Filed 3/7/18 In re J.M. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----



In re J. M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C085082


EL DORADO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. PDP20170008, PDP20170009)



M.M., father of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s order continuing the minors in out-of-home placement. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of detriment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) (further unspecified statutory references are to this code). The El Dorado County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) concedes the issue in a letter that offers no explanation for its position. We reject the Agency’s concession and affirm the juvenile court’s order.
BACKGROUND
The minors, J.M. (age eight) and A.M. (age five), and their half-sibling R.H. (age 13 months) were detained pursuant to a protective custody warrant issued following an inspection of the trailer home of H.H. (mother) which revealed the minors were hungry and filthy and living in deplorable conditions. The home lacked electricity and running water and was covered in filth. It smelled of urine and rotting matter, and the living area was covered in exposed feces, flies, rotting food, dog food, and trash. Urine-soaked clothing and linens were strewn about the floor, there was brown standing water in the shower, and there was no discernible sleeping area. There were also prescription bottles within the minors’ reach.
On March 24, 2017, the Agency filed a dependency petition alleging the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b), due to the willful or negligent failure of mother to provide the minors with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment and, as a result, the minors had suffered, or were at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness.
Detention
Father, who reportedly lived in Galt but worked for a travelling carnival and had not yet been located, was represented by counsel at the March 27, 2017 detention hearing. Mother submitted on the issue of detention, and the court ordered the minors detained. The court also ordered services and supervised visitation to mother, and ordered that visitation for father would be determined once father made himself available for assessment.
Jurisdiction
Father had been located as of the April 18, 2017 jurisdiction report. Mother reported she and father had a relationship for six years and had been separated for the past three years. Father resided in Galt and had visitation with the minors on weekends and holidays. He had J.M. in his care from mid-October 2016 until late-December 2016, during which time J.M. was enrolled in school in Galt. Father also reported he was paying mother child support for J.M. and A.M.
Father stated he worked for a traveling carnival and had been attempting to contact the Agency after he heard the minors were detained. He stated he would like to have J.M. and A.M. placed in his care. He also stated that while he and mother had separated three years ago, he continued to visit the minors regularly, paid child support out of his paycheck, and assisted mother with money and other needs when she requested it. Father said he provided mother with a fifth-wheel trailer in good condition when mother lost her housing because he “did not want his children living out on the streets.” He claimed he was not aware of any current problems with mother or the minors and said he would have helped her out if he had known about her situation. Father signed a statement that he was willing and able to take custody of the minors and was requesting an order of parentage.
Father’s criminal history included 14 arrests between 1987 and 2004, with convictions for various drug offenses and receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to three years in prison in April 1995 and six consecutive years in May 1995, and had several parole violations after his release. After violating parole in March 2004, he was sent to prison for five years. However, he had no convictions since 2004. Father admitted he had used drugs in the past, but stated he had been clean and sober since 2004.
According to the jurisdictional report, the minors were dirty and unkempt. J.M. reportedly suffered from a yeast infection and chronic urinary tract infections, requiring medical intervention. She also had continuing problems with enuresis both at night and occasionally during the day. A.M. was behind on immunizations and in need of extensive dental work requiring general anesthesia. J.M. said the dogs had torn up the trailer and made “messes,” and the trailer smelled bad, “like some kind of chemicals.” A.M. said the home was dirty and smelly.
Mother admitted the conditions in the trailer were “bad” but explained she had lost her job when she was pregnant with R.H., had no transportation since her car broke down, had no money to pay for repairs, and cell phone service was very limited, making it difficult to obtain and maintain employment. She admitted the trailer had no electricity or running water, but stated she arranged for the minors to shower at some of the neighbors’ homes. She used a small space heater to heat the trailer by running an electrical cord to a neighbor’s house. Mother blamed the condition of the trailer on the fact that her dog had puppies that broke out of their pen and tore up the inside of the trailer. There was dog feces and urine in the trailer because the dogs were not fully trained. Mother explained it was difficult to keep the trailer clean with all the dogs present, and claimed she did the best she could under the circumstances. Mother denied using drugs other than occasional use of marijuana, which she claimed she never used around the minors.
