Opinion
B214606.
1-8-2010
In re DANIEL B., JR., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, DANIEL B., SR., Respondent, F.S., SR., Respondent, MARIA G., Defendant and Respondent, v. DANIEL B., JR., et al., Appellants.
Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants. Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Department of Children and Family Services. Michael Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Daniel B., Sr. Andrea R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent F.S., Sr. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent Maria G.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
INTRODUCTION
Minors Daniel B., Jr. (Daniel), and F.S., Jr. (F.S.Jr.), challenge the dispositional order removing them from the physical custody of their mother, Maria G. (Mother), placing them with their respective fathers, Daniel B., Sr. (Daniel Sr.) and F.S., Sr. (F.S. Sr.), and terminating juvenile court jurisdiction with an exit order providing Mother with monitored visitation. We affirm.
In the record on appeal, Mother is sometimes referred to as Maria S.
Mother was married to F.S.Sr. from 2001 to 2005 but was never married to Daniel Sr.
We liberally construe Daniels and Freemans notice of appeal to encompass all rulings made at the disposition hearing on February 10, 2009. (In re Kenneth J. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 973, 978, fn. 5; In re Madison W. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1449-1451.) Thus, we reject the argument that the language of their notice of appeal limits their challenge solely to the order removing them from Mothers custody.
BACKGROUND
Before these proceedings were instituted, Mother and Daniel Sr. shared physical custody of Daniel, and Mother and F.S.Sr. shared physical custody of F.S.Jr. Mothers share of physical custody was 60 percent, while each fathers share was 40 percent. Legal custody of the children was shared by their respective parents.
In May 2006, Daniel and F.S.Jr., together with Mother, were living with their maternal grandparents when the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigated a report of sexual abuse by maternal grandfather, Jaime G. Mothers minor niece revealed that Jaime G. had touched her inappropriately. Mothers oldest sister, Patricia M., also disclosed that Jaime G. had molested her when she was a teenager. Although DCFS found the allegations regarding Daniel and F.S.Jr. to be inconclusive, a safety plan was implemented. Mother signed an affidavit stating that she would not leave her children alone with Jaime G. and moved out of her parents home.
Mother has two older sisters and one older brother. While Jaime G. is Mothers father, he is not the father of Mothers siblings.
In July 2008, in contravention of the affidavit she signed in 2006, Mother, Daniel and F.S.Jr. moved back into the maternal grandparents home temporarily until Mothers new residence was ready to move into. At the time, Daniel was almost 13, and F.S.Jr. was six. On more than one occasion, Mother left Daniel and F.S.Jr. alone with Jaime G. Although the boys denied any abuse, Daniel knew Jaime G. had sexually abused his cousin and therefore felt uncomfortable around Jaime G. Daniel told Daniel Sr. about being left alone with Jaime G. and expressed concern that Jaime G. would do something to him. This disclosure resulted in a referral to DCFS, which commenced an investigation into whether Daniel and F.S.Jr. were victims of sexual abuse, general neglect and failure to protect.
On July 18, 2008, Mother admitted to an emergency response social worker that she and the boys had moved back in with the maternal grandparents two to three weeks before and that she had left the children unsupervised with Jaime G. two or three times. With regard to her 2006 affidavit, Mother explained that during subsequent proceedings in family law court, the judge asked her whether Jaime G. had been arrested or DCFS had taken further action. When Mother answered in the negative, the court indicated it did not want to hear anything further on the matter. At that point, Mother believed she no longer needed to abide by her affidavit.
After investigating, DCFS gave Mother the choice of moving out of the maternal grandparents home and staying somewhere else until her home was ready to occupy or temporarily placing Daniel and F.S.Jr. in their respective fathers care. Mother elected to move in with her sister, Lorena D., and signed another affidavit stating she would not leave her sons alone with Jaime G.
