Opinion
B302539
07-14-2020
In re MASON D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL D., Defendant and Appellant.
Lori N. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19CCJP04559B-C) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Victor G. Viramontes, Judge. Affirmed. Lori N. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Paul D. (father) challenges the juvenile court's dispositional order removing Mason D. (Mason, born Dec. 2011) and Caleb D. (Caleb, born Apr. 2017) from his physical custody.
Because the juvenile court's dispositional order is supported by substantial evidence and was well-within the juvenile court's discretion, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Family
This family consists of Jeanette M. (mother), father, and three children: Emily B. (Emily, born Dec. 2005), Mason, and Caleb. Mason and Caleb's parents are mother and father. Emily's parents are mother and Oscar B. (Oscar). At the time this matter was initiated, all three children lived with mother and father in the paternal grandmother Laura S.'s home (the family home), with Emily sometimes also living with Oscar and his wife in their home.
Detention Report (July 19, 2019)
The referral incident
On June 4, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral that alleged domestic violence between mother and father. During an argument about father's unfaithfulness, father grabbed mother by her arm and pushed her into a wall. Mother suffered marks on her chest and arm caused by this violence. Then seven-year-old Mason was in the kitchen and observed this violence. Then two-year-old Caleb did not observe the violence. Father then left the home before returning to retrieve an item. During that interim period, police arrived at the home and planned to arrest father. Mother disclosed that the parents had a history of domestic violence.
Prior incident of domestic violence
On June 6, 2019, the social worker assigned to the referral learned some information about a prior incident of domestic violence between the parents. According to another social worker, the parents had been arguing about father's unfaithfulness and money that father reportedly owed mother. During the argument, mother slapped father and was subsequently arrested for this act. Mother claimed that she had struck father while defending herself.
June 10, 2019, home visit
On June 10, 2019, the original social worker made an unannounced visit to the family home, where he encountered father. As for the referral incident, father stated the parents had been arguing about mother "cheating on him." He denied that he grabbed and pushed mother during the incident, or that he had ever acted in a violent manner towards mother. He also stated he was arrested and briefly jailed following the argument, and the parents had not addressed the argument since it occurred. As for the family's living situation, father stated the home was owned by the paternal grandmother and had a number of bedrooms; he lived there along with mother, the three children, and some paternal relatives; and he currently slept on the couch.
The police report
On June 10, 2019, the social worker also obtained a copy of a police report related to the referral incident. According to the report, the police were summoned to the family home upon receiving an emergency call. Upon their arrival, the police first interviewed mother, who stated she had "gotten into an altercation with [father] over him having a second cell phone." When mother confronted father about the telephone, he accused her "of having a sexual relationship with his brother." During the argument, father "grabbed [mother] by her right arm using his left hand," and then "used his right hand to push her into a wall before leaving the location in his vehicle." Police observed visible redness on mother's chest and right forearm. Additionally, mother stated that the incident had occurred in the home's hallway, Mason had observed the incident, and he desired prosecution of father. Following this interview, the police spoke with Mason, who stated that he was in kitchen when the incident occurred, which he described as father yelling at mother, grabbing mother, and then slamming mother into a wall. The police later interviewed father, who denied that any physical violence occurred and stated that mother had followed and yelled at him as he tried to leave for work. He later returned to the home to retrieve a backpack. Upon his return, the police arrested him for violating Penal Code section 273.5 (corporal injury to spouse or cohabitant).
June 21, 2019, home visit
On June 21, 2019, the social worker returned to the family home. She first spoke with mother, asking about her domestic violence history with father and father's whereabouts. Mother stated she and father had been in an intimate relationship for the past 11 years. During this relationship, father had cheated on her multiple times. On June 4, 2019, the parents began arguing after mother learned from father's brother that father had a "'secret phone'" that he used to "'contact his other women.'" Mother confronted father about this telephone, and father replied by accusing mother of having an affair with his brother. As mother held the telephone at issue, father tried to take it out of her hand, and "pushed her against the wall" while doing so. Both children were in the home when the incident occurred. Following the incident, mother called the police, and father was later arrested. Additionally, mother stated there had been "numerous physical altercations" between her and father in the past; she had never reported those altercations, and she had been defending herself from father when arrested by the police one year earlier. Finally, mother asserted she was no longer in a relationship with father, she had obtained a temporary restraining order against him, and she did not know his current whereabouts.
