In re M.E. CA2/4

Filed 10/28/26 In re M.E. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR In re M.E., a Person Coming B350499, B352095 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF Super. Ct. No. CHILDREN AND FAMILY 24CCJP03450 SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. H.E., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Linda L. Sun, Judge. Affirmed. John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  H.E. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s orders finding that placing his daughter, M.E., with him would be detrimental to her safety, protection, or well-being. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Family History Father and W.U. (mother) met in Venezuela in 2014. Their daughter M.E. was born in December 2016. The family lived together until the parents separated in 2018, when M.E. was about 21 months old. Mother reported that father hit her, and she has not seen him in person since. Mother began a relationship with a new partner, Carlos M., around late 2020. Father petitioned a Venezuelan court for visitation with M.E. in 2023. Each parent claims the other did not attend the hearing. Father last saw M.E. in March 2023. Since then, father spoke to M.E. only twice before these dependency proceedings began. In 2023, mother, Carlos, and M.E. lived together in Venezuela. Mother and M.E. immigrated to the United States that spring. Shortly after, Carlos came to the United States and again lived with mother and M.E. In June 2024, mother and Carlos had a baby girl, C.M. II. M.E.’s Report of Sexual Abuse In October 2024, M.E. told an adult housemate that Carlos sexually assaulted her several times. The housemate told mother, who accused M.E. of lying. According to the housemate, mother yelled at M.E., grabbed her by the arm, and threw her into her room. The housemate called the police. They interviewed M.E. and arrested Carlos. 2  Carlos called mother from jail several times. He denied abusing M.E. Mother told Carlos she would leave him if M.E. was telling the truth. Mother said she was worried about paying the rent and asked Carlos if he wanted to talk to M.E. Mother put M.E. on the phone with Carlos. He told M.E. that he loves her, she should forget what the family’s housemate “put in her head,” and only she could get him out of jail. Afterward, mother told Carlos she was praying for his release. A social worker interviewed M.E. early the next morning. The social worker noticed bruises on M.E.’s thighs. M.E. said her mother whipped her with a belt for being late for school. M.E. told the social worker she lied about Carlos’s sexual abuse but could not explain why she lied. The social worker also interviewed mother the day after Carlos’s arrest. Mother said that, if M.E. was telling the truth, she would accept it and keep Carlos away from her daughters. She said M.E. told her that “she wants to die,” but M.E. “does it often so [mother] did not think [M.E.] meant it.” Mother elaborated that M.E. “often says she wants to die when she does not get her way.” She said M.E. “has a history of lying and misbehaving.” Mother admitted hitting M.E. with a belt. Mother acknowledged she let Carlos speak to M.E. on the phone; she saw nothing wrong with that. Mother also reported telling M.E. that, because she accused Carlos of sexual abuse, he would spend 25 years in prison and could not raise M.E.’s infant sister. Mother further had M.E. speak to relatives in Venezuela, who told M.E. she made “a mistake” in accusing Carlos of sexual abuse. When the social worker asked mother how M.E. could fabricate accurate details about male anatomy, mother said 3 maybe M.E. “was having sex elsewhere.” She also reported she caught M.E. watching pornography. The social worker asked M.E. and mother about father. Both answered that he lives in Venezuela and has no role in M.E.’s life. Father later said mother called him in October 2024 to ask if he would take custody of M.E. in Venezuela because she was misbehaving. III. Dependency Proceedings Through Disposition The Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services (department) took M.E. and C.M. into immediate temporary protective custody on October 29, 2024. The children were placed with foster parents I.G. and S.F. On October 31, 2024, the department filed a dependency petition alleging M.E. was subject to juvenile court jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (d). (All statutory references are to this code.) The petition alleged that Carlos repeatedly sexually abused M.E. and that mother failed to protect M.E. from that abuse and emotionally abused her by pressuring her to recant her allegations. It further alleged mother physically abused M.E. by striking and throwing her. Father first learned about M.E.’s report of sexual abuse in December 2024. He remotely appeared in the proceedings, and the court found him M.E.’s presumed father in January 2025. The court ordered the department to assess whether father’s home was a suitable placement for M.E. The court further ordered father to have three video or phone visits per week, starting with three monitored visits before beginning unmonitored visits. The department virtually assessed father’s