Opinion
E077291
02-16-2022
In re C.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. T.D., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Super.Ct.No. SWJ2100039, Kelly L. Hansen, Judge.
Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FIELDS, J.
INTRODUCTION
T.D. (father) appeals from a juvenile court's disposition order removing his children, H.D. and O.D., from his custody. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support removal. He also argues the court erred in issuing a protective order as to his children. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2021, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a Welfare and Institution Code section 300 petition on behalf of C.D., H.D., and O.D. (the children). Fraternal twins C.D. and H.D. were 15 years old at the time, and O.D. was eight years old. The petition alleged that the three children came within section 300, former subdivision (b) (failure to protect). It specifically alleged that the children had suffered serious physical harm because father administered inappropriate discipline, including spitting and hitting C.D. in the face; on one occasion, she sustained a black eye. The petition further alleged that father had failed to benefit from mental health services, as there were reports that he made suicidal threats and purposely steered his vehicle into oncoming traffic with the children inside the vehicle. In addition, the petition alleged that father and the children's mother, D.D. (mother) engaged in acts of domestic violence in the presence of the children.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
C.D. is not a subject of this appeal.
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
The social worker filed an out-of-custody report, recommending that the court accept an out-of-custody petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The social worker recommended that the children stay in the custody of mother and father (the parents) pending further investigation, and the court set a jurisdiction/disposition hearing and order the parents to ensure the children have a living environment free from domestic violence and disputes.
The social worker reported that on January 16, 2021, DPSS received a referral stating C.D. ran away from home after engaging in a verbal altercation with the parents. Mother located C.D. at a friend's house and attempted to get her to come home. However, C.D. refused. The parents requested the police to mediate, but C.D. still refused to return home. C.D. reported she was afraid to be at home and did not want to be around the parents. Father was retired from the Marines, and C.D. described him as being physically and verbally abusive. On one occasion, father was upset at mother and he smacked her. At the police station, father said he did not want C.D. to return home. Mother said she did, and they engaged in a verbal altercation. C.D. remained at the police station and told the police she did not want to go with the parents because she felt unsafe going home.
Interview with C.D.
The social worker interviewed C.D. at the police station, and C.D. disclosed that father was physically and emotionally abusive. She indicated that sometime in 2020, father hit her in the face when she tried to intervene in one of the parents' arguments, and she sustained a black eye. C.D. said that in January of 2021, father hit her twice on the head with an open hand for speaking to her maternal grandmother on the telephone. C.D. reported father has hit and spat on her six times just for looking at him. Once he told her, "Don't f---ing look at me," and then spat on her. C.D. disclosed the father also has spat on mother.
C.D. said she had an argument with father a week prior, and he told her to "get the f--- out of the house." She said she decided to run away and admitted it was the third time doing so. C.D. was adamant that she did not want to return home. She reported that father was the primary disciplinary parent and that he had prohibited her from leaving her room without his permission, even to use the bathroom, prohibited her from attending school, and prohibited her from talking to her sibling.
C.D. further said she was tired of her parents always screaming and yelling. Father was very controlling and demeaning towards her and mother and called them derogatory names, such as whore, fat, and a pig. C.D. stated she was aware of two arguments between her parents that escalated into physical violence. In 2019, father smacked mother behind the head. Another time, C.D. saw mother with bruises.
C.D. attended counseling when she was 14 years old, but said father prevented her from continuing because he felt she was disclosing negative information about the home. C.D. was recommended to be on psychotropic medication due to being depressed for about six months. She stated she believed the way the father spoke to and treated her contributed to the diagnosis. C.D. stated she was fearful of the father and did not trust him.
C.D. further reported that father attempted to kill himself several times, and he had access to a gun and took it out in front of the family. She said that a year ago, he took the gun from the garage and locked himself in a room. She and her siblings and mother thought he was going to kill himself. C.D. stated her sister, O.D., was so scared she was crying. She also stated that father attempted to kill her and the family about a year ago when he purposely swerved in front of another car while driving on the highway.