The social worker next interviewed Mason. When asked about father's whereabouts, Mason replied that father "'had to leave [the family home] . . . because he pushed and hit [mother].'" When asked to describe the referral incident, Mason stated the following: "'[H]e got mad at my mom, and he pushed her against the wall by the door. I saw everything. He got really mad. He threw a plate at the wall by my mom and the police came.'" Mason also disclosed that he had seen father "hit/slap/push/punch" mother on past occasions and that father had also hit him in the chest with an open hand when angry and disciplining him. When asked if he felt safe in father's care, Mason replied, "'sometimes'" and explained, "'he's mean. He gets angry a lot, and I don't like it.'"
Following these interviews, the social worker assessed the family home. She counseled mother to obtain a bed for Caleb as opposed to the child sleeping with her. She also saw that Mason had his own bed, the home's utilities functioned, and there was adequate food in the home.
June 27, 2019, visit to Oscar's home
On June 27, 2019, the social worker made an announced visit to Oscar's home. The social worker met with Oscar and Emily, who was at the home having a slumber party. Emily stated that she was not present when the referral incident occurred. However, she had seen mother and father engaged in verbal and physical fights on past occasions. She had also seen father hit, and threaten to hit, Mason on past occasions. Specifically, father had hit Mason in the chest and had also threatened to hit Mason with a belt, though she had never seen him actually do so. Emily also stated that she did not feel safe at the family home due to father's anger issues, and she was frustrated with mother for remaining in a relationship with him.
June 27, 2019, visit with father
On June 27, 2019, the social worker made a scheduled visit with father at a DCFS office. Father arrived at the visit with both Mason and Caleb. Father explained that he was allowed to have peaceful contact with mother and have visitation with the children pending a criminal court appearance next month. As for the referral incident, father denied any physical violence between him and mother, saying, "'[N]othing happened. I didn't put my hand on her and push her against the wall. She's been cheating on me with my brother and she can have him.'" Father also denied that Mason was able to observe the argument between him and mother, saying that the child was behind a wall that was between him and the parents. Father also stated the district attorney had dropped the criminal charges against him and that he was working with an attorney regarding the restraining order that mother had obtained against him. Father further stated he currently lived in the homes of friends and other family members, and he hoped to return to the family home and possibly resume his relationship with mother. As for how he disciplined the children, father denied ever hitting them, though admitted he had "scared" them in the past by threatening he would "get a belt." The social worker also observed that the children appeared comfortable in father's care and had no visible marks or bruises on them.
July 8, 2019, calls with father's relatives and mother's therapist
On July 8, 2019, the social worker spoke with the paternal grandmother over the telephone. She stated that father had not been at the family home since mother obtained the restraining order against him. She described mother as a "'good mother'" and father as a "'womanizer'" and "'not a good man.'" The paternal grandmother also stated that she had witnessed mother and father argue in the past, but she had never seen their arguments become physical, though she heard from other family members that there had been physical fights between them. The paternal grandmother further stated that mother and the children were welcome to continue residing in the family home even though father was no longer living there.
That same day, the social worker spoke with a paternal aunt, Lauren D. (Lauren), over the telephone. Lauren reported that father was "'aggressive'" towards others, had a "temper," and tried to "intimidate" people when arguing with them. She also stated that father had slapped Mason sometime last year, though she described the slap as "'playful'" after Mason accidentally dropped a puppy. When asked if the children had disclosed any concerns, Lauren replied that Emily had confided in her that father treated her "'more like a servant than a child,'" such as expecting Emily to clean up any messes that he made.
