From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Carl C. (In re Patricia C.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jan 30, 2012
B232867 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012)

Opinion

B232867

01-30-2012

In re PATRICIA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL C., Defendant and Appellant.

Cristina Gabrielidis Lechman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK77796)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jacqueline Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

Cristina Gabrielidis Lechman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Carl C. (Father) appeals from an order terminating the juvenile court's jurisdiction over his daughter Patricia C., born in October 1997. We dismiss this part of Father's appeal for lack of standing because his rights and interests are not substantially affected by the order. Father also challenges the court's exit order directing that he have no contact with Patricia. The exit order is supported by the record. Patricia has never had a relationship with Father, who has been incarcerated most of his daughter's life. She fears him and refuses to see him or to speak to him during visits.

FACTS

This case began in June 2009, with the filing of a dependency petition by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on behalf of Patricia and her half-siblings Monique G., Victoria L. and Lizeth L. The petition alleged that Jose L., the biological parent of Victoria and Lizeth, sexually abused Monique. The petition also alleged that Father is incarcerated and failed to provide Patricia with the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

Jose L. cohabits with Maria G. (Mother), the mother of all four girls. He denied ever fondling Monique in an inappropriate manner. Jose L. voluntarily agreed to leave the family home, so that the girls would not be taken away from Mother. When interviewed for the detention report, 11-year-old Patricia denied that Jose L. fondled her breasts or touched her inappropriately, contradicting Monique's report that Patricia had privately accused Jose L. of molestation. Monique has resided with her biological father and paternal grandparents since the age of eight, and comes to Mother's home for visits. The court found a prima facie case for detaining the children. Monique remained with her father, while the three younger girls stayed with Mother. DCFS was ordered to provide family reunification services.

On June 19, 2009, Monique (age 17) testified that she was "scared" to tell Mother about Jose L.'s sexual abuse, because she feared being disbelieved. She and Mother are not particularly close. Monique testified that she was asleep on the floor of Mother's apartment when Jose L. lay down next to her and grabbed her chest. This first occurred three years ago, and on several occasions since then. She considered Jose L. to be "nice," but now she is scared to be near him. According to Monique, Patricia accused Jose L. of grabbing at her chest a few months earlier. Patricia testified that she gets along well with Jose L.: she denied that Jose L. touched her in a way that was wrong, or that she had a conversation with Monique about it.

The jurisdiction report includes an interview with Monique, who stated that Jose L. first molested her three years earlier, lying down beside her and rubbing her breast. He said nothing, and left after a minute or so. On another occasion, Jose L. tried to put his hands under her shirt, and she pushed him away. He left the room abruptly, but returned minutes later and asked her forgiveness. Monique estimated that Jose L. touched her breast on the outside of her clothing (or attempted to do so) five times. The most recent incident of abuse occurred a few weeks before DCFS became involved.

Monique was moved to come forward after a schoolteacher spoke of being sexually abused as a child. Monique disclosed possible abuse, first in class and later in a letter to her teacher. When pressed for more information, Monique began crying and shaking, saying that she wanted to protect her mother and sisters. The teacher feels that Monique is being honest and sincere. Patricia continued to state that she has never been touched inappropriately by Jose L., and does not fear him.

Mother separated from Father one year after Patricia's birth, due to severe domestic violence. Father physically assaulted Mother on numerous occasions while they cohabited, and again after they separated. Father is incarcerated, has visited Patricia perhaps three times in her life, and has contributed only $200 toward Patricia's care. Patricia stated that it has been "years" since she last saw Father: he has not visited her, never provided for her, and she has no relationship with him.

Father has numerous convictions: assault with a deadly weapon (1991); misdemeanor disorderly conduct (1995); possession of a controlled substance for sale (1997); evading a police officer, possession of a controlled substance, felony child cruelty, kidnapping, inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (2000); a parole violation (2006); felon in possession of a firearm (2007); and a parole violation (2008). Father wrote a letter to DCFS indicating that although he is imprisoned, he has "always provided financially, emotionally, spiritually, and physically for my daughter." He is willing to support Patricia, so long as he has visitation rights. Father was due to be released in January 2010.

