Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ct. No. CK63742 Robert Stevenson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Thomas S. Szakall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., Los Angeles County Counsel, James Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Timothy M. O’Crowley, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Phillip C., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 as to his daughter, J. C. The order: granted sole legal and physical custody to the mother; denied the father additional reunification services; and barred the father from visiting the child.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2006, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“the department”) filed a section 300 petition on behalf the child, who was born in September 1993. As sustained, the petition alleged that the father had repeatedly and inappropriately interacted with the child including but not limited to forcing the child to sit on his lap while slowly kissing her on the neck and behind the ears. Also, the sustained petition alleged he tickled the child on her upper thighs near her groin area despite her protests. The petition further alleged that: the child felt sexually threatened as a result of her father’s inappropriate activities; the child demonstrated signs of severe emotional distress as a result of the father’s conduct; and the father’s inappropriate activity placed the child at risk of harm.
On September 1, 1995, the mother and the father as part of a family court custody order were granted joint legal custody of the child. But the mother was granted primary physical custody of the child. The Conciliation Court Agreement filed on July 23, 1997, gave the parents joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother. The father was given reasonable visitation.
According to the detention report, the child was detained on June 16, 2006. The child was released to the mother, A. M., as a non-offending parent. The father and the mother, who never married had a two-year relationship. The mother left the father and claimed that it was due to physical sexual aggression and his parenting style of the child.
The mother is currently married and lives with her husband, Mike M., the stepfather. On May 4, 2006, the department received a referral alleging that the stepfather had emotionally abused the child and the mother had neglected the youngster. The child denied that the stepfather yelled at the father. Also, the child denied she was disrespectful to her stepfather. She stated she loved her stepfather very much. The child denied that the stepfather said anything negative about her father. This referral was closed as unfounded.
However, while interviewed during the department’s investigation, the child disclosed she did not like to visit the father. The child stated: her father lives in a bad area; he “‘tells her scary things’”; he made her sit on his lap; and because there were other chairs, she told her father “‘[N]o.’” However, the father yelled at her and insisted. The father began kissing her neck slowly and “‘passionately’” which she stated made her sick. She told him to stop but he continued. The child tried to get up but could not. She stated that her arms were crossed in front of her and he made her move her arms and put his arms right under her chest. The child stated that this made her feel very uncomfortable. The father tickled her upper thigh close to her genital area. The child started to cry and reported that it was very hurtful because she would tell the father to stop and he would not. The child reported that she did not feel safe around the father. The child also reported that the father made her sleep with him and that she would always put a pillow between the two of them. The child reported to a social worker, Deborah Brand, though that nothing happened in bed. The case social worker arranged for the child to have a forensic interview with Nicole Ferrell from Miller Children’s Abuse and Violence Intervention Center. The child repeated the allegations she had previously made about the father. She reported the incident in which the father told her to sit in his lap which included him kissing her back and neck telling her he needs love.
The child was very happy at home with the mother. However, she was unhappy staying with the father. According to a social worker, the child did not trust nor respect the father. According to the detention report, “[The child] reported that [the] father and his girlfriend would talk about ‘sex stuff’ right in front of her. [The father], his girlfriend, and some of [the] father’s friends were talking about giving hickeys on [the] father’s girlfriend’s boobs and how she does not want him to. [The child] stated, ‘They say bad things about my stepfather, they call him, faggot and say how he is jealous of my father because he had [my] mother first.’” The child also reported that the father did not support her extra curricular activities.
The mother reported that the child is doing very well in school. The child previously had a 4.0 grade point average but her grades dropped to 3.4 that semester. The child wanted to attend the University of California at Los Angeles on a softball scholarship. The detention report related: “[The child] is the very eloquent speaker for her age. She says, what is on her mind. She was taught never to hold anything in. She is able to come to [the] mother and talk about anything.” According to a social worker, the child had good communication skills.
The mother filed an ex parte application in family law court to modify the father’s visitation. This occurred after the child related his inappropriate conduct to the mother. The mother and child went to the Gardena Police Department to report the incident. The Gardena Police Department was in the process of obtaining an emergency protective order for the child. The mother stated the father had been very controlling when they were together. The mother thought the father was trying to control the child’s life and feelings.
The father claimed that the child had started to change. He thought it was because she was in puberty. The child did not want to have anything to do with him. According to the father, since the child experienced puberty, she had become resistant to physical contact. The father told her that he loved her all the time. The child told the father that she wanted to hurt herself. The father denied touching his daughter inappropriately. The father did not know why the child was saying that he had done so. However, he admitted that he tickles the child on the upper thigh but stated that he did not kiss the child “too long.” The father stated that he had picked up the child and carried her to the patio chair and put her on his lap. He admitted kissing the child on her neck. The child tried to get up and he pulled her back and said, “‘Please don’t leave me.’” The child said “‘[S]top,’” and the father let her go.
