California Court of Appeal Mar 29, 2021 No. E075772Unpublished
Filed 3/29/21 In re A.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E075772
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J284354 & J284355) v. OPINION E.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B.
Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.
Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I
INTRODUCTION
E.C. (Father) is the father of 16-year-old A.C. and (now) 18-year-old E.C., Jr.
(E.C.)1 After a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court
ordered sole legal and physical custody of the children to P.T. (Mother). The court also
found that Father’s visits were detrimental to the children and ordered that Father have no
(failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), and (j) (abuse of sibling), based on
Father’s recent incident involving A.C., his child welfare history, and the children’s
symptoms of anxiety and depression requiring treatment by a therapist.
At the March 2, 2020 detention hearing, the juvenile court formally detained the
children from Father’s care and maintained them in Mother’s home. The court found
visits by Father to be detrimental to the children and ordered that no visits occur between
Father and the children.
CFS recommended that Mother be granted custody of the children, a custody order
be issued, and the dependency matter be dismissed. Father continued to deny the
allegations and believed Mother was trying to keep him away from the children. He
claimed that he had gone to therapy four or five times and that he had taken anger
management and parenting classes. The children reported that Mother did not speak
negatively about Father, and the social worker noted that Mother “did not say one
negative thing about [Father]” during the interview. CFS opined that Father did not
appear to accept responsibility for his actions leading to the removal of the children from
his care. He blamed the children for their poor attitude towards him and Mother for
2 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated
5
“‘poisoning their minds against him.’” CFS noted that although Father had participated
in therapy and anger management, he had not demonstrated he benefitted from services.
He wanted the children to change to meet his expectations but he was unwilling to
change his behaviors for the children.
Letters from the children’s therapist indicated that both of the children were
diagnosed with depression and anxiety and that their symptoms were related to a poor
father-son relationship. Neither A.C. nor E.C., Jr., enjoyed visiting Father because he
made them do things they did not want to do and he did not take their feelings into
consideration.
On June 24, 2020, CFS filed amended section 300 petitions, which amended the
allegations under subdivisions (a) and (b) to allege that Father had physically abused
A.C. despite previous services for anger management, and that his failure to treat his
anger management issues and continued physical abuse of the children placed them at
risk.
On September 17, 2020, CFS informed the court that the children were doing well
in the care and custody of Mother. Both children continued to unequivocally say that
they did not want to visit Father. A.C. reported he did not like going to visits alone with
Father. E.C., Jr., reported he now felt calm that he did not have visits with Father and
that he felt tense when he had to visit Father.
The contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on September 21,
2020. Following Father’s testimony, the juvenile court noted its concern that Father had
6
no insight into his responsibility. The court explained that Father did not understand or
take responsibility that he was the adult and needed to understand and learn how to
handle the children. The court also pointed out that both children indicated that they did
not wish to see Father, which had developed over time and not just recently. The court
continued to find that visits were detrimental to the children and advised Father that he
could go to family law court and show by way of courses and counseling how he had
addressed his order and show a change of circumstances to modify the court order. The
court found the allegations in the amended petition true and discharged the children as
dependents of the court. The court granted sole legal and physical custody of the children
to Mother, entered a custody order in the family court file, which provided for no
visitation for Father, and dismissed the dependency matter. This appeal followed.
III
DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting sole legal
custody to Mother and denying him visitation. We disagree.
“Section 362.4 provides that when the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a
dependent child, and there is a pending family court case, the juvenile court may issue an
order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the minor, which order ‘shall’
become part of the family court file and ‘shall continue’ unless ‘modified’ or ‘terminated’
by that court. [Citation.] An order entered pursuant to section 362.4 is commonly
referred to as an ‘“exit”’ order.” (In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455 (Cole
7
Y.).) “When making a custody determination under section 362.4, ‘the court’s focus and
primary consideration must always be the best interests of the child.’ [Citations.]” (In re
T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513, citing In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th
251, 268 (Nicholas H.) and In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 206 (Chantal S.).)
