Opinion
E075881
06-14-2021
In re D.N. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.N., Defendant and Appellant.
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. SWJ2000015 Judith C. Clark, Judge. Affirmed.
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MILLER J.
Defendant and appellant D.N. (Father) is the father and S.S. (Mother) is the mother of De.N. (born June 2003) and Do.N. (born June 2009) (collectively, the children). Father appeals the juvenile court's orders sustaining the Welfare and Institutions Code petition and removing the children from father's custody. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the court's findings and orders.
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PETITION AND DETENTION
On January 7, 2020, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children. At the time of the petition, De.N. was 16 years old and Do.N. was 10 years old. The petition alleged that Mother left the children for an undetermined amount of time without making arrangements for them. Mother had unresolved mental health issues including depression. Prior to this dependency, Mother attempted to commit suicide. Moreover, she allowed Father to have unsupervised contact with the children despite a criminal protective order.
The petition alleged that Father had an extensive criminal history, including arrests for willful resistance, transportation of marijuana, driving under the influence, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, and possession of a controlled substance. Father was arrested for violating a restraining order and was incarcerated. The petition also alleged that Father had unresolved anger issues.
One month prior to the filing of the petition, on December 12, 2019, the Department received a 10-day emergency response referral, which alleged general neglect of the children. The referral indicated that Father had been arrested on charges of child endangerment, resisting arrest, and violating a restraining order in which the children were named as protected persons. During a traffic stop, Father was found driving a truck with an illegally and improperly attached travel trailer; the children were in the trailer. If the trailer had gone over a bump, the trailer would have detached. The children were released to a paternal aunt.
On January 3, 2020, the Department received a second referral indicating that Father had been arrested again because he violated the protective order in which the children were named as protected persons. Mother had attempted suicide a couple of weeks earlier and then left for Detroit. There was no one willing to care for the children; they had been residing with the maternal uncle (Uncle) and he no longer wanted to care for the children.
When the social worker interviewed Do.N., he was very quiet and gave short answers. He stated that he lived with Mother, an adult brother, T.N., an adult sister, De.N., and Uncle. Mother had been in Detroit for a few weeks. Do.N. stated that he felt safe at home and was not afraid of anyone. He stated that he could not recall the last time he was in school; he did recall attending school in the 4th grade.
The social worker also interviewed De.N. He told the social worker that he last attended school a couple of months earlier. He and his brother were unable to register for school because they lost their chrome books and the school district did not allow them to register without the chrome books. De.N. stated that he lived with his Mother, Uncle, cousin and Do.N. De.N. also stated that his adult sister recently moved out and his adult brother, T.N., was “in and out.” Father had not lived with the family for three years. De.N. used to see Father daily but only saw him once or twice a week after Mother obtained a restraining order. De.N. did not understand why he and Do.N. were included in the restraining order.
De.N. stated that he was at home with Mother when she attempted suicide and cut her wrists. He was not inside the room but went into the room after his adult sister found Mother and saw her bleeding. According to De.N., Mother went to Detroit on December 26, 2019. She asked T.N. and Uncle to watch him and Do.N. However, after Mother left, Uncle wanted both boys out of the house.
“When asked how he ended up at the police station, [De.N.] stated that he had been moving stuff, as his uncle wanted the children out of the home right away. [De.N.] stated he had been packing stuff into his grandfather's truck, and that his father had been in the truck. [De.N.] stated that he went outside and saw five police cars. [De.N.] stated that he knew something was going to happen because the uncle was acting weird, just sitting in the garage and making comments.”
The social worker told De.N. that he and his brother were left without a person legally responsible for them. Therefore, they were taken into protective custody and the Department was looking for a foster home or relatives to care for them. De.N. asked to be placed with the paternal grandparents. De.N. did not have their telephone number.
When the social worker spoke with Father at the detention center, he stated that prior to being arrested, he resided with the paternal grandparents. Father stated that if the children were placed with the paternal grandparents, Father would be homeless. Father was unemployed and his source of income was collecting recyclables from trash bins on the streets. Although there was a restraining order in place barring Father from contact with the children, Mother would leave the children in Father's care for weeks at a time. The children had lived with Father in his camper for almost eight months prior to his arrest in December.