On September 17, 2008, DCFS filed a dependency petition alleging that Daniel and F.S.Jr. were persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), as a result of Mothers conduct. DCFS did not detain the children, however. Rather, it allowed them to remain with Mother.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At a hearing held on September 30, 2008, the juvenile court issued temporary restraining orders against Mothers boyfriend, Randy C., as a result of an altercation that transpired in the court parking lot that morning. Randy C. verbally threatened and advanced toward Daniel Sr. and F.S.Sr. in the presence of the children. Randy C. also made a threat of future harm. The court ordered Randy C. not to have contact with the children, their fathers and Daniel Sr.s girlfriend, Tina J. The court further ordered that the children were not to be released to Mother until Randy C. moved out of Mothers home and DCFS verified that he had moved out. The temporary restraining orders were set to expire at midnight on October 20 but were extended on more than one occasion.
At the detention hearing held on October 1, 2008, the court detained the children from Mother and ordered them to remain released to their respective fathers. The court further ordered monitored visitation and family reunification services for Mother. The services were to include sex abuse awareness counseling, individual counseling and parenting. In light of the boys desire to see their maternal grandparents, the court ordered visits to be monitored by a social worker at DCFS offices.
On November 12, 2008, Mother waived her rights and pled no contest to the petition which, as amended and sustained, alleged that on numerous occasions Mother endangered Daniel and F.S.Jr. by allowing them to have unsupervised contact with Jaime G., with the knowledge that he had a history of sexually inappropriate behavior with Mothers two sisters when they were minors, as well as a pre-teen niece. By leaving her sons with Jaime G., Mother jeopardized her sons physical and emotional health and placed them at risk of sexual abuse.
A contested disposition hearing thereafter was held between November 26, 2008 and February 10, 2009, during which both documentary and testimonial evidence was received by the court.
Daniel testified that he had a good relationship with Randy C., who had never done anything to make him feel unsafe or uncomfortable. If Daniel moved back with Mother, he wanted Randy C. to live with them. If he was not able to return to Mother, Daniel wanted to maintain a relationship with Randy C.
Daniel clearly was bonded to Mother and explained that the most difficult thing for him had been "not being able to see my mom." Daniel added, "[its] just hard not to be able to see her," at which point he started to cry. According to Daniel, Mother made life fun for him and F.S.Jr. Living with his father was "hard" because he could not see Mother. Although Daniel liked his fathers girlfriend, Tina J., it upset Daniel when Tina J. talked about Mother. Daniel described Daniel Sr. as a "little more strict" than Mother.
Daniel had a good relationship with his brother. Daniel said things were "different" however, now that they were living with different fathers. When Daniel and F.S.Jr. were together with Mother, "we know thats both our mom." Daniel acknowledged that he saw his brother regularly at football practice and they had sleepovers together.
With regard to Jaime G., Daniel described their relationship as "fun." Daniel denied that Jaime G. ever touched him inappropriately or made him feel unsafe. Daniel did not remember telling the social worker that he was concerned about being alone with Jaime G. Daniel wanted to continue to see Jaime G. at family gatherings.
F.S.Jr. missed Mother and wanted to live with her on some days and with F.S.Sr. on other days. F.S.Jr. also liked and did not fear Randy C. F.S.Jr. would be comfortable talking with Randy C. and living with him. F.S.Jr. also liked living with his grandparents and had never been afraid of or uncomfortable around Jaime G.
Lorena D. had no relationship with Jaime G. who molested her when she was young. Lorena D described Jaime G. as the man "married to my mom." Lorena D. never left her children alone with Jaime G. and never let him babysit her two children. Lorena D. shared that her mother and Jaime G. were getting a divorce.
When Jaime G. molested Lorena D., Mother was only three or four years old. Mother had no knowledge of what Jaime G. had done until Jaime G. molested Mothers niece. At that time, Lorena D. disclosed Jaime G.s misdeeds to Mother, who was in denial. She did not want to hear such things about her father.
Since initiation of this dependency proceeding, Lorena D. and Mother had been in close contact. Mother now knew everything Jaime G. had done and, according to Lorena D., had "come a long way. She is stronger. She is taking responsibility. Shes holding herself accountable for her mistakes. Shes doing all she can." Mother had since apologized to Lorena D. for her initial disbelief. According to Lorena D., Mother no longer was in denial.
Lorena D. further shared that Mother was in individual therapy and had changed. Mother had matured and was taking responsibility. She was not making excuses. She admitted her mistakes. Mother also no longer had a relationship with her father. Mother did not speak to or see Jaime G. Mother had cut all ties with him. Jaime G. had moved out of the family house, and he and his wife were getting a divorce. His personal belongings were no longer in the family home. Jaime G. was living with his sister, and maternal grandmother only contacted Jaime G. to discuss divorce-related matters. Jaime G. was not present at family get-togethers that took place after October 2008.
