Opinion
E067871
09-27-2017
In re T.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. X.B., Defendant and Appellant.
Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Adam E. Ebright, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J261897) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Adam E. Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant X.B. (father) is the father of T.K. (child), who was born in 2010, and is the child at issue in the present dependency matter. In this appeal, father challenges an order, issued February 28, 2017, temporarily suspending his visitation with the child. Plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) contends the trial court acted within the scope of its discretion. We agree with CFS, and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2015, CFS filed the petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 that initiated this dependency matter. On September 3, 2015, the child was detained outside of the home, and visitation was set at once per week.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In a report filed September 22, 2015, CFS reported that on September 4, 2015, father called the social worker, screaming that the detention report was wrong, and demanding that the child be released from "jail" immediately. Father threated that at the first visitation, scheduled for September 11, 2015, he would walk out with the child "at all and any cost."
Prior to the first visitation with the child, on September 11, 2015, the social worker explained the visitation rules to father, and gave him a written copy of the rules. At the visitation, however, father repeatedly broke the rules by discussing the case, and threatening to take the child and walk out of the detention center. Father was angry and argumentative, and unreceptive to attempts at redirection by both the social worker and the child's mother (mother). Father was eventually made to leave the building. On September 18, 2015, another visit had to be terminated because of father's aggressive and threatening behavior.
Mother is not a party to the present appeal, and will be mentioned only as necessary for context.
At a hearing on September 24, 2015, the juvenile court admonished father for his behavior during visitation, and warned him that if it continued, CFS could request visitation be suspended. In a report filed October 22, 2015, CFS made such a request, recommending that father's visitation be "discontinued." Father continued to come to visits "ranting and raving about the wrong doings of CFS," and telling the child that he had been kidnapped. On several occasions, the child "redirected the father," but apparently without success; on several occasions father had to be "escorted from the visitation due to his angry outbursts." Father refused to participate in reunification services or random drug testing. At an October 22, 2015, hearing, the juvenile court found father's behavior during visitation to be detrimental to the child, and suspended his visitation.
After hearing evidence on October 29 and November 5, 2015, the trial court found the child to come within section 300, removed him from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for the parents. The trial court reinstated weekly visitation for father, but authorized the social worker to suspend visitation if father displayed "angry outburst[s] or erratic behavior in front of the child." The juvenile court also ordered domestic violence and anger management classes to be added to father's case plan.
The parents' appeal of these jurisdictional/dispositional orders was addressed in a previous, unpublished opinion. (In re T.K. (June 6, 2016, E064828) [nonpub. opn.].)
In a status review report filed on May 2, 2016, the social worker recommended that reunification services be terminated and that a section 366.26 hearing be scheduled to establish a permanent plan. Father had refused to sign paperwork necessary to begin receiving reunification services, and refused to submit to drug testing. During visitation, he continued to make inappropriate statements to the child, such as "'they are holding you hostage'" and "'are you ready to come back home[?]'" When staff supervising the visitation attempted to redirect father, he would become "authoritative and hostile." He had to be escorted out of the CFS building on at least one occasion. On May 5, 2016, the trial court set the matter for a status review hearing on June 1, 2016.
On May 17, 2016, CFS filed a section 388 petition, asking that reunification services be terminated. Father continued to refuse to begin the reunification process, and continued to act inappropriately during visits with the child. The social worker noted that the child had begun "acting out before and after visits."
At the review hearing on June 1, 2016, father's counsel declared a conflict, and the question of terminating reunification services was continued to allow new counsel to prepare for the hearing. Counsel for CFS, joined by counsel for the child, requested that father's visitation be suspended or reduced pending the continued hearing. Counsel for CFS represented that at visitation on May 25, 2016, police had to be called due to father's behavior, and the visitation center where the visit was being held was no longer willing to supervise father's visits. The juvenile court reduced father's visitation to once a month, supervised by CFS only, and authorized CFS to suspend visits immediately if father violates the rules, but also authorized weekly visitation if father had three consecutive visits where he followed all the rules, and if he participated in reunification services.
In a report filed July 25, 2016, CFS informed the juvenile court that father had not yet signed the paperwork to begin reunification services, had failed to drug test, and had missed a visit with the child, stating that he had "mixed up" the date and time. On August 1, 2016, at a hearing that father did not attend, the juvenile court found father had failed to make substantive progress on his treatment plan, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing for selection of a permanent placement plan. The court ordered father's visitation, pending the section 366.26 hearing, to be a minimum of once per month for two hours, authorizing CFS to liberalize visitation when deemed appropriate. After granting father's petition for rehearing, to allow father to testify, the juvenile court reinstated the same orders on October 5, 2016.
