Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ct. No. CK80594, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey M. Blount, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ASHMANN-GERST J.
Appellant L.D. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order for monitored visitation. She contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering that mother’s visits be monitored, claiming that she remedied her anger and discipline issues and proved that her children would be safe during unmonitored visits with her.
The children include A.B. (born June 1995), Al.D. (born Mar. 1998), Am.D. (born Mar. 2002), and Amarj.D. (born Apr. 2004).
Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 Petition and Detention
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
On January 6, 2010, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) against mother on behalf of the children. At counts a-1, b-1, and j-1, the petition alleged that mother physically abused A.B. by striking her with her fists, causing swelling to her face, striking her stomach with her fists, slapping the child’s face, causing swelling to the child’s lip, and choking the child, causing difficulty breathing. The petition further alleged that A.B. suffered from anxiety and depression as a result of the ongoing physical abuse, placing A.B. and her siblings at risk of harm.
Counts pursuant to subdivision (g) were also leveled against the children’s fathers. They are not parties to this appeal.
In counts a-2, b-2, and j-2, the petition also alleged that mother physically abused Al.D. by punching her arms with her fists, slapping the child’s body, and striking the child’s body with belts and other objects, placing the child and her siblings at risk of harm.
At counts a-3, b-3, and j-3, the petition alleged that mother physically abused Am.D. by striking his head and stomach with mother’s fists and slapping his face and ears. Am.D. was afraid of mother because of the ongoing physical abuse, placing the child and his siblings at risk of harm.
The social worker who prepared the detention report first spoke with the children’s maternal grandmother, A.T. (the grandmother). The grandmother denied that mother physically abused the children, although she did describe mother’s actions as inappropriate physical discipline. She also indicated that mother may have emotionally abused the children. Although she denied seeing mother punch or slap the children, she did recall one occasion when mother punched A.B. on her face, causing her face to swell; A.B. was unable to attend school because of her injury. She also described another incident in which mother thought A.B. was being disrespectful so she slapped her on the mouth.
The social worker next spoke with the children’s maternal aunt, L.F. (the aunt). The aunt described mother as “mean and angry.” She reported that mother “physically abuses her children on a regular basis. When mother gets angry[, ] she takes her anger out on the children[, ] especially [A.B.]. Mother punches, chokes and hits them with various objects. On one occasion, mother punched [A.B.] on her face with enough force to cause her face to swell. [A.B.] did not attend school as a result of her injury. [The aunt] described another incident at which time mother felt that [A.B.] was disrespectful to [the] grandmother’s boyfriend and mother disciplined her by punching her in the chest two times and on the face.”
The aunt “also reported that mother hits on [Al.D.]. However, she does not hit her as often but when she does hit her, it is more severe. [The aunt]... also witnessed mother sock... Am.D. on the head and slap his ear because she felt he was behaving like a girl when he was sitting with his legs crossed. [The aunt] further disclosed that her sister found [A.B.’s] notebook and read it. [The] [j]ournal described that [A.B.] is starting to have suicidal thoughts. [A.B.] wrote in her journal that there is no point in living when no one helps them.... [The aunt] stated that mother was informed about the journal, her response was ‘Go ahead and kill yourself, one less kid I got to worry about.’”
In his telephonic interview with mother, mother denied the allegations and indicated that she does not abuse her children. She “denied slapping, punching or choking any of her children.” She stated that she disciplines her children by grounding them and spanking them with an open hand on their buttocks. She did admit that she slapped A.B. on the mouth, leaving her with a swollen lip, and that A.B. did not go to school; however, mother denied slapping A.B. on the face. Mother also denied telling A.B. to go ahead and kill herself because then she would have one less child to worry about. After finding out that A.B. had suicidal thoughts, mother stated that she questioned A.B. about what she had written.
The social worker also spoke with the children. Amarj.D. stated that she loves mother and that mother treats her well. She did not report any abuse, neglect or maltreatment.
A.B. told a different story. While she stated that she loves mother, she also reported that she is afraid of her. According to A.B., “when... mother gets angry[, ] she takes her anger out on her and sometimes on her siblings. [A.B.] stated that sometimes she wishes that her mother hits her rather than hitting on her younger siblings. She stated that her mother is abusive of her and her siblings. [A.B.] reported that her mother has choked her on two different occasions to the point[] she couldn’t breath[e]. On one occasion, mother punched [A.B.] on [the] face with enough force to cause her face to swell. [A.B.] did not attend school as a result of her injury. [A.B.] described another incident at which her mother disciplined her by punching her in the chest and slapping her on the face. In the past, [A.B.] reported writing in her journal that there is no point in living when no one helps them, ” although she no longer feels that way.
