T.M. is now 10 years old. For most of his life, his father, Nathan M. (father), and
mother had antagonistic relations, including in the course of contentious litigation
regarding custody of and visitation with T.M. There is also evidence that they each
engaged in behaviors that contributed to their antagonistic relations and flawed parenting
of T.M., including father’s unaddressed substance abuse and mother’s excessive use of
corporal punishment on T.M. T.M. was seriously and negatively affected by these years
of antagonism and behaviors, and developed serious emotional difficulties as
demonstrated by his aggressive and violent misconduct throughout much of his time in
elementary school.
The Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency (Agency)
unsuccessfully tried to resolve these problems by providing voluntary services to the
family for a year. Upon the request by the Mendocino County family court that it
2
consider filing a dependency petition regarding T.M., the Agency did so under section
300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code1
in 2016. The juvenile court asserted
jurisdiction over T.M. and at disposition ordered him removed from his father’s custody
and placed outside the home.
Father appeals from this disposition order. He argues the juvenile court erred
because there is not clear and convincing evidence that T.M. was seriously harmed or
faced any danger of such harm, whether emotionally or physically. We disagree. There
is ample evidence that T.M. was desperately in need of treatment for the emotional
damage he suffered from his parents’ acrimonious relations and failure to address their
dysfunctional behaviors. We affirm the court’s disposition order.
BACKGROUND
I.
Events Leading Up to the Agency’s Section 300 Petition
T.M.’s parents never married and their relationship ended in 2008. According to
mother, the relationship ended because of father’s drug and alcohol abuse, father
physically abused her and after the end of their relationship she was routinely threatened
by father’s family. Father denied having any substance abuse problem or abusing mother,
and contended that mother physically attacked him at times. For years, mother and father
pointed fingers at each other for T.M.’s problems and fought over custody and visitation
rights.
In 2014, when T.M.’s parents shared custody of him, the Agency received a
referral alleging that T.M. called his mother from father’s house and said father was
drunk and yelling at him to be quiet, and that there was no food in the house. It was also
alleged that father had a history of alcohol abuse and of being physically violent towards
mother, and that the paternal grandmother struck mother in front of T.M. and told him
that he “didn’t really see” that happen.

1
All statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3
The Agency investigated. T.M. said he thought his father drank sometimes, that he
was worried about his parents yelling and cursing at each other and that his mother
spanked him when he got in trouble. T.M.’s school principal said that after mother told
T.M. the Agency would contact him, T.M. became “hysterical,” would not eat and
sobbed. The principal also said T.M. disclosed that his mother hit him, was “regularly
disrespectful and defiant” at school, “ ‘accidentally’ ” brought a knife there the previous
year and was the subject of a special “Care Team” every year. Also, father appeared
drunk one time when he picked up T.M. The Agency counseled T.M.’s parents and
started a voluntary risk-reduction plan.
In January 2015, T.M. engaged in more serious misconduct at school. He put
another student in a choke hold, for which he was disciplined. His third grade teacher
wrote that he was constantly disruptive in her classroom, particularly on Mondays when
he switched from one parent’s home to the other; was known to steal from the classroom
and from other students; and walked out of the classroom and was missing for a time
after she scolded him for breaking one of her things. When she tried to talk with his
parents about T.M.’s misbehavior, they instead spoke negatively about each other in front
of T.M.
In February 2015, the Agency received another referral, this time alleging that
T.M. was “suffering emotional abuse as evidenced by increasing acting out behavior due
to the parents’ behavior and . . . father’s drinking.” T.M.’s therapist said T.M. was under
duress and stress due to his parents’ conflicts. T.M. was suspended from school that same
month for punching another student in the chest and was removed from the classroom for
disruptive behavior.
In March 2015, a family law judge instructed the Agency to evaluate whether it
should file a dependency petition under section 300. The Agency held a “family team
meeting” with T.M.’s parents and their extended families. Afterwards, the parents agreed
to participate in a voluntary case plan.
