In Re Gg

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] OPINION

At the conclusion of the adjudication hearing, the disposition hearing was held. The juvenile court ordered: the twins be placed in foster care; individual counseling for the twins and the father; visitation by the father three time;; per week including on the weekends; one hour of the visitation was to be unmonitored; the father participate in a fatherhood class; and the father's individual counseling address his use of sexist and racist language. In connection with this latter requirement, the juvenile court minute order states, "Father to be in individual counseling to address issues with a male therapist regarding father's racist and sexist views." The father filed a timely notice of appeal.

According to the detention report the father is 55 years old; the mother is an anonymous egg donor; the twins were carried to term by a surrogate mother; both twins were in special education classes; A.G. had learning difficulties; and G.G. was treated for emotional difficulties. G.G., who had an individualized education plan, had temper tantrums…

F.G., the father of twin girls, G.G. and A.G., appeals from a dispositional order. In the published portion of this opinion, we discuss the father's contention that the juvenile court could not require the individual counseling increment of the reunification plan to address his repeated angry use of racial, ethnic and gender epithets. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it so ruled.

The Welfare and Institutions Code [1] section 300 petition was filed on January 27, 2009. The petition contained allegations of serious bodily harm; failure to protect; serious emotional damage; and sibling abuse. (§ 300, subds. (a)-(c), (j).) After several continuances, the adjudication hearing was held on March 19, 24 and 27 and April 2, 2009. The twins were declared to be dependents pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The juvenile court found the father used inappropriate discipline; G.G. "has exhibited explosive, aggressive, uncontrollable behavior requiring therapeutic, psychiatric intervention, and the father failed to obtain timely, necessary therapeutic, psychiatric intervention for the child despite numerous recommendations for…

I concur in part and dissent in part. I find insufficient evidence for the order asserting jurisdiction on the ground that there was a serious risk that these five-year-old girls were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness because F.G. (Father) "provided a chaotic home environment including regular and consistent confrontational behavior with the children's school and in the community, causing an inability to meet the special needs of his children." I also believe that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that Father undergo counseling for his racist and sexist remarks, an order which was an outgrowth of the "chaotic home environment" order. The reversal of the finding and order would not mean an end to this dependency, given the other, unchallenged, jurisdictional order. However the finding and counseling order may well pose a substantial barrier to reunification of this family, to the detriment of parent and children. Further, I believe that the juvenile court strayed beyond the United authority granted by the dependency law. In making its dispositional order, the juvenile court found that Father "wants to be left alone to raise his…