Interview with the Maternal Grandparents
The social worker spoke to the maternal grandparents. They said they received a call from mother requesting assistance because she believed father would hurt her. The maternal grandfather described father as a "disabled nut" and "crazy." He said father had the dirtiest mouth and ran the household like a "concentration camp."
On January 22, 2021, the social worker received a call from the maternal grandparents. They said mother stated she had an argument with father several days ago when he misplaced his money and blamed her. The parents "had an argument, objects were thrown, and there was name calling." The maternal grandparents stated they were uncertain if the police responded to the home, but they were concerned for the safety of mother and the children.
Interview with the Parents
The social worker interviewed the parents on the telephone. Father stated he caught C.D. several times with nude pictures on her cell phone. He did not believe she was well enough to return home, noting that she hits him and mother. He said she had a history of being dishonest about everything, and she was not welcome at the home. Mother wanted C.D. to return home or go to a group home.
The social worker interviewed mother privately, as well. Mother stated that C.D. lied all the time and stole things. She believed C.D. was out of control and disclosed that C.D. had hit her. Mother reported that father and C.D. had been involved in ongoing verbal arguments, and he called her derogatory names when she was in trouble. Mother denied he spat on C.D. and could not recall him giving her a black eye. Mother said she had been trying to get out of the marriage since father was very controlling, took her cell phone, accused her of cheating, and called her names, such as whore or slut. She admitted to verbal arguments with father "all the time" and said C.D. would defend her. Mother disclosed physical altercations with father two years ago but denied anything recent.
The social worker also interviewed father in private. He said he suffered from traumatic brain damage from being in the military and that it was possible he had post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He identified C.D. as a problem child, saying she had put holes in the walls, hit her mother, and kneed him in his private area. He showed the social worker a video of a fight between him and C.D. in March 2020, which showed that C.D. kicked father. The social worker said it was difficult to see what led to the fight and requested him to send her the video, but she did not receive it. Father denied any form of physical discipline and denied giving CD. a black eye or spitting on the children. He also denied any domestic violence with mother, although he admitted to verbal arguments. Father reported he was in counseling services on a weekly basis.
The parents continued to disagree on a plan for CD., and CD. did not want to return to the home due to fear. Father then changed his mind and said he was willing to have her return home and denied that he did not want her to return. Father demanded that DPSS bring CD. back and became increasingly upset. The social worker said he raised his voice loudly, his eyes were bulging, and he became increasingly agitated. The social worker provided the parents with a recommendation to Operation Safe House in Riverside due to CD. feeling unsafe about returning home.
The social worker reported that one time when she and another social worker went to the family residence, father came out of the house and slammed the door. Father "raised his voice, pointed his finger, his eyes [bulging], the vein on the side of his forehead was prominent while he was leaning forward toward us." He refused to speak to one of the social workers and said he would only speak to the other one. He continued "to have an aggressive stance as evidenced by his raised tone and his position leaning towards us." Due to safety concerns, the social worker ended the conversation.
On another occasion during a phone conversation, the social worker asked father about his participation in services and he stated, "None of your business." She asked if he would complete a drug test for DPSS, and he refused. Father began to make inappropriate comments and curse at her, so she terminated the conversation.
Interview with H.D. and O.D.
The social worker interviewed H.D., C.D.'s twin brother, in private. He said when he got in trouble, father usually took his things away and did not allow him to play video games, or he had to stay in his room. He denied knowledge of father hitting his siblings. H.D. confirmed that the relationship between father and C.D. was not good, and there was a lot of yelling and screaming between her and the parents. H.D. said he felt safe living with his parents, as he was often left alone to play video games.
The social worker also interviewed O.D. in private. O.D. denied witnessing any physical altercations between her parents but said they yelled at each other. She denied being physically disciplined but said she would get yelled at or be grounded. O.D. also said she felt safe in the parents' care, as her father was very protective by locking the doors.
Operation Safe House
The social worker reported that on January 17, 2021, mother took C.D. to Operation Safe House, and she was voluntarily placed there. The placement was for 21 days but was subject to being extended. H.D. and O.D. were still in the custody of the parents. Subsequently, C.D.'s stay was extended to February 11, 2021.
