In re F.S. CA4/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/13/23 In re F.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 F.S. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E080084
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. SWJ2100211)
v. OPINION
N.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Edward Forstenzer,
Judge. (Retired judge of the Mono Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beechman, and Larisa R-McKenna,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
N.S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and orders
concerning his infant daughter, Willa S. The court bypassed reunification services for
father under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) (unlabeled
statutory references are to this code). Father does not challenge the court’s decision to
bypass reunification services but instead contends that the court erred by failing to
consider ordering enhancement services. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Father and J.C. (mother) (collectively, parents) have three daughters together—
F.S. (born 2017), N.S. (born 2020), and Willa (born 2022). When Willa was born,
parents were involved in dependency proceedings concerning Willa’s older sisters.
Mother and Willa’s older sisters are not parties to this appeal.
In May 2021, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the
Department) filed a petition under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, alleging that F.S.
and N.S. were at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because of (1)
domestic violence between father, father’s girlfriend, and mother, (2) father’s criminal
history and history of domestic violence, (3) father’s mental health issues, and (4)
mother’s failure to remove the girls from father’s home to protect them from the domestic
violence. When the most recent domestic violence incident occurred between father and
his girlfriend, both of them were living with mother, parents’ children, and several
paternal relatives.
2
The juvenile court detained F.S. and N.S. At the jurisdiction and disposition
hearing, the court sustained most of the allegations in an amended petition, including a
new allegation concerning father’s drug abuse, because he had tested positive for
methamphetamine. The court removed F.S. and N.S. from parents’ custody and ordered
reunification services for both parents. The court ordered continued reunification
services for both parents at a contested six-month status review hearing in April 2022.
In the 12-month status review report filed in June 2022, the social worker reported
that mother was living in a shelter and had a job. Mother had disclosed that she was no
longer in a relationship with father. Mother was pregnant with father’s child. The
Department recommended that both parents continue to receive reunification services.
Willa was born in early August 2022. About two weeks later, the juvenile court
issued a protective custody warrant to remove Willa from father’s care and custody. The
Department filed a petition under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, alleging that Willa
was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because of father’s mental
illness and substance abuse, as well as his criminal history and both parents’ involvement
in the ongoing dependency case with F.S. and N.S. based on domestic violence. In a
detention report filed the same day, the Department recommended that the court detain
Willa from father but allow Willa to remain in mother’s custody. The court adopted the
Department’s recommendations, detained Willa from father, and allowed Willa to remain
in mother’s care and custody. The court ordered in-person supervised visits for father at
least twice per week.
3
In late August 2022, the Department filed an addendum report for the 12-month
status review hearing for F.S. and N.S. As to mother, the Department recommended that
F.S. and N.S. be returned to her care and custody with family maintenance services. As
to father, the Department recommended that the court terminate reunification services.
The Department reported that father had completed several of his case plan services,
including counseling and classes in parenting, anger management, and domestic violence.
Father denied using methamphetamine despite his positive test, which he claimed was
caused by Sudafed. Father avoided submitting to drug tests (both urine and hair follicle)
and refused to be evaluated for a substance abuse program. Father reported that he was
taking medication that had been prescribed by a doctor at a psychiatric hospital, but the
hospital informed the social worker that there was no record of father’s having been
treated there. Father also missed several visits with F.S. and N.S. between June and
August 2022.
At the contested 12-month review hearing for F.S. and N.S. on September 1, 2022,
the juvenile court found that father had made “minimal efforts toward alleviating or
mitigating causes which necessitated placement” and had “failed to participate regularly
and to make substantive progress in his court-ordered treatment plan.” The court further
found that there was “no substantial probability of return [to father] if given another six
months of services,” and the court accordingly terminated father’s reunification services.
But the court found that mother had made substantial progress toward alleviating or
4
mitigating the causes that necessitated placement, and the court placed F.S. and N.S. in
mother’s custody with family maintenance services.
About one week later, the Department filed its jurisdiction and disposition report
as to Willa. The Department recommended that Willa remain in mother’s care and
custody, mother receive family maintenance services, and father receive reunification
services.
The Department filed an amended petition as to Willa, alleging that the domestic
violence found in the proceeding involving F.S. and N.S. had been between father and his
girlfriend, not between father and mother. In October 2022, the Department filed an
addendum report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing as to Willa. The
Department’s recommendation as to mother and Willa’s placement remained the same.