A.B. also informed the social worker that she was doing mother’s job; she helped get her younger siblings ready for school, cooked for them, and clothed them. Mother instructed A.B. to spank her siblings if they misbehaved.
Next, the social worker interviewed Am.D. He said that he loved mother, however, when mother gets angry, she punches him on the stomach causing him to cry. He also reported that sometimes mother slaps him on the face. On one occasion, mother socked him on the head and slapped his ear because he was sitting with his legs crossed. Am.D. further stated that mother is abusive to his siblings, except Amarj.D. He reiterated the incident in which mother punched A.B. in the chest and slapped her on the face, causing her lips to swell. Finally, Am.D. stated that he was afraid of mother.
Last, the social worker spoke with Al.D. Like her siblings, Al.D. stated that she loves mother, but that when mother gets angry, she takes her anger out on her and her siblings. According to Al.D., mother “constantly yells at her and hits her.” When mother disciplines her, she punches her on the arm, slaps her, and uses a belt and other objects to hit her. Al.D. told the social worker about the time when mother hit A.B. in the face, resulting in a swollen lip and causing A.B. to miss school. Al.D. also advised the social worker that she had seen mother punch Am.D. in the stomach, making him cry. That said, Al.D. indicated that she was not afraid of mother.
The children were detained.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report and Hearings
In its February 3, 2010, jurisdiction/disposition report, DCFS provided the juvenile court with information regarding mother’s physical abuse of the children, among other things. A.B. confirmed that mother hit the children a lot because she has anger issues. Al.D. stated that mother hit A.B. more than her, but did not hit them “that much.” She further reported that mother did not hit them with a belt; she used her hand. Al.D. recalled various incidents, including when mother hit A.B. so hard that her lip was bleeding. According to Al.D., mother did not hit the younger children often, only once or twice a week with a belt.
Am.D. also reported that mother hit A.B. and Al.D. He again told the social worker about the time mother hit A.B., causing her lip to bleed. According to Am.D., mother hit them a lot and “‘sock[ed]’” them a lot. One time, when he was five years old, he “was hit with an extension cord.” Other times, mother “‘has socked [him] real hard on the chest.’”
Amarj.D. stated that she had seen mother hit A.B. She also reported that mother “‘whoops’” them with a belt.
During her interview with the social worker, mother continued to deny ever hitting the children, although she did admit that she “‘popped [A.B.] in the mouth.’” She denied choking A.B. When asked about whether A.B. was suicidal, she responded by stating that A.B. “just acts up when we take her CDs away.” She denied ever seeing A.B.’s journal that expressed thoughts of suicide. She also denied that A.B. had to take care of the other children, saying that A.B. only had to make sure that Al.D. and Amarj.D. were dressed well and clean, and that A.B. had certain chores, like taking out the trash, picking up the trash, putting toys away, and making her bed.
When asked about how she disciplines her children, mother stated that she “‘grab[s]’” the younger ones by their arms. She admitted that she “‘popped’” Al.D. “‘with a house shoe on the behind.’” While mother denied hitting the children with belts, she admitted that she “pinched and grabbed [one of the children’s] arm.”
Mother denied hitting Am.D. “‘because he was sitting like a girl.’” Rather, mother stated that she “‘whooped him in the butt because he was jumping around and accidentally hit me in the face.’” She also admitted to grabbing him by the shirt.
The social worker also spoke with the grandmother, who denied that mother physically abused the children. The grandmother did concede that the children “‘may get a spanking’” and were going to get bruises because they are light-skinned. Later, the grandmother told the social worker that A.B. “‘got popped... for being smart, but it was an open hand. It didn’t cause any bleeding or nothing.’”
The grandmother further stated that mother did not beat her children because there were no bruises. And, while she stated that mother did not hit the children with objects, she also stated that mother did “‘whoop’” one of the children with a belt.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearings on February 3, 2010, and March 3, 2010, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of physical abuse against mother. In order for mother to reunify with the children, the juvenile court ordered mother to participate in individual counseling to address case issues and anger management and to participate in conjoint counseling when recommended by the children’s therapist. The juvenile court further ordered monitored visitation with discretion to liberalize.
