Opinion
F074866
08-21-2017
In re ANGELICA C., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIAN C., Defendant and Appellant.
Landon C. Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 16CEJ300229-1, 16CEJ300229-2)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary L. Green, Commissioner. Landon C. Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Black, J.†
-ooOoo-
Adrian C., a noncustodial father, appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional orders denying him custody of his seven- and 10-year old daughters, Mariah C. and Angelica C., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, and requiring him to complete a domestic violence evaluation and recommended treatment as part of his case plan. Father contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's detriment finding and the juvenile court erred when it required him to complete a domestic violence evaluation and recommended treatment as part of his case plan. We affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
During a trip to Las Vegas on July 30, 2016 with their five-year-old daughter R. in the car, A.O. (mother) and her husband, Ruben O., Jr. (Ruben) drove to the Palm Springs Police Department because they believed they were being chased by another vehicle whose occupants were shooting at them. Mother and Ruben were arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine, having in their vehicle two broken glass pipes which tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine, and having a loaded handmade gun within R.'s reach. A Riverside County social worker placed a hold on R., who was released the following day to the maternal uncle and aunt, a maternal uncle, and the maternal grandmother who had arrived from Fresno to retrieve R. The referral was cross-reported to the Fresno County Department of Social Services (Department).
Subsequent references to dates are to dates in 2016 unless otherwise stated. --------
On August 5, a Department social worker interviewed the maternal relatives at their home in Fresno. Maternal grandmother had been caring for mother's two older daughters, Mariah and Angelica, before mother and Ruben were arrested. A safety plan was established by which the three girls would remain in the care of maternal grandmother, and the maternal uncle and aunt, until a meeting could be held with the family and social workers on August 11. The social worker interviewed Angelica, Mariah and R., who all reported incidents of domestic violence between mother and Ruben, and that they were afraid of Ruben.
By the August 11 meeting, mother and Ruben had been released from jail and had returned to Fresno. They attended the meeting, along with maternal grandmother. Mother took no responsibility for the arrest or the environment in which she placed R. Mother had last used methamphetamine a week before the meeting and Ruben admitted he was actively using the drug. Mother could not identify a home address; she said they were in the process of moving. Mother and Ruben would not agree to a plan of guardianship with maternal grandmother, and maternal grandmother wanted the parents to get services. A decision was made to leave the girls in maternal grandmother's care and for the Department to obtain protective custody warrants and initiate dependency proceedings. The Department had unsuccessfully attempted to locate Mariah and Angelica's father, Adrian.
On August 12, the Department filed a petition alleging the girls came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), based on mother's and Ruben's substance abuse, and the domestic violence between mother and Ruben, and Mariah and Angelica came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (g), as Adrian's whereabouts were unknown. On August 16, the Department filed a first amended petition with the same allegations.
Adrian appeared at the August 17 detention hearing, along with mother and Ruben. The juvenile court removed the girls from mother's and Ruben's home; found that maternal grandmother, and maternal uncle and aunt, were suitable for placement; ordered the Department to begin providing services to mother, Ruben, and the girls, and to assess Adrian for services; and granted reasonable supervised visits for each parent.
In a report prepared for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the Department recommended that the girls remain in out of home care, and mother, Ruben and Adrian be ordered to participate in family reunification services. The girls remained placed with their maternal grandmother, and maternal uncle and aunt.
Mother and Ruben claimed they were no longer in a relationship. Mother was unemployed, while Ruben was working and living with his mother. Mother loved her children and wanted to reunify with them; she understood the need to participate in services. Ruben wanted to reunify with R., and was willing to complete all recommended court-ordered services. Ruben considered Angelica and Mariah to be his daughters as well, and he wanted to reunify with them.
Adrian requested placement of Angelica and Mariah. He reported he was employed full-time and also worked part-time for his father doing janitorial work. Adrian was engaged and had a two-year-old daughter with his fiancé, with whom he had been living for the past two years. Adrian stated he had been paying child support for Angelica and Mariah for the past five years. Adrian did not believe he was in need of services, but was willing to participate in recommended services if it was necessary to regain custody of his daughters.
The girls appeared bonded to mother and wanted to return to her care. Angelica told the social worker she was scared of Adrian because he tried "kidnapping" her and she was afraid she would never get to see mother. Mariah told the social worker she did not see her "real dad" anymore because he tried to kidnap her and Angelica. According to mother, the family court in Fresno County granted her sole legal and physical custody of Angelica and Mariah.
