In re D.P. CA2/5 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/30/24 In re D.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.P. et al., Persons Coming B331753
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 22CCJP04769A-C)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
E.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Pete R. Navarro, Temporary Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
E.P. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s
determination at a six-month review hearing under Welfare and
Institutions Code, section 366.21, subdivision (e),1 that his three
children, D.P. (born November 2013), J.P. (born August 2015),
and Ju.P. (born January 2018) (collectively, minors), were at
substantial risk of detriment if they were returned to parental
custody. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to
support the court’s detriment finding. Respondent Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services
(Department) contends the court’s detriment finding was
supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Interviews during the Department’s initial investigation in
December 2022 indicate that L.M. (mother) and father had an on-
again, off-again relationship, and that since October 2019, J.P.
has lived with father, while D.P. and Ju.P. lived with mother,
and mother sometimes lived with maternal grandmother and
sometimes with father.2 Father told the social worker he viewed
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Mother is not a party to this appeal.We grant the
Department’s July 1, 2024 motion to correct and augment the
record on appeal. In doing so, we augment the record on appeal
to include the sustained first amended petition and the
Department’s jurisdiction and disposition report, filed January 3,
2
it as a “red flag” that he was not permitted to record the social
worker’s interview of him. He demanded that J.P. be returned to
his custody before Christmas, insisted that his due process rights
were being violated, and continually expressed his discontent
with the Department, his attorney, and the court. Father viewed
himself as the victim and believed the dependency system
operated only to help mothers.
In early January 2023, the juvenile court exercised
dependency jurisdiction over minors based on the history of
domestic violence between mother and father, mother’s alcohol
abuse, and father’s failure to protect. Minors were ordered
removed from parental custody and placed with maternal
grandmother.3 Father was ordered to participate in the following
reunification services: (1) a domestic violence program; (2) a
developmentally appropriate parenting program; and (3)
individual counseling to address domestic violence, anger
management, and father’s reported concerns for ADHD, anxiety,
and depression, and to develop appropriate coping mechanisms.
On January 30, 2023, father reported he had enrolled in a
domestic violence program and a parenting program at a Baptist
church in Hawthorne. By March 23, 2023, father had also
completed an 11-week parenting program through Parents
Anonymous. On March 23, 2023, the social worker submitted a
referral to Parents in Partnership to provide additional support,
but the program representative reported the next day that father
2023. We also strike from the record pages 125 through 143 of
the clerk’s transcript.
3 Mother and father appealed, but their appeals were
dismissed under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.
3
seemed to lack understanding and was focused on maternal
grandmother and perceived violations of his attorney-client
privilege, rather than reunifying with minors. The
representative was not able to redirect father.
By March 29, 2023, father had completed 8 sessions of a 52-
week domestic violence program, and 8 sessions of a 12-week
program called “Nurturing Fathers,” both at the Baptist church.
The counselor reported that father would argue with him and the
pastor, and father was not benefitting or developing tools from
the topics being discussed in the programs.
Father had monitored visits with minors three days a
week, and the social worker observed him to be appropriately
bonded to the children, who were excited to see him. Father
engaged in activities with minors, but would continually discuss
case-related issues with the social worker or health services aide
(HSA), claiming the investigating social worker lied in the
detention report, the Department was treating him unjustly, and
minors were wrongfully detained. Father also accused maternal
grandmother and maternal aunt of coaching minors and
discussing case issues with them, despite the lack of any evidence
to support his contention. Father continued to bring these
matters up, despite being told he needed to discuss them with his
attorney. Father also recorded his conversations with social
workers without their consent.
In late March 2023, HSAs were no longer available to
monitor father’s visits, in part because father cancelled a visit
after he asked an HSA to change the location of the visit without
informing the social worker, and the HSA declined to do so. The
HSA told the social worker that father would call him on random
days and ask him to monitor father’s visits. Father subsequently
4
started having his weekday monitored visits with J.P. only, with
one weekend visit including all three minors.
In its April 6, 2023 Interim Review Report, the Department
reported its concerns about father not understanding and taking
responsibility for the case-related issues that brought the family
to the Department’s attention. During a February 28, 2023 child
and family team (CFT) meeting that included a supervising social
worker, an assessor from the multi-disciplinary assessment team,
and the pastor from the Baptist church where father was enrolled
in parenting and domestic violence programs, the team had to
constantly redirect father; he needed to be reminded that that
the purpose of the meeting was to collaborate and help with
reunification, and that he should address his case concerns with
his attorney. The Department requested the court to order drug
testing and an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation of father
due to his lack of understanding of case issues and his erratic
behavior.