Father stated that the police beat up Father and T.N. when he was pulled over in December 2019. Father stated that the children were trapped in the camper until the police let them out. When the police “pulled guns” on De.N., it upset Father and he began to fight with the police. Father and T.N. were arrested. The children were released to a paternal aunt.
When Father was released from jail on December 23, 2019, Mother asked that Father bring the children to see her. Mother was in the hospital because she had attempted suicide by cutting her wrists while Father was in jail. When Father took the children to see Mother on Christmas, Mother told Father that she was leaving, and he needed to care for the children. When Mother was discharged from the hospital, the children returned to her care. Shortly thereafter, when Mother left for Detroit, she left the children with Uncle.
According to Father, Uncle asked the children to move out of the home. On the day of the incident, Father borrowed the paternal grandfather's truck to help the children move out of the home. Father parked the truck in front of the house. Uncle asked Father to leave several times, but Father refused because he was there to help the children move. Uncle called the police; Father was arrested.
Father stated that Mother had previously requested a restraining order against him after he had gotten into a fight with Uncle. In 2001 or 2002, Father had been arrested for spousal abuse and received probation. Father stated that prior to his arrests in 2019 and 2020, he had not been arrested for 16 years. Father's prior criminal history involved selling and possessing marijuana and cocaine. Father denied drug use other than marijuana.
The social worker provided Father with a community referral resource packet and pointed out specific areas where he could find information on homeless shelters, low-income housing, parenting education, and counseling.
The social worker also spoke with Mother. Mother stated that she resided in the home with Uncle, a cousin and the children. T.N., went back and forth between her home and Father. Mother stated that she did not talk to anyone before she left for Detroit about watching the children. She did inform Uncle that she was leaving and would be returning.
Mother stated that although there was a history of verbal and physical abuse between Mother and Father, Father was not violent with the children. The children, however, witnessed the arguments and violence between the parents. The last violent incident occurred in April of 2017.
Mother stated that she had full custody of the children. In April 2018, she obtained a restraining order against Father because he was making threats to Mother. Father threatened to kill Mother and got into a fight with Uncle. Father would sit in front of the home. Mother did not want Father to show up at her home or where she worked. Mother did not intend to restrain Father from the children.
When the social worker asked Mother about the children being with Father for eight months recently, Mother stated that the children were home when she left for work. When she returned, however, the children would be gone. Father would come to the house and pick up the children.
On January 4, 2020, the children were placed with their paternal grandparents. On January 7, 2020, the Department filed a section 300 petition. Thereafter, the juvenile court found that a prima facie showing was made that the children came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The court detained the children and set a jurisdictional hearing.
On January 24, 2020, Father was released from incarceration. The Department reported that Father may suffer from possible mental health issues.
On February 6, 2020, the social worker contacted Father via telephone. Father expressed his frustration and stated he would not cooperate. Father stated that he would contact a Georgia senator to sue the Department; his statements did not make sense.
On February 14, 2020, the juvenile court advised the parties that there was a criminal protective order that would expire on December 22, 2022, and a family law restraining order that would expire on April 5, 2023. At a review hearing on August 4, 2020, the court stated that there were two criminal protective orders in place: “Both of those criminal cases include orders that Father is not allowed to have any contact whatsoever with these kids, and he's not allowed to be within 100 yards of these children, or to have any contact with them whatsoever.”
The Department filed a first amended petition on April 16, 2020. The social worker contacted the children several times; the children, however, refused to speak with her. The social worker observed that the children appeared well and were appropriately dressed for the weather. The grandmother reported that the children were doing fine.
On March 26, 2020, the social worker make telephone contact with Father. The social worker told Father that she needed to speak with him about his case plan and services. Father responded that he did not need her assistance and he did not want her contacting him again. Notwithstanding, on April 30, 2020, the social worker attempted to contact Father via text message; she encouraged him to make a therapy appointment. Father responded as follows: “ ‘No thank you I won't be attending maybe if they would stop continuing the matter they would know a little something about me what I representing I'm fighting this matter on false accusations don't need classes for that I'm looking forward to a civil matter the courts couldn't even give me a discovery its been 5 different court days and nothing has proceeded im moving for a dismissal of my case trying to prolong court over this fake corona virus im not buying it so please stop forcing any possibilities on me I don't care what your job is your job is to ruin children's and parent's lives for financial gain don't contact me again unless it's to inform me that the case has been dismissed I will take it up in a civil matter.' ”
On May 4, 2020, the social worker mailed a letter to Father providing contact information for service providers, and a copy of his case plan. On May 13, 2020, Father called the social worker and told her to stop calling him. He stated that he would not take classes.
