In re L.C. CA4/3

Filed 1/11/23 In re L.C. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
In re L.C., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY,
G061739
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. 21DP0532,
v. 21DP0532A)
C.V., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vibhav
Mittal, Judge. Affirmed.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
* * *
1
Following a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, the
juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over minor L.C. and issued an order granting her
mother (Mother) sole legal and physical custody. L.C.’s father (Father) was granted
supervised visitation of six hours per week. On appeal, Father argues the court erred by
denying him joint custody and ordering monitored visitation. We find the court did not
abuse its discretion given Father’s history of conflict with Mother and his failure to
engage in court-ordered services. As such, we affirm the court’s order.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Most of the facts in this section are taken from our prior unpublished
opinion in this matter, In re. L.C. (July 29, 2022, G061119) [nonpub. opn.].
A. Petition and Initial Hearing
Initially, “Father and [Mother] shared physical custody of L.C. under a
child custody order. Mother had primary physical custody of L.C., while Father had
custody on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. On April 6, 2021, when L.C. was two years old,
it was reported to [Orange County Social Services (SSA)] that she had sustained multiple
bruises and scratches. Several other bruises were observed on her throughout April 2021.
Both parents blamed the other for these injuries.
“On May 14, 2021, SSA filed a juvenile dependency non-detain petition,
which alleged jurisdiction over L.C. was proper under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).
Among other things, the petition alleged (1) L.C. may have been physically abused while
in the care of Mother and/or Father, (2) both parents denied engaging in physical abuse,
1
All further undesignated references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
and (3) L.C. was suffering or at risk of suffering serious emotional damage in the care of
Mother and/or Father.
“After the initial hearing on May 21, 2021, the juvenile court kept L.C. in
her parents’ custody but ordered them not to use any corporal punishments, to cooperate
with SSA, and to cooperate with all referrals and services provided by SSA.” (In re L.C.,
supra, G061119.)
B. Reports Prior to the Jurisdiction Hearing
“Throughout this period, SSA had difficulty obtaining Father’s cooperation.
Its first report, dated July 1, 2021, shows SSA called Father on June 1 to schedule an in-
person interview. Father declined to meet in person, stating he does not like to drive far,
and requested to meet virtually on June 3 at 10:00 a.m. SSA sent Father a link for the
virtual meeting, but he failed to join the meeting. Father was also ‘hesitant with
services.’ He failed to complete his live scan requirement by SSA’s first report. And
though he claimed to have completed some sessions of a parenting program, he was
unable to provide any confirmation of completion.
“Father was also uncooperative in allowing SSA to visit him and L.C.
inside his home. He insisted on making video/audio recordings of SSA’s in-home visits
(apparently through security cameras). Such recordings violate SSA policy, so social
workers were unable to enter Father’s home. As such, most of the visits between SSA
and Father were conducted outdoors. The inability of SSA to inspect Father’s home
created safety issues for L.C. Father worked as a security guard and had a firearm at
home. Though he claimed the weapon was kept in a lock box, SSA was unable to
confirm it was safely stored.
“SSA’s next report, dated August 16, 2021, noted continuing difficulties
with Father. He still had not completed live scan. Though he reported participation in a
personal empowerment program, he provided no verification. Father continued to deny
3
social workers entry to his home unless they agreed to be recorded, so many meetings
between SSA and Father occurred outdoors. During one visit, SSA met Father in the
parking lot of a local high school. Father attempted to record the meeting on his phone
and had to be instructed to stop. SSA was finally able to conduct an in-home visit with
Father in August 2021, in which it observed that his firearm was stored in a black lock
box in a closet out of L.C.’s reach.
“Father also exhibited issues coparenting with Mother. For example,
Mother alleged that during one exchange of L.C., Father arrived an hour late, provided no
explanation for his tardiness, handed L.C. to her, and told L.C., ‘“[Mother’s] going to kill
2
you.”’ Due to the continuing conflict between the parents, the juvenile court ordered
SSA to supervise all exchanges of L.C. between Mother and Father.
“SSA’s reports following this order note several concerns with Father’s
conduct during supervised exchanges. He routinely arrived late. He also refused to get
out of his car to facilitate the exchange of L.C. with Mother. Rather, he would pass L.C.
to Mother through the driver side window of the car during drop offs. Likewise, during
pickups, he would take L.C. from Mother through the same window. This behavior
concerned SSA, since L.C. could potentially fall out of the window during hand offs. But
Father ignored social workers when they advised him to exchange L.C. with Mother in a
safer manner.
