In re Marcos C.



















Filed 10/8/10 In re Marcos C. CA2/4

>

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 >.







IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION FOUR




>

In re Marcos C., Jr., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B221466 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK76065)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCOS C., Sr., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Deborah B. Andrews, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerard McCusker, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel,
James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Byron G. Shibata, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

introduction

Marcos C., Sr. (Father) is the father
of Marcos C., Jr. (Marcos), the subject of juvenile dependency
proceedings. Father appeals from the
dependency court's order that terminated his family reunification services even though
services were continued for Marcos's mother, A.T. (Mother). We

find no
error, and affirm the judgment.

factual and procedural background

When Marcos was eight months old and
his half-brother Anthony T. (Anthony)[1]
was 17 months old, the Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging that
Mother was smoking marijuana and arguing in the presence of Anthony. Mother admitted to DCFS that she occasionally
smoked marijuana and subsequently tested positive for the drug. She indicated that Anthony lived with her,
while her younger baby Marcos lived with Father at another address. Father alleged that Mother frequently smoked
marijuana. He stated that he and Mother
were no longer in a relationship, that he had cared for Marcos since his birth,
and that Mother had not always been involved with Marcos. The DCFS caseworker concluded that both
children appeared bonded with Father as well as Mother.



Team Decision-Making
Meeting

Father and Mother participated in a
team decision-making meeting (TDM) with DCFS on January 22,
2009. They were openly hostile towards one
another. Father acknowledged he had been
arrested for domestic violence against Mother two years earlier, and DCFS
records reveal that Father had a conviction for cohabitant battery in 2008.[2] A restraining order had been entered
requiring him to stay away from Mother.
Both parents admitted to violating that order. Two days earlier, the police were called
because the parents were arguing. The
former couple had recently reunited for a few weeks, but maintained they were
no longer together. They admitted to
arguing and fighting in front of the children.

Father stated he had been ordered to
enroll in and complete domestic violence counseling as a result of his
cohabitant battery conviction, but he only attended about half of the required
counseling sessions and consequently believed there might be a warrant out for
his arrest. He maintained that he did
not complete the counseling sessions because he could not afford the weekly
payments.

Mother admitted to a past arrest for
prostitution, and Father stated she had a warrant out for her arrest. DCFS records show Mother had convictions in
2007 and 2008 for loitering with intent of prostitution, prostitution, and
theft.

At the conclusion of the TDM, it was
agreed that Marcos and Anthony would be placed in protective custody. Mother agreed to complete parenting classes,
domestic violence counseling, and substance abuse programs, and also agreed to
submit to random drug testing. Father
agreed to undergo on-demand drug tests and to complete domestic violence and parenting courses,
for which DCFS gave him referrals.



Detention Hearing

After DCFS filed a petition pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b),[3] with respect to
Anthony and Marcos, a detention hearing was held on January 27,
2009. Mother appeared but Father did not, despite
having been notified in person about the hearing. The court found a prima facie case for
detaining the children, and ordered DCFS to provide referrals to Mother for
random drug testing, individual counseling, and classes on parenting and domestic
violence. Mother indicated she had
already begun to participate in these services.
The court ordered visitation for Mother and for Father as well once he
contacted DCFS. The court also declared
Anthony and Marcos a bonded sibling group.
Finally, the court directed DCFS to facilitate another TDM, which
Mother, but not Father, attended on February 11, 2009.



Jurisdictional and Dispositional
Hearing

At the jurisdictional and
dispositional hearing held on February 26, 2009, the dependency court sustained the
allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), with minor amendments, finding
Father's repeated violent acts against Mother[4]
endangered the children's physical and emotional health, and Mother's marijuana
use periodically rendered her incapable of providing regular care for
them.

DCFS reported Mother's desire to have
both children placed at their maternal grandmother's home in Louisiana; Mother hoped to move there as well
and start a new life. The court ordered
a 30-day visit for the children with their grandmother, after which they would
return to temporary foster care in Los Angeles.

DCFS stated Mother had been
cooperative with DCFS. The court ordered
Mother to submit to eight consecutive weekly random drug tests, parent
education classes, and individual counseling to address domestic violence and
other case issues.

DCFS indicated that Father had been
only minimally cooperative. A DCFS
caseworker had met with him two days before the jurisdictional hearing to
discuss the case and Father's progress, but Father advised her that he had not
enrolled in any of the programs to which he had been referred. The caseworker provided him with a copy of
the case plan and gave him more referrals for services. Father told the caseworker he was not certain
if he would appear at the jurisdictional hearing; she advised him that if he
appeared in court, separate counsel would be appointed for him. Father ultimately failed to appear at the
hearing. The court nevertheless ordered
Father to attend a 52-week program of domestic violence counseling, parent
education, and individual counseling.



Progress Hearings

The court held a progress hearing on April
13, 2009. Mother attended but Father did not, despite
having received notice. Several days
beforehand, the DCFS caseworker had spoken with Father and again informed him
that he needed to enroll in the court-ordered programs. Mother had completed her parenting class, and
was participating in her drug program.
She tested positive for marijuana once, and then tested negative on four
subsequent occasions.

On September
23, 2009,
Father made his first appearance at what was supposed to be the six-month
review hearing, but the court continued the six-month review to October
27, 2009,
and held another progress hearing instead.
DCFS reported that Mother had completed her drug and education
classes. She was visiting the children
regularly and the visits were going well.
Although DCFS began permitting Mother to visit them without a monitor in
June 2009, DCFS again began monitoring her visits after she missed a drug test
on July 15, 2009. Mother had been
picked up on an arrest warrant on September 4, 2009, and spent four days in
jail, because she failed to report to the criminal court the results of an AIDS
test she was required to take due to her conviction for prostitution.

Father also was having weekly
monitored visits with Marcos that were going well. On July 15, 2009, Father brought his cousin to DCFS
and stated he would like Marcos to be placed with her. The caseworker reminded him of his
court-ordered classes; he indicated that he was aware he needed to complete
them, but just had not done so. He noted
that there was a warrant out for his arrest because he had not completed the
domestic violence classes ordered by the criminal court. Father was arrested on July
29, 2009 on
a misdemeanor charge and was not released from jail until September
12, 2009. After his release, he did not immediately
begin visiting Marcos again.

Father requested increased visitation
with Marcos, which the court granted.
The court also ordered DCFS to assist Father in enrolling in all
reunification programs listed in the case plan.
On October 12, 2009, Father finally enrolled in
individual and group counseling, as well as classes on domestic violence,
parenting, drugs and alcohol, relapse prevention, anger management, and
self-esteem development. However, on October
14, 2009,
Father stated that he did not have the money to pay for all of the classes,
which cost $15 each. The following day,
October 15, DCFS gave Father a referral for free parenting and individual
counseling classes. There were no free
domestic violence classes available, but DCFS determined that Father had been
ordered to attend a 52-week domestic violence program as a result of his
earlier criminal conviction, and recommended he seek financial assistance from
the criminal court.



Domestic Violence Incident

On October 19,
2009, Mother
met Father near his residence to discuss where Marcos should be placed. Father wanted Marcos placed with his cousin
in Los
Angeles, while Mother wanted him placed along with Anthony at the
home of the children's maternal grandmother in Louisiana.
An argument ensued, escalating to the point that Father ultimately beat
Mother in an alley and choked her to the point that she briefly lost
consciousness. When she woke up and
tried to run away, Father grabbed her again.
When police officers passed nearby, Father told her, â€