From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. W.B. (In re G.B.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 17, 2023
No. E080099 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2023)

Opinion

E080099

08-17-2023

In re G.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. W.B., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Melissa A. Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. SWJ2100287. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge. Affirmed.

Melissa A. Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CODRINGTON J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant W.B. (Father) is the presumed father of nine-year-old G.B. Father appeals the juvenile court's order reducing his supervised virtual visits from twice a week to once per month after his reunification services were terminated. Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it reduced his visits with G.B. to once per month. Finding no error, we affirm the order.

S.B. (Mother) is not a party to this appeal. This is the third appeal by the family. In the first prior appeal, case No. E078075, the parents sought to challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. Appellate counsel for the parents each filed a brief pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.), and neither parent filed a supplemental brief. We thus dismissed the case as abandoned. In the second prior appeal, case No. E079306, Mother sought to challenge the juvenile court's order requiring Mother to participate in domestic violence counseling. Mother's appellate counsel filed a Sade C. brief, and Mother did not file a supplemental brief. Accordingly, we dismissed the case as abandoned.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The family came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) in April 2021 after it received a series of referrals alleging general neglect and physical abuse of then seven-year-old G.B. The referrals alleged that there was domestic violence between Mother and Father in G.B.'s presence. Specifically, the referrals stated that Mother physically abused Father, Father verbally and physically abused Mother, and Father had kicked Mother out of the house and would not allow her to take the child with her. DPSS's investigation revealed that the parents had exposed G.B. to ongoing domestic violence and that Mother had obtained a restraining order against Father but neither parent obeyed the order. Father displayed paranoid, erratic, and combative behavior, and G.B. exhibited signs of anger and aggression.

On June 18, 2021, DPSS filed a petition on behalf of G.B. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), based on the parents ongoing domestic violence, Mother's failure to obtain mental health services for G.B., and Father's substance abuse, criminal history, and mental health issues.

All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

In July 2021, the juvenile court found that G.B. came within section 300, subdivision (b), and maintained him in the custody of his parents under family maintenance. However, about two months later in September 2021, G.B. was detained from his parents' custody at the request of his attorney. In October 2021, the juvenile court took jurisdiction of the matter, sustained the petition, declared G.B. a dependent of the court, and ordered Mother and Father to participate in reunification services.

At a hearing in December 2021, Father accused the judge overseeing this matter of "child trafficking, child abuse" and "child abduct[ion]," and made an oral motion that the judge recuse himself. At that same hearing, Father's third attorney declared a conflict and requested to be relieved as counsel.

The juvenile court later denied Mother's motion to disqualify the judge.

On January 13, 2022, DPSS filed an ex parte request to cease all in-person visits for Father and enforce confidentiality.

On January 28, 2022, a fourth attorney was appointed for Father. Father's fourth attorney was also later relieved after she declared a conflict, and the court advised Father to hire private counsel because no further court-appointed attorneys would be provided. The court ordered Father to update DPSS once he hired private counsel, and until then the court treated Father as self-represented.

On February 14, 2022, the juvenile court granted DPSS's request to terminate Father's in-person visits. Mother's in-person visits were ordered to continue, while Father's visits would be over Zoom or video chat twice weekly.

On March 3, 2022, Father requested court-appointed counsel, and the juvenile court advised him that he would be provided with one final court-appointed attorney. About a month later, on April 12, 2022, Father's fifth attorney declared a conflict and was relieved. Father was advised to hire private counsel or represent himself.

On May 3, 2022, the juvenile court admonished Father not to discuss the case outside of court. The court then proceeded to the six-month review hearing, and continued reunification services to both parents. The court determined DPSS was not required to actively involve the parents in the development of their case plan because the parents were unable, unavailable, or unwilling to participate. Mother was ordered to participate in domestic violence counseling, and DPSS was ordered to provide Mother with referrals for housing (or domestic violence shelters) if she chose to leave Father. The court authorized Father to continue visiting the child via Zoom or telephone calls.

On June 28, 2022, Father's domestic violence batterers program submitted a termination notice due to Father exceeding allowable absences. The notice showed Father had attended one class in May 2022. On August 31, 2022, a probation violation petition was filed and a bench warrant was issued for Father's arrest. The allegations stated Father was to provide proof of enrollment for his 52-week domestic violence class as part of his probation and complete the program by September 4, 2022, and that Father was to report any law enforcement contacts within 48 hours. On August 17, 2022, law enforcement reported that Father was disturbing the peace of non-sworn staff working at a Riverside County Sheriff's station. Father was arrested in September 2022 due to the outstanding arrest warrant.