The father had never missed a visit with the child. During the visits, he only paid attention to her. He never left her with a babysitter. The father has consulted with a therapist for 15 years about the child. The father enrolled in parenting classes for teenagers to help him understand what is going on.
The father’s girlfriend, Carol W., stated that child did not want to be touched by him “for the last three months.” According to the father’s girlfriend, the child would say to the father, “‘[D]on’t touch me, get away from me.’” The child had changed from calling the father on the telephone to e-mailing him. The child did not want the father to attend her softball games. The department recommended a mental health evaluation and treatment of the child based upon her statements of discomfort. The department also attached a copy of the Gardena Police Department report made by the mother about the father’s conduct with the child.
On June 16, 2006, at the detention hearing, the father denied the allegations of the petition. The juvenile court ordered the child detained as to the father but released to the mother’s care. The juvenile court ordered the mother, the father, the child, and the stepfather to participate in an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation. The child was ordered to have counseling.
On July 10, 2006, the department reported that in May 2006 the mother had reported a number of the issues raised in the petition in the family law court proceeding. The mother declared in that action that the father had allowed the child to consume alcoholic beverages. The mother requested that the visits between the father and the child cease. The department also provided family court documents dating back to 1995 which outlined custody disputes, parenting issues, and allegations that the father had abused the mother. In one incident, when the child was 22 months old, the father forced her to lie on his chest while pinning her arms and legs and yelling at her to “‘shut up.’” The father then punched the mother in the arm when she attempted to intervene. On a different occasion the mother attempted to leave the father with the child. The department social worker described what appeared at one point in the family court documents, “[The father] grabbed [the child] by the arms and pulled her away from the mother thus causing bruising to [the child’s] arms.”
On June 30, 2006, the child was interviewed by a dependency investigator, Lupe Arredondo. The child stated that she wanted no contact with the father in the immediate future. On June 29, 2006, the child spoke with the mother about the allegations in the petition. At that time, the child stated she no longer wished to talk about the allegations in the petition. The child was apprehensive about the court process as well as a required visit with her father. The child was reportedly overwhelmed with anxiety and fear about the visits. The child stated that she feared that visiting the father again would cause the same result. The child requested that the department not force her to have contact with the father but the child agreed to consider having contact with her father. The department social worker reported: “[The child] denied being persuaded by her mother or stepfather . . . to discontinue contact with the father. . . . [The child] explained that she doesn’t believe the father viewed his actions as being inappropriate, and such angers her. [The child] further believes the father would continue his treatment for if she were to commence with visitations.” The child denied that her father had touched her in the pubic, buttock, or breast areas. The child said her discomfort was in the way he massaged her thighs. The child, without prompting, demonstrated that the father massaged her in groin area between her mid-upper thigh and the knee. She said that he did not sexually abuse her but was sexually inappropriate because he made her feel uncomfortable by forcing her to sit in his lap. The child denied that the father made her consume alcoholic beverages. But the child stated the father told her that a beer was “juice” and to taste it.
The father submitted a letter in which he denied the petition’s allegations. In his letter, the father asserted that the child was fabricating allegations against him. Additionally, the father believed that the mother and the stepfather were condoning the child’s behavior. The father indicated that he was a practicing Catholic. He stated that he supported the child’s extracurricular activities. He continued to indicate that the child had made self-destructive comments in February 2006. The father did not inform the mother about the incident nor did he pursue mental health services for the child. The father remained focused on the mother’s failure to obtain treatment for the child. According to the father, the child was a victim of sexual abuse at age seven and the mother refused to seek counseling for it. The father was advised that he had a responsibility to pursue the allegations as much as the mother. The father had difficulty accepting responsibility for failing to follow through with the issue.
The father’s girlfriend stated that she was present during the lap incident but that it was not sexual in nature. She was engaged to marry the father for several years. The father’s girlfriend had witnessed no sexually inappropriate conduct by the father towards the child. The child had become angry when the father tickled the child. The girlfriend had observed the child ask the father on several occasions to discontinue the tickling. The girlfriend confirmed that a friend of the father’s made sexual comments in child’s presence. However, the girlfriend and the father quickly redirected the friend.
The father explained that he could benefit from a parenting program on how to better identify the child’s cues towards likes and dislikes particularly in his manner of affection. The father felt that his physical expressions of love were being misconstrued as sexually inappropriate conduct. The father acknowledged that the child was developing into a young adolescent and that he needed to modify his behavior. He stated that he wanted to see his daughter but would wait until she was ready.
