San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. V.B. (In re T.B.)

In re T.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.B., Defendant and Respondent;

T.B., Appellant.

E070157

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

December 20, 2018

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J237171)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.

Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Elena S. Min, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Pamela J. Walls, Special Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant, T.B., a minor, age 14, appeals from the judgment entered after the dependency court ordered reunification services for defendant and respondent, V.B. (Father). At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court found that Father had physically abused T.B., and found true the allegations of risk of serious physical harm under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b).¹

T.B. argues that the court failed to apply the correct standard of review in denying his request to bypass reunification services. Additionally, T.B. argues that the court abused its discretion by relying on only one factor to order reunification services for Father. We find that T.B. forfeited his argument to the court using the incorrect standard of review regarding bypass and reunification services by not raising it in the lower court. We further conclude that even reaching the merits of T.B.'s claim, the court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm the judgment.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Circumstances Leading to Minor's Detention

T.B. was born in 2004 and is now 14 years old. When T.B. was four years old, his mother, F.B. (Mother), who had heart problems, passed away from an unknown cause. Neither T.B. nor Father received counseling to address their grief. After losing Mother, T.B. continued to live with Father, whom he has lived with his entire life.

In 2013 or 2014, Father began an on-and-off relationship with his girlfriend, A.C., who has two children, E.C. and H.C., from a previous relationship. At some point, A.C. and her children moved in with T.B. and Father. The family lived together in Los Angeles until about 2014. They then moved to Las Vegas for a few years before moving to Barstow. T.B. was sad about losing Mother. Around the time Father began his relationship with A.C., T.B. started exhibiting behavioral problems, such as stealing, destroying property and getting in trouble at school.

B. Plaintiff and Respondent, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS), CFS Referrals

On September 20, 2017, the family resided in Barstow. CFS received a referral from school personnel who observed A.C. yelling and cursing at T.B. A.C. was also seen punching T.B. in his head with her fist when she learned that he was failing a class at school. CFS interviewed T.B. as a result of the incident. T.B. did not report that any abuse was occurring at his home. T.B. later told a social worker that he had lied.

On October 2, 2017, CFS responded to an immediate response referral. Father and A.C. reported that T.B. had run away to his friend's home after the school suspended him for breaking a sink in the boy's bathroom. T.B. had been suspended from school but ran away because he was afraid to go home. When police detained and questioned T.B., he reported that Father drank vodka and Father's girlfriend, A.C., smoked marijuana. He further told police that both Father and A.C. had previously abused him.

According to T.B., Father had hit him with a wire extension cord on his arms and legs and had punched him in the face to punish him. T.B. also claimed that A.C. would punish him by hitting him with a red rubber sandal. T.B. stated Father had also bent his middle finger back. A social worker inspected T.B.'s finger and it appeared to be swollen. T.B. claimed Father and A.C. had scratches on their faces, arms and necks after they argued. However, T.B. did not observe any actual domestic violence at their home. T.B. told the social worker that he had to wear dirty clothes and was forced to wash his own clothing in a bathtub. He also complained that he was only allowed to eat snacks when he finished his chores.

C. The Petition and Detention Hearing

On October 5, 2017, CFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (g) alleging: (1) T.B. suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm due to the parents' history of excessive punishment on T.B.; (2) T.B. suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm because he was hit by A.C., and Father failed to protect him; (3) T.B. suffered, or was at substantial risk ofsuffering, serious physical harm because Father had an untreated alcohol abuse problem; (4) T.B. suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm because on October 2, 2017, and on prior occasions, T.B. was exposed to domestic violence; and (5) T.B. was left without any provision for support because Father was incarcerated and had not made any arrangements for T.B.'s care while he was incarcerated.

On October 6, 2017, at the detention hearing, the court found there was prima facie evidence establishing the section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (g) allegations. The court ordered T.B. placed in foster care but allowed Father limited monitored visitation.

D. The Police and CSF Interviews

During A.C.'s interview, she told the social worker that T.B. was a liar, disrespectful and routinely acted out. A.C. denied physically abusing T.B., withholding food from him, or engaging in domestic violence with Father. A.C. said that she thought Father was too strict with him but he had the best interest of his son at heart. Her children, E.C. and H.C., were also interviewed. They confirmed that Father hit T.B.

Father was also interviewed. Father said that he and T.B. went to theme parks and played basketball and football together. Father believed that he had a good relationship with T.B. Father also stated T.B. had a history of lying and misbehaving at school. Father reported T.B. called himself a "'gangbanger'" on Instagram and talked to young girls that he would meet online. In Father's opinion, T.B. was acting out because of the loss of his Mother. Father denied physically abusing T.B., forcing T.B. to wash his ownclothes in a bathtub, or exposing T.B. to domestic violence. Father also submitted to an on-demand drug test, which showed negative test results for all substances.

Additionally, T.B. was interviewed. T.B. reported Father would physically punish him by hitting him with a wire extension cord. T.B. further claimed Father punched him in his chest with his fists. T.B. told the social worker that he did not want to return home. Instead, T.B. wanted to live with his friend's mother. T.B. became tearful when explaining to the social worker that the last time Father had told him that he loved him was when he was eight years old.

E. T.B. Struggled in Out-of-home Placements

Throughout the dependency proceedings, there were no known relatives with whom T.B. could be placed. T.B.'s friend's mother declined to care for him due to the size of her home.

On October 30, 2017, T.B. underwent a forensic physical examination. The evaluating physician concluded that T.B.'s physical findings and history were consistent with physical abuse. On November 20, 2017, T.B. repeated his allegations of physical abuse during an evidentiary interview with children's assessment center. He again insisted that he did not want to go back to live with Father.

T.B. struggled in foster care. In December 2017, T.B. was transported to Loma Linda University Behavioral Center and placed on a psychiatric hold because he was having suicidal and homicidal ideations. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. T.B. was released two days later and placed at the East Valley Charlee GroupHome. On his way back to the group home, T.B. told the social worker that he was "'homesick.'" While the social worker transported T.B. to the new placement, T.B. was allowed to use the social worker's cell phone to call Father.

For a while, T.B. was able to remain trouble free in the group home. However, he left his classroom without permission because he felt misunderstood. On January 27, 2018, Father participated in a telephone visit with T.B. The social worker reported that T.B.'s in-person visit with Father went well, but Father had encouraged T.B. to lie to the social worker so that T.B. could return back home sooner. During the visit, T.B. became upset. T.B.'s visits with Father were suspended for 30 days and his telephone contacts with Father were suspended indefinitely until the staff could stabilize him and determine what was triggering T.B.'s anger.

Shortly thereafter, T.B.'s behavioral problems escalated. On February 5, 2018, T.B. was suspended from school for injuring another student who had to be hospitalized for his injuries. T.B. also attempted to steal clippers and e-cigarettes and repeatedly threatened others. He hit a female staff member in the face with a basketball. He also tried to assault peers and staff. After barricading himself in a room in the group home, T.B. damaged property by putting holes in walls and destroying doors and dressers. Given T.B.'s bad behavior and threats, the group home requested that T.B. be removed from the home the following day.

T.B. was removed and given a new placement. In mid-...