Filed 3/25/24 In re E.F. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re E.F. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E081078
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SWJ2200144)
v. OPINION
K.F.,
Defendant and Respondent.
T.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael J. Rushton,
Judge. Affirmed.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
1 Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Respondent.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham, and Catherine E. Rupp,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant T.F. (Father) appeals the juvenile dependency court’s sua sponte
permanent restraining order (PRO) against Father, protecting respondent K.J.F. (Mother)
and their four adopted children: E.F. (age 14), K.F. (age 13), J.F. (age 12), and A.F. (age
10) (collectively, the children). Father contends the PRO, issued on March 29, 2023, was
an abuse of discretion because there was insufficient evidence to support it. Father
therefore requests this court to dismiss the PRO or, at a minimum, dismiss it as to the
children. The County and Mother urge this court to affirm the PRO. We conclude
substantial evidence supports the PRO and affirm it as to both Mother and the children.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2021, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 1 Services (DCFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging that
Father’s mental health and the parents’ history of domestic violence placed the children
1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 at risk of harm. The petition alleged that on July 27, 2021, Father “brandished a gun at . .
. [M]other, while the children were in the family home,” and that his “mental and
emotional problems,” including “suicidal ideation, . . . endanger[ed] the children’s
physical health and safety.” The petition further alleged that Mother had failed to protect
the children from Father.
DCFS reported in the detention report that after the gun brandishing incident in
July 2021, Father stayed with A.R. and G.R. for 10 days. He was asked to leave because
the couple wanted to adopt a child, Mother and Father had been in the process of
adopting when the gun incident occurred. In August 2021, the couple received disturbing
emails and texts from Father, and on one occasion, he followed A.R. to the market.
Fearing Father’s erratic, frightening behavior, A.R. filed a police report and informed
DCFS that she would be requesting a restraining order against Father.
DCFS reported in an addendum report that it did not detain the children from
Mother, and recommended that the children remain in her care. DCFS also
recommended that the juvenile court detain the children from Father and allow him to
have monitored visitation.
A. Detention Hearing
At the September 14, 2021, detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered continued
placement of the children with Mother and detention of the children from Father. The
court also ordered monitored visitation for Father two times a week, for two hours a visit.
3 B. Jurisdiction and Disposition Proceedings
On November, 1, 2021, the court granted Mother’s request for a temporary
restraining order against Father and continued the jurisdiction and disposition hearing to
January 21, 2022.
DCFS reported in the October 2021 jurisdiction and disposition report that the
parents were married but separated. DCFS recommended that the court order family
maintenance services for Mother and the children, and enhancement services for Father.
In an October 27, 2021, last minute information report, DCFS reported that both parents
were participating in services and the children were attending therapy. DCFS
recommended monitored visits for Father, and liberalized visitation at DCFS’s discretion.
DCFS stated in a last-minute information report, filed on December 2, 2021, that
Mother would be requesting a stay-away order against Father, and that Mother re-located
to Riverside. DCFS, therefore, recommended transferring the case to Riverside. DCFS
also reported that the children were participating in therapy. On January 14, 2022, DCFS
filed another last-minute information report, stating that during monitored visits, Father
tended to talk about money, the marriage dissolution, and the courts in the presence of the
children. DCFS warned Father about his passive-aggressive and sarcastic behavior.
DCFS filed another last-minute information report in January 2022, stating that Father’s
brother, Kyle, told DCFS that, while residing with Mother, he observed Mother place her
hand over J.F.’s mouth to stop him from screaming, causing J.F. to become very upset.
Kyle also saw Mother force J.F. to take a cold bath because he refused to take a daily
4 nighttime bath. Kyle said he moved out of Mother’s home, and sent Father and his other
siblings an email on January 11, 2022, stating that he had left Mother and had given up
trying to help the children.
DCFS also reported there was an emergency response referral in which it was
reported that during a monitored visit between Father and the children, E.F. told Mother
that Kyle pulled down his pants and showed his buttocks to the children. E.F. said she
did not remember when the incident happened. Several other calls to the police were
made, including calls regarding possible domestic violence between Mother and Kyle.
At the January 21, 2022, jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court
sustained the section 300 petition, amending it by interlineation, including striking the
petition allegation that Mother failed to protect the children from Father. The court
ordered that the children remain with Mother, the children be removed from Father, both
parents receive services, and Father have monitored visitation twice a week, for two
hours a visit.
