In re R.O. CA2/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/30/23 In re R.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.O. et al., Persons B315213, B320219
Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County
Court Law. Super. Ct. No.
21CCJP03245A-B)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
v.
L.O.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Minors.
______________________________________
The juvenile court denied visitation to appellant L.O.
(Father) at disposition and continued to do so when it terminated
dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.)1 The
record shows the children fear and refuse to see Father, who beat
them with a belt. They have nightmares triggered by his abuse
and were traumatized by witnessing his suicide attempt and
seeing him point a gun at the head of a half sibling. After the
court sustained a petition against him, Father refused to
acknowledge their pain, did not comply with the case plan, and
made no progress to reunify with them. The evidence supports a
finding that visits would be detrimental to the children. The
court did not abuse its discretion by denying visits. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father and his ex-wife A.B. (Mother) have two sons,
respondents Ru. (born in 2010) and Ra. (2012). The family was
reported for child abuse and neglect from 2012 to 2018. Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) deemed the reports unfounded or inconclusive.
1 Undesignated statutory references in this opinion are to
the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
Respondents lived with Father while Mother struggled
with homelessness and addiction.2 After she completed
rehabilitation in 2020, Father left the children with her, saying
he could no longer care for them. A 2021 family court order gave
the parents joint custody.
Detention
In July 2021, DCFS received a report that Father calls the
children names, hits them, slapped Ra.’s face, and threatened
them. The children have nightmares: Ru. sleepwalks and
screams, and Ra. cries in his sleep. Ra. is “terrified” of Father,
saying that he has a gun. Father was arrested after a high-speed
chase in February 2021, yet the family court gave him custody of
respondents a few months later. Father abused Mother during
their relationship. She believes he uses drugs.
Ru. said Father “ ‘yells, blames me for everything and hits
me’ ” with a belt or hand, leaving bruises on Ru.’s arms and legs,
and does “ ‘the same thing to my little brother.’ ” Father keeps a
gun in an unlocked box in the house or car, and fights with his
domestic partner Patty; Ru. said “ ‘the yelling never stopped.’ ”
Ru. saw Father hold a gun to half sibling Paul’s head and
threaten to pull the trigger while they were in the car. Father
believes people are watching him and want to hurt him.
Distraught when Patty left him, Father attempted suicide. Ru.
saw Father “hanging from the ceiling fan with a rope and the fan
chain wrapped around his neck.” Ru. said “ ‘my dad tried to hang
himself’ ” and living with him was “ ‘like the Devil and hell.’ ”
2 In 1999, Mother’s oldest child tested positive for PCP at
birth; her drug abuse ultimately caused her to lose custody of
respondents’ half siblings. Mother and DCFS are not parties to
this appeal.
3
Father used a blade to cut Ru.’s hair, leaving “ ‘blood all over my
head.’ ” Near tears during his interview, Ru. feared he would
never recover emotionally from living with Father.
Ra. told a social worker (CSW) that Father was “ ‘crazy,
chasing and watching people that he thought were after him.’ ”
Ra. witnessed Father’s suicide attempt and saw “ ‘a rope around
my dad’s neck.’ ” Ra. saw Father purchase a gun from a friend
and point it at half sibling Paul, saying “ ‘he was going to put a
hole in his head.’ ” Father sleeps with the gun. Ra. told CSW
that Father smokes drugs and “ ‘went crazy.’ ” Ra. is “scared” of
Father and planned to “run away from father’s home and find his
way back to mother’s home.”
Father felt “ ‘overwhelmed’ ” when he left the children with
Mother in 2020. He admitted to a car chase in 2021 in which he
struck another car and had a stand-off with police; felony charges
are pending. He has many drug convictions and imprisonments.
He denied physical discipline of the children or drug use, saying
he last used methamphetamine in 2012. He denied attempting
suicide in the children’s presence. Patty’s criminal history
includes use and sale of methamphetamine.
DCFS secured an order to remove the children from Father.
Ru. said, “ ‘I’m so happy. I don’t want to go back to my dad’s, I’m
scared.’ ” Ra. agreed, “ ‘I’m so happy too.’ ” Mother takes them to
therapy to address their emotional issues.
