From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Arnold S.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. B198615 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)

Opinion


In re ARNOLD S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER S., Defendant and Appellant. B198615 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division March 17, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 36524, David S. Milton, Judge; Heidi W. Shirley, Referee.

Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Appellant Christopher S.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent Department of Children and Family Services.

ZELON, J.

Father Christopher S., the offending parent, appeals the dependency court’s order terminating jurisdiction over his son Arnold pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 364. He contends substantial evidence does not support the dependency court’s termination of jurisdiction. We affirm.

All statutory references herein, unless otherwise noted, are to the Welfare & Institutions Code.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Arnold, born in 1997, first came to the attention of the dependency court on August 3, 2005, pursuant to a petition alleging Father’s emotional, physical and sexual abuse of Arnold. The petition specifically alleged that Father grabbed Arnold by the arm and pulled him through a door, causing Arnold to hit his head; Father masturbated in front of Arnold on two occasions; and Arnold and his three siblings, William, Yadira, and Kristy, had twice before been adjudicated dependent children because of Father’s abuse and an on-going custody battle with the children’s mother, Maria M. As a result of Father’s abuse, Arnold suffers from severe behavioral problems that interfere with his education.

Arnold’s siblings are not subjects of this appeal. The dependency court terminated jurisdiction over these proceedings in 2000 and 2003, respectively.

At the detention hearing in August 2005, the dependency court released Arnold to the care of his mother. Arnold requested visitation with Father; however, Father declined visitation and the court did not order visitation. On October 21, 2005, the dependency court sustained the amended petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d) and (j) as to Father.

The court specifically found Mother was a non-offending parent. Mother and Father are the subjects of concurrently pending family law dissolution proceedings in which Father had been granted visitation, and had been ordered not to speak in a disrespectful manner or use corporal punishment.

At the December 7, 2005 disposition hearing, the Department submitted a report detailing Father’s previous involvement with the dependency court, including the facts that he had completed a parenting class, and attended counseling in 2000, but had withdrawn from two domestic violence courses. Father had not visited Arnold. Arnold remained in his mother’s custody under the Department’s supervision. The dependency court ordered no reunification services for Father, allowed Arnold to remain with Mother, and ordered family maintenance services for Mother and Arnold. The court set a section 364 hearing for June 7, 2006.

We affirmed the denial of reunification services on appeal. (In re Arnold S. (December 19, 2006, No. B 188931 [nonpub. opn.].)

The Department’s report submitted for the section 364 hearing stated that Arnold was attending group and individual therapy, Mother was in group therapy with Arnold, but Arnold was not achieving his grade level at school and had demonstrated behavioral problems. Father had not visited Arnold. The Department initially recommended termination of jurisdiction, although it noted that “it is too soon to assess if [Mother] and [Arnold] have made substantive progress as they have only begun their treatment programs.” Therefore, the Department recommended that Arnold remain a dependent. At the continued June 13, 2006 hearing, the court ordered the matter set for a section 364 hearing on December 12, 2006.

The Department’s section 364 report stated that Arnold continued to achieve below grade-level, and was receiving individual, joint and group therapy, and Arnold and Mother were making good progress in therapy. The Department stated that Mother and Arnold had “been profoundly traumatized and influenced/manipulated in a highly negative fashion by father, and that Arnold’s exposure to father needs careful observation, for his safety. We . . . would like to see [Father] thoroughly evaluated before he has any kind of significant exposure to Arnold.” Mother had been providing a safe and suitable environment for Arnold. The Department recommended keeping the case open in order to ensure continuing progress with Mother and Arnold, and for “[Mother] to further develop self-confidence, reliance, with strong boundaries to parent Arnold for him to feel safe that she can protect him and care for him before recommending termination of jurisdiction, given the history with father.” The Department recommended the case be reviewed over the next several months with the therapist to assess and recommend when Mother and Arnold were in a position to be independent from the supervision of the Department; at that time, the Department would consider termination of jurisdiction.