home in February 2025. Father lived in what he described as a “humble” 4 one-bedroom house in Caracas, Venezuela with his wife and two children. The bedroom had no doors. Inside were the adults’ bed, the toddler’s bed, and a crib. The sole bathroom had only a toilet and four buckets. Father explained they had no working shower and used the buckets to bathe. He planned to renovate the house or move soon. Father and M.E. had their first video visit in February 2025. M.E. told a social worker she was happy to see and speak to him again. She did not remember living with him and wanted to return to her mother instead of living with him. The social worker noted that, when discussing the possibility of returning to Venezuela, M.E. “sounded stress[ed] and worried.” Father missed several subsequent visits with M.E. They had video calls scheduled every Saturday and Sunday at 5:00 p.m. They had five monitored video visits over the first two weeks of visitation. Father called late for the next two scheduled visits, so he only spoke with M.E. for five minutes. He missed the next two visits entirely. He later explained he mistakenly called too late because California (but not Venezuela) had changed to daylight saving time. Beginning in April 2025, M.E. did not want to talk to father. She felt uncomfortable during some visits because her half-sister interrupted and asked M.E. about her mother. She told her caregiver she did not want anything to do with father and already gave him plenty of opportunities to have a relationship. A social worker had told father it was important that he speak to M.E. somewhere private and without distractions. M.E.’s caregiver, however, noted that father’s other children continued to be present during the video calls. 5  M.E. struggled throughout this period. She exhibited suicidal ideation in December 2024 and January 2025. She had frequent nightmares and tantrums. M.E. also engaged in “inappropriate sexualized behavior.” At the adjudication hearing in May 2025, the court sustained the petition against mother. At the disposition hearing, the court removed M.E. from mother. Father requested custody. The court, however, found placing M.E. with father would be detrimental to her safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being for several reasons. Placement with father would disrupt M.E.’s strong bond with her younger sister, whom she worried about and tried to protect. M.E. had “unaddressed and unresolved mental problems” and had only made partial progress. She also did not want to live with father, who disappeared from her life years before she left Venezuela. Father made little effort to maintain a relationship and could not explain why he had not tried to do so. The court ordered that M.E. remain with foster parents I.G. and S.F. For father’s case plan, the court ordered conjoint counseling with M.E., unlimited monitored visits, and referred him for sexual abuse counseling. IV. Proceedings Through Six-Month Review Hearing Between the disposition and the six-month review hearing, father faced obstacles in following his case plan. M.E.’s therapist determined she was not ready for conjoint counseling. Father could not find sexual abuse awareness counseling in his area. He also missed more than a dozen visits. The visits sometimes lasted only five minutes. One weekend, they had no visits because M.E. did not want to talk. 6  The department unsuccessfully tried to arrange an in- person visit between M.E. and father. It sought assistance from the Venezuelan consulate, which did not respond to phone calls or emails. M.E. continued to struggle with her symptoms and behavior. She bit and fought with other children at daycare. Her school frequently told her caregiver that M.E. was stealing from other children. School staff were also concerned that M.E. had no friends and did not get along with her peers. After one tantrum at her foster home, I.G. told M.E. she could request a different placement if she wanted. M.E. replied, “Over my dead body.” A member of M.E.’s Child and Family Team believed her behavior was regressing because she did not feel understood, heard, or supported. The court held the six-month status review hearing on November 6, 2025. It found continued jurisdiction necessary and placement with either parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to M.E. The court found father had not made substantial progress in his case plan because visitation was “a key component” of his case plan, and he missed 14 visits. The court, however, noted father could not feasibly access sexual awareness counseling in Venezuela and that he did not participate in conjoint therapy because M.E.’s therapist opined she was not ready for that. Additionally, the court ordered the department to continue trying to arrange in-person visits between father and M.E. V. Twelve-Month Review Hearing On January 6, 2026, only two months after the six-month review, the court held the twelve-month status review hearing. The court again found placement with father in Venezuela would 7 be detrimental to M.E. Father’s counsel argued that the court could place M.E. with mother without finding any detriment in placement with father. The court noted that