Mother wept as she described Father's violence toward her, and her fear that he would kill her if she reported his beatings to the police. She sustained broken teeth and a broken nose in the attacks. Father admits that he hit Mother during their relationship, but denies causing any injuries. He also admits that he kidnapped Mother, resulting in a police pursuit. Father refused to stop for the police "because he was just angry at the time." This conduct resulted in a five-year prison sentence, ending in 2005. In 2006, he was arrested for a parole violation. He was released on December 9, 2007, only to be arrested 20 days later for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Father stated that he took parenting and drug rehabilitation classes in prison, and has not used methamphetamine since 2006. He requested reunification services and visitation rights, maintaining that he stays in contact with Patricia by telephone. Mother stated that Father has never telephoned Patricia.

The jurisdiction hearing was conducted in August 2009. Father waived his right to attend the hearing in prison custody. Monique testified that Jose L. rubbed her breasts four to six times, while she was visiting Mother's home. She was shocked and did not say anything because she did not know how to react. The last time this occurred, she was talking on the telephone with her boyfriend when Jose L. came up and grabbed her on the chest, and she punched him. Monique is sad that Mother does not believe her, and feels that Mother does not really know much about her. Monique regrets that she did not speak up earlier, because it might have prevented Jose L. from molesting Patricia. She warned Patricia to be careful around Jose L. At that point, Patricia revealed that Jose L. had touched her too. Monique did not tell Mother about the abuse while it was occurring. Counsel for Monique's siblings informed the court that they feel comfortable around Jose L. and have never had an incident with him. Mother indicated, through counsel, that she believes Monique's testimony.

On August 25, 2009, the court found that Monique "truly was a compelling witness." The court believed Monique's testimony that Patricia privately disclosed abuse by Jose L., even if Patricia denied the molestations in court. The court sustained allegations that Jose L. sexually abused Monique by repeatedly fondling her breasts, which endangers Monique's physical and emotional health, and places her siblings Patricia, Victoria and Lizeth at risk of harm of sexual abuse. The court struck allegations that Mother failed to protect the children, and dismissed allegations that Father failed to provide for Patricia.

The court moved to disposition. The children were declared dependents of the juvenile court. The court terminated its jurisdiction as to Monique, with a family law order giving physical custody to Monique's nonoffending father. Mother was given monitored visitation and conjoint counseling with Monique. Mother retained physical custody of Patricia, under the supervision of DCFS. Mother was required to attend sexual abuse counseling for nonperpetrators, individual counseling to address case issues, and conjoint counseling. The court did not order any services for Father, who was still incarcerated. Jose L. was permitted to visit Patricia at the DCFS office, with a monitor: the court was inclined not to allow visits, but acceded to Patricia's wish to see Jose L. The court ordered that Victoria and Lizeth be removed from Jose L.'s custody and physical care. They were allowed to remain with Mother. DCFS was directed to provide Jose L. with referrals for sexual abuse counseling for perpetrators and individual counseling. Mother was not allowed to be the monitor for Jose L.'s visits.

Father was released from prison on January 2, 2010.

In March 2010, DCFS reported that Mother and Jose L. have maintained their relationship outside the home and plan to reunite when the case is closed. Mother relies on Jose L. for financial support. The three younger girls informed the social worker that they miss Jose L. and would like him back in the home. During monitored visits, the girls were emotionally bonded with Jose L. and are happy to be with him. A therapist opined that Jose L. does not present a threat to his children or Mother. Father was confused as to why Patricia does not want visits with him, and felt that Mother was pressuring her to avoid him. Mother minimized the case issues and is depressed because she is very dependent upon Jose L.; she often cried during counseling sessions with Patricia. Patricia expressed no fear of Jose L., but was angry about Father's recent release from prison. She described Jose L. as being "like a real dad and [he] has been there for me in my life." DCFS recommended that Jose L. be allowed to return home, with six additional months of family maintenance services.