Petition
DCFS filed a petition. As amended, it alleges that Father
physically abused respondents by striking and bruising them
with a belt and his hands, and left Ru. bleeding and in pain by
using a blade to cut his hair; Father’s mental and emotional
problems—paranoia, erratic behavior, agitation, homicidal
4
ideation, and a suicide attempt in the children’s presence—leave
him unable to care for them and endanger their safety; he keeps
a loaded gun within the children’s access and pointed it at the
head of their half sibling; he has a 28-year history of abusing
alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine, and used
drugs while caring for the children; he has multiple drug
convictions, is a registered narcotics offender, and was arrested
for driving against traffic, evading arrest, and making criminal
threats.
At the detention hearing on July 16, 2021, the court
removed respondents from Father, finding a substantial danger
to their physical and emotional health. Based on their fear of
Father, and his alleged abuse, the court denied Father visits
pending adjudication but allowed monitored telephone contact.
Mother submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction and Addendum Reports
The jurisdiction report details the parents’ history of drug
abuse and crime, Mother’s failure to reunite with her older
children, and prior reports about her abuse of respondents.
Mother said Father choked her when she was pregnant with Ru,
and later hit her while she held Ru. She lied about her history
with DCFS, saying that only one child was a dependent of the
court and no drugs were involved. Father admitted to a history
of drug use and crime. He denied current drug use or domestic
violence.
Eleven-year-old Ru. told CSW, repeatedly and loudly, “ ‘I
don’t want nothing to do with [Father]!’ ” Father underfed the
children and gave them food that had gone bad. Ru. has a
“ ‘really good’ ” relationship with Mother, who “ ‘does not hit me
like dad did,’ ” feeds him, and takes care of him. Ru. takes
5
medication to cope with nightmares about Father. If returned to
Father, Ru. “ ‘would run away and hide forever and not be found.
If I were to be found, I would leave again.’ ” Ru. never felt safe
with Father, who “ ‘beats me hard with the belt.’ ” Once, when
police came, Ru. said nothing “ ‘because I did not want to get hurt
by my dad,’ ” who “ ‘hits us for no reason.’ ” He does not want to
see Father, even with a monitor.
Ru. told CSW that Father “ ‘hits me with his hands and
belts everywhere, every single day.’ ” Ru. insisted that he was
telling the truth. Asked if he sustained injury, Ru. said Father
hit him in the nose and “ ‘he made me bleed every time he hit
me,’ ” but never took Ru. to the doctor. Ru. had bruises on his
head, body, legs, and arms. Father would not stop even when Ru.
cried and asked him to stop. Patty was there and said nothing.
Ru said Father, “ ‘would hit me for no reason.’ ” The abuse began
when the children moved in with Father three years earlier. He
saw Father hit Patty with a metal bat.
Ru. said Father “ ‘tried to hang himself in the middle of
summer.’ ” He heard Patty screaming “ ‘don’t do it!’ ” during an
argument; Father replied, “ ‘fuck you, fuck you!’ ” Father locked
the door but Patty broke a window to enter the room. Ru. saw
Father sitting on the bed, with “ ‘a rope hanging from the top.’ ”
The children were so scared that they did not eat the entire day.
The children said Father keeps a gun and showed them
how to use it. They saw Father point the gun at half sibling Paul;
when they arrived home, Father hit the children and said he was
going to kill Paul because he believed Patty and Paul were
having an affair. Ru. said, “ ‘We got scared and locked ourselves
in the room.’ ” Mother said Father admitted telling the children
6
that he was going to put a hole in Paul’s head, and that Father
has guns because he is a gang member.
Father disclaimed gun ownership, observing that it would
be illegal for him, as a felon, to own a gun. He claimed not to
have a phone number for his son Paul. As a result, CSW was
unable to interview Paul about the petition.
Ra. said Father talks to himself and asks if they see things
that are not there. Ra. believes Father thought “ ‘we were the
reason why he was arguing with Patty and trying to hang
himself.’ ” Mother said Father threatened suicide; she believes it
is because he uses drugs.
