Filed 5/24/17 In re A.S. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY S.,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071158


(Super. Ct. No. SJ13153)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth J. Medel, Judge. Affirmed.
Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Kristen M. Ojeil, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Susan E. Lake for Minor.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Anthony S. (Anthony) appeals a juvenile court order terminating reunification services provided to him in connection with a dependency proceeding involving his daughter, A.S. The dependency arose from a domestic violence incident between Anthony and A.S.'s mother. The juvenile court terminated reunification services to Anthony at the 12-month review hearing after finding that he had failed to make significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the dependency and had failed to demonstrate a capacity to complete the objectives of his case plan and provide for A.S.'s safety. The court noted that Anthony continued to engage in domestic violence during the dependency and that a domestic violence therapist stated that Anthony continued to struggle with anger and lacked the skills to control his anger.
On appeal, Anthony contends that the juvenile court's order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the order.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The family's history of domestic violence
Anthony and A.S.'s mother married shortly before A.S.'s birth in early April 2015. On April 30, 2015, Anthony and A.S.'s mother called law enforcement after they hit each other in the face while struggling for possession of A.S. A.S. was hit in the face during the struggle. During an interview in early May 2015 with a social worker from the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency), A.S.'s mother stated that Anthony had committed physical violence against her on two other occasions prior to the April 30 incident.
B. The dependency petition
On June 10, 2015, the Agency filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) in which the Agency alleged that the parents had exposed A.S. to "serious physical harm in that [A.S.] was exposed to violent confrontations in the family home." The petition described both the April 30 incident and A.S.'s mother's report of prior instances of domestic violence. The following day, the juvenile court ordered A.S. detained out of the home and ordered liberal, separate, and supervised visitation for the parents.
C. The August 2015 hearing
On August 3, 2015, the Agency filed a report indicating that A.S.'s mother had reported that, on July 30, Anthony destroyed A.S.'s mother's personal belongings, including the windshield to her car and a cell phone. Also on August 3, A.S.'s mother requested that the court enter a restraining order prohibiting Anthony from having any contact with her.
At a hearing that same day, the juvenile court made a true finding on the petition, and declared A.S. a dependent of the court. The court ordered the Agency to provide each of the parents with reunification services, including domestic violence classes. The court also entered a restraining order prohibiting Anthony from having contact with A.S.'s mother for a period of two years.
D. The six-month review hearing
In a status report filed in January 2016, the Agency stated that A.S.'s mother reported that Anthony had come to her apartment in violation of the restraining order in August 2015. In addition, the Agency attached a police report indicating that, during August 2015, Anthony had been stalking A.S.'s mother and that he had vandalized her car on three occasions.
In an addendum report filed in March 2016, the Agency stated that the parents continued to have contact with each other and that the Agency had received information that the parents might be living together. The report indicated that the parents continued to "engage in ongoing domestic violence." The Agency submitted a report from Anthony's domestic violence therapist that stated that, despite having attended 28 sessions of domestic violence counseling, Anthony remained in the "[c]ontemplative stage," and that he had not progressed to the "[p]reparation stage," "action stage," or "maintenance stage." In discussing the contemplative stage, the report explained that "[c]lients in this stage recognize some of the negative consequences of their lifestyle choices but are ambivalent about changing."
At the six-month hearing in March 2016, the Agency recommended that the juvenile court terminate reunification services for the parents and set a section 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court ordered additional reunification services to the parents, stating: "the Court is going to give you one more chance not to lose . . . your child. I'm giving you one more chance." The court further stated, "The progress on services does not mean sitting in a class and going like this, nodding your head when the teacher talks. Progress in services means taking those lessons into your lives and doing the right things with those lessons."
E. The juvenile court's termination of Anthony's reunification services
In October 2016, the juvenile court held a contested 12-month review hearing. The Agency recommended that Anthony's services be terminated. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the Agency recommended that A.S.'s mother's services be continued to the 18-month date.
At the hearing, the Agency presented evidence that: Anthony had been charged with domestic violence related crimes on four occasions during the dependency, including punching a new girlfriend in the face in April 2016; Anthony and A.S.'s mother continued to have contact, including sexual relations; and that Anthony had made limited progress in his domestic violence group. Anthony's domestic violence therapist stated that Anthony continued to struggle with his anger, had yet to gain insight, could not identify when he was getting angry, and lacked the skills to know the early signs of his anger in order to be able to intervene.
The trial court terminated reunification services to Anthony, noting that he had failed to make significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the dependency and had failed to demonstrate a capacity to complete the objectives of his case plan and provide for A.S.'s safety, citing Anthony's continued commission of domestic violence and his lack of success in his therapeutic program.
F. The appeal
Anthony appeals the court's order terminating reunification services.
III.
DISCUSSION
There is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's
order terminating Anthony's reunification services