father missed numerous visits with M.E., had little relationship with her, and M.E. “adamantly” did not want to live with him in Venezuela. Moreover, though M.E. made only “slight progress” in therapy, her therapist said mother was “a tremendous support” to her. Placing M.E. with father would thus remove that support and exacerbate M.E.’s symptoms. The court found placement with mother would not create a substantial risk of harm to M.E. The court ordered her returned to mother, contingent on mother’s compliance with her case plan. DISCUSSION Father contends that the disposition order and review hearing orders must be reversed because there is no substantial evidence supporting them. The department disputes father’s substantive arguments and raises procedural arguments with respect to the disposition order. On November 6, 2025, and January 23, 2026, father filed notices of appeal. The parties agree that with these notices, father timely appealed the orders on the six-month and twelve- month hearings. The department contends, however, that father forfeited review of the May 8, 2025, disposition order. The department first argues that father’s notices of appeal do not indicate he appeals the May 8, 2025, order. Father’s first notice of appeal states he appeals only from the six-month hearing order dated November 6, 2025. His second notice of appeal indicates he appeals only from the twelve-month hearing order dated January 6, 2026. But in both notices of appeal, in the section stating “[t]he order appealed from was made under” any 8 of various statutes, he checked the box for “[o]ther appealable orders relating to dependency” and listed numerous dates including May 8, 2025, the date of the disposition. Father contends his notices of appeal are sufficient to challenge the disposition order. The department also argues that, assuming father appealed the disposition order, his appeal is untimely. Although father concedes he did not file his notice of appeal within 60 days of the disposition, he argues we should excuse his delay because the court did not adequately advise him of his appellate rights. (See In re A.O. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 145, 148.) We need not resolve these disputes because we affirm the disposition order on the merits. I. Substantial Evidence Supports the Disposition Order When a child is removed from her custodial parent, the law favors placement with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent. (In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1262 (Patrick S.).) If the noncustodial parent wants custody, placement with that parent is mandatory at disposition unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence (ibid.) “that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child” (§ 361.2, subd. (a)). The court must consider “all relevant factors to determine if the child will suffer net harm.” (In re A.C. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 38, 43 (A.C.).) Relevant factors include “[t]he absence of a relationship between” the child and noncustodial parent (ibid.), the child’s preference (ibid.), and “the emotional harm arising from the loss of sibling relationships” (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425 (Luke M.)). The court may find 9 placement detrimental regardless of whether the noncustodial parent contributes to or bears any blame for it. (Ibid.) Several opinions have reviewed detriment findings where the noncustodial parent lived in another state. A distant placement obstructing visitation (A.C., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 45) or reunification with the custodial parent may support a detriment finding (Luke M., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423) but “is not, in itself sufficient” (In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197, 224, superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Martinez v. Vaziri (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 373, 378). On appeal of the initial detriment finding, “[w]e review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing evidence that placement would be detrimental to the child.” (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262.) “Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.” (Ibid.) Substantial evidence in the record permitted a reasonable trier of fact to find clear and convincing evidence that placing M.E. with father would be detrimental to her emotional well- being. She was already suffering emotionally. M.E. had suicidal ideation, frequent nightmares and tantrums, and engaged in inappropriate sexualized behavior. Placement with father would have meant adding to the turmoil in her life by uprooting her and sending her to live with a man she hardly knew. As M.E. put it, she had already given father plenty of opportunities to have a relationship. Father did not adequately take advantage of those opportunities. He had only spoken to M.E. twice over the year and a half before these proceedings 10 began. Between the petition and disposition, father spoke to M.E. about seven times, sometimes for only five minutes. He called late for two visits and did not call at all for two others. Furthermore, after a