In April 2015, T.M.’s mother reported that he had been suspended from a youth
club for fighting, and T.M. said he tripped a boy and kicked him when he was on the
4
ground for not giving T.M. a ball. The Agency held another family team meeting with
T.M.’s parents and their extended families. Although both parents participated in the
meeting, father did not test for alcohol use and the parents continued to blame each other
for T.M.’s problems. During the meeting, the paternal grandfather called mother a “crazy
psychotic bitch” and blamed her for T.M.’s issues, and father’s family then “stormed out”
of the meeting.
Over the next year, the Agency provided voluntary family maintenance services to
the parents, but saw no real improvement. Father and mother attended anger
management classes, but did not make meaningful progress. Father did not attend
parenting classes, engaged in some but not all drug testing requested of him, did not meet
as requested with, and was short and rude to, Agency staff (as was T.M., apparently
mimicking father’s behavior), and stated he was “done volunteering for you guys.” T.M.
continued to misbehave at his school.
In May 2016, the Agency received another referral, this time alleging that mother
spanked and repeatedly struck T.M. T.M.’s therapist said mother hit T.M., pushed him up
against a wall and told him that he was ruining her life. Father was given temporary
physical and legal custody of T.M. Later that same month, a family court judge filed a
petition with the juvenile court under section 3292
stating, “ ‘parents have engaged in
[Voluntary Family Maintenance] services for over one year yet parental conflict
continues. [T.M.] recently disclosed physical/emotional abuse by mother.’ ”
II.
The Agency’s Section 300 Petition
In June 2016, the Agency filed a section 300 petition regarding T.M. The Agency,
as it later amended the petition, relied on three categories of allegations. First, it alleged
under subdivision (b)(1) that there was a substantial risk of serious emotional harm to

2
Section 329 allows any person to apply to a social worker to commence
proceedings in juvenile court under section 300. The social worker “shall immediately
investigate as he or she deems necessary to determine whether proceedings in the
juvenile court should be commenced.”
5
T.M. because his parents were not willing or able due to their contentious relations to
effectively co-parent him, and he was increasingly exhibiting outward signs of
aggression. It alleged under subdivision (b)(2) that T.M.’s parents could not resolve the
issues adversely affecting T.M., even under the voluntary case plan, including because
father did not complete vital components of the plan, was resistant to services, and was in
denial about the problems that were impacting T.M,
3
and the parents did not agree on
treatment or potential psychotropic medication for T.M. It alleged under subdivision (c)
that T.M. was showing signs of emotional abuse and was at serious risk of suffering more
because of the parents’ ongoing custody battle and tug-of-war over him, which had
become the “norm.” T.M.’s parents were unable to understand the impact of their
behaviors on T.M., who was engaging in aggressive behavior at school and elsewhere.
At a hearing scheduled to discuss detention, the Agency did not ask for T.M.’s
detention. The court allowed him to remain in his father’s custody and scheduled a
jurisdiction hearing.
III.
The Juvenile Court’s Assertion of Jurisdiction Over T.M.
In its July 21, 2016 jurisdiction report, the Agency wrote that according to mother,
on July 9, 2016, father was “very drunk and started a confrontation with an
individual . . . at the softball fields, while [T.M.] was in his care. As a result, [T.M.]
allegedly became upset and took out his anger by hitting his father’s van repeatedly with
a baseball bat.” During the Agency’s subsequent interview with T.M. about the incident,
he “disclosed . . . that he did hit his father’s van twice with a baseball bat because he got
mad that his dad was yelling at him” when T.M. was not listening to him, said he did not
observe his father drinking alcohol that day and did not think father was drinking, and
denied observing his father in a confrontation on the fields that day. He did not express

3
The Agency also made allegations regarding T.M.’s mother. Because she is not
a party to this appeal, we only discuss the Agency’s concerns about her as necessary to
resolve the issues father raises.