In September 2007, the Department had received a referral of emotional abuse of nearly one-year-old Angelica based on an incident of domestic violence between mother and Adrian. Adrian was arrested and mother was provided with an emergency protective order. According to the law enforcement report, there had been past incidents of domestic violence between the parents. A social worker tried to investigate, but was unable to make contact with the family as the address provided did not exist. The referral was closed as unfounded.
The Department considered whether to place Angelica and Mariah with Adrian, as he was a non-offending/noncustodial parent described in section 361.2. A social worker met with Adrian on September 14; Adrian said he wanted his daughters placed in his care. Adrian last visited his daughters in December 2014. Adrian said he attempted to visit his daughters thereafter, but he lost contact with mother when she was evicted from her apartment. The social worker, however, noted that Adrian's cousin was mother's close friend and he easily could have found out where mother was living.
The social worker asked Adrian how often he visited his daughters before December 2014. Adrian at first could not provide a definitive answer, but then stated it was at least once or twice per month. The social worker told Adrian that Angelica said she was afraid he would "kidnap" her and keep her away from mother, as he allegedly tried to do that during the December 2014 visit. Adrian denied the incident happened as reported. According to Adrian, mother wanted to end the visit earlier than scheduled, but he wanted his daughters to open their Christmas gifts before he returned them to mother. The social worker told Adrian that Angelica appeared to be really scared that he was going to keep her from mother. Adrian said he would never do that.
Adrian denied having a history of domestic violence with mother or in his current relationship. Adrian then told the social worker that when Angelica was about 18 months old, there was a domestic violence incident between he and mother in which law enforcement became involved. According to Adrian, mother physically attacked him and he simply defended himself by moving mother's hands out of the way as she was attempting to slap him. Adrian said he left the apartment to avoid further conflict with mother and as he was getting into his car, mother attacked him again, leaving him with scratch marks on his chest and neck area. Adrian denied being arrested as a result of the incident and said the criminal charges were dropped. Adrian denied having ever been arrested for domestic violence. Adrian admitted he previously had a three-year restraining/stay away order in which mother was the protected victim.
Based on Adrian's history of domestic violence and his nearly two-year lack of contact with his daughters, the Department believed it would be detrimental to Angelica and Mariah's physical and emotional wellbeing if they were placed with Adrian. Therefore, the Department recommended against giving Adrian custody of his daughters. The Department did recommend that Adrian receive family reunification services consisting of parenting classes and participation in a domestic violence inventory and any recommended treatment.
On August 19 and 24, mother, Adrian and Ruben had supervised visits with the girls. The visits appeared to go well, as the parents tended to their children's needs, and the children appeared comfortable in their parents' presence. According to Adrian, his daughters were comfortable around him and enjoyed visiting him. Adrian enjoyed visiting them as well.
At the September 21 jurisdiction hearing, which all the parents attended, the juvenile court ordered withdrawal of the subdivision (g) allegation against Adrian since he had been located. The attorneys agreed to revise the subdivision (b) allegations in the first amended petition and the parties submitted on the revised counts, which replaced the subdivision (b) allegations in the first amended petition. After finding that mother and Ruben had knowingly waived their trial and related rights, the juvenile court found the revised allegations true and that the girls were described by section 300, subdivision (b). The court set the disposition hearing for October 26.
At the conclusion of the hearing, mother's attorney wanted to put a statement on the record concerning Adrian: mother objected to the girls spending the night with Adrian, although she believed they would tell their attorney they did not wish to do so. Mother told her attorney she obtained sole custody of the girls because Adrian basically kidnapped them and refused to return them to her. Mother was concerned because the girls do not know him very well. Adrian was supposed to have supervised visits with the girls, which he was supposed to pay for, but he did not do so.
Adrian did not appear at the October 26 disposition hearing, although mother and Ruben were present. County counsel informed the court that it wanted Adrian to complete a mental health evaluation and recommended treatment as part of his case plan. Adrian's attorney did not object to this component of the plan. County counsel submitted on the report, as did the attorneys for mother and the girls.
Adrian's attorney stated that Adrian had asked for placement of his daughters pursuant to section 361.2 and he objected to any finding that it would be detrimental to place them with him. Adrian's attorney also objected to Adrian being required to participate in a domestic violence assessment and recommended treatment, as he had not been charged with domestic violence and while there was a reported history of domestic violence, Adrian disputed the characterization that he was the perpetrator and the circumstances identified in the report. In addition, the incident occurred a long time ago, he and mother were no longer in a relationship, and he had not had any other incidents with anyone else. As a non-offending parent, Adrian did not agree with having to complete any type of domestic violence assessment or services that would stem from that assessment. Adrian's attorney added that any anger management issues that needed to be addressed could be identified through the mental health assessment. While Adrian's attorney objected to a domestic violence assessment, she submitted on the parenting class and mental health assessment.
