Filed 6/11/21 In re J.C. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.C., et al., Persons Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E076413
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J286241 &
J286242)
v.
OPINION
P.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,
Judge. Affirmed.
Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Pamela J. Walls, Special Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant P.B. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order denying
him reunification services. He contends the court erred in denying him services without
relying on a bypass provision under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361.5. Father
additionally contends that, even if the bypass provisions of section 361.5 do apply, the
juvenile court abused its discretion in otherwise denying him discretionary reunification
services as such services were in the best interests of the children. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 11, 2020, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services
(CFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of J.C. and A.C. (the children).2 J.C. was 10
years old at the time, and A.C. was 13 years old. The petition alleged that the children came
within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage).
Specifically, the petition alleged that father and the children’s mother, Y.C. (mother),3
engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the children, father had a history of
substance abuse, mother knew or reasonably should have known that he had a problem with
substance abuse, and father would threaten to harm himself in front of the children.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise noted.
2 CFS filed separate petitions on behalf of each child. However, since they contain
the same allegations, we will refer to them as a single petition.
3 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
2
In a detention report, the social worker stated that CFS received a referral from A.C.
alleging that father “gets drunk . . . yells at me and . . . later gives me money.” The social
worker contacted mother and found out that she and father (the parents) lived together with
the children, but she was currently staying at a maternal aunt’s home following an
altercation with father. Father was drunk, began yelling at A.C. and mother, and then
grabbed mother by the hair and pulled her across the floor. He also hit her in the face.
Mother told him she was tired of him treating her and the children that way, so she and the
children packed up and left.
The social worker spoke with J.C. He said that he remembers his parents always
physically fighting, that he felt scared, and did not like when father yelled or when he
witnessed the physical altercations. J.C. said he felt safe with his mother, but not with his
father.
A.C. told the social worker she had witnessed a lot of arguments and physical
altercations between her parents. When father was drunk, he would hit mother, yell at her,
and spit on her. She said father would get drunk every week. A.C. also said she felt safe
with mother, but not with father, and that she did not want to see father.
The court held a detention hearing on August 12, 2020, and detained the children
from father. It ordered they remain in mother’s custody on the condition that father not
reside in the home. The court ordered CFS to provide services to father, pending the
development of a case plan.
3
Jurisdiction/Disposition
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on August 28, 2020,
recommending that the children be declared dependents but remain in mother’s custody
under county supervision, that mother be provided with family maintenance services, and
that father be provided with reunification services. The social worker interviewed mother,
who said that she had resided with father “on and off since about 2006,” and that he was the
father of the children. Mother reported that incidents of domestic violence occurred weekly.
Father was verbally abusive with mother and the children when he was sober, and things got
worse when he was intoxicated. She further said that on numerous occasions father had
used profanity toward the children and threatened to kill himself. The social worker also
met with the children. They confirmed the ongoing domestic violence and said father was
verbally aggressive with them. Both children said they were fearful of him. They said
father gave them “guilt trips” in order to get them to do what he wanted and confirmed that
he had threatened to kill himself. The social worker reported that J.C. was reluctant to
participate in supervised visits with father, but eventually decided to have a visit and
enjoyed it. A.C. continued to refuse visiting with father.
The social worker reported that she interviewed father on August 24, 2020. He
denied the allegations in the petition and did not know why the children would say he had
been violent or why they would be afraid of him. He denied that he had ever engaged in
domestic violence with mother.
4
The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on September 2, 2020. Mother
submitted on the petition. Father requested the matter to be referred to mediation, and the
court continued the matter for mediation and a further jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
The court held a further hearing on October 20, 2020, and county counsel reported
that an agreement was reached but noted that services to father were technically
discretionary. Father set the matter for contest, and the court continued the hearing.
On November 30, 2020, the social worker filed a memorandum with additional
information for the court. She reported that father was arrested on November 11, 2020, and
charged with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse for the incident that occurred with
mother on August 5, 2020. He was also charged with two counts of driving under the
influence. He was released from incarceration on November 15, 2020, and was arrested
again the next day for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse.4 The social worker stated that
father had not displayed any remorse for his actions that led to the removal of the children
but blamed mother, the children, and CFS for his circumstances. The social worker opined
that reunification services were no longer in the children’s best interests since father had not
shown benefit from the services already provided and since the children were remaining in
mother’s care under family maintenance. Thus, the social worker recommended that the
court not order reunification services for father since he was not entitled to them and
because services would not be in the best interests of the children.