Father provided DCFS with certificates for classes he took while incarcerated. These included a 12-week parenting class, a 10-week "spirituality, recovery and healing process group," a relationship class, and various rehabilitative groups. The classes were all completed in 2009. Father is concerned that Patricia continues to have a relationship with Jose L. Patricia informed DCFS that she does not want visits with Father. DCFS recommended that Father receive no reunification services.

Father appeared at the status review hearing on March 2, 2010. He asked for and received monitored visitation, even though Patricia was not interested in seeing him. The court advised Father that "you're going to have to establish a relationship you don't currently have" with Patricia. Father visited Patricia three times in March. Patricia expressed anger toward Father, but they treated each other respectfully during visits. Father apologized for his past behavior.

On March 23, 2010, the therapist for Mother and the children stated that Mother now knows the signs of abuse, and understands the importance of keeping the girls safe from harm and knowing where they are at all times. The girls understand they must disclose any abuse and know who they should talk to. The therapist for Jose L. reported that he has attended 18 individual sessions, has accepted responsibility for his lewd behavior toward Monique, is remorseful, and wants to reunify with his family. Jose L. has also attended 18 group therapy sessions, where the group discusses the psychological, physical and mental harm to victims of sexual abuse. He was doing well in both types of counseling. The therapist does not believe that Jose L. presents a physical or psychological threat to his wife and children. He recently began having unmonitored visits. DCFS felt that Mother and Jose L. pose a moderate risk of harm to the children.

In an interim review report in May 2010, DCFS stated that Father visited Patricia four times in April. He and Patricia seem to get along during the visits, and talk the entire time. Father is "trying his best to have a bond with his daughter and trying to make up for lost time." He believes that Mother is pressuring Patricia not to visit him. Mother stated that she does not mind Patricia having visits with Father, but "I don't want anything to do with her father." Patricia tearfully confided to the social worker that she still feels anger towards Father, because he knocked out Mother's teeth and has been absent during Patricia's childhood. On May 7, Patricia's therapist informed the social worker that it is not in Patricia's best interest to have unmonitored visits with Father: the therapist observed that Patricia is increasingly irritated and anxious since she started visiting with Father. Patricia does not look forward to visits, and is only playing a part and pretending to look happy when she sees him.

At the hearing on May 12, 2010, the parties agreed that Jose L. will remain out of the family home, with discretion for him to begin occasional overnight visits. He acknowledges his sexual abuse of Monique and continues to address that issue in therapy. Father asked the court for unmonitored visits with Patricia, and expressed willingness to have conjoint counseling with her. The court directed DCFS to arrange conjoint counseling for Patricia and Father with a neutral therapist. The court identified the long-term goal as termination of dependency jurisdiction. On August 24, 2010, Jose L.'s therapist terminated him from his individual and group counseling program because of poor attendance: Jose L. attended sessions only on June 2 and August 3.

Patricia's therapist submitted a progress report on July 2, 2010. She indicated that Patricia "improved dramatically" when counseling began; however, when she began visits with Father, she worsened, with symptomatic and behavioral changes. She expresses anger toward Father, increased anxiety and stomachaches before and after visits, and cries when she thinks about having to develop a relationship with Father. Her academic performance has suffered because thoughts of Father affect her ability to concentrate. Father yelled at her during a visit, causing the social worker to end the visit immediately. Patricia threatened to strike Father if he yelled at her again. She feels irritated and depressed as a result of their visits, which are detrimental to her mental health. On June 4, 2010, the therapist declined to conduct conjoint therapy sessions with Patricia and Father, due to Patricia's opposition and her regression in therapy.

