Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. CK72498, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Fred Klink, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Epstein, P.J.
Father E.L. challenges the order of the juvenile court placing his daughters with a maternal relative in Fresno and transferring the dependency case to Fresno County. He also complains that the court’s order granting him weekly visitation while he is incarcerated, without specific orders for transporting his children, “virtually ensures” that he will not be able to reunify with them. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In March 2008, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed two-month-old D.L. and two-year-old L.L. from their mother after she failed to complete a voluntary services plan. Mother had been living with her daughters in a home where gang members and drug dealers congregated. Mother tested positive for marijuana, and admitted regular marijuana use.
The children were placed in foster care in Los Angeles, and in April 2008, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 to declare the children dependents based on mother’s substance abuse and endangering home environment. Father was not living with mother when the children were detained, but he was located soon after the petition was filed. He was on probation based on a 2006 conviction for possession of marijuana for sale. Father signed a JV-505 statement regarding parentage asking the court to enter a judgment of parentage as to each child. The court found him to be a presumed father.
All statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.
DCFS filed a second amended petition in June 2008. The parents entered no contest pleas to a single allegation that they “each have an unresolved history of substance abuse. Further, the mother tested positive for cannabinoids on 3/20/08, and the father tested positive for cannabinoids on 5/9/08. Further, the parents allowed unrelated adults who used illicit drugs to frequent the children’s home while the children were under the supervision of the parents. Such conduct by the children’s parents places the children at risk of harm.” The court adjudicated the children dependents. Pursuant to the disposition case plan, parents were to randomly drug test, attend programs on child protection, domestic violence, and other case issues, and were to have monitored visitation. DCFS was ordered to evaluate various relatives with whom the children could be placed.
Before the adjudication hearing, mother had relocated to Fresno, where she had family to assist her. She was participating in anger management classes and in a program for mothers with a history of prostitution. The social worker’s report for the December 2008 review hearing indicated that mother also was participating in drug counseling programs with random testing, and in parenting classes. She was attending Fresno City College, where she was doing well. Mother was inconsistent in her visits with the children, who were still located in Los Angeles, but the visits were affectionate and appropriate.
Father had completed parenting classes and was enrolled in substance abuse treatment and individual counseling. He tested negative on four drug tests, but did not appear for four other tests. Father was consistent in his visits with the children and was appropriate and affectionate. At the December 2008 hearing, the court ordered unmonitored visits for both parents, conditioned on their continued compliance with the case plan. DCFS also was ordered to proceed with its evaluation of a maternal aunt in Fresno as a potential placement for the children. Father expressed concern that placing the children in Fresno would interfere with his ability to visit. The court continued the matter to January.
In the report for the January 2009 hearing, the social worker reported that she had been on her way to assess the maternal aunt’s home when the aunt called to cancel the visit because she was about to leave on a business trip. The aunt suggested evaluation of a maternal cousin, who was interested in providing care and would be a more suitable caregiver. The social worker assessed this cousin, and recommended placing the children with her. Father again expressed concern that placing the children in Fresno would interfere with his ability to maintain regular visitation. The court continued the hearing to February 9, 2009.
The children were placed with the maternal cousin in Fresno before the February hearing. Mother had completed a substance abuse program, and all her random drug tests had been negative. She had completed parenting classes, was attending individual counseling weekly, and was enrolled full-time at Fresno City College. Mother and several of her relatives were working to repair her home, but the repairs were not yet complete.
Father was in custody at the time of the February hearing. He had been arrested on January 18, 2009, for violating probation and driving on a suspended license. His attorney had no idea how long he would be incarcerated, and was concerned that he be provided “at least weekly visitation while he’s incarcerated,...” The attorney also objected to transferring the case to Fresno County.
