Filed 7/13/22 In re J.B. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
| In re J.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
| B314588
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 20CCJP03141A, 20CCJP03141B
|
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
L.C.,
Defendant and Respondent;
I.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Melissa A. Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
Father appeals a juvenile court exit order denying his request for overnight visitation with his teenage sons, J.B. and A.B. The court declared the boys dependent children after father grabbed mother by the throat and struck his son J.B. during a domestic violence altercation. In terminating jurisdiction and awarding mother sole physical custody, the court denied father’s request for overnight visitation, concluding the visits would not be in the children’s best interests because father failed to engage in individual counseling for most of the reunification period and the paternal relatives refused to allow the child welfare agency to assess father’s home for overnight visits. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
J.B. and A.B. were 14 and 12 years old, respectively, when the juvenile court declared them dependent children.
The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department) contacted the family after police arrested father for spousal abuse. Father, apparently upset by a comment mother made about him seeing another woman, had “ ‘burst’ ” through a bedroom door and pinned mother to the bed by her throat as she struggled to get away. J.B., A.B., and their adult sister attempted to pull father off mother. Father turned and grabbed J.B. by the throat, spun him around, and pushed him to the floor. He punched the 14-year-old in the back, then drew back his fist to strike J.B. a second time “ ‘full on’ ” before mother and the two other children managed to restrain him. Mother later escaped the home and reported the incident to the police.
Mother also reported that, two weeks earlier, father had become enraged and forced open the bathroom door while she showered. He started “throttling” her with both hands before she fled the bathroom naked in front of the three children. She had not reported the assault because she believed it was an “isolated incident.”
Father denied the incidents and claimed mother had made a false report to get back at him for committing adultery. A.B. witnessed father on top of mother in the bedroom, but denied seeing him hit J.B. or choke mother. J.B., who is autistic, was unable to provide a detailed statement. The adult daughter largely corroborated mother’s police report.
The juvenile court granted mother a temporary restraining order against father, detained the boys from father and placed them with mother pending an adjudication hearing, and granted father monitored visitation.
Six months later the Department interviewed the family. J.B. said he had been trying “ ‘to forget what happened’ ” and “ ‘to focus on school.’ ” When asked to confirm details in the police report, he acknowledged father had “ ‘pushed [him] out of the way,’ ” but otherwise said he did not remember. A.B. also said he did not remember most of the incident and would confirm only that father had been trying to take mother’s cellphone from her. Mother confirmed father had held her down, but now denied that he choked her. The adult daughter’s account did not change. Father continued to deny that anything happened.
The juvenile court declared the boys dependent children, sustaining a physical abuse count against father and a failure to protect count against both parents. The boys remained placed with mother and removed from father. The court ordered father to participate in a 52-week domestic violence program and individual counseling to address child protection and the effects of domestic violence on the family unit. He was granted unmonitored day visits with the boys.
In advance of the six-month review hearing, the Department reported father had positive visits with the boys and he had completed 40 of 52 domestic violence sessions; however, he had failed to enroll in individual counseling. The Department emphasized father continued to minimize the domestic violence incident, urging it was “important for the father to attend individual counseling” to address his “lack of accountability for his actions of exposing the children to a violent incident.” Before it could recommend reunification with father, the Department asserted father should begin individual counseling and have monitored overnight visits with the boys.
The juvenile court continued jurisdiction and services for the parents. It granted the Department discretion to allow overnight visits with father once he enrolled in individual counseling.
In advance of the 12-month review hearing, the Department reported father had completed his domestic violence program and, within the last month, he had enrolled in individual counseling, but the counseling sessions had not begun. The Department emphasized individual counseling was “crucial” to ensure father fully acknowledged the harm caused by domestic violence and its impact on the children. Father had not had overnight visits with the boys, and the paternal relatives, with whom father lived, had refused to allow the Department to conduct a safety assessment of the home.
Father’s unmonitored day visits with the boys had been going well; however, during a recent visit, father had lashed out at J.B., yelling at the boy, “ ‘You’re not smart. You do not know anything. [You] [j]ust follow what your mother says.’ ”
Both parents appeared for the 12-month review hearing. The Department asked the juvenile court to terminate jurisdiction, to award mother sole physical custody and the parents joint legal custody, and to continue father’s unmonitored day visits with the boys.
Father asked for overnight visits, arguing there was no evidence to suggest the visits would present a danger to the boys. The boys’ counsel joined father’s request, explaining his clients wanted the option to have overnight visits. He suggested overnight visits would not pose a safety concern given the boys’ age and their generally positive unmonitored visits with father. However, counsel argued mother should have sole physical and legal custody due to the domestic violence and acrimony in the parental relationship.