Father appealed the January 21, 2022, jurisdiction and disposition orders on the
ground DCFS failed to comply fully with the inquiry and notice requirements imposed by
the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California
law. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, dismissed the appeal as moot
because ICWA does not apply when a dependent child is removed from one parent and
placed with another. (In re E.F. (Aug. 31, 2023, B323174) [non.pub. opn.].)
5 On March 21, 2022, the case was ordered transferred from Los Angeles County to
Riverside County because Mother and the children relocated to Riverside County, and the
transfer was accepted by the Riverside County Superior Court.
C. July 22, 2022, Review Hearing
On July 11, 2022, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services
(DPSS) reported in its section 364 family maintenance review report that the children
were living with Mother, the parents were still married but separated, and Father was
living with his girlfriend. Father reported he was on leave from his employment as a
police officer at the police department, and might retire early for mental health reasons, if
approved. Father said he was doing okay mentally and physically, and continued to take
psychotropic medication. E.F., K.F., J.F., and A.F. were receiving therapeutic behavioral
services (TBS) and counseling, were diagnosed with PTSD and ADHD, and were taking
medication.
Father’s family enhancement case plan filed on January 21, 2022, included
individual counseling for Father “to address parenting, controlling relationships and high
conflict relationships; mental health counseling to include a psychiatric medication
evaluation and take prescribed psychotropic medications; and conjoint counseling with
the children when deemed appropriate and recommended by individual therapist.” Father
began participating in weekly therapy in August 2021, and in March 2022, began
attending therapy biweekly. His therapist reported that Father had potential disorders
6 which included “Anxiety, PTSD, Depression an[d] possible Adjustment Disorder or
Bipolar Disorder.”
DPSS reported that Father’s monitored visits with the children in April and May
2022 went well. In May, DPSS liberalized Father’s visitation to unsupervised visits for
two hours a week. Father reported he would like to continue to liberalize visitation and
gain 50/50 custody of the children.
At the hearing on July 22, 2022, the juvenile court ordered DPSS to admonish and
confirm Father did not have firearms in his possession when he visited the children.
DPSS was also ordered to confirm Father was not in possession of any firearms, which he
stated were held by the police department. The court ordered that DPSS not liberalize
Father’s visitation to include overnights, weekends, or family maintenance without a
court order. The court ordered Father to complete a psychological evaluation and set a
contested section 364 family maintenance review hearing on August 15, 2022.
D. August 15, 2022, Review Hearing
On August 9, 2022, DPSS filed an addendum report confirming that Father had
not completed a court-ordered psychological evaluation and that the police department
had possession of his firearms. The Inglewood Police Department confirmed that Father
was currently on leave and under investigation and that the police department had
possession of five of his handguns and one semi-automatic rifle.
During the August 15, 2022, review hearing, Mother told the court she was not
requesting a restraining order against Father because visits were going well and she did
7 not feel she needed a restraining order. The court stated that there did not appear to be
any basis for limiting Father’s visitation and authorized DPSS to allow Father placed on
family maintenance, with liberalized unsupervised visitation, conditional upon Father not
owning or possessing any firearms where the children were located. The court ordered
Father to complete a psychological evaluation. The court also ordered DPSS to
investigate allegations by one of the children of abuse against Kyle, and prohibited the
children from having contact with him.
E. February 14, 2023, Review Hearing
On February 1, 2023, DPSS filed a status review report, which provided the
following summary of Father’s activity involving Mother and the children since August
2022.
On August 18, 2022, Father became angry with the children during an
unmonitored visit and texted Mother to pick up the children early. When Mother arrived,
Father threw the children’s food at her car and yelled at her. The children were very
upset, and said Father had yelled at them for lying, when they had not been lying. J.F.
tried to leave and walk home but Father pulled him back by his shirt. The children told
Mother that Father “was saying the F word a lot.”
On September 7, 2022, Mother provided DPSS with a text from Father accusing
her of “poison[ing] the children against him.”
In October 2022, Father requested overnight visits. Mother told DPSS she was not
comfortable with Father’s request for overnight visits unless the court ordered a mental
8 health evaluation for Father, and his girlfriend was not present during the visits. Father
and his girlfriend married in November 2022.
Mother notified DPSS on November 25, 2022, that K.F. and A.F. did not want to
visit Father, and Father told her she needed to force the children to visit him.
On November 30, 2022, Mother reported that Father told her he would be
relinquishing his parental rights.
