In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B341674
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/2/25
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP01908A. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and Vincent W. Davis for Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant C.H. (father) appeals from a juvenile court order denying his petition to change a previous order pursuant to
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Prior dependency history.
In February 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report that father and mother2 emotionally abused and neglected minor child C.H. Jr. According to the caller, mother left the home following a verbal fight with father, and father followed her in his car, leaving nine-month-old C.H. Jr. alone in the family home. The caller further reported that father forced mother into his car and then slapped her. Mother later told a detective that father had not physically harmed her, and that paternal grandmother was with C.H. Jr. in the home. The referral was closed as inconclusive.
In March 2022, DCFS received a referral indicating that father grabbed mother, causing redness, in C.H. Jr.‘s presence. Mother also reported that father had held a knife against her
II. Current section 300 petition.
On May 13, 2022, father contacted law enforcement to report that mother was using methamphetamines in the family bathroom, and that mother hit father several times when he confronted her about her drug use. Mother separately contacted law enforcement and reported that father broke down the bathroom door and struck her several times. The responding officer observed scratch marks on father‘s neck and redness on mother, and discovered a ” ‘freshly used’ ” pipe in the bathroom. The officer arrested father and mother.
A DCFS social worker visited the home later that day and observed that C.H. Jr., who was then two years old, had no marks or bruises. Paternal grandmother was caring for the child. She reported that father and mother frequently argued, but denied that either parent ever harmed C.H. Jr. DCFS detained the child “due to caretaker absence, and [ongoing] domestic violence in the home.”
Later that day, the social worker interviewed mother. Mother reported that father hit her every day. She denied using drugs and claimed father owned the pipe that was discovered in the home. The social worker also interviewed father, who again reported that he discovered mother using methamphetamines. Father denied hitting mother that day and denied that he had ever struck her in the past. The social worker obtained police call logs which reflected that officers had been called to the family home 10 times between February 2021 and May 2022 to respond
On May 16, 2022, father contacted the DCFS social worker and reported that he had been released, and that he had separated from mother and no longer lived with her. He said he wanted to get custody of C.H. Jr. Father reported that he was enrolled in a domestic violence program and provided an enrollment letter dated March 29, 2022.
On May 17, 2022, DCFS filed a
At the May 18, 2022 detention hearing, the court ordered C.H. Jr. detained and placed in DCFS custody pending disposition of the
A DCFS investigator interviewed father on June 1, 2022. Father admitted to arguing with mother but denied that their fights ever became physical. He stated he was willing to move out of the family home if C.H. Jr. could be placed with mother. Father tested negative for drugs on May 18, 2022, and June 3, 2022.
Three DCFS social workers interviewed maternal grandmother on June 2, 2022. Maternal grandmother reported seeing redness and bruises around mother‘s neck, but she did not know whether father caused the injuries. The next day, two DCFS social workers interviewed paternal grandmother, who stated that father and mother “often” argued verbally, but denied ever witnessing physical violence. Paternal grandmother reported that father became very happy and “pull[ed] himself together” after he started a relationship with mother and after C.H. Jr. was born.
DCFS filed a jurisdiction and disposition report on June 9, 2022. Among other things, the report described an August 2021 police report in which mother claimed that father broke her cell phone and carried her inside the family home against her will. Father told officers he had been arguing with mother but asserted that the fight never turned physical. The officers arrested father.
According to the June 2022 DCFS report, mother asserted that father became violent around the time she became pregnant with C.H. Jr. Mother reported that she sometimes became jealous about father‘s interactions with other women and “would scream at him,” and in response father “would smack and push her.” The report stated that father denied any recent arrests aside from the May 2022 arrest that led to the
At the June 24, 2022 disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained amended allegations that mother and father had a history of domestic violence and that they engaged in a violent altercation on May 13, 2022, while C.H. Jr. was in the home, that this violence endangered the child, and that both parents failed to protect the child from their domestic violence. The court struck allegations specifically describing the May 13 incident, reasoning that it would not “benefit anyone to have all of the details in the counts.” The court found that DCFS had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that mother‘s drug use harmed C.H. Jr. and struck both counts based on that allegation. The court sustained the petition as amended, declared C.H. Jr. a dependent of the court, and removed him from mother and father.
