Filed 4/18/22 In re Sarah B. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.

Suzanne M. Nicholson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

Patrick B. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order declaring his two daughters dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and the court’s removal order.[1] Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings. Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) contends the jurisdictional findings were supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Consistent with our standard of review, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings, resolving all conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s order, if possible. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)

Family Background and Prior Child Welfare Investigations

The family consists of father, A.B. (mother), and their two adopted daughters, Sarah (born June 2015), and Scarlett (born February 2018). Mother and father separated in October 2018 after a domestic violence incident where mother was granted a protective order, which subsequently lapsed. A family law case remains pending.

In the fall of 2020, Department social worker Vincent Bui investigated two referrals involving the family. In August 2020, mother brought Scarlett to the hospital with swelling on the right side of her face, a superficial laceration near her eyelid, and a one-half to one centimeter long laceration on her cheek that needed stitches. According to the caller, mother reported that Scarlett fell and hurt herself on the stair banister while staying with father. Although the incident appeared to be isolated and accidental, the caller was suspicious because it was unlikely for a child to suffer these injuries from a fall. Bui noted concerns based on the October 2018 domestic violence incident and the possibility of substance abuse. However, there had been no new domestic violence incidents, there were no known current concerns about substance abuse, and an on-demand drug test came back negative for all substances. The matter was closed as inconclusive.

Bui also investigated a second referral in September 2020, after Sarah was injured during a weekend visit with father. There was conflicting information about whether Sarah scraped her cheek against a wall after being startled by father’s dog, or if the dog bit her. According to the caller, father put Neosporin on the wound, but failed to seek medical attention; the wound became infected, and mother took Sarah to the emergency room. Bui expressed concern about a pattern of supervisory neglect, noting that Sarah and Scarlett had suffered injuries within a month of each other, and on both occasions, father failed to seek medical care and did not properly communicate the injuries to mother. Bui advised father that he could take the children for emergency medical care and did not need to get mother’s permission to do so. Bui also advised father to prevent future incidents by getting dog training for his dog, and working with mother on co-parenting and communication for the benefit of the children. The referral was closed as “inconclusive, situation stabilized.”

The parents stipulated to a custody order in December 2020 after an extensive custody evaluation in the family law case that took into account the two prior dependency referrals. The stipulated custody order gave mother sole legal and primary physical custody of the children, with father having physical custody roughly 35% of the time.

December 2020 Incident and Referral

The evening of December 23, 2020, Scarlett fell off a step stool, bumping her head and injuring her elbow while at father’s home. Despite her injury and a high temperature, father did not seek medical care that night, instead attending to her until she fell asleep and checking on her during the night. By the next morning, father reported that Scarlett’s elbow had swollen, and father met mother at urgent care. Urgent care informed mother that Scarlett’s elbow was badly broken, that she would need to take Scarlett to a children’s hospital for surgery, and that urgent care would notify child protective services, because it was a suspicious break. The incident resulted in a third referral to the Department.[2]

Investigation and Petition Allegations

1. Early Department Interviews

Social worker Summer Moore interviewed father, mother, Sarah, and social worker Bui on December 28, 2020, five days after Scarlett’s injury. According to father, he placed Sarah on a stepping stool (about two feet tall), and while he was getting milk from the refrigerator, she fainted and fell forward onto her arm. When he picked her up after the fall, she started screaming. He did not see her fall, but he assessed her and did not notice any immediate swelling. He gave Sarah her milk, and then took her upstairs to cool her down in the shower, as she had a 103 degree temperature. He communicated with mother around 9:45 p.m., after he put Scarlett in bed. He noticed swelling in Scarlett’s arm around 4:30 the next morning, but thought it was because she was sleeping on her arm. He met mother at urgent care in the morning, but mother would not allow him to go inside. He asked mother to allow him to communicate with the doctors by phone or video, but no doctor or social worker ever spoke to him to find out what happened, so he did not understand why the Department was investigating based on inconsistent information.

Scarlett’s five-year-old sister Sarah told Moore that Scarlett put her arm out as she fell, and her arm “kind of jammed.” Sarah reported that immediately after her fall, Scarlett “blacked out,” and then was crying. According to Sarah, Scarlett was not using the injured arm.

