Opinion
B295604
02-07-2020
In re GINGER C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIFFANY C., Defendant and Appellant.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP08016 A-B) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kim L. Nguyen, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
In this appeal from a juvenile court dispositional order, Tiffany C. (mother) contends that because she is not an offending parent, the court abused its discretion by requiring her to participate in individual therapy. We find no abuse of discretion, and thus we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and James C., Sr. (father) have two children together: Ginger C. (born in April 2010), and K.C. (born in December 2017). Prior to these proceedings, father, mother, and the two children lived together in the family home with James C., Jr. (James), father's 16-year-old son from a prior relationship.
DCFS filed a separate dependency petition concerning James, and thus he is not a subject of this appeal. Father's adult child, I.C., was 20 years old when these proceedings began; she lives in Georgia with her mother and is not a subject of this appeal.
I.
Detention and Petition
In December 2018, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition alleging that Ginger and K.C. were within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) as a result of an incident between father and James—namely, that in November 2018, father had abused James by punching him in face and placing him in a headlock, causing him to suffer swelling to his eye and abrasions to his neck. DCFS's investigation of the incident revealed the following.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On the morning of the incident, James overslept and kept his father waiting to go to the gym. Father came into James's bedroom and began yelling that James did not take basketball seriously. Father "[got] in [his] face," and James put out his arms to get away from father. Father responded by punching James in the face, and then grabbed James by the shoulder, pushed him on the bed, and put him in a headlock.
Mother, who was sleeping in the next room, was awakened by the sounds of the fight. She saw father put James in a headlock, and she stepped between them to stop the fight. James walked outside and called law enforcement. Photographs taken after the fight showed that James had suffered a black eye, a knot over his right eyebrow, and scratches on his neck.
Father admitted hitting James, saying he was teaching James "a very valuable lesson: If you challenge an adult, you will get the consequences." Father referred to the incident as " ' man training,' " and he said that if James did not return to father's custody, father would pull James out of private school and keep him from playing basketball.
James told a children's social worker (CSW) that he believed father might have killed him if mother had not intervened. He did not want to return to father's custody. James said father had "anger issues" and had "put hands on" James's older half-sister, her mother, and James's mother. James had not seen father hit mother, but said father had frequent angry outbursts and had once kicked in a door. James reported that father screamed at Ginger and mother; mother ignored father's yelling, but it made Ginger cry. Law enforcement had been called to the family home at least once because of loud arguments between mother and father.
James's mother, Nelsy R., said father used to hit his oldest daughter, I.C., and that I.C.'s mother, Jennifer C., had had a restraining order against father. Nelsy denied father had ever hit her, but said he was often verbally aggressive. Nelsy said father had the view that it was either " 'his way or the highway—no negotiation.' "
I.C.'s mother, Jennifer, said that when she was pregnant with I.C., father had shattered the window of her car with his fist because she disobeyed him. I.C. continued to visit father until she was in tenth grade, but she frequently expressed fear of him. I.C. had not seen father for several years, and she currently was in counseling to work through father's verbal and emotional abuse.
The CSW noted the family home was clean and organized, and Ginger and K.C. appeared healthy and well cared for. Ginger told the CSW her mother was nice and took care of Ginger and K.C., but that father sometimes was "mean" to her mother and " 'said bad words' " like "stupid." Mother denied any domestic violence with father, but admitted he had a short temper.
On December 11, the CSW facilitated a "Child Family Team Meeting" attended by father, mother, paternal grandmother, paternal uncle, paternal aunt, James's maternal grandmother, James's maternal aunt, and James. Because James's mother lived in Guatemala, she could not attend the meeting in person. When James asked that his mother be allowed to participate by phone, father objected and stared angrily at James. After James left the room, father said that if James again pushed or struck him, " 'my son is going to get struck. I don't care about anyone else's opinion how I raise my child.' " When the CSW stepped out of the meeting room, father got into an argument with James's maternal grandmother; father attempted to lunge across the table to hit the maternal grandmother, but was pulled back by the paternal grandmother. The meeting ended shortly afterward. As father left the meeting, he yelled out to James that he would disenroll him from private school the next day and would not give consent for James to play basketball.
On December 14, the CSW told mother that James, Ginger, and K.C. would be removed from father, but the girls would be permitted to remain with mother. Mother agreed to move with the children into her mother's home. When the CSW attempted to serve father with the removal order, father refused to meet with the CSW or to speak to her on the phone.
On December 19, 2018, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining Ginger and K.C. from father, and ordered the children released to mother.
II.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
A. Report
Mother reported to the CSW that she had lived with father since 2009, and they had been married since 2014. She acknowledged there were several times when she had briefly left father following an argument, and said they had separated for six months in 2015. She said neighbors had called the police on about five separate occasions because of father's yelling; on those occasions, she had sent the children into the bedroom. Mother said she felt " 'sad and worried' " about the children witnessing these arguments because " 'they think it's okay to be treated that way.' "
Mother told the CSW she did not think classes would benefit her because the family's problems were caused by father's anger. She thought she would benefit from marital counseling and Ginger would benefit from individual counseling " '[b]ecause of her exposure to her father's temper.' "
James reported that father had hit Ginger a couple of times with a belt, and he believed Ginger was fearful of father. James said mother was aware of father's use of a belt on Ginger.
Father's adult daughter, I.C., submitted a lengthy email to DCFS in which she described many occasions during her childhood when father "lost his temper and reacted violently, physically and verbally." She described father as "manipulative, violent, and a liar," and said he "thrives off . . . fear." I.C. said she was still dealing with the effects of father's emotional abuse.