“During one SSA-supervised exchange in September 2021, Father arrived
15 minutes late to drop off L.C. The social worker approached his car and asked Father
if he had told Mother of his arrival. But Father ignored the social worker and set up his
phone to record. L.C. was in the passenger seat standing on the lap of an unidentified
2
“Father claimed he said that ‘[M]other would “carry”’ her as he handed L.C. to Mother.
But when SSA asked Mother whether she may have misheard ‘kill’ instead of ‘carry,’ she
was sure he had said ‘kill’ due to his body language and facial expressions.” (In re. L.C.,
supra, G061119.)
4
female. The passenger window was rolled down and ‘[L.C.] was trying to climb out of
the window.’ The social worker asked the passenger to hold L.C. to ensure she did not
fall through the window. The passenger did not respond. The social worker then asked
the passenger for her name. She did not respond, and Father motioned her to be quiet.
Father also appeared to get upset. He got out of the car, started walking on the sidewalk,
and began mimicking the social worker, saying ‘“what’s your name, what’s your name?”’
Father later testified at a hearing that the female passenger was his girlfriend.
“Social workers also began examining L.C.’s body for new bruises and
marks following exchanges. Several of these examinations uncovered new bruises and
marks after L.C. returned from Father’s care. But SSA was unable to substantiate any
physical abuse. When Father was asked about the bruises by SSA, he either failed to
reply or stated they were accidentally sustained while playing. Though Mother blamed
Father for some of the injuries, she acknowledged L.C. was very active and sometimes
sustained accidental bruises. Doctors ‘concluded that the injuries caused matched the
parent’s story in some instances, but [they had] concerns as to the young age of the child
and the amount of bruising to the child.’” (In re. L.C., supra, G061119.)
C. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
“A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing commenced in October
2021 (the jurisdiction hearing).
“Generally, Mother had been cooperative with SSA throughout the process.
By the time of the hearing, she had completed a personal empowerment program, a
parenting program, and was engaged in counseling and in-home support services as well
as random drug testing.
“In contrast, SSA expressed concerns about Father at the hearing. Though
he had completed a parenting class, SSA was unable to confirm he had actually
5
participated or learned anything because he failed to provide consents allowing SSA to
speak with his therapist.
“Father had also been uncooperative with multiple social workers. He
continued to record social workers after being told it was against SSA policy. He also
routinely failed to make himself available for home assessments. For example, he
refused to answer his door for unannounced visits even though social workers saw him
looking at them through the window. Due to Father’s continual failure to allow access to
his home, SSA was unable to verify that the home was safe for L.C. This was especially
important given SSA’s knowledge that Father ‘own[ed] some weapons.’ L.C. also
continued to return from Father’s care with unexplained injuries. Still, SSA was unsure
that removal was appropriate since none of the abuse allegations against Father had been
substantiated.
“Father denied needing any services to improve his parenting. He also
explained that he had told his girlfriend not to identify herself to the social worker
because ‘legally she doesn’t have to identify herself.’ However, Father divulged that his
girlfriend had been present at his visits with L.C. and that the girlfriend had been alone
with L.C. He was also aware that Mother had alleged his girlfriend had hit L.C.
“The juvenile court issued its ruling on October 15, 2021 (the October 15
ruling). It sustained the majority of the allegations in SSA’s petition. L.C. was declared
a dependent of the juvenile court, but she was allowed to remain in the custody of her
Mother and Father as they engaged in family maintenance services. Though SSA had not
recommended that L.C. be removed from Father’s care, the court stated it was ‘a very
close call’ as to whether removal was appropriate. ‘[H]is actions to date very possibly
put [L.C.] at a substantial danger of physical health, safety, protection, physical or
emotional well-being.’
“The juvenile court issued several orders to address Father’s behavior,
including to (1) cease all recording of visitation or exchanges or of any component of the
6
dependency matter; (2) comply in providing access to his home for unannounced and
announced visits by SSA; (3) participate in anger management and sign appropriate
releases; and (4) secure and keep safe all weapons in his home. Likewise, the court
ordered SSA to ‘conduct home checks to confirm all weapons are safe and secure.’”
(In re. L.C., supra, G061119.)