After hearing argument, the court noted “the burden of the services are in Fresno because both the mother and the kids services are in Fresno. I understand the concern the father has about the impact of transferring it could have on his reunification services. Actually his concern is having the kids in Fresno impact his reunification services. The transfer is a non issue. The transfer is where the social worker is going to be, who is handling the case, his concern is more about placing the kids there and that’s the only relative that really seems to be available and appropriate after multiple attempts between detention and the 21 (E) to get the kids with a relative.” The court found that a Fresno venue was in the best interest of the children and there was good cause to transfer the case to Fresno County where the burden of the services are, where the mother resides, and where the children reside. Reunification services were continued, and mother was given unmonitored overnight visitation in the caretaker’s home or another DCFS approved residence, conditioned on her continued compliance with the case plan. As to father, the court also ordered “at least weekly visits until he’s released from custody.” Father appeals from this order.
DISCUSSION
I
Father claims the court erred in ordering the children placed with a relative in Fresno during reunification, virtually eliminating his ability to visit with them. “Matters such as the placement of the minor and transfer of the proceedings to another jurisdiction are committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court.” (Maribel M. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1469, 1478.) We find no abuse of discretion in this case.
Under section 361.3, subdivision (a) when a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents, “preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative.” Before such placement is made, the social worker and the court must consider numerous factors, beginning with the best interest of the child. Other factors include the wishes of the parent, the relative, and the child, and the ability of the relative to provide a safe, secure and stable environment, facilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the parents, facilitate visitation with the child’s other relatives, and provide legal permanence for the child if reunification is unsuccessful.
In this case, DCFS evaluated paternal and maternal relatives suggested by the parents. The maternal cousin was the only available relative who met all requirements for placement and was interested in providing care for the children. Father does not challenge her qualifications. His challenge is based on the location of her home, in Fresno.
Section 380 authorizes a court to permit a dependent child “to reside in a county other than the county of his or her legal residence, and the court shall retain jurisdiction over that person.” Here, the relative capable, qualified and willing to provide a home for the children was located in Fresno. Several maternal relatives reside in Fresno, including the children’s grandparents, great aunt, and cousins. Mother had relocated to Fresno soon after the dependency case was initiated, in part to separate herself from negative influences in Los Angeles, and in part to be near family members who could provide her with necessary emotional support. Father’s visitation will be more difficult because of the distance between Los Angeles and Fresno. But mother faced the same problem when the children were in foster care in Los Angeles. Both parents had complied with their case plans at the time of the court’s order, but while mother was readying a home for the children and participating in overnight visits, father was incarcerated for an unknown period of time. The likelihood of release to mother at the conclusion of the remaining few months of reunification far exceeded the likelihood of release to father. In light of all the factors favoring placement of the children with their cousin in Fresno, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s order permitting the children to reside there.
We also find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to transfer the case to Fresno County. Under section 375, whenever, subsequent to the filing of a section 300 petition in the county where a dependent child resides, “the residence of the person who would be legally entitled to the custody of such minor were it not for the existence of a court order issued pursuant to this chapter is changed to another county, the entire case may be transferred to the juvenile court of the county wherein such person then resides at any time after the court has made a finding of the facts upon which it has exercised its jurisdiction over such minor,” and the juvenile court of that county shall then take jurisdiction of the case. As the court explained, mother and the children resided in Fresno County, and they were utilizing services and being provided with supervision by social workers there. The court acted well within its discretion in transferring the case to Fresno County.
II
The court ordered that “father is to have at least weekly visits until he’s released from custody.” Father argues this order impermissibly delegated to DCFS or the Fresno County child services agency the discretion to determine whether visitation would be provided to father. We find no such delegation. The court specifically ordered weekly visitation, and the agencies had the responsibility to assist the caregiver in complying with that order. In the event the agencies fail to meet their duties, father’s counsel can seek further order of the court.
The quoted language is from the reporter’s transcript. The minute order reads: “Father to have weekly visits after release from custody.” But father’s attorney expressly asked the court to order at least weekly visits while father was incarcerated. In light of that request, we conclude the court said precisely what it meant—weekly visits while in custody. (See People v. Malabag (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1422-1423 [conflict between clerk’s transcript and reporter’s transcript is resolved by consideration of the circumstances of each case].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Manella, J., Suzukawa, J.