On January 25, 2021, DPSS requested a protective custody warrant for the removal of all three children, but the court denied the request.
The social worker recommended that the parents be provided with services pending further proceedings, including parenting education and counseling for both of them, plus alcohol and drug testing for father.
Addendum Report
The social worker filed an addendum report on February 8, 2021, recommending that the court accept an out-of-custody petition with regard to the children and that they remain in the care of the parents, pending further investigation. She further recommended that the court order the parents to cooperate with announced and unannounced visits by DPSS and other service providers, and that it set a jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
On February 1, 2021, the social worker talked to the children's adult sibling, B.D., who denied any physical abuse between father and C.D., but said they had verbal altercations and he called her derogatory names. She said father also called mother names and that she and her siblings were usually present or remained in their rooms when that occurred. She said that no one in the house called the police, but it was normally the neighbors who called, as the altercations were loud.
The social worker reported that the parents continued to have verbal altercations, and mother had not taken action to protect herself or the children. Mother appeared to acknowledge that the verbal altercations had an effect on the children's emotional well-being but had not been able to address father's behavior. The social worker believed DPSS intervention was necessary, as the parents' actions placed the children at risk of physical and emotional harm.
Out-of-Custody Hearing
The court held a hearing on February 11, 2021, and county counsel changed the recommendation and requested that the court detain the children from father and leave them in mother's care. Father's counsel objected to any removal and any temporary restraining order. He stated that too much weight was being given to C.D., who had reportedly been diagnosed as bipolar, and she abused drugs. Father's counsel noted that the referrals were basically C.D.'s narrative, and that mother and father said she lies. Mother's counsel stated her request for a restraining order, and DPSS joined in the request. Mother's counsel pointed out that domestic violence did not have to be strictly physical, but could also include verbal abuse, intimidation, and harassment. She noted that the maternal grandparents supported C.D.'s statements about father's behavior, and that mother acknowledged the verbal altercations and fear in the home. Counsel for C.D. joined in the argument for the restraining order, stating that C.D. wanted to return home to mother, but would refuse to go home if father was there. Counsel for H.D. and O.D. also joined in the request, stating that there was a lot of conflict in the home, and she believed the emotional abuse that was inflicted on H.D. and O.D. was "extraordinary." They were scared and had learned to not say anything.
The court stated that it was clear, based on the information before it, that the family was dysfunctional and needed help. The court acknowledged that C.D. was a very troubled girl who needed help, and said it did not accept everything she said as true. However, it was obvious there was domestic violence occurring in the home. The court agreed that domestic violence could consist of intimidation by words and actions. The court granted the request for a temporary restraining order for mother and the children. It ordered father to have no contact with mother or the children, required him to stay 100 yards away from them, their home, cars, jobs, and schools, and it ordered him to move out. The court detained the children from father and placed them in the home of mother. It granted father supervised visitation with H.D. and O.D. twice a week, but found it detrimental for him to have visits with C.D. Before the court finished speaking, father left the hearing and ran off. The court trailed the matter.
The court had ordered the parents to remain out of the courtroom since they had been exposed to Covid-19. They were placed elsewhere in the courthouse and appeared telephonically. Father hung up the phone and ran off.
The court held a continued hearing on February 16, 2021. County counsel recommended that the temporary detention findings from the February 11, 2021 hearing be made permanent. Counsel for C.D. noted that C.D. had been released from Operation Safe House and was now in mother's custody. Father's counsel informed the court that father had been under the care of a psychiatrist and mental health nurse practitioner since 2016, and submitted a letter from MCR Behavioral Health Services. The letter stated father was compliant with his medication and had no suicidal or homicidal ideations. Counsel stated that father was frustrated with how he was being portrayed by the social worker and felt he was being blamed for things C.D. said that were not true. Father's counsel requested that he be allowed to go home to get some of his medications and clothes. He also requested the court to not detain H.D. and O.D. from him and to remove them from the restraining order. The court stated that the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until the court date on March 4, 2021, but said father could stop by the home to retrieve his personal items. It also detained the children from father and ordered that he have supervised visitation three times a week.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on March 1, 2021, recommending that the court sustain the petition, declare the children dependents of the court, order that mother be provided with family maintenance services, and order that father be provided with reunification services and complete a psychological evaluation.