On December 1, 2022, Mother provided DPSS with a screenshot of Father’s text
to the children that he did not want to be their dad anymore and that he was requesting to
terminate his rights.
The following day, Mother asked about Father’s visitation and was told it was
court-ordered and she should encourage the children to participate in visitation with
Father. She said she did but it was difficult because the children did not like his new
wife.
On December 4, 2022, Mother texted DPSS stating the children did not want to
see Father and that J.F. had a very intense nightmare.
The children reported that their last visit with Father was on December 24, 2022,
and they did not want to continue to visit him.
On January 12, 2023, Father emailed DPSS, stating that he wished to relinquish
his parental rights, and asked “if there’s anything I need to do or sign.”
On January 25, 2023, the children again told DPSS that they did not want to
continue visiting Father.
9 DPSS concluded in its February 1, 2023, status review report that Mother had
successfully complied with her case plan and had made progress. The children were
doing well with Mother, and Father had requested to have his parental rights
relinquished. DPSS recommended dependency of the children be terminated, with
juvenile custody orders granting Mother sole physical and legal custody.
During the status review hearing on February 14, 2023, Father waived his
appearance but submitted a letter, in which he wrote that the letter was intended to
explain to the court why Mother “is an unfit [M]other and a liar,” and that he intended to
“petition the court to remedy the situation.” In his letter, Father made numerous
derogatory, accusatory statements about Mother, blaming her for the children’s emotional
and behavioral instability. Father said he was currently on administrative leave and that
Mother’s false accusations against him and filing a domestic violence restraining order
against him jeopardized his career as a police officer. Father included a copy of a
January 2022 email from Kyle to Father and his brother, John, also maligning Mother.
During the February 14, 2023, status review hearing, the court found that Father
had five firearms registered to him and all his guns were accounted for as of August
2022. The court ordered DPSS to check with the Inglewood Police Department and file
an addendum report addressing whether the police department was still in possession of
Father’s firearms, whether he was still employed by the police department, and steps he
would have to take to get his firearms back. Father agreed with DPSS’s recommendation
to close the case, with sole physical and legal custody awarded to Mother.
10 The court noted there was no active restraining order against Father. The court
said it was concerned about closing the case without verifying that Father’s guns were 2 currently accounted for and not in his possession. The court ordered another CLETS
check on Father’s guns, noting that Father’s AR-15 did not show up in CLETS. Mother
told the court that the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued on September 14, 2021,
expired and it was not renewed in November 2021, because Father requested that it not
be renewed because of his job.
The court asked during the hearing if Mother feared Father. Mother said she did
not and was comfortable closing the case without a restraining order. Minors’ counsel
also said he was comfortable with closing the case without a restraining order because
Father had remarried, had not made any threats to Mother or the children recently, and
had sent the children a text that he did not want to be their father anymore. He had not
seen them since Christmas in 2022. DPSS merely submitted on the matter.
The court stated that it was unaware of any reason why, without a restraining
order, the Inglewood Police Department would be prevented from giving Father back his
guns, because he had not been convicted of a crime preventing him from possessing
them. Mother responded that she believed the police department was processing Father’s
medical retirement request, in which case he would not have access to guns anymore
because of his mental health. The court ordered the hearing continued and ordered DPSS
to ask the Inglewood Police Department: “A) Are they still in possession of [F]ather’s
2 CLETS is a commonly used abbreviation for “California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.”
11 firearms; B) Is [F]ather still employed, or whatever they’re willing to share of the status
of his employment . . . ; and the third point would be the steps father would have to take
to get his guns back or the likelihood of his getting his guns back.” The court also
ordered DPSS to interview Mother and Father regarding the issue of the firearms and the
need for a restraining order. The court continued the contested section 364 family
maintenance status review hearing to March 14, 2023.
F. March 14, 2023, Review Hearing
On March 8, 2023, the DPSS filed an addendum report, stating that on February
28, 2023, Inglewood Police Department Sergeant De La Torre reported that Father was
still employed by the Inglewood Police Department, which still was in possession of
Father’s firearms. Sergeant De La Torre added that Father was currently under
investigation.
On March 8, 2023, Mother told DPSS that on March 5, 2022, Father was on a
section 5150 hold because he overdosed on Seroquel and, after waking up from a coma,
threatened to kill police officers. He was then placed on a 5250 hold for one month.