Next, the social worker spoke with a paternal uncle, Matt D. (Matt), over the telephone. Matt stated that he was at the family home when the referral incident occurred. He was in another room when he heard the parents arguing and an object violently break somewhere in the home, which prompted him to call the police. Matt also stated that he had never seen father hit mother, though he had heard from mother that father had "choked" her on prior occasions. Additionally, Matt disclosed that he once had to intervene when father tried to hit their own mother (the paternal grandmother) sometime in the past. Matt relatedly stated that father would become loud and try to intimidate people when arguing with them. When asked how father disciplined the children, Matt replied that father typically "'yell[ed] at them,'" but on one occasion physically struck Mason with an object. Matt explained, "'Once when my son and Mason were playing [X]-Box in [father's] room, . . . Mason told me, "my dad hit me." When I asked what he meant, he said [father] got mad at him and thr[e]w the [X]-Box controller[,] and it hit [him] hard . . . on the chest. My son also told me this happened, and I told [father] something and he stated he was just playing and didn't mean to hit Mason.'"
On July 8, 2019, the social worker spoke with mother's therapist. The therapist reported that mother was referred for both a parenting program and a domestic violence for victims program. The therapist also stated that mother had started receiving services at her organization in June 2018, though she was infrequent in her attendance based on childcare issues.
Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing (July 18 & 19, 2019)
On July 18, 2019, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of Emily, Mason, and Caleb pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The petition alleged that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm based upon (1) domestic violence between mother and father, including the referral incident on June 4, 2019 (counts a-1 and b-1), and (2) father physically abusing Mason on multiple occasions, including slapping the child on the chest and throwing an X-Box controller at him, and mother's failure to protect the children from risk of harm (counts a-2, b-2, and j-1).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
On July 19, 2019, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. The juvenile court ordered Mason and Caleb detained from father and released to mother, and ordered Emily released to mother and Oscar. Father was granted monitored visitation with Mason and Caleb. Finally, the juvenile court granted mother a stay-away order that required father to stay 100 yards away from her and her home and employment. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report (Sept. 25, 2019)
On September 11, 2019, a social worker conducted multiple interviews of family members. Mother also provided the social worker with a written statement.
Interview with mother
Mother stated that her relationship with father was rife with domestic violence. Beginning in 2010, father engaged in repeated physical and verbal abuse towards her, which included punching her head, choking her, and suffocating her with a pillow, punching walls, breaking household items, and damaging her car. Father engaged in these violent actions when he lost his temper, which primarily occurred when mother confronted him about his unfaithfulness to her or when he became jealous for unfounded reasons. On one occasion in early 2019, other was taking a shower when father came into the room with a "blank stare and [showing] no emotion" while holding a steak knife. Father proceeded to open the shower curtain and come closer to mother before turning to the sink to wash the knife. Mother repeatedly asked him to leave while father replied that he was just washing the knife. Mother did not follow up on this incident because of her fear of father. More recently, father's threatening and violent actions had occurred in front of the children, such as when father threw a drawer full of Mason's clothes across the room while Mason watched. As for the allegations in the petition regarding the referral incident, mother stated "'this didn't happen on this day but[] may have happened before.'"
Additionally, mother knew of father's verbal and physical abuse of Mason. Specifically, she learned about the X-Box incident from a paternal uncle and also recounted some other incidents. In June 2019, father had lashed out at Mason after the child accidentally dropped a puppy, specifically screaming at Mason and placing Mason in a chokehold. Father had also lied to mother about how he disciplined Mason, referencing an occasion where they were all out shopping at a store when Mason misbehaved. Father had asserted he would sit with the child in the car while mother continued to shop, though mother later learned he had also hit Mason while waiting in the car.
Interview with Mason
As for the parents' domestic violence, Mason stated he had observed father push Mother on June 4, 2019, and the parents had yelled at each other and fought on prior occasions. As for the father's physical abuse of him, Mason stated father had hit him with a belt and an open hand in the past.
Interview with father
Regarding the referral incident, father admitted that he and mother were arguing loudly, but he denied engaging in physical violence toward mother. Regarding Mason, father denied ever slapping him on the face, but he acknowledged that he had "'chucked'" the X-Box controller at him, "'like here it's your turn.'" Father stated that Mason started to cry when the controller hit him and that father tried to comfort the child.