D. The Section 387 Petition and Detention Hearing
“On November 12, 2021, SSA filed a petition under section 387 (the 387
petition) to modify the October 15 ruling and remove L.C. from Father’s custody. The
387 petition alleged Father had failed to comply with the orders listed in the October 15
ruling. Among other things, it alleged that ‘[o]n November 10, 2021, the [F]ather was
observed recording the exchange of the child. When confronted, the [F]ather denied the
existence of the courts [sic] order. Further, from October 15 to November 10, 2021, the
[F]ather prevented SSA from inspecting his home and/or observing visitation with the
child on two occasions.’
“Prior to the initial hearing on the 387 petition, SSA filed a report
summarizing its recommendation that L.C. be detained from Father. It stated that on
October 27, 2021, SSA informed Father that a home assessment and visit observation
would be conducted following the parental exchange of L.C. on Tuesday, November 2.
The day of the assessment, though, Father claimed he was unavailable because he had
been called into work. The social worker cooperated and rescheduled for November 9.
Father thanked her for understanding. But on November 9, Father ‘declined [the
assessment] and stated that he and [L.C.] were going to the zoo. [Father] indicated that
he never agreed to meet.’
“During the exchange of L.C. from Father to Mother on November 10, the
social worker observed Father using a dash cam in violation of the October 15 ruling.
When the social worker asked if he was recording, Father got ‘within inches’ from her
7
face and started asking ‘“why” with a raised voice, in what appeared to be an effort to . . .
intimidat[e].’ When the social worker stated he was violating a court order, Father said
‘“what court order” then [told her] to back up.’ SSA inspected L.C. following that
exchange and discovered new bruises on her ribs. When SSA asked Father about the
injuries, he requested a photo. But he failed to respond after being sent a picture of the
bruises.
“At an initial hearing on the 387 petition on November 16, 2021, it was also
revealed that Father had not yet begun anger management classes. Following the
hearing, the juvenile court ordered L.C. to be detained from Father and granted him six
hours of weekly supervised visitation. It scheduled an adjudication hearing on the 387
petition for January 20, 2022.” (In re. L.C., supra, G061119.)
E. The Adjudication and Disposition Hearings and Initial Appeal
“Between the detention hearing and the adjudication hearing, SSA
contacted Father numerous times to schedule a meeting to discuss the allegations in the
387 petition. Father resisted any attempts to meet. Rather, he insisted that prior to any
meetings, SSA had to agree to respect his ‘constitutional[ly] protected rights.’ But he
failed to identify any specific rights. SSA offered to email him a copy of the 387 petition
for him to review and respond. Father refused to provide an email address and demanded
that SSA send him the allegations from the 387 petition through text message, which
SSA did. In response, Father claimed SSA had made false reports, provided false
testimony, and had violated their own policies, the Constitution, and federal and state
law.
“No visitation occurred between L.C. and Father during this period. A
social worker contacted him multiple times to coordinate monitored visitation with L.C.
But Father accused the social worker of lying and making false reports and blamed SSA
for his lack of contact with L.C. He demanded an apology from SSA before commencing
8
any visitation with L.C. Father also failed to attend counseling or participate in any anger
management classes.
“Father did not attend the adjudication hearing on January 20, 2022. While
he instructed his attorney to request a continuance, he repeatedly failed to provide his
attorney with any grounds to justify this request. The juvenile court denied the
continuance and sustained the 387 petition.
“A disposition hearing on the sustained 387 petition was held on February
10, 2022. SSA made no progress with Father between the adjudication and disposition
hearings. Similarly, no visitation occurred between Father and L.C. during this period.
At the disposition hearing, the court removed L.C. from Father’s custody.” (In re. L.C.,
supra, G061119, fn.omitted.)
Father appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the
juvenile court’s order sustaining the 387 petition. We disagreed and affirmed the order in
a prior opinion. (In re. L.C., supra, G061119.)
F. The Section 364 Report
Following Father’s initial appeal, a hearing under section 364 occurred on
August 19, 2022.3 SSA issued a report prior to that hearing, which found L.C. was doing
well in Mother’s care. Mother had also complied with her case plan services and goals.
As for Father, SSA “was unable to assess [his] current family
circumstances. [He] did not make himself available during th[e] reporting period.”
Father had been ordered to engage in services for anger management, counseling, and
parenting education. While SSA attempted to schedule an appointment with Father to
“Section 364 establishes procedures for review hearings for children who have been
3
adjudged dependent children, but have not been removed from their parents. When
proceeding under section 364, because the child is in placement with a parent, the court is
not concerned with reunification, but with determining whether continued supervision is
necessary in the family home.” (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)
9
discuss his services, he did not respond to these attempts. SSA also mailed and e-mailed
Father the case plan with resources so he could enroll in services himself. But Father
failed to provide any proof of participation or completion.