Father's case plan included a psychological evaluation, general counseling, a 52-week domestic violence program, and substance abuse testing (if needed). Father claimed that he had completed his domestic violence program and all his other services and that he had tested clean for all drugs, but he did not disclose to DPSS where he completed his classes.

Between September 2021 and April 2022, G.B. had been in three different placements. G.B.'s first caregiver requested a 14-day notice of removal merely five days after G.B. was placed with the caregiver as a result of a phone conversation the caregiver had with Father. The caregiver had expressed being fearful of Father. In October 2021, G.B. was placed in a second foster home. On February 24, 2022, the foster home gave a 14-day notice as a result of the parents' behaviors. The caregiver did not feel safe keeping G.B. in his home after Father had threatened to take G.B. following a visit. On April 22, 2022, G.B. was placed in his third foster home.

The parents continued to reside together in their car, although they denied they had a romantic relationship. Father claimed he was unable to hold a job because of "the emotional distress placed on him by Riverside County." Father regularly participated in Zoom visits with G.B., usually alongside Mother. He, however, missed several visits, and when he did visit, he at times left the visits after 10 minutes, became upset, yelled at the social worker, discussed the case in front of G.B., and accused DPSS of kidnapping his child. During a visit on May 31, 2022, Father briefly came on the call to tell G.B. that Father "has done everything he needs to do, spoken to the governor, and 'Riverside County does not want me to be a dad.'" Father then told G.B. that he loved him and handed the phone back to Mother.

On June 7, 2022, Father told G.B. "[a]ll I've heard Riverside County say is we're trying to get your son back but they haven't." On June 15, 2022, Father again asserted that the judge was a pedophile who violated his rights. Father also continued to email DPSS, the media, and counsel "sometimes daily, sometimes multiple times a day" in violation of the court's order regarding the confidentiality of the case. Father's emails usually contained "the same information, stating the days his son has allegedly been abducted, sexually assaulted, molested, abused, neglected and trafficked by Riverside County." Father claimed that he was evicted by his landlord "to ensure he did not get his son back as [his landlord] is a child sex and human trafficker." Father also demanded to know why he was not permitted to visit in-person with G.B. The social worker explained to him that it was due to the February 2022 court order and that Father could seek a change to that order by filing a petition to modify the order. Father stated that "he was done being punished by [DPSS]" and that he "may just give up his rights" so that DPSS could no longer "use his son as leverage and continue to punish him." Father accused the social worker "of not returning his son to him even though his son had endured sexual abuse and severe weight loss while in the care of [DPSS]."

On June 30, 2022, Father left his Zoom visit with G.B. after approximately 10 minutes. After Father left the visit, G.B.'s demeanor changed and he revealed to his mother that he was upset because some of the other children in the home had called him a name. The social worker promised Mother that she would follow up with the caregiver about this issue. The following day, Father emailed the social worker that his son was being "emotionally abused" in the foster home and that he had watched G.B.'s "spirit be broken" during their visits. The social worker followed up with G.B.'s foster mom, who confirmed that G.B. told her about the name calling and that G.B. was "really worried about having to move, since his father kept telling [G.B.] he was going to talk to the social worker[] about kids calling him names." At the next visit with his parents, G.B. informed his parents that they could "cancel the complaint."

On July 19, 2022, Father asked G.B. if he was ready to come home and added that "he is doing everything he is supposed to so [G.B.] can come back home." On July 22, 2022, Father called the Riverside County Sheriff's administration and stated he was "going to invoke his 14th Amendment Right and would be taking possession of his child by noon." The caregiver and local DPSS offices were informed of Father's threat on the same date. On July 25 and July 26, 2022, Father called Menifee Police Department to request law enforcement assistance in obtaining custody of his kidnapped son. Father also stated that DPSS "is upset with him and Riverside County Officials are displaying narcissist behavior because he is advocating for how his son was illegally abducted, sexually assaulted, molested, abused, neglected and traumatized." On July 25, 2022, Father also wrote that "319 days ago [the judge] abducted my son as retaliation for the bodycam I acquired and also for his own personal lust as he is a devout [M]ormon pedophile using his position as a dependency judge to prey on the children of people in need."

Father continued to send daily emails to the media, the social worker, the county counsel handling his case, and other parties regarding the "illegal" abduction of his son, and repeatedly demanded return of his son. On August 4, 2022, Father became upset during a visit and told G.B. he would "be calling and emailing as soon as he got off the phone." The social services assistant supervising the call heard Father leaving a voicemail "stating how his son was wrongly taken." On August 8, Father accused Riverside County of "illegally" abducting his son, and that he had "asked 'everyone for his son's address' and they refuse to give it." Father asserted he was "going to get his child, as is his legal and constitutional right." During a visit on August 9, 2022, G.B. informed his parents he was going to a new school because his old school was too far away. The parents immediately became upset and raised their voices as they told G.B. they did not approve of the school change. Father told G.B. that he was "going to call 'right now' because this was wrong." The assistant supervising the call could hear Father yelling in the background. When the social services supervisor asked the parents to change the subject, Father "returned to the call and asked [G.B.] if he wanted him to go get him." G.B. responded that he wanted to go home, and Father asked G.B. for his address. When the parents refused to change the subject, the social services assistant ended the call.