Father's monitored visits with Mason and Caleb
Following the detention hearing, father had weekly, two-hour visits with Mason and Caleb at a DCFS office. DCFS inquired of father if he knew anyone who could serve as a monitor for his visits with the children, and father replied that he did not have anyone available.
DCFS recommendation
Based on the obtained information, DCFS recommended that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the children, declare them dependents of the court, and make certain dispositional placement and removal orders: placement of Emily with both mother and Oscar, placement of Mason and Caleb with mother, and removal of Mason and Caleb from father. DCFS also recommended that the juvenile court grant family maintenance services to mother and Oscar and grant family reunification services to father. Last Minute Information Report (Nov. 13, 2019)
In November 2019, DCFS reported on father's progress with some service programs, father's visitation with Mason and Caleb, and Emily's status. First, DCFS had received a few progress letters sent on father's behalf in September 2019, which generally provided that father had enrolled in anger management, parenting, and individual counseling programs. Second, father's weekly visits were now monitored by a maternal uncle, who reported that father acted appropriately during visits and that the children appeared to enjoy their visits with father. Third, DCFS now recommended that Emily's case be terminated, as mother was protective and the child was in services. Combined Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing (Nov. 20, 2019)
Documents admitted into evidence
The juvenile court first admitted DCFS's reports and updated progress letters sent on father's behalf into evidence. These letters generally provided that father had attended multiple sessions of anger management, parenting, and individual counseling programs, and that father was engaged, cooperative, and receptive to feedback during these sessions.
Father's testimony
Father's counsel then called father to testify. Father first denied that the referral incident had occurred and provided his own version of events. On that evening, he and mother started arguing about father having a second telephone. Father learned that mother knew about the telephone through his younger brother, and he then accused her of having a sexual relationship with that brother. Father then told mother that he needed to have dinner and go to work. As he tried to leave the home, mother followed him and brought up his past infidelities, which upset him. He then brushed against mother when passing her, and she called the police in response. He did not believe Mason witnessed this argument, as he was at the dining table in another room of the home.
Father also denied ever hitting mother or Mason at any time. He believed Mason was being coached by mother and paternal relatives, as they did not like him. He admitted that he had disciplined Mason by putting "the fear in him," which he now knew was wrong. He also admitted throwing the X-Box controller at Mason. According to father, he was making the bed when Mason asked for the controller; father "chucked it at [Mason] without even looking," and the controller hit Mason in the chest. Father then tried to comfort Mason.
Father also discussed his service programs. He had attended two parenting programs, one through Project Fatherhood in Pomona and one through the Center of Integrated Family and Health Services in Covina. He had learned to "acknowledge child behavior in different areas" and how to provide "more positive, age-appropriate discipline" than corporal punishment. He believed he had benefited from the programs by learning about "difference[s] in child behavior" and "how to discipline in the correct setting." He hoped to continue with these programs. Father also attended an individual counseling program, in which he was learning how to "cope with [his anger] triggers," "deal with rejection," "deal with [his children]," and "deal with [his] family." He hoped to continue with this program indefinitely. Finally, father had attended a 12-week anger management program, actually attending four additional weeks, through which he learned about domestic violence issues and how to "distinguish[] power and control in a relationship."
Father further discussed how he planned to coparent with mother and his recent visitation. He stated that he had been the "day-to-day stay-at-home" parent prior to the children's detention from him. He planned to communicate "appropriately" with mother and "walk away" from her if he recognized he was becoming angry during an argument. He also did not plan to resume an intimate relationship with mother. As for visitation, he was visiting the children every weekend and described their visits as "wonderful."
Finally, father discussed his relationship with Emily. He stated their relationship was "rocky" and that he tried not to be "too strict" with her because her father, Oscar, was "very difficult." He was aware that Emily had told a social worker that she had observed him hitting Mason.
Oral argument
Following father's testimony, the juvenile court entertained oral argument from the parties with respect to jurisdiction. The children's counsel joined with DCFS's recommendations based on evidence supporting the allegations that father's violence placed the children at the defined risk of harm. Mother's counsel asked the juvenile court to find her nonoffending. Father's counsel asked the juvenile court to dismiss the petition in its entirety, arguing that the allegations were all untrue, mother was "fabricating" her stories against father out of jealousy and anger, and the children were not at risk of the defined harm. DCFS's counsel asked the juvenile court to sustain the petition in its entirety, as mother and the children were credible when discussing father's violent actions, father was in denial about his actions, and the parents' conduct placed the children at the defined risk of harm.