Six-month Review Hearing
At the six-month review hearing on September 1, 2010, DCFS recommended that the children be returned to mother. Mother was in partial compliance with court orders. She regularly was participating in anger management classes. Moreover, she maintained consistent visitation with her children and DCFS had liberalized her visitation to unmonitored. However, she had not yet enrolled in individual counseling.
The juvenile court declined to release the children to mother, finding that while mother may have made progress, it was “not reflected in this report [from the anger management therapist]. And I have concerns that [DCFS] has liberalized visits without any discussion of there being progress. [¶] Now [DCFS] clearly should address this in a supplemental report given the nature of the allegations, and particularly the A-1, with the type of abuse that had gone on, which could have been very detrimental to the children.” The juvenile court requested “a supplemental report that verifies that [DCFS] has provided to all the therapist[s] copies of the sustained petition, the disposition case plan, and all DCFS reports. [¶] I want a letter from the therapist. I want to know mother is in individual therapy. [¶]... And I want to know upon what basis [DCFS] liberalized the visitation here. There are to be no overnights between now and the next court date. The court will not stop the unmonitored at this point, since [DCFS] has done it. But I’m really concerned [as to why] they did that.”
Continued Six-month Review Hearing
At the continued six-month review hearing on September 15, 2010, mother testified. She stated under oath that she did not strike her children, slap her children, shake her children, or sock her children. In sum, she denied ever physically abusing her children. Rather, she accused her children of lying about the abuse.
After hearing mother’s testimony, DCFS indicated that it could “obviously not... make a recommendation for home of parent, mother, based on her denial of pretty much everything in the petition that the court found to be true. And in fact, [DCFS] believes that under these circumstances, monitored visits would be appropriate.” DCFS continued: “[B]ased on the positive statements from [mother’s] therapist and from this Peaceful Solutions Program that mother [has] been attending, the social worker basically assumed that mother had addressed these issues and made progress. Obviously, that wasn’t accurate. [¶]... And [the social worker] is very concerned about the response of mother today.”
In response to a question by the juvenile court, the children’s attorney stated that the children had never recanted the allegations against mother. They “are very honest about what was going on in that home and where they are now today.” The children did believe that mother had improved her anger management.
Ultimately, the juvenile court emphasized that it was interested in mother’s progress, not just her participation. It then set the matter for a contested hearing and ordered that mother’s visits return to being monitored.
Contested Six-month Review Hearing
At the contested six-month review hearing on October 21, 2010, mother testified about her progress in her programs. Notwithstanding her claim that she had made progress, mother continued to deny that any physical abuse had occurred.
Following mother’s testimony, DCFS recommended that mother’s visits remain monitored. The children’s attorney commented that the children were not doing well in their placements. That said, she believed that mother had made progress, but she was still “outraged by her position.” She asked that the children have “some brief unmonitored time” with mother on “the condition that she is at least communicating with their therapist.”
Mother’s attorney joined in the children’s counsel’s argument, stating: “I understand this court’s position at this point... is [that it is] not appropriate to return the kids to this mother. She does need further counseling and I understand that for the court to find that the children can be returned home is a different standard for mother to continue to have unmonitored visitation. [¶] I believe that mother’s testimony has shown today that [she has] benefit[t]ed greatly from her program, counseling. [¶] She’s learned skills to do with her children and discipline them, that she did not have prior to DCFS intervention in her life. She testified that she’s disciplined with belts and she thought that was okay. And she testified today that after being in counseling she finds out, that that’s not an okay way to discipline her children. [¶] I believe that mother has come far enough for the court to find there’s no risk for unmonitor[ed] visitation with her children. She was having unmonitored. When she’s returned to monitored, there was no indication from any counsel that they were going inappropriately; that she had ever acted violently toward any of them. [¶] And in fact, mother has testified that when she had some of her visits that were unmonitored, when some of the kids would act up she would utilize the tools that she learned in her counseling, that are now able to be used to discipline them, as opposed to resorting back to what she used to do before she was able to avail herself of... anger management counseling. [¶] [I’d] ask the court to find there is no risk for these kids, who sound like they really need to see their mom, to have unmonitored visits with them.”
