Santa Cruz Cnty. Human Servs. Dep't v. G.B. (In re A.B.)
| Decision Date | 14 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | H049676 |
| Citation | 79 Cal.App.5th 906,295 Cal.Rptr.3d 219 |
| Parties | IN RE A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Santa Cruz County Human Services Department, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. G.B., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Attorney for Defendant and Appellant G.B.: Michael C. Sampson, Monterey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Appellant
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent Santa Cruz County HSD/Family and Children's Service: Jason M. Heath, County Counsel Shannon Sullivan, Deputy County Counsel
On August 31, 2018, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (the Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c) concerning a girl, A.B. (the minor), who was then 11 years old.1 The minor had been residing with her father, G.B., when the petition was filed. The whereabouts of the minor's mother, A.E., were unknown when the petition was filed. It was alleged that father had physically abused the minor in August 2018 and had physically and emotionally abused her in the recent past. The juvenile court ordered the minor detained, and in November 2018, it found the allegations of the petition, as amended, true under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c), and adjudged the minor a dependent of the court. Father received family reunification services for approximately 17 months.
In September 2020, the court found legal guardianship with the minor's maternal grandparents to be the appropriate permanent plan at the selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26 (366.26 hearing). At the hearing, the court found that visitation of the minor by father would be detrimental, and it denied visitation and ordered that father have no contact with the minor. Thereafter, father requested visitation of the minor. On May 5, 2021, after a contested six-month post-permanency review hearing in which the court heard testimony from three witnesses, it reaffirmed the detriment finding and denied visitation. Father renewed his request for visitation at the 12-month post-permanency review hearing on November 30, 2021. The Department opposed the request and asked that father present an offer of proof to justify a second contested hearing on visitation. The juvenile court denied father's request for a contested hearing, reaffirmed the detriment order, and denied father's request for visitation.
Father argues that the denial of a contested hearing on his request for visitation violated his statutory right to participate in post-permanency review proceedings and his constitutional right to due process. After reviewing the language of section 366.3 and the history of legislative amendments to that statute, we hold that father, as the parent of a child where the permanent plan is legal guardianship, did not have an unqualified statutory right to a contested post-permanency review hearing. We conclude further that father did not have an unfettered due process right to such a contested post-permanency review hearing, and the juvenile court did not err in requiring him to make an offer of proof in support of his request for that hearing. Accordingly, finding no error, we will affirm the court's order after the 12-month post-permanency review hearing.
In August 2018, the minor reported that father had punched her leg with a closed fist, had scratched her arm, and had struck her head. The minor had a bruise on her leg and a scar on her arm. She also reported that father had physically abused her on prior occasions and had made negative comments to her, including threatening her, yelling profanity at her approximately five times per week, and blaming her for difficulty in his interpersonal relationships.
The minor was sad and withdrawn, had pulled out her hair due to stress, and had stated a fear that father would kill her.
On August 31, 2018, the Department filed a petition as to the minor under section 300. On September 4, 2018, the juvenile court ordered the minor detained and ordered supervised visitation a minimum of one time per week for father.
The Department filed first and second amended petitions under section 300, subdivisions (a) [serious physical harm], (b)(1) [failure to protect], and (c) [serious emotional damage]. In addition to the allegations concerning father's treatment of the child, the Department alleged that mother abused substances including alcohol and cocaine, and that she was aware of father's harmful conduct to the minor.
A court in Alaska in 2012 awarded father sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the minor, and mother was granted visitation.
Between 2007 and 2016, there were 11 referrals in Alaska for child abuse and/or neglect. One referral involved a September 2016 incident of alleged child abuse by father at a hotel. Hotel security provided police with a video of the incident showing father upset with the minor because she had not brushed her hair. Father told the minor that if she did not take care of her hair, he would have her head shaved. He also told her that he would beat her if she did not come over to him. It appeared from the video that father struck the minor's face or head. Father denied that he had slapped or struck the minor but said he had "swatted at her face" when she talked back to him. The officer did not observe any injuries on the minor's face. She stated that she felt safe at home, and that she was only talked to, not spanked, when she was in trouble. The report of physical abuse was found not substantiated.
In 2018, while in school in California, the minor appeared " ‘shut down’ and ‘sad.’ " On August 29, the minor was placed into protective custody after she disclosed at school that father had been physically abusive for the past three years. The most recent incident occurred that morning when he yanked her hair and hit her head hard. She also had a bruise on her leg from being hit the week prior. The minor, crying, indicated that father blamed her for his former wife and the minor's half-sibling leaving him. When the social worker informed the minor that she would not have to go home with father, she let out an audible and visible sigh of relief.
The minor was interviewed by a Santa Cruz County sheriff's deputy and a social worker that same day. She disclosed that father had been hitting her for three years after her half-sibling was born. He usually hit her on the leg about two times a week. Father hit her on the head frequently because it would not leave a mark. The leg bruise from the week prior resulted from his striking her hard once or twice with a closed fist. A few weeks prior, he intentionally scratched her, leaving a scar. Father also yelled profanity at her about five times per week and used a lot of profanity when speaking about mother. The minor had not seen mother in years, and father's negative talk about mother hurt the minor's feelings. When the social worker asked about returning home, the minor's stress level increased. She asked if she had to go home and stated that father was "going to mess" with her and "kill" her.
The minor said she did not feel safe at home with father.
Father told the social worker and a sheriff's deputy by telephone that the minor had been fighting with him and was "oppositional." He denied ever hitting the minor. When asked about the bruise on the minor's leg, he indicated that it may have come from riding a bike or climbing on rocks. Father stated that the minor " ‘did this before’ " because she was jealous of his intimate partners. He said the minor had been acting up because his current girlfriend had been spending more time with them. He reported that his ex-wife (the mother of the child's younger half sibling) had left him because of the minor.
When the social worker discussed relative or non-relative placement options, father stated, "She did this to herself," and the child would have to deal with going into foster care.
The social worker gave father the phone number for the foster home where the minor was living. Father was told to keep his conversations with the child neutral and to not discuss the case. The Department was required to restrict and monitor father's phone calls because he did not respect the minor's verbal boundaries. The minor told father not to talk negatively about mother, but he continued to bring up past allegations against mother. Prior to the dependency proceedings, father called mother names and told the minor that mother was probably dead. The foster mother reported that the minor had cried when she learned that her mother was alive.
During supervised visits, father often spoke negatively about the minor's mother, the Department, and the case. During one supervised visit in September 2018, the minor told father that she had talked to mother by phone the previous night. The minor was upset with father because, according to mother, she had been trying to get in contact with the minor over the years. Father stated that he hadn't heard from mother since he obtained custody of the child, and he expressed concern about mother's having contact with the minor. The visit supervisor told father to talk to the social worker about his concerns and to refrain from making certain comments during the visit. Father continued to express concern about the minor having contact with mother.
The pattern of father's making critical comments about mother, expressing concern about her having contact with the minor, making negative comments about the Department and its social workers, and threatening lawsuits, continued throughout September and October 2018 during multiple supervised visitation sessions and other contacts. Father repeatedly disregarded the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Angelica A. (In re Dezi C.)
-
Santa Cruz Cnty. Human Servs. Dep't v. C.M. (In re H.S.)
...primary focus and the " 'parent's interest in reunification is given precedence over the child's need for stability and permanency.' '' '" (Ibid.)" 'However, reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability." '" (Ibid., q......