6
worries about his father, but said he was worried that his mother would be mad at him for
telling his therapist that she hit him.
At a July 2016 jurisdiction hearing, both parents submitted on the amended
petition allegations that we have discussed. The juvenile court sustained these
allegations, asserted jurisdiction over T.M. and scheduled a disposition hearing.
IV.
The Juvenile Court’s Disposition Order
In its disposition report, the Agency reviewed T.M.’s extensive history of
physical and verbal aggressions, disruptive and defiant behavior, and incidents of
stealing, lying and cheating, as well as his school’s disciplining of him.
The Agency also summarized and attached to its disposition report an
August 2016 psychological evaluation of T.M. by Dr. Jacqueline Singer. She wrote that
T.M. undoubtedly lacked coping abilities because of “the ongoing parental conflict” and
met the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional
Defiant Disorder. Further, Singer wrote, “[w]hile [T.M.] appears to have done
somewhat better behaviorally in school at the end of the last semester, he still seems to
show considerable challenges with internal control of his behavior. His oppositional
defiant behavior has been ongoing since at least 2012 and it has also been suggested
since that time that he has attentional issues.” She recommended that if his behavioral
challenges continued once the school year resumed, medication should be considered
and, if his oppositional behavior re-emerged, “consideration should be given to a more
intensive treatment. Given his difficulties in benefitting from the rehabilitation services
that were offered . . . , consideration should be given for placement in a Level 12 group
home. The primary concern is that if [T.M.] does not get his behavioral issues under
control soon, the development of a conduct disorder is likely to follow.”
Also, the Agency reported on the views of T.M.’s therapist, Sarah Shems. She
said she had been “unable to get the parents in the same room together.” T.M. had a
brief trial on medication that did not result in improved behavior, and she was unable to
find another referral to which both parents agreed.
7
The Agency recommended that T.M. be placed in an out of home placement and
reunification services be provided to both parents. The Agency noted that despite its
and others’ extensive efforts, the parents continued their contentious relations, including
in T.M.’s presence: “Both parents continue to blame each other and sling mud, often in
the presence of their child, and have been unable to break the cycle . . . despite numerous
specific parallel parenting plans put in place by the court, numerous services provided
by the school, and over a year of Voluntary Family Maintenance services provided by
the Agency. . . . Both the school and [T.M.’s] therapist have indicated that the parents
can’t physically be in the same room due to the level of conflict and this has a direct
negative impact on [T.M.] [¶] . . . [F]ather buries his head in the sand as to [T.M.’s]
behaviors and mental health needs, and although he does transport [T.M.] to therapy, he
does not appear to have any buy in, and clearly does not support recommendations by
[T.M.]’s service providers as [T.M.] is ‘fine,’ from his perspective. [Father] has acted as
though the rules don’t apply to him, in that he minimally participated during the
Voluntary Family Maintenance case, despite the Agency making it clear that his inaction
negatively affects his child and he discontinued cooperation almost completely during
the pending dependency matter” until shortly before the disposition hearing. The
Agency recommended that father be offered an assessment through a substance abuse
program, engage in random drug and alcohol testing, undergo a psychological
evaluation and an assessment regarding anger management, and participate in certain
parenting programs.
The Agency further reported that father, upon being told of the Agency’s
position, said he was willing to participate in services as recommended by the Agency,
but did not agree with its out of home placement recommendation. He said he had a lot
of close family support. He also stated that he “ ‘used to party when he was younger.’ ”
However, the Agency continued, he “denies current drug use and denies that he
consumes alcohol while [T.M.] is in his care; [father] does not feel that drugs and/or
alcohol have ever risen to the level of being a problem for him.”
In September 2016, shortly after T.M. started fifth grade, a contested disposition
8
hearing was held. The juvenile court indicated it had reviewed and considered the
Agency’s disposition report and received it into evidence. The court then heard
testimony from several witnesses, including T.M.’s school psychologist, his principal, a
friend of father’s who was at the softball field on the day of the July 2016 incident and
the Agency case worker assigned to T.M.’s case.