DCFS filed a petition for a modification on July 26, 2010. DCFS asked the court to change its order from monitored visitation to giving Father "no visitation or conjoint therapy sessions . . . until such time that child, Patricia [C.'s] symptoms improve and until her individual therapist deems [it] appropriate." Patricia expressed anger that Father endangered her life during a kidnapping and car chase, according to an article that Patricia found on the Internet. During their last three visits in June 2010, Patricia refused to speak to Father, and their visits had to be cut short after 15 or 20 minutes. Patricia confronted Father about the kidnapping incident: he volunteered to tell her "the truth" about it, then blamed Mother, taking no responsibility himself. After Father referred to Jose L. as "that pervert," Patricia began to cry, and said to the social worker, "for his information, that pervert has been there for me my whole life." Patricia threatened to "do something stupid soon." Since July 8, Patricia has refused to attend visits with Father. Father was advised that the social worker "cannot physically force minor into the car to visit."

Patricia reported pain in the leg that Father held onto when he hung her out of the car window during the police chase, likely a psychosomatic response.

DCFS scheduled Patricia for a mental health examination, out of concern that she might hurt herself. The examination plumbed Patricia's angry feelings toward Father, and her anxiety and headaches before visits with Father. The psychiatric social worker decided that Patricia is not suicidal. Patricia's therapist affirmed that Patricia reported fear, anxiety, stomachaches and crying due to Father's visits, and possible depressive symptoms. The court suspended Father's visits on September 14, 2010, over Father's objection, and scheduled a contested hearing.

A contested hearing was conducted on October 14, 2010, to resolve the petition for a modification. The court cited a newspaper article from August 23, 2000, indicating that Father led police on a car chase reaching speeds of 90 miles per hour. During the chase, Father beat Mother, would not let her or Patricia (then two years old) wear a seatbelt, and threatened to kill them. At one point, according to the article, Father opened the car door, grabbed Patricia by the feet and dangled her headfirst over the pavement, in front of horrified witnesses. While Mother and Patricia were unrestrained in the car, Father collided with at least three vehicles, including a police car. Mother suffered a broken nose and bruises. In the court's view, the incident showed that Father "very well tried to kill both the mother and Patricia." As a result, the court would not force Patricia to visit the man who engaged in domestic violence and attempted to take her life: to do so would be emotionally and physically detrimental to Patricia. The court terminated Father's visits.

A status review report in November 2010 indicated that the children love Mother, are emotionally bonded with her, respect her, and wish to remain in her care. Patricia continues to refuse visits with Father. She has not seen him since July 1, 2010. Jose L. told DCFS that he has not attended counseling since August 3, 2010, because he cannot afford it. The children enjoy their unmonitored visits with Jose L., with whom they are emotionally bonded, and they want him to return home to live. Father claimed that Jose L. was secretly staying at the family home, but the social worker found no proof of it. Mother is alarmed to see Father driving around her neighborhood, and fears for her safety because he may be angry that the court terminated his visits. DCFS recommended that the court terminate its jurisdiction over the children, with Mother having full legal and physical custody, as Mother is able to protect the girls from further abuse. On November 3, 2010, the court found that conditions continue to exist that justify jurisdiction. The parents were ordered to continue participating in services, and the court authorized overnight visits by Jose L.

In February 2011, DCFS reported that the family recently began participating in a family preservation program. The family seemed stable and safe, and closely bonded. Mother continued to see Father driving in front of her house, and called the police. The children love visits with Jose L. and do not have behavioral changes after his visits. Because Jose L. stopped having counseling soon after he first admitted to fondling Monique, DCFS strongly recommended that he not return to the home because he "is barely taking responsibility [for] the sexual abuse which is a sustained allegation." Mother applied for a restraining order against Father, to stop him from stalking her and Patricia. She complained that Father was driving by the family residence and Patricia's school, made explicit hand gestures at her, and calls the family residence. The court set the matter for mediation.

On February 16, 2011, Father's therapist reported that he is cooperative during sessions and is staying clean and sober, as evidenced by monthly test results. He was discharged from parole on February 2, 2011, and has made excellent progress. He admits to feeling rejected by Patricia, but accepts that a relationship must be mutual. He has learned to control his anger and negative thoughts, and attends church.

