In re Alexis T.
Filed 8/14/08 In re Alexis T. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re ALEXIS T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER T., Defendant and Appellant. | D052669 (Super. Ct. No. J516633A-B) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher T. appeals an order of the juvenile court made at a six-month review hearing involving his minor children Alexis T. and Brandon W. (together the minors). Christopher contends the court abused its discretion by ordering that his visits with the minors remain supervised. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2007 three-year-old Alexis and two-year-old Brandon became dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and were removed from parental custody based on findings their parents exposed them to domestic violence. The minors' mother, C.W., admitted the violence had been ongoing for about seven years. C.W. had a history of mental illness and substance abuse. Christopher minimized the violence and blamed it on C.W.'s mental illness. The minors were traumatized by witnessing the parents' domestic violence.
The parents separated briefly but then reunited in violation of a safety plan they signed. The court ordered the parents to participate in reunification services and to visit the minors separately. Visits were to be supervised.
The minors were placed with the paternal grandmother. Tests and evaluations showed Alexis had autism and Brandon had global developmental delays.
The parents were making slow progress with services. After 16 sessions of domestic violence treatment and 13 therapy sessions, Christopher showed only limited insight concerning abusiveness. He continued to live with C.W., who was not consistently attending therapy and remained in denial. Christopher's therapist described the parents' relationship as being violent with a "co-spousal dynamic." He noted Christopher minimized the domestic violence and C.W. blamed Christopher for it. Christopher still lacked insight as to how domestic violence affected his children. The therapist recommended Christopher not have unsupervised visits with the minors until C.W. participated in services and showed progress. C.W.'s therapist recommended supervised visits between C.W. and the minors until she was regularly taking her medication and participating in services. C.W.'s therapist was also concerned the parents would engage in aggressive behaviors in front of the minors if visits were unsupervised.
At the six-month review hearing, social worker Rosa Gomez testified the parents arrived together for visits with the minors, despite the order for separate visits. C.W. waited outside while Christopher visited the minors. For the last two months, C.W. no longer accompanied Christopher to visits. On several occasions, C.W. telephoned the visitation center to cancel visits for Christopher. The parents also went to Christopher's therapy sessions together. These patterns and behaviors led Gomez to believe C.W. controlled Christopher and the relationship. Gomez stated Christopher was not yet capable of protecting the minors because he had not had enough domestic violence treatment and could not say "no" to C.W.
Gomez recommended against unsupervised visits for Christopher. She was concerned that Christopher would not be able to prevent C.W. from coming to unsupervised visits, which presented a risk to the minors because C.W. had not participated in services. In Gomez's opinion, unsupervised visits for Christopher would put the minors at risk of witnessing further domestic violence.
Christopher testified he wanted unsupervised visits with the minors so they could run around and experience the outdoors in a park rather than be indoors. Christopher said he would not allow C.W. to attend his unsupervised visits. If C.W. showed up, he would take the minors to another location. Christopher admitted he came to the hearing with C.W. and was currently living with her. He understood they could not visit the minors together because C.W. was not participating in her services.
After considering the evidence and hearing argument of counsel, the court found returning the minors to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to them because of the parents' history of violence and minimizing that violence, C.W.'s mental health issues and substance abuse, and the parents' codependency. The court further found unsupervised visits would create a substantial risk of detriment to the minors, but allowed the supervised visits to occur in a public setting, such as a park, as long as the setting was appropriate to the minors' special needs. The court continued services for six months and gave the social worker discretion to lift the supervision requirement for visits with the concurrence of minors' counsel.
DISCUSSION
Christopher contends the court abused its discretion by denying his request for unsupervised visits with the minors. He asserts he was complying with the components of his reunification plan, making progress with domestic violence treatment, regularly visiting the minors and he agreed he would not allow C.W. to attend his unsupervised visits.[1]
A
The juvenile court defines a parent's visitation rights by balancing the parent's interests in visitation with the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) The court may impose restrictions on parental visitation, consistent with the child's best interests, based on the particular circumstances of the case. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009; In re Clara B. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 988, 999.) The state's interest in assuring the best interests of the child justifies any limited intrusion on a parent's right to visitation. (In re Melissa H. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 173, 175.)
The court has broad discretion in making visitation orders, which we review for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351-1352.) In this regard, the juvenile court's order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination. When two or more inferences reasonably can be deduced from the facts, we have no authority to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319; In re Tanis H. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1226-1227.)
B
In determining there was some risk to the minors if visits with Christopher were unsupervised, the court was entitled to consider evidence that Christopher had not made enough progress in domestic violence treatment to protect the minors. Christopher still lacked insight as to how domestic violence affected his children. Because of the violent, codependent nature of the parents' relationship, Christopher's therapist recommended visits with the minors remain supervised until C.W. participated in services and showed progress.
Further, Christopher continued to live with C.W. despite their violent past and C.W.'s failure to participate in her case plan, which required therapy and psychotropic medication. Despite knowing he and C.W. could not visit the minors together, Christopher allowed C.W. to accompany him to his supervised visits. Although Christopher testified he would not permit C.W. to attend his unsupervised visits with the minors, the social worker disagreed, noting C.W. controlled the relationship and Christopher was not able to say "no" to her. In the social worker's opinion, Christopher was not yet able to protect the minors. The court was entitled to find the social worker's opinion credible and give greater weight to her testimony than to the testimony of Christopher. We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 53.) The order for supervised visitation was in the minors' best interests and well within the court's broad discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] To the extent Christopher is arguing he was entitled to "increased visitation time," he has forfeited this issue by not raising it at the six-month hearing. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) Christopher limited the issues at that hearing to his request for unsupervised visits.
