessed
    with “taking Aniya back,” regardless of the impact on the child.
    Aquendolyn, he stated, would not be deterred by any reasonable
    means and had admitted to him she would not stop. Finally,
    referring to Jordan’s history of violence and aggression, including
    1     Talmadge attached to his declaration an email from
    Newkirk in which Newkirk stated, “Aquendolyn continues to
    pester us with phone calls to complain about what’s going on in
    the adoption proceedings. . . . She’s also asked why she can’t be
    made as the ‘backup’ on [Aniya’s] annuity, ‘just in case something
    happens to Talma[d]ge.’ I told her that she can’t be involved in
    the proceeding because of the recent order . . . in which the court
    directed that she not participate any further in anything having
    to do with the action on An[i]ya’s behalf against” the hospital.
    4
    toward Ambirre, Talmadge asserted Aquendolyn and Jordan had
    been “working in tandem” so that Jordan could obtain
    unauthorized access to Aniya.
    The juvenile court issued temporary restraining orders
    against Aquendolyn and Jordan on March 10, 2021. Aquendolyn
    responded to the request for a restraining order on April 15,
    2021. In her declaration Aquendolyn stated she called weekly for
    Aniya but Talmadge would not let her have a relationship with
    the child. Aquendolyn claimed she had no financial incentive for
    bringing the wrongful death lawsuit: Any funds obtained from
    that action would be deposited into an annuity for Aniya, who
    would be the only person to have access to them.
    3. The Hearing on the Application for a Restraining Order
    Against Aquendolyn
    At the two-day hearing on Talmadge’s request for a
    restraining order against Aquendolyn, Talmadge testified he
    considered Aquendolyn dangerous and feared for Aniya’s and his
    safety, noting at one point that Aquendolyn owned a gun. He
    explained he had known Aquendolyn for 35 years and no longer
    believed she was “sound minded.” Aquendolyn’s erratic behavior
    began after their daughter died and Aquendolyn lost custody of
    Aniya. Since then, Talmadge continued, he had observed a
    decline in Aquendolyn’s emotional stability. He stated
    Aquendolyn had made threats, and he was concerned
    Aquendolyn would take Aniya and “become a flight risk.” He
    believed Aquendolyn viewed him as an obstacle to becoming
    Aniya’s caregiver and spoke of his death as a way to gain access
    5
    to Aniya. Talmadge confirmed everything in his March 3, 2021
    declaration was accurate with one minor correction.2
    The court admitted into evidence Newkirk’s retainer
    agreement, signed by Aquendolyn, for the wrongful death action
    relating to Ambirre. The court observed the retainer agreement
    listed Aquendolyn as Aniya’s guardian ad litem even though the
    court had ordered Aquendolyn not to have any contact with Aniya
    and had appointed Aniya’s counsel as the child’s guardian
    ad litem.
    Talmadge had saved several of Aquendolyn’s voicemail
    messages but had deleted other messages because he found them
    too disturbing. Three voicemail messages were played for the
    court. In them, Aquendolyn’s statements included, “[T]here is
    nobody better to tell [Aniya] about her Mother than me”; and,
    “I’m just praying that [Ambirre’s] soul is resting. Because I know
    her soul will really rest when you [Aniya] and I are reunited, and
    we can be together because that’s what she wanted.”
    Aquendolyn testified she believed Aniya should be placed
    with her. She acknowledged signing the retainer agreement with
    Newkirk as Aniya’s guardian ad litem even though that was not
    accurate, admitted contacting Talmadge on his cellphone in 2021
    and continuing to call after he had asked her to stop, and
    requesting to serve as Talmadge’s backup for Aniya’s annuity
    after Aniya had been removed from her care. She also admitted
    having unmonitored visitation with Aniya during the time the
    court had ordered monitored visits.
    2     Talmadge’s correction to his declaration was not relevant to
    disposition of this appeal.
    6
    Aquendolyn conceded she had received monthly Social
    Security death benefits of $1,300 on behalf of Aniya for 11 or
    12 months when Aniya was in Talmadge’s care. Aquendolyn
    claimed she spent that amount every month on Aniya’s behalf,
    primarily for clothing, food, furniture and activities for the child.
    Although Aquendolyn sent Talmadge toys and clothing, she
    admitted she did not send him money or furniture.