Mother explained that father texted her at 9:45 in the evening to tell her Scarlett had been hurt. Father’s message was vague, so she asked for more information and a photo of Scarlett’s arm. Father did not respond until the following morning. When mother first saw Scarlett that morning, Scarlett’s arm was swollen and she could not move it. Mother took Scarlett to urgent care, where X-rays showed the elbow was badly broken, and mother would need to take Scarlett to a children’s hospital. Mother did not believe father had abused Scarlett, but she was concerned that he did not get emergency care for Scarlett, even though social worker Bui had already explained to father that he could take the children for emergency care if needed.

Bui confirmed to Moore that Bui had investigated the two prior incidents in 2020 and had informed father that the emergency room would take the children if father brought them in for medical care. Bui noted that mother and father did not communicate well and were not good at co-parenting. Mother is appropriate, but father minimizes things. Bui said father has anger issues, and mother had sent him a video of father screaming at her. Bui had concerns about father’s supervision of the children.

2. Section 300 Petition and Initial Hearing

On January 25, 2021, the Department filed a petition alleging the children were dependents under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). The first count alleged that after Scarlett fractured her elbow, father “failed to obtain necessary timely medical treatment” for her condition, and that father’s medical neglect placed Scarlett and Sarah at risk of harm. The second count set forth a related but slightly different allegation, that after Scarlett fractured her elbow, father “gave inconsistent explanations” of how she sustained the injury, he “failed to obtain necessary timely medical treatment,” and that the injury “would not ordinarily occur except as the result of deliberate, unreasonable and neglectful acts” by father when Scarlett was in his custody. The second count continued: “Such deliberate, unreasonable and neglectful acts by the child’s father endangers the child’s physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home environment,” and places Scarlett and Sarah at risk of harm.

At the detention hearing on January 28, 2021, the Department, mother’s counsel, and minors’ counsel all sought an order detaining the children from father, with monitored visits. Father’s counsel argued that because Sarah’s injuries were accidental and father was willing to engage in services, father was objecting to monitored visits and the court should leave the existing family law order in place. The court ordered the children detained from father pending adjudication, with monitored visits.

3. Communication Between Parents

The parents communicated through Our Family Wizard (OFW), and the following is the relevant portion of their conversation from the night of Scarlett’s injury:

At 9:46 p.m., father wrote to mother on OFW: “Scarlett’s temperature has been around 99.5 most of the day however she woke after a very long sleep a short time ago with a really high temperature. She took a long cool bath and her temperature has come down He[r] temperature is still over between 99.9 and 100.1. She took a dizzy tumble a short time ago in the kitchen while getting her milk after I got her cooled down and is still dizzy at the moment. Her arm is sore and swollen since she broke her fall putting her arm out into the cabinet. We will ice it and watch it. She just wants to be held. [¶] She is settled but very congested with a runny nose.”

At 9:56 p.m., mother responded “And what is a really high temp?”

Father responded at 10:28 p.m.: “Her temp was around 103, she is sleeping in my arms right now so I am thinking I’ll put her down in her bed shortly and let her sleep. She is staying steady around 99 at the moment. [¶] I suspect it will be a long night.”

At 10:42 p.m., mother sent the following message: “Wow – that’s high. I’ll plan to take her to the doctor tomorrow, especially given the holidays. I’ll call when they open at 8:30 a.m., and let you know. [¶] Please keep your cell phone close and check it regularly (like every 15 minutes), so that I can coordinate with you in the morning. [¶] In the morning, can you please also send me picture of her arm (or earlier, if you can)? [¶] Also, please let me know what meds you gave her and when, and any other pertinent information, so that I can tell the doctor.”

Father responded the next morning at 6:29 a.m.: “Scarlett’s temperature was up and down throughout the night another cool shower helped. It finally settled down and has been stable early this morning. Her arm started to swell around 4:30 a.m. and it is very swollen[.] I put some ice on it and she went back to sleep. I just checked her again and for the moment her temp is down, she is cooler and still sleeping. [¶] Attached is a picture from last night at the time there was no swelling. I will take another this morning when she wakes up and she is out of her bunny suit.”

4. Later Department Interviews

In January 2021, social worker Moore reviewed the medical records, interviewed mother and father again, and also interviewed several peripheral witnesses, like therapists, relatives, and neighbors, who gave varying views of father’s supervision of the children. For example, one of father’s neighbors described him as responsible and patient, and that it would be inconceivable that someone would say he was a bad or risky parent. In contrast, mother’s therapist said father downplays and cannot handle blame. The therapist previously told social worker Bui that it was not if, but when, another neglectful situation would occur.