In a mediated disposition on February 18, 2011, counsel agreed that Mother should have sole physical custody of Victoria and Lizeth, and joint legal custody with Jose L. Jose L. could have unmonitored visits for six hours per week with his children, and monitored visits with Patricia, with her consent. Based on the stipulation, the court terminated jurisdiction as to Victoria and Lizeth. There was no stipulated agreement with respect to Patricia, so the court set the matter for a contested hearing.

Prior to the contested hearing regarding Patricia, DCFS reported that Patricia has refused to see Father since July 2010. The social worker has tried on many occasions to encourage Patricia to have a relationship with Father. Despite being asked to reconsider her refusal, Patricia has not changed her mind. Patricia's stress has decreased in counseling, and her counselor believes that forced visitation would heighten Patricia's anxiety, because she has expressed fear of Father. Though they are biologically related, Patricia feels no bond or significant emotional connection to Father. The counselor recommended that Patricia not have visits with Father.

At the final hearing on April 21, 2011, the court stated that there has been no change since it terminated Father's visits in October 2010. Patricia's therapist verified that the child's animosity toward Father continues to be strong. Despite counseling, Patricia does not forgive Father for the way he treated her and Mother years earlier. The court found that the reasons for continued jurisdiction no longer exist, and it terminated the dependency proceeding with a family law order giving Mother physical and legal custody of Patricia. The court issued a "no contact" order for Father, until such time as Father can demonstrate a change in circumstances. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

1. Order Terminating Dependency Jurisdiction

DCFS asks this Court to partially dismiss Father's appeal. The agency argues that Father lacks standing to contest the order terminating dependency jurisdiction. Father opposes DCFS's motion to dismiss.

Only a person aggrieved by a dependency order may appeal it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 902; In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 948.) "An aggrieved person, for this purpose, is one whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way, and not as a nominal or remote consequence of the decision." (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231, 236.) "'[T]he mere fact a parent takes a position on a matter at issue in a juvenile dependency case that affects his or her child does not alone constitute a sufficient reason to establish standing to challenge an adverse ruling on it.'" (Id. at p. 239.)

If the juvenile court's dismissal of a dependency petition does not alter the child's custody status, a noncustodial parent is not aggrieved by the dismissal. (In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 736; In re Tomi C. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 694, 698.) Following the dismissal, a parent is not "left without a remedy in this situation. Issues concerning custody and visitation can also be dealt with in a family law proceeding." (In re Carissa G., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 736.)

Patricia has lived since birth with Mother. Father has not lived with Patricia since she was one year old: at that time, Mother separated from Father due to his domestic violence. A year later, Father was arrested for kidnapping Patricia and Mother. Father has spent virtually all of Patricia's childhood in prison, and saw her only three times, between prison stints. He is a noncustodial parent.

Though not adjudged in the dependency proceeding to be an offending parent, Father was incarcerated at the beginning of the proceeding and could not take custody. He was not given reunification services. After his release from prison, Father did not seek custody. In fact, Patricia refuses to even speak to Father, and the court terminated Father's visits in October 2010. Termination of the dependency proceeding does not in any way alter Patricia's continued residency with Mother. Father did not object below to Patricia's residency with Mother, nor did he raise any objection to the court's termination of its jurisdiction. The only thing he asked for in the dependency court was an exit order giving him monitored visitation.

Father's counsel stated at the hearing, "I'm asking the court to make a monitored visitation order, in the exit order."
--------

The dependency court believed that Patricia is safe with Mother. To ensure Patricia's safety, it was resolved by agreement of counsel that Jose L. will have monitored visits with Patricia, with her consent. If problems arise, they can be addressed in family law court or in a new dependency petition. There is no reason—if the court believes a child is safe—that dependency jurisdiction should continue indefinitely. Because termination of the case did not alter Patricia's custody status and did not alter Father's rights, Father has no standing to challenge the termination order. His appeal from the order terminating jurisdiction is dismissed.

2. Exit Order Determining Visitation

"When the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a minor who has been adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . the juvenile court on its own motion, may issue . . . an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.) The juvenile court's visitation order is transferred to a family court file and remains in effect until modified or terminated by the superior court. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358.) The visitation order is reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. (In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 581.)