Anthony claims that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the juvenile court's termination of his reunification services.
A. Standard of review
In Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688–689, this court outlined the standard of review that we apply in determining whether a juvenile court erred in terminating a parent's reunification services:
"We review an order terminating reunification services to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] In making this determination, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. [Citation.] 'We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.' "

B. Governing law
Generally, in juvenile dependency proceedings involving a child, such as A.S., who was under three years of age at the time of removal from the physical custody of her parent, the juvenile court shall provide no more than 12 months of reunification services to the child's parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) However, pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1), a court may order the continuation of reunification services to a parent until the 18-month date, "if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time . . . ." (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1) specifies the limited circumstances under which a court may find a substantial probability of such a return:
"[I]n order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:

"(A) That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.

"(B) That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home.

"(C) The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs." (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)

A juvenile court may terminate one parent's services at the 12-month hearing even if it orders services to be continued for the other parent. (See In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 565–566 (Alanna A.).)
C. Application
In determining whether the juvenile court erred in terminating Anthony's reunification services we consider first whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that Anthony had not made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to A.S.'s removal from the home. As outlined, in part II, ante, Anthony's involvement in a domestic violence incident in the home in April 2015 led to A.S.'s removal in June 2015.
Anthony's failure to make significant progress in addressing the problem of domestic violence is most directly demonstrated by evidence in the record indicating that Anthony continued to engage in domestic violence during the dependency. The record contains reports of four separate domestic violence incidents that occurred during the dependency period. For example, a February 2016 status report states the following:
"[F]rom [July 31, 2015] to [August 31, 2015], the father, Anthony . . . has been stalking the mother [of A.S.]. [Anthony] vandalized the mother's park[ed] car three times causing $5000 worth of damage. When [Anthony] was arrested[,] a flat head screwdriver, a charged stun gun[ ], a metal tire iron, and a 22'' machete knife, were found in his possession."

The most recent of Anthony's arrests documented in the record occurred in April 2016 after Anthony punched a woman, whom he had recently started dating, in the face with a closed fist. A.S.'s mother was present during the confrontation.
In addition to evidence of Anthony's continued commission of acts of domestic violence, there is also evidence in the record that Anthony continued to have contact with A.S.'s mother during the dependency despite the existence of a restraining order prohibiting such contact. This evidence included an October 2016 addendum report indicating that A.S.'s mother stated that a child born in August 2016 "could be Anthony's."
Anthony also failed to disclose his ongoing contact with A.S.'s mother and his April 2016 arrest to his domestic violence therapist. Finally, according to the October 2016 addendum report, Anthony's domestic violence therapist stated that, in her opinion, Anthony continued to "struggle[ ] with his anger and the insight is not there." In light of this evidence, the juvenile court's finding that Anthony did not meet the criterion in section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1)(B) is amply supported by substantial evidence and provides an adequate ground for the termination of Anthony's services.
The same evidence also supports the juvenile court's finding that Anthony did not demonstrate the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of his case plan and provide for A.S.'s safety. (§ 366.21, subdivision (g)(1)(C).) While Anthony attended the required domestic violence class sessions, he did not meet his case plan objectives in that he did not refrain from domestic violence and he failed to develop the skills necessary to prevent his commission of violent acts. Anthony's failure to complete the objectives of his case plan and provide for A.S.'s safety provides an additional basis for the juvenile court's termination of reunification services.
Anthony's arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Anthony argues that he regularly visited A.S. without incident, availed himself of reunification services, and that he "was compliant in his case plan." We agree with Anthony's contentions pertaining to visitation and his use of services. However, as alluded to above, Anthony's case plan required him to "refrain from domestic violence," and to "not behave in a manner that is verbally, emotionally or physically abusive or threatening." The evidence discussed above pertaining to Anthony's commission of numerous violent and threatening acts during the period of the dependency demonstrates that he did not comply with this aspect of his case plan. Indeed, even Anthony concedes that his "arrests throughout [the] dependency were indicators that he had not been successful in learning to control his anger or deal with his domestic violence issues." Thus, evidence of Anthony's attendance at domestic violence classes and the marginally positive remarks from Anthony's therapists concerning his therapeutic progress that Anthony cites in his brief, do not demonstrate that the court erred in terminating his reunification services.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating Anthony's reunification services is affirmed.


AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.