At the jurisdictional hearing on April 21, 2017, both parents were present and submitted to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the minors. The court sustained the petition, found the minors to be dependents of the juvenile court, and continued out-of-home placement of the minors. The court found father to be the presumed father of the minors, and ordered supervised visitation for both parents, with unsupervised visitation allowed to father if assessed as safe by the Agency.
Disposition
The disposition report filed May 10, 2017, noted both minors suffered from health problems. Most notably, A.M. had significant dental cavities and “grossly decayed” teeth which required extraction, root canals, and crowns. She was adjusting to school, but was beginning to display more behavioral problems, including temper tantrums. J.M. continued to suffer from chronic urinary tract infections and enuresis. She struggled in school “academically, socially and behaviorally,” had difficulty focusing on her school work, was easily distracted, and quickly became frustrated when she was unable to get answers to problems. Her reading and writing skills were not at grade level and her math skills were limited. School officials were discussing whether to implement an Individual Education Plan (IEP), and stated they would like to see J.M. go to summer school to catch up and perhaps to be held back a grade. The report also noted J.M. was very emotional and did not like to follow rules or structure.
According to the report, mother left her relationship with her husband, S.B., in 2004 due to S.B.’s drug and alcohol addiction and verbal and physical abuse towards her. However, she never terminated the marriage. She met father in 2006 and began living with him and working with him at the carnival. Father ended their relationship in 2012 to be with his current girlfriend, M.N.
Mother reportedly obtained employment after the minors were detained. She had cleaned out her trailer and was trying to get it moved or scrapped in order to save up to purchase another trailer. She had also been working on her transportation issues and was attempting to get her car fixed. Despite her transportation issues, mother had maintained regular visitation and was beginning to engage in services.
Mother stated she was happy father was “finally ‘stepping up’ to care for [the minors]” but expressed concern that his lifestyle with the carnival would prevent him from providing safety and security for the minors because he “focuses too much on his work.” She stated child care and schooling were not available at the carnival, particularly when the carnival is traveling. She was also worried father was drinking and using drugs, had used spanking as a form of discipline in the past, and did not know how to listen to the minors and set limits with them. Mother recalled attending a New Year’s Eve party for the carnival employees in 2016. At the time, mother had J.M. and A.M. with her and was pregnant with R.H. Father attended the party with his girlfriend, M.N. According to mother, father and M.N. “appeared to be on methamphetamine and they got in a physical argument in front of [the minors],” causing mother to take the minors and leave in the middle of the night.
Mother also recalled an incident during which the two minors were fighting and J.M. bit A.M. When mother put J.M. on a timeout and did not allow her to watch a movie, J.M. became angry and brandished a large hunting knife she pulled off of a shelf. Following the incident, mother arranged for J.M. to stay with father for “a while.” According to mother, J.M. stayed with father until mother received a frantic call from father saying mother “had to come get [J.M.] because he was ‘going to kill her [J.M.].’ ” When mother explained she needed to obtain transportation and would come the next day, father said, “ ‘What don’t you understand about. She [J.M.] will not survive the night, if she stays here.’ ” Father told mother J.M. was hitting and kicking him and screaming at the top of her lungs.
Father denied mother’s version of events and stated he returned J.M. “because she was missing her mother.” He admitted his prior substance abuse and criminal history, explaining it began when he left his abusive home as a teenager. His primary drug of choice was methamphetamine. While incarcerated in San Quentin in 2003, he enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program for three years, and two 90-day outpatient treatment programs while on parole. The programs included anger management, parenting class, and individual and group counseling. He was also able to obtain his GED and complete an Associate of Arts program in landscape design while in prison.
