Opinion
H050294
10-18-2022
A.A.-L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY, Respondent; MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 20JD000064)
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J.
Petitioner A.A.-L. (father) challenges the juvenile court's termination of reunification services and setting of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing concerning his son, A.A. (son). He contends that the juvenile court's finding at the 24-month review hearing that there was a substantial risk of detriment if son was returned to father is not supported by "credible" substantial evidence. Father contends that the court "did not give the proper weight" to the evidence he presented. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding and deny father's petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
J.R. (mother) gave birth to son in 2018. Father has a history of domestic violence and substance abuse convictions. After a domestic violence incident, a protective order was entered in April 2019 protecting mother from father. In April 2020, father violated that protective order during another domestic violence incident.
On June 21, 2020, son was detained by the Monterey County Department of Social & Employment Services (the Department) after domestic violence by father resulted in mother suffering a head injury that required her to be transported to the hospital. Father fled the scene, leaving son with no caregiver. The June 2020 incident, like the April 2020 incident, occurred in son's presence while the parents were drinking and smoking marijuana. Father was arrested and incarcerated in the Monterey County jail for domestic violence and violation of the protective order, and he did not arrange for son's care.
As a result of the June 2020 incident, another protective order was issued, this time protecting both mother and son from father. Mother reported that there had been four incidents of physical violence between her and father. Father had already attended more than 30 domestic violence classes (part of a court-ordered 52-week domestic violence course) before the June 2020 domestic violence incident. He admitted that he usually drank 8 or 9 beers at a time.
At the uncontested July 2020 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the parents submitted on the social worker's report, and the court found the section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) petition true. The court declared son a dependent child and removed him from the parents' custody. Father's case plan required him to work on anger management, refrain from domestic violence, comply with the protective order, develop a positive support system, complete a mental health assessment, participate in a domestic violence program, complete parenting education classes, and undergo a substance abuse program evaluation. Son was placed in a concurrent home in September 2020.
The Department initially recommended that both parents' services be terminated at the scheduled January 2021 six-month review hearing. Father remained incarcerated and had not participated in any programs or had any visits with son. The hearing was continued to February 2021 due to father's imminent release from custody. The Department then changed its recommendation and recommended continuing services for father.
At the February 2021 six-month review hearing, the court continued services to father but terminated mother's services. Father's case plan was updated to require additional substance abuse components. Although he was granted weekly supervised visits with son, the protective order precluded visits. Father was released from custody in March 2021. He obtained employment and began living with his father and two siblings.
At the uncontested June 202112-month review hearing, the Department recommended extending father's reunification services for another six months even though father's progress on his case plan had been "minimal." Father had completed a mental health assessment. He had been dropped from a parent education group because he was not participating, but he was participating in a Nurturing Parenting program. Father was also attending a domestic violence class. The court extended father's services for another six months.
The criminal protective order expired in June 2021. Father began having supervised visits with son in August 2021. The visits were twice a week for two hours. Father had difficulty dealing with son's tantrums and disobedience. Father admitted that he had forgotten what he had learned in the parenting classes he had attended. Father was heard telling son:" 'I'm going to leave because you are being mean.'" Father was initially receptive to feedback from visitation staff, and the visits improved.
Father resisted any discussion of domestic violence with the social worker. When the social worker tried to discuss domestic violence with father in August 2021, father "became evasive," denied that he had ever physically abused mother, and asserted that son was never present when father and mother argued. Father maintained this position in subsequent meetings with the social worker in September 2021 and November 2021. Father successfully completed a parent education group and underwent a substance abuse assessment. The only person father identified as a support person was his father, G.A., but G.A. did not contact the Department.
At the uncontested December 202118-month review hearing, the Department recommended extending father's services for another six months, and the court did so even though it found father's progress to be "minimal."
