Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Santa Cruz County Super.Ct. Super.Ct.No. DP001544
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
Duffy, J.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 17, 2007, be modified as follows:
1. On page 3 in the first full paragraph after the subtitle “Validity of the Order” remove the seventh sentence “This is a dispositive distinction.” and replace with the following sentence:
It also allows the agency to again restrict visitation if the agency’s liberalization of visitation proves to be counterproductive, but only within the range at or above the minimum visitation regime that the court ordered.
With the remainder of the paragraph reformat and start a new paragraph making the newly added sentence the last sentence of the first paragraph.
2. On page 3 in second newly formed paragraph beginning with “To serve the minor’s best interest . . .” make the following sentencing the first sentence of that paragraph:
There is no infirmity in allowing the agency to adjust visitation rights up or down as long as the court-ordered minimum is met.
3. On page 4, in the paragraph beginning with “The juvenile court’s order fully defines . . . .” at the end of the third sentence starting with “The court’s order goes further . . .” replace the period with the following:
, and if such liberalization proves counterproductive, to make the visitation schedule more restrictive within limits, i.e., as long as it remains at or above the floor set by the court.
4. On page 4, in the paragraph beginning with “The juvenile court’s order fully defines . . . .” Reformat after the fifth sentence making the sixth sentence the beginning of a new paragraph and replace that sentence with the following:
Relying on In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, mother argues that “the visitation order at issue does not provide guidance for the agency to exercise discretion to decrease any visitation that has been increased.”
5. On page 5 at the end of the last paragraph add the following sentence:
Here, the court stated for the record that the order is directed toward “protecting the safety of the child.” Moreover, an implied term in any order of this type is that the minor’s best interests are to be served. Given those observations, the court’s direction to the agency is more precise than the direction given, and upheld, in Moriah T.
There is no change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Mihara, Acting P. J., McAdams, J.