Father denied having used drugs since 2004 and agreed to drug test through the Agency, noting he was already randomly drug testing through his employer. Father stated he learned how to manage his feelings and control his anger while in prison, and he was now hardworking and active and did not wish to return to “that life” or to prison. He reportedly completed substance abuse programs between 2003 and 2006 as part of his incarceration, and was maintaining steady employment and housing.
Father was reportedly living in a fifth-wheel trailer. The trailer had only one primary sleeping area, although it was noted there was a table that could be converted into a bed. The trailer was small, clean, and serviceable. Father planned to purchase a larger trailer when the minors arrived. He claimed he had not been inside mother’s trailer and was unaware of the severity of the issues mother was having. He stated he was willing to care for the minors until mother was able to obtain custody, or to share custody with mother. He was also willing to facilitate visitation between the minors and their half-sibling, R.H.
Father had been employed since 1989 by Johnson Amusements, a traveling entertainment carnival, whose main headquarters were in Galt. Father lived with his girlfriend, M.N., who was also employed by Johnson Amusements. Both father and M.N. traveled throughout the state and sometimes out of state during the carnival season. When asked whether his employment with the carnival would impact his ability to care for the minors, father stated he would provide child care as needed and would homeschool the minors when the carnival was traveling.
Regarding visitation, father’s first supervised visitation with the minors went well and the minors enjoyed being with their father. While the minors were reportedly “very disruptive” in the car to and from the visit, their insubordination was an ongoing issue not specifically linked to their visits with father.
The Agency, concerned about father’s significant substance abuse-related criminal history and mother’s claim that father might be using substances again, requested verification of father’s participation in substance abuse programs and other services, as well as assessment and testing of father’s current sobriety; additional time to observe father’s interaction with the minors; release of information related to father’s plan to meet the minors’ educational needs, particularly while he was traveling and working; and more information regarding father’s girlfriend, M.N., and her interactions with the minors. The Agency recommended continued out-of-home placement and services to both parents, including a parenting education program for father to focus on parenting techniques that avoid corporal punishment.
The addendum report filed June 16, 2017, stated father and M.N. completed drug testing with negative results, and confirmed M.N. had no criminal history. The Agency verified that the larger fifth-wheel trailer recently purchased by father to accommodate the minors was safe and adequate for the minors’ housing needs. Father developed an educational plan whereby the minors would attend an online school with specific academic curriculum for children who are homeschooled, and made arrangements with another employee of Johnson Amusements to provide care for the minors whenever father and M.N. were unavailable.
Father stated he was willing to assist as needed with the minors’ continuing counseling, and noted the minors’ current counseling could be done via internet services such as Facetime and Skype when father travelled long distances. He was also willing to provide more structure and guidance to manage the minors’ behavioral issues. Father and M.N. noted they had been working on the problems associated with J.M.’s enuresis with some degree of success in reducing the problem, and father planned to take J.M. to her next urology appointment.
Father confirmed he completed a variety of services while incarcerated and on parole, including extensive substance abuse services, anger management, counseling, and parenting services. The Agency observed that visitation between father and M.N. and the minors had been very positive and appropriate though visitation was sometimes difficult due to the travel required with father’s job. The minors both expressed excitement and a desire to go home with father.
The Agency was impressed by father’s “commitment to follow through on the recommended preparations and issues that needed to be addressed,” noting its assessment of father was complete and father had addressed each concern in an appropriate and timely manner. The Agency assessed that placement of the minors with father “would not be detrimental to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being,” and recommended the minors be placed with father and the dependency matter be vacated and dismissed.
Contested Disposition Hearing
Mother’s Testimony
At the June 20, 2017 contested disposition hearing, mother testified that for two years after she and father separated in September 2013, father never once visited the minors, although mother took the minors to visit him at the carnival approximately once a month. She stated father visited with the minors “a few times” in 2016, had them stay at his home for a weekend, and visited with them “maybe once” in 2017. At her request, he took care of the minors for several days in 2017. Mother claimed she asked for but never received any financial support from father. Any support she obtained was taken from father’s unemployment when he was not travelling with the carnival. She claimed father paid her nothing pursuant to the child support order. In 2013, when she told father she was potentially going to lose her home and be homeless with the minors and asked him for help, father said, “You are on your own. Figure it out.” In 2016 she asked father to assist her in taking care of the minors and to assist in purchasing clothing for them, but father did not help her. She admitted, however, that father provided the trailer for her in April 2016 and, without the trailer, she would have been living in her car.
