In re O.B. CA2/6

Filed 8/22/24 In re O.B. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re O.B., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B331707 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 22JD-00260-001) (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a dependency action, L.M. (Father) appeals an order of the juvenile court reducing his visitation. We affirm. FACTS The child, O.B., came to the attention of the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) when E.C.

(Mother) got into a physical altercation with her boyfriend in O.B.’s presence. DSS filed a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (b)(1) in September 2022 on behalf of then one-year old O.B. The juvenile court found jurisdiction, ordered O.B. into foster care and ordered services for Mother and Father. Mother and Father were never married, nor did they live together. Father has a severe problem regulating his behavior. Mother obtained multiple restraining orders against him, all of which he has violated. Father has harassed DSS workers and has been ordered to contact them only through his attorney. His behavior during a visit with O.B. to her pediatrician so traumatized the doctor and her staff, for days thereafter, that they asked he not attend future appointments. Father has also discussed the dependency case in O.B.’s presence, in spite of being ordered not to. DSS’s Section 387 Petition After O.B. had been placed in mother’s care, DSS filed a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387 in August 2023 to again remove the child from her custody. DSS recommended that services for Father continue, but that his visitation be reduced. Father’s anger management counselor reported that Father has unmanaged anger, does not take personal responsibility for his emotions, and has extended anger outbursts during his sessions. The anger management provider terminated Father from the program due to his outbursts and failure to make additional appointments. Father revoked his release of