In January 2022, father's parent education instructor reported that father did not return her messages or calls. She had referred him to a parenting class, but he had failed to respond. Father told the social worker that he was not interested in these parenting services. Although father was often late to visits, the visits otherwise went well. However, father tended to become upset when visitation staff attempted to redirect him when his play activities with son were unsafe.
The Department recommended that the court terminate father's services at the scheduled June 2022 24-month review hearing. Father's contact with the Department had become inconsistent. He had missed a December 2021 meeting and had not scheduled a January 2022 meeting. When father met with the social worker in February 2022, he was argumentative and disrespectful. He declined to meet with the social worker in April 2022. He met with the social worker in May 2022 but cancelled the scheduled June 2022 meeting.
Father was attending weekly substance abuse group sessions, and he had submitted to random drug screenings, which were all negative. However, he was a no-show for some random tests. And he was not attending Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as required by his case plan. Father had not identified any support persons on whom he could rely. He continued to insist that there had never been any physical violence in his relationship with mother. Father reported that he had almost completed the court-ordered 52-week domestic violence course that he had mostly completed before the June 2020 domestic violence incident that resulted in son being removed from parental custody.
The 24-month review hearing was continued to July 2022 at father's request for a contested hearing. Father testified at the July 2022 hearing that he had been having supervised visits with son twice a week for two hours for about a year. He conceded that his recent visits with son largely involved watching Disney videos together. Father testified that he had been drug testing a couple of times a month as part of his case plan, and all of his tests had been negative. He had completed parenting classes, but he could not remember anything about them. Father was employed, working nights, and lived with his father.
Father admitted that son had been removed from his custody due to domestic violence. But he testified that he was reluctant to discuss domestic violence with the social workers because they" 'judge me.'" He had completed the court-ordered 52-week domestic violence program required by the criminal court and a four-week domestic violence course to which he was referred by the Department. Father produced a certificate attesting that the 52-week domestic violence program was completed between August 2019 and March 2022. Father testified that he had learned in these courses to think before reacting and to "stop, think, observe, and proceed." He had also learned that children could be affected by both physical and verbal abuse, which "messes with their emotions" and makes them think "it's okay to hit other children possibly." He understood that domestic violence could harm a child's self-esteem, frighten the child, and harm the child's social skills. Father admitted that he had accepted a "deal" and pleaded no contest to violating a protective order for the June 2020 incident.
Father's friend, who was employed as a caregiver, testified that she would be willing to babysit son if father regained custody of son. G.A., who lived with father, testified that he would be there to help father with son. G.A. had not seen son in two or three years and had not requested any visits with son. G.A. testified that father had become "more mature" and "more responsible" in the last two years, and G.A. believed that father "would make a really good father." G.A. had never met with the Department or observed a visit between father and son.
After father's witnesses had testified, the hearing was continued to August 2022. The social worker testified at the continued hearing. He testified that, despite requests, father had never allowed the Department to visit G.A.'s home, where father was living, which meant that the Department had not been able to assess the safety of that home. The social worker noted that the "quality" of visits between father and son had declined over time, and recent visits consisted largely of eating, watching videos on father's phone, and sometimes "rough play." Father's conduct during visits had also declined. He was not receptive to feedback from visitation supervisors who were "trying to . . . redirect him to engage in safer play." Father made derogatory statements to son during visits, and he had told social workers that he intended to "be tough" on son. Father had a difficult time setting boundaries for son during visits. When asked about this, father said he did not want to set limits but instead to have "fun" visits.
Father refused to discuss physical abuse with the social worker, and he denied that he had perpetrated any physical abuse. The social worker testified that the "two major risks" that father posed to son were his unwillingness to discuss domestic violence and his lack of a support system. The social worker testified that there was a "safety risk" to son in father's care because father had not provided the Department with information about "what the parenting would be like." In the social worker's view, father had done nothing to alleviate the risk of domestic violence. On this basis, the social worker testified that it would be unsafe to return son to father's custody.
