Opinion
C082449
02-28-2017
In re TITUS C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT C., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JVSQ16-50)
Robert C., the father of the minor, Titus C., appeals from a dispositional order that suspended visitation with the minor until he began participating in the case plan. He contends the dispositional order is not supported by substantial evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2016, a social worker with the Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) met the 13-year-old minor at his middle school following reports that his parents were using methamphetamine, had given him methamphetamine and marijuana, and transient people in the home were using methamphetamine. The family had 12 social service referrals since 2001. The minor had missed 53 of 100 school days, with 37 unexcused absences. He presented as wanting to do well but without motivation or guidance. The minor told the social worker that sometimes his parents would let him stay home or he would just go to a friend's house. He said that father used to drink but recently quit and joined Alcoholics Anonymous. Mother and her boyfriend used methamphetamine and would leave "crank pipes" around the house. The minor also admitted that he could obtain drugs at home very easily.
The social worker made an unannounced visit to the home that day. There were piles of trash and bike parts in the front yard. The front door had no doorknob and the window was broken out and replaced with plywood. Three men who appeared to be homeless and drug or alcohol abusers were in front of the house. One of them said they had knocked on the door, but no one answered. The social worker called the emergency contact number given to the school, but it was inoperative. Mother met the social worker at the home later that day. The home smelled strongly of cigarette and faintly of marijuana smoke. Mother presented as having very rapid speech, with lengthy and somewhat off-topic responses, and would make paranoid comments.
The social worker interviewed the minor's adult brother J.N., who was incarcerated at the county jail. J.N. was very worried about his younger brother because everyone in the minor's home was using drugs, primarily methamphetamine. J.N. had not personally witnessed his brother using methamphetamine, but he was sure that the minor had used the drug. On more than one occasion, the minor had brought over methamphetamine or a methamphetamine pipe and given it to J.N., who then threw it away.
The minor was placed in protective custody on February 3, 2016. That day, the Agency filed a dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) alleging jurisdiction on the basis of drug use at the home. The juvenile court detained the minor on February 5, 2016. Later that month, the juvenile court modified visitation for mother and father from four hours to two hours per week each so the minor could catch up in school.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The March 2016 disposition report related that the minor was placed with his older half brother R.C. and R.C.'s wife because he ran away from his first placement after two days.
The parents' child welfare history included three referrals within a year of the referral underlying this case. Mother had a prior conviction for reckless driving and father had four prior convictions, including a felony conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance.
Mother told the social worker that father was physically and emotionally abusive towards her and had a significant alcohol problem in the past. She and father were still married, but father often brought other women into the home. Mother reported that father no longer drinks as much, and insinuated that he was using drugs, possibly methamphetamine and/or heroin.
In a second interview, mother told the social worker that methamphetamine and a glass smoking pipe that the minor found in her purse had been placed there by her older son. She told the minor that she smoked marijuana, but could not see how this presented a conflicted message to him.
Father told the social worker that he was currently homeless, staying in various places. He denied the allegations in the petition and refused to drug test. Father denied having a problem with drugs.
The minor reported drug use by both parents, suspecting both used methamphetamine. He thought that the methamphetamine and glass pipe he found in his mother's purse belonged to her, and he gave them to his older brother to use. The minor admitted to using marijuana, alcohol, and a little methamphetamine. He hoped his parents would reconcile and stop using drugs, which they had promised to do.
The juvenile court sustained the petition in an April 2016 jurisdictional hearing. Visitation was set at three hours per week for the parents with orders for drug testing.
The May 2016 disposition report related that the minor was now in a level eight group home in Sacramento after his prior caretakers, the minor's half brother R.C. and his wife, gave a 14-day notice. The half brother told the Agency that the minor was not attending school, stealing over-the-counter medication, stealing personal items from the family, coming and going from home as he pleased, and was using marijuana and over-the-counter cold medication.