In the Department’s April 6, 2023 last minute information
report, father acknowledged it was difficult to watch all three
minors. Despite being repeatedly reminded to arrive prepared
for visits, father had a tendency to leave his belongings and the
children with the monitor, and scooter to a restaurant to get food.
He consistently asked to have visits moved to closer to his home,
even though that meant minors would need to travel further from
their caregiver’s home and their school. Father reported he was
unemployed but did not want to use a bus pass. The Department
expressed concern about father’s mental health, based on his
belief that maternal grandmother was brainwashing minors and
trying to break the bond between father and J.P. Also, whenever
the social worker would state she would not consent to being
5
recorded, father would exclaim that her refusal was further proof
he was right.
In a last minute information report dated April 26, 2023,
the Department reported on ongoing issues with father’s visits,
despite attempts to accommodate him by moving the visits closer
to him. Father had declined to sign visitation guidelines
provided to him previously, saying he wanted to look them over,
and had not yet signed the guidelines by April. During visits,
father could only interact with one child at a time, and then
would lose track of the other children. On two separate visits, he
asked the monitor where one of his children was, and the monitor
had to point the child out to father. Also, during visits, father
would ask monitors questions about the Department and their
job functions. In addition, father would ask social workers to look
up his case to see what they could find, which was against
Department policy. Despite efforts by the social worker to
encourage father to focus on his court-ordered programs, father
remained fixated on the initial phases of the case and his belief
that maternal grandmother was brainwashing minors, even
though the children denied anyone making them sad or upset.
The Department acknowledged the strained relationship between
father and maternal grandmother. To avoid conflicts between
the two, the Department recommended the court order father to
not attend minors’ medical or dental appointments. It also again
recommended an order for father to submit to a psychological
evaluation under Evidence Code section 730.
At a hearing on April 26, 2023, father first tried to speak
directly to the court, and his counsel stated that she had
6
explained to him his options under Faretta4 and Marsden5, that
her law firm was representing him, and that the current hearing
was not an evidentiary hearing, but she intended to call him as a
witness at the six-month review hearing. Father’s counsel
requested minors’ release to father’s care, clarification on
whether father was required to complete a 52-week domestic
violence program, and that the Department be ordered to provide
delivered service logs and to make the social worker and monitor
available for the six-month review hearing. The court ordered
that father’s domestic violence program did not need to be a 52-
week program. It also ordered the Department to assist father
with transportation, and when it inquired into the distance from
father to the visit location, father asked to address the court and
started complaining that the Department was trying to make it
harder for him to attend visits and that the Department was
lying. The court cut off the exchange and asked county counsel if
there was anything remaining. When county counsel asked the
court to order father not to record the social workers, father
sought permission to speak, and the court denied permission.
Nevertheless, father interjected, explaining that he doesn’t
record, but asks the social worker why they don’t want to be
recorded, and then speculated that they must be doing something
wrong. The court cut father off after father started addressing
one of the attorneys on the video call, asking why she was
smiling. Mother’s attorney asked the court to either permit
4 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [waiver of the
right to appointed counsel].
5 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [process for
requesting new appointed counsel].
7
unmonitored and overnight visits for mother or give the
Department discretion to allow such visits. When the court
responded that the Department would have discretion, father
again interrupted, challenging the court’s authority and accusing
the court of breaking the law. The court ended the hearing.
Father attended minors’ dentist visit in mid-May 2023.
Father became upset when the maternal grandmother described
herself as the minors’ legal guardian, and the monitoring social
worker had to explain that father still had parental rights.
Father objected to J.P. being seen, insisting that he had an
appointment at a different office. Father’s disruptive statements
and behavior led the dental office manager to ask father to leave
or he would call 911. The children’s appointments were
cancelled. Father later changed his mind and had no objection to
minors seeing the dentist, so the appointment was rescheduled.
With the social worker’s approval, father attended a school
event where D.P. was presenting. The social worker reiterated to
father that he could attend the event, not make a scene, and
leave. After the event, father wanted to take D.P. for frozen
yogurt, but maternal aunt did not agree. Father started
recording maternal aunt without her approval.