Father's counsel argued that there was "no safety risk" and that the Department had not provided reasonable services because it had never increased visitation.
The trial court expressly credited the social worker's testimony. The court found that reasonable services had been provided and that father had made only "minimal" progress toward alleviating the causes for son's removal from his custody. The court explicitly found: "Return of the child to the parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." The court identified three bases for its detriment finding. First, father had failed to identify a support system that could help him in parenting son and asserted that he did not need any support. Second, father was not able to discuss physical violence or how it impacted son. Third, father was unable to articulate how he would meet son's needs if son were returned to his care. In sum, even after 24 months of services, father had been unable to mitigate the safety concerns that had triggered the dependency proceedings. The court terminated father's services and set a section 366.26 hearing for December 6, 2022.
II. DISCUSSION
Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that there was a substantial risk of detriment if son were returned to father's custody.
"[T]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.22, subd. (a) [18-month review hearing]; see subd. (b) [extending services to 24-month limit].)
" 'We review an order terminating reunification services to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] In making this determination, we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders. [Citation.] "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Fabian L. v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1028.)
Father invites us to reweigh the evidence and credit his testimony over that of the social worker. Our standard of review precludes us from doing so. The trial court explicitly credited the social worker's testimony, so we are bound to do so also. The social worker testified that father posed a substantial risk of detriment to son because father was unwilling to even discuss or acknowledge his domestic violence against mother that had resulted in son being removed from his custody. As a result, father's completion of classes on domestic violence had not alleviated the risk that he would again engage in domestic violence that would threaten son's physical and emotional well-being. Son was just four years old when services were terminated, and father had never advanced beyond supervised visitation despite 24 months of reunification services. The trial court did not err in concluding that the social worker's testimony supported a finding that, due to father's failure to address the reason for the dependency, it would be detrimental to son to return him to father's custody.
Father relies on David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (David B.), but that case is inapposite. The father in David B. was a nonoffending noncustodial father. The child was placed in protective custody due to the mother's mental illness and substance abuse. The father had progressed to overnight visits with his daughter, but the court terminated services at the 18-month hearing because the father frequently reached out to the social worker and the caregiver for parenting advice. (Id. at pp. 789-790.) The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the father writ relief when he challenged the termination of services. In the course of its opinion, which principally dealt with the reasonableness of the services provided, the Fourth District described the substantial detriment standard "as a fairly high one" that "cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable than an available foster parent or other family member." (Id. at p. 789.)
The case before us is not one in which services were terminated because father was not an "ideal" parent, did not benefit as much as hoped from services, or was less capable than other caregivers. Instead, it is a case in which father failed to address the very reason for the dependency proceedings: his domestic violence. The fact that he participated in domestic violence classes clearly was not adequate to address his domestic violence as he had completed 30 domestic violence classes before he committed the domestic violence that led to son being removed from his custody. His failure to acknowledge any of the physical abuse he had perpetrated supported a reasonable inference that his propensity for domestic violence remained a danger to son's physical and emotional well-being.
Father's reliance on Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738 (Blanca P.) is equally misplaced. In Blanca P., the Fourth District stated: "The failure to 'internalize' general parenting skills is simply too vague to constitute substantial, credible evidence of detriment. To hold otherwise would come perilously close to allowing legal decisions of monumental importance to the persons involved to be based on nebulous ideas more appropriate to an afternoon talk show than a court of law." (Id. at p. 1751.) At issue in Blanca P. was a detriment finding that precluded a mother from regaining custody of her child even though she had attended counseling and therapy sessions because she refused to accept the possibly faulty presumption that her husband was a child molester. (Ibid.)
Here, in contrast, father refused to accept responsibility for domestic violence that had been found true by the juvenile court. His perpetration of domestic violence was not a faulty presumption. His refusal to discuss his domestic violence with the social worker showed that the risks had not been alleviated.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's detriment finding.
III. DISPOSITION
Father's petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: DANNER, J. WILSON, J.