Opinion
B299753
03-12-2020
In re MAXINE R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES R., Defendant and Appellant.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP00755) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed. Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Charles R., father of six-year-old Maxine R., appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying his request at a disposition hearing for unsupervised visitation. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the juvenile court's order.
BACKGROUND
Maxine came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in early January 2019, after her mother, Paloma V., was arrested on an outstanding warrant for violation of probation after a conviction of unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another with the intent to defraud under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (c)(2). During the course of its investigation, DCFS discovered that both father and mother had extensive histories of drug abuse. Father admitted to DCFS that he had used methamphetamine as recently as the week before his interview. Various interviews also revealed that father and mother had a domestic violence history that continued even after the two ceased being a couple.
Mother was also party to the proceedings below, but did not file a notice of appeal.
Maxine lived with father in a converted garage on father's family's property. Based on DCFS's investigation, it sought and received an order to remove Maxine from father's care and placed her in the home of her maternal grandmother, Maria V. Father had been largely uncooperative with DCFS's investigation, declining to respond to questions, refusing to find a job, and refusing to acknowledge that there were any concerns or problems with his ability to care and provide for Maxine. Nevertheless, DCFS made arrangements to allow father visitation with Maxine to be supervised with DCFS approval by Maxine's paternal grandmother, Luisa R.
On February 2, 2019, as the first scheduled visitation concluded, father refused to return Maxine to the person who was present to transport her back to maternal grandmother. According to DCFS, "[f]ather continued to refuse after being told by all family present what the consequences of his actions would be. Per Whittier [Police Department] police report, as reported by [maternal uncle], the father ran around the parking lot with minor, Maxine, evading family trying to get her. Father called a transportation company ([i.e.], Uber/Lyft) and when they arrived, he left with Maxine." After significant police involvement, paternal grandmother returned Maxine to maternal grandmother's home on the afternoon of February 3.
Father complied with the juvenile court's visitation order after the February 2, 2019 incident.
On February 5, 2019, DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). Counts a-1 and b-3 alleged that father and mother's domestic altercations placed Maxine at risk, and that mother had failed to protect Maxine because she allowed Maxine to continue to live with father. Counts b-1 and b-2 alleged that father's (b-1) and mother's (b-2) substance abuse rendered them unable to care for Maxine. And count j-1 alleged that mother's substance abuse had resulted in mother's older daughter, Amber V., receiving permanent placement services.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The juvenile court held a detention hearing on February 6, 2019. The court detained Maxine from mother and father in the home of maternal grandmother with the condition that mother could not move back into the home if released from jail. At the detention hearing, father requested unsupervised visitation. The juvenile court granted both parents supervised visitation.
The juvenile court called the matter for a jurisdiction and disposition hearing on May 13, 2019. Mother's counsel requested a continuance of the hearing based on mother's imminent release from jail. Father renewed his request for unsupervised visitation with Maxine, and the juvenile court again denied the request. The court continued the jurisdiction and disposition hearing to July 12, 2019 to allow mother time to begin programs after her release.
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 12, 2019, both mother and father pleaded no contest to an amended section 300 petition. The juvenile court sustained an amended count b-3 as to mother, and amended counts b-1 and b-3 as to father. Father again requested unsupervised visitation, and the juvenile court again denied father's request. Father's case plan included a full drug and alcohol program with aftercare, a certified batterer's intervention domestic violence program, weekly random or on demand drug and alcohol testing, a 12 step program, parenting courses, individual counseling to specifically address child safety and anger management issues, and supervised visitation.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Father appeals exclusively from the juvenile court's denial of his request for unsupervised visitation. Father makes a variety of factual arguments about why his request for unsupervised visitation should have been granted, but ultimately characterizes the juvenile court's denial as an abuse of discretion based on insufficiency of evidence to show that "Maxine's safety would be jeopardized by granting father unsupervised visits." Father bases his argument on section 362.1.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's denial of father's request. At the end of his first supervised visitation, father refused to return Maxine to her caregiver. "[E]vidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions." (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993.) Father's history of and recent drug use, including his missed tests, are further independent evidence sufficient to support the juvenile court's denial of unsupervised visitation. On this record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CHANEY, J. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.