The Department indicated that father’s reunification services as to F.S. and N.S. had
recently been terminated, and the Department recommended bypassing reunification
services for father under subdivision (b)(10) of section 361.5.
In October 2022, the court held a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing as
to Willa. The court read, considered, and admitted the jurisdiction and disposition report
filed in September 2022 and the addendum report filed in October 2022. The Department
argued that the court should deny reunification services to father because reunification
services had recently been terminated as to F.S. and N.S. The Department also noted that
father had a long criminal history for domestic violence and substance abuse, had not
5
taken ordered drug tests, and had checked himself out of a drug treatment facility after
two days.
Father’s counsel had “no objection to the Department’s evidence” and did not
present any “affirmative evidence.” Father’s counsel asked the court to grant father
reunification services, noting that father had recently been admitted into an inpatient
program but “left that due to some mental health concerns.” Father’s counsel indicated
that father had “immediately enrolled in an outpatient program” that father would be
reporting to soon. In the event that the court denied reunification services, father’s
counsel asked the court to allow father to have twice weekly supervised visits with Willa
to allow father to “continue to bond with Willa.” Counsel indicated that father intended
to file a section 388 petition “in the future once he has completed the balance of the
services that he needs to do for his case plan.”
The court adopted the recommended findings and orders contained in the October
2022 addendum report, sustained the allegations in the amended petition, adjudged Willa
a dependent of the court, placed Willa in mother’s custody with family maintenance
services, and bypassed reunification services for father under subdivision (b)(10) of
section 361.5, finding by clear and convincing evidence that it was not in Willa’s best
interest to provide father with such services.
DISCUSSION
Father sole argument is that the trial court erred by failing to consider offering him
enhancement services, because the court “did not discuss this possibility at disposition.”
6
He contends that we should reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing because the
court “appeared to be unaware of its authority to grant father enhancement services.”
The argument lacks merit.1
When the juvenile court’s dispositional order leaves a child in the custody of one
parent, the court may in its discretion order enhancement services for the noncustodial
parent. (In re C.S. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 631, 637.) Enhancement services are “‘child
welfare services offered to the parent not retaining custody, designed to enhance the
child’s relationship with that parent.’” (In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 212;
§ 362, subd. (a) [“If a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that
the child is a person described by Section 300, the court may make any and all reasonable
orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the
child”].)
The Department argues that father forfeited his argument concerning enhancement
services by failing to request them in the juvenile court. We agree. “A party forfeits the
right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the
objection in the trial court.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221.) At the
jurisdiction and disposition hearing, father did not ask the juvenile court to consider
1 We agree with the parties that father was ineligible for reunification services,
because Willa was not placed in out-of-home care or with a previously noncustodial
parent. (§ 16507, subd. (b).) It was therefore unnecessary and arguably erroneous for the
court to bypass father under subdivision (b)(10) of section 361.5. But the order denying
reunification services to father was correct, and we review the juvenile court’s ruling, not
its reasoning. (In re Daniel B. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 663, 675, fn. 4.)
7
offering him any enhancement services. We consequently consider the argument
forfeited. (Ibid.)
In any event, father has failed to carry his burden on appeal of demonstrating
error. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 [“juvenile court’s judgment is
presumed to be correct, and it is [the] appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error”].)
Father cites no authority for the proposition that the juvenile court was required to
consider ordering discretionary enhancement services. (See Kaufman v. Goldman (2011)
195 Cal.App.4th 734, 743 [“Every argument presented by an appellant must be supported
by both coherent argument and pertinent legal authority”].) We are aware of none.
Father therefore has failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court erred.
Moreover, father has not shown a reasonable probability that the juvenile court
would have ordered enhancement services if the court had considered the issue. (In re
Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 60 [error warrants “reversal only if the reviewing court
finds it reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the appealing
party but for the error”].) Given the findings that the court made in terminating father’s
reunification services as to F.S. and N.S., and given the additional findings that the court
made in (superfluously) bypassing father for reunification services as to Willa—including
the finding by clear and convincing evidence that it was not in Willa’s best interest to
provide father with reunification services—we see no reasonable probability that the
court would have ordered enhancement services if it had considered them. Consequently,
any error in failing to consider enhancement services was harmless.
8
DISPOSITION
The October 27, 2022, dispositional order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
9