Ms. Brand, the social worker, monitored a June 27, 2006 visit between the child and the father. The child did not look at the father or acknowledge him. The child began to shake and tears came down her face. The father spoke to the child and offered her a doughnut. The child never looked at the father and focused on Ms. Brand. When asked if she was okay, the child responded “[N]o.” Ms. Brand asked if the child wanted to continue the visit. The child said, “[N]o” and continued to shake. Ms. Brand concluded that the visit should be terminated because of the child’s physical reaction and condition. Afterwards the child stated that the father made her sick because he was acting as if nothing had happened. The department recommended that the visits between the father and the child be suspended pending completion of the Evidence Code section 730 evaluations with a specified visitation plan recommendation. The department also recommended that the child be immediately enrolled in therapy and monitored visits be commenced when deemed appropriate by the therapist.
The investigator concluded the father had not engaged in any inappropriate sexual conduct. However, the child had on many occasions informed the father about her wishes and comfort level as to tickling and kissing on the neck. But that the father failed to adjust to her boundaries and wishes. The investigator, Ms. Arredondo, further concluded that with parenting instruction and counseling the father could learn to modify his behavior.
Dr. Stephen Ambrose, a licensed clinical psychologist, submitted the Evidence Code section 730 evaluation dated August 28, 2006. Dr. Ambrose stated that the child said she was afraid to be around the father. She described how, against her will, the father would kiss her neck, bite her buttocks, make her sleep in his bed, and tickle her near her groin area. The child did not initially say anything because she thought he was a good person. In her words, she finally spoke up after having “had enough.” The child stated that she remained afraid of the father and did not trust him. The child also reported that she was very uncomfortable during a recent monitored visit where the father began arguing with the social worker. The father told the social worker that the child wanted to sleep in his bed and sit on his lap. The father patted the child’s thigh during one of the monitored visits. The father also brought a book to a visit about troubled teens. The child concluded that “nothing is better” and that she never wanted to see the father again. The child stated that the father had not apologized. Dr. Ambrose believed that it was unlikely that the father would apologize on his own. Dr. Ambrose also stated: “[The child’s] reported lack of trust in her father and her continuing fear of being alone with him also seemed genuine, as did her distress about his inability to apologize, his blaming her for what happened (e.g. bringing a book about troubled teens to one of their visits), and his lack of support for school and sports activities. She clearly has little confidence that he will change and, at this point, would definitely prefer not to see him.”
The father acknowledged that the child had asked him to let her go and he pulled her back onto his lap after she asked him to stop. The father also admitted that he tickled her as he had in the past. According to the father, he did not know that it made her so “drastically uncomfortable.” However, he added that it was “ironic” that the mother had complained about him doing the same thing to her. The father related that he had said he was sorry several times to the child but had confronted her about the sexual abuse allegations. He also admitted that he brought a book about troubled teens to a monitored visit. Dr. Ambrose wrote: “[A]fter being pressed, [the father] acknowledged that [the child] might have interpreted that as his way of telling her that she was troubled. He did not recognize that she might have also thought that he was trying to put the blame for the current situation on her shoulders instead of his own. He concluded the interview by expressing indignation at being treated like a sexual abuser and asserted that a lot of what [the child] is saying is being blown out of proportion and that she is being influenced by her mother and stepfather.”
The father subsequently telephoned Dr. Ambrose. Dr. Ambrose was asked if she was familiar with “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” The father explained that his therapist, Antoinette Jordan, had encouraged the father to look the issue up on the Internet. The father stated that, after researching the issue, he believed that was what was happening to the child.
Dr. Ambrose stated: “What is most striking about [the father] was his inability to accept responsibility for his current predicament and his inability to understand the impact he has on others. He did admit to kissing and tickling his daughter against her will but clearly did not appreciate the intensity of her reaction. By his own admission, he has also forcibly tickled his ex-wife and his current girlfriend against their wishes. He apparently derives gratification from controlling women in this somewhat sadistic manner. In his own childhood history, [the father] reports having experienced routine corporal punishment at the hands of his mother…. [¶] [The father’s] strong need for control over others was credibly described by all three of the other participants in this evaluation. [The mother] described him spanking [the child] as an infant and forcing her to sleep on his chest when she was distressed. [The stepfather] described [the father’s] unwillingness to support [the child’s] softball aspirations as an effort to keep her home with him on weekends and under his control. [The child] cited many ways in which he tried to control her, including tickling her, forcing her to sit on his lap and forcing her to sleep in his bed. Given [the father’s] apparent need to control others, it is not surprising that he would resist when [the child], as a young adolescent, began the developmentally appropriate tasks of individuation.”