Mother believed that the 5250 hold would prevent Father from becoming a police officer
again and from getting his firearms back from the Inglewood Police Department.
When DPSS contacted Father on March 8, 2023, Father told DPSS that the police
department had his firearms, and then said, “‘Why are you asking me about the firearms?
Why aren’t you doing your job in keeping the kids safe? The problem is that Kyle is still
around the kids and you have not done your job to protect them and keep them safe.
12 Kyle has an active restraining order.’” DPSS told Father that was what it was doing, and
Father said, “‘You can contact my police department and you’re a f---ing loser,’” and
hung up the phone.
DPSS then called back Mother regarding Kyle’s arrest for domestic violence
involving Mother. Mother confirmed he was arrested for domestic violence. The
incident was in March 2022, when Kyle took a hammer from one of the boys. When he
raised it in the air, Mother got flashbacks from when Father slammed a hammer on her
desk. Mother screamed, “‘Don’t hit me with the hammer,’” and the police were called.
Mother said the charges against Kyle were dropped and he was released. The children
had not communicated with him after the court told them there was a restraining order
against him.
At the family maintenance review hearing on March 14, 2023, neither of the
parties requested a restraining order. Nevertheless, the juvenile court on its own motion
issued a TRO protecting Mother and the children from Father. The court noted that in the
Los Angeles Superior Court, two restraining order requests were filed but not issued, one
in dependency court and one in family law court. According to Mother, the restraining
orders were not issued because doing so would impact Father’s occupation as a police
officer. The court noted that when the case was transferred to Riverside, there was no
request for a restraining order against Father, but the court was extremely concerned
about the status of Father’s numerous firearms. The court therefore issued a TRO sua
sponte, explaining: “[F]rom the very beginning the [F]ather has demonstrated great
13 mental and emotional instability. The one thing that is not in dispute is he pointed the
gun at his own head in the presence of family members. What also does not seem to be
in dispute, except by [F]ather – he admitted to holding the gun on himself. He just didn’t
admit to also pointing it at the [M]other. The [M]other indicated that’s what happened
and a number of the children, at least one, has indicated that they witnessed the same.”
The court further noted that Father had a history of being the subject of a 5150
mental health hold and that his interactions with DPSS were continually “angry,
erratic, . . . [and] inappropriate . . . . [T]here is a lot of anger and frustration still directed
toward the [M]other.” In addition, he didn’t want to have any interaction with the
children, “which is not sort of the normal way in which a human processes these kinds of
things . . . . He has a lot of anger and is making many allegations towards [M]other and
towards his brother.” The court noted that once the case is closed, there will be no DPSS
oversight, and the juvenile court had “no idea what Inglewood P.D. is going to do with
[Father’s] guns.” The court found that Father had behaved erratically and should have
been the subject of a restraining order. The court added it could not compel the police
department to keep Father’s guns.
The court stated it intended to issue a TRO because: “I believe the combination of
his access to firearms and his history of unstable mental health really makes the issuing
of the temporary and then the permanent restraining order something that I would feel
neglectful if I did not do, and that I would be allowing the children and the [M]other to be
placed at risk.” The court explained that, because none of the parties requested a
14 restraining order, the court would issue the most limited restraining order possible,
“which would just be a no negative contact restraining order.”
When the court asked Mother under oath if Father possessed ammunition, she said
he had ”[b]oxes and boxes” of “police bullets.” When she and Father separated, his
brother took the ammunition and Father’s weapons. Mother also told the court she would
feel more comfortable if the court added to the restraining order a 100-yard stay-away
order.
Father objected, arguing that he had moved forward with his life. He lived in a
separate residence, remarried, had not recently made threats against Mother or the
children, was willing to relinquish his rights to the children, was in the process of
“possibly” retiring from the police department, and did everything he was required to
regarding his firearms. Father was willing to have the dependency case terminated, with
Mother awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children.
At the family maintenance review hearing on March 14, 2023, the juvenile court
issued a sua sponte TRO against Father. The court also continued the hearing for the
purpose of reviewing Father’s firearms compliance and to consider whether to issue a
PRO.
G. March 22 and 29, 2023, Review Hearings
During the review hearing on March 22, 2023, Father testified he had given all of
his firearms and ammunition to the Inglewood Police Department. The court continued
the hearing to allow DPSS to obtain further information regarding Father’s ammunition.
15 The court issued a TRO requiring Father to stay 100 yards away from Mother, and listed
Mother and the children as protected parties.