The family court that will be responsible for enforcing or modifying the juvenile
court’s visitation order is equally capable of ensuring that the custody and visitation take
place as ordered. (Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 203.) A juvenile court terminating
dependency jurisdiction and making custody or visitation orders “does so as a court with
‘a special responsibility to the child as parens patriae and [it] must look to the totality of
a child’s circumstances when making decisions regarding the child.’ [Citation.]” (In re
J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 963.)
The juvenile court has broad discretion to make custody orders when it terminates
jurisdiction in a dependency case. (Nicholas H., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 265, fn. 4.)
The decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue custody and visitation
orders pursuant to section 362.4 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and we will not
disturb that decision unless “‘“the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by
making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.”’” (In re Stephanie M.
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s decision awarding sole custody to
Mother or terminating dependency jurisdiction. Rather, he claims the court abused its
discretion in issuing the visitation order. Specifically, citing page 154 of the clerk’s
8
transcript, he asserts the court left “the reasons for its order denying [him] any visitation
at all completely blank” in violation of California Rules of Court,3 rule 5.700(b). Father
thus claims both he and “any reviewing court will not be able to determine exactly what
steps [he] had to take in order to show the requisite ‘significant change of circumstances’
required by section 302, subdivision (d).”4
When a juvenile court orders custody with the nonoffending parent and terminates
jurisdiction, the court must prepare and file an exit order (Judicial Council Forms, form
JV-200) in accordance with rule 5.700. Rule 5.700(b), (c), and (d) further prescribe the
procedures that must be followed for the preparation and transmission of the juvenile
court custody order from the juvenile court to the receiving family court and for filing
and providing notice to the parties once the order has been received. “‘The orders need
to provide specific direction to the parents and other parties to facilitate compliance and
reduce the potential for conflict.’” (In re Anna T. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 870, 878 (Anna
T.).)
In addition, the final custody orders “‘also need to provide sufficient detail, and
use language familiar to the family law bench and bar, to permit the family court to
enforce them if a dispute does arise or to modify or terminate the orders if circumstances
3 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court.
4 Under section 302, subdivision (d), the decision to modify an exit order is within the province of the family court, and the order will be modified only upon a finding of “‘significant change of circumstances,’” and that the modification is in “‘the best interests of the child.’” A juvenile court therefore does not have authority to condition the family court’s modification of the exit order upon a parent’s completion of services. (Cole Y., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1456.)
9
change significantly and modification would be in the best interest of the child. The
information included in the juvenile court order must address the circumstances that led
to the juvenile court’s child custody and parenting time orders to enable a family court to
determine whether circumstances have changed to a degree that justifies considering
whether the requested modification is in the best interests of the child. The child custody
orders need to serve these functions without disclosing juvenile case information that
should remain confidential, because juvenile court child custody orders, including
attachments, are not themselves confidential. (§ 362.4.)’ [Citation.]” (Anna T., supra,
55 Cal.App.5th at pp. 878-879.)
In this case, contrary to Father’s contention, the exit order was not blank.
Attached to the Custody Order (form JV-200) is form JV-206 (Reason for No or
Supervised Visitation). Form JV-206 specifies that “On September 21, 2020, the Court
found that visitation between the minor children and father was detrimental to the
children’s safety and emotional well-being.” Although the statement denying visitation is
noted under section “b” pertaining to denial of services, rather than section “a” which
involved visitation, form JV-206 is nonetheless clear as to the reasons why visitation was
denied to Father. Moreover, the record and the juvenile court’s findings at the
September 21, 2020 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing clearly explain the reasons for
denying Father visitation with his boys. Specifically, the court continued to find that
visits were detrimental to the children, noting both boys were in therapy due to their
relationship with Father and both boys unequivocally stated they did not want to visit
10
with Father. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the exit custody
order and visitation order.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J. We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
FIELDS J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating dependency jurisdiction, awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother, and issuing an exit order denying the father visitation due to the children's best interests.
Issues
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in issuing an exit order that denied the father visitation with his children?
Did the juvenile court fail to provide sufficient reasons for the visitation denial in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 5.700(b)?
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the exit custody order and visitation order.”
“On September 21, 2020, the Court found that visitation between the minor children and father was detrimental to the children’s safety and emotional well-being.”