The social worker reported there were prior allegations of general neglect as to the children, as well as allegations of physical abuse of C.D, from 2017-2019. The allegations were investigated and determined to be either unfounded, inconclusive, or they were evaluated out since there were no safety concerns.
The social worker also reported that she went to the family's home on February 23, 2021, to talk to the children. She asked H.D. if she could speak with him, and he said he had spoken with enough people and he "no longer wanted to speak about it." The social worker talked to O.D., who said everyone got along most of the time. However, it made her sad when they did not get along. She said C.D. and the parents would yell, scream, slam doors, and call each other names. She added that due to the parents and C.D. yelling and fighting in the home, "the police have come to the home a lot." She denied any physical abuse in the home, but said, when she got in trouble, father would yell at her.
The social worker reported that she interviewed C.D. on February 23, 2021, and C.D. said when her father was in the home, he would yell and scream at her every time she got in trouble, which she hated. C.D. also said mother and father fought constantly at home, and the police were called many times due to father screaming at mother. She also said about a year ago, she tried to protect mother during one of their fights, and father hit C.D. in the face, and she sustained a black eye. The social worker reported that C.D. had consistently disclosed to her and another social worker about a week prior, that father had spit on her and hit her in the past.
The social worker opined that the children were at a continued risk of abuse and neglect without the parents demonstrating an understanding of the issues that brought them to DPSS's attention. She noted that father spoke negatively about C.D. and called her derogatory names. He blamed his actions on her behavior, rather than taking responsibility for his own actions and behaviors. The social worker stated that the parents engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the children. She believed that supervision was vital to ensure the protection of the children until the parents recognized the dangers associated with domestic violence and mental health issues. The social worker went over the case plans with the parents, and both mother and father indicated they were willing to participate.
On March 2, 2021, father set the jurisdiction/disposition hearing for contest. He informed the court that he started anger management, and indicated he had his own psychiatrist. The court noted that it had received a waiver of rights from mother, and she submitted on the petition. The court then trailed the matter.
The social worker filed an addendum report on April 12, 2021, but did not change any recommendations. She stated that father reported he was participating in an anger management program, and that he was still participating in counseling with his therapist. Father said he was dealing with PTSD and further stated C.D. had a problem lying, and everyone knew it. He admitted that he called his wife names and they argued a lot, but said he would never hit his daughter. Father discussed C.D.'s "bad behavior" and said he knew it sounded like he was blaming her but denied that he was.
On March 8, 2021, mother texted the social worker and said the restraining order was no longer needed and that the allegations were lies. She said father needed hotel vouchers, and "he [was] a good dad."
On March 22, 2021, mother informed the social worker that C.D. was admitted to the hospital on a psychiatric hold, and she was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder. The social worker contacted the hospital and was told that C.D. was admitted on March 19, 2021, due to her being out of control and a danger to herself and others, but would be discharged on March 26, 2021.
On March 31, 2021, the social worker was informed that visits between father and H.D. and O.D. were going very well, and that father was loving and appropriate during them.
On April 21, 2021, the court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing. DPSS filed an amended petition, which still alleged that the children came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b), but amended the specific allegations to state that father administered inappropriate discipline to C.D. and had unresolved mental health issues, and that the parents engaged in acts of verbal domestic violence in the presence of the children. Father submitted into evidence two letters from his therapist and a letter from MCR Behavioral Health Services (MCR). His therapist informed the court that she had been treating father for PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder since 2016, and she had met with the parents for conjoint sessions. The letter from MCR said father was being treated for ADHD, Mood Disorder, PTSD, and insomnia, and that his progress had been stable and his prognosis was good. It also said father was frustrated with his situation at home, and he had been under severe stress "due to being homeless and falsely accused of domestic violence." The court accepted stipulated testimony from father, which stated that if he were to testify, he would say he had been attending two therapy sessions a week for two months and had been working on anger management and domestic violence issues. He would also say he was starting domestic violence classes on May 7, and he was in his sixth week of anger management and fourth week of parenting classes. He further would say he understood the disagreements he had should have been handled more appropriately and he took responsibility for his role. Father submitted on jurisdiction but asked that the court not remove H.D. and O.D. from him. He understood C.D. did not want him in the house but argued there was still no substantial danger to her, and there was a reasonable means to protect her through the protective order.