4 The circumstances/basis of this arrest is not clear from the record.
5
The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on January 5, 2021. It
sustained the petition and declared the children dependents. The court stated that its
tentative decision was to follow the social worker’s recommendation to not offer father
reunification services but to offer mother family maintenance services. It stated that
services were discretionary and invited father’s counsel to make arguments as to why father
should receive services. Father’s counsel argued that he started services immediately after
the detention hearing and had been very engaged, and he had attended all visits with the
children. The court ordered family maintenance services for mother, but declined to order
reunification services for father, finding that it was not in the children’s best interests.
DISCUSSION
The Court Properly Denied Father Reunification Services
Father argues he was entitled to reunification services under section 361.5 as a matter
of law unless one of the statutory exceptions applied, and the court did not find any of the
exceptions to be applicable; thus, it erred in denying him services. He further contends the
court abused its discretion in determining that services were not in the children’s best
interests claiming that his conduct was “run-of-the-mill alcohol abuse and domestic
violence.” We conclude the court properly denied him services.
A. Father Was Not Entitled to Reunification Services
“ ‘As a general rule, reunification services are offered to parents whose children are
removed from their custody in an effort to eliminate the conditions leading to loss of
custody and facilitate reunification of parent and child.’ ” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190
Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112.) “Section 361.5, subdivision (b) sets forth certain exceptions—
6
also called reunification bypass provisions—to this ‘general mandate of providing
reunification services.’ ” (Ibid.)
However, “when a child is adjudged a dependent but is placed in the custody of a
parent subject to the supervision of a social worker, the applicable statutory provision is
section 362, subdivision (b), which provides that ‘[w]hen a child is adjudged a dependent
child of the court, on the ground that the child is a person described by Section 300 and the
court orders that a parent or guardian shall retain custody of the child subject to the
supervision of the social worker, the parents or guardians shall be required to participate in
child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency designated by the
court.’ ” (In re Pedro Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 12, 19-20 (Pedro Z.).) The services
referred to in section 362, subdivision (b), are not reunification services but family
maintenance services. (Id. at p. 20.) “Family reunification services shall only be provided
when a child has been placed in out-of-home care, or is in the care of a previously
noncustodial parent under the supervision of the juvenile court.” (§ 16507, subd. (b).)
Here, because the children were not placed in out-of-home care but were maintained in
mother’s custody, no reunification services were required. (Pedro Z., at p. 20.) In other
words, father was not entitled to reunification services.
7
B. The Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Declining to Order Services
When a child is not removed from his or her custodial parent, and no reunification
services are called for, “as stated in section 362, the court in that situation is vested with
discretion to make ‘any and all reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child
who is the subject of any proceedings under this chapter as the court deems necessary and
proper to carry out the provisions of this section.’ ” (In re A.L. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 138,
145.) “ ‘The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and
protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this
discretion.’ [Citation.] The reviewing court will not reverse the court’s order in the absence
of a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.)
The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order services for father since
they were not in the children’s best interests. Father denied the allegations in the petition,
particularly that he had ever engaged in domestic violence with mother. Yet, he was
arrested on November 11, 2020, for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse for the incident
involving mother on August 5, 2020. He was released from incarceration on November 15,
2020, and he was arrested again the next day for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse.
Furthermore, according to mother and the children, there was ongoing domestic
violence in the home. Additionally, father was verbally abusive with the children when he
was sober, and things got worse when he was intoxicated. He gave them “guilt trips” in
order to get them to do what he wanted, and he threatened to kill himself. Both children
said they were afraid of father and did not feel safe with him. J.C. was reluctant to
8
participate in supervised visits with him, although he eventually visited with father and
enjoyed it. A.C. refused to visit with father.
Moreover, father did not display any remorse for his actions that led to the removal
of the children but blamed mother, the children, and CFS. The record shows he participated
in five counseling sessions after the detention hearing, and his therapist reported that he
denied being physically abusive with mother. He also stated he was a loving father to his
children and felt that CFS never should have gotten involved. The therapist opined that
father did not make any progress in his sessions because of his lack of honesty and insight
and his need to control the sessions. Father clearly did not see the need to change and did
not benefit from the services.
In sum, father was not entitled to reunification services since the children remained in
mother’s custody. Furthermore, the record amply demonstrates that the court did not abuse
its discretion in declining to order them.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
9