Nine-year-old Ra. said he was so traumatized by living with
Father that he cannot sleep alone. Father yells and “ ‘whoops’ ”
them. Ra. feels unsafe with Father. By contrast, Mother “ ‘loves
us, takes care of us and [does] not fight us.’ ” Ra. does not want
to visit Father, who hit him with a belt, sandal, and hand. Ra.
said he was hit several times per week, adding “ ‘he would hit my
brother [Ru.] first and then he would hit me for no reason.’ ”
Father calls them “ ‘little basters.’ ”
Mother said Father admitted to hitting the children “ ‘for
no reason.’ ” She did not witness the beatings but saw marks and
bruises on them, and they were “ ‘super skinny.’ ” They have
nightmares but are calming down and improving with therapy.
Father said all the claims are “ ‘false’ ” and he has never hit
his children. He spanked Ra. for cursing, saying, “ ‘If I ever put
my hands on [Ra.] it was because he needed to know right from
wrong, but it was only one time.’ ” Father was tearful. He denied
hitting them with a belt and accused Mother of brainwashing
them. He left them with her while repairing his relationship
7
with Patty, then Mother refused to give them back. Father
denied a suicide attempt.
In an addendum report pertaining to new allegations about
Father’s drug use, Ru. said that at Christmas 2020, there was a
family argument about Father’s drug use; police were called.
Afterward, said Ru., “my dad hit us with the belt for no reason
when we got home.” Ra. told CSW, “ ‘Patty smokes, but we do not
know what. I never seen dad use, but we know that he uses
drugs and gets super high.’ ”
Mother told DCFS that Father called her in 2020, while
high, and asked her to take the children. He becomes paranoid
when using drugs. During their marriage, he threatened to blow
up the house and pointed a gun at her while she was holding Ru.
She completed a drug program and is sober.
Father said, “I used marijuana, meth, cocaine and alcohol
in the past,” and became sober in a drug program. He “cooked”
and sold methamphetamine, which he last used in 2020. He
described his drug and prison history, and charges of evading
police in 2021. He denied hurting the children or himself.
Adjudication and Disposition
At adjudication on September 10, 2021, respondents’
counsel asked the court to sustain the petition. The children
consistently said Father physically abused them. They are
traumatized by the abuse and suffering mental health problems
as a result. Mother saw bruises and the children said they bled.
“They are terrified of their father, and this is a result of the
physical abuse.” Father’s denials are not credible. They saw
Father attempt suicide; talk to himself; ask them if they saw
things that did not exist; hit Patty with a metal bat; and hold a
gun to Paul’s head and threaten to shoot. Father has mental
8
health issues and admittedly used methamphetamine in 2020,
while the children were in his care. The children are at major
risk. Counsel said that everything respondents described is
based on their personal knowledge, not coached.
Father denied all allegations of physical abuse, claiming
Mother coached them to void the family law court’s joint custody
order. He denied mental health problems and current drug use.
The court found “abundant evidence” to support the
petition and said, “I find that the children are credible. I find
there is no evidence of coaching.” They are consistent in their
descriptions of physical abuse, exposure to Father’s gun, and his
suicide attempt. If there was inconsistency in the frequency of
the abuse, that “is because it was ongoing. It wasn’t just a few
specific incidents that they can call to mind. . . . I further find
that they are credible because they are displaying the trauma.
They are displaying fear of the father; they are very, very clear
that they are afraid to go back to father.” The children’s
nightmares and visceral reaction to raised voices “is consistent
with a child that has suffered physical abuse.”
The court said, “I do not find the Father’s across-the-board
denial of physical abuse to be credible at all.” The children’s
exposure to his suicide attempt is “extraordinary.” Father
admittedly panics and tries to numb himself when exposed to
stress. He “displays paranoia,” talks to himself, and “turns to
substance abuse when he is stressed out.” Further, Father “does
show signs of homicidal tendencies” by pointing a gun at his son
and attacking his girlfriend with a bat, and “the children should
not have been exposed to this.” The children were very credible
about seeing Father’s gun and know how he stores it. Father, a
registered narcotics offender, is still in treatment.