County counsel asked the court to sustain the amended petition and asserted that C.D.'s statements about emotional and physical abuse at home had been consistent throughout the case. County counsel acknowledged that father had been participating in several classes but was concerned that he had not benefitted from them, noting some of his behavior in court.
The court stated it remembered this case very clearly since "this family was so dysfunctional." The court stated that its goal was for the children to grow up in homes or a home that was happy and safe. The court recognized father's progress in improving his situation and said if the progress continued, "good things [would] continue to happen." It stated that domestic violence did not mean there had to be physical violence, but that "words that cut to the soul are equally violent." The court stated that it would not "put up with name calling that destroys a person's feelings of self-worth." The court sustained the amended petition, adjudged the children dependents of the court, and ordered physical custody of the children to remain with mother, subject to supervision by DPSS under family maintenance. The court then found by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances in section 361, subdivision (c)(1), had been proven, and it removed physical custody of the children from father. It then ordered him to participate in reunification services. The court also issued the restraining order for a period of three years. It further noted that father was allowed to have supervised visitation with O.D. and H.D. three times a week, and it would grant DPSS the authority to liberalize those visits to unsupervised. C.D.'s visits were to be in a therapeutic setting.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal on June 21, 2021.
DISCUSSION
I. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Remove H.D. and O.D. from Father's Custody
Father does not dispute the jurisdiction findings or disposition order with regard to C.D. However, he argues that the court erred in its disposition order regarding H.D. and O.D., since there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that they faced substantial danger by remaining in his care or that there were no reasonable means by which their physical health could be protected without removing them from his care. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
"If a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that the child is a person described by Section 300, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child, . . ." (§ 362, subd. (a).) To remove a child from a parent's custody, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) there is a substantial danger to the child's physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if the child is returned home, and (2) there is no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) "The jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the home." (In re Cole C (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917 (Cole C.).) "The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been actually harmed for removal to be appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child. [Citations.] In this regard, the court may consider the parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances." (Ibid.)
"We review a dispositional order removing a child from parental custody for substantial evidence." (In re D.G. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1574.) "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order even if there is other evidence that would support a contrary finding." (Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 915-916.)
B. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support the Court's Removal Order
There was substantial evidence to support the finding that the verbal and physical abuse endured by C.D. and the domestic violence in the home placed H.D. and O.D. at substantial risk of harm. The evidence showed that the family was dysfunctional. C.D. disclosed that father was physically and emotionally abusive. Sometime in 2020, he hit her in the face when she tried to intervene in one of the parents' arguments, and she sustained a black eye. C.D. said father had also spit on her and mother.
The evidence also showed that the parents were always screaming and yelling at each other, and father was very controlling and demeaning towards C.D. and mother. He called them derogatory names, such as whore, fat, and a pig, when he was upset with them. C.D. stated there were two arguments between the parents that escalated into physical violence. Mother confirmed that she and father argued all the time, and she also disclosed physical altercations with him.
Furthermore, the evidence showed that father was being treated for PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, ADHD, Mood Disorder, and insomnia, and his conduct was harmful to his family, emotionally and physically. C.D. reported that father had a gun and once took it from the garage and locked himself in a room. C.D., her siblings, and mother thought he was going to kill himself, and O.D. was so scared she started to cry. C.D. reported that, on another occasion, father attempted to kill the family, when he purposely swerved in front of another car on the highway. This conduct endangered H.D. and O.D.'s emotional well-being.
The maternal grandfather described father as a "disabled nut" and "crazy" and said he ran the household like a "concentration camp." On January 22, 2021, the maternal grandparents reported to the social worker that the parents had an argument, "objects were thrown, and there was name calling."
