In re S.M. CA2/8

Filed 4/9/15 In re S.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re S.M., A Person Coming Under the B258693 Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. DK06286) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Timothy R. Saito, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Office of County Counsel, Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel.

__________________________

B. M. (father) appeals from the order adjudicating his son, S.M., a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and from the dispositional order placing the family under informal supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case came to the attention of DCFS because father hit S.M. on the leg with a belt, causing bruises. At the time of the beating, S.M. was 11 years old. He lived with his mother, Maria M. (mother) and other family members; father did not live with them. Mother and father had separated when mother was pregnant with S.M. Pursuant to a family court order, father had visitation with S.M. two weekends per month. Father lived in Arizona. About 18 months prior to the incident, S.M. exhibited behavioral problems in school, and expressed sadness about not having his father around. Mother therefore started S.M. in therapy, which helped with his mood and behavior. Both mother and S.M.’s therapist spoke to father on several occasions about being more involved in S.M.’s life. Just prior to the beating incident, father moved from Arizona to Los Angeles in response to mother’s requests. While the specific details are unnecessary to our resolution of the appeal, it appears that father believed mother was too lenient in raising S.M. Father thought mother yielded too often to the desires of the rebellious child. Mother, in contrast, thought the therapy was resolving S.M.’s issues, and that he was not exhibiting the behavioral problems he had before. During the proceedings in this case, mother would opine that father did not know how to handle S.M. because father had not been a consistent part of his upbringing. The beating occurred on June 14, 2014. Father had picked up S.M. for a weekend visit. At father’s friends’ house, father ordered S.M. to eat a lunch father’s friend had prepared. Father believed that S.M.’s refusal to eat the food was an act of defiance and was disrespectful. Father was frustrated and angry. Things had been “building” with S.M., and father “just lost control.” He grabbed a belt from a bag of spare clothes and