Lorena D. further recounted that one evening Mother called her and was very upset because she thought she might have violated a court order. Mother told Lorena D. that she had been talking to F.S.Jr. when F.S.Jr. asked to speak to Randy C. Mother allowed F.S.Jr. to speak to Randy C. and then finished her conversation with him. F.S.Sr., who monitored the call, contacted Mother later that evening and asked about the conversation. Mother was quite upset, in that she had been trying to comply with the courts orders and believed she had made a mistake by allowing F.S.Jr. to talk to Randy C.
Lorena D. also recounted an incident that she recently overheard between Daniel and Daniel Sr. One evening, Lorena D. was having dinner with Mother when Daniel called. Mother missed the call but called right back. Although it appeared that someone had answered the call, Mother was unable to elicit a response from Daniel. Mother, who looked alarmed, put her phone on speaker. For the next 12 minutes, Lorena D. listened to a "very heated" conversation that Daniel Sr. was having with Daniel. Daniel Sr. was reprimanding Daniel for bad grades.
Lorena D. described Daniel Sr.s tone as "horrible, degrading, abusing [and] belittling." Daniel Sr. repeatedly used the "F-word." Daniel Sr. called Daniel an "F-ing little crybaby" and repeatedly told him to stop crying. Daniel Sr. also could be heard telling Daniel that he would not amount to anything, that he would not be able to get into any of the schools he had talked about and that he would be nothing without an education.
Lorena D. further recounted that Daniel Sr. told Daniel "he could go to Mexico and bring a little boy from Mexico who would work for food, and that he would guarantee that he would bring him straight As. . . . [Y]ou cant even F-ing do that. You cant bring me F-ing good grades." Daniel Sr. also told his son, "every time you cry Im going to tell your friends. . . . [Y]ou think youre really cute with your little girlfriends. And the only piece of ass youre going to get is from a bum on the streets with a disease and youre going to have to be on the corner begging." Daniel Sr. also threatened to take away Daniels privileges and clothes. Daniel Sr. told Daniel "[h]e was going to have to wear old clothes, scrub his old shoes, and he told him that he was going to keep him from wearing those skinny little fag[g]ot jeans that he wears." In addition, Daniel Sr. said, "I will send your ass to boot camp because I love you" and "Im not doing this. Youre doing this to yourself. Im doing this because I love you."
Other than trying to say "dad" and crying, Daniel did not speak through the entire conversation. Lorena D. knew that Daniel had bad grades but was unaware that Daniel had been suspended from school.
According to Lorena D., Daniel Sr. "never had respect for me, for my mom, for my sister, for our home. He has always had a very dirty mouth, and hes always been very derogatory, [had a] bad mouth, foul mouth, and [been] disrespectful."
Shocked and appalled by what she had heard, Lorena D. accompanied Mother to the police station to make a report. The police later reported that they went to Daniel Sr.s home but did not remove Daniel.
Mother testified that since attending parenting classes and counseling, she understood that her "father, in fact, is a child molester and has done very inappropriate things to family members, to my family members . . . ." She was no longer in denial and acknowledged that it had been difficult to hear or think about her father being a child molester.
Having learned the details about what Jaime G. had done, Mother now understood why her sisters "were the way they were as I was growing up." Mother cut all ties with Jaime G. and "remove[d] him from her life." She had not spoken to her father in five months.
Mother acknowledged that she had placed her children at risk. If the court returned her boys to her, she would not allow them to have any contact with Jaime G. If the court precluded Randy C. from having contact with the children, Mother would ask Randy C. to move out of the house and separate from him. She stated, "Hes my boyfriend, but my kids come first. So theres no question there."
With regard to the affidavit she signed in 2006, she now had a different outlook. She admitted that she made a mistake and learned from it. She said her children came first and "if it means choosing my children over my father, over my boyfriend, whoever—anybody, of course, those are my kids. I would keep them safe without a doubt."