On June 9, 2020, the social worker mailed Father another letter with his services and a copy of his case plan. Father refused to participate in a child and family team meeting scheduled for June 25, 2020. Moreover, Father again noted that he would not participate in services.
On July 1, 2020, an updated core services referral was submitted on behalf of Father because the previous referral was outdated. The social worker attempted to contact Father on July 2, 2020, but was unable to leave a voice mail. Father then texted the social worker and told her to stop contacting him. On July 28, 2020, the social worker sent a text to Father to remind him of his service provider.
Father was on summary probation until January 8, 2023. According to the terms of his probation, Father was unable to have any direct or indirect contact with the children.
On July 7, 2020, the juvenile court ordered an extended visit with Mother on a favorable home assessment. The next day, the children were placed with Mother.
On August 4, 2020, at the contested jurisdictional hearing, Father called several witnesses to testify. De.N. testified that he has seven siblings. He had never been harmed or opened an empty refrigerator while the parents cared for him. Moreover, he never had life-threating injuries or felt he was in an unsafe or unstable environment. He loved both Mother and Father and wanted to go home. When Mother left, De.N. stayed with T.N., and not Uncle. Uncle lived in the same house but the children did not stay with him.
T.N. testified that he grew up with three siblings and never lacked for food. Both of his parents cared for him while he was growing up. He did not have a chance to tell law enforcement or the Department that he was the children's adult brother. Mother spoke with him prior to her leaving and left the children in his care. Mother left no written authorization for T.N. for the children to receive medical care. T.N. made sure the children had food. He was present when the children were being moved out of the home; the plan was to move them to the grandparents' house. This plan was decided in advance for about three weeks. T.N. stated that he spoke with the grandparents and there was an understanding of what was going to happen. Father lived in the grandparents' home in January when the plan was made. The plan was for the grandparents, Father and the children to live together.
The grandfather testified that Father loved the children and looked out for their best interest. The grandfather was unaware of plans for the children to move from their home prior to the Department's involvement. He did not speak with Mother, Father, T.N. or any relative about where the children would go when they were moved from their home. When the Department contacted the grandfather, he and his wife were the only people living in his home. Father had been living at a church in his trailer.
The cousin testified that he had been around the children most of their lives. Father loved the children and the children loved Father. The cousin first testified that he was not present at the house on January 3, 2020, then later testified that he was present. Uncle was trying to “kick” the children out of his home, but he did not know where the children planned to go.
On August 4, 2020, the juvenile court found true the b-1, b-2, b-3, b-4, and b-5 allegations in the first amended petition. The court then amended the petition as follows: “As to allegation b-1, the Court strikes the words: ‘food, shelter, clothing,' and ‘and support for the children.' [¶] As to allegation b-2, the Court strikes the word ‘unresolved.' [¶] As to allegation b-4, the Court strikes the words ‘and remains incarcerated.' ” Moreover, the court struck the g-1 allegation. The court also found that the children came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The children were adjudged dependents of the court and physical custody of the children was retained by Mother. The court provided Mother with family maintenance services. The children were removed from Father's care and Father was provided with reunification services.
On October 2, 2020, Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
A. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE JUVENILE COURT'S TRUE FINDINGS
On appeal, Father contends that “sufficient evidence did not support the juvenile dependency petition sustained against the parents.” For the reasons set forth below, we find that substantial evidence supports the trial court's order sustaining the petition against the parents.
The petitioner in a dependency proceeding must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child who is the subject of the petition comes under the juvenile court's jurisdiction. (In re Shelley J. (1988) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.) We review jurisdictional findings under the substantial evidence standard. (In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 574-575; In re A.S. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 237, 244.) Under this standard, we determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113.) All evidentiary conflicts are resolved in favor of the respondent, and where more than one inference can reasonably be deduced from the facts, we cannot substitute our own deductions for those of the trier of fact. (In re John V. (1991) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.)