The juvenile court asked county counsel why the Department was requesting a domestic violence evaluation. County counsel explained the request was based on Adrian's history of domestic violence with mother, that mother was provided with a three-year restraining order, and the Department had not been provided with anything to show Adrian had addressed those issues.
The juvenile court asked if the family law court issued the restraining order. County counsel understood there was an emergency protective order, but that would have only been good for seven days. Mother stated she went to court after that and obtained a restraining order in the family law court because she had gotten full custody at that time due to the domestic violence, and father was supposed to pay for supervised visits.
The juvenile court told Adrian's attorney that another judge had adjudicated the issue. Adrian's attorney responded that there was no information regarding the circumstances that were adjudicated and, in any event, Adrian was not the reason for his daughters being removed. Accordingly, domestic violence was no longer an issue and it was not clear on the record why a domestic violence assessment would be necessary to eliminate any risk to Adrian's daughters, therefore the assessment did not seem to be specifically tailored to the existing circumstances.
The juvenile court responded that a family law judge found there were circumstances to justify a three-year domestic violence restraining order, which are not just handed out and must have been based on the family law judge's evaluation of the facts and the situation. The juvenile court asked if it would benefit Adrian to complete a domestic violence assessment since he was requesting placement.
Adrian's attorney understood, but added that a lot of services were being required with very limited information as to why they were necessary and Adrian was concerned he would not be able to successfully reunify or have custody of his daughters. Adrian understood there would be a concern based on what had been reported, but Adrian had a very different account of what had happened and the restraining order was obtained by default, as he did not appear at the hearing. Since Adrian was not present at the disposition hearing to present specific evidence, his attorney was relying on mother's statements in the report. Adrian was simply asking that if a case plan was required of him, it would be specifically tailored to existing circumstances, and there was no indication he had any violent tendencies or presented any risk to his daughters, other than the report from several years ago.
The juvenile court asked if Adrian had taken any action to dissolve the restraining order. To Adrian's attorney's knowledge, he had not done anything; he just had no contact with mother and did not feel the restraining order was necessary. The juvenile court asked mother's attorney if the children were protected parties in the restraining order. Mother answered that all of them were protected.
The juvenile court explained it was struggling with having been told there was a restraining order where mother and the children were protected parties, which Adrian acquiesced to, thereby suggesting he was not fighting a finding of domestic violence. Adrian's attorney added that sometimes people do not respond because they decide they are not going to continue a relationship with the person seeking the restraining order. The juvenile court acknowledged a copy of the restraining order was not submitted in court, but stated it had a problem with another judicial officer thinking one was necessary. County counsel did not have a copy of the restraining order, but believed it was granted in 2007.
The juvenile court asked what the harm was in having an assessment. Adrian's attorney responded that was not the standard, but rather whether an assessment was necessary, and an assessment was not necessary as Adrian did not have a violent history or violent interactions with his current partner. Adrian simply wanted an opportunity to have his daughters back and was concerned due to his employment and supervised visits that he would not have a successful opportunity to gain custody of them.
County counsel submitted. Mother's attorney added that according to mother, Adrian was not visiting the children and was currently canceling visits. Mother felt Adrian did not show up for the children when they needed him. The juvenile court did not find that relevant to whether Adrian should engage in a domestic violence evaluation. The juvenile court understood the inconvenience to Adrian, but did not know that there was a "downside[,]" as it seemed he could potentially benefit from the assessment. Therefore, the court stated it would require Adrian to complete the domestic violence evaluation and recommended treatment.
Ruben's attorney detailed Ruben's progress and made requests concerning visitation, but otherwise submitted.
The juvenile court made the girls dependents, removed them from the custody of mother and Ruben, and placed them with maternal grandmother and uncle. The juvenile court ordered reunification services for the parents, with Adrian's services comprised of parenting classes, and domestic violence and mental health evaluations and recommended treatment, and visitation, with Adrian receiving unsupervised visits with his daughters. In its written findings, the juvenile court acknowledged that Adrian desired to assume custody of "the children" but found there was clear and convincing evidence that placement with him would be detrimental to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.
DISCUSSION
Denial of Custody under Section 361 .2
Adrian contends the juvenile court improperly denied him custody of his daughters under section 361.2, as substantial evidence does not support the finding that it would be detrimental to place his daughters in his custody.