The juvenile court ordered reunification services for both parents. It ordered father to complete a 26-week domestic violence program; individual counseling to address anger management, self-esteem, how domestic violence affects young children, and parenting and co-parenting; six consecutive random or on demand drug tests; and, if father reconciled with mother in the future, couples counseling. The court ordered unmonitored visitation for both parents.
III. Six-month review hearing.
On July 27, 2022, a Multidisciplinary Assessment Child Family Team (CFT) meeting was conducted as to father. Father asserted he wished to reunify with C.H. Jr. and that he was focused on completing the programs required by his case plan.
In September 2022, the court ordered that father could have overnight visits with C.H. Jr. at paternal grandmother‘s home, conditioned on her presence.
DCFS conducted another CFT meeting for father on December 8, 2022. The meeting focused on whether C.H. Jr. should be released to father. A DCFS social worker asked father if any new issues had arisen between him and mother, and father did not report anything.
A December 8, 2022 DCFS status review report asserted father had made “great progress” with his case plan. Specifically, by July 21, 2022, father had completed six required on-demand drug tests, each with a negative result. He attended weekly individual therapy from September 26, 2022, to November 8, 2022. And as of November 3, 2022, father had attended 16 sessions of parent education, domestic violence, and anger management program. DCFS recommended that C.H. Jr. be released to father with family maintenance services.
DCFS soon changed its recommendation. On December 16, 2022, mother informed DCFS that father came to her home on November 30, 2022. He took her phone and found a photograph of mother with another man, became angry, and hit mother in the face. Mother reported that father had continued to emotionally abuse her, and that she finally decided to call law enforcement after father‘s abuse became violent. Mother obtained an emergency protective order against father. Mother also reported that she found father‘s old phone and discovered messages on his Instagram account suggesting he had been
On December 22, 2022, a DCFS social worker contacted father about the November 30, 2022 altercation. Father acknowledged an “incident” but asserted mother “was notorious for calling the police when simple misunderstandings occurred.” Father denied using drugs and agreed to complete drug tests. The social worker explained that DCFS would be changing its recommendation to continued reunification services out of concern for C.H. Jr.‘s safety. Father said he did not understand, and he eventually ended the call.
DCFS filed a
At the December 23, 2022 six-month review hearing, the court ordered monitored visitation for father and continued the hearing as to other pending issues.
At some point after the December 23, 2022 hearing, DCFS obtained the police report from the November 30, 2022 incident. According to the police report, mother was at home sleeping when
A DCFS social worker interviewed father again on January 23, 2023. Father claimed that the phone mother identified as father‘s phone, which contained Instagram messages discussing drug sales, belonged to someone else. Father denied that he had ever sold drugs.
Between December 28, 2022, and January 19, 2023, father completed four negative random drug tests. As of January 13, 2023, father continued to participate in therapy. By January 25, 2023, father had completed 23 sessions of his parent education, domestic violence prevention, and anger management program.
At the January 31, 2023 six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found that returning C.H. Jr. to father would be detrimental to the child‘s safety and ordered six additional months of reunification services. The court acknowledged father‘s participation in classes and that he had expressed some insight as to his faults. The court nonetheless found that father only partially complied with his case plan. Specifically, the court observed that “father‘s compliance has been more technical rather than substantive, even with the comments made by the father that showed insight. The problem is that even with ongoing domestic violence programs, [continued domestic violence] incidents did occur.” The court also expressed “grave concern” over father‘s continued domestic violence, in part because father had minimized the incident by describing it as a “miscommunication.” It ordered father to complete a 52-week
IV. 12-month review hearing.
By April 4, 2023, father had completed 10 negative drug tests.
A DCFS social worker spoke to mother‘s therapist on May 3, 2023. The therapist reported that father and mother continued to have “unhealthy communication.” When DCFS raised this concern with father, he denied that he communicated with mother in an unhealthy manner.