Generally, to acquire jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of section 300, the juvenile court was obliged to find that the child “has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result” of specified forms of parental neglect, including substance abuse, physical abuse, and failure to protect the child. To secure jurisdiction over a child under section 300, the juvenile court was not obliged to make jurisdictional findings against both father and mother, only one of them. Because the focus of the statutory scheme governing dependency is the protection of children, “the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him or her] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent.” (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397, italics added, disapproved on another issue in In re Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328.) The Department “is not required to prove two petitions, one against the mother and one against the father, in order for the court to properly sustain a petition [pursuant to § 300] or adjudicate a dependency.” (In re La Shonda B. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 593, 599.) “A petition is brought on behalf of the child, not to punish the parents. [Citation.] The interests of both parent and child are protected by the two-step process of a dependency proceeding, with its separate adjudication and disposition hearings. Thus, when [the Department] makes a prima facie case under section 300 by proving the jurisdictional facts at the adjudication hearing, it is not improper for the court to sustain the petition; not until the disposition hearing does the court determine whether the minor should be adjudged a dependent.” (Ibid.; see also In re X.S. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161.)
In this case, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's true findings as to the allegations in the first amended petition. The evidence showed that there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness as the result of the failure or inability of Mother and Father to adequately supervise or protect the children. Here, as provided in detail above, Mother had obtained a restraining order against Father in April 2018 because he had threatened to kill Mother. The children were also named as protected persons in the restraining order. Moreover, Father was arrested on December 11, 2019, for violating the restraining order by having contact with the children. Additionally, Mother allowed Father to have contact with the children despite the restraining order. Furthermore, on December 13, 2019, a criminal protective order was filed by the court, which named the children as protected parties from Father. Around the time of Father's arrest, Mother attempted to commit suicide and then subsequently left for Detroit for an indefinite time around December 25, 2019. Mother left without giving express legal authority for the care of the children to anyone.
Then January 3, 2020, law enforcement arrested Father for violating the criminal protective order and restraining order when he was parked in front of the home in which the children resided. Uncle, who was also named as a protected person in the restraining order, called the police to request assistance in having Father leave. Father was arrested and Uncle refused to continue providing care for the children. At this time, Mother had full legal custody of the children and Father was barred from having any contact with the children pursuant to both the restraining and criminal protective orders. The children were left without a legal caregiver. Moreover, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the restraining order and both criminal protective orders remained in place. The orders stated that Father was not allowed any contact with the children and was not allowed to be within 100 yard of them.
1. THE B-1 ALLEGATION
The b-1 allegation stated: “The mother neglects the health, safety, and wellbeing of the children in that she left the state for an undetermined amount of time without making adequate arrangements for medical treatment, protection.” Substantial evidence supports the court's true finding as to the b-1 allegation.
As provided in detail above, Mother left for Detroit after her attempted suicide. Mother failed to arrange for anyone to care for the children prior to leaving. She told the social worker that she did not speak to anyone about caring for the children prior to leaving. Mother also did not leave any written authorization for the children to receive medical care in her absence. Although T.N. testified that Mother put him in charge, the juvenile court had the discretion to weigh the evidence and believe Mother's statement and the evidence in the record.
The children had been living with Uncle, but Uncle wanted the children to move out. T.N. then planned to move the children to the grandparents' home where Father lived-which would have violated the restraining and criminal protective orders. Moreover, although Father stated there was a plan for the children to live with the grandparents after leaving Uncle's home, the grandfather testified that he was not aware of any plans for the children to move into his home. The grandfather did not know about the plan for the children to move into his home until the Department contacted him.
Based on the above, substantial evidence supports the court's b-1 finding that Mother neglected the children's health, safety, and wellbeing when she failed to arrange for the children's physical and medical care prior to leaving.
2. THE B-2 ALLEGATION
The b-2 allegation stated that “The mother has mental health issues, including depression, resulting in her attempt to commit suicide; such conditions place the child at risk of abuse and neglect.” Substantial evidence supports the court's true finding as to the b-2 allegation.