"[T]here are situations in which a juvenile court may reasonably determine that continued supervision of the minor as a dependent child is not necessary for the child's protection, and at the same time conclude that conditions on visitation are necessary to minimize, if not eliminate, the danger that visits might subject the minor to the same risk of physical abuse or emotional harm that previously led to the dependency adjudication." (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 204.) The court oversees "children who have been seriously abused, abandoned, or neglected. The juvenile court has a special responsibility to the child . . . and must look to the totality of a child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the child." (Id. at p. 201.) The presumption of parental fitness that exists in family law cases does not apply in dependency cases. (Id. at pp. 201, 206.) The "standard for determining whether visitation may be denied is whether doing so is in the best interest of the child." (Id. at p. 208; In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973.)

When there is evidence in the record that the child is "under great stress," "angry" or "sick to his stomach" over a father's past behavior toward the child, and said that "he never wanted to see his father again," this is substantial evidence that a no contact order is in the child's best interests. (In re Daniel C.H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 838.) It may be detrimental to force visitation on a child who expresses fear of her father, particularly when the child's therapist recommends against parental contact. (In re Cheryl H. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1132-1133, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal.4th 746, 763); In re Dorinda A. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1657, 1662-1663.) The overriding concern of the juvenile court is "the possibility of adverse psychological consequences of an unwanted visit . . . . Thus, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to believe, under the circumstances of this case, that forced contact would not be beneficial." (In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1227, 1238.) Allowing contact when the child desires it "does not constitute punishment of the parent, but rather protection of the minor's psychological well-being." (Id. at pp. 1238-1239.)

As a result of Father's visits, Patricia suffered anxiety, anger and depression. She experienced stomachaches before and after visits, and her academic performance was diminished by distracting thoughts of Father. The idea of having a relationship with Father causes her to weep. Patricia initially made progress in therapy. Then, Father was released from prison and requested visits. Patricia regressed in her therapy after Father's visits began. Her behavior does not change when she has visits with her stepfather Jose L.

Patricia's therapist opined that Patricia's mental health is endangered by Father's insistence on having visits. Patricia fears Father and is stressed by his visits. During their last three visits, Patricia refused to speak to Father. She refused to attend any subsequent visits with him.

It is important to emphasize that Father's relationship with Patricia is strictly biological. He was incarcerated for the duration of her childhood, and was not given reunification services. Though Father was not found to be an offending parent in this dependency case, he was convicted in a criminal case of kidnapping Patricia and of felony child endangerment. As the juvenile court found, Father threatened to kill Patricia and Mother, drove maniacally during a police pursuit, dangled Patricia from the car window, violently assaulted Mother, and collided with other vehicles, all the while preventing Mother from restraining Patricia in a child safety seat. Patricia knows that Father nearly killed her when she was an infant and, unsurprisingly, she fears him. To Patricia, Father is a scary stranger who has played no nurturing role in her life.

The juvenile court declined to issue an order dictating that this now 14-year-old girl be transported, against her will, to see a biological parent that she fears and despises. If Father really cared about Patricia's well-being, he would not demand that she be forced to see him, given the abundant proof that his visits cause her to suffer physical illness and mental anguish. Father's implacable insistence on forced visitation—coupled with his alarming "drive bys" in front of Patricia's home and school—demonstrate that this appeal is all about Father's desire to control and manipulate Mother and Patricia. Father may have served his time in prison for his past conduct toward Mother and Patricia, but it is not clear that he has overcome his malign impulses. The juvenile court's "no contact" exit order is amply supported by the record.

DISPOSITION

Father's appeal from the juvenile court's termination of its jurisdiction is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

BOREN, P.J. We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

CHAVEZ, J.


Summaries of

Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Carl C. (In re Patricia C.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jan 30, 2012
B232867 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Carl C. (In re Patricia C.)

Case Details

Full title:In re PATRICIA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jan 30, 2012

Citations

B232867 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012)