Juvenile court order
Following argument, the juvenile court sustained all of the alleged counts, as amended by interlineation, and assumed jurisdiction over the children. Regarding the counts concerning domestic violence between the parents, the court found "the evidence in the record is more credible and more consistent with regard to the mother's explanation of facts. In particular, the physical evidence noted by the police officer in the police report was relevant to the court's determination, as well as the statements of the children." Regarding the counts concerning father's physical abuse of Mason, the juvenile court stated that it was "crediting the statements of the children and finding that these incidents happened, as well as there's evidence that the mother knew and failed to act . . . in defense of the children."
As sustained, counts a-1 and b-1 provided that mother and father "have a history of engaging in violent altercations in the children's presence. On 06/04/2019 [father] grabbed [m]other's right arm and pushed the mother into a wall, inflicting a red mark on the mother's arm and chest. [Father] threw a plate at the mother's direction. On prior occasions, [father] pushed and hit the mother. On a prior occasion, [father] choked the mother. [Mother] failed to protect the children when the mother allowed [father] to have unlimited access to the children. Such violent conduct on the part of [father] and mother's failure to protect[] endanger[] the children's physical health and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, and failure to protect."
Counts a-2, b-2, and j-1 provided that: "On prior occasions, [father] physically abused . . . Mason by slapping the child on the chest. On a prior occasion, [father] threw an X-Box controller hitting the child on the Chest. On a prior occasion, [father] slapped the child. Such physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and suffering. [Mother] failed to protect the child when mother knew or should have known of the physical abuse and allowed [father] to have unlimited access to the child. Such physical abuse by [father] and failure to protect by [mother] endangers the child's physical health and safety and places . . . Mason and [his] siblings at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, physical abuse, and failure to protect."
Continuing to disposition, the juvenile court announced it would consider the same evidence before hearing argument from the parties. The children's counsel joined in most of DCFS's recommendations while asking that father be granted unmonitored visitation with Mason and Caleb. Father's counsel asked that the children be placed with father, or in the alternative, that father have unmonitored visitation. Father's counsel also asked that father not be required to complete a domestic violence program, as he had earlier completed an anger management program.
The juvenile court then informed DCFS's counsel that it was inclined to remove Mason and Caleb from father and asked for argument as to visitation. DCFS's counsel replied that monitored visitation was necessary because father was in denial about his angry and violent outbursts and needed to participate in a domestic violence program.
After entertaining oral argument, the juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court, terminated its jurisdiction as to Emily, ordered Mason and Caleb removed from father's physical custody, and ordered that Mason and Caleb remain placed with mother. When making these orders, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mason and Caleb would be in substantial danger if returned to father's custody and that DCFS had made reasonable efforts to prevent their removal. In so ruling, the court relied upon its jurisdictional findings.
Additionally, the juvenile court granted family maintenance services to mother and family reunification services to father.
Appeal
Father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Father argues that the juvenile court erred removing Mason and Caleb from his physical custody.
A. Standard of review and applicable law
After declaring a child a dependent, the juvenile court may remove the child from the parent with whom the child resided with at the time the section 300 petition was initiated if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child if returned to the parent's home, and there are no reasonable means to protect the child short of removal from that parent's physical custody. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135.) The juvenile court must also determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home and "shall state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based." (§ 361, subd. (e).)
A removal order is proper when there is "'proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the child if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] "The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child." [Citation.] The court may consider a parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances.' [Citation.]" (In re A.S. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 237, 247.) "'Before the court issues a removal order, it must find the child's welfare requires removal because of a substantial danger, or risk of danger, to the child's physical health if he or she is returned home, and there are no reasonable alternatives to protect the child. [Citations.] There must be clear and convincing evidence that removal is the only way to protect the child.' [Citation.]" (In re A.S., supra, at p. 247.)
