In re K.P. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal

In re K.P. CA4/2

DecidedAugust 20, 2014

DocketE059361

StatusUnpublished

This text of In re K.P. CA4/2 (In re K.P. CA4/2) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re K.P. CA4/2, (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 8/20/14 In re K.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E059361

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1200260)

v. OPINION

T.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Tamara L. Wagner,

Judge. Affirmed.

Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant, T.P.

Neil R. Trop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant, L.H.

1 Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Anna M. Marchand and Marsha L. Victor,

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Following a physical altercation between appellants T.P. (Father) and L.H.

(Mother), respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)

took their child, four-month-old K.P., into protective custody. The juvenile court took

jurisdiction over K.P. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 based on

the parents’ domestic violence and Mother’s substance abuse. The parents were provided

with reunification services, but when they failed to make substantive progress on their

case plans, the court terminated services and set a hearing to be held pursuant to section

366.26. At that time, the parents were authorized to have one-hour visits with K.P. twice

each week. In July 2013, DPSS applied ex parte to reduce the parents’ visits to a single,

one-hour visit per month. Following a hearing, the court granted the application. The

parents appealed.

Father contends the ex parte application was not correctly served, was insufficient,

and unsupported by admissible evidence.2 Mother joins in Father’s arguments and

1All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 In Father’s opening brief, he states that he “joins in the arguments and briefs submitted on his behalf in case number E057591.” He goes on to make an additional argument regarding the issues raised in the referenced case. To the extent Father is attempting to make a new argument pertaining to the former appeal, the appropriate procedure is to request leave to file a supplemental brief in the other appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(4).) The argument has no relevance to this appeal.

2 further contends that the court’s order was an abuse of discretion. For the reasons set

forth below, we reject these arguments and affirm the order.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

A. Background3

Mother gave birth to K.P. in October 2011. At that time, Mother was taking

methadone for treatment of a heroin addiction. K.P. was born addicted to methadone and

hospitalized for the first four months of her life. After K.P. was discharged from the

hospital on February 20, 2012, Mother and K.P. moved in with Father at the paternal

grandmother’s house.

In March 2012, Mother and Father were involved in a domestic violence incident

in which each inflicted injuries on the other. The parents were arrested and K.P. was

taken into protective custody and placed with a foster family. The parents disclosed

another domestic violence incident between them that took place about one year earlier.

DPSS filed a petition concerning K.P. under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).

At a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the court found true allegations of

domestic violence, child endangerment, and Mother’s use of controlled substances. K.P.

was declared a dependent of the court and removed from the parents’ physical custody.

3 Because of the narrow focus of this appeal, our statement of the factual and procedural background regarding the underlying case is brief. More detailed factual and procedural histories regarding the case are set forth in our prior opinion denying Father’s petition for extraordinary writ in case No. E058904, and in our opinion filed concurrently herewith in case No. E057591. We take judicial notice of the records in these prior appeals. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)

3 The court authorized visits to take place at the discretion of DPSS and to make any

appropriate placement.

DPSS was ordered to provide, and the parents ordered to participate in,

reunification services. Mother’s and Father’s case plans called for participation in

domestic violence/anger management programs and counseling. In addition, Mother was

required to participate in a substance abuse program and random drug testing.

One-hour visits between the parents and K.P. initially took place twice per week.

The social worker reported that during the initial six-month review period, Father had

“the ability to have appropriate, loving, and attentive contact with his daughter”;

Mother’s visits were likewise “appropriate and pleasant” and K.P. “appeared to be happy

and well bonded to [Mother].” However, social workers described Father’s behavior

toward DPSS staff in terms such as “irate,” “irrational,” “verbally abusi[ve],” “volatile,”

“agitated,” “dangerous,” “abrasive, aggressive, disrespectful, and erratic.” Because of

Father’s behavior, DPSS requested that the court terminate Father’s visits and order him

to undergo a psychological evaluation. The court reduced Father’s visits to one-half

hour, once each week. It also ordered the requested psychological evaluation.

After the six-month review hearing in November 2012, the court reinstated

Father’s regular visits with K.P. It also repeated its order that Father undergo a

psychological evaluation.

In December 2012, the court ordered that K.P. have an extended visit with the

paternal grandmother and authorized Father to reside in the paternal grandmother’s

4 house. After the social worker received reports about Father’s hostile behavior toward

the paternal and maternal grandmothers, DPSS applied for an order removing K.P. from

the house. At the time for the hearing on the application, Father left the courthouse and

was driving away with K.P. When he was reached by telephone from the courtroom, he

refused to return to court until the court indicated he would be arrested if he did not. The

court then removed K.P. from the paternal grandmother’s home and placed her in DPSS’s

custody.4

In a report prepared for the 12-month review hearing, the social worker stated that

Mother and Father “appear to be spiraling out of control. [Mother] continues to abuse

drugs which have left her appearance and health in disarray. . . . [Father] will not allow

[Mother] to speak with [DPSS] in private due to his own paranoia.” Mother admitted to

the social worker in February 2013 that she had been using drugs during the last few

months and lying to the social worker and the court. She “no showed” for random testing

on five dates in the preceding three months.

Father was referred to Catholic Charities for services. However, Father did not

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI