Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Nos. J213341 & J213342, Marsha Slough, Judge.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ruth E. Stringer, County Counsel, and Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Neil R. Trop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
Martha G. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court’s order denying her request for visitation with Ramiro A. (the minor) at a review hearing on December 4, 2007. Mother contends, and the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (DCS) concedes, that the juvenile court erred in failing to make a requisite finding of detriment prior to denying mother’s request for visits with the minor. We agree with the parties and remand this case to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of determining whether visitations would be detrimental to the minor.
Mother has filed two notices of appeal regarding this case. The first notice of appeal, filed November 15, 2007, pertained to two of mother’s children, minor and his sister, and appealed the judgment entered at a jurisdiction and disposition hearing on September 27, 2007. The second notice of appeal, filed January 23, 2008, pertained only to the minor and appealed an order from a review hearing held on December 4, 2007. Both notices of appeal were assigned the same appellate case number (E044531). In mother’s opening brief, she stated: “While Mother has three children, only [the minor] is the subject of this appeal.” (Italics added.) Therefore, we will address only the issue pertaining to the minor.
Counsel for the minor also agrees with Mother and DCS.
I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 5, 2007, Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions were filed on behalf of the minor and his two sisters. The petitions alleged that the children came within section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b) (failure to protect).
Specifically, the petitions alleged that mother hit the minor’s two sisters in the face, which caused bruising and injury. Mother also scratched the minor by digging her nails into his skin. The petitions also alleged that mother engaged in abusive corporal punishment in the past, including hitting the children in the head and body with a clothes hanger, umbrella, broomstick, and her fist, which led to bruising and injury. The petitions additionally alleged that mother suffered from an alcohol and/or substance abuse problem that negatively affected her ability to care for the children, and that she suffered from mental health issues.
According to a detention report dated March 6, 2007, the children were brought to the attention of DCS after they were detained for shoplifting at a local mall. According to one of the sisters, earlier in the day, she and mother got into an argument, which resulted in mother punching her in the mouth. The other sister then became involved and called mother a “bitch,” at which point mother punched that sister in the nose, causing bruising and swelling to the bridge of her nose and under her left eye. All three children later went to the mall; one of the sisters was caught trying to steal a shirt.
According to the report, it was later learned that the minor had been with mother at a coin laundry earlier in the day. When the minor asked mother for something, she became angry, grabbed his arm, and dug her nails into his skin.
At the detention hearing held on March 6, 2007, the court found a prima facie case had been established for detention out of the home and ordered all three children placed in foster care.
The jurisdiction and disposition report recommended that the juvenile court sustain the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions. According to the report, mother and the minor’s father had their first visit with the minor on March 6, 2007. The parents were scheduled for weekly visits thereafter.
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing, originally scheduled for March 27, 2007, was continued on several occasions to provide notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act and to the children’s fathers.
At a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 2, 2007, the court ordered one of the sisters placed with her father and dismissed her case. The hearing was continued as to the minor and his other sister, at the request of the minor’s father.
In a second addendum report dated August 15, 2007, the social worker recommended placement of the other sister with her father under court-ordered supervision. The social worker also reported that mother had been arrested and was currently incarcerated at the California Institution for Women.
At the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, which was held on September 26 and 27, 2007, the juvenile court followed the social worker’s recommendation and placed the other sister with her father; the case was transferred to Los Angeles. As to the minor, the court found his placement in foster care remained appropriate, and found true, as amended, the allegations contained in the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions.
With regard to visitation, mother’s counsel requested in-person visits since mother was in local custody, as well as letter and telephone contact. DCS requested letter contact. The juvenile court ordered letter and telephone contact for the children.
On December 4, 2007, a review hearing was held. The court confirmed the previously ordered reunification plan for mother and father. Visitation between the minor and mother were ordered for once per week, upon mother’s release from custody.
II ANALYSIS
The Juvenile Court Erred in Failing to Make a Finding of Detriment
Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred when it ordered visitation to occur only upon mother’s release from custody. DCS and counsel for the minor agree with mother.
When a court orders a child removed from parental custody, the court is required to provide reasonable reunification services and a normal part of services is visitation between the parent and child. (In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1138.) “Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1, subd. (a)(1).) “‘Absent a showing of detriment caused by visitation, ordinarily it is improper to suspend or halt visits even after the end of the reunification period. [Citations.] Visitation may be seen as an element critical to promotion of the parents’ interest in the care and management of their children, even if actual physical custody is not the outcome. [Citation.]’” (In re Nicholas B., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1138.)
In this case, “DCS concedes that the requisite finding of detriment was not made by the juvenile court prior to denying mother’s request for in-person visitation with [the minor] while in custody.” Therefore, the case is remanded to the juvenile court for the sole purpose of allowing the court to make a determination as to whether in-person visits between mother and the minor would be detrimental to the minor.
III DISPOSITION
The juvenile court is directed to determine whether in-person visitations between mother and the minor, while mother is in custody, would be detrimental to the minor. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J., HOLLENHORST, J.