On August 9, 2022, Father called the social worker and asked why he and Mother "could not speak to their kidnapped and sexually molested child." When the social worker told Father that he could not ask G.B. for his address, Father asserted that it was his right to know where G.B. lived. On August 11, after the social services assistant told the parents not to ask specific questions about G.B.'s whereabouts, the parents responded that they should be able to speak freely to their son. Father also said "'[m]aybe we should get a script.'" Father then told G.B. that he loved him and that he was getting off the call to go to the gym.

After the August 9 visit, G.B. informed his caregiver that he was upset and that "his parents were mad at him." G.B. also stated that he "didn't understand why [his parents] were always mad" and that "they always get mad when he [G.B.] is happy." The caregiver expressed that the Zoom calls with his parents impacted G.B.'s emotional wellbeing. The social worker noted that G.B. became upset after his video visits with his parents and he would often cry in his room afterward. G.B.'s caregiver reported that after every Zoom call with his parents, G.B. became upset and sad, was not himself, and "stays quiet and to himself." DPSS and the caregiver further observed that G.B. tended to "'shut down' if he is upset and will say he's okay, when he clearly is not okay."

On August 25, 2022, Father called 911 three times to report that G.B. was a victim of kidnapping and sexual abuse. On August 29, both parents became upset when they learned that G.B. was in respite care because his caregivers had left the country on vacation. Father left the call while Mother remained. Father returned at the end of the call, and after G.B. had logged off, Father yelled at the social services assistant supervising the call and demanded to know why his son had been moved to another foster home. Father also yelled that DPSS had trafficked, molested, and mistreated his son. On this same day, Father called the county child abuse hotline to report that G.B. was a victim of sex-trafficking and that "CPS workers" were the perpetrators. In addition, Father continued to make derogatory allegations against the judge. Father also called DPSS up to 10 to 15 times per day to repeat his claims that his son was a victim of sex trafficking. On September 1, 2022, Father sent another email stating that his son was a victim of sexual abuse by the judge. Father also claimed that he was a victim of a conspiracy perpetrated by corrupt officials in Riverside County. The following day, Father called the child abuse hotline to report that G.B. was being neglected by DPSS and "only fed toast with butter and sugar all day."

By the 12-month review hearing, DPSS recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for both parents, reduce visits for both parents to once per month, and set a section 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court scheduled a contested hearing for October 25, 2022.

Father missed his video visit with G.B. on September 12, 2022, possibly because he was jailed in Riverside County for violating his probation. Father again missed his visit on September 15. Also on this date, G.B.'s caretaker noted that the child declined to join the family in their yearly camping trip. The caregiver reported that "[t]his month he has not wanted to participate in anything we do. All he wants is to watch tv." G.B. was also being mean to the youngest child in the home and his "attitude, mood, and eating habits [had] changed for maybe 2 weeks." On September 19, 2022, G.B. refused to get out of bed to accompany his foster family to a car show. Father attended his visit on September 19 for about 10 minutes, and briefly joined the Zoom visit on September 22. On September 26, the caregiver told the social worker that G.B.'s visits with his parents usually went well "except when the parents are in 'a mood,' and then they make the child cry." On October 6, Father attended the Zoom visit for a few minutes, then said he had to work and exited the call.

On October 19, 2022, Father told the social worker that he had been "'violated'" illegally by Riverside County and that his probation officer encouraged him to take a break from his domestic violence classes. Father claimed he only had 12 classes left, despite the fact that Father had violated his probation by being terminated from the program after only attending one class. Father then continued to assert that DPSS and the court had violated his rights and that the social worker, the judge, and the county counsel were sabotaging his reunification with G.B. He further repeated that G.B. was "illegally detained," "kidnapped," and "sexually molested" by the judge.

The contested 12-month review hearing was held on October 25, 2022. The juvenile court found that Father had failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in his court-ordered case plan, that there was no substantial probability G.B. could be returned to Father if six months of further reunification services were offered, and reunification services were terminated. The court continued Mother's reunification services and reduced Father's virtual supervised visits to once per month. The court advised Father, "[a]s to you, [Father], even though we will no longer be providing services to you, there are options available to you for which you can ask the Court to change its decision, and you'll have an opportunity to investigate those options moving forward." The court noted Father should contact the courthouse's self-help centers for further assistance. Father timely appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by reducing his visitation schedule with G.B. from twice a week to once per month following termination of his reunification services. He claims the court reduced his visits "indiscriminately" and "simply because his reunification services were terminated," and that it was "not based on facts in the record." He further asserts that reducing his visits was not in G.B.'s best interest and that the court's order "appeared to be punitive in nature" because he had failed to complete his case plan. We disagree with these assertions.