Mother testified she observed father to be under the influence of alcohol or some other substance on New Year’s 2017 at his boss’s property. Mother was picking up the minors from father and believed he was under the influence based on “the way he was behaving, his mannerisms, [and] his behavior.” She observed him drinking alcohol but did not observe him using any illegal substances.
Mother stated she had concerns about the minors traveling with father and the carnival, namely that J.M. had an IEP and “needs a lot of attention at school” and father could not attend IEP meetings due to his work schedule. However, she admitted she never notified father about the two IEP meetings when J.M. was in the second grade, and there were no IEP meetings when J.M. was in the third grade. Mother was also concerned about father homeschooling the minors because J.M. struggled in school and needed a lot of support and tutoring that she would not receive if she were on the road traveling, which in mother’s opinion was “very unstable.” Mother noted the minors could not do computer courses while on the road because “they don’t even have Wifi out there.” When asked what tutoring mother provided J.M. during second grade to assist with J.M.’s speech issue, mother responded, “None.”
Mother was also concerned about the minors and R.H. being placed in separate homes because R.H. was attached to J.M. and sought her out for comfort, and J.M. was like “a big mom” to R.H. Mother opined that separation would “devastate” R.H. Mother had concerns that, if the minors were placed with father and the case closed, no one would be supervising and watching the minors at the carnival and on the road. In mother’s opinion, the carnival is not a place to raise children.
Father’s Testimony
Father testified it was common for the carnival to stay at a particular event for two to five days, and then he either travelled back to his home in Galt or stayed on the lot waiting for the next event.
With regard to supervision of the minors, father testified he was travelling two days a week with the carnival, all within the state. His job at the carnival as ride supervisor required him to be available 24 hours a day, although he was not always on-site. His girlfriend M.N.’s job as concessions manager also required her to be on-call whenever the carnival was open. Father testified that, during his time on the carnival lot, the minors would never be left unattended. If he were unable to be home to supervise them doing online school courses, the minors would either be left with M.N. or K.W., another carnival employee and someone father had known for four to five years. K.W. had a 14-month-old child of her own and another one on the way. The minors knew K.W., had met her hundreds of times, and got along well with her. However, father did not know if K.W. had any experience dealing with children with behavioral issues. He stated the carnival owners’ daughter, would also help out.
Father had never homeschooled a child before, but had an educational plan in place for the minors through an online academy where the minors would have school four days a week, meet online with a teacher on the fifth day, and otherwise do their schoolwork online at their own pace. Father confirmed he had a computer in his trailer with an internet connection all the time through a hot spot on his phone. He also confirmed J.M.’s current counseling could be continued via an online service.
Father testified the minors had not been with him very often the first couple of years after he and mother split. After that, he had them “as much as [he] could get them.” When asked what behavioral issues he had noticed when the minors were with him, father said, “Not much. [J.M.] has been working on wetting her pants, bed wetting. She throws a fit once in a while, and she don’t get nothing out of it so she usually calms down.” (uring the time he had custody of J.M. between October and December 2016, he had a parent teacher conference and was told J.M. was “a little behind in math and reading.” Thereafter, he had J.M. read at home for an hour and noticed she was skipping sentences “or adding stuff in” so he had to sit and read with her. (e worked with J.M. nightly even when she did not want to.
Father confirmed he completed services while in prison, including a 90-day “clean and sober” program, anger management, and parenting. He stated he consumed alcohol after his release from 36 months in prison, but drank less than once a month and usually had just one beer. He indicated he never had a problem with alcohol; his “problem was with methamphetamine.” He was incarcerated after being convicted of driving under the influence of methamphetamine. His employer subjected him to random drug tests. He had been tested twice since the carnival season opened with negative results. He also submitted to a hair strand test for the Agency and tested negative on that as well.
