Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIJ115567 Michael J. Rushton, Judge.
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
Appellant A.C. (father) is the father of A.C. (the child). The child was a dependent of the juvenile court until the court terminated the dependency and granted the child’s mother (mother) sole legal and physical custody of the child. On appeal, father contends the court abused its discretion in granting mother sole custody. We affirm.
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
Counsel for the child filed a brief on August 31, 2009, asking this court to affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2007, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of the child. The child was 11 years old at the time. The petition alleged that the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage). Specifically, the petition included the allegations that father and mother (the parents) were unable to provide adequate care and/or protection for the child because of the child’s severe behavioral, emotional, and mental health issues; the parents had a history of engaging in acts of domestic violence in the presence of the child; father had administered inappropriate physical discipline on the child; father had neglected the child’s health and safety by failing to give him his medication; and the child was at risk of suffering from serious emotional damage since there was no parent willing or able to address his mental health issues.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
In a detention report, the social worker stated that the child required a higher level of care due to his behavioral problems, mental health issues, and emotional needs. The child was diagnosed with autism and other mental health issues. He was taking several different medications, and exhibited behaviors such as hyperactivity, sleep disturbance, discipline problems, head banging, and slapping himself. He was also hearing impaired. The child lived with mother and two sisters, ages five and nine. He was aggressive and combative toward everyone in the home and had attacked mother several times. Because of his violence, the child had been placed on several psychiatric holds pursuant to section 5150. The social worker further reported that mother and father were separated and going through a divorce due to their history of domestic violence. Mother informed the social worker that, under family law orders, she had primary custody of the child, and father had frequent and liberal visitation. She said father appeared to be in denial about the child’s condition. The social worker spoke with father and opined that father did not appear to understand the child’s diagnoses and the serious nature of the child’s behavior. During the child’s visits with him, father often forgot to give the child his medication. Father said that nothing was wrong with the child.
At the detention hearing on November 28, 2007, the court placed the child in the temporary custody of the department and detained him in foster care.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on December 14, 2007, and recommended that the parents be offered reunification services. The social worker stated the child appeared to have learned to be physically abusive from the violence he witnessed with father. Mother said the child was uncontrollable when he was upset.
The court held a jurisdictional hearing on February 13, 2008. It found that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), adjudged him a dependent of the court, and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services.
On May 10, 2008, the social worker filed an ex parte application requesting the court to authorize a group home placement for the child, as well as weekend and overnight visits for the parents. The child was staying in a foster home, but the foster mother reported that she had to call the police twice due to the child’s behavior. The child had assaulted the foster mother, was noncompliant with his medication regimen, and refused to go to a psychiatrist appointment. His teacher told the foster mother that he had said he heard voices telling him to kill her and her family. Although the social worker was able to place the child in another foster home, the social worker wanted to have authorization for a group home placement in case the current placement failed. The court authorized the group home placement and up to four-hour day visits with the parents.
On June 19, 2008, the social worker filed another ex parte application requesting an order that father be restrained from the child’s foster placement and have no negative contact with the foster parents or the child’s service providers. The foster mother reported that father threatened her when she refused to let him have an overnight visit. She said father’s nephew was with him at the time and brandished a gun at her. Father chuckled and denied threatening the foster mother and denied that his nephew brandished a gun. The court issued a restraining order.
Six-month Status Review
The social worker filed a six-month status review report on August 1, 2008, recommending that the child be authorized to return home on the conditions that a suitable home evaluation be completed, the parents participate in the case plan, and the parents follow all reasonable directives of the social worker. The child was diagnosed with, and was being given medication for, impulse control disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and conduct disorder. He was also receiving services from an in-home behavioral management service called Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS). The social worker further reported that father was ordered to enroll in a domestic violence course. He enrolled on April 23, 2008, and was participating. He was also ordered to participate in conjoint counseling. However, it was determined that the child was not ready for conjoint sessions until his behavior improved. Both father and mother wanted the child placed in his/her care. The child wanted to return home to live with mother and have overnight visits with father on the weekends.