When fashioning a dispositional order that is in the best interests of the child, the juvenile court is not limited to the contents of the sustained petition. "Instead, the [juvenile] court may consider the evidence as a whole." (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311.)
Case law is unclear as to the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the juvenile court's dispositional orders. Some courts have applied the substantial evidence standard, which is what the parties argue here. (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126.) "Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or draw inferences contrary to the findings of the trial court. [Citation.] The appellate court 'accept[s] the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard[s] the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact.' [Citation.] For evidence to be sufficient to support a trial court's finding, it must be reasonable, credible, and of sold value. [Citation.]" (In re J.F. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 202, 209.)
Other courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard to dispositional orders. "The court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accord with this discretion." (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.) The dispositional order may not be reversed by the appellate court absent a clear abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) In other words, the appropriate test is whether the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
Some courts have blended the two standards, stating that where substantial evidence supports the dispositional order, there is no abuse of discretion. (In re Daniel C.H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 839.)
We need not resolve this issue because under either standard of review, the juvenile court's dispositional order was proper.
We reject father's passing suggestion that we apply a clear and convincing standard of proof to the juvenile court's order. "At the trial court level, clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect is necessary to remove a child from a parent's physical custody, even where custody is transferred to the minor's other parent. [Citations.] However, on appeal the proper standard of review is the substantial evidence rule." (In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.)
B. Analysis
The juvenile court did not err in ordering Mason and Caleb removed from father's physical custody. The appellate record contains ample evidence that father engaged in domestic violence against mother throughout their relationship, including while the children were present, and that he struck Mason on repeated occasions. Ongoing domestic violence in a household where children are living, by itself, "is a failure to protect [the children] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it." (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194.)
Although father had recently enrolled in some programs, he had only participated in these programs for a few months prior to the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. In contrast, his anger management, parenting, and domestic violence issues spanned years. Moreover, father repeatedly denied ever perpetrating domestic violence towards mother and Mason, even though mother, Mason, and paternal relatives confirmed that this violence had occurred. In light of all of this evidence, the juvenile court had ample reason to remove Mason and Caleb from father's physical custody.
Urging us to reverse, father argues that his recent participation in services and his recent positive visits with Mason and Caleb demonstrate that the children would be safe in his care. While we applaud father's participation in service programs, including anger management, parenting, and individual counseling, he had only been participating for four months prior to the November 20, 2019, hearing. Given father's lengthy history of domestic violence towards mother and father's continued denial of his physical violence, the juvenile court acted properly in removing the children from his physical custody at that time. Moreover, Mason and Caleb's enjoyment of their recent visits with father does not overcome the evidence that father has engaged in repeated threatening and violent actions in the family home, towards mother and Mason. In Mason's own words, he sometimes did not feel safe in father's care, particularly when father became angry. It follows that father's recent participation in services did not overcome the evidence supporting removal.
Next father contends that the juvenile court "contradict[ed]" itself by finding that Mason and Caleb needed to be removed from him for their protection but later granted him unmonitored visitation with his sons. Father offers no reasoned analysis or legal authority to support this novel claim, namely that an order granting unmonitored visitation means that a related removal order is inherently invalid. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) Setting that aside, we find the juvenile court's dispositional order reasonable based upon the circumstances of this case. The juvenile court appears to have balanced the interests involved—the children's interest in being safe in their home and father's interest in reunifying with them—by removing the children from father's physical custody while allowing him to have unmonitored visitation as he continues to participate in family reunification services.
Finally, father asserts that the juvenile court could have imposed "less drastic alternatives to removal," such as unannounced visits by DCFS. We disagree. The juvenile court found that DCFS had made reasonable efforts to prevent the children's removal, but that removal was appropriate. And that determination is supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, father has a long history of violence and has continued to deny his violent behavior. As the juvenile court found, his behavior places Mason and Caleb at substantial risk of harm. While his efforts at addressing his violent behavior and desire to reunify with his children are commendable, they do not compel reversal of the removal order for a less drastic alternative. It follows that reversal of the dispositional order is not required.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's dispositional order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST We concur: /s/_________, P. J.
LUI /s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