Mother failed to test for drugs. Father's current residence was unknown. He had twice reported to the emergency room seeking treatment for high levels of pain. Father denied drug use or providing marijuana to the minor. He was frequently angry and unwilling to listen to the social worker. Father had not yet drug tested even though he promised to do so at a February 25, 2016 hearing.
The minor was attending middle school in Sacramento. He reportedly acted out in class or walked out when he no longer felt like attending. The minor struggled with classroom work and appeared to be behind in several subjects. The social worker believed this was due to the minor's having missed a large amount of school over the year. The minor told the social worker that things were going well in his placement and he would make a greater effort at following the rules.
On May 8, 2016, the minor's group home reported that father brought the minor a hollowed-out book containing marijuana. The group home had ongoing concerns that father was smuggling marijuana to his 13-year-old son during visits. The group home administrator expressed these concerns to father in April; the group home was no longer willing to supervise visits between father and the minor.
The Agency was concerned that the parents were undermining the minor's group home placement. Father did not cooperate with the Agency, and at the hearing before the report, had the minor leave with him into the family court waiting room, away from the group home staff. The Agency asked minor's counsel for help getting the minor to separate from his father and leave with the group home staff. Since that hearing, father would not allow himself or the minor to be supervised.
The Agency did not want to bring the minor back to Yolo County due to the high risk he would abscond. It recommended that visits remain in the group home, where the minor appeared to have settled into the placement and was beginning to adjust. In light of the Agency's inability to ensure father did not bring drugs to his visits, the Agency recommended suspending visits for father.
At a May 12, 2016 hearing, the juvenile court suspended father's visits until the disposition hearing.
A contested disposition hearing was held on May 31, 2016. Father's counsel requested a minimum visitation of three hours a week for father. The trial court ordered services for both parents and suspended father's visits until he participated in the case plan.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the visitation order made at the disposition hearing was not supported by substantial evidence.
County counsel contends that father forfeited the claim on appeal by failing to object to the visitation order. Since counsel requested visitation at the disposition hearing, father's claim is not forfeited on appeal.
Visitation between parent and child is an essential component of a reunification plan, even if actual physical custody is not the outcome of the proceedings. (In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 679.) However, "[n]o visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child." (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B).) It is ordinarily improper to deny visitation absent a showing of detriment. (In re Luke L., at p. 679; In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 954.)
As a general rule, the juvenile court is accorded broad discretion with regard to visitation matters. On appeal, absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion, the reviewing court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion. (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 953.) An abuse of discretion means the juvenile court 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.)
The minor was removed from the home primarily because of the parents' drug use. He was in a precarious situation at the time of the disposition hearing. His attendance at school had suffered, and there was evidence that he was using marijuana, taking over-the-counter cold medication, and had used methamphetamine. The minor's first two placements failed, but he was adjusting to his group home placement. Father, who never cooperated with the staff of the group home, attempted to smuggle marijuana to the minor by means of a hollowed-out book during a visit with him at the group home. In addition to being potentially felonious, father's action posed a considerable threat to the minor's well-being.
"Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years." (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (a).)
Father argues that the juvenile court should have ordered supervised visitation at the courthouse where he could be searched, rather than suspending visits. Not so.
The Agency sought to keep visitation at the group home in the current county, because it did not want to transport the minor, a flight risk, back to Yolo County, and because the minor was settling into his group home placement. Both concerns are valid. The minor fled two days after his first placement and came and went as he pleased in his second. Removing him from the group home where he was beginning to adjust in order to visit father was an unjustified risk to the minor.
The juvenile court did not ban visitation, but merely suspended visits until father cooperated with his case plan. Cooperating with the plan was in father's and the minor's best interests by aiding reunification and addressing one of the problems at the center of the dependency, father's drug use. In light of the significant threat father's visits posed to the minor, it was not an abuse of discretion to condition visitation on participation in services.
The case plan included services for substance abuse.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional orders are affirmed.
BUTZ, Acting P. J. We concur: MAURO, J. DUARTE, J.