In re E.G. CA2/5 ( 2023 )

Filed 7/3/23 In re E.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.G., a Person Coming B320085 (consolidated with
Under the Juvenile Court Law. B320123)
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
21LJJP00222D)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
In re D.G. et al., Persons B320123 (consolidated with
Coming Under the Juvenile B320085)
Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
21LJJP00237A–B)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los Angeles, Stephanie Davis, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Megan Turkat Schrin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
2
I. INTRODUCTION
At the six-month review hearings in two related
dependency cases, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and
issued custody and visitation exit orders. On appeal from the exit
orders, J.G. (father) contends that the court abused its discretion
when it denied him: unmonitored visitation with his sons; joint
custody of his sons; and monitored visitation with his daughter.
We affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Father’s Children
Father and his former wife, J.O., had two sons while
together: D.G., born in 2006, and A.G., born in 2008 (collectively,
the sons). They divorced in 2016. Father had “seventy percent
physical custody over [his sons] and [J.O.] ha[d] visitation[ ] three
weekends out of the month.” Due to space limitations in father’s
home, his sons “predominantly stay[ed] with [their] paternal
grandmother.”
Following his separation from J.O., father began a
relationship with L.C. (mother),1 and in 2018, they had a
daughter, E.G. At the time, mother had three older daughters
from a prior relationship: Ja.F., age 12; Y.F., age 10; and Ju.F.,
age 8. In October 2020, mother and father separated.
1 Neither J.O. nor mother is a party to this appeal.
3
B. Jurisdiction and Disposition
On April 22, 2021, the Department filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 3002 petition on behalf of E.G. (E.G.’s
case), alleging, as later amended and sustained by the juvenile
court, that father’s violent verbal and physical altercations with
mother endangered E.G. and placed her at risk of serious
physical harm; father’s sexual abuse of Y.F., Ja.F., and Ju.F
placed E.G. at risk of such abuse; father’s abuse of alcohol and
marijuana rendered him incapable of caring for E.G. and placed
her at risk of serious physical harm; and father placed E.G. at
risk of serious physical harm when he consumed alcohol while
driving with E.G. as a passenger.
On April 29, 2021, the Department filed a separate section
300 petition on behalf of the sons (the sons’ case), asserting that
the sons were at serious risk of harm due to father’s domestic
abuse of mother, sexual abuse of Y.F., Ja.F., and Ju.F., and
alcohol and marijuana abuse. The petition included a count
alleging that father’s conduct in driving E.G. while consuming
alcohol endangered the sons and placed them at risk of harm. On
May 4, 2021, the juvenile court detained the sons from father,
released them to the home of their mother, J.O., and ordered
monitored visitation with father three times a week for three
hours per visit.
On July 20, 2021, the juvenile court held an adjudication
hearing in the sons’ case, but only as to the two counts alleging
that father’s alcohol and drug abuse rendered him incapable of
caring for the sons, and found those allegations to be true. The
2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
4
court ordered the Department to interview the sons regarding the
sex abuse allegations of E.G.’s half-siblings and to submit a last
minute information with updated recommendations so that the
court could adjudicate the remaining counts in the sons’ case.
On September 20, 2021, the juvenile court held an
adjudication hearing in E.G.’s case, as well as the remaining
counts in the petition in the sons’ case. The court sustained the
allegations in E.G’s case. In the sons’ case, the juvenile court
dismissed count a-1, which alleged that the sons were at risk of
serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally due to father’s
domestic abuse of mother, as well as the counts alleging that the
sons were at risk of harm from father’s sexual abuse of Y.F.,
Ja.F., and Ju.F. The court sustained count b-1, alleging that
father’s domestic violence against mother in E.G.’s presence
placed the sons at risk of harm and that his conduct of driving
with E.G. while he consumed alcohol endangered the sons.
At the October 20, 2021, disposition hearing in E.G.’s case,
the juvenile court removed her from father and placed her with
mother. The court denied father visitation and reunification
services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6).
That same day, the juvenile court held a disposition
hearing in the sons’ case, removed them from father, and
released them to J.O. The court ordered father to complete a full
alcohol/drug treatment program with aftercare, participate in a
12-step program, and submit to random or on demand
drug/alcohol testing. The court also ordered father to attend
parenting classes, sex abuse counseling, and individual therapy
to address case issues, substance abuse, and sex abuse and
granted father monitored visitation three times a week for three
hours per visit.
5
On December 2, 2021, the juvenile court entered a
permanent restraining order against father that prohibited him
from having any contact with mother, Ja.F., Y.F., Ju.F. or E.G.
C. Six-Month Review Hearing, Termination of Jurisdiction,
and Exit Orders
In a March 2022 status review report, the Department
advised that the sons continued to live with the paternal
grandmother and that J.O. had overnight visitation with them on
weekends. According to the social worker, father had a stable
job, a home, and continued “to live sober . . . .” But, as of the time
of the report, father had not completed any of the court ordered
programs or contacted the service-provider referrals from the
social worker. In addition, although father had “partially
complied” with court-ordered drug and alcohol testing by
providing several negative test results, he also had multiple no
shows. Father visited regularly with the sons in a monitored
setting at paternal grandmother’s home, and there were no
reported concerns about those visits during the review period.
