In re C.L. CA4/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 4/7/23 In re C.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 C.L. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E078598
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J288773, J288774
& J288775)
v.
OPINION
H.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
This is an appeal taken by father from findings and orders of the San Bernardino
County Juvenile Court made in the course of a semiannual review pursuant to section 364
of the Welfare and Institutions Code.1 Father argues he is entitled to an additional six
months of family reunification services because the court’s finding that he had been
provided reasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence. We will find the
court applied the incorrect standards at the hearing, but the error was harmless as to
father.
BACKGROUND
M.L. is the mother and H.R. (father) is the presumed father of three children: C.L.
(born in October 2018), L.L. (born in June 2017), and R.L. (born in April 2014),
collectively referred to herein as “the children.” The children have two maternal half
siblings, Y.L. (born in July 2003) and E.T (born in March 2012).
The children were living with mother in April 2021, when the family came to the
attention of the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department)
on account of domestic violence between father and mother, father’s substance abuse,
and his physical abuse of Y.L. and E.T. In addition, father was reported to have pulled
down Y.L.’s pants and ran out of the room when Y.L. began screaming, he had on many
occasions positioned himself on the couch so he could see her sleeping through the hole
in the door where a doorknob would normally be placed, and she had awakened on four
or five occasions to find him in her room staring at her. The Department filed section
1 All references to statutes herein are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
300 juvenile dependency petitions on behalf of the children, alleging they came within
subdivisions (b)(1) and (j) of section 300.
The juvenile court sustained the petitions’ allegations that (i) father and the mother
engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence; (ii) father has a substance abuse
problem that negatively impacts his ability to provide for and protect the children; and
(iii) father’s physical abuse of both the children’s half siblings as well as his emotional
and sexual abuse of half sibling Y.L. places the children at risk of similar abuse.
The court adjudged the children dependents of the court and removed them from
father’s custody. The children were continued in mother’s custody with provision of
family maintenance services.2 The court ordered reunification services and supervised
visits for father. Father’s services were to include a domestic violence program,
individual counseling to address issues leading to the Department’s intervention, random
drug testing, and parenting classes.
The status hearing, initially set for October 2021, went forward in February 2022.
The Department recommended continuation of family maintenance services for the
2 The minute orders for each of the children state, “clear and convincing evidence
shows that the child(ren) should be removed from the physical custody of mother” (italics
added), which is contrary to the findings and orders made by the court as they appear in
the reporter’s transcript. The reporter’s transcript reflects the court found “clear and
convincing evidence to show that they should be removed from the physical custody of
the father” (italics added), which is consistent with the court’s order that the children “be
removed from the father, maintained in the custody of the mother.” Where there is a
discrepancy between the reporter’s transcript and the minutes that cannot be harmonized,
which record will prevail depends on the circumstances of each particular case. (People
v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226.) Here, we deem the reporter’s transcript to be
the accurate record.
3
mother and family reunification services for father because (i) it had failed to refer them
to parenting classes, which had been part of their initial case plans; (ii) it had just the day
before the hearing referred the mother to a therapist to address coparenting; and (iii) the
father had not completed aspects of his case plan.
At the hearing, mother’s counsel argued the dependency should be dismissed
because the children were doing very well in the mother’s custody and there were no
concerns about them being in her home. Father agreed with continuing jurisdiction, but
argued he had not received reasonable services, they failed to refer him to parenting
classes, and because the counseling he received had not addressed the sexual abuse
allegations.
The court found the services provided to both parents were reasonable, noting its
view that parenting education classes were more of a supportive service and the lack of
those classes was not the reason father was not having the children returned or being
granted unsupervised visits. It continued provision of reunification services as to father
with his visits to remain supervised, and continued the mother’s family maintenance
services.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, father argues the juvenile court’s finding that he had been provided
with reasonable family reunification services should be reversed because it is not
supported by sufficient substantial evidence. In response, the Department argues father’s
4
appeal should be dismissed because he does not have standing, an argument bottomed on
its further claim that he had no right to a reasonable services finding, and, in all events,
father did receive reasonable services. We will affirm.
1. Father’s standing
We reject the Department’s claim that father lacks standing to raise the issue of
failure to provide reasonable services because he was not entitled to those services in the
first place. We see no purpose in adopting that approach because it would require us to
evaluate the merits of father’s argument before making a determination whether he has
standing to make it.
2. The reasonable reunification services finding
When a child is adjudged a dependent of the court pursuant to section 300 and the
court orders that a parent shall retain custody subject to supervision by the Department,
the applicable statutory provision governing provision of services is subdivision (c) of
section 362. That subdivision requires the court to order “child welfare services or
services provided by an appropriate agency designated by the court,” aimed at
maintaining the child at home, that is, family maintenance services designed to support
keeping the child safe while continuing to live with the custodial parent. (§§ 362,
subd. (c); 16506, subd. (a).) The court may also exercise its discretion to order child
welfare services (“enhancement services”) to the noncustodial parent, which are designed
to improve the child’s relationship with that parent. (§ 362, subd. (a); In re Destiny D.
(2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 212-213.)
5
Once a child has been adjudged a dependent pursuant to section 300, the court
must review their status every six months, but the applicable standards for the review
differ depending on the child’s placement. (In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th
1142, 1154.) Where, as here, the child has not been removed from the home of the
custodial parent, section 364 governs the conduct of the status review hearing. (Ibid.)
That statute requires the court to terminate its jurisdiction unless evidence presented at
the hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions still exist that
would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300, or that those conditions
are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. (§ 364, subds. (c), (d); Aurora P., at
pp. 1155-1156.) That is, the court’s sole concern at a family maintenance services review
is whether further supervision is necessary or whether the dependency proceeding should
be terminated, not whether the noncustodial parent has received reasonable services.
(§ 364; In re Pedro Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 12, 19-21.)
Here, the juvenile court erred when it focused on the reasonableness of the
Department’s provision of “reunification” services instead of conducting the status
review in accordance with section 364. We find, however, that father was not prejudiced
by the error. Although the court and the Department referred to the services provided to
father as family reunification services, they were in fact discretionary enhancement
services provided to a noncustodial parent while the custodial parent—the mother—
received family maintenance services. Father’s services, unlike family reunification
services provided pursuant to section 361.5, are not time limited (In re A.C. (2008) 169
6
Cal.App.4th 636, 641-642, 648) and are not subject to review for reasonableness (cf.
§§ 361.5 and 364; In re Pedro Z., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at pp. 19-21). At bottom, the
practical result of the court’s erroneous review of father’s services was that he was
afforded additional opportunities to enhance his relationship with the children.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed with directions to correct the April 28, 2021 minute
orders in each of the children’s files to delete the statement, “clear and convincing
evidence shows that the child(ren) should be removed from the physical custody of
mother,” and replace that statement with, “clear and convincing evidence shows that the
child(ren) should be removed from the physical custody of father.”
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
7