During the continued review hearing on March 29, 2023, Father again testified he
had no firearms or ammunition, and the court found he had complied with the firearm
component. The court also ran a CLETS search and did not find Father in possession of
any prohibited firearms or ammunition. The court issued a three-year, no-negative-
contact restraining order protecting Mother and the children, with a 100-yard stay-away
Father objected to the restraining order, arguing there was no evidence of recent
abuse, coercive control, or disturbing Mother’s peace. Father had moved away,
remarried, voluntarily ended visits with the children, and relinquished his parental rights.
Father argued that the PRO could “jeopardize his situation as he goes forward and either
tries to regain placement or some other sort of position in law enforcement.” Father
noted that because of his 5150 hold, he was prohibited from access to his firearms for
five years. Mother responded that she was nevertheless requesting the 100-yard stay-
away order because the 5150 incident caused her “great concern,” because she did not
know what Father’s mental state would be in the future or whether he would regain
access to his guns, particularly if he regained his police officer status.
The court noted Father could petition the court to terminate the restraining order
early. He could also request a limited exemption under Family Code section 6389 if he
needed a firearm for his employment. The court stated it was “extremely concerned” that
16 Father “would be able to possess or have access to a firearm or ammunition.” The court
therefore issued a PRO protecting the children and Mother against Father, because the
court believed that “the family would be at some degree of risk given the underlying
facts” mentioned by the court. In addition, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction
over the children and issued exit orders that Mother have sole legal and physical custody
of the children, with Father authorized to have one supervised visit per month for one
hour.
III.
PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER
Father contends the juvenile court erred in issuing a PRO protecting Mother and
the children against him. We disagree.
A. Forfeiture
Father argues that Mother forfeited the restraining order issue because she did not
request a restraining order during the section 364 family maintenance review hearing
proceedings and repeatedly told the court that she was not requesting a restraining order.
But, as Father notes in his appellant’s reply brief, this court has discretion to consider
Mother’s arguments in support of the restraining order, even though she told the juvenile
court she believed a restraining order was not necessary. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th
1287, 1293 [“Although an appellate court’s discretion to consider forfeited claims
extends to dependency cases [citations], the discretion must be exercised with special
care in such matters.”].)
17 Here, Mother is not the party challenging on appeal the PRO. Although she did
not object to it during the juvenile court proceedings and stated she believed it was not
necessary, she is not precluded on appeal from arguing in favor of the order.
Furthermore, during the March 29, 2023, hearing, she stated that she favored court-
ordered protection from Father. During the March 14, 2023, review hearing, Mother told
the court she would feel more comfortable if the court added to the restraining order a
100-yard stay-away order. And during the March 29, 2023, review hearing, Mother
again requested a 100-yard stay-away order. Mother said that Father’s 5150 hold in
March 2022 caused her “great concern” because she did not know what Father’s mental
state would be in the future or whether he would regain access to his guns, particularly if
he regained his police officer status.
Under these circumstances, there was no forfeiture of the issue by Mother. The
juvenile court had the discretion to consider Mother’s arguments in support of the
restraining order, and there was no abuse of discretion in doing so.
B. Applicable Law
Under section 213.5, subdivision (a), after a juvenile dependency petition has been
filed, and until dismissal of the petition or termination of dependency, a juvenile court
may issue an order “enjoining a person from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking,
threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, . . . destroying the
personal property, contacting, . . . coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the
18 peace of the child . . . .” This statute also permits the court to issue a protective order that
includes protection of a parent.
California Rules of Court, rule 5.630, subdivision (e) provides that proof of a
restraining order may include attachments to the restraining order application,
declarations, documentary evidence, the juvenile court file documents, and testimony.
The court may consider relevant hearsay. (In re L.W. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 44, 48, fn.
3.)
Issuance of a restraining order under section 213.5 does not require “evidence that
the restrained person has previously molested, attacked, struck, sexually assaulted,
stalked, or battered the child.” (In re B.S. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) Evidence
of a reasonable apprehension of future abuse or prospective physical harm is also not
required. (Ibid.; In re Bruno M. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 990, 997.) A restraining order
may be issued upon evidence that failure to issue the restraining order may jeopardize the
safety of the person requiring protection. (In re B.S., supra, at p. 194; In re Bruno M.,
supra, at p. 997.) Also, “[t]here need only be evidence that the restrained person
‘disturbed the peace’ of the protected child. [¶] In this context, disturbing the peace
means ‘“conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.”