Dr. Ambrose continued: “As noted, [the father] has not accepted any responsibility for his daughter’s estrangement from him. From his perspective, [the child] has become a troubled teen and her mother and stepfather have alienated her from him. Thus, the problem becomes “Parental Alienation Syndrome” rather than anything he has done to alienate her. [The child’s] intense discomfort with his forced tickling and kissing are just overreactions on her part. The solution, according to [the father], is for [the child] to see a therapist who will ‘address the fact that a lot of what she is feeling is unjustified based upon what her mother and stepfather have told her’. [¶] Unfortunately, [the father’s] externalization of responsibility for problems largely of his own making appears to be characterological in nature and may not be significantly modified by treatment. At present, he is obviously resentful toward [the child] for having turned against him. His difficulty identifying any of her positive attributes was revealing. Moreover, his bringing a book about troubled teens to a visit with [the child] appears to have been a passive-aggressive way of blaming her for the deterioration of their relationship.”
Dr. Ambrose concluded: “This lack of empathy and externalization of blame for his own behavior appears characterological in nature and may not be significantly altered by mental health services. Even during recent monitored visits, he appears to have been more motivated to justify his own actions and blame [child] for being ‘a troubled teen’ than to better understand his daughter’s feelings and seek reconciliation. [¶] Although [the child’s] mother and stepfather were no doubt trying to portray themselves in the most positive light possible and to portray [the father] in the most negative light possible, my overall impression is that they provide a generally supportive and encouraging environment for [the child]. She clearly feels much safer with her stepfather than with her father. [The stepfather] appears to be genuinely fond of [the child] and repeatedly cited her many positive qualities during the evaluation. [The father], on the other hand, struggled to find positive things to say about [the child] and is clearly resentful that she has sided with her mother and stepfather against him. [¶] Given [the father’s] continuing inability to recognize the inappropriateness of his behavior, it is my opinion that his visitation with her needs to be managed and monitored for the foreseeable future. I am concerned that he was apparently allowed during recent visits to debate with the [case social worker] and [the child] about the merits of the case and that he reportedly put his hand on [the child’s] thigh. I am also concerned about the level of distress [the child] feels during these visits and I doubt that this distress will abate as long as [the father] continues to discount her feelings and perceptions. I would, therefore, recommend that visits be discontinued until [the child] and her therapist determine that she can cope with seeing him. I am not recommending that visits be permanently terminated or that [the child’s] relationship with her father be viewed as hopeless. I am recommending that she be given more control over the time, place and circumstances of future visits. When visits do resume, I would recommend that they be professionally monitored and that there be clear guidelines about what [the father] can say and do.”
Dr. Ambrose explained: “I would like to see [the father] work in his own treatment on recognizing the impact his behavior has had on his daughter, with an eventual goal of a therapeutically supervised apology session. As previously noted, I am somewhat skeptical about [the father’s] ability to benefit from psychotherapy, so an apology session may or may not be realistic. I would be especially skeptical if [the father] was seeing a therapist who was advocating that he learn about ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ as opposed to helping him examine the consequences of his own behavior. Per [the father’s] report, his current therapist did indeed recommend that [the father] be seen in a program specializing in working with sex offenders where his behavior and attitudes would be much more likely to be challenged. [The father] clearly does not view himself as a sex offender and power and control may indeed have been more of a motivating force than sexual gratification in his behavior toward [the child]. Nonetheless, his level of denial and minimization and his lack of sympathy are very similar to the initial presentation of many sex offenders.”
For the August 29, 2006 disposition hearing, the department filed an information for court officer document. The document recommended that the sexual abuse allegations in the petition be dismissed based upon insufficiency of the evidence. The social worker assigned to this case recommended, “[V]isitations [are to be] discontinue[d] until [the child’s] and her therapist determine when [the child] is able to cope with visitations.”
At the August 29, 2006 disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared the child a dependent child pursuant to section 300 subdivisions (b) and (c) and ordered her placed with the mother under the department’s supervision. The juvenile court adopted a case plan, which the father and mother signed on August 29, 2006. The case plan provided for monitored visitation. The juvenile court stated, “[I]t will be monitored visitation in a therapeutic setting for the father upon the recommendation of the child and the child’s and father’s therapist taking into account the child’s wishes.” The juvenile court further ordered the father to: attend a parent education program, which focused on teen related issues; undergo individual counseling to address case issues “including appropriate boundaries/touching”; and participate in conjoint counseling with the child depending on the recommendation of their therapists. Both the mother and the father were ordered to participate in the “Parents Beyond Conflict” program. The child was ordered to undergo individual counseling. Also, the child was subject to the aforementioned conjoint counseling order.