On May 9, 2023, father‘s therapist told a DCFS social worker that he was engaged in therapy and took responsibility for his wrongful actions. As of June 28, 2023, father had completed 42 sessions of his 52-week domestic violence program.
Despite father‘s compliance with his case plan, DCFS remained concerned that father “failed to demonstrate understanding and growth from the case issues in particular with his communication with” mother. On July 25, 2023, DCFS assessed C.H. Jr. at high risk for future abuse or neglect if he were returned to father‘s care, and recommended continued reunification services for father.
At the July 25, 2023 twelve-month review hearing, the juvenile court found there was a substantial probability of returning C.H. Jr. to the parents’ custody by the next court date and extended reunification services a further six months. The court also ordered unmonitored visits for father.
Father graduated from his therapy program on July 26, 2023, and his therapist reported he had made substantial progress over 10 months of sessions. Father completed his 52-week parent education, domestic violence, and anger management program course on October 11, 2023.
In November 2023, DCFS liberalized father‘s visitation to overnight visits.
As of January 23, 2024, DCFS recognized father had completed his services and demonstrated some insight into case issues. DCFS expressed continued concern about potential abuse between father and mother, but ultimately assessed C.H. Jr. as at moderate risk of future abuse or neglect if returned to father‘s custody. DCFS therefore recommended the child reunify with father, so long as father and child resided with paternal grandmother and participated in family preservation services. Because mother continued to struggle with substance abuse, DCFS recommended terminating her reunification services.
At the January 23, 2024 eighteen-month permanency review hearing, the juvenile court was “very pleased” and extended “special congratulations to the father.” The court found father had made substantial progress and that returning C.H. Jr. to father would not create a substantial risk to the child‘s safety. The court therefore ordered C.H. Jr. to father‘s home, so long as father resided with paternal grandmother or in a DCFS-approved home, and ordered family preservation services for father. The court converted mother‘s services to enhancement services and ordered a written visitation schedule for mother.
On April 29, 2024, DCFS received a report indicating that father had recently physically assaulted mother. Mother reported that she was out with friends early in the morning of April 28, 2024. Father called her and offered to drive her home. Mother was reluctant but eventually accepted. Father did not immediately arrive, so mother began to walk home. Soon, father drove up, exited his vehicle, and abruptly hit mother on the back of the head so hard that she fell. Father continued to hit mother until she felt ” ‘dazed.’ ” A bystander intervened, and father hit mother one more time then fled.
A police report describing the incident indicates mother “was unable to keep track of the events.” According to the report, the bystander saw mother arguing with father while he slowly drove around her in his vehicle. Mother entered the vehicle briefly and then father tried to push her out. Mother got out of the vehicle and they continued to argue. Father then exited the vehicle, ran toward mother, and grabbed her head with one hand while punching her with the other fist. Mother fell to the ground and father made a kicking motion. The bystander heard mother scream, ” ‘Just kill me!’ ” When the bystander announced she was calling 911, she heard father yell, ” ‘Stay out of it bitch, I got you marked!’ ” Father then got into his vehicle and drove away. The bystander made a video of the incident, which DCFS later obtained and provided to the juvenile court.
Mother told a DCFS social worker that father had also hit her in the face around Easter, leaving her with a ” ‘black eye and busted lip.’ ” Mother did not report that incident because father begged her not to.
On May 2, 2024, the DCFS social worker spoke to mother. She reported that father called her angrily and demanded that she “cover up for him so he does not lose” C.H. Jr. Father told mother that if she did not “fix it he would tell [DCFS] the truth about her.” Mother decided to press charges against father and pursue a restraining order. On May 15, 2024, mother obtained a criminal protective order against father, which will expire on May 15, 2027.
The social worker also spoke to father on May 2, 2024. Father claimed mother was “reporting lies” and “trying to ruin his life.” He “shifted the blame” to mother and asserted mother‘s drug use was the source of the family‘s problems.