Section 361.2 protects the custody rights of a noncustodial parent when the juvenile court removes the child from the custodial parent. In essence, it requires the juvenile court to place the child with the noncustodial parent unless doing so would be detrimental to the child. Specifically, section 361.2, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 361.2(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."
A juvenile court's finding of detriment under section 361.2(a) must be by clear and convincing evidence. (In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1262 (Patrick S.).) "A detriment evaluation requires that the court weigh all relevant factors to determine if the child will suffer net harm." (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425.) Section 361.2, subdivision (c) requires the juvenile court to make a finding, either in writing or orally on the record, as to the basis for its determination under section 361.2(a). (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 701.)
On appeal, we review the juvenile court's finding for substantial evidence. Under the substantial evidence test, we "review the record in the light most favorable to the court's order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing evidence that placement would be detrimental to the child. Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt." (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262.)
Adrian asserts that the juvenile court denied his request for custody without stating a factual basis for its determination on the record as required by section 361.2, subdivision (c), or considering the statutory provision applicable to his request, citing In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1825 (Marquis D.). Section 361.2, subdivision (c), however does not require the juvenile court to set forth a factual basis to support its detriment finding; instead, it requires the juvenile court to make an express finding of detriment. In this case, the juvenile court made that finding in writing as part of its findings and orders regarding jurisdiction and disposition.
Since the statute does not require the juvenile court to specify a factual basis for its detriment finding and the juvenile court made an express finding of detriment, Marquis D. has no bearing here. In that case, the issue was whether the appellate court could, in the absence of an express detriment finding, imply that finding when there was nothing in the record to suggest that the juvenile court even considered whether to place the children with the parent under section 361.2, as there was no reference to that statute in the department's reports, the hearing transcript, or the court's order, and the juvenile court instead removed the children from the noncustodial parent under section 361, subdivision (b), which did not apply. (Marquis D., supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1824-1825.) Here, section 361.2(a) was referenced in the Department's report, which included the Department's analysis and recommendation as to whether Adrian should be given custody under that provision; Adrian's attorney asked for placement under that provision at the hearing; and the juvenile court made a written finding of detriment. Therefore, it is not necessary to imply a detriment finding.
We turn to whether there was substantial evidence to support the detriment finding. The evidence showed that Adrian had done little to foster a relationship with his daughters and had no real relationship with them. Before December 2014, Adrian visited the girls once or twice a month. In December 2014, he tried to "kidnap" then eight-year-old Angelica and five-year-old Mariah. Although Adrian disputed that he had kidnapped the girls, and said he merely refused to honor mother's request to end the visit earlier than expected, the incident was emotionally upsetting to Angelica and caused her to fear him and that he might take her away from mother. Based on that incident, mother obtained full custody of Angelica and Mariah, and Adrian was given supervised visitation. Adrian, however, stopped visiting his daughters and had no contact with them until these proceedings began nearly two years later. While Adrian claimed he lost contact with them because mother moved, he could have located them had he wanted to, as his cousin was mother's close friend.
In addition, there was evidence that Adrian had an unresolved domestic violence problem. Despite evidence that mother and Adrian had engaged in domestic violence in their relationship, Adrian denied it, although he admitted law enforcement became involved in the September 2007 domestic violence incident that resulted in his arrest. Adrian, however, took no responsibility for the incident and denied being arrested. As a result of the incident and domestic violence history, mother obtained a three-year restraining order against Adrian. Although there were no further reported incidents of domestic violence, there was no evidence that Adrian had addressed the issue by attending a domestic violence class or obtaining treatment.
Adrian's apparent lack of interest his daughters, his unpredictable behavior when he refused to return his daughters to mother in December 2014, Angelica's fear of Adrian following the December 2014 incident, and Adrian's untreated propensity for domestic violence together show that it was uncertain that Adrian would be a safe parent for his daughters and support a finding that placing them in his custody could result in physical or emotional harm to them.
Adrian contends the domestic violence evidence cannot support a detriment finding because it was based on conjecture, as the Department was unable to investigate the December 2007 referral to verify the underlying facts and the restraining order was not before the court or in evidence. In addition, he points out that he was never convicted of domestic violence and there was no evidence he engaged in domestic violence after December 2007.