Though Father had been approved for six hours a week of monitored visits
with L.C., no visitation occurred during this period. Father contacted the social worker
on June 16, 2022, requesting to have telephonic or FaceTime visits with L.C. A schedule
was eventually worked out between Mother, Father, and the social worker that would
monitor the calls. But on July 14, the social worker reported that she had been unable to
reach Father to resume visitation, as he had not returned any of her voice messages.
Rather, Father insisted on communicating via text message even after being instructed by
the social worker to contact her telephonically to discuss visitation rules. Due to these
issues, prior to August 19, 2022 hearing, Father’s last visit with L.C. had been in
November 2021. It is unclear from the record whether L.C. has seen Father since the
hearing.
The only witness at the August 19, 2022 hearing was the case social
worker. She recommended that Mother be granted sole legal and physical custody of
L.C. and that Father be awarded monitored visitation. The social worker did not believe
joint custody or unmonitored visitation was appropriate given Father’s failure to comply
with the ordered services. He had not attended anger management classes, counseling, or
parenting classes.
Following the hearing, the court found judicial supervision of L.C. was no
longer necessary. It granted Mother sole legal and physical custody because L.C. was “in
a stable setting with Mother. Joint physical or joint legal custody would likely add
conflict to [L.C.’s] life, the type of conflict that resulted in the initial dependency case.
The court also ha[d] concerns about joint physical or joint legal custody, because Father
ha[d] not engaged in the services that the court ordered.” The court awarded Father six
hours of supervised visitation per week to be arranged by Father and Mother. The
10
monitor could either be a neutral party agreed upon by both parents or a professional
monitor paid by Father.
Father appeals this order. He contends the court erred by denying him joint
custody and by ordering supervised visitation.
II
DISCUSSION
“When terminating its jurisdiction over a child who has been declared a
dependent child of the court, section 362.4 authorizes the juvenile court to issue a custody
and visitation order (commonly referred to as an ‘exit order’) that will become part of the
relevant family law file and remain in effect in the family law action ‘until modified or
terminated by a subsequent order.’ When making a custody determination under section
362.4, ‘the court’s focus and primary consideration must always be the best interests of
the child.’” (In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513, fn. omitted.)
Custody and visitation orders are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
(Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1162-1163.) “An abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court exceeds the bounds of reason; even if we disagree with the
trial court’s determination, we uphold the determination so long as it is reasonable.
[Citation.] We do not reverse unless a trial court’s determination is arbitrary, capricious,
or patently absurd.” (Id. at p. 1163.) Based on the record, we conclude the court acted
within its discretion.
As to the custody order, Father makes a conclusory assertion that “[i]t
would be in [L.C.’s] best interest for her father to know if she had any major
development with her health or education so the visits could be arranged around [L.C.’s]
needs.” But Father fails to persuasively explain how this would be in L.C.’s best
interests. Joint custody requires that parents cooperate with each other to coparent their
child. (See In re Marriage of McLoren (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 108, 114-116.) Father
11
has not shown any ability to cooperate with Mother. Nor has he taken any steps to
improve his ability to communicate with her, such as counseling or anger management.
Further, the record shows Father has consistently prioritized himself over
L.C. For example, he missed nearly a year of visitation with her because of his
unwillingness to communicate with SSA and his insistence that SSA apologize to him.
He also endangered L.C.’s safety in the past by insisting on passing her through the
window of his car during parental exchanges, apparently due to his need for control.
Nothing in the record shows Father has made any effort to address these concerns, as he
has refused to engage with any of the ordered services.
The visitation order is reasonable for the same reasons. Father argues that
he has not abused L.C., and “[L.C.] would benefit from spending unmonitored time in a
public setting with her father to build on their relationship.” But, again, Father’s has not
shown any attempt to address the issues that caused the juvenile court to exercise
jurisdiction over L.C. Also, nothing in the record shows that unmonitored visitation
would be more beneficial for L.C. than monitored visitation. Rather, at the time of the
August 19, 2022 hearing, L.C. had not seen Father for nearly a year, a significant portion
of her life given her young age. Given these facts, it was not unreasonable for the court
to order supervised visitation to ensure L.C.’s safety and well-being during her visits with
Father.
Should Father be able to show a significant change of circumstances in the
future, he may seek a modification of the juvenile court’s order. (See In re Marriage of
David & Martha M. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 96, 101.)
12
III
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOETHALS, J.
MOTOIKE, J.
13