On February 27, 2007, the department reported that the child remained in the mother’s home and appeared to be well adjusted. The child stated that, without any contact with the father, she felt safer with no anxiety. She reported that she was able to concentrate on schoolwork. The child continued to participate in individual therapy and did well in school as an honor roll student.
The mother and the father completed the Parents Beyond Conflict program. The father also completed parenting classes. The father attended two telephone consultations and three individual therapy sessions. He attended four sessions in the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program. The letters concerning his therapy only stated that the father had attended but did not indicate whether he had progressed in gaining self-understanding and insight into the case related issues. There had been no conjoint therapy between the child and the father. This was because the child had refused any contact with the father. On February 6, 2007, the father stated that he wanted to wait until the child felt comfortable in seeing him.
The department recommended that the child remain in the mother’s home, jurisdiction be terminated, and the case be referred with a family law court order. The department further recommended that visitation remain monitored. The social worker described the recommended visitation thusly, “[T]he visitation remain as monitored visits in a therapeutic setting, upon recommendation of [the] minor’s therapist, taking into account the minor’s wishes. . . .”
On February 23, 2007, the child’s therapist, Bettye J. Isom, submitted a letter to Sun Lee, the case social worker. Ms. Isom advised Ms. Lee that the child felt much safer not visiting with the father. When the child thought about seeing him, she became nervous, and panicky, and started to cry. The child did not want to resume the visits at that time. Ms. Isom would not recommend that the visits resume until the child felt stronger and more confident in dealing with the father.
On February 27, 2007, the juvenile court continued the cased for a contested hearing on the issue of the reasonableness of the reunification services and the department’s recommendation to terminate jurisdiction. The father wanted the juvenile court to render an appropriate exit order. In a department service log generated March 8, 2007, it reported that on July 14, 2006, an incident occurred during a monitored visit where the father touched the child’s thigh. The report stated: “[The child] appeared resistant and distant. It was apparent that she did not want to meet with her father. [The child] asked [the case social worker] to stay during the visit with her father. During the visit [the] father touched [the] minor at least two times in her upper thigh area, [the] minor became irritated and immediately moved her leg then looked at [the case social worker]. At one point [the] father asked [the case social worker] to leave the room to get a tissue for his daughter who was crying.” The report stated that the child immediately spoke up and asked the case social worker not to leave the room. The child said to the father, “You don’t get it dad, you don’t get it.” To which the father replied, “Help me get it.” The child would not answer any questions the father asked her and refused to address him. The department report states, “After the visit [the child] stated to [the social worker], ‘I[‘]m more afraid of my father than anything[], I do not know what he will do.’” The child then cried for about 10 minutes and stated that she did not want to visit the father.
On July 28, 2006, the child began to cry shortly before the father arrived for a visit. The father discussed the case with the case social worker. The father accused the child of lying to get back at him. The child became visibly upset and began to cry harder. The child stated to the father that his statements were untrue. The child then began to describe the incident where the father began kissing her neck and pulling her onto his lap. The father was asked why he touched the child on her thigh area during the July 14, 2006 visit if it made her uncomfortable. The father did not answer the social worker’s inquiry.
During the August 17, 2006 visit, the father spoke with the child. A social worker’s report of the visit states: “[The father] then began to state the following ‘I told my therapist about how you feel I haven[’]t said I[’]m sorry to you and I told her [I] had’ ‘she stated that perhaps I should tell you again, so I am saying to you, on my own that I am sorry that you feel bad about what has happened between us.’” The child began crying hard and asked to leave the room. The child stated: “I thought I could do this do this but, I can’t. He just doesn’t get it. I know someone told him to say that, he didn’t say he was sorry just that he was sorry that I felt the way I did.” The child further stated that: the father “just doesn’t get”; she “can’t do this”; and she did not want to say anything to him. The child wept quietly to herself until the visit was over.
On April 9, 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested section 364 hearing regarding reunification services for the father and the department’s request to terminate jurisdiction. Ms. Isom testified that she is a licensed therapist. Ms. Isom had been the child’s therapist since August 2006. Ms. Isom saw the child about every two or three weeks. The initial treatment goals were based on the child’s distress and anxiety about visiting the father. The goals were: to help the child calm down; to help her relax; to see if the child’s fears could be worked out; and to determine what was happening. The child had progressed in treatment and had calmed down since she was not visiting the father. The child did not feel safe about visiting the father. She became anxious, nervous, and panicky and would start to cry. The child was “quite upset” the day after seeing the father in court in February 2007. The child stated that the father had laughed at her and made fun of her in court. According to Ms. Isom, the child felt scared.