A six-month status review hearing was held on August 13, 2008, and father’s counsel requested the matter be set for a contested hearing. The court continued the hearing and authorized overnight and weekend visits with the parents. At another hearing on August 28, 2008, the court authorized three weeks of extended visitation with mother. The six-month review hearing was continued to September 30, 2008.
In an addendum report filed on September 24, 2008, the social worker recommended that the child remain a dependent and be placed with mother on family maintenance. Mother completed a domestic violence course on August 11, 2008. Mother reported that the child was improving his behavior and attending school regularly. The social worker reported that mother had improved her parenting skills. A team decision meeting was held by the department on September 23, 2008, to determine if the child could return to mother’s care. The group decided that the child should be placed with mother upon court approval. The social worker also reported that father completed a domestic violence course on August 20, 2008.
On September 30, 2008, the parties submitted on the social worker’s reports. The court placed the child in mother’s custody on family maintenance. As to father, the court found that return of the child to his custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety and well-being of the child. The court continued father’s reunification services and set a review hearing for March 17, 2009.
Family Maintenance and 12-month Status Review
In a review report filed on February 20, 2009, the social worker reported that mother and the child had participated in TBS services, another in-home behavioral management service called Mental Health Wraparound services, and conjoint counseling. She also attended a support group for parents. In contrast, father did not consistently participate in TBS services, Wraparound services, or conjoint counseling. During this review period, father had overnight weekend visits. On November 3, 2008, the social worker informed father that TBS had to go to his house for the weekend visits. The TBS team noticed that father was not receiving information about the child’s behavior during the week because he refused to have any communication with mother. Father was also making promises to the child and not enforcing rules. When father or the child did not follow through with certain things, it caused problems in mother’s home. On November 18, 2008, mother reported that father had not allowed TBS into his home, was not returning calls from the TBS provider, and was not giving the child all of his prescribed medication. Father did not take the child to therapy as promised. Mother said that father gave the child whatever he asked for, without checking with her to see if the child had earned the rewards. The social worker instructed father to call TBS to make sure they were coming the following weekend and reminded him that he had agreed to participate in TBS services in order to continue having overnight visits.
The social worker spoke to father, who said he was giving the child his medication as prescribed. Father also said that mother was giving the child more medication than was actually needed. He believed the child was addicted to his medication, as evidenced by the child not being able to fall asleep without it. The social worker told father that he needed to have a TBS provider at his house so father could show that he was doing things correctly. Moreover, the TBS provider could communicate to him how the child was behaving during the week. Father became frustrated and said that the TBS provider was not available, did not call him back, and the one who was available did not speak Spanish. The social worker reiterated that a provider needed to be there due to the problems stated and that father needed to cooperate. As to the Wraparound services, father initially said he would participate. Once he found out that mother’s boyfriend would be attending, he refused to go. He then agreed to participate at least once a month after finding out his visitation would be limited if he was not actively participating in services to learn how to deal with the child’s behavior.
The status review report included a copy of a stipulated judgment of dissolution of marriage provided by mother. It was from the family law court and showed that, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the court ordered that mother have primary physical custody and sole legal custody of the child. The divorce proceedings were still pending.
As to the child, the social worker reported that he was rarely able to complete tasks independently and frequently needed prompting or a lot of help. He also continued to have outbursts of anger.
The social worker recommended that the court terminate the dependency and grant mother sole custody of the child. The social worker stated that mother was providing consistent, appropriate care to meet the child’s needs. Mother had been a participant in the case management support group through Riverside County Mental Health Children’s Treatment Services. She also had weekly Wraparound meetings in her home, as well as TBS services. The social worker described the relationship between mother and father as tumultuous. The social worker opined that father did not benefit from his domestic violence program, since he was apparently “trying to continue the cycle of domestic violence by isolating, triangulating, and using the child as a pawn to direct stress toward” mother. Father had not made face-to-face contact with mother to ensure that he understood the child’s medication regimen. He also gave the child a dog to bring home without first consulting with mother.