Father enrolled in individual counseling at Behavioral
Health Services Homeless Outreach Program Integrated Care
System (HOPICS). A May 23, 2023 letter from HOPICS stated
father had an initial intake for individual counseling on April 12,
2023, that father was cooperative and motivated to address the
established treatment goals, and that he was able to process his
feelings and emotions about his current involvement with the
Department. However, because father had not signed a release
form, the HOPICS counselor could not discuss details about
8
father’s mental health or his individual sessions. The social
worker texted father to ask him to sign the release. By the end of
May, father had also completed his 12-week parenting program
at the Baptist church, and had attended 17 weeks of a 52-week
domestic violence program.
At a CFT meeting on May 31, 2023, the group agreed that
father would have a trial run for unmonitored visits. If he could
be on time for visits, supervise all three minors, and not discuss
the case during visits, he would have three hours of unmonitored
time during his visit on Father’s Day, June 18, 2023. However,
at the same CFT meeting, father had to constantly be redirected
and did not seem to comprehend the case-related issues that
brought the family to the Department’s attention. Father’s
support person, the case manager at the Baptist church, abruptly
left the CFT meeting at one point because father was not staying
focused on the agreed issues of concern.
In the first part of June, father was late to two visits, and
showed two videos to minors that the monitor asked father not to
continue showing, and father started arguing with the monitor,
saying he could show anything he wanted to show, and it was not
illegal. The first video was a documentary about the difference
between the rich, the poor, and the government. The second
video showed a social worker conducting an investigation, with a
mother yelling and asking for a warrant, and a voiceover
explaining what to do when a social worker visits. Father
eventually turned off the second video after D.P. became
uncomfortable and asked father to stop playing it. On prior
visits, D.P. had asked father to stop arguing with the social
worker and comply with the social worker’s requests.
9
Father started unmonitored visits on June 18, 2023. The
visits went well, and minors were excited to see father and spend
time with him. Father ended the first visit early because D.P.
was experiencing fever-like symptoms, and minors did not want
to walk to a store. After the first unmonitored visit, D.P.
answered “no” when the social worker asked if she had fun,
stating that father was getting mad too much and that she did
not want another unmonitored visit. The boys (J.P. and Ju.P.)
did not say anything. In response to queries after later visits, all
three minors said they felt safe, enjoyed the unmonitored visits
with father, and wanted them to continue. Because the
unmonitored visits were continuing to go well, the Department
recommended that the visits continue as unmonitored, with the
court giving the Department discretion to liberalize to overnight
and weekend visits.
The social worker advised father he could provide a letter
for the court’s consideration as part of the upcoming July 7, 2023
six-month review hearing. On July 6, 2023, father sent the social
worker an email with the subject line “Cease and Desist Order
Concerning False Statements Under the Color of Law,” which
directed the social worker to stop making false and misleading
statements and threatened legal action. The social worker
responded by clarifying that father had been invited to write a
letter to the court so father’s allegations and concerns could be
known, and his email did not address the concerns father had
reported to the social worker. The Department included father’s
email and the social worker’s response in a Last Minute
Information for the court.
At the six-month review hearing, father’s counsel called one
social worker as a witness. The social worker testified that the
10
visits went well and he had no safety concerns. Denying
counsel’s request to call another social worker, who also
monitored father’s visits, the court stated it saw no dispute that
father’s visits with minors were appropriate. Father’s counsel
asked for a home of parent-father order, arguing that the
Department had not carried its burden to show that returning
minors to father’s custody would create a substantial risk of
detriment. Mother’s counsel asked for minors to be returned to
mother, or alternatively for an order returning the children to
both parents. Minor’s counsel first conveyed each child’s position,
stating that D.P. wanted to return to mother, and have weekend
visits with father; J.P. wanted to return to both parents; and
Ju.P. was pre-verbal. Minor’s counsel then asked the court to
place minors with father, because mother had not made enough
progress on her case plan. Minors’ counsel also asked for
mother’s overnight visits to continue, with the Department
having discretion to liberalize. County counsel asked the court to
follow the Department’s recommendation of an additional six
months of reunification services for both parents, emphasizing
that father had been attending classes, but had not done the
work needed to show he could safely parent minors. Counsel
acknowledged that minors were bonded to father, but argued that
a more gradual approach, starting with unmonitored visits,
followed by overnights and discretion to liberalize, was the
necessary approach. The court took the matter under submission
and continued the hearing to July 27, 2023.