B. Hearing
At the February 4, 2019 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, father pled no contest to count j-1 of the petition, as amended. The juvenile court sustained the j-1 count, as amended, and dismissed the a-1 and b-1 counts.
The copy of the amended count in the appellate record is only partially legible; it states: "On 11/10/18, [Ginger C. and K.C.]'s father, James [C.] Sr., [illegible] the children's paternal half sibling James [C.] Jr. by striking the sibling's face with the father's hand and placing the sibling in a headlock choking the child, inflicting redness and swelling to the sibling's right eye and abrasions to the sibling's neck. The father grabbed the sibling's shoulders and pushed the sibling. Such physical [illegible] was excessive and caused the sibling unreasonable pain and suffering. The physical [illegible] of the sibling James by the father endangers the children's physical health and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical harm."
With regard to disposition, the court ordered mother to participate in conjoint counseling with father and Ginger, and individual counseling to address domestic violence and coping skills. The court ordered father to complete parenting and anger management classes, and to participate in conjoint and individual counseling.
Mother's counsel objected to the inclusion of individual counseling in mother's case plan. Counsel urged: "[Mother] is a non-offending parent in this petition. Mother has not exhibited any mental health issues to warrant individual counseling. There's no domestic violence in the reports documented between mother and the father. They're adults, and they have disagreements. However, there's no abuse, be it verbal or physical to warrant individual counseling to address domestic violence. In order to order services for mother, the court has to find a parent or minor would benefit from the participation and find that participation is necessary to avoid the risk of future neglect or abuse by another. Therefore, we assert the Department has failed to put forth this evidence today and request that the court not order mother . . . into individual counseling."
County counsel urged the court to order mother to engage in individual counseling. Counsel noted: "[T]he court can fashion any orders that seem appropriate to protect the family. Contrary to mother's counsel's statements, mother does detail ongoing arguments on behalf of the father. . . . [Mother] states, 'He [father] can go from zero to 60 with his anger. He's yelling in your face, and he doesn't feel he can calm down.' Mother has called the neighbors and even separated from the father for six months. I do believe mother can have individual counseling to help her address these issues, as well as provide her with additional coping skills, other than leaving the father or sending the children to their room. Based on this information, we are requesting the mother does, in fact, complete individual counseling."
The court denied the request to strike individual counseling from mother's case plan: "[I]t's certainly true [mother] is not in the allegations, but the court would agree, I think, there are issues here regarding family dynamics that I believe individual counseling is necessary to address to keep the children safe and to keep the household functioning. So I am going to order individual counseling, noting [mother's] objections today."
Mother timely appealed from the dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering her to participate in individual counseling. Mother notes she is a non-offending parent and says there is no evidence she has mental health issues or had failed to protect her children. Thus, she urges, it was "unreasonable for the court to order mother into individual therapy as a family maintenance service."
A. Standard of Review
" 'The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal, this determination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. [Citation.]' (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.)" (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311; see also In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 624.)
B. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Ordering Mother to Participate in Individual Counseling
If a child is adjudged a dependent child under section 300, then the juvenile court may make "any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child." (§ 362, subd. (a).) The juvenile court has "wide latitude" in making orders for the well-being of the child and "is not limited to the content of the sustained petition when it considers what dispositional orders would be in the best interests of the children. (In re Rodger H. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1183; In re Christopher H. [(1996)] 50 Cal.App.4th [1001,] 1006-1008.)" (In re Briana, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311.) Instead, "the court may consider the evidence as a whole." (Ibid.)
Because the juvenile court has a broad mandate to protect dependent children, dispositional orders may include matters that are not the subject of the petition, and may be directed at a parent as to whom there is not a jurisdictional finding. Indeed, section 362, subdivision (c) provides that if a child is adjudged a dependent child and the court orders that a parent or guardian shall retain custody of the child subject to court supervision, the parents "shall be required to participate in child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency." (Italics added.) Thus, for example, in In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1148, although the jurisdictional findings concerning the mother were held not supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court concluded the juvenile court had not abused its discretion by ordering the mother to participate in family maintenance services. The court explained: "Irrespective of whether the court's jurisdictional findings as to her were well founded, the court had jurisdiction over the child. Accordingly, it had the authority to order a nonoffending parent to participate in services." (Ibid., italics added; accord, In re Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1007 [although father's substance abuse was not a cause of the dependency, the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering father to drug test because his substance abuse "pose[d] a potential risk of interfering with his ability to make a home for and care for Christopher"].)
In the present case, although mother is not an offending parent, she remained in a relationship with father, who has been adjudicated to have physically abused his teenage son, and who has a history of verbally abusing his daughters. James reported that father "aggressively yells" at Ginger, and that Ginger cried when father "raised his voice just a little." Father's adult daughter, I.C., told DCFS that there had been many occasions during her childhood when father "lost his temper and reacted violently, physically and verbally," and she was still dealing with the effects of father's emotional abuse. Mother's insight into the effect of father's violence on the children was limited: Although mother acknowledged that Ginger would benefit from individual counseling because of her exposure to father's temper, mother did not believe she herself would benefit from classes or therapy. Given that mother remained in a relationship with father and appeared to lack insight into the effect of father's violence on the children, the juvenile court acted reasonably in finding that mother's participation in individual therapy to address domestic violence and coping skills was necessary to ensure the children's physical and emotional well-being.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EDMON, P. J. We concur:
EGERTON, J.
DHANIDINA, J.