"Courts have long held that in matters concerning . . . visitation trial courts are vested with broad discretion. On appeal the exercise of that discretion will not be reversed unless the record clearly shows it was abused." (In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 953.) "'"[T]he trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination."'" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.).) "'"The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court."'" (Id. at pp. 318-319; see In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.)

"After the termination of reunification services, the parents' interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point 'the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability' [citation], and in fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best interests of the child. [Citation.]" (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317, quoting and citing In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 302, 309.)

Here, at the October 25, 2022, contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Father's services and reduced his virtual supervised visits with G.B. from twice a week to once per month. In our view, the juvenile court properly evaluated the evidence and reasonably decided to reduce Father's visitation. The record establishes that Father's visitation with G.B. was inconsistent. He did not attend every single visit, as Mother did. A month prior to his reunification services being terminated, Father did not attend visits on September 12, 15, or 29, 2022. And when he did join the virtual visits, Father often stayed for a fraction of the allotted visitation period, and sometimes participated for less than 10 minutes. Further, G.B. never appeared upset or emotional when Father chose not to visit, and he did not seem distressed when Father attended visits for 10 minutes or less. We believe that Father's failure to take advantage of the opportunity to fully visit G.B. was a reasonable justification for the court to reduce the frequency of his visits.

Moreover, when Father did attend the virtual visits, Father's behavior was regularly inappropriate with his aggressive anger fueled by his belief G.B. had been kidnapped, sexually molested, and sexually trafficked by his social workers, his foster parents, and the judge. Father had called law enforcement and the media repeatedly to allege that G.B. was a victim of sexual assault, sexual trafficking, kidnapping, and neglect. Father had contacted DPSS, Riverside County Counsel, and various media figures every day to express his belief that he and G.B. were victims of a vast conspiracy perpetrated by Riverside County officials. As a result of these delusions, Father often became upset and made inappropriate statements during his virtual visits with G.B. Father's inappropriate behavior in the presence of G.B. continued, despite being advised to not do so by the social worker and the court. Father told G.B. that he would come get him and inquired of G.B.'s address and whereabouts. The record discloses Father's frequent outbursts and threats during visits with G.B., and the court properly relied upon this evidence when it granted DPSS's request to reduce Father's visits to once per month.

We also find that the reduction of Father's visits to once per month after his services were terminated was in G.B.'s best interest. Father argues that it was not in G.B.'s best interest to reduce his visitation schedule because G.B. "enjoyed visiting with his parents and became sad afterwards" and that G.B. "loved and missed" his parents. Although G.B. loves his Father and enjoyed some visits with Father, the record demonstrates otherwise. Father's volatile behavior negatively impacted G.B.'s emotional well-being. G.B. was often upset after visiting with his parents, particularly after Father became angry or when Father stated he would be calling the social worker. Father frequently mentioned the case during visits and asked G.B. if he wanted to come home. G.B.'s caregiver reported that after every virtual visit, G.B. was upset, not himself, sad, and stayed quiet and to himself. G.B. often cried in his room after visits and worried about having to move from his current caregivers due to Father's behavior. After the August 9 visit where the parents learned G.B. would be changing schools, G.B. had informed his caregiver that "his parents were mad at him," that he "didn't understand why [his parents] were always mad" and that his parents "always get mad when he [G.B.] is happy." The caregiver expressed that the Zoom calls with his parents were impacting G.B.'s emotional well-being to the point where the child retreated to his room, isolated himself, and refused to join his foster family in their activities. The caregiver also noted that G.B. was being mean to the youngest child in the home and that his "attitude, mood, and eating habits" had changed.

Based on the foregoing, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to conclude that G.B.'s emotional health was negatively impacted by Father's volatile behavior. The juvenile court had ample reason to conclude that continued twice weekly contact with Father was not in G.B.'s best interest. The court's decision did not exceed the bounds of reason, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest the court's decision was punitive, arbitrary, capricious, indiscriminate, or because reunification services were terminated. We therefore find the court acted within its discretion in reducing Father's visitation.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J., MILLER J.


Summaries of

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. W.B. (In re G.B.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 17, 2023
No. E080099 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2023)
Case details for

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. W.B. (In re G.B.)

Case Details

Full title:In re G.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. W.B.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Aug 17, 2023

Citations

No. E080099 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2023)