With regard to staying in contact with mother if father and the minors were on the road, it was father’s plan to abide by any court-ordered visitation assuming the carnival was close enough to do so. Father stated, “I’m not trying to keep the girls from their mom. She’s a good mom. I’m not trying to say she’s not. Things happen.” Because the carnival is seasonal, father could not give an estimate of how many days per month he would be on the road. However, he confirmed he would be home in Galt during his time off between September and February, and would send the minors to a “regular [traditional] school” during that period.
Father had not spoken with anyone about accommodations for children with speech disabilities or behavioral issues, but had discussed an IEP for the minors. He stated that, according to those conversations, he would obtain the minors’ records, provide them to the online academy, and a program would be set up to work on the minors’ “soft spots . . . and get them back to where they need to be.” When the court expressed concern about father’s understanding of the seriousness of J.M.’s behavioral problems and other issues and asked how he was going to help the minors with school during carnival season, father responded, “I would have her every day. When we had her last year, we worked with her every day. She was going to school in Galt.” He also stated that, during carnival hours, one of his coworkers and the head of maintenance, J.F., would “take up the slack” for him so he could help the minors with their school work.
In closing arguments, the Agency recommended, and father agreed, that the court place the minors with father. Mother objected to such placement, as did minors’ counsel, who argued it was premature to place the minors with father.
Juvenile Court’s Findings and Orders
The court found there was clear and convincing evidence of a substantial risk of detriment if the minors were placed with father, noting there was less evidence as to A.M. but the detriment finding was nonetheless supported by “the preference not to split the siblings.” In so finding, the court addressed father in part as follows: “I want to say first of all, [father], I can see that you are making an effort here. I can see that you upgraded your trailer in order to provide more room. It didn’t look like there was enough room for them to start with. I can see that you are trying to figure out how to deal with the schooling. [¶] I can see mostly that you care about your kids, and frankly you get a lot of points from me for just caring about your kids because I meet a whole bunch of people that don’t care that much about their kids. [¶] I think that you may have underestimated the situation with your children and being able to provide what they need without causing a detriment to their safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being. The circumstances that you live in, is the problem, and I’m going to be pretty specific about it. [¶] There’s nothing wrong with your lifestyle. It seems fine to me. But it’s not a very stable lifestyle. And these children have been subjected to instability, at least as far as the Court can see going back in time, and [J.M.] is definitely showing behaviorally the trauma that she’s experienced because of having lived in significant instability. So what [J.M.] needs in order to protect herself emotionally and to protect her behavioral development and ultimately her ability to physically develop at a -- I don’t know what is normal, but within normal reasons, to develop in a normal range is now being compromised.”
Distinguishing a case cited by father, In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Patrick S.), the court noted the minor in Patrick S. “did well academically and lacked age appropriate social skills,” whereas here, J.M. required an IEP due to speech delays and the fact that “she’s behind in every core subject” such as reading comprehension, writing, and math. Additionally, the court noted J.M. had behavioral problems, was “failing to advance,” and “at the age of eight, she continues to bed wet, and . . . has . . . urinary track [sic] infections . . . tied to her behavioral issues.” The court opined that J.M. needed “intensive therapy” in order to deal with those issues and questioned whether father would be able to provide the necessary supervision given his responsibilities at work, M.N.’s work responsibilities, K.W.’s responsibilities at work and to her own young children, and the distractions that inevitably accompany a carnival atmosphere. The court also found father’s testimony regarding his ability to supervise the minors was “unrealistic,” particularly in light of J.M.’s behavioral problems and urinary tract infections and A.M.’s need for extensive dental work.