Although the underlying facts of the December 2007 incident are not clear, and Adrian denied he was at fault, the juvenile court reasonably could infer, based on Adrian's arrest and the issuance of the restraining order, that Adrian engaged in domestic violence and his conduct was severe enough that it placed mother and Angelica at risk of harm. As the Department points out, that Adrian was never convicted of domestic violence does not mean that his history of domestic violence should be ignored. While there was no evidence of domestic violence in Adrian's current relationship, that fact does not negate the evidence that Adrian engaged in domestic violence nine years before these proceedings and the lack of evidence that he had received treatment.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence of detriment even if Adrian's domestic violence history is not taken into account, due to Adrian's prior unwillingness to maintain a relationship with his daughters, Angelica's expressed fear of him, and his unpredictable behavior. Adrian asserts that Angelica must not fear him because she felt comfortable with Adrian during the two supervised visits she had with him in August. That she felt comfortable in a supervised setting, however, does not mean that she was not afraid that, should he obtain custody of her, he would prevent her from seeing mother.
Adrian asserts that a parent's prolonged absence from their child's life cannot support a detriment finding by clear and convincing evidence, citing In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 (John M.) and Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1254. Those cases, however, are distinguishable. The father in John M. had resumed contact with his child a year before the dependency proceeding; the court found the previous lack of contact was not the father's fault, and there was no clear evidence the father could not meet the child's special needs. (John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1571) The father in Patrick S., who served in the Navy, had searched for his son for years and when he learned of his whereabouts, immediately came forward and requested placement, attended all significant hearings in the dependency proceedings, visited and contacted his son whenever possible, looked into obtaining recommended services through the Navy and his church, and participated in recommended services. (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.)
In contrast here, Adrian's lack of involvement in his daughters' lives was his fault. He visited his daughters only sporadically before December 2014 and stopped visiting them after the December 2014 incident. While Adrian claims he did not know where his daughters were, he did nothing to locate them although he could have done so through his cousin. Adrian did not appear at the disposition hearing. That Adrian had his two-year- old child in his care without the Department expressing any concern about that child's welfare does not mean it would not be detrimental to place Angelica and Mariah with him, particularly in light of his apparent disinterest in them and Angelica's strong reaction based on Adrian's prior attempt to keep her from mother. When Adrian's minimization of his domestic violence history with mother is added to this, substantial evidence clearly supports the juvenile court's detriment finding.
Reunification Services
Adrian argues the juvenile court erred in ordering that his case plan include a domestic violence evaluation and recommended treatment because the Department found the 2007 domestic violence "unfounded," there was no evidence of ongoing domestic violence, and the petition did not allege that he engaged in domestic violence.
"At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court must order child welfare services for the minor and the minor's parents to facilitate reunification of the family. (§ 361.5, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule [5.695(h)(1)].) 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. [Citations.] We cannot reverse the court's determination in this regard absent a clear abuse of discretion." (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006, 1007, 1008 (Christopher H.) [even though juvenile court made no jurisdictional findings based on father's substance abuse problem, appellate court upheld random drug or alcohol testing as part of reunification plan where record showed father had substance abuse problem].)
"The reunification plan ' "must be appropriate for each family and be based on the unique facts relating to that family." ' " (Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.) Concededly, " 'a reunification plan formulated to correct certain parental deficiencies need not necessarily address other types of conduct, equally deleterious to the well-being of a child, but which had not arisen at the time the original plan was formulated.' " (In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475.) "However, when the court is aware of other deficiencies that impede the parent's ability to reunify with his child, the court may address them in the reunification plan." (Christopher H., supra, at p. 1008.)
Adrian contends this case is similar to In re Sergio C. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 957, 960, in which the appellate court found the evidence insufficient to justify a drug testing order when the only evidence of the father's alleged drug use was the mother's unsworn and unconfirmed allegation that the father denied. While the court agreed the trial court had broad discretion to make virtually any order deemed necessary for the child's well-being, it did not think "drug testing ought to be imposed based solely on the unsworn and uncorroborated allegation of an admitted drug addict who has abandoned her children." (Ibid.) The court believed that where the custodial parent had flatly denied all involvement with drugs and cooperated fully with court orders, the department had to conduct some investigation to warrant such an invasive order. (Ibid.)
Here, the evidence of domestic violence was not based on unsworn and unconfirmed statements of mother, but rather on the Department's records of a prior child welfare referral, Adrian's own admission that the September 2007 domestic violence incident occurred (although he provided his own version of the incident) and the issuance of a restraining order. While the incident occurred nearly nine years before the disposition hearing, there was no evidence Adrian had received treatment. Finally, a domestic violence assessment is hardly an invasive order on par with a requirement to randomly drug test. Given the history of domestic violence, the juvenile court was justifiably concerned that such behavior could interfere with Adrian's ability to provide a suitable home for Angelica and Mariah. According, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to participate in a domestic violence evaluation and recommended treatment as part of the reunification plan.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court orders are affirmed.
† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.