Opinion
B326915
10-18-2023
In re J.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. JOSE R., Defendant and Appellant; SANDRA B., Defendant and Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose R. Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Sandra B. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 22CCJP02444, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose R.
Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Sandra B.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it "is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application." (Cal. Stds. Jud. Amin., § 8.1(1).)
WEINGART, J.
On August 30, 2023, we issued an opinion affirming the juvenile court's assertion of jurisdiction over the three children of appellant Jose R. (Father)-J.B., M.B., and A.M.-under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, as well as the court's dispositional orders removing the children from Father, providing him monitored visitation, and ordering enhancement services including a drug program, on-demand drug testing, parenting classes, anger management classes if recommended by a therapist, a domestic violence program, and individual counseling. We also dismissed Father's appeal of a restraining order issued against him protecting Sandra B. (Mother) and the children from Father. (In re J.B. (Aug. 30, 2023, B323563) [nonpub. opn.].)
Father now appeals the juvenile court's February 7, 2023 exit order terminating jurisdiction as to M.B. and A.M.,awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody, and providing Father professionally monitored visitation. We review such an order for an abuse of discretion, and do not disturb it unless the court exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 113.) There is no presumption in favor of joint custody when a juvenile court makes an exit order. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 206.) Because the juvenile court" 'has been intimately involved in the protection of the child, [it] is best situated to make custody determinations based on the best interests of the child without any preferences or presumptions.' [Citations.]" (In re J.M., supra, at p. 112.)
The juvenile court also terminated jurisdiction as to J.B. as he turned 18 years of age. Given that J.B. has reached the age of majority, he is not at issue in this appeal.
We find no such abuse of discretion here. As we recently summarized the facts and procedural history pertinent to this matter in our August 30, 2023 opinion, we include here only those additional facts necessary to explain our holding in this appeal. Leading up the dispositional orders, substantial evidence demonstrated that Father committed domestic violence against Mother, including smashing the windshield of a car and deflating its tires while Mother and A.M. were inside it, and sending Mother multiple harassing text messages. Father physically assaulted M.B. by repeatedly hitting the child's head. Father abused methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and alcohol. He and one of the minor children smoked marijuana together on multiple occasions. During supervised visitation, Father repeatedly made inappropriate comments to the children about the dependency action and deriding Mother.
The dispositional orders as well as the restraining orders against Father did little to improve matters-instead things went from bad to worse. Substantial evidence shows Father repeatedly violated the restraining orders, including going to Mother's place of work and vandalizing the car of Mother's coworker, blocking Mother's car after she dropped M.B off at school to yell profanities at Mother, attempting to contact the children in violation of the juvenile court restraining order (including when they were at school), and leaving threatening messages on Mother's cellphone. Father largely refused the court ordered services, including failing to appear numerous times for drug tests and/or testing positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC when he did show. He did not enroll in the ordered parenting or domestic violence classes. He did attend some therapy sessions; his therapist reported minimal progress and expressed concern that Father was not following court orders. During monitored visits with the children, Father repeatedly flouted the guidelines for such visitation despite attempts to redirect him. These violations included attempting to find out from the children where they (and Mother) were residing, making disparaging comments about Mother and her relatives to the children, trying to get the children to agree with his view of the dependency proceedings, and insulting the DCFS monitors. Outside of the visitation, Father profanely insisted to the monitors and other DCFS personnel that he would not comply with his case plan or the rules governing visitation, and calling them names like "fucking bitch" and "stupid fat dumb bitch." Throughout the entire case, Father never accepted responsibility for his actions and sought to blame others for the family's situation. His unrepentant attitude and disregard for court orders is perhaps best summed up by a comment he left on Mother's voicemail during one of his many restraining order violations: "[W]hatever the judge says[, n]obody can stop me from doing what I wanna do." Mother, in contrast, complied with her case plan and resolved the issues that necessitated dependency jurisdiction.
In addition to the restraining order issued by the juvenile court, Father was subject to a criminal protective order issued in June 2022 protecting Mother.
In short, Father's claim that the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody, and requiring that Father's visitation be professionally monitored, is frivolous. While we decline to issue an order to show cause regarding sanctions, we remind counsel that when there is no arguable issue to be pursued on appeal, their obligation is not to proceed as occurred here but instead to file a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, P. J. BENDIX, J.