Mother acknowledged having a conversation with Daniel Sr. during which she told him she had bought a home, had to move out of her apartment and was going to live with her parents for a month until her house was ready. She also had a similar conversation with F.S.Sr. Neither father had an objection. Daniel Sr. only discussed pick-ups and drop-offs with her.
Mother had completed 12 or 13 parenting classes out of 20 and was scheduled to complete the program in March 2009. Mother also attended a similar number of individual counseling sessions. Mother was intent on continuing in therapy even after the court no longer required it. She found therapy to be very helpful and thought it would be beneficial to have the boys join her in therapy. Discussions of sexual abuse during therapy had helped her establish clear boundaries.
With regard to the incident that transpired in the parking lot earlier in this case, Mother claimed that Daniel Sr. instigated the incident. The maternal grandmother had walked over to say goodbye to the boys when Daniel Sr. said, "Get out of here lady. Go back to your child molesting husband." The children were close by at the time. Daniel Sr. also told Randy C., "you picked yourself a real winner," to which Randy C. replied, "matter of fact I did. And shes a good mother, and its sad you guys cant see that."
Thereafter, F.S.Sr. approached Randy C. and started arguing with him. F.S.Sr. told Randy C. "you know where to find me on the football field" and "its none of your business." Mother only recalled F.S.Sr. throwing his hands up in the air.
Mother also recounted that once while speaking to F.S.Jr. on the telephone, F.S.Jr. asked to talk to Randy C. Mother passed the phone to Randy C., who spoke with F.S.Jr. briefly. Mother then finished her conversation with F.S.Jr. At no time did F.S.Sr., who was monitoring the conversation, object to F.S.Jr. talking to Randy C. The following day, the social worker "gave it to her," explaining that she had violated the restraining order.
Mother also described an incident that occurred after one of Daniels football games. Mother was the athletic director of her sons football league. After a game that Mother, maternal grandmother and other family members attended, Daniel came up to Mother and maternal grandmother and gave each a kiss and a hug. Daniel Sr. was nearby. Mother was not aware at the time that maternal grandmothers contact with the children had to be monitored.
Although Mother admitted to being present at the first court hearing at which the court ordered maternal grandmothers visits to be monitored, she did not hear the court make the order regarding monitored visits. When she heard a discussion regarding removal of her children, she became very emotional and "blocked everything out." After her attorney explained what the order for monitored visitation meant, she never brought maternal grandmother to another football game.
After a short break in the proceedings, Daniel Sr.s attorney asked Mother to explain a text message that appears to have been intended for Randy C. but was actually sent to Daniel Sr. during the break. The text stated, "Hey, I said [Daniel Sr.] didnt say much to you, that it was more [F.S.Sr.]. He threw his hands up at you. You never did okay or made threats to anyone, either one of them." Mother admitted sending the text message but claimed she intended to send it to Daniel Sr. When asked why she referred to Daniel Sr. in the third person if she was texting him, Mother reiterated that her text was intended for Daniel Sr. Mother added that the altercation had been between Randy C. and F.S.Sr. and that Randy C. and Daniel Sr. did not threaten one another.
Mother, whose visits with her children also were to be monitored, admitted that she approached Daniel in a restaurant without a monitor. Mother had accompanied friends to a restaurant after a football game for a birthday party. Mother was surprised to see Daniel and Tina J. at the restaurant. Mother said "hi" to Daniel, kissed him on the cheek, told him to enjoy his dinner and proceeded to a separate room in which the party was being held. Mothers exchange with Daniel lasted less than one minute.
Daniel Sr. and F.S.Sr. also testified at the contested disposition hearing. Daniel Sr. admitted that he had "disciplined" Daniel for more than 10 minutes and that he cursed (i.e., used the "F-word") repeatedly while doing so. Daniel Sr. was angry, in that Daniel had been suspended from school for throwing a "slushy" on another student, and Daniel Sr. considered suspension a serious matter. Daniel Sr. shared that Daniel had "teenager issues."
