In re L.D.
Filed 10/12/07 In re L.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY W., Defendant and Appellant. | D050374 (Super. Ct. No. NJ013360) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.
Gregory W. appeals an order awarding legal and physical custody of his son, L.D., to L.'s mother, Heidi D., and ordering supervised visits for Gregory with L. as arranged between Heidi and Gregory. He contends the visitation order was not in L.'s best interest and effectively precludes their visitation. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a),[1]on behalf of infant L.D., alleging he was at risk of physical harm because of violent confrontations between his parents. The petition alleged that during a domestic violence incident on March 25, Gregory punched Heidi in the face, and that her injuries included three broken bones and a ruptured artery, which necessitated two surgeries and resulted in extensive blood loss and L.'s premature birth. The petition also alleged Heidi and Gregory had a history of domestic violence.
The social worker reported Heidi and Gregory had been together for approximately one year and had past violent altercations. Immediately after the March 25 incident, Gregory left and went to Fresno, California. He then returned but said he planned to return to Fresno. Heidi allowed him to stay with her in her motel room while he was in San Diego. He said he had hit Heidi because he thought she was flirting with another man. L. was detained in foster care after his release from the hospital. Heidi visited him regularly.
On April 27, 2006, the court ordered no contact between the parents and that they would have supervised visitation with L., but were not to visit him together. On June 7 the court found the allegations of the petition true.
By July 2006 Heidi was having one four-hour unsupervised visit plus one two-hour supervised visit with L. each week, and she was participating in parent education, therapy and a domestic violence prevention class. Gregory had not begun services and had not visited his son. On July 5 the court found Gregory was L.'s biological father based on a paternity test. It declared L. a dependent child, ordered him placed in foster care, ordered the parents to comply with their reunification plans and authorized Heidi to have overnight visits, followed by a 60-day trial visit.
L. was placed with Heidi in August 2006. Heidi had shown significant progress in therapy. She planned to return to Maryland where she had family support. Gregory's whereabouts had been unknown.
At the review hearing on December 26, 2006, after considering the evidence, the court ordered L. placed with Heidi, awarded her sole legal and physical custody and terminated jurisdiction. It ordered Gregory would have supervised visits as arranged by the parents, but Heidi was not to be the supervisor. Heidi's address was confidential, but the court ordered she keep her attorney apprised of her whereabouts.
DISCUSSION
Gregory contends the court's order effectively cut off his ability to have contact with L. He argues the order was not in L.'s best interest and that it effectively precluded visitation because he would have to litigate in order to arrange visitation.
A juvenile court may terminate jurisdiction and make an order determining custody or visitation with the child. ( 362.4.) The resulting visitation or custody order may be filed in any existing superior court proceeding in which visitation or custody is an issue or it may serve as "the sole basis for opening a file in the superior court of the county in which the parent, who has been given custody, resides." (Ibid.; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.700 (a)(1).) The order remains in effect until modified or terminated by the superior court. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.)
In making visitation orders the juvenile court must consider the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) It must consider the totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the child. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 201.) The court's orders regarding visitation may be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) "The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' [Citation.]" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319, quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272.)
Gregory has not shown the court abused its discretion by making the visitation order. The court reasonably ordered supervised visits for Gregory as arranged between the parents. It kept Heidi's address confidential because of the severe domestic violence between Gregory and Heidi, which had resulted in Heidi having broken bones and a ruptured artery and in the premature birth of L. Gregory was not precluded from having visitation as he contends because the court directed Heidi to inform her attorney of her new address if she moved. Thus, Gregory would have a way to locate her.[2] After the court signed the order, it opened a superior court file for the case, assigned it a family law case number and terminated jurisdiction. If Gregory was having difficulty in securing visits after seeking to set up a visitation through Heidi's attorney, he could seek enforcement of the order in the family court. (In re Alexis W. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 28, 37.) If Heidi moved to Maryland as she planned, he could seek enforcement in California within six months of L. leaving the state. (Fam. Code, 3402, subd. (g), 3421, subd. (a)(1).) After that time, he could seek enforcement in the courts of Maryland, which has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and must give full faith and credit to the California custody and visitation orders. (Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law 9.5-101 - 9.5-318.)
The court carefully considered L.'s best interest, and, based upon the severe domestic violence, reasonably did not order Heidi's address disclosed, but issued an order allowing supervised visits for Gregory as arranged by the parents.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] The court stated: "What I'll do is ask the mother, if she moves to give [her attorney] her address. . . . I'm not ordering it to be disclosed to anyone at present, but at least have it transferred, so that it's available on a further litigation. [] I do note in particular the father's complete lack of contact with the child in the last review hearing period and seems to us the request to have supervised visitation and someone else be the supervisor based on the prior history is appropriate."
