Opinion
E053288 Super.Ct.No. SWJ009461
12-07-2011
In re C.G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.D., Defendant and Appellant.
Grace Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael J. Rushton, Judge. Affirmed.
Grace Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
E.D. (mother) is the mother of four children who are the subject of these proceedings—C.G., M.G., Na.G., and No.G. (children)—ages 6, 4, 3, and 1 at the time of the challenged orders. Mother argues the exit orders issued by the juvenile court on March 15, 2011, which granted sole legal and physical custody of the children to father and allowed mother a one-hour supervised visit each week, were not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that substantial evidence does support these orders.
Mother has an older son who is in legal guardianship with the maternal grandmother. No.G. would be born in late 2009.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Prior Dependency 2009-2010
On August 8, 2009, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) received a referral alleging that mother and the children's father (father) had a history of engaging in domestic violence in front of the children and had earlier that day engaged in an incident of mutual domestic violence in which each parent sustained injuries.
Father is not the biological father of C.G., but was found to be her presumed father because he is the only father she has known.
The parents separately told responding DPSS personnel that DPSS had previously become involved with the family after a 2006 incident in which mother smashed her car into father's car and then smashed his windows with a lead pipe, and chased him while swinging the lead pipe and while father held their four-week old baby in his arms. She then threatened father and others with the pipe and a knife. Mother was apparently convicted of domestic violence and/or assault. On another occasion mother entered father's residence, possibly by sending C.G. through a window, and cut up father's clothing and destroyed photographs.
At the detention hearing held on August 12, 2009, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from mother's care and placed with father. At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on September 2, 2009, the court ordered reunification services for Mother and family reunification services for father. The court also issued a one-year mutual restraining order and ordered the parents to contact each other only briefly on matters relating to the children. In late 2009, mother gave birth to a son, No.G., who was not included in this first dependency. At the six-month review hearing held on March 2, 2010, the court ordered family maintenance services for mother and an additional six months of family maintenance services for father.
The 12-month review hearing was set for August 2, 2010. DPSS recommended in its report that the court terminate the dependency and issue exit orders to the family law court giving father full physical custody of the three older children with weekend visits to mother. Mother wanted to contest, so the contested hearing was set for October 6, 2010. On that date, the court learned that father had been the victim of a shooting and had possibly used and/or sold drugs in the recent past. The court also learned that mother had been obsessively text messaging father about issues other than the children. At the continued 12-month hearing actually held on November 8, 2010, the juvenile court dropped the mutual restraining order and entered into a mediated agreement allowing mother to have the oldest child, C.G., on weekends and the boys, M.G. and Na.G., every other week. The court ordered six months of family reunification services for each parent and set a family maintenance hearing for May 9, 2011.
Latest Dependency 2011
In the meantime, DPSS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387supplemental petition as to the oldest three children on January 12, 2011, along with an initial section 300 petition on one-year-old No.G. In the supplemental petition, DPSS alleged that the previous disposition did not protect the children because mother continued to be violent towards father. DPSS also alleged that mother had offered her daughter C.G. a beer and had encouraged her children to beat up the children of father's girlfriend. In addition, mother had unresolved mental issues. In the section 300 petition regarding No.G., DPSS made the same factual allegations under subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and also asserted that mother had been diagnosed with post partum depression and psychosis. Regarding subdivision (j), DPSS alleged No.G.'s siblings had been abused by mother and that No.G. was at risk of similar abuse.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
At an ex-parte hearing on January 10, 2011, the juvenile court ordered all four children detained from mother and placed with father. At the detention hearing held on January 13, 2011, the court ordered mother to participate in a psychological and medical examination. On January 24, the court granted father a restraining order against mother for three years. Mother was provided with supervised visitation one hour per week.
On March 15, 2011, the juvenile court held the jurisdiction and disposition hearing for both petitions. Mother signed a waiver of her rights as to jurisdiction on both petitions. As to the three older children, the court terminated mother's reunification services and granted father sole physical and legal custody, with mother's visitation according to a mediated visitation agreement. As to No.G., the court also granted sole physical and legal custody with mother's visitation according to a mediated visitation agreement. The court ordered the dependency to terminate upon filing the family law orders. This appeal followed.
On the date of the hearing, DPSS submitted an amended 387 petition that deleted the references to mother having offered C.G. a beer and encouraged her children to beat up the children of father's girlfriend. DPSS also submitted an amended section 300 petition as to No.G. deleting the entire subdivision (b) (failure to protect).
--------
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the exit orders issued by the juvenile court, which granted father sole physical and legal custody and restricted mother to a one-hour supervised visit each week, are not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, mother points out: 1) after No.G. was born in late 2009, DPSS completed a risk assessment and determined that there were no safety risks to No.G. in mother's care; 2) No.G. had never been harmed in mother's care and had lived his entire life with mother; and 3) none of the children were exposed to or harmed by mother's obsessive text messages to father. For these reasons, mother contends the evidence supported continuing the plan crafted by the court in November 2010, in which the parents shared custody of the children according to a schedule. We disagree.
When the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction, it has the power to issue exit orders establishing custody and visitation, which are then filed in and enforced by the family law court. (§ 362.4; In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 970.) The focus of the juvenile court's decisions regarding exit orders is on the best interests of the child. (In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 712.) We review the juvenile court's custody and visitation decisions to see if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Nalani C. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1024.) All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the judgment, if possible. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649.)
Here, the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's conclusions that granting father sole physical and legal custody of the children and limited visits with mother is in the children's best interests. Mother has a history of violent behavior and mental instability, which make the "lewd, violent and threatening [text] messages" she had been sending to father very concerning to DPSS. The text messages included threats that mother intended to hurt father and his girlfriend. The text messages included statements that mother had taught and encouraged the three older children to beat up the children of father's girlfriend. This was a direct involvement of the children. Mother also threatened to not allow the children to participate in sports while in her care in order to get even with father. Mother had received 18 months of reunification services, a year of counseling, substance abuse treatment, parenting and co-parenting classes, and, most important, a 52-week anger management class, and still continued to threaten father. DPSS concluded that "it does not appear that the Department could provide any additional services to alleviate the safety issues that the mother presents." C.G.'s counselor suggested mother not have any contact with C.G. because "mother has been the one to cause all of the concerns that [C.G.] has had since" she began seeing the counselor. In addition, M.G. and Na.G. had told father and the social worker that they did not want to go to mother's house and cried when it was time to go.
Finally, the psychologist who conducted mother's psychological evaluation at the direction of the juvenile court concluded that it would be detrimental to place the children in her care because of her history of violence, unwillingness to change her behavior, and the demonstrated ineffectiveness of past services.
The juvenile court's exit orders granting father sole physical and legal custody of all four children and the limited visitation to mother are supported by substantial evidence that this is in the best interests of the children. This evidence concerns mother's failure to curb her violent behavior and language even after receiving extensive services, and the effect mother's behavior has had on the three older children, thus also placing the youngest child, No.G., at risk of similar abuse.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's exit orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZP.J. We concur: KING J. CODRINGTON J.