As noted above, Mother had been diagnosed with depression and was prescribed medication. She had been placed on hold under section 5150 because she attempted suicide. De.N. walked into the room after mother's attempted suicide and saw her on the floor. Mother was stressed at work and because Father had recently been arrested. Father made Mother's life difficult because he would sit in front of her home every day. Mother tearfully stated that she just wanted to live a peaceful life.
Section 5150 states: “When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer... may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment.”
A deputy told the social worker that Mother had recently attempted suicide and had gone to Detroit to receive help. The children had been living with Uncle. The children, however, had to move because Uncle no longer wanted the children in his home.
After the attempted suicide, Mother was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with recurrent moderate episodes of generalized anxiety disorder; she was in therapy. She also took medication. Mother met her therapy goals and had her last appointment on July 16, 2020, approximately three weeks prior to the review hearing.
Notwithstanding the evidence that supports the court's the b-2 true finding, Father claims the Department failed to meet the “burden of showing specifically how the minors had been or will be harmed” because “the children were returned to the mother's care a month in advance of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing because apparently that issue had been ameliorated.” As noted above, Mother had recently completed her therapy prior to the hearing. Moreover, she remained on medication and continued to be monitored by her psychiatrist. Although Mother was starting to make progress to address her mental health issues, the evidence supports the court's finding that mother's mental health issues continued to place the children at risk of abuse or neglect.
3. THE B-3 ALLEGATION
The b-3 allegation stated: “The mother neglects the health, safety, and wellbeing of the children in that she knew or reasonably should have know there is a criminal protective order against the father, for the protection of the children, and she failed to ensure the children's safety as she has allowed the father to have unsupervised contact with the children.” Substantial evidence supports the court's true finding of this allegation.
Mother stated that she obtained a restraining order against Father in April 2018 because he threatened to kill her and the maternal grandmother. Moreover, Father had gotten into a fight with Uncle, and would sit in front of Mother's home. Nonetheless, Mother stated that she did not mind the children seeing Father; she just did not want him showing up at her home or work. Although Mother was aware of the terms of the restraining order that included the children, she did not abide by the order or return to court to have it amended.
Additionally, De.N. stated that after Mother obtained the restraining order, he saw Father one or twice a week. Prior to that, De.N. saw father almost daily. Father stated that despite the restraining order barring him from seeing the children, Mother would leave the children with Father for weeks at a time. Father also stated that the children had been living with Father in his camper for almost eight months prior to Father's arrest in December. The grandparents reported confusion because they were aware of the restraining order, but Mother would continue to call Father and ask him to care for the children for days at a time. Father was arrested for violating the restraining order when he was at the residence helping the children remove their belongings from Uncle's home while Mother was in Detroit.
The trial court found that Father had two criminal protective orders again him. The orders stated that Father was not allowed to have any contact “whatsoever” with the children. Moreover, Father was not allowed to be within 100 yards of the children. Nonetheless, as provided above, Mother allowed, and even encouraged, Father to have continued contact with the children. There is more than substantial evidence to support the court's true finding as to the b-3 allegation.
4. THE B-4 ALLEGATION
The b-4 allegation stated: “The father has an extensive criminal history, including but not limited to, arrests for willful resistance, transport of marijuana, driving under the influence, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, and possession of a controlled substance. Further, the father was arrested for violation of a restraining order; such actions place the children at risk of abuse and neglect.” Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's true finding as to this allegation.
Here, Father's criminal history involved selling drugs and possession charges for marijuana and cocaine. In January 2020, Father was arrested for violating a restraining order. In December 2019, Father was also convicted for violating a court order to prevent domestic violence and “willful resist, delay, obstruct.” On December 23, 2019, the court granted summary probation to Father; it is set to expire on January 8, 2023. Additionally, in September 2018, Father was convicted of violating a court order to prevent domestic abuse. In 2003, Father was convicted of transport/sale of marijuana; driving under the influence; and willfully resisting, delaying, obstructing an officer. In 2002, Father was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. In 1992 and 1997, Father was convicted of possession of controlled substances.
Based on the above, we find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's true finding as to the b-4 allegation. In sum, Father had an extensive criminal history dating back to 1992. Most recently, Father was arrested on two occasions for violating a restraining order that was put in place to protect the children. The nature of Father's prior convictions and his continued violations of the restraining orders that were set in place to protect the children continue to put the children at risk as a result of Father's actions.
