In re Arthur B. CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 In re Arthur B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ARTHUR B. et al., Persons B331780
Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law. Los Angeles County Superior
______________________________ Court No. 22LJJP00521A-B
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.B.,
Defendant and Appellant;
M.P.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Debra L. Gonzales, Judge. Affirmed.
Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
____________________
A father challenges custody and visitation orders that fell
within the juvenile court’s broad discretion. We affirm.
The November 2022 dependency petition had allegations
against the father and mother of two teenage boys, then ages 17
and 14. (The older son is now 19.) The petition claimed the
father was physically violent with the mother in the children’s
presence and had unresolved substance abuse issues, while the
mother failed to protect her children from the father.
In December 2022, the juvenile court detained the children
from the father, released them to the mother, and ordered
counseling for the minors. By then, the father had been charged
with spousal battery and was subject to a criminal protective
order.
The investigation by the Los Angeles County Department
of Children and Family Services uncovered acts of violence by the
father. The episode giving rise to this case involved the father
pinning the mother against a wall, punching and pinching her,
and threatening to kill her at a family event. The older son tried
to intervene. Both sons and the mother were crying. Police
arrested the father, who was intoxicated.
The children reported the father was consistently drunk
and controlled the mother. In the past, he kicked, cursed,
pinched, and slapped the mother, was aggressive with her, and
“put his hands” on her. The older son would try to intervene.
2
The father also yelled and cussed at the children. The mother
and the younger son feared the father.
The father acknowledged abusing alcohol and violating the
restraining order against him but denied hitting the mother.
In an earlier dependency case from 2012, the father had
“brandished a rifle at the mother.” That case similarly centered
on the father’s alcohol abuse and domestic violence.
At the joint jurisdiction and disposition hearing in
February 2023, the father entered a no contest plea on the
amended petition. The court found the amended failure to
protect allegations against him to be true. The court maintained
the children with the mother, allowed monitored visits for the
father, and entered a stay away order protecting the mother from
the father. The court further ordered family maintenance
services for the mother, counseling for the children, and
enhancement services for the father. The father’s case plan
included a full substance program with random testing, a 12-step
addiction program, and a 52-week domestic violence program.
Over the review period, the mother engaged in services,
and the children were thriving in her care. They had completed
an intake and were on the waitlist for counseling but had had no
sessions. The father participated in some services but reported
he had completed only three sessions of his 52-week domestic
violence program because he became unemployed and was
discharged from the program.
As for visitation, the children declined visiting with their
father, so there were no in-person visits with him. Although they
were open to telephone calls, the father called sporadically.
Meanwhile, the father’s criminal attorney pressured the mother
to allow family contact.
3
Before the review hearing, the Department recommended
terminating jurisdiction with joint legal custody and sole physical
custody to the mother.
At the August 2023 review hearing, the father agreed with
closing the case and sought joint legal custody and “three by
three” visitation. The mother sought sole legal custody and less
visitation. Her counsel argued the father apparently had not
engaged in any domestic violence services in this domestic
violence case, a permanent restraining order existed between the
parents, and the father had “not really visited” his kids during
the case. The children’s attorney did not object to “sole legal to
mother,” underscored the children’s advanced ages (the older son
was turning 18 in two weeks), and voiced that the children “don’t
want visits at this time” and “do not wish for liberalized visits
with Father.”
Citing the domestic violence and the father’s lack of
participation in programs, the court awarded the mother sole
legal and physical custody. The court granted the father one
monitored visit of nine hours per month and one phone call per
week, plus additional visits upon which the parents agreed,
taking into consideration the children’s wishes. The court noted
this visitation was what the father “has actually been doing” and
the children did not want any contact with him. The court later
terminated jurisdiction.
On appeal, the father argues the juvenile court abused its
discretion in making the legal custody and visitation rulings. He
maintains the orders were not in his children’s best interests
because he had raised his children “to almost majority,” he was a
necessary “check and balance,” the orders contradicted the
4
Department’s recommendation, and they potentially would have
“epic consequences” like erasing him from his children’s lives.
The court’s rulings were proper. There was no abuse of
discretion. (See In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112–113
[abuse of discretion standard governs review of custody and
visitation orders]; see also Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4, subd. (a)
[permitting custody and visitation orders in termination
proceedings].)
In a case that centered on the father’s violence, the father
completed less than a handful of classes in the court-ordered,
year-long domestic violence program. Contrary to the father’s
arguments, it was rational to view the father’s failure to progress
in this program as connected to his ability to make important
decisions about the children jointly with the mother, given this
family’s history.
There also were red flags regarding the father’s substance
use. The father notes he immediately got treatment after
relapsing into alcohol abuse and took other protective steps. Yet
in 2023, he mostly did not test: he had 11 “no shows” from
January to July 2023, and he did not participate in the court-
ordered 12-step program.
The father’s failure to follow through on services and with
the Department, and his failure to reach out to his children over
the review period when their relationship grew estranged,
suggests the father had not gained necessary insight. Even on
appeal, he blames the Department for alienating him from his
kids and for failing to enroll them in therapy.
The children were vocal about not wanting to visit with
their father. He was “toxic.” They were “thriving” without him
in their lives. The record also signals the delay in therapy was
5
attributable to the unavailability of these services, not lack of
diligence by the mother or the Department.
In short, the evidence foreshadowed problems with forcing
additional visitation and shared decisions by the parents
regarding the children’s welfare. (See Fam. Code, § 3003
[defining joint legal custody].)
Further, it appears we would have some difficulty
fashioning any effective relief regarding the 19-year-old’s
visitation with his father. He is now an adult and can make any
decisions he would like regarding when and how to visit his
father. Nonetheless, as the parties have not raised this issue, we
find the court did not abuse its discretion.
In passing, the father asserts the juvenile court’s order
“was made in excess of [its] jurisdiction . . . .” But he does not
explain how this is so and therefore has forfeited the argument.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in deciding
that limited visitation and sole legal custody for the mother were
in the children’s best interests. The Department’s
recommendation was not binding. The court’s rulings
appropriately considered the totality of the circumstances and fell
within the court’s broad discretion. (See In re J.M., supra, 89
Cal.App.5th at pp. 112–113 [when terminating jurisdiction,
juvenile courts have broad discretion to make custody and
visitation orders and must consider the totality of the
circumstances in issuing orders in the children’s best interests].)
///
///
///
///
///
6
DISPOSITION
We affirm the challenged custody and visitation orders.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
7