Noting that father’s limited relationship with the minors did not in and of itself mean he could not be a good father, the court took issue with the fact that father knew the minors were living in deplorable conditions but failed to make any attempt to obtain custody. The court expressed concern that father had not made significant attempts to obtain therapeutic services for the minors, and that father had little information on how the online educational program could or would address the minors’ “disabilities” or IEP issues, or the fact that both children were behind in their schooling, as well as the fact that father had the opportunity to appear at J.M.’s IEP meeting by telephone but did not. Finally, the court expressed concern that traveling up and down the state with the carnival and alternating between online school and traditional school would not provide the minors with the stability they needed.
The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that there would be a substantial risk of detriment if the minors were placed with father. The court ordered continued out-of-home placement for the minors and set the matter for a six-month prepermanency hearing.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal of the juvenile court’s dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that placing the minors in his custody would be detrimental to the minors’ safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being within the meaning of section 361.2. The Agency joins in and adopts father’s opening brief and, without any additional briefing or authority, states its nonopposition to reversal. As we will explain, the court’s detriment finding is supported by substantial evidence and we therefore reject father’s claim and the Agency’s acquiescence therein.
Section 361.2 provides that, when a juvenile court orders removal of a child pursuant to section 361, “the court shall first determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child” and, if so, “the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 361.2, subd. (a).)
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order even if there is other evidence that would support a contrary finding. [Citation.] When the [juvenile] court makes findings by the elevated standard of clear and convincing evidence, the substantial evidence test remains the standard of review on appeal. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden of showing that there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the order. [Citations.]” (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 915-916, italics added.)
We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding of detriment. The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the court’s findings, shows that while father clearly made efforts to better himself and prepare for placement of the minors in his home, there remained a number of issues of concern regarding whether the minors would have the stability they so desperately needed if placed with father.
First, the juvenile court expressed concern regarding the lack of stability the carnival lifestyle could provide to the minors and the impact that might have on the minors’ safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. For example, father’s employment with the carnival required him to travel approximately six months out of the year and be available 24 hours a day. His partner, M.N., with whom he lived, was also employed with the carnival and required her to be available whenever the carnival was open. Father’s solution was to rely on K.W. to care for the minors. While the minors knew K.W. and were comfortable around her, K.W. was an employee of the carnival and had a 14-month-old child of her own and a baby on the way, meaning her availability and focused attention on the minors could potentially be limited. Additionally, it was unknown whether K.W. had any experience dealing with children with behavioral issues or whether she had any familiarity with homeschooling children. Father also testified he would rely on his coworker J.F. to “take up the slack” at work so father could help the minors with their schoolwork. However, given father’s long work hours, it is unclear how often father would be able to call on J.F. to cover for him so that father could help supervise the minors.
In any event, even assuming father had a sufficient plan to care for the minors while the carnival was on the road, the court expressed concern that father had an unrealistic view of his ability to supervise the minors. Prior to the dependency filing, father claimed he kept in regular contact with the minors and kept them “as much as [he] could get them.” However, as the court pointed out, he had no knowledge of the deplorable conditions in which they were living and made no attempt to intervene or obtain custody from mother. According to the record, other than a two-month period in late-2016 when father cared for J.M. and made sure she was in school, he had not otherwise had custody of the minors and had not had the responsibility of day-to-day supervision of children with behavioral and health problems. When asked whether he noticed if the minors had any behavioral problems, father said, “Not much” and made no mention of A.M., noting only that J.M. had been working on her enuresis and “throws a fit once in a while” but “usually calms down” when she “don’t get nothing out of it.” In fact, while A.M. was adjusting to school, she was reportedly displaying more behavioral problems. J.M. continued to suffer from ongoing enuresis and chronic urinary tract infections which required continuing medical intervention. School officials reported she was struggling academically, socially, and behaviorally, her reading and writing skills were not at grade level, and her math skills were limited. She had difficulty focusing on her school work and quickly became frustrated when she was unable to get answers to problems.