5. THE B-5 ALLEGATION
The b-5 allegation stated: “The father has unresolved anger issues and has had a criminal protective order placed against him, protecting the mother and the children; such actions place the children at risk of physical and emotional harm.” Substantial evidence supports the court's true finding of this allegation.
In this case, Mother had obtained a restraining order against Father in April 2018; she wanted to protect herself from Father's threats that he was going to kill her, and Father's fights with Uncle. In December 2019, Father fought with the police in De.N.'s presence resulting in Father's arrest and the children being released to the paternal aunt. During this incident, Father claimed that the police “pulled guns” on De.N. Just one month later, Father was arrested again for violating the restraining order. The juvenile court noted that although there were two criminal protective orders in place, Father failed to comply with either of them. Furthermore, the evidence showed that Father had unresolved anger issues. In addition to his aggressive behaviors toward Mother and her family, Father refused to talk to the social worker and often responded to her in a hostile manner. Instead of listening to the social worker, who was trying to help him receive services, Father refused to talk to the social worker and continually asked the social worker not to contact him.
Based on the above, we find that substantial evidence supports the court's true finding of the b-5 allegation. At a minimum, Father's actions in violating the restraining order put his children at risk. Father even admitted that law enforcement had pulled their guns on De.N.; it could have turned into a dangerous situation had Father escalated his interaction with the police.
In sum, we find that substantial evidence amply supports the jurisdiction of the children.
B. THE JUVENILE COURT PROPERLY REMOVED THE CHILDREN FROM FATHER'S CARE
Father contends that the court erred in removing the children from his custody because substantial evidence did not show that the children were in danger of harm. Moreover, Father contends that substantial evidence did not support that removal was the only reasonable way to protect the children. We disagree.
When a minor has been adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that he or she is a person described by section 300, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by the parent or guardian. (§ 361, subd. (a).)
A dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents or guardians unless the juvenile court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, certain circumstances. (§ 361, subd. (c).) A finding that there is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home; and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor, is one of the circumstances that justifies removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
The court's dispositional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 105.) Under this standard, we determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Tracy Z., supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 113.) All evidentiary conflicts are resolved in favor of the respondent, and where more than one inference can reasonably be deduced from the facts, we cannot substitute our own deductions for those of the trier of fact. (In re John V., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 1212.) Moreover, “[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal, this determination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.) In reviewing an order for abuse of discretion, we “ ‘must consider all the evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. [Citation.] The precise test is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude that the trial court order advanced the best interests of the child.' ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.) “The trial court is accorded wide discretion and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent ‘a manifest of showing of abuse.' ” (Ibid.)
In this case, substantial evidence supports the court's order removing the children from Father's care. As noted in detail above, Father had an extensive criminal history dating back to 1992 and as recent as 2020. Father was convicted of violating a court order to prevent domestic violence in 2018 and 2019. In 2019, during a traffic stop, officers found the children in an improperly-attached travel trailer behind Father's truck. If the trailer had gone over a bump, it would have detached from the truck with the children inside. During this incident, Father reported that the officers “pulled guns” on his older son and Father fought with the police. He was arrested for violating a restraining order. In January of 2020, Father again was arrested after De.N. stated that five police cars came to the house in response to Uncle's call for law enforcement. This led to a Department referral because Father violated the court's restraining order that named the children as protected persons.
Moreover, there is no dispute that a restraining order and two criminal protective orders were in place protecting the children from Father. According to the juvenile court, the criminal protective orders, which remained in place at the time of the hearing, included orders wherein Father was not allowed to have any contact with the children.
Based on the above, substantial evidence supports the court's findings and orders removing the children from Father's custody
Father also contends there were reasonable alternatives to removing the children from his care that could have protected the children.
As previously noted, “[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal, this determination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re Baby Boy H., supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.) In reviewing an order for abuse of discretion, we “ ‘must consider all the evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. [Citation.] The precise test is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude that the trial court order advanced the best interests of the child.'” (In re Robert L., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067.) “The trial court is accorded wide discretion and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent ‘a manifest of showing of abuse.' ” (Ibid.)
