L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. R.E. (In re Z.E.)
| Decision Date | 20 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | B309527 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re Z.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.E., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No 17CCJP02569A, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This juvenile dependency case is before us for a second time. In an earlier appeal, we affirmed the juvenile court's orders adjudging then four-year-old Z.E. (daughter) a dependent of the court and removing her from the custody of R.E. (father). We concluded sufficient evidence supported the court's finding that father sexually abused daughter (Welf. & Inst. Code, [1] § 300, subd. (d)). Daughter's mother H.L. (mother) was deceased. (In re Z.E. (Sept. 27, 2019, B292757) [nonpub opn.].)
This latest appeal stems from the juvenile court's termination of father's parental rights over now seven-year-old daughter. Father does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the court's finding that daughter was adoptable or that the parental-benefit exception was inapplicable. Instead, father argues the court erred in concluding the parental-benefit exception did not apply without holding a contested hearing at which daughter would testify. We affirm.
Daughter was born in April 2014. Approximately 1:00 a.m. on December 14, 2017, mother died after she jumped, fell, or was pushed from the top of a six-story parking garage. Father and daughter were present at the time. Father was arrested on suspicion of murder. By the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, father was no longer in custody, but he remained a person of interest in mother's death.
In August 2018, the juvenile court sustained four counts of an amended dependency petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department). Those counts alleged father had engaged in domestic violence with mother and former wives (§ 300, subd. (b)(2)); father suffered from bipolar disorder and anxiety, which he had failed to address adequately (§ 300, subd. (b)); father had emotionally abused daughter (§ 300, subd. (c)); and father had sexually abused daughter (§ 300, subd. (d)). The court declared daughter, then four-years-old, a dependent of the court.
Following adjudication, daughter, who had been detained from father since the filing of the amended petition, remained placed with Maria, one of father's former wives, and her husband. Two of daughter's half siblings also resided with them. Father's reunification plan required him to participate in counseling sessions to address grief, appropriate child discipline, domestic violence, appropriate boundaries with children, sex abuse/inappropriate sex behavior and conduct with children. Father was also ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. He was granted monitored visitation.
The court also confirmed an earlier order limiting father's rights to make educational and developmental service decisions for daughter based upon his refusal to allow her to benefit from those services and to the provide necessary information for her daycare enrollment. (§ 361, subd. (a).) Those rights were transferred to Maria and her husband.
In an unpublished opinion, we held substantial evidence supported the finding of father's sexual abuse of daughter under section 300, subdivision (d). (In re Z.E., supra, B292757.) That evidence included: (In re Z.E., supra, B292757.)
The dependency proceedings in this case lasted over three years due in part to unexpected pandemic delays. The juvenile court held an extended six-month review hearing and a 12-month hearing to monitor the reunification process. Both hearings were contested. In the meantime, daughter remained placed with Maria and her husband, where she was comfortable and adjusting well. The couple wanted to adopt daughter should father's reunification efforts prove unsuccessful.
During the reunification process, father remained steadfast in his desire to regain custody of daughter. Although his request for unmonitored visitation was denied, father consistently engaged in twice-weekly monitored visitation at a park without incident. The two of them made drawings, read books, and played on the swing set together. Daughter enjoyed her visits with father, whom she called exclusively by his full name. However, she repeatedly expressed her desire to live with Maria and Maria's husband and still visit father. Daughter stated she did not want to live with father. At school, daughter gained more self-confidence “both academically and socially.” She always looked forward to attending school.
By the extended six-month review hearing on April 30, 2019, father had completed 20 parent education group counseling sessions and 15 sessions of individual therapy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found father had partially complied with the reunification plan and ordered additional individual therapy sessions.[2]
In June 2019, daughter, now five years old, appeared uncomfortable talking about father. During this time, she reverted to displaying over-sexualized behavior, including touching the clothed breasts of her therapist and her half sister's friends. In August 2019, daughter told a Department social worker that she wanted to live with Maria “forever, ” but that father, whom she still called by his full name, said, “No, ” and was “angry.”
That same month, the Department asked father about his plans for daughter's continued schooling and therapy if he were to regain custody. Father stated school was not compulsory for children before the age of seven years and he planned to home school daughter. Father also intended to wait until daughter had “decompressed” prior to enrolling her in school or continuing her therapy.
The contested 12-month review hearing occurred on October 16, 2019. Two witnesses, a Department social worker and father's therapist, testified on behalf of father. No witnesses were called by the Department.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated father's family reunification services, finding father was not in substantial compliance with his reunification plan because he continued to deny having sexually abused daughter. The court observed that father's interactions with the Department and his therapist consistently demonstrated father's feeling that “he is the victim here.” The court added that in refusing to acknowledge his misconduct, father “simply believes he does not need to change anything about him or how he raises his child.” The court ordered a permanent plan of adoption for daughter.
From January through October 2020, daughter made clear her waning interest in having contact with father. In January 2020, daughter told Maria she did not want to live with father and had nightmares about going back to him. Daughter told a social worker she would have no friends and no school if she went to live with father. All she would do is play with him. Daughter said she enjoyed father's visits, but she did not want to live with him.
In-person monitored visits changed to “Zoom” visits in July 2020 and decreased in regularity. On August 14, 2020, daughter said she disliked Zoom visits with father because they were “boring.” Daughter preferred the park visits, but she wanted to go there with Maria and not see father anymore. Twelve days later, daughter again stated she wanted to go to the park with Maria (“mom”) and Maria's husband (“dad”) because father “smelled” and she did not miss him. When told father wanted to see her and their visits were court ordered, daughter replied, “well, duh, but I don't miss him.”
During a monitored visit in September 2020, daughter displayed a disturbing lack of respect for father and seemed angry with him. Father appeared tired, increasingly frustrated with daughter, and disinterested in active play. After the visit daughter characterized father as “mean” and...
To continue reading
Request your trial