Moore conducted additional interviews in March 2021. Scarlett, now three years old, said she was sitting on something and fell. She cried, her father held her, and the doctor fixed her arm. When the social worker asked Scarlett’s five-year-old sister Sarah what father did after Scarlett fell off the step stool, Sarah responded “My dad checked to see if she was okay.” Asked whether Scarlett cried, Sarah said “Yeah, she cried a lot. . . . She couldn’t stop crying. She stopped (crying) but we had to settle her down. And she laid on her arm at night.”

Mother agreed with the petition allegations, pointing out that after father notified her of Scarlett’s fall, she asked if Scarlett needed to see a doctor, but did not hear back from father until the following morning. Her main concern was that this was the third accident at father’s home in four months, father had been told he could get medical care, and yet father gave inconsistent information. Sarah told mother that Scarlett could not move her arm, and mother understood from the surgeon that Scarlett would have been in immense pain. Father still had not been able to tell mother what time Scarlett fell, so she may have been in pain for a long time. Mother questioned father’s ability to supervise the children, given their earlier accidental injuries, and questioned why father did not seek medical treatment for the earlier injuries as well.

Father emphasized that he was a licensed home healthcare professional and, as he would do with a client, he assessed and evaluated Scarlett and continued to monitor her all night and communicated with mother. Father said Scarlett fell “around 7:00 p.m., plus or minus.” After Scarlett woke up from a four-hour nap, she wanted milk, so he took her downstairs. Scarlett fell while he had turned towards the refrigerator, and he picked her up. He checked her forehead and she had an elevated temperature. He checked her over and then gave her milk, which she took with her injured arm. Father also said that Scarlett was not crying when he picked her up and checked her over. He noted that Scarlett used her injured arm to take the milk, lifted it so he could take a couple of pictures, and did not complain when he moved her arm to undress and dress her in her bunny suit (what the family calls her pajama or onesie). Any swelling was minimal until the following morning. Father made the appointment with urgent care, and offered to go in to explain what had happened, but mother did not allow him to go in. Father said he was previously in trouble for taking the girls to the doctor for temperatures, and that mother wanted sole decisionmaking authority regarding medical care.

5. Medical Evidence

According to the notes from urgent care, Scarlett refused to use her injured arm, but could wiggle her fingers on both hands when asked to do so. X-rays showed Scarlett had an acute moderately displaced supracondylar fracture, and mother agreed to take her to the children’s hospital for a higher level of care. The notes also mention that Scarlett’s parents are divorcing, with a likely history of abuse or violence, and a restraining order against father. The stated history (that Scarlett fainted and fell) was inconsistent with the injury, and providers were concerned about potential child abuse.

At the children’s hospital, Scarlett had a full skeletal survey and a CT brain scan, to rule out possible abuse or more serious injuries. She was discharged on December 26, 2021, after an orthopedic surgery to fix the supracondylar fracture with four wires and a cast to address alignment and soft tissue swelling.

6. Expert Witness Testimony

At the hearing, father’s expert witness, Dr. Grogan, testified that Scarlett’s injury was typical of what might happen when a young child falls forward or off an object like a stool and the elbow is hyperextended. According to Dr. Grogan, this type of injury would cause the child to cry, but if the arm was not moved, the child would be relatively easily consolable, and it would not be uncommon for the child to fall asleep. Because swelling can occur a few hours after the fracture, it would not be unusual to wait until morning to have the child’s arm looked at. He acknowledged that if the child’s arm was moved, the child would show pain.

7. Father’s Testimony

Father testified he had been working as a home healthcare professional for almost two years, providing care to seniors with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and heart disease. He testified about carrying Scarlett to the kitchen after her nap, placing her on a step stool while he got her some milk, Scarlett falling off the stool, and what steps he took to attend to her. Even though she had fallen and had a temperature, he did not believe he needed to take her to the hospital that night. He communicated with mother that evening through OFW, and there was no plan to take Scarlett to the hospital. Father monitored Scarlett, and when he checked her around 4:30 in the morning, her arm was swollen. He iced it, and texted mother through OFW around 6:30. He called urgent care because he knew they would be able to do an x-ray, and because the other location was already busy with a line for COVID tests. Father offered to speak directly with the doctors, but mother would not allow it. He was in counseling, and had taken a parenting course that included sessions on child safety and high conflict divorce situations, and he was open to taking a co-parenting class with mother. His visits with the girls were going well.

On cross examination, father had trouble remembering certain details and answering some questions posed by the Department’s attorney. On cross examination by minors’ counsel, father testified he had no serious medical concerns about Scarlett the evening of her injury, that she took a drink with her injured hand, and she showed no pain. He said there was minimal swelling on her wrist. Responding to cross-examination by mother’s attorney about the August 2020 incident where Scarlett fell against the stair banister, father testified he had been told by mother’s law firm to leave medical decisions to mother.

Adjudication and Disposition

The adjudication hearing spanned four days: May 17, June 15, July 23, and July 27, 2021. The parties stipulated that Scarlett’s injury was accidental, and that the Department would not be arguing intentional infliction of harm under section 300, subdivision (a). The court admitted documentary evidence from the Department, father, and mother. After hearing testimony from Dr. Grogan and father, the court heard argument from all parties.

Father’s attorney acknowledged that father’s demeanor during testimony could support a determination that father was not credible. The attorney stated “I don’t think the father should be found uncredible in this case, your Honor. I do believe that this despite how – despite his demeanor at times during testimony, the substance of what he was saying I believe was reasonable.” The attorney continued by urging the court to look at the evidence, including the texts between the parents, the photo of Scarlett’s arm, and Dr. Grogan’s testimony, “the reasonableness of each step and protective action that father took. I am urging the court to not be distracted by he said or she said and to look at what the evidence points to: that the father acted as a reasonable parent would have.”

Mother’s counsel argued that the evidence showed that father had medically neglected serious injuries on multiple occasions, showing his “inability to appropriately supervise, parent, and protect the children.” Absent court supervision, father’s flawed decision making would continue to put the children at risk of harm.

Minors’ counsel urged the court to sustain the allegations, focusing on the contrast between father’s testimony and the evidence that Scarlett’s injury was serious and significant. Agreeing with mother’s counsel, minors’ counsel pointed to the continuing pattern of the children having accidental injuries, and father failing to seek medical attention.

The Department joined in the argument of minors’ and mother’s counsel, and reviewed father’s history of minimizing his daughters’ injuries, the fact that the Department had advised father of his ability to seek medical care, and that Scarlett’s latest injury required invasive surgery with four pins being placed in her arm.

Noting that the Department was not pursuing the section 300, subdivision (a), counts in the petition, the court reviewed the evidence relevant to allegations under subdivision (b). Reviewing father’s changing explanations of the events surrounding Scarlett’s injury, based on his texts to mother, his interviews with the social worker, and his testimony in court, the court concluded that at the time of Scarlett’s fall, father had recognized the severity of her injury, but believed that seeking immediate medical treatment would lead to criticism, accusations of being inattentive, and possibly restrictions on his time with the children. Father instead attempted to soothe Scarlett in the hopes that the injury would appear less serious in the morning. Father was concerned that mother had portrayed him as inattentive and irresponsible, but his evasiveness during testimony made it appear that he was more concerned about how he was perceived than what the true facts were. Father’s responses revealed that he was more focused on allocating blame to someone or something other than himself, trying to shift attention away from his own mistakes or misjudgments. The court sustained both counts under section 300, subdivision (b), dismissed the counts under subdivisions (a) and (j), and found mother to be non-offending.

The Department recommended terminating jurisdiction with a custody order. Minors’ counsel and father argued that it was in the children’s best interests to allow father to continue participating in services under the Department’s supervision, giving him an opportunity to demonstrate improvement and to have unmonitored visits with the children. Although the court was initially inclined to maintain the case and set a six-month review hearing, after it reviewed the custody evaluation report, it determined that mother, father, and the family court already had a planned approach and commitment to working on co-parenting and communication. The court terminated jurisdiction with a custody order giving mother sole legal and physical custody, and father having monitored visits.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law and Standard of Review

“‘The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California’s children.’ [Citation.]” (In re J.M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 913, 923.) A child may be declared a dependent under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), when “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of a custodian with whom the child has been left.” “A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct or failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. [Citations.]” (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601 (Cole L.); In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 625.)

“Facts which show the threat of future physical injury to a minor are necessarily cumulative. A juvenile court must not shut its eyes to facts pointing to the threat of future injury just because those facts may have been previously aired in a family law forum.” (In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470 italics added, fn. omitted.) “[T]he court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. [Citations.] The court may consider past events in deciding whether a child presently needs the court’s protection. [Citations.] A parent’s ‘“[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions” if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.’ [Citations.] ‘To establish a defined risk of harm at the time of the hearing, there “must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.”’ [Citation.]” (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.)

“‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” [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.”’” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; see also In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892; In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.) “However, ‘[s]ubstantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence. [Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence must be of ponderable legal significance and must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” [Citations.]” (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.) “The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or orders.” (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206; accord, In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328–329.)

Analysis

Father makes two key concessions in his opening brief. He concedes that he and mother did not communicate well and had difficulties coparenting. He also acknowledges he did not seek immediate medical care after Scarlett fell, and instead attempted to care for and monitor Scarlett overnight “before advising mother early the next morning that Scarlett’s arm clearly needed to be looked at.” After conceding these two points, father tries to narrow the focus of the jurisdictional question, emphasizing that his delay in seeking treatment did not result in serious physical injury, and that there was no substantial evidence that he would delay seeking necessary medical care in the future. We disagree with father that the scope of our inquiry is so limited, and we find that the court’s jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Father focuses on the evidence supporting his decision to soothe Scarlett and let her sleep at home rather than taking her to the emergency room. However, there was substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion that Scarlett’s injury was more serious and warranted medical attention at the time. Father reported Scarlett was using her injured arm, that he removed Scarlett’s bunny suit to give her a shower, and he was able to photograph her arm, and dress her again without any complaint, meaning she moved her arm multiple times that evening. Although father’s expert, Dr. Grogan, opined that a child with Scarlett’s injury would be easily consolable and could fall asleep without pain, he also testified that moving the arm would cause a child to show pain. In contrast to father’s version of events, Sarah reported that immediately after the fall, Scarlett “blacked out,” and then was crying. According to Sarah, Scarlett’s arm was jammed and stuck under the cabinet, and Scarlett was not using the injured arm. During testimony, father attempted to explain his initial text 9:46 p.m. text to mother, in which he describes Scarlett’s arm as “sore and swollen,” as a reference to a pink line on her wrist in a photograph taken around 7:00 p.m. However, the same text is subject to a different interpretation: when considered in light of Scarlett’s inability to move her arm in the morning, and the X-ray results showing a serious break, father’s initial text supports the conclusion that father should have recognized the soreness and swelling were signs of a need to seek medical treatment the night of the injury.

The issue is not whether father harbored some ill intent, and we do not suggest father’s decisionmaking reflects ill intent. However, the trial court’s inferences about the reasons that father delayed medical care for Scarlett are backed by substantial evidence. The court disbelieved father’s version of events based on several factors: (a) the ambiguity of father’s text messages to mother, (b) inconsistencies between his statements to mother, his statements to the social worker, and his testimony, and (c) the evasiveness of father’s responses to questions on cross-examination. The court determined that father’s focus on appearing in control of the situation, when in fact Scarlett had suffered an injury requiring medical attention, supported a finding of risk of future harm.

The testimony and the texts between mother and father show that although father had taken a photo of Scarlett’s arm at around 7:00 p.m. the night of her injury, and mother had asked for a photo at 10:42 p.m., father did not respond until the following morning at 6:30. Father said he checked on Scarlett throughout the night, and when he saw that the arm was swollen at 4:30 a.m., he believed it was because Scarlett had been sleeping on it. Nevertheless, in the morning, when father finally sent mother a photo of Scarlett’s arm, he sent the photograph taken the night before, rather than taking and sending to mother a photograph reflective of Scarlett’s current, and worsened condition. From these facts, it is a reasonable inference that father avoided seeking care and providing further details to mother because he did not want mother second-guessing his medical judgment.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the multiple injuries to the children while in father’s care, the pattern of failing to seek medical care for those injuries, the seriousness of Scarlett’s most recent injury, and the lack of credibility of father’s testimony, all provide substantial evidence that absent court supervision, the children were at a continued risk of future harm.

Termination of Jurisdiction and Custody Order

Beyond arguing that the court’s disposition order should be reversed based on insufficient evidence supporting jurisdiction, father does not make any argument that the custody order was an abuse of discretion. Because the jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence, the disposition and custody orders remain unaffected by father’s appeal.

DISPOSITION

The court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition and custody orders are affirmed.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.

[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise.

[2] While the Department was investigating, mother and father entered into a stipulation in family court temporarily suspending father’s visitation pending completion of the Department’s investigation and releasing to the Department the confidential custody evaluation report.