Father attended a parent-teacher conference for J.M. in 2016 and, after J.M.’s teacher informed him J.M. was “a little behind in math and reading,” he worked with her nightly and read with her for an hour whether she wanted to or not. However, in addition to implementing an IEP, school officials wanted J.M. to attend summer school to catch up and potentially be held back a grade. Father never attended J.M.’s IEP meetings despite having the opportunity to do so telephonically. When asked if he had discussed a possible IEP plan with the online school program coordinator, father testified he had discussed setting up a specific program to “work on their soft spots” and “get them back to where they need to be.” In response to an inquiry whether J.M. would be able to finish her summer school term as recommended by her current school officials, father said, “I wouldn’t be able to finish that, no. But once we get them enrolled I’m sure they have a summer school program online.” He testified his plan for education was to homeschool the minors when the carnival was on the road between March and August, and then move them to a traditional school when they were home between September and February. However, the social worker believed the fact that J.M. was struggling and was markedly behind in her schooling was due in part to having moved around to different schools. “Because [dependency] proceedings involve the well-being of children, considerations such as permanency and stability are of paramount importance. [Citation.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) The prospect of traveling with the carnival and transitioning back and forth between online and traditional schooling every six months, coupled with the fact that J.M. reportedly had difficulty focusing on her school work, was easily distracted, and did not like to follow rules or structure, was ample evidence to support the court’s determination that the lack of stability would be detrimental to the minors.
Father points to the rule that the standard of detriment is very high where this is a competent, noncustodial parent requesting custody (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263), and cites several cases in support of his claim that the detriment finding here was not supported by sufficient evidence. The facts in the cases cited by father bear little resemblance to facts presented here.
In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 involved a teenage minor removed from his mother’s custody because of her physical abuse. (Id. at p. 1567.) The minor suffered from a serious emotional disturbance and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (Id. at pp. 1570-1571.) Rejecting the non-custodial father's request for custody, the juvenile court found an unreasonable risk of detriment based on the minor’s desire to live with his aunt rather than the father who resided out of state; the minor's need for services, which in the court's estimation could not be met by the father; the minor's relationship with a half-sibling and members of his extended family which would be disturbed by the out-of-state placement; and by the fact that little was known about the father who had had been largely absent from the minor's life for the preceding four years. (Id. at pp. 1568-1569.)
The appellate court concluded custody could not be controlled by the minor’s wishes and, in any event, those wishes were unclear; no evidence supported the conclusion that the father could not meet the minor’s need for services; to the contrary, he appeared willing and able to meet the child’s special needs. Nor was there evidence to support a finding that placement with the father, who was willing to facilitate sibling visitation, would be detrimental to the minor or prevent the half-sibling from reunifying; while the father had been out of contact with the minor for four years, he was not to blame, and successfully resumed contact a year before the dependency petition was filed. “Thus, [the minor]’s need for services, his lack of a relationship with [the father], and the paucity of information about [the father] do not support the detriment finding.” (In re John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1571.)
Here, the juvenile court did not give untoward weight to the minors’ wishes; indeed, they were not mentioned. The father in In re John M. was willing to meet the minor’s special needs, and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that he would be unable to do so. Here, as already discussed, father is willing but there is substantial evidence that he lacks the skills and resources need to ensure services and support for J.M., who needed intensive therapy and had significant medical and educational issues, and for A.M. who had educational and dental challenges. The children would be raised in an unstable environment involving frequent travel by the family and father’s frequent absences due to his employment. These challenges could be overcome, but neither father’s prior relationship with his children, nor his stated plans for addressing their multiple needs inspired confidence. Rather, the evidence demonstrated a father who lacked an understanding of the challenges ahead and would be ill-equipped to meet them.
The facts of Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1254, the second case cited by father, also begin with a dysfunctional mother. The mother divorced the father and took their 11-month-old minor on a journey from state to state that lasted 12 years without maintaining contact with either the father or other family members. The father was not a disinterested parent. Over those years the father, a noncommissioned officer in the Navy, took extraordinary measures to locate the minor and his mother, hiring attorneys and private investigators, contacting federal and state law enforcement and child welfare agencies, and visiting. He also paid child support and maintained medical and dental coverage for the minor. (Id. at pp. 1256-1257.)
