In re G.C.

In re G.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.P. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B306907

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

June 23, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 18CCJP06370D-G Kim L. Nguyen, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Anthony R.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

SEGAL J.

INTRODUCTION

Anthony R. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order denying his request for custody of his children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, subdivision (a) ^[1] after the court removed them from the custody of their mother, E.P. Anthony contends substantial evidence did not support the court's finding that placing the children with him would be detrimental to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Anthony also contends the court abused its discretion in ordering him to attend parenting education classes and requiring his visits with his children to be monitored.

After Anthony filed this appeal, the juvenile court ordered the children returned to E.P. and directed the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services to provide Anthony with enhancement services. The Department argues this order renders part of Anthony's appeal moot. We conclude that Anthony's appeal is not moot and that substantial evidence did not support the court's finding of detriment under section 361.2, subdivision (a). We also conclude, however, that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Anthony to complete parenting classes or in requiring his visits to be monitored. Therefore, we reverse the court's order under section 361.2, subdivision (a), but affirm the other disposition orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Juvenile Court Detains Anthony's Children

E.P. has four children, nine-year-old G.C., seven-year-old A.P., five-year-old M.P., and six-month-old M.S., all of whom reside with E.P. Anthony is the father of the three older children, but he does not live with them.^[2] D.S. is the father of M.S. On October 26, 2019, while E.P. was holding M.S., D.S. pushed E.P. during an argument, “causing her to slam into the wall.” E.P. called the police, and the police contacted the Department. The Department investigated and learned E.P. and D.S. had a history of domestic violence.

On December 3, 2019 the Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging D.S.'s “violent conduct” and E.P.'s failure to protect her children endangered the children's physical health and safety, created a detrimental home environment, and placed them at risk of serious physical harm.^[3] The juvenile court detained all four children from their respective fathers and released them to E.P. with a safety plan that required E.P. to comply with a restraining order that prohibited any contact between E.P. and D.S. The court also ordered the Department to “[i]nitiate due diligence” to locate Anthony. E.P. told the social worker Anthony had not had contact with her or the children since October 2018.

On February 25, 2020 the Department filed a petition under section 385, asking the court to detain the children from E.P. because she was not complying with the restraining order that prohibited her from having contact with D.S. The court detained the children from E.P. and placed them in temporary emergency shelter care.

Shortly after the court detained the children from E.P., the Department located Anthony, and a social worker interviewed him for the first time in this case. Anthony stated he received “all of [the Department's] mail and knew there was a hearing scheduled for 03/03/2020 but was unsure about attending.” Anthony told the social worker he had not had contact with his children for “a while” and “hoped to have contact with [them] once they were 18 [years old].” On learning his children had been detained from E.P., Anthony expressed an interest in having the court release them to him. Anthony disclosed that in 2013 E.P. hit him and that the incident resulted in a criminal case against E.P., which Anthony said was still “open.” The Department also learned that, based on allegations of domestic violence between E.P. and Anthony in 2018, the Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), but the court dismissed the petition with prejudice as “Not True.”

B. The Court Finds Jurisdiction, Removes the Children from E.P., and Denies Anthony's Request for Custody

On March 3, 2020 the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition related to the domestic violence between E.P. and D.S. and to D.S.'s substance abuse. The court dismissed the remaining counts and directed the Department to assess the possibility of releasing Anthony's children to him.

The Department learned Anthony visited the children once after the Department located him at the end of February 2020. Anthony explained that he had not been able to visit because of the social distancing restrictions imposed at the beginning of the pandemic and that the caregiver would not allow in-person visits “due to Covid 19 concerns.” The caregiver stated Anthony called the children approximately once a month, and Anthony said he had a few “video chats” with the children in addition to the phone calls. The caregiver reported that she also contacted Anthony to get his permission to give G.C. asthma medication and that G.C.'s condition improved substantially after he took the medication.^[4] Anthony reported he was unemployed but was trying to return to school, currently “dealing with” some “health issues, ” and temporarily living with his mother. Anthony told the social worker he had “family support” to help him take care of the children.

At the June 22, 2020 disposition hearing the Department argued placing the children with Anthony under section 361.2, subdivision (a), would be detrimental to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The Department stated that Anthony had “essentially given up with his children” and that, because Anthony was “in between homes, ” the Department did not “know which home to assess.” The Department asserted, “It [did not] appear [Anthony] has a clear plan... of what he wants to do with the children.” The Department recommended parenting education and monitored visitation for Anthony.

Anthony argued the Department failed to prove under section 361.2, subdivision (a), by clear and convincing evidence that placing his children with him would be detrimental to their safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being. Anthony claimed that he had “always been in [his children's] lives until recently, maybe 2018, ” but that, “due to friction” with E.P, he “stepped aside in order not to be involved in a relationship he felt was toxic.” Anthony argued that the lack of a consistent relationship did “not rise to [the] level of detriment” and that, although the children did not want the court to place them with him, their wishes were “not dispositive.” Anthony also argued that, even though the Department had not yet assessed Anthony's home, section 361.2, subdivision (b)(2), gave the Department three months after disposition to complete the inspection. Anthony acknowledged that the children had medical needs, but stated that there was “nothing in the evidence [showing] that [he] is not able to care for [the children].” Anthony also objected to the parenting education requirement in his case plan because the 2018 allegation related to “domestic violence issues” had been “dismissed.”

The court removed the children from E.P. under section 361, subdivision (c), and denied Anthony's request for custody under section 361.2, subdivision (a). The court found “detriment by clear and convincing evidence, ” explaining that “emotional health is a component in addressing whether release [to Anthony] is possible.” The court observed that Anthony “has had a very limited relationship with [his] children, ” that G.C. and A.P. said “it has been quite a long time since they've spoken with [Anthony], ” and that Anthony indicated that, “because of [the] toxic dynamics with [E.P.], he did not want to engage in the lives of the three children.” The court directed the Department to find suitable placement for the children, ordered Anthony to attend parenting education classes, and required his visitation to be monitored. E.P. and Anthony timely appealed.

C. The Court Returns the Children to E.P.

On February 18, 2021, eight months after the disposition hearing, the juvenile court returned the children to E.P. and ordered the Department to provide “enhancement services” to Anthony.^[5] The court also ordered that “[a]ll prior orders not in conflict shall remain in full force and effect.”

E.P. filed a request to dismiss her appeal, which this court granted. The Department filed a motion to dismiss part of Anthony's appeal, arguing the return of the children to E.P. mooted his appeal from the disposition orders denying his request for custody under section 361.2, subdivision (a), and requiring him to complete parenting education classes. This court directed Anthony to address the Department's motion to dismiss in his reply brief.

DISCUSSION

A. Substantial Evidence Did Not Support the Juvenile Court's Order Denying Anthony's Request for Custody Under Section 361.2, Subdivision (a)

Anthony contends “there was neither evidence [n]or...