    Following argument of counsel, the court on May 18, 2021
    issued a five-year restraining order protecting Aniya and
    Talmadge from Aquendolyn.3
    DISCUSSION
    1. Governing Law and Standard of Review
    Section 213.5, subdivision (a), authorizes the juvenile court
    to issue an order after a dependency petition has been filed
    “enjoining a person from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking,
    threatening, . . . harassing, telephoning, . . . contacting, either
    directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a
    specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the child or any
    other child in the household.” Under section 213.5 the court may
    also issue orders protecting “any parent, legal guardian, or
    current caretaker of the child.” (§ 213.5, subd. (a).) At the
    hearing for the restraining order “[p]roof may be by the
    application and any attachments, additional declarations or
    documentary evidence, the contents of the juvenile court file,
    testimony, or any combination of these.” (Cal. Rules of Court,
    rule 5.630(f)(1).)
    3     On October 8, 2021, following finalization of Aniya’s
    adoption, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction in the
    dependency case.
    7
    Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5 provides that
    application for the restraining order is to be made “in the manner
    provided by Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in the
    manner provided by Section 6300 of the Family Code, if related to
    domestic violence.”4 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 213.5, subd. (a).) This
    incorporation of Family Code section 6300, part of the Domestic
    Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200), was
    intended to permit the juvenile court to issue Welfare and
    Institutions Code section 213.5 restraining orders under the
    same standards provided for in the DVPA. (Priscila N. v.
    Leonardo G. (2017) 
    17 Cal.App.5th 1208
    , 1214; see Cal. Rules of
    Court, rule 5.630(c) [“[t]he definition of abuse in Family Code
    section 6203 applies to restraining orders issued under Welfare
    and Institutions Code section 213.5”].)
    “‘[A]ppellate courts apply the substantial evidence standard
    to determine whether sufficient facts supported the factual
    findings in support of a [section 213.5] restraining order and the
    abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the court
    properly issued the order.’” (In re S.G. (2021) 
    71 Cal.App.5th 654
    , 670; accord, In re Carlos H. (2016) 
    5 Cal.App.5th 861
    , 866.)
    “‘[W]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
    respondent, and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences
    to uphold the juvenile court’s determination. If there is
    substantial evidence supporting the order, the court’s issuance of
    4     The application for restraining order protecting Talmadge
    and Aniya related to domestic violence. (See Fam. Code, § 6211,
    subds. (d) & (f) [defining “domestic violence” as abuse perpetrated
    against specified persons, including a “person with whom the
    respondent has had a child” or “[a]ny other person related by
    consanguinity or affinity within the second degree”].)
    8
    the restraining order may not be disturbed.’” (In re Bruno M.
    (2018) 
    28 Cal.App.5th 990
    , 996-997.) “It is not our function to
    second-guess [the juvenile court’s] credibility determinations or
    weighing of the evidence.” (In re S.G., at p. 672; see In re Eli B.
    (2022) 
    73 Cal.App.5th 1061
    , 1072 [“[i]n reviewing the juvenile
    court’s ruling we cannot reweigh the evidence or evaluate witness
    credibility”; “[w]e must uphold the juvenile court’s factual
    determination as long as it is supported by substantial evidence
    ‘“even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and
    the trial court might have reached a different result had it
    believed other evidence”’”].)
    2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Restraining Order
    Protecting Talmadge
    Aquendolyn contends there was insufficient evidence to
    support issuance of the restraining order protecting Talmadge.
    Relying on In re Brittany K. (2005) 
    127 Cal.App.4th 1497
    , 1512,
    she argues the transcripts of the voicemail messages only show
    her love for Aniya and contain no language that “could
    reasonably result in serious harassment, alarming, tormenting or
    terrorizing” or “serious annoyance” of Talmadge.5
    In re Brittany K., supra, 
    127 Cal.App.4th 1497
    , however,
    involved the term “stalking” as used in section 213.5. Like the
    parallel provisions in the DVPA, section 213.5 provides for much
    broader protection, specifically authorizing orders to prevent the
    restrained individual from disturbing the peace of the child or the
    child’s caregiver seeking protection. (See Burquet v. Brumbaugh
    (2014) 
    223 Cal.App.4th 1140
    , 1144; In re C.Q. (2013)
    
    219 Cal.App.4th 355
    , 363 [“[i]ssuance of a restraining order
    5     Italics in the quoted excerpts have been omitted.
    9
    under section 213.5 does not require ‘evidence that the restrained
    person has previously molested, attacked, struck, sexually
    assaulted, stalked, or battered’” the protected person].)
