California Court of Appeal Jun 11, 2021 No. E076413Unpublished
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
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
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that because the children were placed in the mother's custody rather than out-of-home care, the father was not entitled to reunification services under the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order discretionary services.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred in denying the father reunification services when the children remained in the mother's custody.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that discretionary reunification services were not in the children's best interests.
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Here, because the children were not placed in out-of-home care but were maintained in mother’s custody, no reunification services were required.”
“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 clearly did not see the need to change and did not benefit from the services.”