Deborah Briggs, T.M.’s school psychologist, testified that she had been working
with T.M. since he was in second grade and had met six or seven times with T.M.’s
parents in “Care Team” meetings. Briggs said father and T.M.’s current teacher thought
“there’s not a lot of problems” with T.M., while mother and T.M.’s previous teacher
thought there were “significant problems” with him. She did not know if father was
minimizing the risks to T.M. She did think exposing any child to “years-long struggles
between his parents” would impact that child’s behavior.
In the past, Briggs said, she had assessed T.M. as meeting the criteria for
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but her last assessment, which she did in the fall
of 2015, was inconclusive on the issue. So far in the present school year, T.M. was
doing “pretty well,” and she thought he had been sent to the principal’s office less than
in the past. He had engaged in aggressive behavior at the school, particularly in the third
grade, and the previous week had misbehaved when he argued with an adult about his
playing with a ball while kindergartners passed by him in the yard.
Dana Milani, the principal at T.M.’s school, testified that she had known
T.M. for four or five years and had met with his parents. T.M. had struggled
behaviorally at school. Milani said, “the drama that always surrounded T.M. was
the fact that the parents couldn’t get along when it came to [T.M.]. They were . . .
arguing and bickering, and normally none of our conversations dealt with [T.M.]
specifically. It was always about what the other parent had done wrong and that’s
why [T.M.] acted that way.” T.M. had not gotten along with his previous teacher,
who did not always remain calm with him, but he was getting along well with his
present teacher. He had not yet been sent to the principal’s office for his behavior
in the current school year.
9
Also, Milani testified, T.M.’s parents recently had begun discussing T.M.’s
issues with her in more constructive ways. Father had been different in his last two
discussions with her. He showed concern and “wanted to make sure he was doing
the right thing.” After the recent incident in the yard recounted in Briggs’s
testimony, father called Milani to discuss it, when usually he was upset when Milani
called him about such things. He also told her that he discussed with T.M. how
T.M. was supposed to behave.
Aubrey Hoffman testified that he had known father and his family for twenty-five
years. In July 2016, he was a spectator at a softball field, wearing a neck brace and using
a walker after having had major surgery. He encountered father for the first time in five
years, once before lunch and again near the end of the day. Father was “hanging” on him,
behaved aggressively towards him and hurt him a little bit. Hoffman did not think father
was aware that he was hurting Hoffman; rather, Hoffman thought father was drunk to the
point that Hoffman would not have let him drive. Hoffman thought father was under the
influence both times Hoffman saw him that day. Hoffman further testified that T.M. was
running around playing that day, and seemed kind of angry. He seemed particularly “out
of control” and “upset” as he collected softballs during a game.
Cameron Smith, the Agency’s social worker on T.M.’s case, testified that prior to
September 7, 2016, when she informed father of the Agency’s recommendation that
T.M. be placed outside the home, she had difficulty reaching father; he only responded
to one of her attempts to reach him, despite her weekly efforts to do so in order to ask
him to participate in a drug test or attend a meeting. And this one successful contact was
only after Smith had spoken to paternal grandmother about the subject at hand, which
was T.M.’s psychological evaluation.
Smith made an out of home placement recommendation based on a number of
concerns, including that if T.M. remained living with father, father would go back to his
general behavior toward the Agency, minimize T.M.’s needs and not follow through
with recommendations about T.M.’s services. She based this opinion on her “review of
the multiple evaluations of [T.M.],” the school psychologist’s report of mother’s and a
10
previous teacher’s concerns, and her own communications with father, who did not give
a lot of weight to the more serious recommendations from service providers about
T.M.’s needs.