Mother likewise requested sole legal and physical custody, emphasizing a restraining order was in place due to the underlying domestic violence. She also objected to an order requiring overnight visits, but said “an overnight trip on occasion” might be appropriate.
The court terminated jurisdiction and awarded mother sole legal and physical custody. It denied father’s request for overnight visits, explaining:
“I will continue to allow unmonitored day visits between father and the sons. However, . . . this court gave father the opportunity to liberalize his visits to overnights once he’s enrolled in individual counseling. He went to one faith-based counseling session. Additionally, he has continued to not allow the Department to assess the home for safety risks. And although these are young teenage men 13 and 15, frankly, in many ways they’re more at risk than if you have a two-year-old and a five-year-old. It’s a different risk when you have young adolescent men in an unassessed home by the Department. If this family was so interested in having these boys for overnights, they would have allowed the assessment. Based on the information in the [last-minute report], it appears to the court that the father is spending most of his evenings with his girlfriend, which is fine. But I’m not going to put a 13-year-old and 15-year-old in that situation for overnight visits.
“If the mother and father want to agree at some point that dad can take the kids camping, that would be okay with the court. But no overnights in an unassessed home.”
Father filed a timely appeal from the exit order.
DISCUSSION
When the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a dependent child, it is authorized to make orders regarding custody and visitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.) These exit orders become part of any family court proceeding concerning the child and will remain in effect until the family court terminates or modifies them. (In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1122–1123; In re A.C. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 796, 799.)
“The standard which governs all determinations in dependency proceedings is to protect the welfare and best interests of the child.” (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 569.) The court must look to the totality of the child’s circumstances and focus on the child’s best interests when creating an exit order. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201 (Chantal S.); In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961,
973–974.)
We review the juvenile court’s exit order for an abuse of discretion and may not disturb the order unless the court “ ‘ “ ‘exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.’ ” ’ ” (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300 (Bridget A.).) “ ‘[T]he juvenile court, which has been intimately involved in the protection of the child, is best situated to make custody determinations based on the best interests of the child without any preferences or presumptions.’ ” (Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 206.)
Father argues “[n]one of the reasons set out by the court warranted the denial of unmonitored overnight visits nor was the order in the best interests of these two teenaged boys.” He contends his completion of a 52-week domestic violence program was sufficient to address the relevant safety concerns and, because the violence was directed at mother, he maintains “ndividual counseling was not needed to protect the boys.” As for the paternal relatives’ refusal to allow a safety assessment of father’s home, father contends the Department could have addressed any relevant concerns by running a background check on the paternal relatives or by conditioning overnight visits on the boys’ doors staying locked when they visited. In assessing the boys’ best interests, father says the court should have considered their desire to have the option of having overnight visits with father.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion on this record. Contrary to father’s contention, during the assault on mother, he also reportedly grabbed J.B. by the throat, pushed the teen to the floor, struck J.B. in the back, and drew back his fist to hit J.B. a second time before mother and the two other children managed to restrain him. As the Department emphasized, individual counseling was necessary, in addition to the domestic violence program, to help father take accountability and recognize the harm this violent outburst caused to his children. In view of father’s persistent denials and his insistence that mother was to blame for the dependency case, the juvenile court reasonably concluded individual counseling was necessary to ensure father did not have another violent outburst involving the children.
Indeed, even after completing the domestic violence program, father continued to express his antipathy for mother by engaging in abusive conduct toward his boys. In a last minute report before the 12-month review hearing, the Department disclosed that during an unmonitored visit, father berated J.B., told him he was “ ‘not smart,’ ” and suggested the teen was also to blame because he “ ‘[j]ust follow[ed] what [his] mother says.’ ” Given father’s failure to address these issues in individual counseling, the court reasonably concluded unmonitored overnight visits would not be in the children’s best interests.
Finally, it was not unreasonable for the juvenile court to doubt the safety of father’s home given the paternal relatives’ unwillingness to allow the Department to conduct a safety assessment. Moreover, as the court suggested in explaining its order, the paternal relatives’ refusal also indicated they could not be relied upon to abide by conditions that the court might have placed on overnight visits to ensure the boys’ safety. We are not persuaded that the juvenile court abused its discretion by declining to pursue other options to facilitate overnight visits when the paternal relatives and father largely failed to assist the Department’s efforts to ensure those visits would be safe for the boys.
The question on appeal is not whether the juvenile court could have reasonably reached a different conclusion on the facts before it. Rather, we can declare an abuse of discretion only if the record shows the court made a patently absurd determination in carrying out its protective commission and assessing the children’s best interests. ([i]Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 206; Bridget A., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 300.) On this record, it was not patently absurd for the court to deny father’s request for unmonitored overnight visits in terminating dependency jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
KALRA, J.*
* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