[Citation.]’” (In re Bruno M., supra, at p. 997.)
“With regard to the issuance of a restraining order by the juvenile court pursuant
to section 213.5, appellate courts apply the substantial evidence standard to determine
whether sufficient facts supported the factual findings in support of a restraining order
19 and the abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the court properly issued the
order. [Citations.]” (In re Carlos H. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 861, 866.) “[W]e view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent, and indulge all legitimate and
reasonable inferences to uphold the juvenile court’s determination. If there is substantial
evidence supporting the order, the court’s issuance of the restraining order may not be
disturbed. [Citation.]” (In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199, 210-211.)
C. Substantial Evidence Supporting the Restraining Order
Father argues there was no evidence supporting issuance of the restraining order
against him. He asserts that, after the gun incident in July 2021, he did not do anything
warranting issuance of a restraining order. He moved out of the family home, he
remarried, his communications with Mother were non-threatening, he relinquished his
parental rights to the children, he had no contact with them since December 2022, he
turned in his firearms and ammunition, and he complied with the visitation orders. Father
thus contends that issuance of the PRO was unsupported by the evidence and an abuse of
discretion. We disagree.
Although some of Father’s actions after the July 2021 gun incident could be
construed as reflecting a reduced likelihood Father would harm Mother and the children,
there was ample evidence that he continued to “‘disturb the peace’” of Mother and the
children and pose a risk of harm to them. (See In re Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at
p. 997.) There is also substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s concerns and
findings that, because of Father’s relatively recent history of mental health instability and
20 hostility toward Mother, Father continued to pose a risk of harm to Mother and the
children.
The PRO was issued less than two years after the July 2021 gun incident that
triggered the juvenile dependency proceedings. Father admitted pointing the gun at
himself, E.F. said she saw Father point the gun at Mother, and the other children either
heard Mother tell Father not to point the gun at her or heard about the incident afterward.
The incident demonstrated that Father suffered from serious mental health issues,
resulting in conduct in July 2021, which traumatized the children and Mother.
After the gun incident, Father moved out of the family home, stayed with G.R. and
A.R. for 10 days, was asked to leave, and in August 2021, sent G.R. disturbing emails
and texts, and followed G.R.’s wife, A.R., to the market. A.R. and G.R. feared for their
safety because of Father’s conduct, and A.R. notified DCFS she would be requesting a
restraining order against Father.
Father’s family enhancement case plan filed in January 2022, required Father to
participate in mental health counseling and a psychiatric medication evaluation, and take
prescribed psychotropic medications.
In March 2022, Father was placed on a 5150 mental health hold after overdosing
on antipsychotic medication, and when he came out of his coma, he threatened to kill
police officers. He remained hospitalized for a month on a 5250 hold.
At the hearing on July 22, 2022, the juvenile court ordered Father to complete a
psychological evaluation. During the August 15, 2022, review hearing, the court again
21 ordered Father to complete a psychological evaluation. Father never complied with the
orders. When Father requested overnight visits in October 2022, Mother told DPSS she
was not comfortable unless the court ordered a mental health evaluation for Father.
Father continued to demonstrate emotional and mental instability up until the March 29,
2023, restraining order hearing.
Father also continued to commit acts reflecting hostility and anger toward Mother
and the children, which supported a finding that Father continued to disturb the peace of
the children and Mother. On August 18, 2022, Father became angry with the children
during an unmonitored visit and texted Mother to pick up the children early. When
Mother arrived. Father threw the children’s food at her car and yelled at her. The
children were very upset and said Father yelled at them for lying, when they had not been
lying. J.F. tried to leave and walk home but Father pulled him back by his shirt. The
children told Mother that Father “was saying the F word a lot.” On September 7, 2022,
Mother provided DPSS with a text from Father accusing her of “poison[ing]the children
against him.”
After two of the children said they did not want to visit with Father, on November
30, 2022, Father sent the children text messages telling them that he did not want to be
their dad anymore and asked to terminate his parental rights. Father also told Mother that
he would be relinquishing his rights.
On December 4, 2022, Mother texted DPSS, stating the children did not want to
see Father and that J.F. had a very intense nightmare. The children’s last visit with
22 Father was on December 24, 2022, after which they stated that they did not want to
continue to visit him. In January 2023, Father emailed DPSS, stating that he wished to
relinquish his parental rights and asked “if there’s anything I need to do or sign.” On
January 25, 2023, the children again told DPSS that they did not want to continue visiting
Father.