9
The court sustained the petition as pleaded and found the
children are persons described by section 300. Moving to
disposition, it declared the children dependents of the court.
Over Father’s objection, it removed the children from him due to
the substantial danger to their well-being in his home. It found
that “Father’s mental health problems are interlinked with his
substance abuse, and it is going to take a lot of work by Father to
work on both of those.” His total denial of physical abuse also
requires work.
The court placed the children in Mother’s care and custody,
under DCFS supervision. It ordered Father to participate in
random or on-demand drug testing, and a full drug treatment
program if any tests are missed or dirty; a 52-week parenting
program, “given the severity of the physical abuse here”; and
individual counseling to address case issues.
Respondents’ counsel asked the court to find that visits
would be detrimental, even if monitored, because the children are
terrified of him and working through their fears in therapy. The
court stated that the jurisdiction report documents the extent of
the abuse and the children’s trauma. It found clear and
convincing evidence of detriment if the children visit Father.
Over Father’s objection, it ordered no visits and set a progress
hearing to reassess this order. The court denied Mother’s request
to terminate jurisdiction, saying the children need services and
Mother must be monitored.3
3 Father’s appeal from the disposition order (B320219) was
consolidated with his appeal from the order terminating
dependency jurisdiction and denying visitation (B315213).
Father does not challenge the sustained petition charges.
10
Postdisposition Reviews
Father was a “no show” to six drug tests from September 20
to December 1, 2021, but claimed he attends an outpatient drug
program. Ru. told his therapist that he wants nothing to do with
Father; Ra. told his therapist that “he hates his dad and does not
want to see him or talk to him.” They “consistently vocalized to
CSW . . . that they do not want to see [Father] nor wish to speak
to him.”
The court denied Father’s request to vacate its detriment
finding at a hearing on December 10, 2021. It ordered DCFS to
detail Father’s progress in parenting classes and counseling;
contact Father’s outpatient drug program; and interview
respondents and their therapists about their fear of Father.
In January 2022, Ru. told CSW that he fears visiting
Father because “ ‘He’s going to hit me, and it will traumatize
me.’ ” He “has no interest in seeing the father.” Similarly, Ra.
said he feared visits because Father “ ‘is going to hit me.’ ”
Neither child wished to discuss the topic, but both said they enjoy
living with Mother, where they feel safe. Ra.’s therapist said he
would experience anxiety if he were to see Father; she could not
recommend visits. During therapy, Ra. drew a picture of Father,
whose “face was crossed out with cuss words.” Ru.’s therapist
said he “has expressed a lot of fear and anxiety about seeing the
father” but does not go into detail. They have “barely scratched
the surface” of Ru.’s difficulties, but “it does not seem like a good
idea for the child to have visitations with the father at this time,
because the father is a trigger.” Father did not enroll in
counseling or a parenting program. His outpatient drug program
did not return CSW’s calls.
11
On February 3, 2022, the court found no change in
circumstances warranting visitation and “continuing detriment.”
It ordered the therapists to address respondents’ trauma and
work toward visitation.
In advance of the six-month review hearing, DCFS
recommended terminating dependency jurisdiction, giving sole
custody to Mother and no visits for Father. Its report states that
the children are well nourished and healthy; they are supervised
by their aunt while Mother works. Neither child has anything
negative to say about living with Mother. Ru. told CSW he
refuses to see Father, who would hit him and Ra. with a belt or
pull his hair. He fears Father and is not amenable to visits, even
if monitored, as it would traumatize him. He no longer requires
medication to focus. Ra. continued to say that he does not want
any contact with Father because he would “get a panic attack.”
Ra. saw a vehicle resembling Father’s car and a person
resembling Father out in the community, and worried that
Father might follow them home.
Father acknowledged receiving referrals from DCFS but
did not enroll in any court-ordered programs or participate in
drug testing. He missed nine drug tests from September 2021 to
February 2022. He wishes to have the children back. He denies
using physical discipline, saying he only gave them chores or
confiscated electronic devices when they misbehaved. His drug
counselor still failed to return calls.