At the December 12, 2006 hearing, the court found continued jurisdiction necessary because conditions continued to exist justifying jurisdiction, and set the matter for hearing April 9, 2007. Mother was ordered to continue participating in previously ordered services. In January 2007, Arnold’s behavior showed some deterioration. His therapist reported that Arnold was more anxious, less focused, and easily agitated, and was having behavioral problems at school. The therapist learned that Father was attempting to renew visitation, and believed both Arnold and Mother had a setback because of their increased anxiety over Father.

The Department’s report prepared for the continued section 364 hearing stated that Arnold was attending school regularly. Arnold did not concentrate in class and was occasionally provoking others by making noises. His academic performance was “okay.” Mother and Arnold continued to receive therapy. Since the Department’s last report, Arnold had stabilized considerably; Mother had terminated individual therapy, and it was believed she would benefit more from a weekly family therapy program. The report recommended that Father not be permitted to visit with Arnold until he had a current psychiatric evaluation, became involved in therapy, or completed an anger management/domestic violence program. In November 2006, Arnold told the social worker he did not miss Father. The Department recommended terminating jurisdiction because Arnold and Mother had shown great progress.

Arnold’s therapist submitted a letter in which he stated that Arnold and Mother had been attending therapy regularly. Mother was less anxious, more assertive and confident. Arnold was doing well at school, both academically and behaviorally. The therapist stated he was not opposed to the termination of Departmental supervision. “While Arnold will probably need special attention until reaching adulthood, we believe mother and Arnold have the tools and skills necessary to meet issues successfully. It is not anticipated that they will come to the attention of the authorities again, and prognosis is fair to good at this time.”

At the continued April 23, 2007 hearing, Father opposed termination of jurisdiction. The court found Mother had complied with the case plan, continued jurisdiction was no longer necessary, and gave Mother custody of Arnold. The court terminated jurisdiction and ordered that Father was not to have visitation with Arnold until he began and made significant progress in sex abuse, physical and emotional abuse counseling.

DISCUSSION

Father contends that substantial evidence does not support the dependency court’s termination of jurisdiction. He contends that Arnold and his mother have a long history of behavioral and psychological problems, and although they had made progress and Mother had been in compliance with her case plan, there was no evidence that Arnold or Mother had completed counseling or domestic violence counseling. He contends the facts establish that Arnold’s problems have no probability of resolving. We disagree.

Section 364, which applies here because Arnold was not removed from Mother’s physical custody, at subdivision (c) provides that the dependency court must terminate jurisdiction unless the Department establishes that conditions still exist which would justify assumption of jurisdiction under section 300, or are likely to exist without continued supervision. (§ 364, subds. (a), (c); In re Natasha A. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 28, 35.) Under section 364, termination is not conditioned upon the completion of any court services. (In re Sarah M. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1486, 1502, disapproved on other grounds in In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.) Furthermore, the dependency court may conclude that continued supervision is not necessary for the minor’s protection based upon custody and visitation orders which restrict unmonitored visitation by the offending parent. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 204.) We review the dependency court’s order terminating jurisdiction to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re N.S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172.)

Section 364, subdivision (c) provides: “After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary.”

Here, the evidence established that while some progress still needed to be made, both Mother and Arnold had made great strides in alleviating their problems resulting from Father’s abuse. Arnold’s therapist specifically found, “[w]hile Arnold will probably need special attention until reaching adulthood, we believe mother and Arnold have the tools and skills necessary to meet issues successfully. It is not anticipated that they will come to the attention of the authorities again, and prognosis is fair to good at this time.” Given this assessment that continued supervision is not necessary, substantial evidence supports termination of jurisdiction. (In re Natasha A., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 35.)

DISPOSITION

The order of the superior court is affirmed.

We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., WOODS, J.


Summaries of

In re Arnold S.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. B198615 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)
Case details for

In re Arnold S.

Case Details

Full title:LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2008

Citations

No. B198615 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)