    Under both the DVPA and section 213.5, “[a]nnoying and
    harassing an individual is protected in the same way as physical
    abuse,” and “‘protective orders can be issued because of persistent
    unwanted phone calls or letters.’” (Perez v. Torres-Hernandez
    (2016) 
    1 Cal.App.5th 389
    , 398-399 [characterizing as “incorrect
    under the DVPA” the trial court’s determination “that ‘[a]buse is
    not merely simply annoying or harassing—occasional harassing
    phone calls intended to annoy the other person’”].) Under the
    DVPA, “‘disturbing the peace of the other party’ refers to conduct
    that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the
    mental or emotional calm of the other party.” (Fam. Code,
    § 6320, subd. (c); see, e.g., In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney
    (2015) 
    237 Cal.App.4th 1416
    , 1425 [disturbance of wife’s peace by
    husband’s conduct in “‘disclosing or threatening to disclose to
    third parties for no particular reason intimate details of [their]
    lives’”]; Burquet v. Brumbaugh, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144
    [defendant disturbed plaintiff’s peace by contacting her by phone,
    email and text with messages containing inappropriate sexual
    innuendo, despite her repeated requests that he not contact her,
    and arriving at her residence uninvited and refusing to leave].)
    At the hearing on the request for a permanent restraining
    order, Talmadge’s attorney argued, in part, that Aquendolyn had
    harassed Talmadge and disturbed his peace. The juvenile court
    agreed, finding Aquendolyn’s conduct was harassing and
    threatened Talmadge’s emotional stability. Substantial evidence
    supported that finding. Aquendolyn’s argument to the contrary,
    pointing to her statements of love for Aniya in the three
    10
    transcribed voicemail messages, disregards the wealth of
    evidence before the court of her troubling conduct directed to
    Talmadge. Indeed, even with respect to her voicemail messages,
    Aquendolyn ignores Talmadge’s testimony that most of her
    messages had been deleted as “so disturbing” to him and his
    declaration that in those messages she “goes on about how Aniya
    is suffering by being in [Talmadge’s] care.”
    Moreover, Talmadge testified Aquendolyn’s persistent
    phone calls, which continued despite his repeated requests she
    cease doing so, and “too many threats to take lightly,” caused him
    fear and concern. Nothing more was required to support the
    juvenile court’s finding that a permanent restraining order was
    appropriately issued to protect Talmadge.6 (See In re Marriage of
    Fregoso & Hernandez (2016) 
    5 Cal.App.5th 698
    , 703 [“[t]he
    testimony of one witness, even that of a party, may constitute
    substantial evidence”].)
    3. Substantial Evidence Supports the Restraining Order
    Protecting Aniya
    During the hearing the juvenile court commented that
    Aquendolyn’s voicemail statements that Aniya’s dead mother
    would only be happy knowing Aquendolyn was in contact with
    6     Although not raised in the juvenile court or addressed in
    Aquendolyn’s appellate briefs, the five-year order granted by the
    juvenile court appears to violate section 213.5, subdivision (d)(1),
    which authorizes the court to grant a permanent restraining
    order that remains in effect “no more than three years, unless . . .
    extended by further order of the court on the motion of any party
    to the restraining order.” Any issue regarding the appropriate
    duration of the restraining order should be presented in the first
    instance to the superior court.
    11
    Aniya were inappropriate, harassing and threatening “to the
    emotional well-being of the minor to hear these statements about
    what the mother would have wanted.” Pointing to that comment
    by the court, Aquendolyn argues the restraining order as to
    Aniya was not supported by any evidence because the child never
    heard the messages.7
    Aquendolyn’s argument misperceives the record. The
    court’s reference to “the emotional well-being of the minor to hear
    these statements” was to the likely impact should Aniya hear
    them and was focused on Aquendolyn’s inability to adhere to
    court orders and directives—for example, to refrain from
    speaking to a child about case issues.8 The court did not find that
    Aniya had heard the messages, nor did it need to.
    That Aniya had not heard Aquendolyn’s voicemail
    messages did not preclude an order protecting Aniya from
    Aquendolyn, whose conduct constituted “disturbing the peace” as
    defined in the DVPA, which includes “coercive control, which is a
    pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably
    interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.”
    “Examples of coercive control include, but are not limited to,
    unreasonably . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [c]ontrolling, regulating, or
    monitoring the other party’s . . . finances [or] economic
    resources.” (Fam. Code, § 6320, subd. (c)(3).) Similarly,
    7    Aquendolyn also contends sharing memories of Ambirre
    would be comforting to Aniya, not threatening or harassing.