The Department’s July 27, 2023 last minute information
report recounted problems with father’s visits, and summarized
interviews with mother and father. Father’s visits would begin
monitored, and end with unmonitored time. A visit on July 15,
11
2023 went well, although D.P. did not participate in the visit
because she did not want to exercise with father. The following
day, father was scheduled to have a monitored visit from 9:30
a.m. to 11:30 p.m., and then an unmonitored visit from 11:30 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m. Father brought scooters to the visit and told minors
that maternal grandmother should be buying them things
because father paid child support. The social worker offered to
transport minors to another location for the unmonitored portion,
but father declined. When D.P. asked father if the social worker
could take them to the next location, father told D.P. that he, not
the social worker, should tell D.P. what to do, and proceeded to
have minors scooter through a busy street area without helmets.
Although father agreed that the social worker would pick up
minors from father’s home at the end of the unmonitored portion
of the visit at 2:30 p.m., father did not answer the door or
repeated phone calls until almost an hour later, causing the
social worker and maternal grandmother to worry for the
children’s safety.
The following week, when the social worker arrived to pick
up minors at the end of an unmonitored visit, father continued
playing with them and argued with the social worker, saying if
they wanted to keep playing he would not force them to go with
the social worker. The social worker was not able to transport
minors back to maternal grandmother’s home until more than an
hour past the agreed-upon time. Ultimately, the Department
recommended that father’s visits be “reverted from unmonitored
to monitored due to father placing the children’s safety at risk by
not being consistent with providing the children with proper
protective gear when using scooters, not complying with the
visitation hours and inappropriate conversations with the
12
children.” The Department also filed an ex parte application to
change father’s visits from unmonitored to monitored, based on
father’s actions during visits, including having minors ride
scooters on a busy street without helmets, failing to communicate
with the social worker for more than an hour after the agreed-
upon ending time of a visit, and refusing to encourage the
children to return to the social worker at the end of a different
visit.
At the hearing on July 27, 2023, the court ordered minors
to remain removed from parental custody, emphasizing that one
of the case issues was father’s disruptive behavior, which was an
issue in court as well. Based on father’s actions, the court
concluded that while father had engaged in services, he had not
yet benefitted from them. Father then interrupted, and when the
court allowed him to speak, father aired a number of grievances
to the court, which did not change its order.
DISCUSSION
Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support
the juvenile court’s finding that returning minors to his care
would create a substantial risk of detriment to their well-being.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
When the juvenile court has found jurisdiction under
section 300, it may remove a child from a parent pursuant to
section 361 at a dispositional hearing only if it finds by clear and
convincing evidence “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger
to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional
13
well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and
there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical
health can be protected without removing the minor from the
minor’s parents.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); see Cynthia D. v. Superior
Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248 (Cynthia D.) [“At the
dispositional hearing, the standard of proof for removal from a
custodial parent is clear and convincing evidence”].)
In contrast, at the six-month review hearing, there is a
statutory presumption that the child will be returned to parental
custody “unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the return of the child to [his or her] parent or legal
guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the
child.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1); In re Mary B. (2013) 218
Cal.App.4th 1474, 1483 (Mary B.), emphasis added.) The
Department, not the parent, bears the burden of establishing
that detriment. (Cynthia D., supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 248–249.)
Proof by a preponderance standard at this stage sufficiently
protects a parent’s due process rights because, as our Supreme
Court has explained, the statutory scheme requires the juvenile
court to have previously made a finding of detriment by clear and
convincing evidence. (Cynthia D., at pp. 253–256.)
Whether the placement of a child with a parent would be
detrimental is to be examined by looking at the totality of the
circumstances. (See A.H. v. Superior Court (2010) 182
Cal.App.4th 1050, 1059 [“[d]etriment can be shown many
different ways”].) Relevant circumstances include (1) the
relevant parent’s “[c]ompliance with the reunification plan”
(Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704
(Constance K.)), and (2) the “effect . . . return [to the parent’s
14
custody] would have on the child” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42
Cal.App.4th 890, 901), as well as (3) “the manner in which the
parent has conducted . . . herself in relation to a minor in the
past” (Constance K., at p. 705). “In making its determination, the
court . . . shall consider the efforts or progress, or both,
demonstrated by the parent . . . and the extent to which they
availed themselves of services provided.” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).)