In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, CFS reported to the court that the child was demonstrating serious behavioral issues, including severe tantrums and physical aggression. He was referred to therapy, and eventually intensive "wraparound services." The issues were severe enough to threaten the child's permanent placement; the social worker opined that it was highly unlikely that his current caretaker and prospective adoptive parent, the child's maternal grandmother, would be successful in completing an adoption home study, because she was having so much difficulty dealing with his behavior.
The maternal grandmother reported that the child's behavioral issues were particularly intense for about four days after visits with father. It was later discovered, from a meeting with the child, that father had been instructing the child not to listen to the maternal grandmother, and had promised to bring him a present if he misbehaved with her. Father also reportedly urged the child not to take his (psychotropic) medications. Father missed several visits without notice, and during visits that he did attend, he repeatedly talked with the child about "moving back home."
On January 18, 2017, father had a visit with the child at the CFS office, and mother was also present at the office. Mother visited with the child separately—her first visit with him in a year. After the visit, father and mother encountered each other in the lobby area, and mother hit father in the face. She was arrested for domestic battery, and later pleaded no contest.
In its reports prior to the section 366.26 hearing on February 28, 2017, CFS recommended terminating mother's visitation with the child, but not father's. With respect to father, CFS recommended only that the court order the father call 24 hours in advance, to confirm his attendance. At the hearing, however, counsel for CFS reported that the social worker agreed with the juvenile court's tentative ruling suspending visitation for both parents, based in part on additional information obtained after the reports were filed.
At the section 366.26 hearing, after hearing from the parties, the trial court terminated reunification services, and ordered a permanent plan for the child of planned permanent living arrangement with a goal of adoption. Among other things, the juvenile court also ordered both mother's and father's visitation with the child suspended until the next court date, finding it to be detrimental to the child. The juvenile court noted that it had "never doubted [father's] love for his son." It found, however, that the focus had to be on "the stability of the child." The juvenile court stated that it was "not making a decision that all of these behaviors are directly related to father's visits," but it felt that the "best chance at stabilization" would be given by suspending the visitation of both parents. The juvenile court instructed the social worker to assess the child's behavior without visits, and indicated that the issue of visitation could be readdressed at the next hearing, if appropriate.
II. DISCUSSION
Father's only argument on appeal is that the juvenile court abused its discretion by suspending his visitation with the child. We find no abuse of discretion, and affirm.
Visitation orders are the prerogative of the juvenile court, which must always consider the best interests of the child when making them. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 756-757.) "In exercising its discretion, the trial court is required to make a '"'reasoned judgment'" and compl[y] with the "'legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter . . . .'"'" (In re Lee G. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 17, 26-27.) We will not disturb the court's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
The juvenile court's ruling was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. The child was exhibiting serious behavioral issues, particularly on days immediately after visiting with father, and apparently caused in part or at least exacerbated by father's own repeated misconduct. It was well within the scope of the trial court's discretion to suspend father's visitation with the child temporarily to see if doing so would improve the child's behavior, and thereby improve the odds that the child's current placement could become a permanent placement.
On appeal, father makes much of the circumstance that CFS did not recommend father's visitation be suspended in its reports prior to the section 366.26 conference. He ignores, however, that at the section 366.26 hearing CFS expressed agreement with the suspension of both parents' visitation, based in part on information obtained after those reports were filed. Moreover, the juvenile court is entitled to take or reject CFS's recommendations regarding visitations so long as its exercise of discretion is founded on the child's best interests, as it reasonably evaluates them. (In re Jennifer G., supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 756-757.)
Father also emphasizes that it is "undisputed that father is a devoted parent with a tremendous amount of love for his son." The record demonstrates, however, that father's behavior, regardless of its roots in devotion to and love for his son, has been not only unproductive, but affirmatively disruptive, in a number of respects. There is nothing unreasonable about the trial court's decision that it would be in the child's best interest to suspend visitation at least temporarily, to see if doing so might assist the maternal grandmother, CFS, and the child's psychiatrist and other service providers in ameliorating the child's behavioral issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.