Because father had made “minimum progress” in complying with
his case plan, the Department recommended termination of
jurisdiction, with orders granting J.O. sole legal and physical
custody of the sons and father continued monitored visitation.
In the six-month status review report in E.G.’s case, the
Department advised that E.G. and her half-siblings were living
with mother in the home of mother’s sister and doing well.
Mother told the social worker that she had reported father’s
sexual abuse of her older daughters to the District Attorney’s
6
office, but investigators had decided there was insufficient
evidence to charge father.
At the April 19, 2022, six-month review hearing in E.G.’s
case, the juvenile court stated that it intended to terminate
jurisdiction proceedings. Father’s counsel requested joint legal
and physical custody of E.G. or, in the alternative, unmonitored
visitation and sibling visitation between E.G. and the sons. The
Department argued that father had not been in contact during
the review period and had not complied with his case plan in the
sons’ case, there had been no change in circumstance during the
review period to warrant deviation from the current no visitation
order, and there was a three-year protective order in place
prohibiting contact between E.G. and father. The court
terminated jurisdiction as to E.G. and granted mother sole legal
and physical custody, with no visitation for father.
At the six-month hearing in the sons’ case, the juvenile
court stated it intended to terminate jurisdiction. Father’s
counsel requested joint custody or, in the alternative,
unmonitored visitation. Counsel for the sons objected to
unmonitored visits based on father’s lack of compliance with his
case plan. The Department also objected to unmonitored visits
and joint custody. The court ruled that, due to father’s
noncompliance with his case plan, there was no factual basis
upon which to grant joint custody or change the current
monitored visitation order. It therefore granted J.O. sole legal
and physical custody of the sons.
Father timely appealed from the exit orders in both cases,
and his appeals were consolidated for briefing, argument, and
decision.
7
III. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
A juvenile court has a special responsibility to a child as
parens patriae and must look to the totality of the child’s
circumstances when making decisions regarding the child. (In re
Chantel S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) When a juvenile court
terminates jurisdiction over a dependent child, it may issue
custody and visitation orders. (§ 362.4, subd. (a); In re T.S.
(2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513, fn. omitted [“[S]ection 362.4
authorizes the juvenile court to issue a custody and visitation
order (commonly referred to as an ‘exit order’) . . .”].) In making
exit orders, a juvenile court must look at the best interests of the
child. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973.)
We review a juvenile court’s exit orders for an abuse of
discretion. (In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.) “‘“The
appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can
reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no
authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.”’
[Citations.]” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.)
B. Analysis
1. Custody and Visitation Orders re: the Sons
Father argues that, prior to the filing of the petition in the
sons’ case, he had joint custody of the sons as their primary
caretaker, there had been no evidence of abuse or neglect during
8
that time, and, during the review period, he had maintained
regular visitation with them without any reported concerns. He
therefore contends there was insufficient evidence to support the
need for the monitored visitation restriction or the custody
modification giving sole legal custody to J.O. We disagree.
Father’s argument ignores the juvenile court’s
unchallenged findings that he was a current abuser of alcohol
and marijuana; he had been under the influence of alcohol in the
home while E.G. was present; and, on one occasion, he had driven
with E.G. while consuming alcohol. Those findings, in turn,
supported the court’s unchallenged conclusions at disposition
that father’s substance abuse posed a danger to the sons and
therefore monitored visitation and court-ordered programs to
address substance abuse were warranted.
During the ensuing six-month review period, father failed
to enroll in any of the court-ordered services for substance abuse
and was a no show for several random drug and alcohol tests.
That there were no reported concerns about father’s monitored
visits with the sons did not demonstrate that unmonitored visits
would be in the sons’ best interests. On this record, we decline to
find that the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting J.O.
sole legal custody or requiring that father’s visitation with the
sons be monitored.
2. Visitation Order re: E.G.
Father also maintains that the exit order prohibiting
visitation with E.G. “was an abuse of discretion because
insufficient evidence supported ending father’s relationship with
his daughter and monitored visitation could have addressed any
9
safety concerns.” According to father, prior to the filing of the
petition in E.G.’s case, he had weekend visits with E.G. without
any safety concerns and the evidence showed he had “a positive
and loving relationship” with her.
Father’s argument again ignores the unchallenged findings
that he was a current abuser of alcohol and marijuana who had
endangered E.G. by being intoxicated in the home and driving
with her while consuming alcohol; had physically abused mother
while in the proximity of E.G. and her sisters; and had sexually
abused E.G.’s sisters while E.G. was in the home. Those findings
supported the juvenile court’s unchallenged conclusion at
disposition that the risk of detriment to E.G. posed by father’s
conduct warranted a permanent restraining order prohibiting all
contact with her. On this record, father has failed to demonstrate
that the court’s exit order was not in E.G.’s best interest.
Accordingly, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by,
in effect, continuing in place the orders prohibiting father from
having contact with E.G.
10
IV. DISPOSITION
The challenged custody and visitation exit orders are
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
MOOR, J.
11