After entertaining oral argument, the juvenile court ordered monitored visitation for mother and the children, stating: “[DCFS’s] recommendation at the last date was a home of parent, mother. And instead of putting over to get more information, I wanted to hear from the mother. So we called her. And she testified. And what I heard from her on September 15th was frankly shocking. Today’s testimony didn’t help that.
“The mother’s—I don’t know that I have ever had a parent on the witness stand that sounded with the tone of her voice, her facial expressions, the way she held her body, more rehearsed. She wrote what she thought the court needed to hear, and that’s pretty much what she said.
“Although she is still in basically complete denial, because at least today she admits to some light discipline of everything that happened in this case.
“I have a 15, 12[, ] an 8[, ] and a 6-year-old who are depressed.... [T]hey started being depressed when they were so physically abused at home, that they wanted to—at least one of them wanted to kill herself. [¶]... [¶]
“I feel terrible that [DCFS] liberalized these visits here giving these children false hope, without requiring from anybody whether progress was made, or whether they were safe.
“This continues to be a concern of mine with [DCFS]. They don’t seem to care whether anybody makes progress, only whether somebody participated. The statutes are very clear, that it has to be both, because they are aware that participation without progress is nothing.
“The court today finds by clear and convincing evidence that [DCFS] has complied with the case plan in making reasonable efforts to return the children to a safe home and to complete the steps necessary to make and finalize the permanent placement. The only thing [DCFS] didn’t do is make adequate efforts to make sure that the children were safe. [¶]... [¶]
“I do appreciate that for a couple of months after [DCFS] liberalized visits that nothing happened during [those] unmonitored visits. Thank goodness nothing happen[ed] during the unmonitored visits.
“And I’m aware of the emotional situation this puts [the] children in, what I am willing to do is order that mother’s visits be loosely monitored.... Nobody has to be in the room, but we have to be able to see her so we can make sure that there is no more physical discipline.
“If the visits take place at a park, as long as somebody can see the children, to make sure she’s not beating the children. That’s enough.
“I realize that they need contact, but what they really need is for you to own up to what happened in the past and show them that you’ve made a difference.
“Because it’s not just here, about getting them back, it’s about making a difference for the kids. And ma’am, I don’t believe that everybody lied, all the children, your mother, and the sisters, everyone lied and none of this happened.”
Appeal
Mother’s timely appeal from the order restricting mother’s visitation ensued.
DISCUSSION
A juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion dispositional orders, including orders regarding visitation, based on “what would best serve and protect the child’s interest.” (In re Neil D. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 219, 225; see also In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757 [a parent’s right to visitation necessarily must be balanced with the best interests of the child].) As a result, and as the parties agree, we review the juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion. (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 692, 699, fn. 6.) “‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.)
The physical abuse involved in this case was very serious. The children and their aunt described the abuse that the children suffered as socking, punching, choking, and hitting them with various objects. The children, the grandmother, and the aunt all recalled an incident when mother punched A.B. on the face so severely that her face swelled and she had to miss school. The abuse was so horrific that at least one of the children (A.B.) had suicidal ideation.
Despite the overwhelming and consistent evidence of serious physical abuse, mother continued to deny that any abuse had occurred. Even after participating in anger management classes, she steadfastly denied at two court hearings that she ever physically abused her children. Instead, she accused her children of lying. Under these circumstances, we readily conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that mother’s visitation be monitored.
We are not convinced by mother’s claim that she made enough progress in her anger management program and individual counseling to enjoy unmonitored visitation with her children. Simply put, the juvenile court did not believe mother; it found her testimony “rehearsed.” (Evje v. City Title Ins. Co. (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 488, 492 [“it is the exclusive province of the... [trier of fact] to determine the credibility of a witness”].) Moreover, in rejecting mother’s contention, the juvenile court determined that while mother had participated in anger management counseling, she had not yet made enough progress to allow her unmonitored visitation. This finding is well-supported by the appellate record, namely mother’s minimization of the physical abuse that she inflicted upon her children.
Finally, we note the following: The juvenile court did not deprive mother of contact with her children. Rather, it merely required mother’s visits to be monitored. Its decision in that regard is not an abuse of discretion given mother’s denial of physical abuse. Despite conclusory remarks in the letter from Seeking Peaceful Solutions, Inc., mother still refused to admit what she had done and what led to these dependency proceedings. Under these circumstances, no basis exists to reverse the order for monitored visitation.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
We concur: DOI TODD, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J.