Father’s animosity toward Mother was apparent in a letter Father submitted to the
court at the status review hearing on February 14, 2023. Father wrote that his letter was
intended to explain to the court why Mother “is an unfit [M]other and a liar,” and that he
intended to “petition the court to remedy the situation.” Father made numerous
derogatory, accusatory statements about Mother, blaming her for the children’s emotional
and behavioral instability. Father said he was currently on administrative leave and that
Mother’s false accusations against him and her filing a domestic violence restraining
order against him jeopardized his career as a police officer and impugned his reputation.
Father included a copy of a January 2022 email from Kyle to Father and his brother,
John, maligning Mother.
The record also supports the juvenile court’s concern for the safety of Mother and
the children, not only because of Father’s emotional and mental instability and anger,
particularly toward Mother, but also because of the uncertainty as to whether Father, who
was still employed by the Inglewood Police Department, would regain access to firearms
and ammunition.
23 During the February 14, 2023, hearing, in which Father waived his appearance, the
court stated that it was unaware of any reason why, without a restraining order, the
Inglewood Police Department would be prevented from returning Father’s firearms to
him, because he had not been convicted of a crime preventing him from possessing guns.
DPSS reported in July 2022, that Father had said he was on leave from his employment
as a police officer at the police department, and might retire early for mental health
reasons, if approved. On February 28, 2023, Inglewood Police Department Sergeant De
La Torre told DPSS that Father was still employed by the Inglewood Police Department,
but was currently under investigation, and the police department still had possession of
his firearms. When DPSS contacted Father on March 8, 2023, to confirm that the police
department had his firearms, he told DPSS, “‘You can contact my police department and
you’re a f---ing loser,’” and hung up the phone.
During the family maintenance review hearing on March 14, 2023, the court
expressed concern and reasonably found that Father had “a lot of anger and is making
many allegations towards mother and towards his brother.” The court noted that once the
case is closed, there will be no DPSS oversight, and the juvenile court had “no idea what
Inglewood P.D. is going to do with [Father’s] guns.” The court reasonably found that
Father had behaved erratically and should have been the subject of a restraining order.
The court noted that it could not compel the police department to keep Father’s guns.
During the hearing on March 29, 2023, in which the court issued the PRO, both
Mother and the court expressed their concern about the uncertainty as to whether Father
24 would regain his guns and ammunition. Mother told the court she wanted a 100-yard
stay-away order because Father’s 5150 incident caused her “great concern.” She said she
did not know what Father’s mental state would be in the future or whether he would
regain access to his guns, particularly if he regained his police officer status. When
issuing the PRO, the court stated it was “extremely concerned” that Father “would be
able to possess or have access to a firearm or ammunition.” The court thus reasonably
found that, unless it issued the PRO, “the family would be at some degree of risk given
the underlying facts.”
We conclude that, under the totality of these facts and evidence, the juvenile court
did not abuse its discretion when it issued the PRO. Substantial evidence in the record
established that during the year and three-quarters period preceding issuance of the PRO,
Father had an ongoing history of serious mental health instability and erratic behavior.
Father also had not complied with the court’s orders to have a psychological evaluation.
In addition, the children no longer wanted to visit Father, who had disowned them.
After the children said they did not want visitation with Father, he seemed to emotionally
respond in retaliation by requesting his parental rights be terminated. There was also
evidence he had angrily and inappropriately acted out at them, including calling them
liars, yelling at them, using profanity, and telling them he did not want to be their father
anymore. In addition, there was substantial evidence that Father continued to be
extremely hostile toward Mother.
25 Furthermore, there was evidence supporting the court’s well-founded concern
about Father regaining access to guns and ammunition. Although it was confirmed that
Father turned in to the police department all of his firearms, it was uncertain whether he
would regain access to them in the future, which would place Mother and the children at
risk of harm.
Based on these circumstances and evidence, we conclude that the court reasonably
issued the PRO against Father, as to Mother and the children, upon concluding that
failure to do so might jeopardize their safety and disturb their peace. (In re B.S., supra,
172 Cal.App.4th at p. 194; In re Bruno M., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 997.)
IV.
DISPOSITION
The PRO issued on March 29, 2023, protecting Mother and the children against
Father, is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J. We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
FIELDS J.