Smith also was concerned about the July 2016 incident when T.M. hit his father’s
van with a baseball bat, particularly because she was already aware of T.M.’s “violent
and aggressive behaviors” at his school. Smith spoke with father about the incident and
thought he “minimized” it, as he merely said T.M. “was upset about not getting some
candy.” She was concerned that father did so because she thought T.M. needed
treatment. Her opinion was based on T.M.’s documented behaviors over time, the
recommendations of various service providers, including Dr. Singer, whose evaluation
Smith gave “a lot of weight,” and Smith’s own interactions with T.M. Smith did not
think T.M. would commit to the treatment he needed if father continued to minimize
T.M.’s behaviors. T.M.’s therapist, Sarah Shems, indicated to Smith that T.M.’s parents
lacked follow-through, and that T.M. recently stopped participating in some services.
Smith also spoke with T.M., who “was not very forthcoming with information
initially” about the July 2016 incident at the ball field. Smith believed T.M. did not
want to say anything bad about father and was concerned about his parents’ reactions to
anything he disclosed. She was also concerned about T.M.’s violent behavior in the
incident. She believed that if a child is put in a situation where he reacts violently but
does not feel safe discussing the behavior that caused him to do so, the child is at a
significant risk of emotional harm because he is conflicted in his mind. Smith was
concerned about what else T.M. was experiencing in father’s home, given the July 2016
incident and that neither would discuss much with her. She said she could not identify
anything specific indicating father was manipulating T.M., but also said she saw
indications that father was allowing T.M.’s “negative behaviors to continue.” For
example, Principal Milani recently told Smith that at the end of the previous school year
father had countermanded Milani’s instruction to T.M. to retrieve a sandwich from the
garbage.
Smith also thought it was “clear” that T.M. was “negatively affected” by the
11
“ongoing tug-of-war between the parents,” as indicated by T.M.’s behaviors. She
thought from her interviews with T.M. that he did not feel comfortable discussing these
circumstances, which concerned her.
After hearing testimony, the court heard argument from counsel. The Agency’s
counsel argued this was an “odd case” that did not involve an ordinary child or ordinary
issues. All T.M. had ever known was the fighting and bickering between his parents,
which obviously distressed him; voluntary services were not effective in changing this
pattern. The Agency believed that T.M. should be placed out of father’s home because
T.M.’s behaviors showed he was under emotional distress and at risk of further harm if he
remained there. Counsel emphasized T.M.’s misconduct at the end of the last school
year, the July 2016 incident, Dr. Singer’s and the social workers’ concerns, and father’s
minimization of T.M.’s behaviors, and did not think T.M.’s or father’s better start at the
beginning of the new school year was a sufficient counter to this evidence.
T.M.’s counsel agreed with the Agency’s counsel. She said that regardless of
father’s recent behavioral changes, T.M. was “a child that need[ed] . . . a high therapeutic
level of care.” Further, T.M. had been put “in a position to have to lie about what
occurred in July [2016] at the softball game.” This was evidence of “actual emotional
harm,” as “demonstrated by his reaction.” Further, counsel said, “for years substance
abuse has been a part of the family law case and issues around that. And we’ve got to
keep this kid safe, and he’s not.”
Mother’s counsel also argued in favor of an out of home placement. He contended
this was necessary because the families were not supportive of each other and that T.M.
was suffering “severe emotional harm” by their putting him in the middle of their
conflict. Also, Hoffman’s testimony indicated father had an untreated alcohol abuse
issue, which led to his poor supervision of T.M.
Father’s counsel argued against an out of home placement. She asserted there
was not clear and convincing evidence of harm to T.M., the standard required to remove
him from the home. There was no evidence that T.M. was at risk of harm, as indicated
by the testimony of the school psychologist and principal that T.M. was doing better this
12
school year. There was also evidence that father was “switching his attitude and not
blaming mom and taking responsibility and wanting to do what’s in the best [interest]”
of T.M. Further, father was taking T.M. to therapy, attending parenting meetings and
testing now with the Agency.