The father learned of his son’s whereabouts following mother’s involuntary hospitalization for schizophrenia. The son had been placed with a foster family and diagnosed with adjustment disorder, unspecified; he would require continued therapy. Prior to removal, the mother and the minor moved frequently and, at times, were homeless. The minor did well academically, but had behavioral issues and “lacked age-appropriate social skills.” (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1257.)
The father immediately requested custody. He visited the minor whenever possible, looked into obtaining recommended services for the minor and his family through the Navy and his church, and participated in recommended services. Like the father here, he planned on homeschooling the minor. The minor was not behind academically and the program was specifically tailored to his son’s needs, with a broad range of social activities and the ability to take two courses at a public high school. He also expressed a willingness to enroll the minor in a public school to reduce his stress levels. Also like the father here, the father in Patrick S. traveled often in his Navy service. But his wife, the minor’s stepmother, would be at home during his absence. The father arranged for individual and family therapy through the navy, and participated in a parenting class. (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1260.)
The juvenile court explicitly found that placement would not be detrimental to the minor’s safety, protection, or physical well-being but concluded it would be detrimental to his emotional well-being. The court noted the minor had major anxiety about living with the father. It also took into account the minor’s wishes and the lack of relationship between him and his father who, the court found, did not understand the minor’s needs. The court thought the father’s homeschooling plans would create strife in the family and noted the father would be at sea for six of the next 11 months, the minor had little relationship with his stepmother, and the department would be unable to monitor a placement in Washington state where the father resided because the father had not completed an evaluation required by Washington before that state would cooperate with California under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1259-1260.)
The appellate court disagreed: “P.S.’s anxiety and diagnosis of adjustment disorder, unspecified, does not support a detriment finding without a showing that his father would not be willing or able to obtain recommended therapeutic services for him.” (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1268.) The court found that showing to be lacking. A wide variety of social services would be available to the family through the Navy. (Id. at pp. 1263-1264.)
Our father’s circumstances are vastly different from those of the father in Patrick S. As the juvenile court pointed out, the children here have far greater needs for academic, medical, and psychological assistance than the minor in Patrick S., and yet father here has a far more limited support system to help him deal with the arduous task of raising two challenging children in a very demanding environment. His proposal to use a patchwork of friends to provide care in his absence would make his children dependent upon whoever was available at any given time and lacked the stability the minors needed. His plan for online therapy, as a replacement for live therapy in light of his frequent travels, was vague and problematic. His educational plans for the children also reflect a lack of clarity and thoughtful planning. His proposed homeschooling program also was vague in describing what specific needs could be addressed by the program, other than to work on the minors’ “soft spots . . . and get them back to where they need to be.”
Father urges that “[w]e do not get ideal parents in the dependency system . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . We are looking for passing grades here, not straight A’s. [¶] . . . [T]he court was focused on details, rather than the essential question of whether [the minor’s] safety, protection, physical or emotional well-being would be placed at substantial risk in [the father’s] care. [¶] When we are considering whether to deprive a parent of custody, we are concerned only about his or her grasp of the important parenting concepts—things such as a child’s need for security, adequate nutrition and shelter, freedom from violence, proper sanitation, healthcare, and education.” (David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 789-790.) He argues the evidence showed he could provide these essential needs to the minors.
We will not give father a letter grade. Suffice it to say there was ample evidence to support the court’s finding that father was not yet ready to provide the level of care, supervision, and stability required to ensure the minors’ safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. As the juvenile court expressed, father’s deficits are not irremediable, and this is not a forever decision. Father will have an opportunity to demonstrate his fitness in the future. However, the court properly declined to grant custody and terminate jurisdiction given the risk of detriment established by the evidence.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.



RAYE , P. J.



We concur:



ROBIE , J.



MURRAY , J.