Ms. Isom did not believe the child was ready to start visiting the father. Ms. Isom was asked whether the child, with further therapy, might reach the point where it would be possible to begin visitation with the father. Ms. Isom responded that she did not know. Ms. Isom thought that visits between the father and the child would be emotionally detrimental to the youngster. Ms. Isom thought that the child had been emotionally traumatized by the father’s physical touching that was too sexually explicit. The child was trying to say no but the father did not listen. Ms. Isom noted that the child had said the father never really said he was sorry or that he had done something inappropriate. Ms. Isom believed that visits might take place starting with such an apology or admission of his inappropriate conduct coupled with a place where the child “felt extremely safe” and there was monitored supervision.
Ms. Isom’s goals were to help the child feel safe and to hopefully interact with the father at some point. Ms. Isom had suggested that the child see the father with a counselor. The child did not want to have counseling with the father and rejected the suggestion.
The child testified that she had about four monitored visits with the father since the dependency proceedings began. During one monitored visit the father grabbed her upper right thigh. The juvenile court noted for the record that, in explaining how the father had touched her thigh, the child was crying. The child further explained that she was “usually very scared” throughout the entire visit. The child explained that after the visits she thinks about what the father had done to her and he really has not changed.
When she had to visit her father, neither her grades nor her performance playing softball were very good. The child stated that she was nervous and tired a lot when the time for visits approached. After the visits ceased, the child stated that she started to do better in school and was more energetic and calm. According to the child, “everything seems to get better” when she does not have to visit the father. The child did not think therapy with the father would be helpful for her “at least right now” because she was not ready. The child explained her reluctance about therapy was based on what had happened during the monitored visit where the father touched her. The child testified that she was aware that a therapist would be present but that it did not reassure her. The child explained that therapy helped her get everything out but it was not assisting her in wanting to see the father because of everything he had done. In response to a question about court-ordered conjoint counseling the child stated: “I can’t do it. I can’t do it.” She subsequently reemphasized her resolve against conjoint therapy by stating: “I’m not going to go. I can’t. I’m not able to.” The child finally stated that she might possibly participate in such therapy at some point but not in the near future. During a February 27, 2007 court hearing, the father had laughed at something the child said. The laughter did not threaten her but she felt he was being rude towards her about things he had done to her and he was just laughing at what she had said.
The father’s counsel, Darold Shirwo, argued that the juvenile court should retain jurisdiction and keep the case open to make a conjoint counseling order. Alternatively, Mr. Shirwo requested the court to make an order of joint legal custody with monitored visitation. Mr. Shirwo argued that the evidence in the case consisted solely of allegations coming from “the lips” of the child. Mr. Shirwo argued that the child was a spoiled teenager who “used the system” to get her own way. The department argued that the juvenile court should terminate jurisdiction and place the child in the physical custody of the mother, with a finding of detriment and no visitation. The child’s counsel joined the department’s requests. The mother’s counsel argued that the juvenile court should award sole legal and physical custody to the mother.
The juvenile court found that the conditions which brought the matter before the court have been sufficiently resolved between the mother and the child such that judicial supervision was no longer warranted. The juvenile court then terminated jurisdiction ordering that the father have no visitation. The juvenile court stated: “With respect to the visitation issue, as I am reading through the evidence again, especially Dr. Ambrose’s report, and listening to minor’s testimony, and listening to the therapist--I’m not giving that much weight to the therapist because I believe she didn’t really have that much information to go on with respect to her recommendations regarding continued visitation. [¶] But when I read the report from Dr. Ambrose and I look and listen to the minor, as far as the emotional upheaval that this child has gone through with respect to the father, and I agree with Dr. Ambrose that I believe that the father has brought most of this predicament upon himself and the relationship with his daughter in how negative it is at this point in time.” The juvenile court further stated: one of the main problems was the father’s inability to accept responsibility for his inappropriate conduct; the father had not said he was sorry for what he had done; the father minimized or justified what had happened; the father dismissed the child’s distress as overreactions fostered by the mother and the stepfather; and the father had continued to do inappropriate things during the monitored visits that made the child not want to be in the same room with him.
The juvenile court concluded: “I found the minor to be credible and I found that it would be detrimental for the minor to have visitation in this case. I think it would be emotionally detrimental to this child, and I’m going to order sole legal/sole physical custody for the mother, no visits for the father. [¶] The exit order should indicate that another court could consider issues regarding visitation or should consider when, first, minor has demonstrated that she is emotionally stronger and stable in her relationship towards her father, as far as wanting to have visitation. [¶] And I want the minor to continue with her counseling and, when the father starts to recognize that he has some responsibility in the minor’s emotional upheaval which has caused her detriment, he needs to start taking some responsibility for what he did in this case and, when he does that, then, perhaps some headway can be made with respect to visitation with his child.” The father timely appealed from the juvenile court order terminating jurisdiction.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Reunification Services
The father argues reunification services were inadequate due to the department’s failure to facilitate conjoint therapy with the child as ordered by the juvenile court at the August 29, 2006 disposition hearing. He contends the juvenile court should have ordered an additional six months of reunification services because the department failed to facilitate conjoint counseling. The department counters: the father was not entitled to reunification services because the child was not taken from the mother’s custody; the juvenile court proceeded under section 364 which only considers the question of whether continued jurisdiction is necessary; the father waived the right to challenge the adequacy of the reunification services; and the services were adequate.