The court adopted the Agency’s recommendation. It ordered T.M. removed from
his father’s custody and placed in the care, custody and control of the Agency for an out
of home placement, and that family reunification services be provided to both parents. It
found that T.M. “has really been damaged” by “the extremely contentious relationship”
between the parents, and was “going through just a tough, tough time.” It thought father
needed to be “a much more active participant” and that both parents needed to
“affirmatively go after all the services, recognize those things that [T.M.] needs and go
after them and not still be concerned about which parent is the one who is to blame.”
The court was not persuaded that father had been doing that until the last couple of
weeks and encouraged him to continue, but found clear and convincing evidence of
substantial risk to T.M.’s emotional well-being if he remained in father’s home. The
court stated it was “not crazy about removing” T.M., but needed to know that both
parents “were really going after this one,” which meant they had to “figure out a way
that they can work together at some level.”
Father filed a timely appeal from the court’s disposition order.
DISCUSSION
Father argues the juvenile court erred in ordering T.M. removed from his custody
because there is not clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to T.M.’s
physical or emotional well-being if he stayed in father’s home. We disagree.
We review a juvenile court decision to remove a child from a parent’s
custody for substantial evidence of clear and convincing evidence in support of this
decision, such as evidence of substantial danger to the child’s emotional well-being
or that the child is “suffering severe emotional damage” as indicated by “untoward
aggressive behavior toward . . . others,” and no reasonable means by which the
minor’s emotional health may be protected without removing him from the physical
13
custody of his parent. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1), (c)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(c);
In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 528; In re Jason L. (1990)
222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) This standard calls for substantial evidence of
evidence showing a high probability and clarity so great as to “ ‘ “leave no
substantial doubt.” ’ ” (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 919.) Substantial
evidence is “ ‘of ponderable legal significance. . . . It must be reasonable . . . ,
credible, and of solid value . . . .’ ” (Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994)
22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633.)
Under a substantial evidence standard of review, we consider the record “in
the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations, drawing all
reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings and
orders. Issues of fact and credibility are the province of the juvenile court and [the
appellate court] neither reweigh[s] the evidence nor exercise[s] [its] independent
judgment.” (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.) We do not consider
whether there is evidence from which the juvenile court “ ‘could have drawn a
different conclusion but whether there is substantial evidence to support the
conclusion that the court did draw.’ ” (In re F.S. (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 799, 813.)
There is substantial evidence to support the court’s decision to remove T.M.
from his father’s care. The record indicates that for years, T.M. had been exhibiting
aggressive and sometimes violent behavior that, in the opinion of service providers
such as Dr. Singer and the school principal, was the result of his ensnarement in a
contentious and unbearable situation caused by his parents’ constant antagonism
towards each other. Also, father repeatedly minimized T.M.’s behavior, expressing
the view that it was average behavior for a boy, until he was under threat of losing
him at disposition. He did so despite frequent efforts by the Agency and others to
make him aware of the emotional turmoil his son was experiencing, the Agency’s
providing of a year of voluntary maintenance services and the Agency’s filing of a
section 300 petition. Further, there was substantial evidence that father for years
had engaged, and continued to engage, in substance abuse that he did not
14
acknowledge, which affected both his relations with mother and with T.M.
Evidence indicated father’s dysfunctional behavior continued after the Agency filed
its dependency petition and led to T.M.’s violent attack on father’s van with a
baseball bat just two months before the disposition hearing. Evidence also indicated
that T.M. concealed the true facts of the incident for fear of his father’s reaction to
any disclosure T.M. might make. Father’s change in behavior in the few weeks
before the disposition hearing did not erase the greater body of evidence indicating
the serious emotional harm T.M. had already experienced and the significant risk
that T.M. would face further, serious emotional harm if he remained in his father’s
custody.
Father makes a variety of arguments, none of which are persuasive. They
amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence in his favor, which is
inappropriate under our substantial evidence standard of review. (See In re F.S.,
supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 813.) He contends there was no evidence of a specific,
imminent danger to T.M., since, although the juvenile court’s jurisdiction was based
on the contentious relationship between the parents, “at the time of the disposition
hearing, there was not clear and convincing evidence [T.M.] would be ‘emotionally
harmed’ remaining in his father’s custody.” Indeed, father continues, “the opposite
was true. [T.M.] is more likely to be harmed out of his father’s care living in a
Level 12 group [recommended by Dr. Singer] than in his father’s custody.” Father
points out that “[b]y September 2016,” he, father, contacted the social worker and
was willing to meet, was participating in drug testing and that there was evidence in
a psychologist’s 2010 written evaluation of the family that he was able to be
emotionally attuned and responsive to T.M. He also notes that the juvenile court
had previously considered him the more capable, safe parent for T.M., giving him
custody, and that T.M. did not say he felt unsafe in his father’s care. Further, while
Smith testified that father minimized T.M.’s behavior issues, there was feedback
from others, such as the school psychologist and the principal, that T.M. was doing
better during the present school year, and that he, father, was working better to
15
grapple with T.M.’s issues. Smith’s opinion, father contends, is not supported by
facts or evidence.
Father also suggests that the juvenile court had alternatives to T.M.’s removal
from father’s custody. For example, he notes, Dr. Singer suggested the court could
safely award sole legal and physical custody to one parent to decrease the effects of
the parents’ contentious relationship, or appoint a parenting coordinator. Further,
the court could have ordered family maintenance services. Removing T.M., father
contends, “was not the right choice nor was it supported by the evidence.”
Father’s contentions ignore the clear and convincing evidence that supports
the court’s decision. His failure to grapple with this evidence is fatal to his appeal
under our substantial evidence standard of review, in which we review the record in
the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations. (In re Yolanda,
supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 992.) Most significantly, Dr. Singer’s report, Smith’s
testimony, and the July 2016 incident and its aftermath indicated T.M. was in dire
need of treatment after years of increasingly aggressive and violent behavior
resulting from his negative family circumstances. Yet father minimized this
behavior, and allowed and encouraged it to continue, including by his own
aggressive, drunken example at the ball field in July 2016. Consistent with the
court’s jurisdictional finding, there was substantial evidence that father resisted
completing vital components of the plan—which included drug testing—and
participating in important services, such as parenting programs. There was also
substantial evidence that father was in denial about the problems that were
impacting T.M, including father’s own alcohol abuse and history of substance abuse
that contributed to the failure of his relationship with mother, the subsequent
ongoing antagonism between them and, it can reasonably be inferred, his
dysfunctional behavior towards T.M., as evidence by the July 2016 incident. There
was also substantial evidence that T.M. faced imminent danger to his emotional
well-being, and that he had already suffered serious emotional damage. This was
demonstrated by T.M.’s years of misconduct at school, his lying about father’s
16
drunkenness in the July 2016 incident to Smith and his anxiety about his parents’
reactions to his disclosures about their conduct. Yet father never once
acknowledged the impact of his drinking on his son.
Contrary to father’s contentions, there is ample evidence demonstrating his
behavior has harmed and poses a significant risk of further harming T.M. The
record indicates that T.M. was desperately in need of treatment for the emotional
damage he suffered as a result of his parents’ acrimonious relations and
dysfunctional behavior. T.M.’s serious emotional problems can hardly be said to
have been “solved” by his relatively good behavior in the first month of the new
school year, particularly in light of his bat-wielding in the July 2016 incident, just
two months before the disposition hearing. Nor can father’s long time dysfunctional
behavior, minimization of T.M.’s difficulties and recalcitrance towards the
recommendations of the Agency and service providers, including after the Agency
filed its section 300 petition, be said to have been overcome by a couple of weeks of
cooperative behavior with the school and the Agency under threat of losing custody
of T.M. Father’s appeal is without merit.
DISPOSITION
The ruling appealed from is affirmed.