In re M.C. CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 In re M.C. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re M.C., a Person Coming B327739, B332142
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP04814C
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
O.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.
David M. Yorton, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________
A father appeals the juvenile court’s orders requiring the
father’s visits with his daughter to be monitored. He argues it
was an abuse of discretion for the court to do so because
monitored visits are not in the best interests of his daughter and
only serve to punish him for failing to participate in his case
plan. We affirm. The court’s orders were proper in light of the
father’s history of violence towards the mother.
All statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
I
The daughter is M.C., who was born in November 2019.
She lives with her mother, two older half-siblings, and maternal
grandparents.
M.C.’s mother and father had known each other for about
10 years, and were in a relationship for three years as of October
2022. They have never lived together and are not married, but
agreed to co-parent M.C. The father would visit M.C. at the
mother’s home every Monday, and the three would frequently go
on an outing.
On one Monday in October 2022, the mother decided not to
join the outing, saying that she did not feel well. An argument
ensued between the mother and father. The father spit on the
mother’s face and grabbed her when she tried to walk away from
him. The father turned the mother around and wrapped his
arms around her neck to choke her for about six seconds. Her
eyes rolled to the back of her head, but she did not lose
2
consciousness. After the father released the mother, she
scratched him, and he ran away. The mother began to cry.
M.C.’s eldest half-sibling, H.S., who was 11 years old at the
time, called 911 when she saw her mother crying. The mother
had instructed H.S. to call the police if H.S. ever “sensed [the
mother] was in danger.” H.S. told the 911 operator: “there’s a
man harassing my mom right now.”
Shortly after H.S. called 911, two police officers arrived at
M.C.’s home. The mother told the officers what had happened
and declined any medical care, but allowed the officers to take
photographs of the bruises on her right arm and her neck. The
mother also told the officers that there were nine previous
unreported instances of domestic violence from the father.
During a call with a social worker from the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services about one
week later, the mother later recanted the statements she made in
the police report about the father choking her. She claims the
police officers pressured her to say that the father choked
her. The mother said she felt bad that M.C. could not see her
father.
In December 2022, the juvenile court authorized the
Department to remove M.C. from the father’s custody. The
Department then filed a section 300 petition on behalf of M.C.,
based on the father’s history of violence towards the mother and
the mother’s minimization of the father’s conduct.
The juvenile court held the initial hearing and found the
Department had made a prima facie showing under section
300. The court ordered that M.C. remain detained from the
father, but granted the father monitored visitation. M.C.
remained in her mother’s physical custody.
3
In February 2023, the juvenile court held a combined
jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court ordered M.C.
removed from the father’s physical custody, and granted physical
custody of M.C. to the mother. The father’s reunification case
plan consisted of a domestic violence batterer’s intervention
program, individual counseling to address his domestic violence
and anger management issues, and monitored visitation with
M.C. in a neutral setting.
The father then filed his first appeal from the jurisdiction
and disposition hearing order.
In July 2023, the Department reported on all aspects of the
family’s maintenance plan. The father refused to cooperate with
the Department’s social workers and answer their questions,
instead “plea[d]ing the 5th.” He did not attend any of the
programs required by his case plan. Nevertheless, the report
indicated that the father had “very positive” visits with M.C.
during the review period, stating “the father and daughter
appear to be attached and bonded well as she appeared to be
comfortable in her father’s presence and able to effectively
communicate her wishes . . . .” The Department concluded its
report by recommending that the juvenile court terminate
jurisdiction over M.C. and issue a final custody order giving joint
legal custody to the mother and father, sole physical custody to
the mother, and monitored visitation to the father.
In August 2023, the juvenile court held a review hearing,
stating its tentative decision to adopt the Department’s
recommendation. When the father requested unmonitored
visitation, the court responded as follows: “the concern I have is
that there was pushback in terms of compliance. He was ordered
to a 52-week [domestic violence] program, and I don’t have
4
anything to indicate he’s engaged in that or individual
counseling. I’ve got a multiplicity of unreported [domestic
violence] incidents in the presence of the child; and I’ve got a
very, very young child here.” The court ultimately adopted the
Department’s recommendation.
The father filed his second appeal from the judicial review
hearing.
II
At the father’s request, we consolidated the second appeal
(B332142) with his first (B327739).
The father’s sole appellate contention is the juvenile court
abused its discretion in granting him monitored visitation
instead of unmonitored visitation. He claims the court is
“punish[ing] [him] for not completing his case plan rather than
considering what was in [M.C.]’s best interest.”
We review juvenile court orders terminating jurisdiction
and issuing exit orders for an abuse of discretion. (In re M.R.
(2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.)
In re N.M. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1090 (N.M.), the main
case the father relies on, does not help him. In N.M., the juvenile
court granted sole physical custody to the mother to avoid
rewarding the father, who had not participated meaningfully in
his case plan, but without making an express finding that this
would be in the children’s best interests. (Id. at p. 1095.) The
Court of Appeal reversed, finding the order to be an abuse of
discretion “because an exit order must serve the best interests of
the children, not reward or punish one parent or another for
failing to comply with the case plan.” (Ibid.)
N.M. is readily distinguishable from this case. There was
no evidence that N.M.’s father had been violent towards N.M.’s
5
mother. (See N.M., supra, at p. 1095.) Here, there were at least
ten instances of domestic violence, nine of which were
unreported. The juvenile court considered the father’s history of
domestic violence when it decided to grant the father monitored
visitation, along with M.C.’s age and the father’s unwillingness to
cooperate in his case plan. Thus, the record demonstrates that
M.C.’s best interests guided the court’s decision, not a desire to
punish the father.
There was no abuse of discretion. The juvenile court acted
within its discretion in ordering monitored visitation for the
father.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
6