The juvenile court conducted the hearing pursuant to section 364 which provides in part: “(a) Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing. . . . [¶] (c) 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.”
In deciding to terminate jurisdiction under section 364, the juvenile court must decide whether the conditions that justified taking jurisdiction still exist. (In re Janee W. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1451; In re Sarah M. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1486, 1493-1494 disapproved on different grounds by In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 204.) Where one parent has physical custody of the child and can assume custody without supervision, the juvenile court is required to dismiss the petition and transfer the matter to the family court in order to address the any lingering custody or visitation issues. (§ 364, subd. (c); In re Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 203; In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 714.) The juvenile court order terminating jurisdiction is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re N.S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172; In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610.)
In this case, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over the child because of allegations of inappropriate physical contact by the father, which made her feel threatened. The father’s conduct included: forcing the adolescent child to sit in his lap while he “passionately” kissed her neck; making her sleep in his bed; tickling her; and massaging her thigh area near the groin. Despite the child’s marked level of discomfort and requests for the father to stop, he continued to engage in the conduct. The mother had primary physical custody of the child. The mother and the child had a strong relationship. The child was happy in the mother’s home with her stepfather. The child was thriving in the mother’s care. There is substantial evidence there is no basis for any concern about the mother’s home. There was no need for the juvenile court to continue jurisdiction over the child, who was living with the mother. Furthermore, because the child was no longer being subjected to the conditions which warranted jurisdiction (the father’s inappropriate conduct), there was no longer any need for court supervision. Accordingly, pursuant to section 364, the juvenile court was required to dismiss the petition and transfer the matter to family court to resolve any ongoing custody or visitation orders. (§ 364, subd. (c); In re Joshua G., supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 203; In re Jennifer R., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 714.)
The father nevertheless claims that the termination order must be reversed because the reunification services offered to him were inadequate. We agree with the department that there is no requirement that the juvenile court wait until an offending parent completes reunification efforts prior to terminating its jurisdiction under section 364. (See In re Sarah M., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1502; see also R.S. v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1269-1271; In re Janee W., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1453-1454; In re Terry H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1856.) Thus, the department correctly asserts that the pertinent inquiry at the section 364 here is whether continued jurisdiction was necessary not whether his reunification services were adequate.
Nonetheless, reversal is unwarranted on the grounds inadequate services were provided. The department contends that the father forfeited the right to challenge the adequacy of the reunification services. However, the father argued that the juvenile court should not terminate jurisdiction so that conjoint therapy could be accomplished. Implicit in this argument is a request for additional reunification services. Thus, we cannot find that the father forfeited his right to argue that additional reunification services were warranted.
But, the services were adequate under the circumstances of this case. The adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the department’s efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case. (In re Elijah R. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969; Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) The juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were offered is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Mark N. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the department and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the order under review. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018; In re Elijah R., supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 969; In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th p. 547.)
There was substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the department, from which the trial court could conclude reasonable reunification services were offered. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 455-456; Robert L. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 619, 625.) The juvenile court ordered conjoint therapy to occur upon recommendation of the child’s and the father’s therapists. The father claims the department’s efforts in facilitating the conjoint therapy were insufficient to establish reasonable efforts. This contention has no merit. Rather, the juvenile court and the department were dealing with a situation wherein the father’s inappropriate behavior had created such fear and distrust in the child that it needed to be addressed in therapy. However, by the time of the six-month review, the child repeatedly and unequivocally expressed her wish to have no contact with the father. Dr. Ambrose’s report stated that the child said she never wanted to see the father again. The child’s reluctance to see the father was based in part on his conduct during one monitored meeting in which he touched the child on her thigh. The child was also angry with the father because the father had brought a book about troubled teens to a visit. The child took this as a suggestion that the father’s conduct was her fault. During the same monitored visit, the father had argued with the social worker about the circumstances of the case. Thus, the trial court could reasonably find it was the father’s conduct that prevented conjoint therapy sessions from occurring.
