Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, James Lauer, Juvenile Court Referee. Super. Ct. No. EJ2720
HUFFMAN, J.
Larry H. appeals an order of the juvenile court involving visitation with his dependent daughter Maranda H. Larry contends the court erred by giving complete discretion to Maranda's therapist to determine whether or not telephonic visits would occur. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2006 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition in the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of eight-year-old Maranda. The petition alleged Maranda had been exposed to acts of domestic violence during which Larry hit Tammy H., Maranda's mother, with his fists, a belt, and a telephone. Maranda reported that she was afraid of Larry and had seen him hit Tammy on a regular basis. Larry had threatened to kill Tammy, and Maranda saw him punch Tammy in the face causing Tammy's nose to break. Maranda also claimed Larry had hit her with a belt and thrown her against the wall. The court detained Maranda with relatives and ordered that Larry's visits were to be supervised.
Tammy H. in not a party to this appeal.
Larry was arrested the day after the detention hearing for violating a restraining order. Maranda continued to share with social workers her accounts of the severe physical acts of violence she had witnessed between her parents. She claimed she had seen Larry with a gun and knew he would shoot it into the air near her house. Larry initially minimized the violence and accused Tammy as being the aggressor. He later admitted that some violent acts did occur but he continued to assert that Maranda did not witness anything improper. Maranda told social workers she did not want to have visits with Larry or talk to him by telephone. The court did not allow for supervised visits to take place. Maranda continued to participate in individual therapy but her therapist did not believe Maranda was prepared to see Larry because she was afraid of him. The therapist recommended additional therapy to address Maranda's fears and concerns.
The six-month review report stated Larry had been arrested and charged with four counts of violating the restraining order. Maranda expressed that she was afraid of Larry and remained firm in her wish not to see him. Larry continued to attend treatment for domestic violence and participated in individual therapy sessions. The therapist noted Larry had not accepted responsibility for his actions and remained insistent that he acted out of self-defense and Tammy was the aggressor.
Larry submitted to a psychological evaluation. The report indicated he showed traits of a physically abusive parent and described children in a negative manner. The evaluator believed Larry would not physically harm Maranda if he met with her in a supervised setting but there was a possible risk that she would suffer emotional harm. Because Larry continued to deny he initiated any acts of violence against Tammy or Maranda, this placed him at risk for further episodes of violence. His ability to parent remained in question and his ability to protect Maranda from further violence was rated as being poor.
In an addendum report, the social worker advised against visitation because Maranda showed signs of anxiety and fear, and suffered from nightmares. Maranda's therapist reported emotional outbursts and regressive behaviors whenever the topic of Larry and domestic violence was raised. The therapist opined contact between Larry and Maranda would likely result in increased emotional turmoil and a high risk of emotional damage to Maranda.
Maranda's psychological evaluation revealed she suffered from mild, chronic stress and was at risk for developing anxiety or depressive disorders. The evaluator diagnosed her with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Maranda was at risk for increased symptoms if reunified with Larry before she was ready. The report further recommended that Larry's and Maranda's therapists work together to determine when contact between the two parties would be appropriate.
The court held a contested hearing to address visitation between Larry and Maranda. Larry's domestic violence treatment provider testified Larry had made some progress with treatment but Larry continued to deny that he ever violated the restraining order and that he initiated acts of violence. Larry's therapist noted Larry appeared to be motivated and was cooperative. However, he would benefit from more treatment and the therapist expressed concerns over statements in the psychological evaluation that indicated Larry had the potential for future violence.
After considering the reports and testimony, the court acknowledged that Larry had made some progress but he still needed additional services. The court found the evidence showed in-person visitation would be detrimental to Maranda. However, the court ordered that telephonic contact would be allowed but only in a therapeutic setting where Maranda's therapist and Larry's therapist agreed it would not be detrimental to Maranda. Larry did not object to the court's finding that visitation with Maranda would be detrimental to her. He instead objected to the court's visitation order, claiming it had delegated the issue of visitation to the therapists. The court entered the visitation order and explicitly found that in-person visits would be detrimental to Maranda but that telephonic contact was a mechanism that would allow for some contact to occur. Larry timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I
Larry contends the court abdicated its responsibility to make a visitation order by giving complete discretion to Maranda's therapist to decide whether telephonic visits would occur.
A
The juvenile court defines a parent's visitation rights by balancing the parent's interests in visitation with the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) The court may impose restrictions on parental visitation, consistent with the child's best interests under the particular circumstances of the case. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009; In re Clara B. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 988, 999.) The state's interest in providing for the best interests of the child justifies any limited intrusion on a parent's right to visitation. (In re Melissa H. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 173, 175.) The court has broad discretion in making visitation orders, which we review for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351-1352.)
We note the trial court found there was evidence showing in-person visits between Maranda and Larry would be detrimental to Maranda. Larry does not dispute this finding on appeal. The court had the option of denying visitation altogether, but instead attempted to create a manner by which to facilitate contact while ensuring Maranda's safety. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Further, the court did not delegate its duty regarding visitation. A visitation order must specify whether visitation will occur. (In re Jennifer G., supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 756.) Although the court may not delegate this fundamental judicial decision, it may delegate decisions such as the time, place and manner of visitation. (Id. at p. 757; In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) The ministerial tasks of overseeing the right to visits, as defined by the court, can and should be delegated to the persons or entity best able to perform them. (Ibid.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.1, subdivision (a)(1)(B) provides: "No visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child."
After finding in-person visits would be detrimental, the court ordered telephonic visits between Maranda and Larry be supervised by their therapists upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. The conditions to be satisfied included that both Larry's and Maranda's therapists work together to ensure that visits take place by telephone when: Larry and Maranda are in a therapeutic setting; while both parties are involved with therapy; and the therapists are to determine whether Maranda and Larry are ready to begin contact. In the event the therapists deemed telephonic visits would be detrimental to Maranda, the therapists had the discretion to withhold contact. The conditions properly addressed the time, place, and manner of the visits, which is permissible. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 51.)
Here, the trial court went to great lengths to promote some visitation between Larry and Maranda based on evidence showing Larry had made some progress with his services and appeared to be motivated. However, it is clear from the psychological evaluation and the therapist's testimony that Maranda continues to suffer from emotional distress stemming from the extreme acts of physical violence she witnessed between her parents. This distress places her at risk for developing anxiety and depressive disorders. Maranda remained adamant throughout the dependency proceedings that she was afraid of Larry. Further, Larry remained at risk of committing future acts of violence and he continued to deny his role in the domestic violence. His therapist agreed he needed to make additional progress with services and therapy.
Under these circumstances, the court reasonably concluded that visits with Maranda should be telephonic and remain supervised until Larry made additional progress with the services offered to him. The court's order was not an improper delegation of its authority, but instead created a mechanism by which to facilitate reunification and progress between Larry and Maranda while considering the detriment Maranda would endure if the visits were not properly supervised by the therapists.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., IRION, J.