Daniel Sr. told Daniel "school can be easy and I dont understand whats so hard about it." Daniel Sr. acknowledged telling Daniel, "if I got a child from Mexico, you know, that he would be willing to get good grades, and that it wouldnt be too tough for him to get good grades." Daniel Sr. stressed the importance of getting good grades in school. Daniel Sr. told Daniel to stop crying and criticized his decision to wear tight jeans. Daniel Sr. admitted that he cursed while disciplining Daniel, explaining, however, that he only did so 50 percent of the time. Daniel Sr. had disciplined Daniel four or five times, and Daniel had been suspended from school twice since coming to live with Daniel Sr.
Daniel Sr. later apologized to Daniel "for the way I conducted myself and cursing." Daniel Sr. also told Daniel he loved him and gave him a hug. Daniel Sr. confirmed that the police came to his home following the incident but did not remove Daniel from his home.
With regard to the incident that took place in the parking lot of the courthouse, Daniel Sr. acknowledged that he told the maternal grandmother "she needs to go back to her molesting husband."
Daniel Sr. also testified that he did object to Mother moving back into her parents home with the children. He was concerned that Daniel was being left with Jaime G. and the maternal grandmother, who stayed with Jaime G. despite knowing what he had done. While Mother and the children were living at the maternal grandparents home, Daniel Sr. picked up Daniel from the house for his scheduled visits.
Based upon his concerns about Daniel living with his maternal grandparents and Daniels statements that he did not want to stay with his Mother and that Mother had hit him in the face with a wooden baseball bat, Daniel Sr. went to the police. Also of concern to Daniel Sr. was Mothers repeated refusal to take Daniel to the doctor when he had ear infections. Daniel Sr. was taking Daniel to therapy and was trying to increase the frequency of Daniels appointments from once to twice per month.
F.S.Sr. testified that he was not happy about Mother moving back into her parents house. He feared that F.S.Jr. might become a victim of molestation. F.S.Sr. usually picked up F.S.Jr. from school or day care. Only once did F.S.Sr. pick up F.S.Jr. from his grandparents house after Mother moved back in with her parents.
F.S.Sr. confirmed that he heard F.S.Jr. talking to Randy C. on the phone on one occasion in violation of a court order. The conversation was brief. F.S.Sr. did not discuss the violation with Mother. Rather, F.S.Sr. called the social worker.
After entertaining counsels arguments, the juvenile court, pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c), found by clear and convincing evidence that returning the boys to Mother would place them in substantial danger and that there were no reasonable means to protect the boys without removing them from their Mothers custody. The court therefore ordered the children removed from their Mother with whom they had been residing at the time the petition was filed and noted that reasonable efforts had been made to eliminate the need for removal.
The juvenile court then made the following observations: "Ive heard a lot of discussion about good choices and bad choices and while I agree with some of that, the words that keep [coming] to my mind are `common sense. [¶] It is common sense to me to not leave your children unmonitored with someone you know to be a child molester. Its common sense. We would hope that we could rely on parents to use that common sense, but if we didnt have common sense, we had an agreement that the Mother signed with [DCFS] that she would not leave the children with the child molester regardless of who he was.
"And I would note that after the family law case the mother said she was under the impression that she no longer needed to abide by the affidavit, because the judge in family law asked her if [Jaime G.] had been arrested or if anything was being done by DCFS or if [Jaime G.] had a criminal background.
"The fact that Mother said no to those, not that she didnt know that he had molested various members of the family, but because [Jaime G.] had not been arrested or have a criminal background and [DCFS] had not done anything other than have her sign an affidavit, Mother decided she no longer needed to abide by it, because apparently the children were no longer at risk. [¶] Thats not bad decisions, thats a lack of common sense. And the question is, is there a threat to the children? Counsel argued that the threat to the children was the existence of [Jaime G.] in their lives. That is true. That is, but not the threats. But the bigger threat is Mothers refusal to protect her children.
"I think that counsel has pointed out the issues since weve come in, that also continue to cause this court serious concern about the Mothers common sense. [¶] Mother has had an excuse every single time she has not obeyed a court order. She didnt follow through with what she signed for the Department, its because she didnt think she needed to abide by that anymore because of the family law court. [¶] She was too confused to know what the court said about the maternal grandmother, but one of the things that wasnt pointed out that hit me strong enough for me to make a note about it when Mother was testifying about the conversation that she allowed Randy to have with the children, she said that the child ask[ed] if that [was] Randy. Mothers answer to this child was, `yes. But it was really the television. [¶] So Mother even went out of her way to lie to the child about what the child was hearing just to put Randy on the phone in spite of the restraining order.