Mother is attuned to the children and follows DCFS’s
recommendations. She expressed concern that the children
threaten to run away if forced to be with Father. Ra.’s therapist
said he continues to deny wanting to see Father but refuses to
12
discuss it; she and Ru.’s therapist suspect that Mother may be
coaching the children.
Termination of Jurisdiction
At the review hearing on March 11, 2022, respondents
joined DCFS in recommending termination of jurisdiction, with
no visits for Father. Their counsel denied that they are being
coached: In client meetings, they shared specific details about
Father’s maltreatment and their demeanor was sincere. Father
never acknowledged any wrongdoing, did not comply with his
case plan, and made no progress to address case issues or repair
his relationship with the children.
The court found that the conditions justifying the initial
assumption of jurisdiction no longer exist and are unlikely to
exist if supervision is withdrawn. It terminated jurisdiction, with
Mother having sole physical and legal custody. Over Father’s
objection, the court found no new evidence to change the prior
finding of detriment, noting “severe physical abuse, [along with]
Father’s mental health and drug abuse problems,” and Father’s
unwillingness to address the issues. Detriment remains and
there is no sufficient evidence of coaching. Father failed to
undergo a six-month drug program with after-care and testing; a
parenting program; and counseling. Mother may allow visits if
the children express interest.
DISCUSSION
1. Appeal and Review
The disposition and the order terminating jurisdiction and
denying visitation are appealable. (§ 395.) We construe the
record in the light most favorable to the order; draw all
reasonable inferences to support the findings; and defer to the
court’s resolution of disputes and credibility assessments. (In re
I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
13
“We review the juvenile court’s finding that visitation
would be detrimental under the substantial evidence standard.”
(In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966, 973.) The court has
discretion to deny contact if it finds detriment. (Ibid.; In re T.M.
(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1219.) Abuse of discretion occurs if
the court is arbitrary, capricious, or exceeds the bounds of reason.
(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.)
2. The Appeals Are Not Moot
Respondents assert that Father’s appeals are moot because
no relief is available after the court ends dependency jurisdiction.
“In juvenile cases, when an issue raised in a timely notice of
appeal continues to affect the rights of the child or the parents,
the appeal is not necessarily rendered moot by the dismissal of
the underlying dependency proceedings. [Citation.] Rather, the
question of mootness must be decided on a case-by-case basis.”
(In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 517–518.)
Even after dependency jurisdiction ends, we may consider
the appeal on the merits if the controversy could recur or the
order “would create ‘the possibility of prejudice in subsequent
family law proceedings.’ ” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 282;
In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488–1489 [reviewing a
visitation order after dependency jurisdiction terminated].)
Because the orders in this case affect Father going forward, we
shall reach the merits of his appeals.
3. Denial of Visitation
At disposition, the juvenile court should endeavor to
maintain ties between parent and child. The court may deny
parental contact “[i]f visitation is inconsistent with the well-being
of the child, or would be detrimental to the child.” (In re F.P.,
supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 973; In re Matthew C. (2017) 9
Cal.App.5th 1090, 1101–1102.) “Well-being” includes “the
14
minor’s emotional and physical health.” (In re T.M., supra, 4
Cal.App.5th at p. 1219.)
The court need not “sit idly by while a child suffered
extreme emotional damage caused by ongoing visits,” even if
visits are monitored. (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th
1343, 1357.) “[T]he parents’ interest in the care, custody and
companionship of their children is not to be maintained at the
child’s expense; the child’s input and refusal and the possible
adverse consequences if a visit is forced against the child’s will
are factors to be considered in administering visitation.” (In re
S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.)
When the court terminates dependency jurisdiction, it
determines custody and child visitation. (§ 362.4, subd. (a); In re
Armando L. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 606, 616 [court determines the
noncustodial parent’s visitation rights].) The custody and
visitation order—commonly referred to as an “exit order”—“shall
continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent order of
the superior court.” (§ 362.4, subd. (b); In re T.S. (2020) 52
Cal.App.5th 503, 513 [order remains in effect in the family law
action until modified or terminated].)