Here, Father asserts that the children could have stayed with Mother until the protective orders were modified. Moreover, he contends that the court could have ordered Father to participate in family maintenance services, and once the protective orders were modified, the court could have ordered the social worker to closely monitor the children in Father's home. We find Father's arguments to be without merit.
Father's suggestions are based on the speculation that the protective orders would be modified-and not based on the evidence the juvenile court had before making its determination. An appellate court “cannot interfere with the juvenile court's ruling based on speculation about what ‘may' happen.” (In re Jose C. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 147, 159.) In this case, the juvenile court noted that one of the criminal protective orders was set to expire on December 13, 2022. There was nothing in the record to indicate that the criminal protective orders were going to be modified.
In his opening brief, Father contends that the juvenile court “could have, and should have, communicated with any other courts that made orders that conflict with father's interest in custody of and visitation with his sons.” In support of his argument, Father relies on California Rules of court, rule 5.445, “Court communicated protocol for domestic violence and child custody orders” which states: “(1) This rule is intended to:
“(A) Encourage courts to share information about the existence and terms of criminal court protective orders and other orders regarding child custody and visitation that involve the defendant and the victim or witness named in the criminal court protective orders.
“(B) Encourage courts hearing cases involving child custody and visitation to take every action practicable to ensure that they are aware of the existence of any criminal court protective orders involving the parties to the action currently before them.
“(C) Encourage criminal courts to take every action practicable to ensure that they are aware of the existence of any child custody or visitation court orders involving the defendant in the action currently before them.
“(D) Permit appropriate visitation between a criminal defendant and his or her children under civil court orders, but at the same time provide for the safety of the victim or witness by ensuring that a criminal court protective order is not violated.
“(E) Protect the rights of all parties and enhance the ability of law enforcement to enforce orders.
“(F) Encourage courts to establish regional communication systems with courts in neighboring counties regarding the existence of and terms of criminal court protective orders.”
California Rules of Court, Riverside County Local Rule 5260, states: “It is the policy of the Court to identify and coordinate custody proceedings involving the same child which may appear in multiple legal settings. It is further the policy of the Court to coordinate the efforts of the different Court systems so that the child's needs are served and the resources of the family and the Court are not wasted. To these ends the Court and the agencies serving the Court shall cooperate to increase the exchange of information and to determine the most appropriate forum for the resolution of the issues relating to the child. [¶]... Criminal Protective Orders that are in conflict with a Juvenile Court order take precedence over the Juvenile Court order.”
In this case, the juvenile court informed the parties that the court had no authority to modify the criminal protective order against Father. The court went on to state that the local rules of court indicated the court could contact the criminal court so Father's attorney could be notified to place the matter on calendar. In this case, however, Father represented himself on both criminal cases and was not represented by counsel.
The court then went on to explain to Father how the criminal protective orders could be modified. The court stated: “So, if [Father] wants the restraining orders modified, he needs to go over to the criminal court and needs to request to add his criminal cases on calendar, and he needs to make that request of the criminal judge for the criminal judge to modify the criminal protective orders to check the box that allows for visitation as ordered by the juvenile court, following the issuance of that order, because that box is not checked, and I can't do that. So [Father] needs to go do that first. There is no point in me modifying a family law order that does not allow contact and visitation because I cannot make an order that is in direct contradiction to the criminal protective order. [¶]... [Father] has to take the first step himself and go and request to modify his criminal protective orders. If he does that, then he has two choices. If that is granted, then he can go back to family law and request to modify the family law order, or he can come back to this court. Realistically, he should come back to this court because the children are dependents of this court. And if the criminal protective orders no longer prohibit contact with the boys, then the Court will consider granting visitation of the kids. I'll do that. [¶] The boys want to be able to see you. But I am not going to order something that is in direct contradiction to a lawful order of the criminal court. So you just need to take those steps.”
Father responded: “Okay, I'm aware of that.” He stated he had gone to the criminal court and already begun the process.
Here, we find that the juvenile court told Father what he had to do to modify his criminal protective orders. It also explained that criminal protective orders take precedence over juvenile court orders. Based on the record, there is no basis to reverse the juvenile court's order removing the children from Father's custody.
In sum, based on the above, and under the abuse of discretion standard of review, there is ample evidence to support the court's order removing the children.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders and findings are affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J.RAPHAEL J.