"The text message that Mother sent — which was also clear to this court was meant to go to [Randy C.] and not to [Daniel Sr.] — is clear to me that she continued to lie on the witness stand.
"And so all of the testimony about how she gets it now is not credible. The failure to follow court orders, even while the trial is pending, Mother wasnt even capable of doing. She continues to refuse to protect her children. [¶] Its just way down on her list of things to do is to protect her children. And that is why the court has found a substantial danger if the children were returned.
"I dont see that based on Mothers actions, not on her words, but what shes actually done in this case, and even in the middle of her testimony, continued to evidence that nothing has changed since the allegations were made.
"The court finds that both fathers were parents of the children with whom they were not residing at the time the petition was filed and they do desire custody.
"By clear and convincing evidence the court finds that placement with these father[s] would not be detrimental to the safety, protection, physical, or emotional well-being. Daniel, Jr. is hereby placed with his father. . . [and] [F.S., Jr.] is hereby placed with his father . . . . [¶] And the court is terminating jurisdiction with family law orders giving physical and legal custody to the fathers, with monitored visits for the Mother."
In response to the request of Daniel Sr.s counsel as to what Mother would have to do to get unmonitored visits, the court stated, "[t]he Mother would need to show that she is capable of telling the truth; and that shes capable of doing things that put her children first. That would be a good start. [¶] But, Mothers fabricated testimony on the witness stand, as well as her continued failure to obey court orders and continue to put the children at risk makes this court believe that theres absolutely a risk here even with unmonitored contact."
The court further noted that "Mothers apparently in individual counseling pursuant to the reports. Mother needs to continue that counseling, clearly to address the issues here, not only the intergenerational sexual abuse, but her unwillingness and inability to put her children first or to wish to protect them."
The court thereupon terminated its jurisdiction and directed counsel for the fathers to provide family law orders. With regard to the restraining order, the court found "that this was a situation that got out of control and inappropriate things were said around. Clearly [Randy C.] was out of line, but I do not see a continuing risk to anybody in this case. And the court is not issuing a permanent restraining order on either of the two who are currently in effect."
DISCUSSION
Removal Order
Daniel and F.S.Jr. challenge the juvenile courts order removing them from the custody of Mother. We find no merit to this challenge.
The juvenile court may remove a child from the physical custody of his parent if clear and convincing evidence establishes that there is "a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minors physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the" physical custody of his parent. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re H.E. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 710, 718.) On appeal, the reviewing court will uphold the removal order if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 462-463.) In making this assessment, the appellate court must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the juvenile court and review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile courts determination. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) In addition, the reviewing court has "no power to pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or determine where the weight of the evidence lies." (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
The juvenile court removed Daniel and F.S.Jr. from Mothers custody because it perceived a substantial risk to the children if left in her custody and care. The courts lengthy ruling detailed above demonstrates unequivocally that it did not believe Mothers testimony and thus focused on Mothers actions, rather than her words, to conclude that the boys had to be removed from her custody.
Mother, who attended the required counseling, testified that she had cut all ties with her father and had learned to put her children first and to protect them. The court did not find Mother to be credible, however, a determination we may not disturb. (In re Diamond H., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1135.) Instead, the court focused on Mothers initial disregard for the safety affidavit she signed in 2006, as well as her repeated failures during the pendency of these proceedings to abide by court orders designed to protect Daniel and F.S.Jr. These failures included allowing F.S.Jr. to talk to Randy C. on the telephone in contravention of a temporary restraining order and allowing the maternal grandmother to have unmonitored contact with Daniel at a football game. Also troubling to the juvenile court was its belief that Mother lied on the witness stand regarding a text message she sent during a recess in court proceedings. Given the juvenile courts disbelief of Mother and its determination that Mother violated court orders designed to protect her children, a finding that is supported by substantial evidence, we have no basis for disturbing the courts removal order. (In re H.E., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 718; In re Javier G., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 462-463.)
Placement Order
Daniel and F.S.Jr. maintain that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding by clear and convincing evidence that placing the children in the homes of their respective fathers would not be detrimental to their emotional well-being. We disagree.