On May 3, 2024, mother reported that father called her and threatened to report her to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mother hung up and blocked father‘s phone number.
On May 8, 2024, DCFS filed a
On May 9, 2024, a DCFS social worker spoke to father. Father again denied that any domestic violence had occurred and again accused mother of lying. He asserted that C.H. Jr. was not
VII. Section 387 petition and subsequent section 342 petition; termination of reunification services.
On May 10, 2024, DCFS filed a
On May 13, 2024, the juvenile court determined there was substantial danger to C.H. Jr.‘s physical and emotional health and that it would be detrimental for the child to remain in father‘s home. The court therefore removed C.H. Jr. from father.
On June 5, 2024, father spoke to a DCFS social worker and again denied hitting mother in the head. When the social worker told father that there was a video of the incident, father accused mother of throwing a tequila bottle at him. The social worker told father DCFS would be recommending that the court terminate father‘s reunification services.
On June 27, 2024, DCFS assessed that there was a very high risk to C.H. Jr. if he remained in his parents’ care. DCFS cited father‘s ongoing domestic violence against mother, his repeated denials that any violence had occurred, and his failure to take responsibility for his actions. DCFS also noted that mother continued to use methamphetamines, amphetamines, and marijuana, and tested positive for drugs as recently as May 31, 2024. DCFS recommended that the court terminate family reunification services for father and mother.
The court described the video of the April 28, 2024 incident as “very jarring” and “violent and aggressive.” It observed that father had custody of C.H. Jr. at the time, and that even if the child was not present during the incident, the parents’ relationship was “absolutely toxic” and could have harmed the child. The court noted that DCFS “has been providing reasonable services to the parents to help them reunify, and that we‘re in the same situation that we were in May of 2022.” The court therefore determined reunification attempts had failed, terminated reunification services for both parents, and set a
VIII. Father‘s section 388 petition.
On October 9, 2024, father filed a
At the October 22, 2024
Father timely appealed the juvenile court order denying his
Father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily denying his
I. Legal standards.
A
“Whether [the petitioner] made a prima facie showing entitling [the petitioner] to a hearing depends on the facts alleged in [the] petition, as well as the facts established as without dispute by the court‘s own file . . . .” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 461.) “The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child‘s removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child‘s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance, and the reason the change was not made sooner. [Citation.] In assessing the best interests of the child, ‘a primary consideration . . . is the goal of assuring stability and continuity.’ ” (In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.)
We review the juvenile court‘s summary denial of a
II. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
Father asserts the trial court abused its discretion by summarily denying his
We focus instead on the changed circumstances identified in father‘s
Nor did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in concluding that resuming father‘s reunification services would not be in C.H. Jr.‘s best interests. Father filed his petition less than two weeks before the scheduled
Father argues resuming reunification services would be in C.H. Jr.‘s best interest because father has a strong bond with the child and visited him consistently and safely. Yet, father fails to meaningfully acknowledge—in his petition or on appeal—the domestic violence that led to C.H. Jr.‘s removal.5 As we have discussed, that violence was serious. The juvenile court described father‘s actions as “very jarring,” “violent and aggressive,” and “absolutely toxic.” Father also fails to acknowledge the difficulty he faced in attempting to ameliorate his violent conduct. Even after 52 weeks of domestic violence classes and 10 months of individual therapy, father continued to engage in violent altercations with mother. Father also repeatedly denied that any violence occurred and minimized the significance of his actions, suggesting he was unwilling or unable to ameliorate the problem. (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge“].) The first and third factors support that resuming father‘s reunification services would not be in C.H. Jr.‘s best interests.
As for the second factor, the petition alleged that father had a strong bond with the child. Indeed, as of October 2024, DCFS reported that the two shared a “significant and positive bond.”
In sum, in the context of this case, father‘s petition failed to allege materially changed circumstances or that resuming father‘s reunification services would further C.H. Jr.‘s best interests. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying father‘s
The juvenile court order denying father‘s
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
HANASONO, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
EGERTON, J.