The court’s primary consideration is the best interests of a
child. (In re T.S., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 513.) “[V]isitation
can be denied or suspended upon a finding of detriment to a
child’s physical or emotional well-being.” (In re F.P., supra, 61
Cal.App.5th at p. 973.) The goal “is to provide maximum safety
and protection for children” from physical and emotional abuse
and a home “free from the negative effects of substance abuse is a
necessary condition” for children’s safety and physical and
emotional well-being. (§ 300.2, subd. (a).)
15
4. The Record Supports Denial of Visitation
Substantial evidence supports the court’s findings at
disposition and in its exit order that visits with Father would be
detrimental to the children and negatively impact their emotional
well-being. Physical and emotional abuse are grounds to deny
visits. (In re F.P., supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 974.)
The record shows Father was physically and emotionally
abusive. He regularly hit the children with a belt and his hands,
leaving bruises, for no reason other than meanness; he continued
the abuse when they cried and asked him to stop; he caused
bleeding by using a blade to cut his son’s hair; he gave them
access to a gun; in their presence, he attempted to hang himself
and pointed a gun at a sibling; he did not feed them properly; he
acted paranoid and “crazy,” asking if they saw things that were
not there; and he used methamphetamine while caring for them.
These issues led to the sustained petition.
After the children were detained, they had nightmares
triggered by living with Father. They refused contact with him,
even with a monitor, throughout the proceeding. (In re F.P.,
supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 974 [nightmares and refusal to have
contact with an abusive parent are grounds to deny visits].)
At disposition, the court ordered Father to complete a case
plan. He did not comply with it. He missed drug tests and failed
to provide proof of enrollment in a drug program, parenting
classes, and counseling. He denied all wrongdoing and claimed
the children are coached; however, the court expressly found the
children’s accusations credible and disbelieved Father’s denials.
It found no sufficient evidence of coaching. The court found that
in the six months following disposition, Father was “just not
16
willing to make an effort” to address his mental health and drug
abuse problems.
Father posits that “monitored visitation would not be
detrimental to his children” because a monitor “would ensure
they felt safe that father could not harm them.” It is not enough
that a monitor can protect the children from being beaten, cut,
unfed, yelled at, or threatened by a gun. Ample case law holds
that a child’s emotional health is a critical aspect of well-being, in
addition to physical safety. (See, e.g., In re T.M., supra, 4
Cal.App.5th at p. 1219; In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1357; In re S.H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 317; In re
Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.)
The record is replete with respondents’ insistence that they
are terrified of Father, do not want to see him with a monitor,
and will run away if forced to see him. He triggers extreme
anxiety. The court found they are traumatized. It left the door
open to visits if Father completes a drug program, tests negative
for drugs, and engages in counseling and a parenting program,
and the children wish to see him.
This is not a case in which a parent was “less than ideal
[or] did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we
might have hoped.” (David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 768, 789.) Father was affirmatively cruel and brutal.
He did not benefit from services because he refused to enroll in
them. He has a three-decade history of drug use and numerous
drug convictions, admittedly using methamphetamine as recently
as 2020 while caring for the children. There is no evidence
showing he ceased using drugs because he refuses to test.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Father’s
evidence was not uncontradicted or of such character and weight
17
that a court must find it sufficient as a matter of law. (In re J.M.
(2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 111.) Father suggests that
respondents’ accusations are not believable and they “were
caught up in their parents’ custody battle” and coached by
Mother. The court decided these issues against Father. “It is not
our function to weigh the credibility of the witnesses or resolve
conflicts in the evidence.” (In re Daniel C. H. (1990) 220
Cal.App.3d 814, 839.) In sum, “we do not fault the court for
determining [that] forced contact with [Father] may harm [the
children] emotionally.” (In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573,
581, overruled on other grounds in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989, 1003, fn. 4.) The evidence of stress on the children
supports the no contact order.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
LUI, P. J.
We concur:
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
CHAVEZ, J.
18