Section 361.2, subdivision (a), provides: "When a 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. If that parent requests custody, 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." (Accord, In re Austin P. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129; In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1820-1821.)
Focusing first on Daniel, we note that Mother and Daniel Sr. shared physical and legal custody of Daniel. At the time of the events giving rise to juvenile court jurisdiction, Daniel was in the physical custody of Mother. Daniel Sr. was nonoffending and requested that he be given custody of Daniel. Upon removing Daniel from the custody of Mother, the court placed him in the sole physical custody of his father. In so doing, the court determined that such placement was not detrimental to Daniels safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. It is this finding that Daniel challenges.
In making his challenge, Daniel points to the incident recounted by Lorena D. during which Daniel Sr. yelled and cursed at Daniel. Daniel maintains that this "disturbing evidence" demonstrates that there is a significant, actual risk of emotional harm if placed in his fathers care without requiring Daniel Sr. to undergo parenting, anger management or other appropriate counseling.
While Daniel Sr. could have handled the situation better, his behavior unquestionably was motivated by genuine concern and love for his son. Daniel Sr.s statements reflected a father who wanted his son to succeed and to understand and appreciate the value of hard work and an education. Daniel Sr. recognized that he crossed a line and later apologized to Daniel. The juvenile court, having been fully apprised about the incident, concluded nonetheless that placing Daniel with his father was not detrimental to his safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Daniel has not convinced us that we should disturb this finding.
Daniel and F.S.Jr. further assert that placement with their fathers was detrimental because of their sibling bond, which the juvenile court failed to consider. During the contested disposition hearing, in response to an assertion by the brothers counsel that there was "an argument for a sibling bond," the juvenile court observed, "Lots of children have different fathers and live with them, counsel." The court therefore was well aware of the issue.
While the importance of a sibling bond cannot be overstated (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425), such a bond cannot, and does not, trump a determination that the siblings would be at risk if they remained together in the custody of the offending parent, as the juvenile court determined in this case. Inasmuch as the boys had different nonoffending fathers and each father wished to take custody of his son, the boys necessarily would be in different households once removed from Mother. Fortunately, Daniel Sr. and F.S.Sr. were friends, who understood the importance of the brothers relationship and arranged sleepovers for the boys. In addition, the boys saw each other on a regular basis at their football practices and games and were able to interact during visits with Mother.
The particular circumstances of this case compel the conclusion that the juvenile court at all times acted in the best interests of Daniel and F.S.Jr. and considered the brothers relationship. (In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 268.) The existence of a sibling bond alone, however, did not require the court to return the boys to Mother or preclude it from placing them with their respective fathers.
Termination and Exit Orders
Daniel and F.S.Jr. contend that the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating jurisdiction with custody orders rather than ordering continued services for all three parents. We again disagree.
As this court observed in Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300-301, "[w]e normally review the juvenile courts decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue a custody (or `exit) order pursuant to section 362.4 for abuse of discretion (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 . . .) and may not disturb the order unless the court `"`exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations]." (Ibid. . . .)" In assessing whether the juvenile court properly terminated jurisdiction, "the issue to be addressed is the best interest of the child." (In re Robert L. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 789, 793.)
Section 362.4 in relevant part 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 minors attainment of the age of 18 years, . . . the juvenile court on its own motion, may issue . . . an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child."
In this case, Daniel Sr. and F.S.Sr. were nonoffending parents, each fully capable of caring for his son, without DCFS support or juvenile court supervision. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court properly terminated jurisdiction over Daniel and F.S.Jr. (In re Twighla T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 799, 805-806.)
Although the juvenile court would have acted well within its discretion to continue its jurisdiction and order additional services for the parents, its failure to do so cannot be deemed an abuse of that discretion.
Daniel and F.S.Jr. also challenge the exit order granting Mother monitored, as opposed to unmonitored, visitation. We conclude that the risks warranting Daniels and F.S.Jr.s removal from Mother in the first instance also amply support the juvenile courts decision to make an exit order allowing Mother to have only monitored visits with her sons. Of course, Mother, as well as Daniel Sr. and F.S.Sr., may in the future seek modification of the juvenile courts custody and visitation orders in the family law court. (In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 714.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.