L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Colter C. (In re Paxton D.)
| Decision Date | 02 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | B305497 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re PAXTON D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COLTER C., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP08106A)
APPEAL from a jurisdictional finding and dispositional orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rashida A. Adams, Judge. Affirmed.
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Colter C. (father) challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding and dispositional orders concerning his son Paxton D. (Paxton, born Oct. 2015). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, subd. (b), 358, subd. (a);1 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.690.) Specifically, he contends that (1) insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding; (2) insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's removal order; (3) the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to continue the jurisdiction and disposition hearings; (4) the juvenile court erred in terminating jurisdiction; and (5) the juvenile court erred in only awarding father monitored visitation with Paxton.
We reject each of father's arguments. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior Child Welfare and Family Law History
In April 2016, an allegation of general neglect by father of Paxton was deemed unsubstantiated. However, at that time, mother filed for and obtained a restraining order.
In November 2016, an allegation of emotional abuse by father of Paxton was substantiated. Specifically, father hadPaxton in his arms when Amber S. (mother), Paxton's mother, objected to father's plans to take Paxton overnight. Mother told father to give Paxton back, but he refused. Mother then stated that she was going to call law enforcement. Father became angry and threw the child on the bed and pushed mother in the face. Paxton began to cry. Mother called law enforcement and father left. Father denied being in the home. Father violated the active restraining order by being in the home. At that time, mother was settling the matter in family court.
On April 5, 2018, the family law court ordered mother to have sole legal custody of Paxton, and both parents would share physical custody of the child. Father was ordered to have weekly visitation from Friday at 8:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:00 a.m.
Detention Report (Dec. 19, 2019)
On October 8, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral, alleging general neglect of Paxton by father. On October 7, 2019, father was arrested after his ex-girlfriend, Christine L. (Christine), contacted law enforcement to report that he was stalking her. Law enforcement stopped father's vehicle, which contained two large duffle bags of marijuana (approximately 20 pounds) and $14,000 in cash. Paxton was with father during the incident, sitting in the booster chair in the backseat of the vehicle.
Mother had been cooperative during this investigation, and she reported to DCFS that she would not allow father to have access to Paxton. This incident was the second time in 2019 that mother was called on a weekend to pick up her son from law enforcement.
Per the Incident Report, dated October 7, 2019, Burbank law enforcement (an officer and a detective) responded to a Fry's Electronics store regarding a possible restraining order violation. Christine, who had a restraining order against father, was hiding from father in her vehicle at the store's parking lot. Father was circling the parking lot and staring at her. Law enforcement observed father's vehicle leaving the parking lot. The right tail light was not operating, and father failed to stop at the posted stop sign. Law enforcement conducted a traffic stop based on father's violations. They observed Paxton in a booster car seat in the back seat. Per the detective's request, father exited the vehicle, and in speaking with father, both the officer and the detective smelled a strong odor of marijuana emitting from father's vehicle.
Father stated that he had just left the Logix Credit Union (across the street from Fry's Electronics). Father denied knowing that his ex-girlfriend was in the area. He also denied that there was a restraining order against him. The detective confirmed with police department records that there was a valid restraining order against father, and the protected party was Christine's seven-year-old daughter. Records also showed that father had an outstanding felony arrest warrant for dangerous drugs originating from the California Highway Patrol. Father was arrested for the outstanding felony warrant.
Father's car was impounded as it was parked illegally. Upon an inventory search of father's vehicle, the officer located two large duffle bags containing 22 large bags of suspected marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. The officer also located $14,000 in cash underneath the two duffle bags. Based on the amount of suspected marijuana and the amount of money found,father was subsequently charged with transportation of marijuana for sale. Father made a spontaneous statement at the jail booking counter that approximately 18 pounds of marijuana was found in his vehicle.
On December 5, 2019, the Children's Social Worker (CSW) received a phone call from father, who stated that the Burbank Police Department had dropped all charges against him because he had a legal amount (25 grams) of marijuana in his possession. The same day, the CSW spoke with Detective Totemwong, who reported that father was arrested for having 21.8 pounds of marijuana, and that the charges against father had not been dropped.
On December 6, 2019, the family law court issued a temporary restraining order against father listing Paxton as a protected person. Mother sought the temporary order at the request of the CSW and stated she needed help for the child. Mother reported that this situation had happened before, and she was worried for her son because father had no insight in how he was putting the child in danger. Mother was worried that father did not tell her what he did with their son. Mother could not believe father had $14,000 while she was struggling to keep Paxton fed and could not qualify for assistance. Mother expressed concern that father was not honest with her, was always claiming he was "'licensed to sell marijuana,'" and was stating that Christine had lied about father's abuse of her daughter.
On December 12, 2019, the Supervising Children's Social Worker (SCSW) arrived unannounced at the home of mother and Paxton. Mother reported that she left father several years ago after she could not get him to stop dealing drugs while takingcare of their infant son. Mother stated that she struggled with the fact that father would sell cocaine out of the home with the baby on the bed next to him. She also disclosed that father would allow drug addicts in their home and around their son. She believed that father was also a user, but she had not been around him in a long time. Mother reported father was aggressive with her and continually placed their child in harm's way and therefore, she left him. Mother said that father had never held a legitimate job to her knowledge, and although he claimed to be an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), she believed he was not qualified nor working as an EMT.
Mother reported that she fought with father in family law court for years, and each time he would fight her for visitation and custody. Father was granted weekend visits, but he was not consistent in the beginning. Mother expressed frustration with the family law system as it did not hold father accountable for his behavior, and mother believed her son's safety was compromised in father's care.
During an unannounced visit to the home on December 12, 2019, there were no noted concerns in the home of the mother. Cody L. (Cody), mother's husband of two years, interacted well with the SCSW and appeared to have a genuine caring interest in mother and the child. Mother was pregnant with Cody's child.
Although mother had not seen marks or bruises on her son, she worried about father's aggression and anger issues. Mother did not know how father acted with Paxton. Mother reported being a victim of domestic violence in the past by father, and she was afraid of him. Father's previous arrest for slapping a small child concerned mother as Paxton was at a difficult age to handle. Previous referral history was indicative of physical abuse anddomestic violence. Father had repeatedly been involved in illegal activities and engaged in violence towards others while the child was present.
Mother described Paxton's behavior as more aggressive lately, and out of control upon returning from father's visits. She reported that Paxton was displaying hyperactive behavior and cried more frequently as he was adjusting to not seeing his father on weekends.
DCFS reported that there was a history of father exhibiting aggressive behavior. There was a nexus between this referral and others in the past as father continued to be aggressive and was stalking his ex-girlfriend, and involving the child in domestic violence and criminal activity.
Father's criminal history included a 2006 conviction for possessing concentrated cannabis and transporting a controlled substance. In 2009, father was arrested for battery. In 201...
To continue reading
Request your trial