We review a juvenile court’s finding that the risk of such
detriment exists for substantial evidence. (In re E.D. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 960, 965–966.) Substantial evidence is evidence that
is of “ ‘reasonable, credible, and of solid value’ ” such that a
reasonable trier of fact could make such findings. (In re Angelia
P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.) The appealing party “bear[s] the
burden to show there was no evidence of a sufficiently substantial
nature to support those findings and orders. [Citation.] We draw
all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the
findings and orders of the juvenile court and review the record in
the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; we do not
reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but
merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the trial
court’s findings. [Citation.] Thus, we do not consider whether
there is evidence from which the juvenile court could have drawn
a different conclusion but whether there is substantial evidence
to support the conclusion that the court did draw. [Citation.].”
(In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.)
B. Analysis
Father contends that the court and the Department
incorrectly relied on his combative and difficult behavior in
15
reaching the conclusion that placing minors in his care and
custody posed a substantial risk of detriment to their physical
and emotional well-being. Father relies on Georgeanne G. v.
Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 868 (Georgeanne G.),
to argue that any theoretical risk could be effectively neutralized
by continuing court supervision and family maintenance services,
and that because there was no evidence of ongoing domestic
violence, there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s
detriment finding.
First, the court’s detriment finding is well supported by the
evidence of father’s statements and actions during the course of
the dependency case. Father’s aggressive and conflict-seeking
approach towards the Department, the visitation monitors, his
case manager at the Baptist church, and maternal relatives were
proper considerations for the court in determining father’s efforts
and progress in taking advantage of the services provided to him.
Father’s inability to prioritize the purpose of the reunification
services over his own personal grievances was sufficient for the
Department to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an
immediate return to father’s custody posed a substantial risk of
detriment to their well-being. The reports included evidence of
multiple occasions on which father chose to pursue his ongoing
conflict, rather than focusing on minors’ needs. This evidence
was reinforced by father’s statements in court, where father
insisted on explaining to the court how he had been wronged by
the Department.
Father compares this case to Georgeanne G. v. Superior
Court, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 868, but we find it to be
distinguishable. In Georgeanne G., the social services agency
expressed concern that the mother, a victim of domestic violence
16
in her prior relationship with minor’s father, lacked insight into
the risk posed by her current male companion, who had
previously been convicted of felony spousal rape. (Id. at pp. 858,
868.) Mother argued that because she had satisfactorily
completed her court-ordered programs and services, “lack of
insight is not a valid ground” to support a detriment finding.
(Georgeanne G., at p. 865.) After discussing several cases,
including Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th
1738, the court concluded that “[n]one of these cases holds a
parent’s lack of insight may not be considered by the juvenile
court,” so long as the evaluation of the parent’s insight is “ ‘based
on evidence rather than an emotional response.’ ” (Georgeanne
G., at p. 867, citing Blanca P., supra, at p. 1750.) It then went on
to conclude that because there was no evidence of domestic
violence between mother and her male companion, any concern
that minor was at risk of harm was based on speculation and
conjecture, and any theoretical risk could be addressed by court
supervision and services. (Georgeanne G., at p. 869.)
Here, in contrast, the evidence of father’s ongoing
antagonism with maternal grandmother and with the
Department dramatically reduced the likelihood that ongoing
court supervision and services could ensure minors’ protection.
Father’s words and actions demonstrated that he was unwilling
or unable to entertain the idea that the Department’s primary
focus was on minors’ safety and physical and emotional well-
being, and that he was unwilling or unable to make those goals
his own priority as well. Father had to be redirected during a
CFT meeting to focus on case issues, rather than his grievances
with the Department. The totality of circumstances surrounding
father’s services and visitation supports the court’s
17
determination. Those circumstances include father’s history of
arriving late for visits, his ongoing discussion of case issues in
front of minors during visits, his unwillingness or inability to
abide by the visit guidelines, including when and how visits
should end, and his disruptive conduct in various settings,
including the courtroom, the dentist’s office, and a school
function.
Although father had enrolled in and was participating in
the programs required by his case plan, his inability to refrain
from discussing case issues while minors were present, the
ongoing adversarial nature of his interactions with the
Department, and father’s lack of insight supported the
determination that placing minors in his custody would create a
substantial risk of detriment to their well-being.
18
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s July 27, 2023 orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, Acting P. J.
We concur:
KIM, J.
DAVIS, J.
 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
19