Moreover, as previously noted, the conjoint therapy order stated that the sessions would occur based upon recommendations of: the child’s therapist; the father’s therapist; and consideration of the child’s wishes. Although the father provided evidence that he had undergone three individual sessions and two telephone consultations, he did not provide evidence of any material progress. The father provided no evidence that any therapist, including his own, had recommended conjoint therapy. Likewise, there was no evidence that the child’s therapist had recommended conjoint therapy at the time of the section 364 hearing. By the time of the section 364 hearing, there was evidence the child was unwilling to then participate in conjoint therapy due to the father’s own conduct and his inability to take responsibility for his own actions. Furthermore, the evidence established that the father touched the child’s upper thigh twice, during a July 14, 2006 monitored visit. This was done despite the child’s previously expressed discomfort in the face of such conduct. Reasonable services were provided.
B. The Denial of Visitation
The father contends there is no substantial evidence to support a finding of detriment such that he should be denied visitation. He contends that he participated in court ordered programs and presented no greater risk than he did seven months earlier. The Court of Appeal has held: “Absent a showing of detriment caused by visitation, ordinarily it is improper to suspend or halt visits even after the end of the reunification period. [Citations.] Visitation may be seen as an element critical to promotion of the parents’ interest in the care and management of their children, even if actual physical custody is not the outcome. [Citation.]” (In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 679; In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1138.) Further, the Court of Appeal has held: “[A] parent’s liberty interest in the care, custody and companionship of children cannot be maintained at the expense of their well-being. [Citation.] While visitation is a key element of reunification, the court must focus on the best interests of the children ‘and on the elimination of conditions which led to the juvenile court’s finding that the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, harm specified in section 300.' [Citation.] This includes the ‘possibility of adverse psychological consequences of an unwanted visit between [parent] and child.’ [Citation.]” (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 50; In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 900.)
Here, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction by granting the mother sole legal and physical custody where there was an existing family law custody order between the parents. The father was not given visitation on termination of the dependency matter but the parties were ordered to refer any subsequent modification requests to the family law court. Section 362.4 provides that the juvenile court “may” issue an order determining the visitation of a noncustodial parent when a child has been declared a dependent of the court. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 203-204.) Such custody and visitation orders are transferred to the existing family law matter and “remain in effect until modified or terminated” in that forum. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 203; In re Roger S. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 25, 30.) Consistent with this authority to make visitation orders, the juvenile court has the power to issue collateral orders that are reasonably related to the visitation issue including counseling orders. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 204-205.) In making the visitation order, the juvenile court must look to the best interests of the child. (In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961 at pp. 973-974; In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374; In re Jennifer R., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 712.) A visitation order may be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067; In re Shawna M. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1690.)
A juvenile court abuses its discretion when it delegates complete authority to decide the visitation issue to a third party such as a therapist. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 213; In re Donnovan J. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1476-1478; In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008-1009.) A court may also not allow the child to solely dictate the visitation issue even though the child’s wishes can be a dominant factor in deciding the issue. (In re Nicholas B., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1138-1139; In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 48-51; In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1227, 1233.) However, a court may issue a visitation order which considers the child’s wishes and well-being. (In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; In re Danielle W., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 1233.) When the juvenile court makes a finding of detrimental effect on the child, the juvenile court has discretion to make a no contact order. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 213-214; In re S. H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 317-320; In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 49-50.) In rendering such an order, a juvenile court has discretion to simply deny visitation to a parent that has not complied with court ordered counseling or has failed to make sufficient progress in therapy to address the issues raised by the dependency matter. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 213-214; In re S. H., supra, 111 CalApp.4th at pp. 317-320; In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 49-50.)
No abuse of discretion occurred under the circumstances of this case. The juvenile court found it was detrimental to the child to have visits with the father. The juvenile court stated: “The exit order should indicate that another court could consider issues regarding visitation or should consider when, first, minor has demonstrated that she is emotionally stronger and stable in her relationship towards her father, as far as wanting visitation. [¶] And I want the minor to continue with her counseling and, when the father starts to recognize that he has some responsibility in the minor’s emotional upheaval which has caused her detriment—he needs to start taking some responsibility for what he did in this case and, when he does that, then perhaps some headway can be made with respect to visitation with this child.” As noted above, the father’s inappropriate conduct had caused the child to suffer anguish and heartbreak. The father could not even control himself during court ordered monitored visitation. The father blamed others and refused to accept responsibility in Dr. Ambrose’s view. No abuse of discretion occurred. In the future, the father can file an order to show cause in the family law court to modify the visitation order based on child’s interests or on a change of circumstances. (§ 362.4; In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 212-214; In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 518.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The order under review is affirmed.
We concur: MOSK, J., KRIEGLER, J.