social worker told father to have the visits in private without interruptions, he still allowed his other children to be present during some visits. The record also showed that placing M.E. with father in Venezuela would present a great obstacle to M.E. maintaining a relationship with her mother and sister. In A.C., one factor supporting a detriment finding was that placement with the noncustodial father would mean visits between mother and child would “require flying across the country.” (A.C., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 45.) Here, in-person visits would require flying to another continent. A reasonable trier of fact would expect that placement with father would make any future visits between mother and M.E. rare, at best. It is irrelevant that father cannot control these circumstances. (Luke M., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425.) The court was required to consider if M.E. “will suffer net harm” regardless of father’s responsibility for that harm. (Ibid.) Father relies primarily on Patrick S. and In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 (John M.). Both cases are distinguishable. In neither case was there evidence that the noncustodial parent missed scheduled visits. In John M., the court “found [father] was not to blame” for the lack of contact with his son. (John M., at p. 1571.) In Patrick S., the noncustodial father went to great lengths to build a relationship with the child. (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.) During the proceedings, they had frequent visits, including the child staying with father for three weeks. (Id. at pp. 1257–1258.) 11 Here, father had minimal contact with M.E. since he and mother separated and, once proceedings began, did little more than have short video calls with her—and he missed several of those visits. In Patrick S. and John M., moreover, there was evidence indicating the child was willing to stay with the noncustodial parent. (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1258; John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1570.) By contrast, M.E. consistently and strongly resisted placement with father in Venezuela. A social worker noted M.E. “sounded stress[ed] and worried” at the prospect of living with father. Her therapist found M.E. felt “voiceless because she is being encouraged to speak up but feels” people ignored “that she does not want to go back to Venezuela.” A reasonable trier of fact could find this evidence clear and convincing in showing M.E. was likely to suffer emotionally if placed with her father against her wishes, far from her mother and sister, and despite having little relationship or communication with father. We affirm the court’s order finding that, by clear and convincing evidence, placement with father at disposition “would be detrimental” to M.E.’s “safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” under section 361.2, subdivision (a). II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Review Hearing Orders We also affirm the court’s detriment findings at the six- and twelve-month review hearings. At status review hearings, “a parent who is the subject of a detriment finding is presumptively entitled to custody unless the [department] proves detriment.” (In re Nickolas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1505, italics omitted.) The court must find “by a preponderance of the 12 evidence,” that placement with the parent “would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subds. (e)(1) & (f)(1).) We review these detriment findings for substantial evidence. (L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1034.) At both review hearings, the record showed no more than minimal improvement in the reasons for the detriment finding at disposition. M.E. still needed significant services. She continued to have nightmares, anxiety, and outbursts. One professional involved in services for M.E. opined that her behavior regressed because she did not feel understood, heard, or supported. Placement with father in Venezuela still meant uprooting M.E. and having her live on a different continent from her mother and sister. The court could reasonably conclude it was vital to respect M.E.’s wishes to stay in the United States and try to reunite with mother. Father had also made little progress in developing a relationship with M.E. He missed over 15 visits between the disposition and six-month review hearing. He had no in-person visits, which were not feasible. The Venezuelan consulate did not respond to the department’s requests for assistance in facilitating in-person visits. Placement with father still risked profoundly disrupting M.E.’s relationships with her mother and sister. Under the applicable preponderance standard, at both review hearings there was substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings that placement with father would create a substantial risk of detriment to M.E.’s emotional well-being. 13  DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s disposition and its orders at the six- month and twelve-month review hearings are affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS TAMZARIAN, J. We concur: ZUKIN, P. J. DAUM, J. 14