On March 17, 2009, the family maintenance and 12-month review hearing was continued to April 1, 2009.
In an addendum report filed on March 26, 2009, the social worker reported that on March 18, 2009, father had TBS at his home for the weekend and told the TBS coach that he no longer wanted TBS in his home since he did not see the need for the service. However, father did attend a Wraparound meeting on March 24, 2009, and it went well. The social worker opined that the discontinuity between father’s and mother’s households was impacting the success of the TBS and Wraparound services.
The social worker further reported that the child’s behavior was continuing to improve. He was now in the seventh grade at UHS School and had an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The child had placement as a service available to him through the IEP. Services that the school provided included a sign language interpreter, specialized academic instruction, and transportation. The social worker stated that if mother had sole physical and legal custody of the child, she could request a placement through the IEP without input from father. The child qualified for services due to his hearing impairment and emotional disturbance. The child was also attending individual counseling and received ongoing medication management and evaluation.
The social worker did not specify what the reference to “placement” meant. However, it appears to be referring to placement at UHS School.
At the review hearing on April 1, 2009, the court heard arguments from all parties—mother, father, the child, and the department. The court considered and admitted into evidence the social worker’s reports filed on February 20, 2009, and March 26, 2009. The court granted mother sole physical and legal custody of the child and terminated the dependency.
ANALYSIS
The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Father Joint Legal Custody
Father argues the court abused its discretion in denying him joint legal custody. We disagree.
Section 362.4 provides that: “When the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a minor who has been adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court prior to the minor’s attainment of the age of 18 years, and proceedings for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation, of the minor’s parents... are pending in the superior court of any county, or an order has been entered with regard to the custody of that minor, the juvenile court on its own motion, may issue a protective order as provided for in Section 213.5 or as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, and an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.” In making exit orders, the juvenile court must make an informed decision as to the best interests of the child. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973.) We “review the juvenile court’s decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue a custody (or ‘exit’) order pursuant to section 362.4 for abuse of discretion [citation]....” (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300.)
Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating dependency jurisdiction and granting mother sole physical and legal custody. In making its decision, the court carefully considered all the evidence and recognized that the reasons the case had been in dependency so long were because of an ongoing problem between mother and father, the collateral impact that the problem had on the child, and father’s inability to comply with the various services. The court noted the child was receiving mixed messages from the parents about the importance of his treatments, which were severely setting the child back. The court further opined that father was almost denying the severity of the child’s condition.
The evidence clearly supported the court’s decision. The child had many serious issues. He had been diagnosed with autism, impulse control disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and conduct disorder. He also had a learning disability and was hearing impaired. He was receiving two in-home behavioral management services, from TBS and Wraparound. The child was on many different medications to treat his disorders, and he also received other services, including mental health case management and individual counseling. Additionally, he had an IEP to help with his education.
Mother’s parenting skills were improving, and she was providing consistent, appropriate care to meet all of the child’s needs. She had been a participant in the case management support group through Riverside County Mental Health Children’s Treatment Services. She also had weekly Wraparound meetings in her home, as well as TBS services.
In contrast, father did not understand the child’s diagnoses and the serious nature of his behavior. At times, he failed to give the child his medication, citing that nothing was wrong with the child. Father did not believe that so many medications and services were needed to help the child improve his behavior. Although he was offered TBS and Wraparound services in his home, his compliance with those programs was minimal. He refused to have any communication with mother, apparently due to their tumultuous relationship. Thus, he was not getting information about the child’s behavior during the week. Father recently stated that he no longer wanted to receive TBS services, as he did not see the need for them. The social worker noted that the inconsistency between mother’s and father’s households was impacting the TBS services. Furthermore, although father did complete a domestic violence program as required, the social worker opined that he did not benefit from it, since he was apparently trying to continue the cycle of domestic violence with mother, using the child as a pawn.
In light of the evidence, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting mother sole physical and legal custody of the child. We note that father is free to seek joint legal custody in the family law court should circumstances change in the future. (In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 714, § 302, subd. (d).)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: MCKINSTER J., MILLER J.