Additionally, the social worker was concerned for her own safety during one visit at the residence, when father "raised his voice, pointed his finger, his eyes [bulging], [and] the vein on the side of his forehead was prominent while he was leaning forward toward us." He had an aggressive stance, so she ended the conversation due to safety concerns.
Based on this evidence, the social worker opined that the children were at risk of abuse and neglect, specifically because of father's treatment of C.D., his mental health issues, the domestic violence in the home, and mother failing to be protective of the children. "The court was entitled to find the social worker's opinion credible and give great weight to her assessment. We cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court." (Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) Moreover, the court specifically recalled this family and how dysfunctional it was. Thus, it relied on the social worker's recommendation as well as its own recollection in deciding to remove the children from father's care.
Father points out that DPSS relied heavily on C.D.'s statements about the family dynamics and notes that she was a troubled teenager who "had a propensity for dishonesty." However, as discussed ante, everyone in the family reported that the parents were constantly arguing and yelling at each other, and that father and C.D. had a bad relationship. Furthermore, regardless of whether all of C.D.'s statements were true or not, father's words and conduct negatively affected her well-being. The way he spoke to her and treated her led her to be depressed, feeling afraid of him, running away several times, and not wanting to return home. Father's negative conduct at home created an environment that put H.D. and O.D. at risk of similar harm.
Father also argues that there was no evidence of ongoing domestic violence, and although he and mother engaged in verbal arguments, such arguments were not domestic violence. However, a court can remove a child if "there is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home." (§ 361, subd. (c)(1), italics added.) While verbal arguments may not necessarily constitute domestic violence, the court was properly concerned with the effects of the constant yelling and arguing in the home, as well father's use of derogatory names. In any event, there was evidence that father had physical altercations with mother and C.D. in the past, and the court could properly consider his past conduct. (Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 917.)
See Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1342 ["A heated argument over the telephone, without more, is not domestic violence."]).
Father further points out that the uncontroverted evidence shows he never mistreated H.D. and O.D. or physically disciplined them, and they felt safe living with him. It also showed that his visits with them were going well and that he was loving and appropriate with them during visits. However, "a child does not need to be harmed before being removed from his parents' custody. One of the goals of dependency is to protect a child before the harm takes place." (Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) Therefore, the court was properly focused on averting harm to H.D. and O.D. (Ibid.)
Father additionally argues the evidence was insufficient to find that there were no reasonable means to protect H.D. and O.D. without removal from his care. He suggests the court's restraining order prohibiting contact between him and C.D., monitored visits, his participation in counseling and a domestic violence program, and/or unannounced home visits would have been sufficient to protect them. We note that father does not dispute the disposition order with regard to C.D. Since the children all live together, it would be difficult, at best, to order just the removal of C.D., and not H.D. and O.D.
Furthermore, father's suggestions of monitored visits and/or unannounced home visits would not have been sufficient to protect H.D. and O.D., since they would still be subject to the negative environment created by father's interactions with C.D. and mother, as well as the potential threat of physical harm. We further note that mother would not have been protective of them, since she changed her mind and felt the restraining order was no longer needed and the allegations were lies. H.D. and O.D. would not truly be safe in father's care until he acknowledged the inappropriate nature of his actions and behavior. (See Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) The social worker was properly concerned since father consistently blamed his actions on C.D., rather than taking responsibility for his own actions and behavior. Even on appeal, he appears to be trying to discredit C.D. by referring to her claims as unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, or exaggerated, pointing out her negative behaviors, and repeating that she had a propensity to lie However, "[w]e do not pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies." (Id. at p. 916.) "Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings . . . and affirm the order even if there is other evidence that would support a contrary finding." (Ibid.)
Ultimately, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order, as we must (Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 916), we conclude the evidence supports the court's findings there was a substantial danger to H.D.'s and O.D.'s well-being and no reasonable means to protect them. Therefore, the court properly removed them from his custody.