    8      Specifically, the juvenile court, when discussing
    Aquendolyn’s statements, stated that “all caregivers, everyone
    involved in the case, [were] always admonished to not discuss
    case issues.” It also referred to Aquendolyn’s continuing inability
    to follow the court’s orders.
    12
    “molesting,” another form of abuse under the DVPA (Fam. Code,
    §§ 6203, subd. (a)(4), 6320, subd. (a)), “‘“means to interfere with
    so as to injure or disturb; molestation is a willful injury inflicted
    upon another by interference with the user of rights as to person
    or property.”’” (In re Cassandra B. (2004) 
    125 Cal.App.4th 199
    ,
    212 [mother “molested” Cassandra by “attempting to gain entry
    to the home of Cassandra’s caregivers without their knowledge,
    appearing at Cassandra’s school and then following behind the
    caregiver’s car after Cassandra was picked up from school,
    together with her threats to remove Cassandra from her
    caregivers’ home”].)
    In explaining its decision to grant the restraining order, the
    juvenile court expressly identified evidence falling within these
    categories of abuse, including Aquendolyn’s unauthorized contact
    with Aniya and her falsification of Social Security documents and
    health care directives. That evidence amply supported an
    implied finding of Aquendolyn’s unreasonable, coercive control
    over Aniya. As Talmadge’s attorney pointed out at the hearing,
    additional evidence regarding those factors could be found in the
    Department’s reports, which were before the juvenile court.
    Because the reports were not included in the appellate
    record, Aquendolyn has not provided an adequate record to
    assess her contention that, apart from the transcribed voicemail
    messages, there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s
    order. The issue has been forfeited. (See Jameson v. Desta
    (2018) 
    5 Cal.5th 594
    , 609 [“‘“if the record is inadequate for
    meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the
    trial court should be affirmed”’”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016)
    
    2 Cal.App.5th 929
    , 935 [“[f]ailure to provide an adequate record
    13
    on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against
    appellant”].)
    Citing In re C.Q., supra, 
    219 Cal.App.4th 355
     and In re
    N.L. (2015) 
    236 Cal.App.4th 1460
    , Aquendolyn argues the
    restraining order as to Aniya should be reversed, regardless of
    the other evidence before the juvenile court, because, as in those
    two cases, there was insufficient evidence the child’s safety would
    be in jeopardy absent inclusion in the order. As explained in
    In re Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at page 997, however,
    “[t]here need only be evidence that the restrained person
    ‘disturbed the peace’ of the protected child.” Neither In re C.Q.
    nor In re N.L. considered whether the peace of the protected
    persons had been disturbed. In fact, in reversing the restraining
    order as to the children because of insufficient evidence relating
    to their safety, the court in In re C.Q. relied on In re B.S. (2009)
    
    172 Cal.App.4th 183
    .9 As explained in In re Bruno, “when B.S.
    was decided, ‘disturbing the peace’ was not one of the enjoinable
    acts listed in section 213.5. That language was not added to the
    statute until 2010, after B.S. was decided.” (In re Bruno, at
    p. 999.)
    Finally, relying in part on San Diego County Dept. of Social
    Services v. Superior Court (2005) 
    134 Cal.App.4th 761
    , 767,
    Aquendolyn contends the juvenile court committed reversible
    error when it failed to recognize the difference between a
    guardian ad litem appointed for Aniya for purposes of the
    wrongful death litigation and a guardian ad litem appointed
    under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
    (
    42 U.S.C. § 5101
     et seq.) in dependency proceedings. (See San
    9     See In re C.Q., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at pages 363-364.
    14
    Diego County Dept. of Social Services, at p. 768 [concluding
    appointment of a guardian ad litem separate from a CAPTA
    guardian ad litem was “necessary to make decisions for the child
    in regard to investigating a possible tort action and initiating the
    action by filing a tort claim against the appropriate government
    entity under the California Tort Claims Act”].) Whatever
    misstatement the juvenile court may have made on this point,
    Aquendolyn admitted she was not Aniya’s guardian ad litem
    when she signed the retainer agreement for the wrongful death
    action falsely stating otherwise. If error by the juvenile court, it
    was unquestionably harmless.
    DISPOSITION
    The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
    PERLUSS, P.J.
    We concur:
    SEGAL, J.
    WISE, J.*
    *     Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by
    the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
    California Constitution.
    15
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B312779

Filed Date: 8/15/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/15/2022