In re Emily F.

Filed 7/20/06 In re Emily F. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Robert G. Fowler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Messer, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

Thalen F. (father), the father of Emily F., appeals from the grant of a restraining order preventing him from contact with two social workers involved in his daughter's dependency case. On appeal he contends (1) that the court used the wrong standard and code section in granting the restraining order, and (2) that the facts presented in support of granting the order fail to establish good cause. We affirm.

FACTS

The facts of the underlying dependency case are not pertinent to the issues presented in this appeal. It suffices to say that Emily, who is now nine years old, became a dependent of the court in 1999 due to mother's hospitalization for mental illness. Ultimately, father's reunification services were terminated after a subsequent petition was sustained by the dependency court on January 28, 2005. Emily's mother was granted physical custody and reunification services under a family maintenance plan that provided father was not to be in the family home. Father may have visitation at a neutral place away from the home, monitored by Emily's mother.

Despite the fact that father was no longer receiving services, father had numerous contacts with social workers that were involved with the case. The threatening nature of those contacts prompted them to seek a restraining order against father. Declarations were submitted in support of the issuance of the temporary and permanent restraining orders on behalf of George Nelson and Renee Church only:

a. Supplemental Declaration of Cody Dawkins.

Ms. Dawkins was a social worker assigned to the case from August 18, 2004 through February 9, 2005. Father was extremely difficult to work with. He would yell, verbally berate her, and leave 20 to 25 voice mail messages at a time for her and her superiors. He would drop into her workplace unannounced and demand to be seen.

While Dawkins was waiting outside the courtroom at a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing in the dependency case held on January 26, 2005, father approached Dawkins and made a threatening gesture by raising the back of his hand as if to slap her while stating, â€