II. The Court Properly Listed H.D. and O.D. as Protected Persons in the Restraining Order
Father argues there was insufficient evidence to show the issuance of the restraining order protecting H.D. and O.D. was necessary since their safety was not in jeopardy. He requests that we reverse the portion of the restraining order identifying H.D. and O.D. as protected persons. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the court's restraining order.
A. Relevant Law
"Under section 213.5, subdivision (a), after 'a petition has been filed . . . to declare a child a dependent child of the juvenile court, and until the time that the petition is dismissed or dependency is terminated,' a juvenile court may issue an order 'enjoining any person from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, . . . destroying the personal property, contacting, . . . or disturbing the peace of the child . . . .'" (In re Bruno M. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 990, 996 (Bruno M.).) "[E]vidence the restrained person has previously stalked, attacked, or inflicted physical harm on the protected child 'is certainly sufficient' to justify issuance of a restraining order under section 213.5." (Id. at p. 997.) "However, the statute does not state that such evidence is necessary." (In re B.S. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) In other words, "issuance of a restraining order does not require such evidence." (Bruno M., at p. 997; see In re C.Q. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 355, 363.) "Nor does it require evidence of a reasonable apprehension of future abuse." (C.Q., at p. 363; see B.S., at p. 193.) "There need only be evidence that the restrained person 'disturbed the peace' of the protected child." (Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 997.) "In this context, disturbing the peace means' "conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party." '" (Ibid.)
"In reviewing the issuance of a restraining order under this section, 'we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent, and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the juvenile court's determination. If there is substantial evidence supporting the order, the court's issuance of the restraining order may not be disturbed.'" (Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at pp. 996-997.)
B. The Court Properly Included H.D. and O.D. in the Restraining Order
Father challenges the restraining order issued on April 21, 2021, although he acknowledges that on September 28, 2021, the court terminated that order and issued a new, less restrictive protective order. We note that, at that time, father stipulated to the court issuing separate restraining orders-one with regard to C.D. and another with regard to mother, H.D., and O.D. As to C.D., the court issued a no-contact order, except for supervised visitation. As to mother, H.D., and O.D., the court issued a restraining order, specifying that father was not to molest, attack, strike, stalk, etc. them and requiring him to stay at least 100 yards away from them.
By order filed on November 22, 2021, we reserved ruling for consideration with the appeal father's request for judicial notice (RJN). Father requests judicial notice of: (1) the juvenile court's minute order dated September 28, 2021, from the hearing held regarding his request for change of court order pursuant to section 388; and (2) the juvenile court's minute order dated September 28, 2021, from the hearing held pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e). We now grant the request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
In any event, father contends there was no substantial evidence to support naming H.D. and O.D. as protected parties in the restraining order. We respectfully disagree. Father asserts that H.D. and O.D. denied witnessing any physical altercations between him and mother or C.D., and they both reported feeling safe with him, and the visits with him were going well. In contrast, we note that when mother requested the restraining order, counsel for H.D. and O.D. joined in the request, stating there was a lot of conflict in the home, and she believed the emotional abuse that was inflicted on H.D. and O.D. was "extraordinary." She informed the court that they were scared of the environment and had learned to not say anything.
Furthermore, as described ante, the evidence showed there was constant yelling and arguing in the home. (See § I., ante.) O.D. said the parents would yell, scream, slam doors, and call each other names, and it made her sad when they did not get along. The evidence showed that H.D. and O.D. were usually present when father called mother names, or they would isolate themselves in their rooms when it occurred. O.D. also reported that father would yell at her when she got in trouble. The evidence indicates that during one of the parents' arguments, father called mother names and threw objects. We further note that father had access to a gun and locked himself in a room with it. His family thought he was going to kill himself, and O.D. was so scared she was crying. This evidence clearly reflects that father's conduct "disturbed the peace" and negatively affected the emotional well-being of H.D. and O.D. (Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 997.)
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent, as we must, we conclude the court could reasonably infer the restraining order was necessary to protect H.D. and O.D. from father's anger and potentially dangerous conduct. (See Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at pp. 996-998.) Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to include H.D. and O.D. as protected persons in the restraining order.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, Acting P. J., SLOUGH, J.